“All The Way” with LBJ

I posted the following on Jay Bookman’s blog on Sunday evening, May 22, 2016:

The Progressive Movement has not lost the war, imo.  And, I do not believe that LBJ created that Rightwing backlash after the Civil Rights Bill, The Voting Rights Bill, and The Great Society’s social programs.  LBJ, like Lincoln, did what he knew was right not only for minorities in this nation but for the nation, itself, in sustaining its highest ideals and destiny, in spite of his various other weaknesses.

Because of JFK, LBJ, MLK, and many others, this nation has moved forward.  The backlash which occurred after LBJ’s tenure was of its own small-minded and self-oriented doings.  In my opinion, these last 4 decades, before President Obama, were like 40 years in the spiritual wilderness, of which we are just now emerging, if Donald Trump does not become our next President.

That is the truth, beyond the surface.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton’s Senate Speech on her “Yes” Vote for the Iraq War

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/435624/-

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

=====================================

Mary Elizabeth’s response to another:

“All I ask is that you read the speech in full and digest it in full.  Yes, it may have been a false framing, but there is more in her speech than that label.  Look at how she weighs the myriad of details in her mind even though she may have felt trapped into presenting a ‘false framing.’

We can learn from not closing our minds to how another’s mind works.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Regarding Variations in Sexuality, Gender, and Transgender Bathrooms

On May 19, I wrote the following comments on the “Get Schooled” blog of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:  (Link:  http://getschooled.blog.myajc.com/2016/05/19/obamas-actions-on-transgender-bathrooms-not-leading-but-bullying/

“President Obama has made the right call regarding public school bathroom use for transgender students.  When I was an adolescent in the 1950s, the federal government had to intervene to correct another human rights’ injustice in the South at that time – segregation by race of schools, and the Jim Crow South, in general.

George Washington was a Federalist who stated that the federal government would help to overcome the provincial prejudices of the population.  Thomas Jefferson was a Republican who believed that all are created equal.  Jefferson, also, wrote in his first inaugural address, ‘We are all federalists and we are all republicans.’  Profound words from Washington, the visionary and healer, and from Jefferson, the healer and visionary.

Here are my visionary thoughts regarding why the transgender angst is unnecessary and of our own making, based on our presently limited perceptions of gender and sexuality just as previously we experienced limited, provincial perceptions related to race.  I hope my words lift consciousness, rather than create anger.

As I recall, about 10 to 15 years ago in Atlanta a surgeon was performing a circumcision on a newborn boy. He butchered the surgery, or the surgical equipment was faulty. Bottom line: the boy was turned into a baby girl by creating a female sexual organ for the baby boy, turned baby girl. This is a true story, reported on WSB-TV, at that time.

As I recall that newly created girl never really felt like a girl in the years that followed. If people were either wiser, or more informed about biological phenomena, they could understand how one’s gender identification does not simply depend upon the two obvious sexual organs.  Brain chemistry and DNA are also involved in gender identification that probably begins in utero. We must start to understand sexual phenomena beyond the very literal, mundane, and patently obvious.

As an evolved society, we should be more compassionate and less judgmental regarding variations of differences in gender identification and sexual orientation. Nature is nature beyond judgment, and every person is unique not only in sexuality but in every other way that contributes to our common humanity.

Finally, on public radio today, I heard of these words said by a transgender child to that child’s mother, ‘This (bathroom transgender decision) is life changing to me.  Mother, I can now attend a public school.’ ”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mary Elizabeth on May  21, 2016 on “Get Schooled”:

At one time, in the field of psychiatry, homosexuals were labeled as mentally disturbed, across the board.  Fortunately, those with intellectual curiosity continue to seek answers that break through present consciousness.

We have no idea, throughout history, how many men and women have felt as transgendered people do, regarding their own gender identification, but who believed it wiser to remain silent because they could have perceived that their thoughts would be ridiculed by society and that they would become pariahs of society for expressing their authentic selves, in terms of sexuality and gender.  Today, society has evolved in consciousness enough to allow individuals the personal autonomy to  express in a wide – not narrow or limited – range of gradients or degrees of  who they authentically are, without making them outcasts to society.

Perhaps, the field of psychiatry today, represented by the thinking of Dr. Paul McHugh , whom you quote above, should focus more upon the biological aspects brain chemistry related to male/female identification and DNA ‘s contributing factors, which are developed in utero.

————————–
Another poster to Mary Elizabeth:
————————–
 Mary Elizabeth to that poster:


I do not disagree with you regarding the possibility of treatment, for given transgender individuals.

I, also, believe that knowledge, including self-knowledge as well as self-awareness, can be healing.

It appears, from those who are sharing their personal experiences, that being transgender is a real phenomena.  We must not close the door to receiving any new gender knowledge that is credible, however uncomfortable breakthroughs in current acceptable norms may be for some to digest.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mary Elizabeth on May 20, 2016 on the same blog thread, as well as on Jay Bookman’s blog concerning transgender persons:

“Every person is unique.  Labeling generically can sometimes damage individuals.

At one time, in the field of psychiatry, homosexuals were labeled as mentally disturbed, across the board.  Fortunately, those with intellectual curiosity continue to seek answers that break through present consciousness.

Moreover, this issue is both a state issue and a federal issue.  That is why I mentioned the positions of both George Washington, who favored federal rights over states rights, and Thomas Jefferson, who was a proponent of strong states’ rights, but who also stated, ‘We are all federalists and we are all republicans.’

Surely, if those two enlightened Founding Fathers can acknowledge the complexity of the interaction between federal and state governments and work together to sustain our exceptional Union, we can be as enlightened today for the benefit of all of America’s citizens. Human rights for all Americans are guaranteed in our U. S. Constitution, which remarkably still stands valid today, well over two hundred years after it was created.”

For readers of this blog who may wish to expand consciousness further, I offer this posting for you.

https://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/john-lennon/

 

 

 

 

Posted in transgender, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Intellectual Dissection of “The Forest vs. The Trees”

I posted the following analysis of the substantive differences in seeing intellectual truths via “The Forest” vs. “The Trees,” on Jay Bookman’s blog, of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on the morning of May 6, 2016: (Link: http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/05/05/paul-ryan-acknowledges-the-deep-chasm-splitting-the-gop/

Part 1:

The author of “The Guardian” article, entitled “Democrats acting Elitist, Not Progressive,” (Link:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/04/democrats-acting-elitist-not-progressive-thomas-frank  ), Thomas Frank, centered his entire article on a false premise, in my opinion.  By example: The former Instructional Superintendent of Schools who promoted me to the role of his Instructional Lead Teacher (to the jealousy of  some of my peer teachers) gave me wise advice years ago.  That Dr. of Education, and my principal, told me years ago, “When people have nothing to criticize you for factually because your work is excellent, they will go for character assassination for that is all that they have because they want to bring you down.”

Imho, Thomas Franks’ entire article was a wrong-headed characterization of Democrats. Thus, my refute was to show him (and this reading audience) how wrong he was.  Therefore, I needed to give a strong defense of the Democratic Party’s agenda over the past 5 decades, in contrast to that of the Republicans.  Any reasonable person would have read my words that way.

Part 2 (continuation)

Now, you and several others, try to pull me into an intellectual rabbit’s hole to which I do not wish to descend.  You both believe strongly in “facts” and state that over and over again. I believe in the importance of facts, also.  However, the important thing to remember about so-called “facts” is that they can be used to destroy an otherwise valid argument, or person, if not interpreted correctly.

One of you mentioned Thomas Franks’ assessment of Obama as elitist as an example of Obama’s lack of care of immigrants, based on a sentence Obama had stated about immigrants to America.  One sentence, out of context, does not the character of Obama make, nor of the character and agenda of the Democratic Party over the last decades.  You wanted to steer to discussion not to that (I am still not convinced that you even read the Franks’ article), but to Bill Clinton’s role in the Financial Crash of 2008, which even the other poster said was not the point.  I did not want to get side-stepped by you both on whether Bill Clinton did or not help to create that crash.  Off target.

One can cherry pick “facts” at will, especially facts regarding a person’s character and beat them to death, incorrectly, by either limited, or devious, interpretation.  I believe you and the other poster both are guilty of that mental process and that is why, I believe, that you often miss seeing what is most important, the forest not the trees, or the trend of the ideas which show truth not isolated facts, misinterpreted.  The Democratic ideological agenda did not bring the working class people of this nation low, as implied by author Thomas Franks.  That was the ideology and the political agenda of the Republican Party of the last 50 years.  Thomas Frank interpreted facts incorrectly, imo, and you played with facts in order to “win” an intellectual battle with me that was only in your own head, not mine.

I will not be pulled into any more “intellectual rabbit holes” with you and the other poster, if I can avoid it, again.  One can take “facts” and misinterpret those facts to other posters, all day, in a juvenile intellectual  “one-ups-man-ship”  game.  I want no part of that game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jay Bookman: “You cannot debate or discuss issues with them because the facts that exist in our dimension do not exist in their dimension, and vice versa.”

________________________________________

Mary Elizabeth: “Simply stating facts will never bring people together.  Only wisdom and love can do that.  Too little value is placed on wisdom and love today.  Winning has become everything in America.  We think we can ‘win’ by spouting facts as we can ‘win’ by shooting bullets. This path only leads to cynicism.

We must reject those values, and start to value more wisdom and love, if we will save our nation and our world.  And, we can start changing directions, right here, on this relatively unknown blog. Offered as a prayer.”

 

========================================

Another poster to Mary Elizabeth on May 12, 2016:

“I’m open to being educated about this problem of stereotypical thinking that you’re so often talking about. Can you give me a concrete example of how Hillary Clinton is the victim of this kind of thinking?”

 _________________________________________
Mary Elizabeth’s response to that poster’s inquiry:

“Reread what I had previously written to you about thinking in stereotypes (the above article), even to the point of using ‘facts’ to defend your own stereotypical thinking, as the author of ‘The Guardian’ article, Thomas Frank, indulged in, without being intellectually aware of the fallacy of, or weakness in, his own thinking, imo.

Substitute Hillary Clinton’s name for Barack Obama’s in Thomas Frank’s article to understand the ‘wrong thinking’ that is often attached to using ‘facts,’ in a limited way, and used simply to serve one’s own limited intellectual vision and reasoning, which may be faulty.

One more thing:  If Hillary Clinton is a ‘problem’ to the American way of life, according to the thinking of Bernie Sanders, then so is Barack Obama for he has taken money from CEOs through political PACS to have won his two elections unlike purist Bernie, and Obama I will remind everyone is endorsing Hillary for President over Bernie.  Ask yourself, ‘Why’?  Perhaps Obama sees something of depth in Hillary that Bernie lacks.  I certainly do.  Read my link below, which is a recent entry into my own blog, which was an edited version of the long essay I wrote to you on this blog, which was almost not posted until I protested, by saying that my post contained, ‘intellectually worthy words,’ which it did, and does.

https://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/intellectual-dissection-of-the-forest-vs-the-trees/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton for President of the United States

 

 Jay Bookman on his blog, May 4, 2016: “In my own informal polling, most Republicans distressed at the thought of Trump also say they can’t envision voting for Clinton. I get that.” (Link: http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/05/04/with-trump-at-top-of-ticket-is-the-gop-house-now-vulnerable/  )

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mary Elizabeth: “I do not ‘get that’ at all, and I have explained my reasoning for my committed support for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States many times on this blog.  It not simply that she is a female.  It is not simply that she will save the nation from Donald Trump.

It is because Hillary Clinton is a woman of substance, of high intellect, of proven leadership skills who will continue the visionary trajectory of Barack Obama for this nation and this world.  In other words, Hillary “gets it.”  Obama’s support in the meantime, after she is named the Democratic Presidential candidate, will put her in the White House.  Get used to it.  How I wish that Georgians could embrace the vision that Obama and Hillary Clinton have for our nation and world.  If they did, they would elevate themselves to another realm of awareness and functioning.  In other words, they would have grown, as Georgia’s standing Gov. Deal has grown, morally and intellectually.”

 ________________________________________

Another Poster to Mary Elizabeth:

“Be that as it may, the majority of Americans do not find H Clinton trustworthy.  Nor do they find D Trump trustworthy.”


_________________________________________

Mary Elizabeth’s Response to Poster:

“Be careful when you talk with such ‘glory’ about the ‘majority’ of Americans.  The majority of the white people of the South did not trust Martin Luther King, Jr., either, because of their own mental and spiritual limitations, and history has proven that their lack of trust in MLK was not warranted.  So much for the ignorance of the masses. ( And, that is why I keep trying to educate the masses above ignorance, as Jefferson’s spirit leads me to do.😉 )

That is, also, why this nation has minority rights, which are human rights, and why it is the electoral college that puts a person into the Presidency, not popular vote. (And, that is why the leaders of the Democratic Party designed a fail-safe against ignorance and naivete of the “majority” by electing to establish those with in-depth understanding of party politics in how to win elections – called the Democratic Super Delegates.)

Our Founding Fathers, as I have often stated on this blog, were brilliant men.

“Thomas Frank, the author of the article in the link you shared, above, from ‘The Guardian’ has it backwards.  These are his words from that article:

__________________________

‘Seven years have passed now since the last recession officially ended, and yet the country’s fury has scarcely cooled. To this day we remain angry at Wall Street; we rage against career politicians; and we are incandescent that the economic system seems to have been permanently ‘rigged’ against working people. . . .That they (Democrats) seem to want to do all these things anyway tells us everything we need to know about who they really are: a party of the high-achieving professional class that is always looking for a way to dismiss the economic concerns of ordinary people.’

____________________________

Mary Elizabeth: The cause of America’s financial collapse in 2008 was not because of the Democratic Party’s failure but because of the greed and self-orientation of ideologues within the Republican Party’s leadership for the past 45 years.  Their ideological greed and selfishness, as seen in trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich, finally came to a boil in 2008 and because of that financial crash, Americans, in large numbers, are still seething.

They are seething because the American people know, now, that they have been bamboozled for the past 4 decades. Let us get our facts straight, however.  It has not been the Democratic Party that has bamboozled them.  It has been the Republican Party.  And, that deviousness has precipitated the destruction of the GOP.  Karma.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Thoughts of Mary Elizabeth posted on the above named blog:

“For those who have believed the propaganda against Hillary, please let me state this.

For 8 years, people have gone back and forth, even on this blog, regarding the value of President Barack Obama to our nation, which shows the fickleness of the human mind.

To the contrary, I have never once veered in my high estimation of Barack Obama’s vision and implementation of that vision for our nation and world, and I believe that my stable insight of him has proven not only steady but valid, in time.

Now, many of you are veering back and forth about Hillary Clinton’s value to our nation and world.  I have tried to think of the best way, I can come up with, to convince you to see her past the eyes of the small-minded and blind.  Well, it came to me this morning.

Since most of you – now – have finally acknowledged the value Barack Obama has been to our nation, ask yourselves WHY this President would have placed this woman in a position of such influence and power as his Secretary of State, and WHY he continues to give her all the support that he can, at this point in the election, to be the President to follow him.  Could it be that Barack Obama also sees past the superficial and looks straight to the heart, mind, and competence of others, including Hillary Clinton?”

____________________________________
 ___________________________________

Mary Elizabeth’s response to that poster:

“Thank you for your post.  I must say, however, that, imo, if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, it will be because of the total campaign that she, herself, will have run, including gaining the authentic support of President Barack Obama.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump for President

I posted the following comments on various journalists’ blogs on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on April 27, 2016:

“Last night, Trump’s closing words were: ‘If Hillary were a man, I doubt that she would get even 5% of the vote. . . .’  That, of course, implies that Hillary should be aspiring to be a man because men are innately superior to women.  And, of all the men alive, I (Trump) am the top dog.

The thing is, Hillary’s vision and imagination and pragmatism take her into the future, with the evolution of humankind, in which collaboration, communication, nurturing of all people, serving the people, etc. – all traditional female roles – will emerge into the future as necessary traits for leadership on the world’s stage.

One day, even while I live, I hope not only to see the first woman President of the United States of America, but I hope that most men in the United States will applaud Hillary Clinton for being the Woman that she is – President of the United States, a person of this nation’s and this planet’s evolutionary future.”


Also:

“Let us never forget that we will have U. S. Supreme Court Justices appointed either by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  Those appointees will determine critical issues for our future, such as a woman’s right to choose and the continuing civil rights for various minority groups, well into the 21st century.

Also, let us not forget that whoever wins in the November Presidential election will probably usher in either Democrats or Republicans, down party, into the U. S. Congress and into state legislatures throughout the nation.  That decision, too, will determine America’s trajectory for the future and whether our nation will continue to be admired by, and a model for, other nations throughout our planet.”

__________________________________________________________________

Also:

“Notice why Thomas Jefferson appealed to lawmakers to ensure an educated populace which would ensure the continuance of our Democratic-Republic:

See the irony:  It has been the Republican economic ideology of the past 40 years which has brought America to this present unequal state of income distribution, and has demoralized the American masses, as a result.

Since the large majority of those masses of Americans are relatively uneducated, they do not see that they will be voting for Republican Donald Trump, over Democrat Hillary Clinton, and that it has been the present Republican Party which got them into their present financial stress.  For some reason, they trust Donald Trump’s unorthodox ways.  They are like uneducated sheep being led to the slaughter, imo.  We must never fail to educate the public as to what is really going on.  We elected as our President a well-educated black man who knew well what I am talking about.  Let us now elect a well-educated woman as our next President.  Hillary, too, chosen by Obama, knows well what I am talking about.”

 


Also:

“Obama has redirected that mistaken trajectory for America, as well as he could have.  Redirecting that misguided, hierarchical trajectory for America has probably been Obama’s greatest foreign policy goal as well as accomplishment, in terms of at least attempting to demonstrate to this world a better way of solving world conflicts.  Hillary understands well what Obama was attempting to do as she was his Ambassador throughout the world in establishing friendships of foreign leaders throughout the world.

With Trump, the trajectory of America’s foreign policy with the world community will make a U-turn to the worship of power through force and hierarchy, once again, rather than through egalitarianism of belief and building trust, not fear, among nations and among the people of this world.

Our nation has a brutal and polarized difference of worldviews for our future.  That future is in our hands.  We must choose wisely.  Trump’s ideas or Obama’s/Hillary’s.

 Another poster’s comments:

 

Mary Elizabeth to Poster:

“Those facts you presented are only the tip of the iceberg of the philosophy behind the vision of Barack Obama for our world, as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee well understood in 2009.”

_________________________________________

Also:

“Bernie Sanders was asked by a TV commentator this afternoon, ‘Is Hillary Clinton smart?’

Bernie responded, ‘Oh my, God yes, Hillary’s smart.  She’s VERY smart!’

Another poster:

 “He returned the favor for her support of him last night.”

 

Mary Elizabeth to the other poster:

 


This morning, Donald was complaining to Joe and Mika about how Hillary “yelled” her speech last night.  She did not yell it.  I heard it in full.  She very much got across the point, however,  that she would not be cowered by Trump’s trying to say she is playing the Woman Card. “If getting higher pay and equal rights for women is playing the Woman Card, then DEAL ME IN,” she said in her most forceful voice – to let Trump know that there was NO WAY she would be intimidated by him.  Thus, his pathetic response.

Frankly, Hillary has the kind of mental stamina and ferocious tenacity that my maternal grandmother, who lived to be 95 years old, had, and I SO admire that in any person, especially in any woman.

Donald has met his match in Hillary.”

———————————————–

Also:

Another poster to Mary Elizabeth:

“hey ME, see this pushback on the ‘Hils is the hawkiest hawk running’ bizness from Vox? Might find it of interest.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11504272/hillary-clinton-hawk

Mary Elizabeth’s Response to that poster:“Thank you for sharing that article with me.  That is exactly the kind of nuanced thinking/writing which I enjoy reading.

An additional factor to consider when we share ideas is that we must compare and contrast – to whatever degree we are comfortable engaging – in order to communicate our thoughts as effectively as possible to others.  However, real life does not operate so neatly.  I believe that is why I enjoy fine movies.  So much is communicated in nuances that do not even involve words, themselves, but the viewer of the film can almost read the multitude of thoughts, emotions, and decisions which constantly impact another’s consciousness simply through close observation of the actor’s body language and facial expressions, which stem from the mind, itself.

I see Hillary, and most people, in the second way of perceiving reality, especially (not charts of comparing and contrasting but through observation of multilayers and shades of being) and that is why I encourage others to think with as much depth as possible and to avoid stereotypical thinking, which is surface and shallow thinking, and thereby dangerous thinking.

I think that Obama has a more futuristic vision, like Jefferson, for humanity than does Hillary but I think that they also are on the same trajectory toward that end.  Eight years ago, I thought that Obama should become President first so that he could inspire and model for Hillary in those visionary ways which come natural to his mind and his thinking.  It mattered not, in their case, that Obama was younger, the point was who was more visionary.  Hillary will be a much better President in her 70s than she would have been in her 60s.  She ages beautifully, and I do not mean simply physically, of course, but in terms of her humanity.  That is why to label stringently, like a formula, a person’s past actions, present thinking, present actions as if one can size up another human being by formula is faulty in design.  Hillary wants to break through barriers which hold each person in America (yea, the world) back, and I want to break through all given intellectual barriers which hold thinking back, as a teacher.

Thank you again.  I respect that writer and I respect his thinking.  I will save your link to that article for further study.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Abraham Lincoln, Slavery, and Saving the Union

MaryElizabethSings  on Jay Bookman’s blog, 4/25/16:  (Link: http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/04/25/lets-give-a-new-meaning-to-confederate-memorial-day/

” . . .I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty (to save the Union first), and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.”

————————————-

Lincoln’s statement, above, which you (fellow poster) posted in full,* is a prime example of a man of high intellect who could put seeming paradoxes, together, in his mind simultaneously.

I would further speculate that Lincoln, in his official duty, recognized that he must first save the Union, and he had faith that the slavery issue, of which he was opposed, would resolve itself in time in that Union, which he had saved.  Being however a pragmatic and visionary politician, he later realized that it was to be he who was to be the direct instrument of God’s will in doing away with slavery, altogether, in our Union, and he made sure that that happened with the signing of the Amendment to our Constitution which freed all of America’s slaves, 8 months after he had been assassinated.


*”WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.   *

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing,” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.”

Posted in Abraham Lincoln, Uncategorized | Leave a comment