A Poll Asks “Should Obama be Killed?”

I am quite certain that protecting George W. Bush from an assassin was difficult when he was president.  I personally thought he was the devil but I never thought about killing him.  Today we have a Black man as president.  That fact alone generates hatred.  The killing of Martin Luther Kings Jr. proves that many will kill just because someone is not White.  A minister in Arizona has asked his church’s membership to pray for Obama’s death.

Protection of Barack Obama and his family has to be far more difficult than the protection of any family that has ever lived in the White House.

So here we have an articulate man and a beautiful family.  Why should he run for re-election?  I cannot think of one really good reason.  Freedom of press can cause many people to speak about horrible deeds.

I found this article on the Toronto Star web site

Sep 28, 2009 04:41 PM

The U.S. Secret Service is looking into the person behind a “Should Obama be killed?” poll on Facebook, according to a report on the Washington Post Company’s online publication Who Runs Gov.

“We are taking the appropriate investigative steps,” Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told reporter Amanda Erickson of The Plum Line blog, housed on Who Runs Gov. “We are aware of it.”

The poll, first reported Sunday night by another blog, The Political Carnival, offers four choices to the question “Should Obama be killed:” 1) Yes. 2) Maybe. 3) If he cuts my health care and 4) No.

The application – created by an outside party, not Facebook – has since been disabled. It appears that at least 750 people had participated in the poll before it was taken down. (You can see a screen shot of what it looked like here:

http://bit.ly/4lUH0y

Users searching for the original poll are now greeted with the following message on Facebook:

“The application `Polls’ is temporarily unavailable due to an issue with its third-party developer. We are investigating the situation and apologize for any inconvenience.”Facebook’s spokesman for policy matters, Barry Schnitt, tells TalkingPointsMemo.com that the Secret Service asked Facebook on Monday to take down the poll, but that it had already been removed by then.

Meanwhile, TPM notes that a related poll subsequently surfaced: “Should the person who created the ‘Should Obama be Killed Poll’ be arrested?”

It, too, has been disabled.

Toronto Star

William Safire

William Safire was a conservative that I admired.  The reasons were simple.  First he was not part of the hysterical fringe.  He was a calm, collected, and reasoning man.  Second he was a wonderful writer.  His “On Language” weekly column was a favorite of mine.  I even created my own blog with the same title and purpose.  That was the tracing of word origins and their usage.  I could never match his use of language and never anticipated but always dreamed I could.

What scares me most is he was only nine years older than me.  I am hoping to see my one hundredth birthday and know that I am 100 years old.

Safire’s stupid writing for Spiro Agnew was creative. “Nattering nabobs of negativism” is the one I remember.  It was smart, cheeky and fun. 

You were great Bill!

 

Sticking a Finger in Our Eye

To make it clear that Iran doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, they have test fired some missiles today as a follow up to Friday’s admission of a secret nuclear facility.  Their behavior is that of a child who thinks he can continue his disobedience to an adult supervisor.  The difference is that Iran is not a child and the consequences of their actions are too horrible to contemplate.

Iran’s action is a direct challenge to the United States and to our president.  What will Barack Obama do in the face of his position as leader of the western world?  I hope he continues his calm demeanor and quietly prepares for the worst.  Vice President Joe Biden had predicted the president would be tested in his first six months in office.  Now is the time the when Biden’s foreign affairs experience will be a most valuable input.

Our congress is slow to respond to threats from other nations.  There has not been a declaration of war since the start of WWII.  It’s unlikely there will be that kind of action to Iran’s saber rattling.  However, behind the scenes the United States could quietly condone an air strike on Iran by Israeli aircraft.  This morning’s statements by our Secretary of defense and state, on the TV talk shows, were not made with the knowledge of today’s missile tests.

When have sanctions deterred any nation?  Unless the October 1 talks with Iran bring about real changes the time for military actions will have arrived.

Israel Is Another Step Closer to Bombing Iran

Barack Obama’s comments at the end of the G20 summit were capped with a Q and A from reporters that left no doubt about American actions if Iran continues its nuclear facilities construction and revealing all existing facilities.  The president’s firm but conciliatory message was clear.  There will be strong sanctions and the possibility of military actions against those sites is definitely a possibility. 

The problem for the United States is its size and purpose.  American military bases and other American facilities are located in more than 50 nations around the world.  Many people question American motives.  Those are questions asked by both American citizens and the people of other countries.  The largest and most influential nations of the world hold considerable distrust for this nation.    

Israel, other the other hand, has made its position clear.  The doctrine that has been supported by most Israeli leaders is strike first when there is a national threat.  It’s easy to understand their reasoning.  Their entire country is the size of New Jersey.  The country is primarily Jewish and its self interest is more easily defined.

Israel does not ask permission for its actions.  Israel does act in its own best interest.  If Iran is a threat, Israel will take the necessary action.

Meg Whitman for California Governor, I Don’t Think So

“Hey, I’m rich and I can do anything!  I can even become governor of California.  It might be fun, I will be giving back to the community that made me so damn rich, and besides I really have nothing else to do.”

I was a supporter of Arnold Schwarzenegger because I hoped that a wealthy, well educated person with moderate views could improve the management of our state.  I was wrong.

If you read and listen to Meg Whitman you will know that her goals are the same stated by Schwarzenegger when he was running for office.  Creating jobs, cutting state spending and fixing the education system will be her top priorities according to an SFGate on line article.  She says she will cut 40,000 state jobs but doesn’t tell us how she will do that.  Remember Schwarzenegger’s appointment of accountants who would find all the places where there was corruption and waste?  Was he the “girlie man” who didn’t have the courage to stop that corruption and waste?  Perhaps there really isn’t any consequential savings. 

Remember this well intentioned Schwarzenegger quote, “It’s disturbing to realize that after taking a close look at California’s budget, it’s hard to make any sense out of it. In Sacramento, spending is out of control and as governor, I will work to get the state’s fiscal house in order. Immediately upon taking office I will order an outside, independent audit of the state budget so we can get a clear picture–uncluttered by politics and special interest influence–of how we can bring spending under control without neglecting our most important obligations.”

The Republicans need a gubernatorial candidate who really knows how the state functions and has the skills to reduce the state’s payroll.  Meg Whitman’s only credential is she has the money to pay for her run for office.

Repairing California

California, the Golden State, is literally falling apart.  The streets, freeways, levees, and even the water distribution system are all breaking apart.  The Los Angeles Times reported 34 breaks in the Los Angeles city water distribution system.  Add to that the deteriorating educational system, the high taxes, the over budget government systems (city of Los Angeles and state government), and the legislative deadlocks and you begin to understand the depth of our turmoil.

The city and state districting has been so gerrymandered that there is little opportunity to unseat incumbent legislators without an extraordinary uprising of the electorate. 

District boundaries are merely a symptom of the overall management of California.  Republicans and Democrats have carved up the state in a manner that ensures that when an incumbent retires his successor will be in the same party.

Two examples help to tell the story:                                                                                                                     1. The 30^th congressional district held by Henry Waxman.  His primary constituency is West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, and all the immediately adjoining areas.  For reasons that will forever remain a mystery his district boundary includes the west end of the San Fernando Valley.

2. The second and sixth council districts in Los Angeles are a perfect example of the no reasonable districting philosophy that has invaded cities as well as state districting nonsense.  Clearly these districts were devised to ensure the re-election of candidates based upon the ethnic backgrounds of the constituents rather than neighborhood needs.

The state constitution has 522 amendments and is 110 pages long.  To make it useable the regulations in the constitution have been organized into topic “codes” to enable understandability.  Many laws have been included in the constitution rather than simple state law to prevent them from being overturned.  Thus the Public Housing Project Law is Article 34.

To pass a budget in the state legislature requires 2/3 vote.  Thus 1/3 of the legislature controls the budgetary process. Only two other states have this requirement.  It is the reason that budgets are rarely passed before their due date.  The result is this year’s issuance of I.O.U.s by the state treasurer. 

It is the same reason that bond issues are approved by the voters rather than the legislature.  The same reason a typical state wide ballot has 10 to 12 initiatives.  The legislature can’t agree on most laws and puts the questions to voters who usually lack adequate information to make wise decisions.  Voters are influenced by special interest groups that spread lots of lies.

BusinessWeek has just reported that a new state commission to recommend an overhaul the tax system has been established by the legislature.  The legislature will abdicate its responsibility and the plan will appear on a future ballot.  Voters, with limited knowledge, will be encouraged to vote yes or no by various special interest groups that will try to frighten the public.  It’s how this state got into so much trouble by using initiatives to pass property tax regulations, governance laws, bond initiatives, and other laws that should have been determined by the legislature.  That is a group that has refused to take responsibility.   

The solution is a state constitutional convention.  The Bay Area Council, a business group in San Francisco that includes the surrounding bay area, has taken on the leadership role in this endeavor.  Through a group called Repair California they have been holding town hall meetings throughout the state and have met with the editorial boards of many newspapers for their support.  The Los Angeles Times has become an enthusiastic supporter of this idea.  They have published six editorials supporting the idea of a constitutional convention.  The first of those editorials appeared on  August 16, 2009.  The most recent appeared on September 20, 2009.

Moving to Oregon is not an option for me.  We have to get this done.

Obama is not Afraid of Public Opinion

Many in the American public hold views that are very different from our new president.  The honeymoon is not only over, the divorce proceeding is now in full force.  It’s obvious that President Obama came to office with the intent of making over many things that Americans hold dear.  Conservative commentators have successfully upset the public on many issues that are not well understood.  We didn’t understand the meaning of his campaign words.  Too few asked what “change” meant.  The color of the president’s skin has only added to the fear.

He is determined to reform health care.  He wants to convince the majority that his views are the best for this nation.  To accomplish this end he will appear on television networks that are at least not openly opposed to his ideas.  The result is his media appearances this Sunday, September 20 on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, ABC’s “This Week”, CBS’ “Face the Nation” and CNN’s “State of the Union“.  Fox’s “News Sunday” is being  skipped because the entire network opposes the president on every single issue.  Fox’s commentators have repeatedly expressed their hope for Obama’s failure.

Nancy Pelosi is correct in being concerned about the president’s safety.  In a nation where people are murdered for expressing their views the secret service needs to be extra vigilant. Protection for the president ought to include banning of guns at town hall meetings where he will appear.              

The president’s appearance on many shows is not overexposure.  After all he is the person we elected to lead our country.  He is doing an outstanding job of conveying his ideas on a variety of issues.  It’s not just health care.  He is responding to public concern.  His appearances on a variety of programs and answering questions is precisely what the country needs.  He is someone who is not afraid of public opinion.

Society’s Responsibility to Senior Citizens

Personally I have had more medical treatment since turning 60.  It’s no fun getting old!  I am not alone.

I do not need a study to tell me that the people receiving the most medical care are senior citizens.  All I have to do is go to local medical care facilities and this fact is quickly verified.  Most of the handicapped parking is full.  Seniors are more prevalent in the hallways and elevators.  So it is no surprise that Medicare is an expensive program.

This week’s Newsweek cover story is “The Case for Killing Granny.”  I think it accurately tells the story of most elderly people who have reached the end of life.  Families are trying to make the correct decisions and where possible respecting the wishes of that loved one.

The article fairly identifies the fact that doctors and hospitals in the big cities do have high earnings.  The fees they charge are not posted anywhere and that is causing government programs to put caps on fees.  I do not know any middle income doctors in Los Angeles.  Their cries about high malpractice insurance costs run afoul of their propensity for living in high income neighborhoods and driving high end cars.  

My own mother is now in a skilled nursing facility.  It’s really an extension of the hospital where she stayed for four nights.  She has dementia but that is really her only disease.  Her entry into the hospital was the result of neglect at a board and care facility.  She weighs 96 pounds and that is an improvement from last week’s weight of 93 pounds.  She really doesn’t want to eat more food.  She is on an intravenous line that hydrates her.  This is most likely the end of her life.  Her medical power of attorney says take no extraordinary steps to preserve her life.  She seems to be happy and so we are visiting her daily.  My sister hopes she will recover but that is an unlikely event.  A higher power will decide when she will take her final breath.

If we are the highly moral society that is our claim then it is essential that each family decide the measures to be taken to preserve life.  This cannot be a determination of government.  The federal government took on the financial responsibility when Medicare was implemented.  If Medicare, or Social Security, runs short of money then it is society’s responsibility to ensure we are all provided a comfortable retirement and health care too.

Los Angeles Gang Problem – Connecting the Dots

What is disheartening about this situation is that everyone in the schools and city government knows exactly what is happening and they have not connected the dots. Mayor Villaragosa appointed a “gang czar” to develop an anti-gang program.  Jeff Carr, an evangelical pastor with decades of experience working with gangs, received that appointment but the action to date has been almost nothing. It’s all talk. Articles  in the local newspapers are all part of the talk. The latest iteration of anti-gang efforts is the Gang Reduction Youth Development team (GRYD) in the Mayor’s office.   It is a program that has been in place for a year.  Results?  Nothing has changed.  Jeff Carr has been appointed to another position at city hall. 

It’s time to connect the dots. Los Angeles faces serious gang activity. At least one third of the school population is dropping out before graduation. The public schools do not provide any after school programs unless they receive pay for use fees. Furthermore the schools lack programs to provide high school graduates with basic skills to enter a trade.  Does anyone in elected office see the connection between these facts? Apparently not.

DEPLORABLE

President Barack Obama calls the shooting of a Michigan anti-abortion activist “deplorable.”  That is not a word that everyone understands.  If anything it is too mild a word to use when discussing a murder.  That is the word Mr. Obama is quoted as using in an AP report.

Words like Appalling, Unacceptable, and Shocking are more appropriate to an act of violence.  The problem is the president’s use of words like “deplorable.”  Afraid to upset anyone and everyone he chooses his words so carefully that he does not impart what he really means.  How could he not have used the words  Unpardonable or Unforgivable to describe his feelings?  He should have said, “The killing of anyone is appalling and shocking.”

The answer is obvious.  Our president is afraid he will alienate part of the electorate.  That is the reason he carefully chooses his words in his speeches about health care, the Afghanistan War, or any other topic.  Mr. Obama is first and foremost a politician.  He obviously understands the value of diplomacy.  In this instance he does not want to alienate anyone in the abortion debate so he used this mediocre word that does not connote the seriousness of the actions of an accused killer.

In his campaign for president Barack Obama used the words “change you can believe in” and “the time for change is now.”  That was great use of rhetoric speech.  He just never defined his vision of change.  A majority of Americans bought his pitch.  The results are awful and that is the same as deplorable.