Sunday, October 17, 2004

Say Anything to Get Elected

Frankly, I am tired of hearing this argument supporting John Kerry for President: "He fought for our country in Vietnam and he'll fight for our country in Iraq."

I hear that statement and I just shake my head and think what a poor supporting statement that is. I think about how he fought in Vietnam and then he later turned around and rebelled against his own country through his words and actions because he was mad that he fought in that war. If it is true that he kept his own medals, but threw his comrades medals at the White House then that is plain hypocrisy. If he did in fact throw his own medals at the White House along with his comrades, but later applied/somehow managed to get new ones sent to him then that is plain hypocrisy too. But then the latter would go right along with how he votes/fights for something then votes/fights against it. And sadly, that is probably the only consistency we will see from this man who wishes to be President: vote/fight for something today, but vote/fight for the opposite tomorrow.

Isn't that just like him? He votes for it before/and then he votes against it.
And if he votes against it - he gets so mad that he rallies up everyone who will listen to him and then he attempts to make the bad guys look good and the good guys look bad.
He also manages to feed off of the contention, strife, and division among the American people - using it to fuel his campaign against whatever it is he just voted/fought for - and never makes an attempt to unite the American people in that process by discouraging the division. Turning the problem around and resolving it.

A true leader does not cry and complain about the problems that are going on and create more darkness in the process by blaming, pointing the finger, name calling, and saying anything that works in favor of this group during this minute or that group during that minute in order to get the support of people.

A true leader will observe the problems, make a note of them, seek to find some good within the problems and acknowledge those good things, and then inspire the support of the people by capitalizing on the fact that there is good here and focus on that and work to sell him/her -self to the people by showing what kind of processes are going on in that brain of his/hers.

So far - and the fact of the matter is the President never pointed this out to the people who watched and witnessed and came to this determination themselves - John Kerry flip-flops on issues and will say anything to anyone to get their vote.

Now - back to the Vietnam argument. I respect the Veterans who fought in that war. My dad passed away last year of a cancer that the Veterans Administration will not recognize as being an after-affect of the Vietnam war. He died at the young age of 59. He had been diagnosed with Diabetes Type II prior to the discovery of the cancer. Yet the VA will not recognize his death as service-connected because they can find nothing in his medical files that indicated he had cancer. I know these folks work hard to help Veterans because I work for the VA. The problem is... cancer does not say loud and clear to folks: "Hey! Guess what?! I'M HERE!! I'm in your colon!" Cancer is an assassin. And if you were born in a day and age when cancer was not something constantly drilled into your family's mind to get screened for - then, as a man, you were not going to go into a hospital and say, "Hey doc, will you probe my arse today? I was just wanting to make sure I didn't have any unusual looking polyps up there." When was the public introduced to polyps? What percentage of Americans today know about polyps and colon/rectal cancer versus...say...20 years ago? Exactly my point. But I digress.

I have a lot of respect for my dad and the many Veterans who came back from that war affected in different ways - mentally and physically. They seen things they don't want to talk about. They were different when they returned from that war - but they didn't see that they were different, only their loved ones could see that. And when they returned, they came home to an America that made them the enemy. They were spit on, scorned, called names, and were subjected to the worst degradation from their own country men ever recorded in history. Not even the Nazi regime was given this much disrespect by their own people - probably because it might have resulted in some strong, public display of repercussion on that person/people in order to discourage that from ever happening again.

The men who fought in that war only carried out their missions as commanded. Just as they do today in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that makes them baby killers and whatever names people want to throw at them, then step back and take a real logical look at war. It ain't perty. Never has been. Only problem is - we have war journalists and private individuals with recording cameras. Thanks to the modern invention of the recording camera we can now capture events as they unfold moment by moment. This means we can actually witness from a far, safe distance the gruesome explosions and slaughtering of people, as body parts disappear or fly in various directions. We can view mass graves and bodies at different stages of decomposition piled up in dung heaps. We can see that those killed were not made up of all men. That is what the disillusioned and ignorant wish to witness. When they see women and children in the mix, then they become upset.

Death and War do not take care to discriminate race, creed, color, age, or gender. We should try to remember that. It does not make the scenes less sad, but it is truth.

Although I believe everyone deserves a second chance and I believe people can change and need to be forgiven of their past if they are truly sorry for wrongdoings, I need to ask an important question of myself: Is this the kind of man I want in the Office of the President?

Someone who:

-fights/votes for something then fights/votes against it later.

-tells a group of abortionists that he is all for abortion even though his Catholic faith would particularly discourage such a practice, tells a group of pro-lifers that he respects life because his Catholic faith has brought him up to believe in life, then tells a mixed audience that he can advocates a society that protects life but can decide for itself when to kill life at whatever stage because even though he is a Catholic he cannot push his beliefs onto anyone. (Umm...what *are* his beliefs?)

-blames the Bush Administration for the failure to provide enough of the flu vaccine to the United States when he knows darn good and well that our country imports the flu vaccine from another country and nobody in this country can control what happens in another country - in this case, they stopped making the vaccine because of contamination... and having been a lawyer (and maybe still is) he should know to argue the fact that this country is so suit happy against physicians and hospitals because it's the easiest way nowadays to make a buck for both lawyers and plaintiffs. Why? Because not many lawyers study medicine to comprehend the challenges in different cases to come to the aid of the physician or hospital that is being sued. Medicine, like technology, is a profession that is constantly changing with each discovery, each disease, each mutation of a virus. Physicians and nurses learn from past cases and improve on their techniques with new cases.
  • For example, the lady from the 1950s who had sons joined at the top of the head... one of her babies died and the other survived. Today, the lady who had the exact same birth - two sons joined at the top of the head... both babies lived and the mothers visited and shared a connection from the same experience. The physicians in that case studied the 1950s case and then used it to help them with today's case. So far, the sons are healthy and acting just like normal toddlers.

Physicians and scientists in the United States do not want to create the flu vaccine because if something goes wrong (as it did in the country that made it this year - it got contaminated), then they will get sued. That is what they are avoiding. Kerry should know better than to blame the Bush Administration. Poor argument and another example of non-leadership by placing blame rather than looking for something good in the situation and taking ownership of it, researching how to resolve it, and then inspiring hope & unity in the people who are upset about it... rather than feeding off their contention and division and using it to fuel a blame campaign.

I can understand suing a physician or hospital for negligence. An example: leaving a surgical instrument in your body which could have been avoided by doing a count prior to and after the surgery. But suing a physician or hospital because they tried to separate siamese twins that belonged to a mother from another country who requested American help? Or suing a physician or hospital because a loved one died of complications on the operating table? These physicians are not looking to kill people - they are trying to save lives. They are trying to deliver healthy babies, not kill them. Nobody likes death, especially to a loved one - or a baby. And we want recompense when death happens to someone we love. First, we lost some one dear to us and they can never be replaced. Second, our emotions are high and we want someone or something to pay for the loss. Third, we are a judgmental society. If you don't believe that - look at the rate of teenage girls going in to get plastic surgery so they feel like they "fit in" and can "feel comfortable" about themselves. Whatever happened to natural beauty? While I'm asking that - how about, "Whatever happened to natural?" But again, I digress. Oh - and fourth, if you hire the best liar, then you'll most likely win the argument in court and get your money. A lot of trial liars will go after the big money if they feel they could win it - and physicians and hospitals like to settle a lot of things out of court in order to avoid public attention drawn to a single case that may have happened that way the public will not read about it in the paper and attend another physician or hospital.

At any rate, with a track record of saying one thing and then the other... forget the term "flip-flopper"... how about liar? The harshest word he could never use against Bush, after he already used it.

He is, after all, a former trial liar. And probably keeps up his license to practice. Heck, he does not need a license to practice - give him a podium, a stage, or the floor and he'll practice on any audience that will listen to him.

And that is what he has been doing this entire campaign. Lie to you, lie to me, lie to them, lie to the others... tell us each what we want to hear if it appeals to us, changes his tune the next time if he finds out certain people don't like what he said last time, that way he can be a person who is everything to everyone everytime. Are those the skills of a peacemaker? Lawyers are not looking to make peace, they are looking to win something. In Kerry's case, it's your vote.

Last time I checked, the saying went: You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I think he brought up some good ideas during his debates and I am certain President Bush and his staff made note of those good ideas. It always helps to hear another perspective on subjects. But I don't think America is going to be as safe as it currently is if he is put into the Office of President. Treating terrorism like it's just an annoying situation is not going to make us safe. He even wanted to remove the Missile Defense System in Alaska which would be an incredibly wrong decision seeing how Alaska is close to North Korea. President Bush knows what time it is - and even if he is not advertising to the entire world what plans are being put into place to make sure our country is safe (something probably learned from when he was going after Osama and the other terrorists still in our country who were gleaning off the media to learn what we knew about their whereabouts) - he is taking steps.

For those of us who wish to remain ignorant about terrorism in our country, please understand - it is real and they are here in our cities. The public doesn't need to know every single detail about national security or else the public will become paranoid. What we need to do - as the public - is keep alert and aware to our surroundings. Make ourselves familiar with important agencies and phone numbers in the case that we may need to report something that looks a bit out of place to us. We can live our lives as we usually do and still be aware of what is going on around us. It is nothing new. In fact, that is what prevents us from getting into accidents.

I don't agree that Kerry "won" the debates. If we were measuring who was the best liar, then yeah - he won. He's had practice. This war would have been a load on any President when it started and ended, yet continued. Every opposition has its surprises - teaches our military new things (another profession that is constantly changing with each discovery), like urban warfare from Somalia - kids carrying guns and shooting at our soldiers in the city streets. As Chief Commander of our military, it is his responsibility to ensure that the men & women he sends overseas are taken care of. He's got domestic plans for our country that he wants to put into place. I think both Kerry & Bush have America and the people in their heart, but they just have different ways to go about things. Personally, I prefer blunt, decisive, and steadfast to pandering, flip-flopping, and wavering.

Some people may say Bush "lost" the debates, but I think he's still the best choice between the two for President.

No comments: