In my younger days i was worried about a President in office with combat experience; thought a hawk at the helm puts us at risk of getting involved in places we don't belong. Of course some maturity gives the ability to see the shadings and positive/negative reversal points between such black and white extremes as hawk/dove, liberal/conservative, etc. Looking at history, one can't help but notice how there's usually a more peaceful term under a Pres who knows What's What - he's Been There so it won't be taken lightly or screwed up by philosophical abstractions or waffling back from The Edge when it comes down to sending others someplace to risk their lives in action. A combat vet would be more reluctant from knowing the horror of it how anything can snowball or backfire if it's not handled right at the moment when the chance of victory/prevention presents itself. And knowing how to communicate with the Military is of utmost importance for a President; it's something that's been lacking for awhile. Maybe potential enemies know from retrospect that they won't be getting away with it so easy when facing a USA President who's personally experienced in combat and knows it's not just a Brinksmanship Macho Show or Playing Politics with Chessmen and map pins.
Looking forward to the next election; even though Clinton was right about "it's the economy, stewpid" and let's face it a changing of the guard might rock the boat on our $teamroller somehow. Along with strengths come weaknesses, and 4 or 8 years is enough to expose what they are. The Republican Party (my party BTW) has visible difficulty with The Common Touch coming natural to the Democrats. The good news is that they're aware of it, the bad news is they don't know how to change it as it's not so much a reality as a matter of perception of The GOP favoring their wealthy pals & ignoring the plight of the less economically advantaged. But actually, the welfare system was trimmed down radically under Clinton - it's been cut down more than any Republican Administration ever had. The jobs are there.
The flaw of the good ideal of a hands-off-government is the necessity of empowering the wealthy as the second tier of governmental function and by doing so trusting they'll do right by the non-legislated freedom of movement and the extra money given from "corporate welfare". But we know the rich don't always choose to alleviate others economic deprivation ... some will always take advantage and exploit further to line their own pockets instead. And when they're in Headlines it gets attention and tsk tsks.
What that WTO protest in Seattle was supposed to be all about is the jobs that are going overseas for cheaper wages. I personally don't think it's a good choice to gripe instead of taking advantage of new opportunities presented by a change, but to each their own. Does that sound too much like "let them eat cake"? Hope not.
But it's a Fact that the Co.'s simply can't find enough workers in this country who are willing to man the factories anymore. The jobs requiring more education and the service jobs requiring moxy and personality are being created from this economy; not so much those traditional high-paying blue collar jobs which are going overseas. (exception - UPS, etc.). Tech and globalization is giving fuel for the economy here but it's causing many to need to go through retraining to qualify for a job that pays the same as the one they already knew how to do well. What so many folks want to do, afterall, is support their families working a secure familiar job and spend their non-working energy and time on their own family and recreation. There's nothing wrong with that, it's natural! But the times we live in make it difficult for anyone to attain such quietude automatically. So some who are on the sidelines are angry feeling as though it's all at their expense. This puts our society at risk, as the gulf between rich and poor widens even more from the perception of classism than the reality of the opportunities knocking, sometimes. We've all adapted rather well, obviously, or we wouldn't be on This Board. And so we all know "It Don't Come Easy". But there are those who so far can't adapt to the changes of our times, having difficulty finding the assistance that's out there to help them. And of course, there's always a few who simply stubbornly refuse to accept their own need, and would rather try to force things to go back to the way they were.
Using the word "should" too much is a mistake The People and The Politicians too often make - it's a word which "should" be the most sparingly used of all words in the dictionary and said at the point of first visualization of how things should move forward from there, only.
There Ain't No Such Thing As Saying "Should" For Too Long.
909s on "What It Is",
Joan
ps. Don't worry Jed, yes "corporate welfare" also means our stock dividend paychecks too! |
