I'm a veteran and I like to think that I keep up with war matters and how they affect my country. But I was somewhat surprised when I read the story on how our current wars have impacted London, Ky. to note that the war on terrorism at almost ten years is as long as WW1, WW2, and the Korean War---combined.
That sobering thought comes from a report Sunday in our two major papers. It was done by the McClatchy Newspapers, owners of the Herald-Leader, and the fact that it also appeared in its arch rival the Louisville Courier-Journal, attests to its importance.
Two things stand out in this report: (1) the patriotism of people of the London area--- who sent their sons and daughters away to various wars in a much greater percentage than might have been expected based on the size of the area. (Almost everyone there knows someone or some family with people in service. The report notes, however, "There are large swaths of the American public that don't directly know soldiers serving overseas". One of those "swaths", incidentally, is our Congress.)
(2) Unfortunately this also means a high incidence of disability and medical problems for returning veterans and their families. "The area has one of the highest rates in the country of veterans collecting disability payments for post traumatic stress disorder; one of the costliest and most prevalent ailments to emerge from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts."
And it's not just the veterans. The report mentions problems of alcohol, stress, etc. with families and friends of those who died and also who survived.
This is but part of the cost of war that Presidents and Congresses..and the people..seldom take into account in the fervor of starting a new war...but it is very, very real.
Now that we have "won" in Iraq--at a horrible and tragic cost for a war we entered based on misinformation at the best--and lies from our top officials at the worse--maybe it's time to rethink our Afghan role---especially in light of Pres. Karzai's recent statement that in any future conflict Afghanistan would side with Pakistan, not the US; of the drone raids across the border that keep on killing innocent civilians, or even Pakistan soldiers, despite repeated attempts by our military to limit these deaths; or the fruit of the poppy that shows up on American streets because our GIs are told to look the other way when finding them in their world center--Afghanistan.
Want to save $110 Billions a year? That's Billions, the yearly cost of our war in Afghanistan, so maybe we don't have to cut funds for education, or social security, or health? Get out of Afghanistan now, not in 2014, or even partially in 2012...Now.
And then, hopefully, no more stories about sacrifice and death in London, Ky., or Wilkes-Barre, or Keokuk, or all the 16 Lexingtons spread across this great nation.
I'm just sayin'...
Monday, December 5, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DONT FIX IT!
Looks as if the "fix" is in, and even though we don't yet have a consultant's recommendations, the odds favor we will soon get a report backing the mayor and certain businesses that what Lexington truly, truly needs is to end one way streets downtown.
Meadow muffins.
Businesses say two way streets make it easier for customers to get to them. May I demonstrate: I'm on Rose street heading towards Main to go to Barney Millers. I turn west on Main and stay left to turn down the side street that leads to the BM parking lot behind the store. (Had I wanted to go to Alfalfa, I would have stayed right).
Now then, if we convert to two way streets, when I turn off Rose I must work right and go down to the traffic light by Miller's. If there is traffic behind me, I must wait, backing up cars. Since Lexington has a dearth of overhead lights with left turn arrows I may have to wait a while...and even if there is an arrow, oncoming traffic may not stop; since no one in Lexington has ever been known to run a red light--or fail to stop--or "yield" (whatever that means?) there is an increased potential for accidents.
If 2 way streets come, and the Water Company decides to repair an underground line, totally blocking one side, then what? With our present one way streets, another lane is available.
Oh, and don't you remember how Main and Vine were tied in knots for months by the construction of the "streetscape", and what similar work did to South Lime? Does anyone think we are, or should be, through with construction downtown; whether major or just "tweaking"?
Two lanes each way provide room for changes, for fire and police, for hauling the city's Hanukkah bush to Triangle Park for decoration, etc. etc. etc.
Contrary to opponents, there is little illogical about "this street runs east -west" and "this street runs west-east". What's been illogical are changes on 3rd & 4th over the years, especially around Transylvania University, where it was one way one week, two ways the next, and a combination in some blocks the following; changes I vividly remember if no one else in city hall does, and, oh yes, the North Broadway stutter, as the lanes change it seems as fast as new paint can be found north of Transy to Loudon.
Our downtown street system has worked fairly well since the '70s. We need neither spend one red cent, in these times, on consultants, or make changes, with resulting costs in new signs, new lane painting, new public information and enforcement costs, etc.
If we have any money, where are those "internally lighted signs" at major intersections, and larger, more visible signs in our neighborhoods we were promised by the last administration?
I'm just sayin'...
Meadow muffins.
Businesses say two way streets make it easier for customers to get to them. May I demonstrate: I'm on Rose street heading towards Main to go to Barney Millers. I turn west on Main and stay left to turn down the side street that leads to the BM parking lot behind the store. (Had I wanted to go to Alfalfa, I would have stayed right).
Now then, if we convert to two way streets, when I turn off Rose I must work right and go down to the traffic light by Miller's. If there is traffic behind me, I must wait, backing up cars. Since Lexington has a dearth of overhead lights with left turn arrows I may have to wait a while...and even if there is an arrow, oncoming traffic may not stop; since no one in Lexington has ever been known to run a red light--or fail to stop--or "yield" (whatever that means?) there is an increased potential for accidents.
If 2 way streets come, and the Water Company decides to repair an underground line, totally blocking one side, then what? With our present one way streets, another lane is available.
Oh, and don't you remember how Main and Vine were tied in knots for months by the construction of the "streetscape", and what similar work did to South Lime? Does anyone think we are, or should be, through with construction downtown; whether major or just "tweaking"?
Two lanes each way provide room for changes, for fire and police, for hauling the city's Hanukkah bush to Triangle Park for decoration, etc. etc. etc.
Contrary to opponents, there is little illogical about "this street runs east -west" and "this street runs west-east". What's been illogical are changes on 3rd & 4th over the years, especially around Transylvania University, where it was one way one week, two ways the next, and a combination in some blocks the following; changes I vividly remember if no one else in city hall does, and, oh yes, the North Broadway stutter, as the lanes change it seems as fast as new paint can be found north of Transy to Loudon.
Our downtown street system has worked fairly well since the '70s. We need neither spend one red cent, in these times, on consultants, or make changes, with resulting costs in new signs, new lane painting, new public information and enforcement costs, etc.
If we have any money, where are those "internally lighted signs" at major intersections, and larger, more visible signs in our neighborhoods we were promised by the last administration?
I'm just sayin'...
Monday, November 21, 2011
Redistricting: The Ultimate "Good Ole Boys Game"
The most important decision for the next ten years is on track to be made..and you have not only not been consulted, you probably won't be.
Both the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council and the Kentucky General Assembly are required by law to draw new districts for their elected members every ten years. The districts are supposed to be compact geographically and as nearly equal in population as possible, based on the new census.
Public officials you elect from these new districts will vote on life and death decisions for you for the next decade: war, taxes, auto licenses, fines, smoking, gun laws, and so on.
Yet not one special public hearing has been held on these proposed new districts, and none, so far, is planned by either the Lexington council or the state legislature. The same thing happened ten years ago.
My city councilman says two public hearings were held at regular committee meetings by the committee charged with redistricting. He thinks that's enough. I disagree. Such an unusually important topic should be handled differently. Louisville held six public hearings on its proposed new council districts throughout River City, and some citizens asked for more. Lexington should do no less.
The Frankfort situation is even worse. Lawmakers not only redraw state House and Senate districts, but also Congressional districts. The Herald-Leader rightly calls this an exercise in "incumbent protection." Redistricting is the ultimate "good ole boys" game--but it doesn't and shouldn't be that way.
A dozen states use various methods to keep politics out as much as possible. Many use special commissions of non-legislators to issue new maps, and then the legislature votes it up or down, similar to the base-closing plan which was worked in Congress. If it takes a Constitutional amendment to do this, so be it. In the meantime, the legislature could form such a commission and be guided by its work, even if not required to hold an up-or-down vote.
And it should hold public hearings, certainly on the Congressional districts if not on local districts. But don't hold your breath! That would involve citizens too much in our democracy; and make representative government more responsive to, if not more representative of, the people.
I'm just sayin'...
Both the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council and the Kentucky General Assembly are required by law to draw new districts for their elected members every ten years. The districts are supposed to be compact geographically and as nearly equal in population as possible, based on the new census.
Public officials you elect from these new districts will vote on life and death decisions for you for the next decade: war, taxes, auto licenses, fines, smoking, gun laws, and so on.
Yet not one special public hearing has been held on these proposed new districts, and none, so far, is planned by either the Lexington council or the state legislature. The same thing happened ten years ago.
My city councilman says two public hearings were held at regular committee meetings by the committee charged with redistricting. He thinks that's enough. I disagree. Such an unusually important topic should be handled differently. Louisville held six public hearings on its proposed new council districts throughout River City, and some citizens asked for more. Lexington should do no less.
The Frankfort situation is even worse. Lawmakers not only redraw state House and Senate districts, but also Congressional districts. The Herald-Leader rightly calls this an exercise in "incumbent protection." Redistricting is the ultimate "good ole boys" game--but it doesn't and shouldn't be that way.
A dozen states use various methods to keep politics out as much as possible. Many use special commissions of non-legislators to issue new maps, and then the legislature votes it up or down, similar to the base-closing plan which was worked in Congress. If it takes a Constitutional amendment to do this, so be it. In the meantime, the legislature could form such a commission and be guided by its work, even if not required to hold an up-or-down vote.
And it should hold public hearings, certainly on the Congressional districts if not on local districts. But don't hold your breath! That would involve citizens too much in our democracy; and make representative government more responsive to, if not more representative of, the people.
I'm just sayin'...
Monday, November 14, 2011
WHAT IF PENN STATE HAPPENED HERE??
How would UK students, fans, trustees respond?
Not as their Penn State counterparts, I hope.
I mean..trashing the home of the chief suspect? Rioting in the streets (and destroying a news van that was trying to cover student indignation?) Firing people (The president and JoePa) who haven't yet been charged with any crime, let alone convicted?
We need to go back to Duke and the infamous lacrosse case...have we forgotten so soon? And boy were there lessons to be learned from that incident: reputations ruined, a venerable school that forgot its traditions, the most elemental belief in fair play, a rush to judgment that did almost no one any good.
Yes, I am the last man in America who still believes in the presumption of innocence--a belief reaffirmed by what happened at Duke. It took time but eventually the accusations of a local "dancer" cum prostitute against the team were found to be false, pursued by an overzealous prosecutor, who warped the law in his attempt to ride the sensational case into a new term.
OK, child abuse is much worse. Failure to report suspicions of it is a major ethical and moral lapse. Both the grad student and Coach Paterno should have, could have done more; and so should almost everyone who has touched this case---including state and local officials, some of whom knew about, or suspected what was going on. There is more than enough "guilt" here to go around.
None of that justifies the rioting, the threats against the grad stduent (threats for reporting what he saw! Those people are apparently justifying child abuse!), the premature firing of the coach and president..all because the trustees saw an "image" problem for the school.
Image! What about fairness? Justice? Following the law? (weak though it appears to be in Pennsylvania), learning from Duke, or just plain old common sense.
There appears to be a mimimum of eight boys involved in this sordid business. Over ten years why did none of them, or their families, or their friends (do you really think they kept it to themselves?)--or the family or friends of the "witnesses" not come forward?
Yes, there is the even more sordid history of the Catholic Church's unconscionable behavior recently in the background here..but let us not yet equate Penn State football with that older religion.
Let the law take its course. Some or all of these allegations may be proved or disproved, but acting the way many at Penn State have done so far is not the American way.
I'm just sayin'...
Not as their Penn State counterparts, I hope.
I mean..trashing the home of the chief suspect? Rioting in the streets (and destroying a news van that was trying to cover student indignation?) Firing people (The president and JoePa) who haven't yet been charged with any crime, let alone convicted?
We need to go back to Duke and the infamous lacrosse case...have we forgotten so soon? And boy were there lessons to be learned from that incident: reputations ruined, a venerable school that forgot its traditions, the most elemental belief in fair play, a rush to judgment that did almost no one any good.
Yes, I am the last man in America who still believes in the presumption of innocence--a belief reaffirmed by what happened at Duke. It took time but eventually the accusations of a local "dancer" cum prostitute against the team were found to be false, pursued by an overzealous prosecutor, who warped the law in his attempt to ride the sensational case into a new term.
OK, child abuse is much worse. Failure to report suspicions of it is a major ethical and moral lapse. Both the grad student and Coach Paterno should have, could have done more; and so should almost everyone who has touched this case---including state and local officials, some of whom knew about, or suspected what was going on. There is more than enough "guilt" here to go around.
None of that justifies the rioting, the threats against the grad stduent (threats for reporting what he saw! Those people are apparently justifying child abuse!), the premature firing of the coach and president..all because the trustees saw an "image" problem for the school.
Image! What about fairness? Justice? Following the law? (weak though it appears to be in Pennsylvania), learning from Duke, or just plain old common sense.
There appears to be a mimimum of eight boys involved in this sordid business. Over ten years why did none of them, or their families, or their friends (do you really think they kept it to themselves?)--or the family or friends of the "witnesses" not come forward?
Yes, there is the even more sordid history of the Catholic Church's unconscionable behavior recently in the background here..but let us not yet equate Penn State football with that older religion.
Let the law take its course. Some or all of these allegations may be proved or disproved, but acting the way many at Penn State have done so far is not the American way.
I'm just sayin'...
Monday, November 7, 2011
NO MORE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS, PLEASE!
I have a great deal of objections to these, and Herman Cain has nothing to do with that.
Americans have a right to free speech, which to me means the right to speak freely. If you sign such an agreement, you give up that right; and here's the rub: I don't feel any American can legally do that. It comes with citizenship.
People fought and died for that right, and you feel you can give it up, just like that? Nonsense. The blood of patriots argues against it. Why can't current legal opinions see it the same way?
When governments or businesses want you to say nothing, something's wrong. The pressure they bring is but the modern day equivalent of the rack and the Iron Maiden; of being drawn and quartered. So why are we putting up with it?
I agree there are military secrets and proprietary business items, but you don't, or shouldn't protect them by trampling on traditional freedoms. Charge people with aiding and abetting a rival nation or firm, by showing how that entity profited, not by abrogating the First Amendment.
Remember those "inalienable rights?" "Inalienable" means incapable of being surrendered or transferred. You got it, or you don't.
But, some argue, you gave it up voluntarily. NO you didn't. Somewhere there was a threat or a promise; sign this and we'll pay you or sign this or you'll go to jail. Hardly voluntary.
In my view, as long as you are an American citizen these rights are yours and you can not surrender them. Giving up your American citizenship would be the only way.
Is this an absolutist view? Darn right, and about time we got back to putting freedom and liberty above what passes for security these days, which is often nothing but a chimera.
Don't like my absolutist views? Fine, that's your right..until you sign it away these days.
I'm just sayin'...
Americans have a right to free speech, which to me means the right to speak freely. If you sign such an agreement, you give up that right; and here's the rub: I don't feel any American can legally do that. It comes with citizenship.
People fought and died for that right, and you feel you can give it up, just like that? Nonsense. The blood of patriots argues against it. Why can't current legal opinions see it the same way?
When governments or businesses want you to say nothing, something's wrong. The pressure they bring is but the modern day equivalent of the rack and the Iron Maiden; of being drawn and quartered. So why are we putting up with it?
I agree there are military secrets and proprietary business items, but you don't, or shouldn't protect them by trampling on traditional freedoms. Charge people with aiding and abetting a rival nation or firm, by showing how that entity profited, not by abrogating the First Amendment.
Remember those "inalienable rights?" "Inalienable" means incapable of being surrendered or transferred. You got it, or you don't.
But, some argue, you gave it up voluntarily. NO you didn't. Somewhere there was a threat or a promise; sign this and we'll pay you or sign this or you'll go to jail. Hardly voluntary.
In my view, as long as you are an American citizen these rights are yours and you can not surrender them. Giving up your American citizenship would be the only way.
Is this an absolutist view? Darn right, and about time we got back to putting freedom and liberty above what passes for security these days, which is often nothing but a chimera.
Don't like my absolutist views? Fine, that's your right..until you sign it away these days.
I'm just sayin'...
Monday, October 31, 2011
Term Limits For Politicians: The Good & The Bad
THIS MAY SHOCK YOU, but...
I do not support term limits on elected officials.
Two basic reasons:
1--it is not a limit on the office holder, but on my right to vote for someone. If it's a good person, I want to be able to vote to keep them in office--more to follow. And if it's a bad person, I want them to know I voted against them. Does that mean I run the risk a majority may not agree with me and vote to keep a "bad person" in office? Yup, and isn't that what choice and freedom is all about. If I have no choice, I have no freedom.
2--as I look at places with term limits, there never has been a problem with finding a second bad candidate to follow the first. It's finding good candidates that's the problem, and when we do find them, we need to keep them in office, not subject them to some arbitrary limit. Case in point: Crit Luallen. She has been a great auditor watching over taxpayers' money; finding graft and corruption from Frankfort to very small counties (where local officials and the media either couldn't or wouldn't find it themselves). The next auditor may be splendid, but is an unknown quantity now. Crit's great record we do know, and she's being forced out of office.
That's why I dislike term limits.
OK, voting. You will seldom, if ever, hear me say citizens should be FORCED to do something, but I do think people should be forced to vote! There is no guarantee a 99% turnout would make better decisions than a 20% turnout--which we had in one recent governor's race, but the odds definitely favor a better decision with more voting.
And I would give incentives to vote; maybe a discount on taxes, half price car licenses, more precincts, easier rules for absentee voting (but not too long a time or lax rules easily subject to manipulation), and some negative incentives too; a fine if you don't, gotta take your license over again each year if you don't, (grab people by their car keys and their minds will follow!), 2% added to property taxes, etc.
For all of you who shout.."that's undemocratic!", it may be..but so is electing people to run our democratic government units..from constable to president..on a steadily diminishing voter turnout.
If you don't like my plan, come up with your own to get more people to vote.
Nothing but the future of our country depends on it.
I'm just sayin'...
I do not support term limits on elected officials.
Two basic reasons:
1--it is not a limit on the office holder, but on my right to vote for someone. If it's a good person, I want to be able to vote to keep them in office--more to follow. And if it's a bad person, I want them to know I voted against them. Does that mean I run the risk a majority may not agree with me and vote to keep a "bad person" in office? Yup, and isn't that what choice and freedom is all about. If I have no choice, I have no freedom.
2--as I look at places with term limits, there never has been a problem with finding a second bad candidate to follow the first. It's finding good candidates that's the problem, and when we do find them, we need to keep them in office, not subject them to some arbitrary limit. Case in point: Crit Luallen. She has been a great auditor watching over taxpayers' money; finding graft and corruption from Frankfort to very small counties (where local officials and the media either couldn't or wouldn't find it themselves). The next auditor may be splendid, but is an unknown quantity now. Crit's great record we do know, and she's being forced out of office.
That's why I dislike term limits.
OK, voting. You will seldom, if ever, hear me say citizens should be FORCED to do something, but I do think people should be forced to vote! There is no guarantee a 99% turnout would make better decisions than a 20% turnout--which we had in one recent governor's race, but the odds definitely favor a better decision with more voting.
And I would give incentives to vote; maybe a discount on taxes, half price car licenses, more precincts, easier rules for absentee voting (but not too long a time or lax rules easily subject to manipulation), and some negative incentives too; a fine if you don't, gotta take your license over again each year if you don't, (grab people by their car keys and their minds will follow!), 2% added to property taxes, etc.
For all of you who shout.."that's undemocratic!", it may be..but so is electing people to run our democratic government units..from constable to president..on a steadily diminishing voter turnout.
If you don't like my plan, come up with your own to get more people to vote.
Nothing but the future of our country depends on it.
I'm just sayin'...
Monday, October 24, 2011
THE MOTE IN THINE OWN EYE
In the euphoria over the President's announcement that our troops, including many Kentuckians, will soon be home from Iraq, comes the carping opposition of many GOP candidates; who seem to forget the original deadline was set by President Bush.
We forget so much about foreign affairs and it often comes back to haunt us.
Take the recent announcement by the US of the arrest of an American in a scheme to kill the Saudi ambassador, a scheme we claim was sponsored by Iran. Assuming the U-S is right, this time, and that's a big assumption, let's pause and consider a few details. This is a bizarre plot in which the U-S alleges a Texas used car salesman asked a woman he hardly knew to find him a Mexican drug cartel hit-man to carry out the plot. As we wait for more "facts", let's not forget our own recent history.
Take what Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, the GOP chair of the House Intelligence committee told CBS upon the plot's being made public..."Do you want a nation (Iran) that is actively involved in assassination in a foreign land, for political purposes, possessing nuclear weapons. I think no one, no rational person, will come to the conclusion that that's a good idea."
Let me see..."a nation with nuclear weapons", such as the U-S??.."actively involved in assassination in a foreign land, for political purposes", such as the U-S?? Have we forgotten Chile in the 1970's; where the U-S did everything but send troops to overthrow the democratically elected Pres. Allende because he was a Socialist--and as all good conservatives such as Henry Kissinger knew, "a Socialist is but a Communist on the installment plan."
The U-S conspired to bring General Pinochet to power, Allende was killed, and thousands more died in Chilean prisons (some were even tossed alive from military planes into the Pacific from ten thousand feet). Pinochet ruled for years as a cruel dictator until even Chile had had enough and tossed him out.
But not before Pinochet not only tried, but actually assassinated a former Allende official by exploding a bomb under his car in downtown Washington! That blast also killed at least one American riding with him. (To this day there is considerable suspicion, but no definite proof, the U-S government was deeply involved in at least the Allende overthrow if not also the Lettelier assassination.)
Et tu, Congressman Rogers?
All of this history, even if known, didn't stop one of the GOP's top hawks, Rep. Peter King and even Vice-President Biden from telling Iran "all options are on the table." That's Washington-speak for "we are considering war against you" and is designed to scare Iran.
I doubt that Iran will be scared, but it scares the hell out of me.
I'm just sayin'...
We forget so much about foreign affairs and it often comes back to haunt us.
Take the recent announcement by the US of the arrest of an American in a scheme to kill the Saudi ambassador, a scheme we claim was sponsored by Iran. Assuming the U-S is right, this time, and that's a big assumption, let's pause and consider a few details. This is a bizarre plot in which the U-S alleges a Texas used car salesman asked a woman he hardly knew to find him a Mexican drug cartel hit-man to carry out the plot. As we wait for more "facts", let's not forget our own recent history.
Take what Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, the GOP chair of the House Intelligence committee told CBS upon the plot's being made public..."Do you want a nation (Iran) that is actively involved in assassination in a foreign land, for political purposes, possessing nuclear weapons. I think no one, no rational person, will come to the conclusion that that's a good idea."
Let me see..."a nation with nuclear weapons", such as the U-S??.."actively involved in assassination in a foreign land, for political purposes", such as the U-S?? Have we forgotten Chile in the 1970's; where the U-S did everything but send troops to overthrow the democratically elected Pres. Allende because he was a Socialist--and as all good conservatives such as Henry Kissinger knew, "a Socialist is but a Communist on the installment plan."
The U-S conspired to bring General Pinochet to power, Allende was killed, and thousands more died in Chilean prisons (some were even tossed alive from military planes into the Pacific from ten thousand feet). Pinochet ruled for years as a cruel dictator until even Chile had had enough and tossed him out.
But not before Pinochet not only tried, but actually assassinated a former Allende official by exploding a bomb under his car in downtown Washington! That blast also killed at least one American riding with him. (To this day there is considerable suspicion, but no definite proof, the U-S government was deeply involved in at least the Allende overthrow if not also the Lettelier assassination.)
Et tu, Congressman Rogers?
All of this history, even if known, didn't stop one of the GOP's top hawks, Rep. Peter King and even Vice-President Biden from telling Iran "all options are on the table." That's Washington-speak for "we are considering war against you" and is designed to scare Iran.
I doubt that Iran will be scared, but it scares the hell out of me.
I'm just sayin'...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)