LJWorld.com

As I read the news this morning, I couldn't avoid (even if I wanted to) discussion of the budget. Since President Obama issued his budget proposal, there have been never-ending stories about it. How much money is going where, who is getting the money, who isn't, etc, etc...

One of the most interesting stories was in the New York Times. Actually, it isn't the story that caught my eye, it was one of their interactive graphics on the side of the page. It compared (in graphic form) the projected state of the budget with what actually happened. It starts in the late 90s. It shows Clinton's and Bush's anticipated economic state with each budget delivered. The varyance compared to what happened is intriguing. Clinton's budget in '96 did not anticipate the revenue and surplus of the end of the century, and Bush's '06 budget planned for good time; neither event happened. I recommend taking a look at it.

But one of the issues with the issuance of the budget is fascinating to me (this is actually the point of this entry); the discussion of the deficit. Basically, so many of the stories predict dire consequences if the deficit continues into the future (ranging from mild national discomfort to the end of the republic) . I agree the deficit needs to be dealt with, but the suggested solutions vary radically.

It makes me think of what worked in the past. How did we deal with it previously? So many comparisons compare our situation to the Great Depression (the 1937 recession is one of the points being used to defend the lack of belt-tightening President Obama is proposing). But, I can't help return to WWII (the so-called Greatest Generation) to see how they dealt with it. We often forget that during WWII, the federal government expanded the tax base to virtually everyone in the country, in other words the government raised taxes, a lot! Prior to WWII, the tax exemption line actually meant something; if you didn't make enough money, one didn't have to pay. That tax exemption line was lowered enough so that no-one would be excluded from paying. I know, I know; there was a war on and it demanded hard measures. However, the tax policy didn't return to the higher level when the war ended. It stayed right where it was.

I listen to the talk of cutting taxes to spur economic growth. I agree with that, but to a point. I think that may only go so far. I can't see any subsitute for increasing revenue through higher taxes to realistically reduce the deficit and return the US budget to solvency. Then, just maybe, we can discuss what should be the real issue in economic policy...how to reduce the national debt.

What shocked you the most about the State of the Union speech this week?

President Obama made some interesting remarks during the speech. He said, point blank, that he is going to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy regarding gays and homosexuals in the military. When President Clinton tried to lift the ban, initially; there was practically a revolt in the military. This policy was the best he get. Will it cause a furor again?

How about his remarks regarding the Supreme Court, and the decision he disagrees with unleashing restrictions on corporate contributions to political campaigns. Among the hundreds of people in the House chamber, it only took five of them to change decades of campaign contribution law.

Was it his defense of his health care plan? Should he have defended it more, or do you think he is simply rolling over and letting it die?

There are many other issues in the speech that could be added to this list. What do you think was the most shocking?

So...what will be the name for the past decade?

It has become the norm to categorize each decade, i.e. the Sixties, Seventies, and so forth. But, now that we are in the first decade of the 21st Century, what will it be called; the Noughties or the Oughties?

I have seen each one used in the press, usually the Noughties were used in British journalism, but Oughties was predominant in American press. Which do you think should be adopted as the norm? Do you have another, better nomenclature for this concluding decade?

On Tuesday night, the nation listened to President Obama make a clear and forceful case for an increase of troops in Afghanistan. He detailed how an increased investment (in soldiers and money) is necessary for the security of the United States. Basically, he established how he is going to address the war in Afghanistan. With this, he put his stamp on the conflict and, in essence, made it his war. Sure, it was started long before he came into office, but with his decision, he put his own stamp on how it will be conducted. If it had been going smoothly, he could have let it run its own course, and (possibly) exonerated himself from identification with it. He would have been merely concluding what was already started. But now, he has taken ownership of its direction and completion. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, he approached it carefully and with much deliberative thought and discussion.

However, for President Obama, I can't help but think that this must have been one of the saddest speeches he had to give. Not because of the severity of subject nor the cost in lives that will come, but because it could completely derail so much of what he wanted to focus on while President. He campaigned on (and I believe without intent to obscure) a desire to address many domestic issues in the country, i.e. health care. This is such a part of his agenda and goals. But, a costly war in Afghanistan only diverts time, attention, and money away from what he really wants to achieve. (We'll see if the vote for continuing the war costs him allies in the health care debate from the liberal wing - in Washington, all politics are connected). I can't help but think, while it may have seemed very 'Presidential', he secretly regrets having to make the stand he knows he had to take because of its ramifications upon all the items he wants to address. While it may seem like a victory to many, to him it may be a real defeat. In time, we'll know.

Recently, there was a bit of a stir when a new advertisement came out for breast cancer awareness. It showed a buxom woman wearing a white bikini walking alongside a pool. The ad zoomed in on her chest as she walked and showed how she jiggled as she walked. It was only at the end of the public service announcement that it was revealed to be an ad for breast cancer awareness. Titilation was the intent of the ad, to get people to watch it. Subsequently, the creators of the PSA were asked if this was the right means to portray women, connecting their self-worth with protecting their breasts to remain attractive.

I wasn't sure of my opinion towards the PSA. Of course, I believe in the need for women to be aware of breast cancer and any attempt towards prevention is worthy. Yet, is this the best way to get the message across?! A woman's value is only connected to how well her breasts look! Isn't that part of the agenda that feminists have been fighting against for so many years?!

But now, the stakes are higher. In the KU bookstore, there is a display which goes too far! All I know is that if I walked around, spoke to women, and remarked about their 'ta-tas', I would be seen as quite an ogre and downright offensive by many women and men. Yet, there is a display of t-shirts, hats, and other clothing articles with the slogan emblazzoned across the front, 'Save the Ta Ta's'. The idea is that women (i.e. college students) should buy and wear these. So, all you feminists who have been fighting for so many years to be accepted based on your own merits and not your looks, you lost. Good health is now inextricably linked with protecting your looks, your value is now the appearance, not the substance.

This past week, President Obama has waded into the international arena in some very demonstrative ways. He started by delivering a well received speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations, carefully noting how his administration is going to be different than the previous administration. He became the first President to address the Security Council and passed a popular resolution to get rid of nuclear weapons in the world, and appeared vindicated by exposing (in solidarity with England and France) the existence of a secret nuclear facility in Iran.

But, it is President Obama’s decision on General McChrystal’s proposed strategy revision with its emphasis on counter-insurgency which could define his presidency. Adoption of this strategy guarantees two points. First, the deployment of 40K soldiers essentially doubles the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan. Recently, the number deployed has risen above 40K, but historically, the total has been below that amount. Secondly, a counter-insurgency doctrine means a long dwell time in Afghanistan, i.e. it would take more time, not less.

In essence, he is on the verge of exacting his own print on the conflict in Afghanistan, i.e. it would not longer be Bush’s War, but it would become Obama’s War.

For a President who is polished and understands PR quite well, it is quite an error! Yesterday, President Obama announced a change in the defensive missile shield program and declared that the focus will change from a ground based system in Poland and the Czech Republic to one that is seaborne. This announcement heralded a significant change in policy not warmly met by the governments of the two eastern European countries where it was going to be stationed.

However, September 17th is the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland! It marked the beginning of 5 decades of totalitarian (primarily Russian) control of those two countries. Despite how trite it may sound to Americans, the fear of Russia still resonates in the psyche of Polish and Czech citizens. To pick that anniversary to declare a policy change like this is quite insensitive to them, and done with a poor understanding of History.

So, regardless of the necessity of the defensive shield or not (that is not my point in this), could they have picked a worse day to announce this change?!

Who determines the amount of coverage a person gets when they pass away? We have received extensive coverage of Jackson, Swayze, Kennedy (all very deserving of recognition due to their impact on society), but who is being left out? I have to admit, due to a bit of a morose interest, I find reading the OBITS in the New York Times intriguing. Here are the people we don't often hear about, but who have accomplish some amazing things. I have learned about actors/playwrights/government officials/athletes/etc... Many who have had an impact on our lives, but we never hear about.

But, it also reveals the people who society (as interpreted by media outlets) should know about or be told about. This past weekend, there was a notable incident of this prejudice against those individuals who may not have the flashy personalities.

Do you know who Norman Borlaug is? In the New York Times, his death didn't get coverage in the OBIT section, it was front page news! However, I never saw a mention of it on any of the major websites or news outlets, CNN, NPR, etc...

Nobel Prize Winner

Leader of the Green Revolution

Fed hundreds of millions of people

Scientist

Here is one of the most important people in the latter-half of the 20th Century. He deserves better recognition!

While it is heartening to see that one's blog is read, it is amazing to see how it can be misunderstood for its central point.

Yesterday I posted a short entry on the need to celebrate the essence of Memorial Day, and to avoid how that message can become diluted. To be clear, I agree with the comments in response. I agree that veterans should be celebrated EVERY DAY of the year.

What I don't agree with is how the holiday can get hijacked from its true intention, to honor the men and women who gave their last full measure while in uniform. Shopping malls and stores who simply use the day to have sales to TV channels who feature daylong war movies, all these things misrepresent the true spirit for the day.

CNN's website posted a story today about an effort to establish a moment of silence to honor those fallen. I hope this effort makes traction in the U.S. and becomes a celebrated part of the day.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/25/memorial.day.minute/index.html

Memorial Day is not Veterans Day.

There is a distinct difference in the two, but it is a difference that is being blurred by commericalism and a lack of context for what it means. This day was established shortly after the Civil War to remember fallen soldiers. However, it is not a day to honor those in uniform, current or past who came home alive. We could take a good cue from how the Australians celebrate ANZAC day. Each year, they honor those fallen during WWI and other wars through ceremony and reverence.

So, this Monday, don't thank a veteran for serving, but honor those who did not return.