From this nation's outset, this country has been shaped (and in many cases-reshaped) through a conflict of ideas. In the days of the founders, the debate arose over the size, nature, and role of the federal government. This debate prompted the infamous Jefferson-Hamilton debates. At the risk of over-simplification, we then "evolved" into a debate over westward expansion and the slave issue. Once again, the debate centered on how much power should be afforded the central government in dealing with issues such as expansion and slavery. Furthermore, who should be supreme-state or national government? After the War Between the States settled those questions, more questions arose over the monetary system and internal improvements. Eventually, the Great Depression exploded and we were then, once again, debating the role of the federal government. Since that war we have debated issues such as political alliances, the U.S. as the policeman of the world, Civil Rights, and Abortion. Presidents have come and gone, but the debates remain.
Forgive the historical wanderings, but the previous portion was quite necessary. Once again, we have arrived at a central issue of the role of Representative Government and the power of the Federal Government. What truly troubles this writer, is the lack of civility in the debate. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil could beat each others brains out during the day, and then have a drink and laugh with each other at night. Now there is such hatred in the air. I have stated this before, I did not vote for Obama and his performance thus far strengthens that vote. However, I will not fall victim to the disease that plagues many of my brethren on the right, hatred for the man. I still do not feel that the president is evil or socialistic. I honestly believe that he truly is convinced this his vision for America is the correct one. I just happen to disagree with him. I just wish there was some way that we could tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric and return the debate to the halls of civility. The blame lies with both sides. We need an honest, intelligent debate on the future of our country. Let us have the debate and let the chips fall where they may. If the American people decide that Obama has "won" the debate, then re-elect the man in 2012. If they don't, then vote him out. It is just time for both sides to take a step back and tone down the rhetoric. Not that there is much at stake, just the future and security of this nation. The stakes are enormous, let the debate rise to the lofty status necessary for such monumental consequences.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Mr. James, since you are currently in the middle of a heated race for the republican nomination for Governor of Alabama, please allow me a few thoughts about the campaign. First, you have stated that you believe that any Alabama resident should be required to take the written portion of the Driver's exam in English. For that belief, you have received a tremendous amount of criticism from both inside and outside of our state. Personally, I don't see why this is such a controversial idea. To expect our citizens to be able to read a test in English that is typically given to ninth and tenth graders in High School is not outlandish. In this idea, I support you. However, what about the allegations about your cooperation with Paul Hubbert and Joe Reed (leaders of the Alabama Education Association). A group which has not backed a Republican candidate since the days of Lincoln (forgive the hyperbole). Mr. James, if you want my vote, publicly disavow any connection to Hubbert, Reed, or any of their ilk. Go on the record that your campaign has not accepted any funding from the A.E.A. and make it a public statement. Until that happens, I will vote for your opponent. Generally speaking, if the A.E.A. opposes a candidate, there must be something really good about that candidate. Come on Tim, step up to the mike and let's see if you're a man of principle or not!
All right, let me get this one straight. The assistant Secretary of State has apologized to the Chinese government for the recent anti-Immigration law passed by the state of Arizona. First, my what rights can the federal government "apologize" for a state action. Second, we're apologizing to China????????? Remember, this is the most repressive regime on the face of the planet. Does Tiananmen Square ring any bells? What is it with the current administration and the art of the apology? I could understand the apologies if they were warranted. Like, for instance, how about apologizing to the American people for the way Congress and the past few administrations have spent our tax dollars like it's monopoly money. The state of Arizona passed an anti-immigration law because the federal government lacks the courage to do so. So, regardless of what Attorney General Holder and DHS Chief Napolitano say, the law gives the local Arizona authorities the right to ask for proof of citizenship when someone is pulled over for some other offense and their citizenship is in question. Do you think Arizona would have passed such a law if they had gotten any support from Washington? Now, because the federal government has not passed such a law, that same federal government is apologizing to other nations for that law? This is insane. What's next, should we apologize to Castro and Cuba for all of the inconveniences freedom and democracy has caused that island paradise? The saddest part of all, this could always get worse!
- ▼ 2010 (7)