When Do the LIES Get an Innocent Person Hurt?

Sarah Palin, the birthers, and the town hall protesters are quite simply, LIARS! When will the lies of these characters cause some innocent person to get hurt? When will the lies of these characters get one of our Secret Service Agents hurt or cause one of our agents to hurt an innocent citizen or one of them? Our Secret Service Agents are going to protect our officials at all cost and they are going to do it with integrity. The specter of guns being brought to civil gatherings is just the ingredient that will move us down roads I don’t think we want to go.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Kostric has the strength of his convictions since he felt it was necessary to ridiculously wear a pistol to the Obama Town Hall Meeting. I sincerely hope he understands that his behavior has raised the curiosity of some of our most elite law enforcement agencies and until they determine that he is not a threat to society he is going to be tracked and quite frankly the tracking will undoubtedly be done through a law enforcement gun scope.

This is not a joke. This truly delusional crowd is so caught up in their passions that I’m beginning to think that they are not cognizant of their environment and don’t realize that there are level-headed individuals who have not been spun up by the lies being told by opportunistic politicians and commentators; level-headed individuals who are sworn to protect our public officials and will protect them in the most responsive and efficient manner!

Delusion has the tendency to cause one not to be in touch with his environment how else could you harbor fixed false beliefs that are resistant to reason or confrontation with ACTUAL FACT. Our protection agencies have been conducting themselves in a highly professional manner unlike those who would behave in a manner that could spark an incident that could put the lives of our Secret Service Agents at risk. Chris Matthews attempted to explain to Mr. Kostric that there are many things legal in our society that adults refrain from doing in a public setting. However Mr. Kostric seems bent on satisfying the lying politicians, commentators, Obama haters or is simply in need of making some point that seems to be lost on most of society?

The politician Sarah Palin has been a LIAR and one of the most DISHONEST people since she stepped onto the national stage. She doesn’t seem to be affected by the outright rejection that was visited upon her in last year’s election after the electorate discovered who she really was. In a way I think it is important for the Sarah Palin type personalities in this country to become as visible as they have in recent days and to continue to do some of what the majority of society would designate as aberrant behavior; whether it is making up outright LIES like the “death panel” comment, the kooks protesting at the town hall meetings, the deranged commentator babbling incoherently about things the government is doing that he knows are not true, or legally wearing a firearm to a public meeting. With Mr. Kostric wearing his firearm to the public meeting he has effectively diminished any threat that he would have on society because with that compulsion to don the firearm in public, he placed himself and most likely any of his associates into the limelight.

Their visibility lets us know who they are, what they’re thinking, and how they feel. Sure in some cases we will have to endure some ugliness because of some of the things they might say or do. We all understand that their motivations are based in a HATRED of any possible success of Barack Obama. Plain and simple! In my profession we call this “the root cause”. The root cause of the behavior of these individuals at these town hall meeting is a HATRED of Barack Obama. I have termed this behavior Obama-agora-phonemophobia which is a fear of Obama combined with the fear of thinking for oneself and the fear of unfamiliar surroundings. The Obama-agora-phonemophobiac would rather see this country FAIL and FAIL miserably than to ever face the prospect of having to say that Barack Obama was successful or worse yet accept him as their leader. The Obama-agora-phonemophobiac shies away from reading and developing individual thoughts. He relies heavily on interpretations of current events through the eyes and voices of lying politicians and commentators who provide him with his daily doses of thought. Because they are motivated by HATRED at least we know how to deal with them. Their exposure denies them the ability and luxury of wrapping themselves in Bible verse, the American flag, the constitution, or the Pledge of Allegiance because we all know now that in the past they used those icons to rationalize and JUSTIFY their IMMORAL behavior.

What concerned citizens need to do is step up whenever we hear these LIES and call each and every one perpetrating them a LIAR. Sarah Palin should have been immediately discredited and branded a LIAR as soon as she made the ridiculous comment about death panels. Once again this is not a joke and Sarah Palin is an adult and should behave as such. She should have suffered a loss of public confidence because she could no longer be trusted to be honest in her assessment and portrayal of public policy.

When we see folks shouting incoherently at these town hall meetings, concerned citizens need to let them know that their behavior is indicated on someone who wants to disrupt the meeting rather than one looking to voice any legitimate concerns they might have in a civil manner. They do this by shouting silly speeches made up of passages from the bible, the constitution, or disingenuously recite the pledge of allegiance. The concerned citizen needs to let the disrupters know that they are there for civil discourse and demand from the Congressperson conducting the meeting that order be established! The concerned citizen needs to ask the disruptors to articulate their concerns. Make them state their concerns in a clear and concise manner instead of allowing them to recite those silly speeches. These individuals speak about our civil liberties and why that is the driver for their behavior but nowhere has the behavior of citizens in our society been so disrespectful, ill-mannered, and rude of late. When we hear them making claims about the “healthcare bill” they should be called the LIARS they are because not a single one of them has read the “healthcare bill” because quite frankly it doesn’t exist yet. But LIARS care less about reality.

We have our right to speak but every right brings with it responsibility and our right to speak comes with the responsibility that we will respect the speech of others. I guess it would be easy to blame the media because it caters to the laziness of our citizens. We no longer have trusted agents in journalism although CNN likes to say that it is the “most trusted name in news” and FOX likes to claim that it is “fair and balanced”. Neither of these news organizations can be trusted to deliver information in an objective manner. But what are we to expect? Those organizations are made up of some of the same type characters we see at the town halls or the characters who make up LIES about the president’s policies. It shouldn’t be a surprise to any of us when we see the foolishness that has been fueling some of the most graphic displays of HATRED we’ve seen in a long time. This HATRED is being manifested in aberrant behavior by our citizens and it is certainly my hope that it doesn’t move beyond the level it is at today. Lets hope for a recession.

wildweezle(© Wildweezle Enterprises)

Advertisements

Stupid is as stupid does.

Ladies and Gentlemen I present to you the Three Stooges; Professor Henry Louis Gates, Sergeant James Crowley, and President Barack Hussein Obama. I’m compelled to comment on the “The Cambridge MA Arrest Incident”. Have you ever seen three very important men in our society act in such an immature manner? Whether it was a celebrated and accomplished policeman and professor caught up in a snit with neither one willing to back down or the president who decides to speak out for a friend.

So now this trio’s little snit dominates the news with just about everyone acting in a kneejerk manner and choosing sides. My fellow citizens, when are we going to stop doing this? Especially the TV and Radio pundits who are so geared to suck a dollar out of every incident we are faced with. They have analyzed this incident to death. Let me just say, this incident doesn’t demand any detail analysis or scrutiny beyond the first three minutes of the initial encounter between the policeman and the professor.

It is proven that when doing a root cause analysis of any incident involving two or more adults it is safe to say that the root cause can be found within the first 3 minutes of the encounter. It is no different for the Sgt. James Crowley and Professor Louis Gates encounter. As a matter of fact this is a classic adult encounter that turned ugly and what is really interesting is that it is documented and described brilliantly in Sgt. James Crowley’s police report. Anyone who goes farther than the first 3 minutes of this encounter is simply looking to generate trouble or is driven to defend one or more of the participants for personal reasons. It is imperative that we all learn to be objective and fair in these matters or at a minimum give the impression that we are, especially our friends in the media.

Well let’s just sum it up.

The police report can be found here:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/download/2009/0720/20120754.pdf

Using Sgt. James Crowley’s police report, is there anywhere in his report that describes the first 3 minutes of his encounter with Professor Gates? By George, as luck would have it, look at paragraph 1, page 2, and sentences 1 through 7. You can now see why Sgt. Crowley’s fellow officers and all of the police unions have high regard for him. In these 7 sentences he has described in detail the initial 3 minutes and those 7 sentences tell us everything we need in order to understand what happened.

We know that the dutiful officer Sgt. Crowley was placed at the scene by responding to a possible home invasion crime at Professor Gates’ home address because he was close by. We also know that Professor Gates was placed at the scene because, well quite frankly, it turns out to be his home.

After arriving at the scene Sgt. Crowley spoke with the concerned neighbor after which he turns and walks up the stairs to Professor Gates’ door. He observed an older gentleman in the home and he made sure that he was in plain view so that the older gentleman could see him. Well it is safe to say they both could see each other. Sgt. Crowley asked the older gentleman, “will you step onto to the porch and speak with me”.

Well this was the beginning of the end. You know what’s missing in this report from the otherwise brilliant description of the first 3 minutes of the incident is, what was Sgt. Crowley observing Professor Gates doing while they both stood in plain view of each other? Would a suspected burglar continue to burglarize while in plain view of a police officer? Hmmm.

So Professor Gates responded to Sgt. Crowley’ request to come outside onto the porch and speak with him with, “no I will not” and demanded to know who the officer was. Okay, does anyone out there besides me see where this “National Snit” could have ended right here?

Sgt. Crowley, being in plain view of someone doesn’t verify or validate that you are really a police officer. Oh and Sgt. Crowley, if you haven’t reached out to the community and the citizens don’t know you, have you ever stopped to think that you might be seen as a stranger until proven otherwise? We teach our citizens from the time that they are able to understand to “never open the door for a stranger”. Since the national media has made this a “right or wrong” issue, please someone, tell me what was wrong with Professor Gates demanding to know who the officer was?

Anyway, escalation is occurring. A routine police call is beginning to spin out of control. Spin out of control? Well let’s address this because since this is police initiated activity it is incumbent upon the law enforcement officer to maintain order while enforcing the law. It is his responsibility to ensure that it doesn’t escalate into anything higher.

So how would Sgt. Crowley maintain order while enforcing the law? Well according to his fellow officers, the police unions, all the right-wing pundits (my God, who let them into this discussion), and the remaining apologist for how Sgt. Crowley behaved, this seemingly routine investigation should have been a walk in the park for such a celebrated officer. It should never have resulted in an arrest.

 Presentation and messaging, oh my. You know, I’m still baffled and confused as to why Sgt. Crowley felt that just because he was in plain view that someone should just accept the fact that he was a police officer. A uniform does not a police officer make that is why they have a badge and an ID. It should not have been unreasonable for citizen Gates to request this information if he were skeptical.

If Sgt. Crowley is as accomplished as all of his fellow officers and the police unions swear he is, I’m certain that he could have calmed the situation by simply providing information identifying himself to Professor Gates. It amazes me that the right-wing fools out there especially the “birthers” always say, “Well President Obama could shut down this cry about him not being a citizen by providing a birth certificate”. Now they use a different standard for this police officer. Why? Oh I know why just thought I would tease you.

So Sgt. Crowley’s approach agitated Professor Gates as well it should have. We also see that after the initial 3 minutes that the whole idea about a possible crime in progress flies right out the window. It is safe to say that we can stop reading the remainder of the police report because now, the EGOS have landed! It is now the accomplished and celebrated officer against the accomplished and celebrated professor.

You must all forgive me but I’m still trying to understand why Officer Crowley feels that one should take his word that he is a police officer simply because he said he was. Maybe an officer who has made outreach into the community could be afforded such an attitude but someone who hasn’t…. hmmm I don’t know. This confuses me.

Okay, I won’t insult your intelligence anymore because we all see the “stupidity here and why the incident spun out of control. But I do have a question for the Sgt. Crowley apologists. Would you just step outside of your house if a supposed policeman who you weren’t familiar with came to your door and asked you to step outside? We know you wouldn’t and we also know you would demand more information before you came anywhere near your door and unlocked it.

Professor Gates’ should never have had to ask Sgt. Crowley who he was!

I repeat, Sgt. Crowley should never have had to ask Sgt. Crowley who he was!

That courtesy should have been a key component of Sgt. Crowley’s presentation and it wasn’t and what’s worse is that all of his fellow officers and the police unions actually see a stellar performance by Sgt. Crowley. That is another tease you moment. Once again, the danger in this is that citizens are being asked to accept anyone in uniform as being official until proven otherwise. That is really a dangerous proposition.

So now that the situation has boiled over it is time to see whose feelings end up getting hurt. Sides are being taken and teams are being formed. Someone has to come out a winner. Someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. Where are the folks out there who think that both of guys are A–holes?

So the accomplished Harvard Professor who apparently had to break into his home because either he lost his key or suddenly forgot how to use it. Did the professor ever stop to think that maybe his breaking into his home might cause a noise that would startle neighbors? Did the professor ever stop to think that someone might have witnessed his actions and became concerned? Did the Professor ever stop to think that the job of a policeman is to investigate crimes, even possible crimes?

Why didn’t Professor Gates take the opportunity to rise above the situation and de-escalate the rising tensions? Even if Professor Gates was in his home why couldn’t he take the opportunity to explain his concerns to the officer? After all he is an accomplished and celebrated teacher and mentor as those defending him would have you believe. Why didn’t he take the opportunity to make a difference by stepping up and taking the lead? His actions could have gone a long way in helping police relations especially in those minority communities that the President mentioned in his response. Improving police relations in our communities is not a one-way street. Improved community relations are not just going to happen because we want the officers to be more sensitive and correct their behavior. It is imperative that all of us especially in the minority communities do our parts in helping our law enforcement officials understand our concerns. Professor Gates missed a very important teaching moment. Why? You know why, I’m just teasing you.

Well what would a good domestic dispute between two hard-headed EGOS be without dragging the president of United States into it? Mr. Obama infamously described the Cambridge Police Department as having behaved stupidly in this incident? So all hell broke loose and what does the President do? He backs away from his comment instead of making every person do homework and read the police report. I guarantee you that after he had read the description of the first 3 minutes of the encounter between Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates; he would use words stronger than stupidly.

But the President’s problem was that he was at a presidents press conference and took the side of his friend over the police officer. Does anyone other than me see the problem here? Mr. Obama stood in Grant Park on election night and told us he would be the president of all Americans. As President Mr. Obama you don’t have the luxury of being biased. I understand that you explained that you didn’t have all of the facts so at that point he should have withheld judgment. You certainly should have used that moment as a teaching moment and describe how Professor Gates could have gone a long way in helping to improve community relations by speaking to the officer about his concerns rather than shouting across the entire Eastern Seaboard that the kid was racist. After all Mr. President you have been taking a lot of criticism of late about your message of personal responsibility during speeches to African-American audiences. Shouldn’t your African-American friend Mr. Gates have taken personal responsibility and helped Sgt. Crowley understand his concerns? Fair and balance Mr. President.

Well as I said before anything in Sgt. Crowley’s police report past the 7th sentence of paragraph one of page 2 is totally irrelevant to the argument. After that point what is documented in the report is a cause to have both of them placed in time-out or better yet arrested and booked.

I realize that everyone has a bad day or an off day. I’m willing to give all three of these gentlemen the benefit of the doubt. The best thing that can happen is for them to go out and get drunk and work out their issues. Afterwards they owe the American public an apology for bringing us into such a childish snit.

By the way for the leaders at the Cambridge Police Department who have read this police report especially paragraph 1 of page 2 which describes the initial encounter between Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates; if you don’t understand the gross breakdown in Sgt. Crowley’s presentation then you should be removed from your leadership roles in law enforcement immediately.

wildweezle(© Wildweezle Enterprises)

Where Will the Opposition Come From?

As the American Political System transforms, evolves, and moves forward there is however a wasteland where failed ideas, opinions, strategies, and politicians are cast aside. That wasteland contains many notables such as Richard Nixon, Ross Perot, and Spiro T Agnew, Mark Foley, the list is long; Hillary Clinton’s original health plan; the original Iraq War Strategy, and a viable third party in US politics, all seemed at the time to be well thought out and possibly successful, but were later discredited. Well that junkyard is about to get some more scrap heap in the way of political strategy and methodologies, politicians, and political obstructionist if the 2008 presidential election goes the way it is going two days prior to the election.

As the election season draws to a close with the possibility of major change in the air, a change that the electorate hungers for, a change that could grant ruling party status in both the executive and legislative branches of our government. The American electorate hungers for an effective government, a responsive government, and an efficiently run government so it seems to be flexing its power in this election cycle by this authority to the Democratic Party. The Electorate seems to have matured and transformed and does not fear the prospects of a Democratic President and a Democratic majority Congress.

The electorate also hungers for effective and responsive opposition. But to the American Electorate, opposition is not obstruction. For years the electorate has witnessed our government paralyzed by the obstructionist processes of our political institutions which have caused deterioration of our political institutions and its operations. The opposition view can be best described using the table view principle. Place objects on a square table and seat a person at each end of the table. Ask each to draw and describe what they see on the table. The responses you receive will be different. Why, because each person will have a different viewpoint of the table. In some cases the responses could be the same depending on what is seen and how it is viewed. The importance is that viewpoints are not right or wrong (left or right) but necessary in order to understand the makeup of the table. The most complete picture is in the combination of all of the viewpoints of the table.

For 30 – 40 years it has been chic to define opposition as being obstructionist even manifesting itself in our media where several news organizations have willingly participated in this strategy. The definition of opposition is not the person or group whose focus is resistance, combat, antagonism, and hostility. It is the person or group that provides the opposing view designed to ensure that a more complete view is attained at all times. The value of the opposition party is to present those viewpoints that are different from the dominant party to ensure the complete picture. The American Electorate has transformed and it defines opposition far differently than the media and certainly the McCain campaign defines it.

Those practicing obstruction strive to IMPEDE, DELAY, BLOCK, and UNDERMINE the political process as with the use of the filibuster as a weapon rather than a tool in a Congress that isn’t veto-proof. Because the definition of opposition has changed, the electorate doesn’t fear the possibility of a veto-proof Congress because it has seen the stalemates for many years in our political institutions and find them no longer acceptable. Opposition is not the action of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannan, and Bill O’Reilly, these are obstructionists whose actions do not bring value to the smooth execution of the government process but seeks to undermine differing viewpoints causing chokepoints in our government. It is safe to say that attempts to undermine any possible Obama presidency are underway in full swing.

So where is that opposition going to come from? Do you get the sense that it will not come from the current Republican Party? A party with a clear leadership vacuum; A party that has demonstrated that it does not understand transformation; A party that refused to refine the strategy and messages that were being delivered during this election cycle; A party that went in with a strategy to discredit Barack Obama at all levels, from the presidency down to local campaigns. Their message and party was rejected by the greater electorate but they stuck to it even to the point where it seems as if they are about to ride it over a cliff. Colin Powell described this strategy and the message as nonsensical.

The leadership failings of the current Republican Party are dramatic. This leadership vacuum allowed the selection of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate when there were numerous qualified individuals available for nomination. The Republican Party does not realize the size of the hole that was dug here. The electorate overwhelmingly rejected Sarah Palin and what will the other qualified individuals who were not selected do? They will in 4 years ask us to consider casting our vote for them. However, none of these individuals will be able to convince the electorate that they are worthy because in this year’s election they were deemed to be less qualified than Sarah Palin, who is perhaps the most embarrassing and least qualified candidate ever.

So where will our opposition politics come from?

Judging from this year’s response to Ralph Nader is he still effective?

Should the Republican Party have a Come-to-Jesus, evaluate itself, perhaps change, split, or just dissolve?

There could be a ray of hope out there. Over the past several weeks we’ve seen numerous Republicans and conservatives come out in support of Barack Obama. Many of those endorsements could be considered protest endorsements but for the majority most were the results of well thought-out analysis and presented in a manner that was professional and respectful of our political system. These endorsements have come from individuals, groups, and organizations.

So where are the seeds of our parliamentary and social opposition for the next governing cycle?

So let’s explore?

Michael Smerconish, a registered Republican and conservative talk radio host broke with 28 years of personal tradition and decided to endorse Barack Obama. In the era of political party allegiance this is a mortal sin as witnessed by the amount of messages disagreeing with his decision and choice. But could there be a silver lining in Mr. Smerconish’s action? I think so. Mr. Smerconish two days prior to Mr. Conlin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama released the results of the analysis that led him to his decision. His analysis included several categories of interest, such as leadership, analytical abilities, foreign policy, etc. It was an extremely detailed analysis and I’m sure that Mr. Smerconish knew that he would encounter allegiance issues if he were to accept the conclusions of his analysis and endorse Mr. Obama. But Mr. Smerconish demonstrated leadership and strength and did what was required of him in supporting the best solution.

So Michael Smerconish had an America First Moment (AFM), defined as behaving in a manner that takes into consideration the effects of personal behavior and decisions on the American Community prior to acting. Michael’s willingness to consider the American Community was a true America First Moment. But will Mr. Smerconish have the enabling infrastructure in which to present his opposition views in the Republican Party; If not the Republican Party then where? Mr. Smerconish’s support of Mr. Obama was critical but his opposition views will be more critical.

The most visible of the cross-over endorsements was of course Colin Powell. Mr. Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama like Mr. Smerconish’s was extremely well thought-out. He even mentioned that he toiled over his decision for months. Mr. Powell gave a comprehensive endorsement of Barack Obama. He listed his reasons in a clear, concise, and succinct manner so all could see which categories were important to him and how he arrived at this important decision

Colin Powell showed the utmost respect to our nation, and its political institutions, and to the men and women who have died granting us the opportunity to vote and some who will give their lives today in far-away lands to guarantee our rights to vote. Colin Powell did not belittle the process by standing on his front porch and shouting out his endorsement of Mr. Obama. Mr. Powell labored over this decision for many months by spending the time researching and analyzing the behavior and character of both candidates and only then did he arrive at his decision. This type of analysis was lost on Tom Brokow, Pat Buchannan, and Rush Limbaugh who entertained the thought that his decision was based on race. Mr. Powell’s actions were clearly an American First Moment!

So Mr. Powell becomes another possible opposition because he has emphatically stated that he remains a Republican and if the Republican Party survives it will be important for Mr. Powell to be a key voice of opposition.

We now visit the media as a voice of opposition. Barack Obama has dominated media endorsements. We focus on many which are well known as conservative and have endorsed Republican candidates in recent elections:

1.       The Denver Post

2.       The Chicago Tribune

3.       Austin American-Statesman

4.       The Salt Lake Tribune

5.       Wisconsin State Journal

6.       Houston Chronicle

It is the Houston Chronicle that we will focus on because the endorsements of the other newspapers followed the same analysis that was so detailed in the Houston Chronicle. The Houston Chronicle known as a conservative media outlet, analyzed several categories of concern prior to reaching a decision: VP Choice; Terrorism; Economy; Opportunity; taxes, Healthcare; Social Concerns; Intellect and temperament; Ability to build coalitions; Foreign Policy; Analytical thinking; etc. In all cases with the exception of terrorism the Houston Chronicle arrived at the conclusion that Barack Obama was the most capable candidate.

Opposition will demand that a substantial portion of our news media offer vigilance over a possible one rule government. As long as the opposition being presented is the different viewpoints of the problem space then the American Public will benefit substantially and the media could be an important enabling infrastructure and platform for the presentation of opposition views.

Once again, opposition in the media is not the actions of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannan, and Bill O’Reilly. Obstructionism will not find a place in the politics of our future. Our media should be finding ways to enable opposition viewpoints now and not ways to enable the undermining of our government institutions.

This is just a small analysis of the potential opposition resources that could play a key role in our future governing body. There are many other possible voices such as well known conservatives like Christopher Buckley, members of the Goldwater family, and others who will have to find or provide the enabling infrastructure in which to present opposition views especially if the Republican Party fails to transform itself.

Regardless, on November 5, 2008 when the RENAISSANCE begins, our government will not operate as it has in the past and each of us will have a responsibility to ensure its success. The difference will come in those who will take ownership!

Wildweezle (© Wildweezle Enterprises)