Call Me Crazy, But I Think I Agree With Cindy
I began reading this little ditty on Breitbart and as I got through the headline, I began to say, “oh boy, the Witch in the Ditch is at it again”.
I’ve never been a big fan of Cindy Sheehan and think that she just continues to dishonor the memory of her son, Casey’s, service to the country by using his name to continue protesting Americas overseas combat efforts. The thing that bugs me about it is the fact that Casey Sheehan is dead, having died in the line of duty. When he took the oath, he must have realized that a potential eventuality of his service in the military would cost him his life. We hope that never happens to our soldiers and sailors, but whenever a young man or woman takes the oath, they are pledging their lives to the safety and security of the country, to follow the orders of the President, and to do his/her duty with honor and loyalty. I’m sure Casey knew this. However, his mother, in a means to cope with the loss, has made this anti-war effort in Casey’s name her whole life. But we often wonder if Casey would actually agree with his mother’s rallying cause.
That’s not the subject of my post here. My real point is what she said:
"We have to realize, it is not the president who is power, it is not the party that is in power it is the system that stays the same, no matter who is in charge."
With this one point, I cannot agree more. While she was upset at the fact that Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of making positive steps to pull the troops out of Iraq, the thing is, the war effort hasn’t changed, probably because Obama has learned more about the effort as President than the more flippantly ignorant comments from the campaign trail.
But what Cindy says narrowly, I echo generally. The big problem with our country today is that nothing changes in Washington. Obama and McCain both campaigned (arrogantly I might add) about how, by electing them, they would be able to change the tone in Washington. The thing is, the tone in Washington cannot be changed by anyone in Washington. We can have the Democrats in power, the GOP in power, it doesn’t really matter – as long as the “system”, or the “establishment” is in place, things just don’t change.
So what is the “establishment”? It’s primarily made up of career politicians who believe it is their right to be in office; it’s their destiny so to speak. It’s lackeys and interns that follow politicians around like star-struck groupies in order to
I’ve been reading through the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence again here recently and one thing that I found pretty amusing was the constitutional mandate (Article I, Section IV) that Congress must assemble at least once per year. I wonder if the Framers foresaw that government would become so involved in the lives of people that Congress would have to meet constantly. Congress, in the beginning was meant to be a part time gig and that the politicians would actually have real jobs outside of the political world.
Thing is, because We the People have allowed government to grow exorbitantly, politics becomes a more than full time job. We have to have politicians and staff, support people, secretaries, under-secretaries, assistants, czars, assistants to the czars, analysts, managers, experts and the list keeps just going on and on. And the one thing that we never get to see is a reduction in government, because once we add to the government, it never goes away. It’s the proverbial band-aid fix after band-aid fix, but we dare not actually fix the problem otherwise, some bureaucrat loses his purpose to governmentally exist.
I know that’s a generalizing statement, but let’s face it…if we actually reduced government, put mandatory sunsets on programs, put term limits on members of Congress, and stopped dolling out money to every little issue in America, perhaps we’d actually hear that new tone in Washington.
So, for one small point, Cindy and I agree. Better check the temp in sheol, it might be getting bit drafty.