Friday, June 22, 2018

Krauthammer Commentary. Time For Political Posture To Take Back Seat To Nation's Well Being.


More commentary regarding Krauthammer. (See 1 and 1a below.)

Unlike Krauthammer, I am not ritualistically religious but I have often said without faith in a higher being/entity it would be a dull and dangerous world.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The immigration issue is not of Trump's making.  Both party's have foot-balled this serious failure because they fear for their own re-election. They have failed the nation they were elected to serve.  Republicans now have another opportunity to craft legislation which can resolve this thorny issue but some of the more conservative  members are reluctant because they fear their constituents will punish them because of a phrase   - path to citizenship (amnesty).

Sometimes circumstances go beyond a solution so in order to resolve a failed circumstance you need to take another path and accept reality.  We have millions of illegal immigrants in this country and it is imperative those who wish be given a path towards citizenship and those who do not want to become Americans can either be deported or allowed to stay under some green work card arrangement that is effective and monitors their constant location.

All of this has been made more difficult/critical because of increased narcotic trade and 9/11 terrorism. Democrat and mass media obstruction and fake reporting has contributed to this mess and blaming Trump, who is willing to touch the 3rd rail and being made the fall guy, is a ploy that is outrageous. Attacking Melania for script on her jacket is even more pathetic and childish but that is the state the pitiful state of the mass media.

The American political system is failing and I have pointed to other areas where this is also the case. No wonder our godless nation is susceptible to the siren appeal of radicalism which calls into question our constitution,capitalism , etc. I am referring to the danger of our nation's literal survival in the event of an attack on our electrical grid and the theft, particularly by China, of American intellectual property. With respect to the latter. China has developed an extraordinary aircraft carrier probably 10 years ahead of what otherwise would have been the case because of theft of American naval technology.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/20/in_china_free_trade_means_steal_what_you_want_137322.amp.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With respect to illegal immigration the current law demands "catch and release."  This is the same term referred to fishing and landing a less than legal sized fish.

Yes, there is something smelly about the way the political parties have addressed illegal immigration.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A friend and fellow memo reader, who also is a rational liberal, recently suggested the Dems have no agenda.  I believe the Dems have an agenda - it is called defeat Trump and be obstructionists.

They did not want the tax bill to pass, they do not want to resolve illegal immigration, they wanted to keep Obamacare which is failing, they wanted to retain The Iran Deal which even Ben Rhodes said was passed by duping the public, they do not even want to think about/discuss consolidating agencies, they have done everything they can to twist the revelations regarding the IG's report and to excuse Hillary's behaviour, they find fault with everything Trump does and says even though, at one time, they were often saying the same thing.

"Up Chuck" believes Dem's best hope for taking over Congress lies in the policy of being obstructionists and he could be right but weaponizing all issues does not serve the nation's interests but then getting re-elected is far more important. In their efforts to obstruct they have willing partners in their mass media friends who have reached new lows when it comes to betraying truthful reporting. The press and media have become so slanted I do not understand how they can stand.

As for the Republicans they have not conducted themselves with acclaim either. They are so stubbornly, ideologically bent they cannot agree on reaching compromises that help their and the nation's cause.

When it comes to the disgusting comments from Bill Maher who hopes a depression will occur, when Peter Fonda hopes the Trump's youngest son experiences pain and suffering, when a liberal comedian holds up the decapitated head of our president, when The FBI and Justice Department defies legitimate requests from Congress oversight committees and the list is endless, it is evident political gamesmanship has gone beyond any scintilla of fairness and reason.

I, like my rant friend, believe this posture will backfire but what is more important is  we need to return to co-operative governance for the nation's well being.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Charles Krauthammer, a Great Thinker and an Even Better Friend

Enroute to the ER, I rang his office. Before I arrived, he had called the hospital to make sure it was ready.

Charles Krauthammer, who died Thursday at about 5 p.m. ET, announced his impending departure from this world in the straightforward, clear-eyed, elegant manner that fans had come to expect from him. The loss to America is dwarfed by the loss to his family and friends, but nevertheless it is enormous.

Especially at this time. The nation is deeply divided. Americans are having difficulty separating fact from fiction. Today’s debates lack the intellectual rigor and civility that Charles championed in his columns, his appearances on Fox News, and his many speeches and essays. When Donald Trump emerged on the political scene, Charles was no cheerleader. But after the election, Charles insisted on treating Mr. Trump with the fairness and respect due the president of the United States. Still, he kept watch for dangers to the institutions the Founding Fathers put in place—the “guardrails” that constrain any president’s behavior.

Those of us who knew Charles as more than the nation’s premier analyst of domestic and foreign affairs will miss a man as delicious in private as he was essential in the public square. If you doubt that, pick up “Things that Matter,” a collection of his columns and essays. His love of baseball is well known. To attend a game with him was to be captured by his enthusiasm, awed by his easy recall of myriad statistics, informed by his eye for the game’s customs. He would spot the umpire brushing off a spotlessly clean home plate so as to give a catcher, hit by an errant pitch, a few moments to recover. Charles also had an insatiable appetite for the culinary wares of Nationals Park.

Only those who experienced Charles’s kindness know how lavish he was in making it available, for he was reluctant to advertise it. Educated as a physician, he was the medical gatekeeper of choice for more people than he ever revealed. On one trip to Washington I took seriously ill and had to head for the emergency room of a local hospital. En route, I called his office and left a message. His secretary relayed it to him in his car, and by the time I reached the ER, Charles had called to make certain that the proper facilities would be at my disposal. He frequently visited and sat with friends who were hospitalized, to share his medical knowledge and interpret the jargon of attending physicians, as well as to comfort the patients and their families.

Charles traveled often to speak at fundraisers for charities important to his colleagues. When in some city to give a speech, he always found time to meet one-on-one with veterans whose spinal injuries would leave them wheelchair-bound for life.

His advice: Forget about hope—this is how it is going to be, so learn to adapt. He then offered detailed suggestions on how to do just that. Given Charles’s own life, this advice carried weight. Even some of his followers may not know that he worked from a wheelchair, having broken his neck in a diving accident during medical school.

He was equally generous with his knowledge of subjects unrelated—or seemingly so—to politics. To attend a Passover Seder at the Krauthammers’ was to enjoy a feast for the palate, thanks to his wife, Robbie, and for the brain. His deep knowledge of the Hebrew texts and commentaries, along with his own interpretations of the real meaning of the Haggada, were told with his special brand of humor, turning those evenings into joyous tutorials.

Life was a serious business for Charles. He had to overcome the effects of his injury, which he did with a calm efficiency that allowed him to keep a schedule of writing, speaking, family events and plain fun that others would find daunting. Instead of telling audiences what they wanted to hear, he preached the gospel of reason, civility, fact-based policy making. He challenged his listeners: At one event, sponsored by a super-conservative organization, he slyly introduced the idea that FDR was a great president, a view most present had probably never considered seriously.

Charles knew, although he never acknowledged it in conversation, the weight that Americans, including active policy makers, accorded his columns and Fox commentary. People would approach him at Nats games to thank him for sticking up for them in the media and in the halls of power. Others would shyly hand him notes. All were politely received, with sincere thanks.

Yet Charles didn’t take himself too seriously. His humor more often than not was self-deprecating. When aimed at others, it was gentle, unhurtful, designed to persuade the target to have a second thought.

Without him, the nation is the poorer. Perhaps the hereafter is the richer. Charles often insisted that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything—including totalitarianisms of all sorts. Thus he once wrote that even if atheism “is (God forbid) true, it is dangerous.” It leads to utter desolation.

Charles never was one for a life of desolation. Reread his final note if you believe otherwise.

Mr. Stelzer is the director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute.

1a)
Charles Krauthammer
In Defense of the F-Word 
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 2, 2004; Page A15


I am sure there is a special place in heaven reserved for those who have never used the F-word. I will 
never get near that place. Nor, apparently, will Dick Cheney.


Washington is abuzz with the latest political contretemps. Cheney, taking offense at Sen. Pat Leahy's imputation of improper
vice presidential conduct regarding Halliburton contracts in Iraq, let the senator know as much during a picture-taking
ceremony on the floor of the Senate. The F-word was used. Washington is scandalized.

The newspapers were full of it. Lamentations were heard about the decline of civility. The Post gave 

special gravitas to the occasion, spelling out the full four letters (something that it had done only three 
times previously). Democrats, feeling darned outraged, demanded apologies. The vice president 
remained defiant, offering but the coyest concession -- that he "probably" cursed -- coupled with 
satisfaction: "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it."

The Federal Communications Commission just last year decreed that the F-word could be used as an 
adjective, but not as a verb. Alas, this Solomonic verdict, fodder for a dozen PhD dissertations, was 
recently overturned. It would not get Cheney off the hook anyway. By all accounts, he deployed the 
pungent verb form, in effect a suggestion as to how the good senator from Vermont might amuse 
himself.

Flood-the-zone coverage by investigative reporters has not, however, quite resolved the issue of which 
of the two preferred forms passed Cheney's lips: the priceless two-worder -- "[verb] you" -- or the more
expansive three-worder, a directive that begins with "go."

Though I myself am partial to the longer version, I admit that each formulation has its virtues. The 
deuce is the preferred usage when time is short and concision is of the essence. Enjoying the benefits 
of economy, it is especially useful in emergencies. This is why it is a favorite of major league 
managers going nose to nose with umpires. They know that they have only a few seconds before 
getting tossed out of the game, and as a result television viewers have for years delighted in the 
moment the two-worder is hurled, right on camera. No need for sound. The deuce was made for lip 
reading.

Which makes it excellent for drive-by information conveyance. When some jerk tailgater rides my 
bumper in heavy traffic, honking his horn before passing and cutting me off, I do a turn-to-the-left, 
eyeball-to-eyeball, through-the-driver's-window two-worder -- mouthed slowly and with exaggerated 
lip movements. No interlocutor has yet missed my meaning.

Nonetheless, while the two-worder has the directness of the dagger, the three-worder has the elegance 
of the wide-arced saber slice. It is more musical and, being more clearly spelled out, more 
comprehensible to the non-English speaker (a boon in major urban areas). It consists of a straight
forward directive containing both a subject and an object -- charmingly, the same person.

According to The Post, the local authority on such matters, Cheney went for a variant of the short form,
 employing the more formal "yourself." And given the location, the floor of the Senate, it seems a 
reasonable choice: Time was short, and he undoubtedly reserves the right to revise and extend his 
remarks.

Ah, but the earnest chin-pullers are not amused. Cheney's demonstration of earthy authenticity in a 
chamber in which authenticity of any kind is to be valued has occasioned anguished meditations on the 
loss of civility in American politics. Liberals in particular have expressed deep concern about this
 breach of decorum.
Odd. The day before first reports of Cheney's alleged indiscretion, his Democratic predecessor, Al 
Gore, delivered a public speech in which he spoke of the administration's establishing a "Bush gulag" 
around the world and using "digital brown shirts" to intimidate the media. The former vice president of 
the United States compared the current president to both Hitler and Stalin in the same speech -- a first 
not just in hyperbole but in calumny -- and nary a complaint is heard about a breach of civility.

If you suspect that this selective indignation may be partisan, you guessed right. But here's an even 
more important question. In the face of Gore's real breach of civil political discourse, which of the 
following is the right corrective: (a) offer a reasoned refutation of the charge that George Bush is both 
Stalinist and Hitlerian; (b) suggest an increase in Gore's medication; or (c) do a Cheney.

The correct answer is "C." And given the circumstances, go for the deuce.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No comments: