Sense from Seattle

Common sense thoughts on life and current affairs by a Seattle area sexagenarian, drawing on personal experience, years of learning as a counselor to thousands of families and an innate passion for informed knowledge, to uniquely express sensible, thoughtful, honest and independent views.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

September Miscellany


Here are some thoughts at the end of September.

Most Americans wish someone would push the fast forward button to January, 2009, so we can see George W. Bush kicked back to Texas. Pundits agree Hillary has been running a flawless campaign and will likely be the Democratic nominee. She has been impressively competent. Once her nomination becomes reality, the selection of her running mate will be the hot topic. Obama would be an exciting choice for his freshness and a wise one to enable his seasoning and preparation to be the successor.

Today Bush is threatening a veto of a bi-partisan act to expand the federal subsidy of health insurance coverage for children. Even the insurance industry favors the expansion, but Bush says he will stick to his mission to stop government spending. The expanded coverage would cost $35 billion over five years, the same amount of our tax money Bush is spending every six months in Iraq. I think the nation is finally realizing that the “free market” has never been able to provide universal health care and that a Medicare type program is needed to provide insurance coverage for everyone.

Also today, the Iranian President and Bush both address the UN General Assembly. Reminds me of the movie, “Dumb and Dumber”. The UN will keep Iran in check, because the Security Council members with veto power all want that. The US makes the most noise, but China’s position is the key to getting things done.

At the UN, Bush verbally attacks the military junta which has ruled Myanmar for 19 years. Like the Iranian President, Bush likes to hear himself talk. But China is the major player in what is happening in Myanmar. The military government of that country is being restrained by Chinese pressure from cracking down on the protestors who are now emboldened. Maybe some progress will be made on starting to free that nation from the hold of its oppressive regime.

The new PBS series on WWII documents the overwhelming magnitude of the death and devastation of that War, particularly as it fell on civilians, starting with the blitz of London, progressing through the fire bombing of Germany and ending with the Atomic bombing of Japan. The axis powers had delusions of grand imperial expansion and the vast majority of their civilian populations, with the possible exception of Italy, were wildly supportive. Think of the Bush program pushed in 2003 to spread democracy to the world and of all the cars driving around with American flags and yellow ribbons and you begin to get the idea.

In many invaded and occupied countries during WWII, civilian patriots fought the invaders and resisted the occupiers by whatever means available. We rightly celebrate their bravery and heroism. Yet in our own time, the Bush administrations has been striving for years to get our courts to adopt the concept that such civilians who oppose our actions should be called “enemy combatants” and forfeit all legal rights to fair treatment under either agreed military conventions or civilian constitutional protections. This effort is correctly seen worldwide as a shame on America.


We learned a lot from WWII. Ken Burns, the producer of the PBS series, was rightly concerned that we may have forgotten those lessons and that we have failed to teach them to our younger generations. The UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, bona fide international legal tribunals, international regulation of atomic energy and the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations were all needs that were addressed and met after the end of the War. America, the chief advocate for world peace following WWII, has sadly in the last couple decades, through the Republican Party and especially under George W. Bush, seemed to be working to undermine institutions of international peace.

Back on the home front, a somewhat unexpected strike by the United Auto Workers has once again put needed attention on our beleaguered auto industry and the insecurity of employer provided pension benefits. Our auto maker corporations ignore the simple fact that they make crappy cars and instead blame their financial woes on being saddled with retiree pension costs. The union wants to take the pension responsibility off the auto maker hands, which makes a lot of sense to me. The auto makers should just turn the pension funds over to the union to manage and then stop whining about the cost. Whatever it costs them they can write off, let the stockholders eat any loss, and then move on to 401k type plans with no guarantees. Of course, this would mean giving up the option of escaping current pension promises by filing bankruptcy. Moving the pensions to union control, forgetting about bankruptcy tricks and focusing on building better cars is what needs to be done to keep American cars competitive. We should build American cars so good the Chinese people will want to buy them instead of waiting for their government to enable the building of good Chinese cars. We could follow the example of the deal Japan and the US made, and build a negotiated number of American cars in China as a condition to be allowed to sell even more of our cars over there.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
Many topics, but they all made sense to me. Even the one about Hillary. She just might make it.
John from Phoenix

7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, maybe I got caught in the web of your logic without thinking critically. I read in the Arizona paper today that, just as Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush, so are Democrats from Western states not wanting Hillary to show up in their states. I'm sure you know that the Western states do not include the West Coast states, each of which has its own unique politicl identities (eastern vs western in Oregon and Washington; northern vs southern in California). Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Montana, etc., would not tolerate a Hillary candidacy. I don't know what Democrats from those states wish for among all of the three major candidates. They must be very depressed. I can speak only for Arizona. There are not enough of them left to make a difference.
John from Phoenix

6:35 PM  
Blogger Tom Blake said...

Hillary has high negatives (voters who dislike her) because she has the highest profile and because she is the only woman running. As the campaigns move closer to nomination and then to the election, I expect her negatives to soften some and the negatives of the major Republican candidates, and ultimately their nominee, to rise.

More important are the positives, whether a voter would vote for Hillary, and her number there is growing. I don’t expect any Democrat would vote for a Republican out of a negative attitude toward Hillary. Some Republicans might vote for a third party candidate in protest of the Republican nominee, as some leaders of the religious right are already threatening. Independents in general are inclined toward change, meaning they lean toward the Democrats this time around, and a woman would be another change (as would an African-American, which accounts for much of the Obama appeal).

The electoral college needs to be laid to rest. As you point out, it effectively makes political minority voters in politically polarized States feel that their Presidential vote is meaningless. It also drives a wedge between States and divides the country. Our President needs to be elected on the basis of a truly national campaign appeal, with every voter knowing their vote is as important as that of any other American, regardless of what State they reside in.

A month ago, Chris sent me this link to an interesting article at Slate, about a Republican plot to manipulate the electoral college in certain States for the 2008 election.

8:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home