For a while now, I’ve maintained that Vice President Dick Cheney is the person in the Bush administration who is hurting it the most. For example, the most relevant I can think of is the Saddam/bin Laden connection that has been proved as non-existent, yet the VP continues to maintain it exists. Now there’s this whole debacle about his claiming he’s not part of the executive branch, so that he can get out of following an executive order. He seems to have backed off an on this now, but I think Cheney’s secretive nature is what hurts this administration the most. A series of articles at the Washington Post show why this may be so.

The fact is, not many people, other than those close to him and the President, actually know Cheney, or how much influence he may have had on the course of the nation over the last seven years.  However, if those articles are any indication, it’s quite a bit, and it’s a little unnerving, since George Bush is the President.

I’ll continue tomorrow on my own feeling on Cheney, and what roles I think he might have taken in shaping policy, and how much influence I think he really has.

I said I’d get to it later…and it’s later!  Yea, that’s it!

I know some people are not going to like what I say about this…from both sides.  The fact is – although some would have you believe otherwise – immigration is good.  It brings new ideas and cultural customs to this country, and provides those people who come here with new opportunities, and a new life.  This nation was built on immigration, but it was largely legal immigration that built it, not illegal immigration.

I’m not saying that these people shouldn’t come here, but they need to fill out the proper forms, just like everyone else.  Once they’ve got their green card or whatever, they can come over, and start their path toward citizenship.  No, not automatic citizenship, but a long, tenuous journey toward the goal of becoming a true American.  Learning the language of the land, and its history, laws, and values, and then showing that they know these things.  How it’s always been done.

The problem with the illegal immigration is not that they shouldn’t come here, or that they’ll topple the WASP elite in power (cough, cough, O’Reilly).  The problem is that all these other immigrants are filling out the forms and doing everything on the proper channels to make sure they’re here and paying taxes, following the rules, etc.  Now it’s mainly about getting money to send back home, and to make a better financial situation.  Those are not bad goals, but they shouldn’t be the only things immigrants come here for.  They should aim to someday be a citizen.

So, what do we do?  Well, to enforce the border.  Right now, it’s too porous.  Aside from illegal immigration, we have a lot of drug smugglers coming through.  So, we need to enforce the border, and do what it takes, whether it be building walls, or putting National Guard troops there (ooops, they’re all in Iraq), or both.  We need to make sure people understand our laws, and that if you come here without filling out all the paperwork, you’re going to get sent back.  What I don’t agree with is the jailing of illegals (unless they’re committing other crimes).  Our jail system is already beyond capacity.  They need to be sent back to their countries, and barred from coming here.  Now, I don’t know how long we should bar them from entering this country.  The ultra conservatives would say forever, and they ultra liberals would say never, but somewhere in between.  Maybe 5 years (it’s kinda arbitrary).

So, border enforcement is done.  Next, we should encourage immigration, but legally.  Make it clear that if all the paperwork isn’t done, they can’t come.  Next, we should make sure they have no criminal backgrounds.  This could be more difficult, since working with other governments on this issue might not always work.  But, I certainly don’t want a murderer here.  We’ve got enough of our own, lets not get more.

I’m not sure if I like the idea of a guest worker program, since I think there are already methods of dealing with this.  I’m also in support of allowing people who’re here legally preference over those who are not.  Speaking of businesses, they need to know that allowing illegals to work there will not be allowed, and that they should be fined if they are found to be hiring them.  Also, any immigrant that works for a U.S. business should be required to register with the IRS, and should be charged if they don’t pay taxes (if applicable to their bracket).  After all, if you want to become a citizen, you need to be paying into the system, just like us.

In conclusion, I have some ideas that’d fit in well with the Bush/Democrat idea for immigration, and ideas that would fit in with conservatives, or so I think.  I don’t like Bush’s bill as it stands, but I also don’t want closed borders as some conservatives might like to see.  Unfortunately, Bush doesn’t seem to understand that his ideas are not going to work, and that like his other big initiatives,  it’s not going to work, if the Republicans have anything to say about it, anyway.

I know I do it to myself, watching all the coverage and punditry (is that a word?) over this immigration debate, but it’s starting to get annoying…but interesting at the same time.  Why?  Because it’s all anybody can talk about.  Everybody has to get in their opinion on it – some think it’s amnesty (like O’Reilly, Hannity, and Dobbs – who I’d like to meet, by the way), and others think it is the future of immigration reform (like Bush and McCain), and then there are others who think it just sucks completely (most of the Congressional Democratic leaders, though I’m sure there are more of them).  It’s so funny, since everyone I mentioned in the first two groups are conservatives, and yet the views between those sets of people are so far apart.

What can we do about this?  Well…it’s late, and the bed calls, but I’ll have another entry later on it, where I’ll share my views on the issue, and offer my own ideas and solutions to the problem.

I know, I’m a hypocrite for bashing the amount of coverage on this issue, and then say I’ll chime in on it myself.   Oh well.

Haven’t updated for a while, but I finally have something worthy of posting about. Get ready for another edition of “What’s Bugging Mike.”

Today, it’s hazy memories. Specifically those of the current administration down there in Washington. Whether its Lewis Libby not recalling his name-dropping conversations with reporters, or Karl Rove not recalling discussion of the (probably politically motivated) removal of U.S. Attorneys (interesting how Rove’s name is related to both these issues), the most powerful people in Washington have a convenient and strange case of memory loss.

I think every politician should start using this excuse. It seems to be working for Rove. Imagine if Bill Clinton’s excuse was that he forgot about the White House romp. Well, I suppose he might have…he did retract his original statement later, so he must have done seem deep searching and found the memory. Also, imagine if former Connecticut Governor John Rowland simply had some unclear memories of his dealings with the Tomasso family. It might have saved him a lot of jail time, or perhaps not. It might also work for other high profile personalities. If Martha Stewart didn’t remember getting insider information on that Imclone stock. If Saddam had a hazy memory of the atrocities he committed (actually, I think this was the angle for which his lawyers were going). It’d be great if people just forgot about all the bad things they did, wouldn’t it?

In all seriousness, though, I think it’d just be better if they started telling the truth. Libby has already been canned and skewered over Plame because of his hazy memory. The AG’s deputy has stepped down because they’re losing their minds (no, I didn’t mean to word this any other way). If they keep not remembering things and inventing stories to explain these scandals that keep coming up, the Republicans don’t have a prayer in 2008. So, keep up the amnesia, guys. I’m sure the Democrats are loving it.

So, as I mentioned about about a couple weeks ago, I ordered Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior and Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope via Amazon. I really wanted to get to O’Reilly’s book first, since I’ve been watching his show for some time, and I wanted to get the views of someone I would probably disagree with more before I got to a committed Democrat like Obama.

I’ve been of the thought for some time that O’Reilly isn’t as conservative as people make him out to be. He may be misguided in some of his views (in my opinion), but that doesn’t make him some radical conservative. He, in fact, opposes radical conservatism as much as he does radical liberalism. On the other hand, just like his show, he tends to focus on the far left more than he does the far right. He claims this is because not much is going on with the far right, but I disagree. You can’t have people like Pat Robertson out there and not say much isn’t going on with the radical conservatives. Then you have the neo-cons like our dear President and Vice President, who are bastardizing the conservative ideology. Yet O’Reilly rarely, if ever, touches on these issues. He’s focuses far more on the far left control of the media, and their attempted movement of their agenda into the hearts in minds of Americans.

The latter two are what he focuses heavily on in Culture Warrior. He takes on issues such as the so-called War on Christmas, the media, the war on terror, social programs, and others to explain how what he calls “secular-progressives” are attempting to form an America in the mold of Western Europe. Let me take a minute to explain the two groupings of people O’Reilly talks about in the book. For those of you who don’t watch his show, a “secular-progressive,” as defined by O’Reilly, is anyone who thinks that America is in a bad place (some may even think it’s evil), and would benefit from a system of government and way of thinking that is closer to Western Europe (not including the UK). Secular-progressives are pushing for social programs to the extent that all Americans are basically cared for by the government. They’d also like increased rights for children (trumping the rights of a parent), lenient sentences for criminals, and freedom of drug use, and, among other things and most importantly, a decrease in the prominence of religion in the public arena. A “traditional” is somebody who thinks America is a good place, and has done a lot of noble things for the world. They would like to see the Judeo-Christian values that America was founded on to remain in place. They support things like the “sanctity of marriage (I’ll get to this in a bit),” the war on terror, the allowing of prayer and other public displays of religion in the public arena, children’s rights not to trump parent’s rights, and other things. Basically, O’Reilly is promoting the traditionalist way of life, and explaining why he thinks the secular-progressive vision for American is the wrong way to go.

I found myself deeply split by the book. so, I’ll say what I do and don’t like.

My Likes
I actually do agree with O’Reilly on several points, but disagree on others. I think the whole “you must be sensitive to other religions” things as crap. When I say “Merry Christmas,” I mean it in its most secular sense, since I don’t really submit to the whole religion thing. Christmas has become secularized enough that saying that greeting shouldn’t be met with disgust, and I don’t think it does for the majority of Americans. Places like Walmart changing their greeting seem to only happen when a minority complain. On the other hand, I think the idea of a “War on Christmas” is equally as stupid. Yea, some places and people may want to push for a more “sensitive” America, but come on. I’ve already stated that I don’t think most people honestly care. Let the ACLU or whoever else bring it on – newsflash for them: bugger off. Ok, spent more time on that, then needed. But, really, I do agree with him on many things in the book. I do support the war on terror, and think that somebody needs to do something about it, if no one else will. I even support the War in Iraq, in principle. But, even O’Reilly doesn’t like the handling of it. I also think we could have waited just a little bit longer for Hans Blix to finish his job. And finally, I definitely don’t support places like Vermont given weak sentences for crimes like rape. The punishment should fit the crime, right? I also think that America is a good place, that has done noble things. It’s also done some rather non-noble things, and has made mistakes (supporting the likes of Osama in the 1970s because we hated the USSR more comes to mind).

Well, I’ve already said that I agree on many issues O’Reilly touches on. He definitely does a good job expressing himself on some of the hot button issues in today’s America. Gay marriage, weak sentences for some crimes in some states, the parent/child relationship, and who really controls the media are some that come to mind. He makes clear his positions on these issues; to be sure, he’s not ambiguous on what he feels. I also like that he makes clear many times that not all Democrats are S-P’s, though he seems to think most Republicans are traditionalists (and he’s probably right).

My Dislikes
While he does make clear who is and who isn’t an S-P or traditionalist, he seems to use “secular-progressive” and “liberal,” rather interchangeably, though I’m guessing he means “radical liberal.” Why not just abbreviate that as he does “S-P?” I don’t know. I also think he needs to touch more on the whole “secular” thing. I personally think he means people who would rather the U.S. be without religion entirely, or at least, in public. Yet, I’m fairly certain a lot of Western Europe countries are deeply religious, if not in government, than in their own personal beliefs. I just came back from Greece, where 98% of the population is baptized “Greek Orthodox.” Now, I don’t know how many of them are actually religious, but it’s the only country in the world where I’ve seen the religious leaders walk around like it was their job. But, I’ll get into this more some other time.

Similarly, I don’t like how the word “progressive” is made dirty. Progressive ideas got us through the depression. Progressive ideas were responsible for the civil rights movement. So, not all progressive ideas are bad, yet O’Reilly doesn’t say this (other than calling MLK, Jr. a traditionalist). I personally think that health care is a right for all people, and that those who do not have the means to get it should be able to do so from the government. I also think that people who can afford would be better off with paid health care plans (though without the insane premiums some providers charge). That’s a very progressive idea, it really is. If you listen to a certain segment of people, those who can’t afford health care must have brought it on themselves. Well, they’re wrong. So, yes, I do believe in some progressive ideas. That doesn’t make me a bad person. I think health care for those who can’t afford it IS a traditionalist value.

Regarding the “culture war,” O’Reilly kind of suggests that it is like a battlefield, describing some S-P followers as “shock troops.” I do think some of the organizations mentioned may have an agenda. However, I’m still a little split on whether “secular progressivism” is a real problem. Yes, some things is today society can be stupid, whether it be the idea you can’t say “Merry Christmas” or the idea that spanking is bad. Personally, I think society has it forwards and backwards movements on many issues. O’Reilly did some job in showing the big boys like Walmart how stupid things like “Holiday Trees” were. However, I think eventually society itself would have realized this, and acted accordingly. So, I’m split. Certainly, “secular” and “progressive” are not bad things at face value. What are bad things are insane ideas. Is there an agenda to make society accept secularism and insanely progressive ideas? I don’t know, but somehow I doubt it. I point to the fact that most of our Presidents since the ’50s have been Republican. I’m just not sure it’s that bad. I’ll have to sleep on it more and get back to you all.

The thing I didn’t like the most was his comparison of Western European socialism to the authoritarian Communist regimes like Castro’s Cuba. Come on. They’re not like that. Socialism does not necessarily equate to the Marxist-Leninist model, or even just Marxist. I may be wrong, but I’m rather sure that there is private ownership in France, or the Netherlands, that there’s capitalism going strong in these countries. Yes, there may be some public ownership of industries, but so is there such is this one. Western European socialism means more about providing services for the people. Yes, there is more tax, but there’s also more services. It’s not about the government owning everything, or spying on everyone. Socialism 101, people.

Conclusion
It was an intriguing book, I will say that. O’Reilly has some good idea, and some bad. Like I said, I need to think more on the whole “culture war” idea. I do believe there is one between the West and the East, so it may be the same in America. If it is, it’s largely one sided, which O’Reilly states. I also don’t know where I’d place myself if I come to believe in the culture war. I believe in some traditionalist ideas, and some so-called “secular-progressive” idea. So, maybe I assign myself no label, and look for the balance things, as I do everywhere else in my life. While this is practically the bible for traditionalist thinking, I also think everyone should read it, even if you think O’Reilly couldn’t be more wrong in his thinking. This book is a definite must read for those considering themselves independents in the political sphere.

Next Up…
Next up is Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. The book seems to cover the same topic, where Obama discusses recapturing the American dream. I’ll have to see how much of his views differ from O’Reilly. I may be surprised, or I may not. After I’m done reading it, I will, like with this book, write a review entry. Then I’ll follow it up with a comparative entry, seeing where both books agree, and where they disagree, and good stuff like that.

Ok, time for bed.

Man, all the trackbacks I’m getting these days is starting to piss me off. Apparently, the Askimet plug-in does not work for them. Anyway…

My local news station, WTNH, and others, had a story the other day about a couple Democratic legislative clerks of an investigations committee in my state’s legislature who were caught on camera ruffling through the desk of the committee’s only Republican legislative clerk.

According to the Republican clerk, she feels they were doing this to intimidate her, letting her know that the state house has a supermajority against the governor, who is also a Republican. However, while part of it may be intimidation, I’m a little skeptical that this is the full story. The clerks work in the office, so they’d have to be dumb not to know the camera was there. Come on, now. Those little half sphere things have been everywhere from offices to shopping malls for years. So, in light of that, the only reason they’d have to go ruffling through the Republican clerk’s stuff is if they knew they would get off pretty easy, which they did. One of them, Rick Lopes, was suspended without pay for three days, and the other was reassigned.

So, mayyybe I’m just paranoid, but I think these guys were directed by someone with influence to do this. Ruffling through someone’s stuff elsewhere? I’m sure you could be fired somewhere else for doing that. However, this is politics, and their party is in power, so it’s not likely much is going to happen to them. Case in point: the whole Congressional page deal in Washington. Nothing happened to that guy until he was ratted out. So, I don’t think the clerks would have done this without knowing they’d be relatively safe. They won’t be fired for doing this, but the Dems have to be seen doing something, so they suspend the guy who seems to be the lead perpetrator, and reassign the other. Done deal, and the Dems save face.

But why? If not just intimidation, why do this? Well, as I said before, this is the office of the committee who investigates misdeeds by, among other things I’m sure, the governor’s administration. Recently, they investigated a women in the governor’s staff. Other than that, this governor has been relatively clean, and for those of you who don’t know, has been a breath of fresh air for the state after the former governor was indicted for using his office to give state contracts to the companies who gave him gifts. So, undoubtedly the Democrats would just loove to find anything else they could on the governor. It might be possible that a Republican clerk would have access to such information if the Republicans knew about it. Yea, maybe it’s a left field theory, but think about it.

Understand that I’m not rooting for the Republicans here. However, nor am I rooting for the Democrats. Both have more or less brushed this under the rug, as far as I can tell. It was whistle-blown, investigated, and the perpetrators got off easy. All I’m saying is that this can’t be all. I’m extremely skeptical of the story as it was told, and I think there’s more to it than what we were told, even if no one, including the Republicans, wants to investigate further. I for one think it may be because nothing was actually taken from the desk. Stuff was just moved around, meaning that even if the clerks were looking for something, they didn’t find anything. If something had been taken, expect that we’d still be hearing about this. So, this incident will end and fade away from public memory quickly, except for me. I’m going to continue to make it my mission to debate the dirty tactics of politics. No politician is safe, and no party can get away from my blog, no matter if you’re the Democrats, the Republicans, or Connecticut for Lieberman (ok, they might run away since Joe doesn’t need them anyway). I’m not saying I’m going to single handedly clean up Congress or the state legislature, but hopefully I can ponder some of the reasons why politicians and parties act they way they do today.

I really don’t like how O’Reilly seems to be suggesting that the recent protest in Washington, D.C. against the war is only the haven of the very liberal, as he seems to have done in yesterday’s talking points. For those who don’t like to read, I’ll cover a couple important points:

To seemingly make his point that only far left people protest, he needs to point out that the protest was financed by “United for Peace and Justice,” which he describes as made up of “primarily far left Americans.” Ok, so what? I doubt UPJ (as I’ll call them here) was personally brainwashing all the protesters into far left “antics.” They only provided the money and the venue, and the time. If people want to protest, they’ll do it by their own convictions, not UPJ’s.

Next he shares interviews with celebrities from the event, such as Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon, as if they’re the only voices speaking for everybody. Many of these people do have very liberal views, but so what? I don’t consider myself very liberal, and I hate the handling of this war. If you believe O’Reilly, so does he. So, why the heck must he put a bad name on one of this country’s ways of free speech by associating it only with those who consider themselves very liberal?

I think it’s because of the fact that protests already have a bad rap. The last major protest that I know of hasn’t happened since Vietnam. What goes with that era, besides war? Hippes. Since Vietnam, protests always seems to have been associated with those who consider themselves very liberal. Are those people more politically active than others? I don’t know, but I’d say Congress is pretty well diverse in ideology. But, that’s an accepted way of promoting political change. People seem to associate protests with events that get out of control and require police intervention in the end. I think that’s a load of bull. Conservatives protest all the time. I’m sure you’ve heard about counter-protests to all these war protests, those people who are saying the opposite of whatever the main group of protesters are saying. So, protests are NOT the haven of the far left. They are simply another form of our great free speech. I’d get into the idea of speaking out during war time, but I covered that last entry.

So, if you want to reply, reply with your views on this issue. Do protests really only contain the very liberal? I doubt it, regardless of what people like O’Reilly would have us believe. Still, maybe I’m mistaken, it happens. But, I don’t think so. Here’s what I’d like to see. Any person who doesn’t consider themselves very liberal responding to this, if they had a chance to participate. Why did you participate if you got the chance? We’ll see what happens.