revengeofareasonablemind

It’s Sunday at the Talk Shows September 16, 2012

Today I was exposed to the most amazing cacophony of punditry.  It hurt my brain.  But, it is Sunday morning and the talk shows rule (just before NFL football, of course).   After watching for some time I’ve come to some conclusions.  The Obama Administration is in charge of and responsible for foreign policy for the United States.  Mobs in Egypt, Tunisia and a host of other Muslim countries have taken exception to a YouTube video clip that is contemptuously and insultingly critical of Islam.  This has happened before with a cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine that prompted rioting in Muslim countries around the world. It is not new. This behavior is emblematic of myriad Muslim countries.  American foreign policy must account for the predictable behaviors and cultures of all countries in which our State Department has a presence.  As it turns out, Muslim countries deserve particular vigilance.

However, the Obama Administration explains that in this latest uprising in Muslim countries the behavior is not about US policy in those countries.  It is exclusively about this video that Muslim find so offensive.  I heard Ambassador Rice explain this position in a most emphatic way on Fox News Sunday.   Many interviewers are missing an important question.   Wasn’t that behavior predictable and shouldn’t the US have a foreign policy that addresses the possibility of such behavior getting out of hand and mobs crashing our embassy gates and occupying US sovereign territory inside embassy grounds in a foreign nation.  Diplomatic presence in a foreign nation is an identity with US foreign policy.  An attack against a US embassy is an attack on the US and its policies.  Otherwise the mobs would be attacking internet cafe’s where YouTube is available.

US presence is also an identity with US core values of freedom of speech, religion, an open and free press and the right of peaceable assembly that our state department is supposed represent to a foreign nation.  Our foreign policy fortified by our core values must anticipate that not all countries share our core values.  Muslim countries seem to be least likely to adopt a cordial coexistence with our core values. We should not be surprised.  We should have a foreign policy that fundamentally recognizes that this tension with other nations that do not embrace our core values will exist.

When Egyptian rioters write on barricade walls out side the US Embassy in Cairo, “USA go to hell,” rioting Tunisians set fire to our Embassy in Tunis, and our Ambassador to Libya is assassinated along with three of our State Department staff it speaks to a failure of foreign policy on some level.  It can’t be about a video.  The video was simply the vehicle that exposed the volatility of the extreme and maniacal sentiment that these people in Muslim countries hold for the United States.  They focus on the United States not because of our movie and entertainment industry but because our core values allow for free speech, in this case.  The consequence of free speech is that despicable and vile speech can happen.  Americans don’t like it, but we’ve fought wars to preserve the right.

The riots and violence in the Middle East this past week and for what may be coming weeks is exactly about US foreign policy and its failure to accommodate to and address the possibility that some nations and Muslim countries specifically don’t like the United States.  It is not an act of political desperation to point out this failure as some in the Administration suggest.  It is the legitimate revenge of a reasonable mind.

Clinton Scores Big in the “Almost Right” Column September 16, 2012

Normally I’m not really picky about these things, but when the former president of the whole United States Bill Clinton (whom you will remember from the 1990s) ridiculed the Republicans for having the temerity to criticize the current president of the whole United States (whom we can’t forget from the last four years) for doing serious violence to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.  Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services under the guize of helping welfare recipients get assistance for not working proposes changing the definition of work.  Well, that is not working for most of us who really know what the opposite of actually working is.  Oh, I get it we’re back to the definition of “is.”  One of Former President Clinton’s favorite words.

It seems Republicans found problems with the President’s benevolence, stretching the reasonableness test of Merriam Webster’s Dictionary with taxpayer dollars.  You see President Obama’s definition of work discards what the 1996 Welfare Reform Act originally had in mind.  You know real work, manual labor, nose to the old grind stone stuff.  But, now President Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) allows states to come up with new definitions of work.  It seems that a host of  HHS waivers are available for States to skirt or ignore the work requirement in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) section of the Welfare Reform Act.  Waivers will be are possible for just about any pursuit that even in the remotest way prepares a welfare recipient to apply for work.  Suddenly, one can envision playing golf in hopes of getting that all important PGA Tour Card (Hope springs eternal among the 20 handicap crowd).  It is just plain silly.  And, you know what?  The Republicans and me, well we aren’t the only ones that think so.

Come to find out that the Government Accountability Office not only thinks the waiver business is silly (my words), but it is also illegal, in as much as it does not comport with the law.  How about that.  It’s illegal.  Apparently, even the Obama Administration actually has to go to Congress to get legislation modified or waived.  This HHS memorandum to the states constitutes a new “rule” and must be submitted to Congress for review and possibly disapproval.  That process is required by the Congressional Review Act.

So, President Clinton, nice speech at the Democratic National Convention.  Republicans, however, did do a smack down of your Candidate Obama’s attempt to get around those pesky work requirements for welfare recipients to get taxpayer provided welfare checks. But, you forgot to mention that so did the GAO.  That put’s you in the “almost right” column.  Pointing this out is just the revenge of a reasonable mind.

Revenge of a Reasonable Mind: An Introduction September 9, 2012

This is my first stab at writing a blog, or as you experts at it call “blogging,” or so I’m told.  So, if this seems a little rough, well I warned you.  The instructions that came with signing up for the WordPress.com blog writing service explained that a domain name was required and that there could be no spaces.  So, the domain name turned out to be revengeofareasonablemind which could be difficult to pronounce correctly.  There’s a chance that you could get the emphasis on the wrong syllable, since there are a lot of syllables, if you don’t use spaces.  So, I thought I’d put the spaces in in the title.  Okay, so why the title in the first place?  Well, I’ve been paying attention to what’s been going on in the news in print and on the television, both cable and the mainstream networks.  My conclusion is that I’m the victim of an intellectual assault and battery.  I’m not making this charge lightly.

At first I was just going to claim simple intellectual assault, but I got thinking.  Doesn’t the phrase that describes assault generally include “battery” also; as in, “the mugger was charged with assault and battery?”  However, I didn’t want to go overboard if all the stuff that the media wants us to believe just hurt my brain.  Although, in some very litigious circles (like California) that would be sufficient.  So, I looked up the “battery” part of assault and battery in the dictionary.  The definition explained “…even where the contact is not violent but merely menacing or offensive.”  Perfect.  That’s it in a nutshell.  Not only does the goofy stuff I am exposed to by the media actually hurt my brain, it is also menacing and offensive to what I believe is my reasonable mind.  It is an attack deserving of REVENGE.

So, from time to time as I am assaulted and batteryed (?), I will get revenge by applying a really big dose of sarcasm and ridicule in this blog space.  I will pull no punches.  No more sitting back and taking it.  Both barrels are loaded (shotgun metaphor) and I’m ready for bear.  I’m fighting back.  It’s only reasonable.  It’s revenge.