Teddism.com

Sarah Palin, a polarizing American politician made waves when she was taken out of obscurity by John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election when he made her his running mate for Vice-President. Since then, Sarah Palin has been adored by half of America and despised by half of the American electorate. The real story, however is more than that. The real story cannot be found in her rise in prominence, nor is it her recent unexpected resignation as Governor of Alaska.

The Real Story of the Palin Syndrome

While many people on both the left and the right of the political spectrum are trying to make Sarah Palin indicative of their point of view the real issue is not Sarah Palin the politician, but the severe division that she represents. Mrs. Palin symbolizes the Left’s outright discrimination and hypocracy and the Right’s inability (or unwillingness) to compromise for fear of ceding ground to the Left.

Hence the reason Mrs. Palin gleans so much attention – oddly enough to her detrament. Shear jelousy and anger on the left that a popular women politian dare be conservative (read anti-abortion) and yet a popular icon.

While the cards are stacked against het for any Presidential run in the near future, if she plays it right she will become a powerfully influential voice in American politics.

That is a question that many pundits have been trying to answer, some with logic, most with partisan spins -either way.

In reality, outside the Washington Beltway, the question itself is as good as it is flawed.

Why is the question good?

Partisans on both sides of the ailes are trying to figure out where President Obama stands.  Most of the time he takes clearly left leaning positions and sometimes puts a moderate spin to them in a way that still satisfies the base, but brings in moderates and independants.  But sometimes, President Obama comes out with a clearly moderate or even right wing position.  The realease (or lack thereof) of the detainee photos was one recently, but another recent indident is his reversal on his position regarding Military Tribunals , by allowing them to go forward afterall.

The question is a good one on whether Obama is Liberal or Moderate, because people really want to know what to expect and knowing can assist in understanding where the President is coming from – whether one agrees or not.  It helps to understand the logic of a decision and helps to have a clear view of the person who has been elected by the people of the US of A.

Why is the Question Flawed?

Partisans, especially on the right could make the case that the question is flawed, because Obama is only a moderate showman, but a Liberal politician.  There is argument for that, but real reason the question is flawed, is because President Obama, hopefully is not making decisions based on politics, but for the good of the Nation and sometimes those decisions will be liberal, but sometimes they will be moderate, or even conservative.  That is an extremely naive notion, but that is the President’s job.  Too often, the public feels that the President is working on behalf of the Nation when his decisions jives with our own and scream that he is being partisan when the decision does not agree with us.  That is wrong.

The right way and the correct question is not whether Obama is Liberal or Moderate?  Rather the correct question is, does President Barack Obama have the Nation’s interest & safety at heart no matter what the politics are?

Historians will judge that in years to come.  In the meanwhile, whether you like him, or you don’t, it is your responsibility as an American to support him!

Until recently, President Obama supported releasing additional photos that would have been released by the Defense Department due to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The reversal decision was just announced a few minutes ago.

This an excellent move by President Obama to call off the planned release of these photos for a number of reasons!  The White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs cited a fear that releasing the photos could put U.S. troops in dangers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He added that releasing the photos would not add anything to the investigation.  While these are certainly a valid points there is, however, so much more, but the White House couldn’t expound because doing so would further irritate those on the Left.

For instance, to add on one of Mr. Gibbs’ reasons, that the release would not add anything to the investigation, it would also not anything to the debate!   The world knows about the abuses and inappropriate actions taken in years past.  But what is really gained from releasing them?  For those on the Left, it is to reinforce and prove the incompetence of the Bush years.  Wrong reason to be doing it!!

Additionally, the Left seeks to embarrass the United States and will use any method possible.  That would be wrong and Obama is not letting it happen.  The President is looking to the unintentional consequences that could come from releasing the photos.  The ACLU and those on the Left aren’t or don’t care an ounce.

Finally, too many people on the debate on torture, on the debate of ‘enhanced interrogation methods’, or on these abuse pictures, confuse the subjects.  There are actually two very distinct, but seperate issues, but the debate on how to handle each cross because one may have led to the other.

Many feel that the Bush Administrations allowance of Tortue or ‘Enhanced Interrigation Methods‘ led to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other U.S. prisons.   One will really never know, but we know that the abuses happened and they were wrong by any standard!  Releasing additional photos will not change that fact.

Then there is the highly controversial Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.  Many Americans feel that those methods such as water-boarding should never, ever be used under any circumstance.  Others feel that the President should have the authority and he alone to be able to allow it in extreme circumstances.  Again, releasing the detainee abuse photos will not help either side in the debate.

So why release the photos?!  To satisfy peoples crave for more Bush blood.  Not worth proverbially shedding Bush’s blood at the expense of shedding U.S. Soldiers’ blood!  It is high time the ACLU begin to protect American and not their own Left Wing agenda!

Afghanistan is a better place today than it has ever been and it is thanks to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Allies and the superb work and the effort each Allied Country has given to the effort.  Afghanistan used to be a messed-up, warlord governed, decentralized, unstable, chaotic country and that was after the Taliban were forced from power by the US Led NATO operation against it in the wake of 9/11.  But today, Afghanistan is safe because NATO came together at a critical time.

NATO Countries sent in tens of thousands of troops, specialists, trainers, engineers and a myriad of other civilian and military professionals to give Afghanistan the chance it deserved.  The Allies came together, united and strong, supporting the central government in Kabul and were not afraid to put their troops in harms way, knowing full well that a united NATO would not only help defeat terrorists, Narcotics traffickers, and violent warlords in Afghanistan, but also knew that as NATO united, a global pressure would mount on Pakistan to convince them to cooperate.  This has directly facilitating the capture of Usama bin Laden and hundreds of other deadly terrorists has made the world considerably safer today!

Up to this point, this blog post has been pure fiction – a fantasy!  The blunt truth is that we are further away from this than ever.

Today, Afghanistan is not only hosting Taliban attacks, chaos, violence, drug crops and trafficking, but could be the place where NATO, as an Alliance and organization has come to die.  There is a crises inside NATO and unfortunately it is has been severely under reported.

This writer was floored to read the exact opposite in a recent TIME Magazine Commentary from Josef Joffe entitled “Soldiering On” where Mr. Joffe asserts that NATO is doing well and is “healthy”.  Quoting he says:

“So the old Lady [NATO] now celebrating her 60th birthday in fine health, should have died a long time ago”.

“In fine health”?!  If NATO is in fine health, I would hate to see what it would look like if the ‘old Lady’, as he refers to NATO, were to be bedridden or ailing!

NATO’s problems started on September 12, 2001, one day after the horrendous attacks on The United States in New York City and Washington D.C. by Terrorists flying Commercial jets.  While the entire world was reeling from the devastation inflicted on American, NATO came together in an unprecedented way.  This writer will never forget when the then NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson issued a Press Statement announcing that Article 5 was been instated for the first time, meaning that an attach on one NATO Nation was an attack on all.  I was proud to be a World Citizen and was proud of NATO and the member countries to take this stand and was confident that the fight would be relatively brief as NATO banded together in unity.

You can listen to the brief statement here.

On the subject of Afghanistan, it seems that September 12, 2001 was the first day and the last day that NATO was united.  Judging by the reaction of some NATO countries, if they will ever be attacked, they will just sit and not react to the attack, nor do anything to defend themselves.

According to the most recent report on NATO in Afghanistan by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) titled, “NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance” the first issue that NATO forces face in implementing their United Nations mandated Mission in Afghanistan are national “caveats”.  These are restrictions that “allied governments, or parliaments, place on the use of their forces”.   Quoting from the report,

“NATO commanders have long sought to minimize the number of caveats on forces dedicated to [the Security Forces in Afghanistan], an effort that has met with mixed success.  In September 2006, former NATO SACEUR General James Jones expressed frustration at the limitations that some allies placed on their troops. ‘It’s not enough,’ he said, ‘to simply provide forces if those forces have restrictions on them that limit them from being effective’ “.

The report specifically notes that in addition to The United States, Britain and Canada have provided substantial support, as has Poland with increasing commitments from France.  Other countries’ support have been limited, restricted, or withdrawn.

For years, pundits and political commentators have been saying that the US’ primary stumbling block to obtaining greater support from other European and NATO countries was President Bush and the Bush Administration’s stance and attitude, especially stemming from Iraq.

Just in the last few days, this theory has been proven wrong.  On President Obama’s first trip to Europe, he tried to obtain pledges for greater support in Afghanistan from NATO Allies and was not successful.  So it wasn’t the Bush Administration after all!

Success in Afghanistan would not only benefit The United States, but the entire world – failure will not only hurt The United States, but the entire world.  It is imperative that more countries step up and provide more than “caveats”.  Germany’s recent commitment of 150 personnel to train is absurd and their attitude that is shown by that “commitment” is dangerous.  The United States must be more aggressive in pointing that out to other countries – going as far as threatening to withdrawal from NATO if other countries do not give substantial, unrestricted support to the effort against the War in Afghanistan.

If the U.S. can succeed in garnering more support, then the fantasy of a successful operation in Afghanistan would become reality.  Otherwise, NATO will be rendered useless and insignificant and the world much more dangerous place than it is today – that is reality!

The Unites States Congress recently passed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and has been talked and debated about with much fever over the last few weeks in the United States. On both sides, the debate is passionate and heated with a lot of propaganda thrown around. As Representative Gohmert (R) from Texas says at texasinsider.org:

“It is easy for someone to make a legislator look good or bad over a vote on any legislation depending upon which facts the writer chooses to include and chooses to omit. This is especially true with the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill which passed out of the U.S. House last week.”

Not only is this true for a legislator, but also for legislation. For that reason, Teddism aims to give brief information and more importantly the truth about the debate.

Fact
When children are the subject of a political debate, their bests interests are only secondary to winning.

Definition of ‘winning’ in this context: Scoring Political Points.

Background
SCHIP, is a bill that the United States Congress passed in 1997 and expired September 30, 2007. Quoting a September 27, 2007 blog post on Murth’s Truth:

“SCHIP in Washington-speak stands for “State Children’s Health Insurance Program. It’s a program originally created by Republicans in Congress designed to help provide health insurance for low-income children. But in typical Washington fashion, it turned out to be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.”

“SCHIP is up for renewal this year. And this year, the Democrats are in charge of Congress. So naturally instead of merely reauthorizing SCHIP, the House voted yesterday to greatly expand the government program, with the ultimate goal of using it as a backdoor means of ushering in Hillary’s national healthcare nightmare.”

The Democrats’ Brief Position on the Issue
All Children should have access to Insurance and expanding this Bill to include essentially all children.

The Republican’s Brief Position on the Issue (the Bush Administration’s) |
By expanding the law to include more children, it is the first step to socializing Medicine, meaning the Government would pay for it.

The TRUTH
Admittedly, that is an incredible generalization; however, the Bill itself is written, as they always are, in exceptionally complicated ways. See for yourself in the Senate version and the House version.

The Truth is that Democrats are trying to politicize Children and Republicans are not communicating their problems with the bill effectively. As such, the Democrats are winning the war for Public Opinion on the issue.

Related Links

- An Article in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Insuring All Children – The New Political Imperative”
- An Excellent summary including FAQs at The National Conferences of State Legislatures

This is the second part of a multi-part Series called, “Politics Today – By the People for the People”.
Part One can be found here.

Mankind tends to chalk up Politicians’ misbehavior and mudslinging and ‘deal-making’ as POLITICS. We all too often say, “That’s just politics for ya’!” and then move on with a ‘there isn’t a darn thing I can do about it’ kind of attitude.

Does it have to be that way?! The simple and Utopian, naive answer is NO! The realistic and often assumed answer, however, is yes. So which is it?

That depends on your attitude and desire to make a change.

I make no secret that I am a registered Republican and I am generally conservative. Having said that, it is fair to say that politicians across the entire political spectrum pay more attention to the sources of money than the people themselves. This is not a left wing or right wing problem, but one of politics.

Lets look at the current American Political Scene. Both the right and the left are clearly going where they think they can get the most amount of money. For the Left, it is MoveOn.org. For the Right, it is mainly corporations and CEOs. Money talks and the politicians walk (and talk) where ever the money is.

What can be done?! The things that a concerned voter can do, is powerfully simple and not revolutionary in any way: stay informed!

A large number of voters stay relatively disconnected through the campaign process, especially in the primaries. When engaging, it is usually near the end of the primary or general races. There are two consequences of doing so.

One consequence is that is that voters will either vote mechanically for the person that is ahead in the polls, or their parties’ candidate. All the while, not really looking much at the candidate or his (or her) stances on the issues. In other words, an emotional vote and not one based on specific observations.

The second consequence is that the candidates have to spend more money to get your attention and that requires that they get more money and the more money they have to get, the more ‘debts’ they will incur. Not debts that have to be paid back in money, but in toeing a specific line or pushing a specific policy that the person giving the money dictates – not you the voter.

Simply stated, because voters are generally apathetic to the political process, that in turn forces candidates to pay less attention to what is important to you as a voter.

By paying attention to the political process, the races that affect you, becoming as informed as possible, will allow you to be more influential in who wins any race and ensuring that things important to you get heard. Be loud, be proud – it isn’t politics as usual anymore!

I follow US Politics intensely, I follow Hungarian Politics regularly, and I follow European & International Politics with a watchful eye – all the while with a strong opinion on policy, elected officials, and those seeking office and what they all should be (or should not be) doing.

Having said that, I am fascinated by the Politicians’ take on issues. Every politician has an agenda. Sometimes those agendas are self-imposed and rooted in their core. They’ve arrived at these by a belief system, or from learning, or expierence, and it guides them in their work. However, this is rare. Unfortunately, the large elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk much about, only hitting on it occasionally, is that the Politicians’ and Candidates’ stances on issues are influenced mostly by lobbying from external people or groups. These are people and organizations that “invest” in campaigns or in politicians with expectations to be ‘paid’ in return for their “investments” in the politician. In other words, money drives politics today. If you have money, you can give it to a politician or a campaign in large amounts through a variety of means and expect that your issues will be addressed. That is the fact and there is no sign of this changing anytime soon.

So, what can the People do?! Is it our destiny to be subjected to whatever politician comes our way and allow them to do whatever is best for them?! Is it absolutely necessary that the People’s will be secondary?!

No! The People can bring about change!! Be it in the United States, a self-proclaimed champion of democracy, or Europe where many politicians are not even elected directly by the people. Even in many States around the world where elections are obviously not fair or not held at all. Admittedly, there are countries and societies around the world where the People clearly have no say and there is no hope in sight that it might change, but for large majority of the world’s countries and their populations, possibilities for change are possible.

Politics today is often not by the People nor for the People, but it can be!! It all begins with hope and actively doing something about it. We will explore this further in future postings. Stay tuned!

I. Critically Flawed?

The European Union (EU) is a crucial player on the World political stage and exceptionally influential. The European Union currently represents 27 countries, but the question is, as the EU turns 50 years old, has it moved Europe forward, in a positive way? And is it beneficial to current and future EU citizens? From here, the simple answers to those questions are that the EU has and is still fulfilling its original mandate and aspirations; however, it is completely incapable of reaching its current goals. One could almost go as far as saying that the EU, as an institution today, is incompetent and a permanent lame duck – ouch that hurts!

This author, an American citizen, living in Europe, strongly believes that while the European Union concept is good and beneficial to member countries and citizens, the implementation is, as stated in the title, critically flawed!

To begin analyzing this, one can start by looking at what the EU is, where it came from, and where it is allegedly going.

II. The EU – Coming and Going

As previously mentioned, the EU is currently made up of 27 Countries, but the concept of the European Union, or a Common Community is not new. As far back as the 1800′s, philosophers and politicians maneuvered to form a unity among the countries of Europe. Those dreams were dramatically halted because of World Wars I and II. After World War II, however, the perceived need for a Common European Community was even greater and the movements toward forming such a group was renewed with fervor – reasoning was that it was needed to protect Europe against further internal strifes and external aggressions such as the ones that brought on two World Wars in the first place, both poignantly started in Europe. According to the EU’s own website, peace, stability, safety, and security were paramount reasons for establishing a common community, later known as the European Union.

Today, that reasoning has expanded to a far less lofty goal, but one that has, for better or worse, changed the world political and economic landscape. That goal being to provide more representation and offer more influence to each country. The thinking goes that each individual country would have a difficult time representing itself on the world stage alone and that most EU countries, being small, would globally pushed aside. The EU, however, offers each country that chance to be properly represented by joining forces and working together as one big group, rather than 27 small pieces. According to the EU’s own lessons on the European Union:

The European Union was created to achieve the political goal of peace, but its dynamism and success spring from its involvement in economics.

EU countries account for an ever smaller percentage of the world’s population. They must therefore continue pulling together if they are to ensure economic growth and be able to compete on the world stage with other major economies. No individual EU country is strong enough to go it alone in world trade. The European single market provides companies with a vital platform for competing effectively on world markets.

So, the EU was set up to encourage and support peace on the continent, and today part of its mantra is to increase European Countries’ influence in the world by joining together. The EU has been, and continues to be successful in this endevour! You might ask: where then is this critical failing spoken of?

III. What is Wrong With the EU, Exactly?

The failing comes not from the EU’s goals and aspirations, but rather from its implementation and institutional structure. The EU has 27 member countries, with a few more knocking on its door for admission. That is more than 30 languages, 100+ cultures, and traditions. That is not a failing in itself, but rather a monumental challenge. The EU feels that it is living up to that challenge. Specifically they say:

But these efforts [to increase standards of living] have not been made at the expense of compromising the separate cultural or linguistic characteristics of EU countries. On the contrary — many EU activities help to create new economic growth based on regional specialities and the rich diversity of traditions and cultures.

On the ground, Cultures and peoples with large populations in the EU would agree with that statement, others that are small, would severely disagree! The EU’s severe failings come in two distinct areas: One, insufficient and unequal representation of each segment of the EU Citizenry. Two, no direct representation of the Citizenry as a whole. The consequences of this is that large countries and cultures exert unbalanced influence, but no one person, interest, culture, or people is actually represented in the European Union. This is the critical flaw of which causes the EU to be far less than the dreamers of the 1880′s imagined to be. Far less effective, productive, and far less meaningful!

IV. The EU’s Structure – THIS is the EU’s Big Problem!

The EU is governed by a number of different bodies. There is a body that is directly elected by the people. This is where the EU gets its claim that there is direct representation, but that body wields practically no influence in the EU nor on its policies and direction. Lets break it down into what each body is and who is there and what the body does.

The European Council:
What the Body Is: The primary decision making body in the EU Governmental structure.
Who: These are heads of states or ministers from each EU Country. The President of the Council is the EU President and this post rotates every 6 months between members.
What the Body Does: Discusses and “agrees” on policy and legislation.

The European Parliament
What the Body is: The Legislative Branch of the European Union Government
Who: Democratically elected Parliament members. Currently over 700 member strong and each elected for a five year term.
What the Body Does: The European Parliament’s own website sums it up perfectly, “the Parliament organises its work, through a system of specialised committees”. Additionally, the Parliament scrutinises the activities of other EU institutions, passes the annual EU budget, and shapes and decides new legislation jointly with the Council of Ministers.

The European Commission
What the Body is: If the Parliament is the Legislative Branch, the Commission is the Executive Branch. Additionally, it is a quasi Administrative Branch.
Who: There is one Commissioner from each member state and are nominated by each National Government. Commissioners serve for five years. There is support staff in Brussels totaling over 20,000 people – all employed by the EU.
What the Body Does: These non-elected Officials, draft proposals for legislation and policy for consideration by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

The European Court of Justice
What the Body is: The Judicial Branch.
Who: There are 25 judges and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by member states.
What the Body Does: Adjudicates on all legal issues and disputes involving Community law. Specifically, they give a preliminary ruling on each case before a final judgment. The Court deals with two main types of actions: those referred to it by national courts for rulings of interpretation of Community law; and those started by one of the other institutions.

V. Summary -

Each governing body of the EU is mindful of its purpose, but restricted by those very same purposes. The EU, this wonderful governmental body that accomplishes much good, is restricted by its own procedures and organization. The Parliament, the solely elected body has no real power, but essentially is the EU’s purse strings with no ability to make laws, only rubber stamp decisions made by the European Commission, which is not elected by the EU citizenry. Additionally, the parliament organizes its work by committees! How horrible and ineffective can they be?!

Coming back to the questions we started with:

Has the EU moved Europe forward, in a positive way?

Yes, it has moved Europe forward in a positive way, but not as much as could be possible. The European Union is conceptually a splendid institution and was an essential move in the post World War world. It has brought countries together and has successfully helped to promote peace throughout Europe. However, the EU, as it has evolved is now bureaucratic behemoth that is extremely slow and inefficient.

Is the EU beneficial to current and future EU citizens?

The EU is unable to become more effective without providing the citizens of the European Union the rights of direct representation. It provides increased representation in the world to each member country, but not to each citizen in the EU itself. A strange, paradoxical reality. This one fact, has sadly has put the power of the European Union in the hands of professional diplomats, mainly from large member countries, rather than in the hands of the people – a critical failing!