Posts Tagged ‘monarchs’

Is it just me, or are things amiss?

Times are interesting to say the least.  Our president is working overtime to extend olive branches to people all across the planet, but wagging a stern finger at those of us in the US who seek to make profits providing a service to others.

I read much about our foreign policy and the strategy of undoing the terrible decisions of the predecessor administration.  To that end, we are “reaching out” to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Russia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon.  We respect them.  We seek to listen to them. We hope for them.  We believe that treating them with respect and dialoguing on the high road will encourage them to act in ways that benefit the citizens of their countries and the world.  We are giving these leaders the benefit of the doubt.  Long before they demonstrate fair dealing, we honor them as if they already have the Noble Peace Prize.

Contrast that theme with the treatment of our own managers, business people and entrepreneurs.  In a variety of sectors including, banking, financial services, mortgage lending, insurance, and autos, our corporate leaders are cast as villains.  In less than one year, they have been summarily fired, suppressed, demoted, penalized, criticized and otherwise scapegoated after years of demonstrating honorable service to their respective organizations or to our systems of commerce.  Where is the benefit of the doubt?  Why not take the high road?

I am at a loss to understand why our own citizens are not worthy of the grace and understanding that we offer leaders of other nations?  It seems to me that the current administration has it backwards.  Invite dialogue with the leaders of US businesses and lecture the world leaders.  Encourage those in our economy who offer jobs and support the pursuit of happiness, and speak harshly to those who threaten our life and liberty.

Who is the enemy?

I read the weekend Wall Street Journal interview of Mrs. Clinton with great interest.  I have written before that I was confused by the current administration’s direction with foreign policy, especially with regards to Latin America, and I was hoping that this article would help me understand their rationale.  Unfortunately, it didn’t speak to Latin America at all (shame on you, WSJ, for not hitting this after all the good articles you have written on this topic).  And, unfortunately (again), she was quoted in ways that make me very nervous.

Before I mention why these quotes made me cringe, I will let you read them below.

“First I think it is important to stress that human rights remain a central driving force of our foreign policy,” she says. “But I also think that it’s important to look at human rights more broadly than it has been defined. Human rights are also the right to a good job and shelter over your head and a chance to send your kids to school and get health care when your wife is pregnant. It’s a much broader agenda. Too often it has gotten narrowed to our detriment.”

and

“I always start from the conviction that countries act from their own self-interest as they define them. Part of diplomacy is to open different definitions of self-interest,” she says.

Ok, now that you read them, let’s take the first one.  Does anyone else find her statements to be contradictory?  If human rights are central to their mission, how can they place some of them (and I will argue that the dominant right is freedom of thought and action) below others?  To state that our administration places good jobs, shelter, education, and healthcare above freedom is very tough for me to swallow.  How is it different than if the North decided to settle with the South when it came to slavery by stating that the South was going to focus more efforts on providing their slaves with a nice shelter (basement or horse stall), a good job (picking produce), schooling (how best to pick the most produce in the 16 hour workday), and healthcare for your pregnant wife (so that the slave owner will have another work-hand in a few years time)?

Implicit in her statement is a failing of respect for the fundamental right to be free.  Something I have mentioned many, many times is the sickness of the current administration to focus on ends rather than means.  She will succeed at getting an agreement from Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia that states that they will lower their carbon emissions, add more aid to build schools, or whatever so that she can then claim victory in advancing human rights.  But she will be fooling herself and others.  She has accomplished nothing other than legitimizing dictators since they can at any time withdrawal the “gifts” they have given to their subjects.

Moving on to the second quote, she shows her hand by suggesting that countries act from their own self-interests.  It’s not countries, its the current despots, dictators, monarchs that act from their own self-interests.  As long as our government recognizes them and diverts the discussion away from advancing individual freedoms, these rulers strengthen their position in their country and increase their control over their people.

This interview just added to the concern that I have that our current administration either doesn’t understand the fundamental right to be free or, worse, doesn’t agree with it.

I don’t get it. I thought Mr. Obama and his administration were for the ‘common man’ and the protection of individual rights. If so, why, in the last two weeks, has he come out in favor for authoritative rulers? A week ago, he was against “meddling” in the affairs of Iran’s elections, worried about upsetting the tyrants that have been spreading fear and misery all over the Middle East. And now, he comes out in favor of the recently ex-president of Honduras, saying that he, Mr. Obama, will not recognize the new government of Honduras.

Yes, on the face of it, it does look like the president was removed by the army in a coup. But, in reality, the president was ignoring the constitution and attempting to strengthen his control over the people of Honduras. From what I understand, this wannabe dictator, Mr. Zelaya, wanted to throw out the constitution because it didn’t fit with his plans. The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that he was violating the constitution and ordered the army to detain him and then swore in the head of the congress as interim president. Sounds like the army was actually defending the people’s constitution and Mr. Zelaya was attempting to produce yet another Latin American dictatorship.

I’m becoming increasingly concerned Mr. Obama doesn’t know right from wrong. For a better read on the current events in Honduras, I would recommend Mary Anastasia O’Grady’s article.

Is anyone else getting uncomfortable with every new  employee of the current administration being labeled a czar?  When did it become acceptable to refer to a government employee as a king, monarch, or ruler?  Please note that those being labeled czars are not elected politicians, but appointed officials.  We have the auto czar, the banking czar, the healthcare czar, the global warming czar, and now the regulatory czar.  Maybe we have more and I’ve been oblivious to it (more than fair odds that it true). 

What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing! I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal & fallacious! – George Washington

To state clearly, I have no reason to be against any of these individuals holding some position within the government as I know very little about them.  But to willingly give them titles as mini dictators makes my stomach turn. 

What I find even more disgusting is the media’s acceptance of this term.  They appear to proudly endorse this type of talk by placing it in headlines on the front pages rather than condemning it in editorials.  Maybe this is too romantic a thought, but I was hoping journalists would question and test the actions of government, not endorse their power to dictate.