Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

I agree.  It seems like anytime someone questions something, they are
bashing and making it personal.  We really need to keep in check how we
perceive things-sometimes it is personal, sometimes it is not.  Just
because someone raises a question or a concern, that doesn't mean that
it is a personal attack on whomever is in charge.
If I question the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, that is
not Clinton bashing.   Why can't we talk about the flaws and fallacy of,
for example, the Patriot Act, without Bush bashing?  Why can't we talk
about the flaws and fallacies of Obama's health care plan without Obama
bashing?   I'm not pro-Bush or anti-Bush, not pro-Obama or anti-Obama.
Like James, I think they are irrelevant to what is really going on.  We
are so blinded by the cult of personality that we aren't looking at the
fine print.
It sounds great to have a cybertech czar-or whatever, but when all of
these czars are accountable only to the President, is this not
duplicating what other branches of government are already doing and
thereby not only confusing the chain of command and responsibility, but
also expanding government(do we really want more government interference
in our lives?) and removing the balance of power between the branches of
government?
I'm all about checks and balances-in every aspect of government, whether
it is the election process or the governing process or the legislative
process or the judicial process.  No one sector should have more
authority.  I am not inherently anti-Democratic(I am definitely
pro-choice and very green-minded, for example), but I think the group of
Dems in Congress right now are crooked and immoral, and what's more,
they have the majority and with a Democratic president, where are the
checks?  where is the balance? (BTW, I think 99% of Congress is on the
take, not just the Dems)
Before Bush, all presidents in recent memory, were held in check by a
Congress of the opposite party.  Granted, even with a Republican led
Congress, there were jokes about 'King Klinton' and such, but when Dubya
got in, the worry and talk really became scary.  People were afraid that
the religious right would lead the country into Fascism.  Now, people
are afraid that the liberal left will lead us into Socialism..LOL  There
is a balance there, we just have to remember it.  Anyway, had 9/11 not
happened, I doubt Bush would have gotten a second term because people
were nervous about all the centralized power.  Many looked the other way
or made allowances because we were at war and the thinking is not to
changes horses in mid-stream, and of course, after a year or so, the
makeup of Congress flipped and then there was a balance again. Now,
Obama, like Bush in his first term, has Congress at his fingertips,
and it is unnerving yet again. If we can all just remember to look at
the long cycle, the long term implications of things, we'd probably be
better off.




Clansgian AT wmconnect.com wrote:
 Any raising of objection to mindless Bush-bashing was
> assumed to be the same thing as endorsing Bush.  In fact it was the
> only actual come-back to attempts to point to other sources of our
> problems than Bush.
>
> Likewise the phenomenon now of days is that any questioning of the
> St. Obama effect is assumed to be a statement that one is against
> Obama.
>
> Obama and Bush have in common that they are more or less irrelevant.
> The economic reality we are dealing with is of our own collective
> making.  It was what I said all during the Bush-bashing years, it's
> my story and I'm sticking to it.
>
> James


--
"Never expect magic from no where"  Baringo (Kenyan) working motto
http://erthnsky.blogspot.com/
EarthNSky Farm, NW Georgia, USA