Thursday October 18, 2018
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Nov-29-2008 14:56printcomments

Op Ed: Patience, Planning
Preparation Essential
For Policy Progress

U.S. seeks cooperation, discards political confrontation.

Salem-News.com
"All of a sudden, it isn't Morning in America"
Courtesy: deconstructingthemanifest.blogspot.com

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Confrontation eventually causes catastrophic consequences when pursued via policy means for political ends. Cooperation is commanded for any considerable progress to be competently achieved, for any nation.

If we’ve learned ANYthing in the decades since the misleading Reagan motto “It’s Morning Again in America!”, it is that role-playing to realize unrealistic political positions always pays off --but in drastic, damaging, sometimes even desperate consequences.

That’s the WHY of our “transformational” vote across this great land on Nov. 4th. That’s an informed view of WHY Obama is moving as he is --slowly, strongly, well-balanced and thoughtfully, as well as wisely --we can hope He Himself has cautioned us that “we have created the real opportunity for real change, but we still must make it happen.”

That’s WHY cavil, complaint --even caution re his continuing choices --should poise and ponder and wait. It took us TWO HUNDRED YEARS to dig this hole; why should we expect to claw our way up-and-out in the first few weeks, or even months?

Whether those Reagan-years consequences could and should have been foreseen, whether forewarning might perhaps have prevented huge current problems, is far too removed from “realistic” political application, many will insist.

Yet the most essential, important and revealing of human-behavioral research has long shown us that it is the considerate, conciliatory --and thus essentially cooperative-- attitudes and working situations which prove up to produce and provide the most effective, efficient and long-lasting benefits in any group situation.

The most productive and widely-providing years of U.S. prosperity were those fairly recent decades when corporate interests and worker necessities were brought into close contact.

That was in concert with an unstated but well understood social contract paying off well for both sides --and only achieved when confrontation was set aside for the cooperative conclusion found essential by both groups.

Corporations concluded it was in their interests to take into full consideration the realities raised by union representatives, made fully understandable by strong open contact with the working level by highly competent corporate management.

Worker groups, in their turn, via controversial, often hectic and far from harmonious dialog with corporate representatives, made their solid case by convincing management of their realistic contributions and the consequential impacts involved.


Was confrontation and conflict then always avoided and peaceful provisions promoted --all in an atmosphere of friendly neighbor-feeling forming easy agreement?

Far from that fine state, as anyone ever involved will now report: Strife, struggle, even strike-violence, surfaced and set teeth on edge as well as tools-downed from time to time. But agreement was generally reached --with strong long-continued impact on our “competitive advantage” internationally-- while corporate and worker strengths were so cooperatively combined.

Now our nation --in an historic “transformational election”-- has chosen to look-again at long-tolerated conflicts surely contributing to the current confused and deeply wounded state of our total economy.

Every day, in a multitude of ways, it is now becoming increasingly clear what has caused this current crisis. It is those neocon policies --brought on by basic conflict and confrontation of political patterns and basic philosophies--begun and accelerating ever since the Reagan Administration.

That “transformational shift” started with the Reagan era reversion to what can only now be called “the wild side”.

Union-busting and tax-manipulation, brought on by total inversion of long-standing American belief in our government, were reflected in Reagan’s declaration that “Government IS the problem”.

Deregulation, deep social-level tax changes, and both privatization and globalization building corporate control of ostensibly-”free trade” became the marching orders of the Reagan days and years.

Nobody knowledgeable will ever accuse Reagan and his complicit colleagues of seeking true commonweal consideration for all levels of our people in those years. WHY do we fail to put known psychological, psychiatric, and cognitive learning considerations --those characterizing cooperation-- into practice for political progress so desperately now demanded?

Every one of those absolutely practical and longknown parts-of-the-puzzle have been on hand and in broad, effective and efficient usage in education, industry, academia, technology and even religion all these decades.

They are hallmarks and brand-labels for working methods world-renowned, credited for decades with the strong progress America has made in every one of those strikingly-essential areas for progressive forward directions.

They were basically all revealed early-on --then deeply detailed in depth and developmental research-- over the past several centuries. Those are the characteristics which shaped and in many ways directed and fueled American and worldwide progress in all parts of our economy, culture and social developments.

Yet, primarily in America --”Land of the Free and the Brave”, “Home of American Exceptionalism“-- we have allowed a destructive, deeply damaging confrontational style to take over our political process.

That style, continued and intensified by near-total attention by midstream media --especially broadcast channels seeking easy rating-advantage-- has turned our real American Way in politics into truly now/proven catastrophic confrontations and constant campaign wars.

We know of the horrendous impacts of “corporate campaign contributions” on continuing lobbyist activities. We too often overlook the “black arts” of advertising tied tightly into the commercial-marketing approach to political communication --with extremely lucrative compensation for the channel manipulators.

We cannot ignore --except at our continuing deep and growing peril-- what all of these factors have done and continue to to do US and to our lives. Surely they all must be of deep concern NOW for anyone in a thoughtful society, and especially for one shaped and, we can hope, driven by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

The essential importance of that last is brightly illuminated by the arrival of President Obama; and the fact of the difficult, dangerous, sometimes desperate disparities of American life, shaping his life, should make a truly “transformational” impact on what we do now and how we do it.

We should expect from him the patience, the cautious, careful planning, and the solid sensible preparation of program and project which this very great opportunity for change has conferred on us all.

He deserves every possible cooperation and every potent consideration we can supply for him. Can there be any question whatsoever that to so act to support his Presidency is in our own best personal --as well as American-- interests, too ??


Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Henry Ruark December 3, 2008 4:31 pm (Pacific time)

G.M.: You wrote: "The Heritage Foundation is certainly far more accurate than the Times or the Post (msm in general) when it comes to stating historical facts." That's bare-bottom personal interpretation with no saving grace. Can you prove it ? If so file sources, links, quotes, cites, or whatever. Doubt if you ran your own reading-content vs solid characterization polling guide, which is what's tool for researchers involved. When we critize msmedia we are so prepared, with pro-data in depth and detail, with names, dates, examples, for summary. Wihout that you relaying only what b/button provides --OR you pick up from tainted sources such as Heritage, long known to be Far Right creation by billionaire-funded think tank foundation dollars. SO ? Did you run own polls ? If not, where's your checkable source ? Here we try to have "see with own eyes" and evaluate with own mind sources where possible,for main points if not precise statements. We work at that professionally and from long usage. What's your experience at that level, if any ? Ours here on open public record in STAFF. Credibility is sometime-thing demanding careful protection; that's what we try to provide for our own, as responsibility to readership.


Henry Ruark December 3, 2008 4:14 pm (Pacific time)

G.M.: Your source-list available for ready reference, sir ? What's count on it ? Mine for this one ran over 30 items,professionally recorded. Would you know how ? What famed-by-purchase new books have you read recently ? SHOCK DOCTRINE by Naomi Klein, for example ? OR Reagan's own chosen biographer Edmund Morris, in his DUTCH prize-winner ? Others on list; hcr files too. Why use source known to be funded for precisely misinformation purposes, as reported previously ? That's Heritate, in its own original statement acknowleding founder funding. Did you ever dig that up and read it ? I didn't have to since knew it from long ago, when it began. Yours reveals both distortion and misinformation, and still insists on ONLY your personal interpretation from those tainted sources. These days even Bush-cabal "government" labels Heritage as neoconservative, surely NOT "non-partisan". If you cavil, complain and come-for-more, we must be doing something right, or you will simply hide your light behind nearest bushel, or bag, or whatever. But "you pays your nickel for the paper. Then you can use it for whatever purpose is your greatest need." Just discard it elsewhere, please...


Gary McDowell December 3, 2008 3:06 pm (Pacific time)

The democratic congress most definitely started to reduce, then cut funding for future operations in Vietnam. For practical purposes we had to reduce military operations in 1973 and continued to reduce support to the South Vietnamese. Many of you may recall that in 1975 we were forced to evacuate our embassy in Saigon. Eventually a bloodbath began by the North Vietnamese and spread all over Asia. The "Killing Fields" of Cambodia where millions were slaughtered, and we do not know the full story of what really has happened in Laos or in that hellhole Myammar, a place I enjoyed going to when it was known as Burma. Henry you seem to have an opinion on everything but you sure have the wrong info on what that congress did in the 1970's or what happened in southeast Asia. By the way many of the same members of that 70's congress(democrats) were also the ones who voted against civil rights legislation in the 1960's. Do you also dispute that? Or just ignore that fact? The Heritage Foundation is certainly far more accurate than the Times or the Post (msm in general) when it comes to stating historical facts. They source everything via primary sources like the DOD and the congressional record, not the opinion of someone at say media-matters. I notice that you do not acknowledge Reagans 49 state landslide nor the fact that it was the democratic congress that cut funding to things like our military and our special people who are handicapped. I have spent over 40 years helping disabled children (mainly at various Shriners Hospitals), have never heard any complaints directed at Reagan, or any president for that matter, but we do know what the congress does. Peace

Tim King: Gary, with all respect I have to say that one of the least credible, interest-based agencies in the world is the DoD.  What Hank and I often do is try to verify what you willingly accept as fact simply because "the government" said it is so.  I strongly disagree with this as a criteria for evaluating fact.  I think your reference of the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia is extremely relevant because it accurately portrays the real outcome of a war waged with an unwinnable strategy- like in Iraq.  I had several Iraqi's tell me this summer that they expect a bloody civil war to erupt as soon as the U.S. troops exit.  There have always been problems between Sunni's and Shiite's and while it was being managed under Saddam Hussein, we can not achieve that as we are a foreign occupier.  So, resentment builds and builds and I can just picture my right-wing friends and family members trying to justify that by saying "well they have been fighting for thousands of years" and all that jazz.  The funny part is that people in the MidEast say the exact same thing about us: "Oh those Christians have been fighting for thousands of years" and sadly they are right.


Henry Ruark December 3, 2008 1:03 pm (Pacific time)

To all: For our many serious readers, the information re Heritage "Mandate for Leadership" briefing book for Reagan is part of "The Paper Chase" by Dayo Olopade, The American Prospect Dec. 08. Article is intriguing view of how influential rapidly growin special-group briefing media has become in D.C. Point: Heritage guide --with same title !-- was updated for Bush cabal use, too. Check it out to evaluate with your own mind both the reference and our use of its information here. Do you ever see neocon pander-producers doing the honest, open, democratic thing here ??


Henry Ruark December 2, 2008 8:04 pm (Pacific time)

PS: You wrote:"It was the democratic congress during the Vietnam War that cut the funding and in effect allowed millions to perish." Thaat is factually and historically incorrect and misleading, sir, without due full explanation of complex considerations you carefully conceal by omission here. Again, content analysis shows your misinformation may be by distortion and internal misunderstandings, which is in line with mine just previous. You may wish to seek out some solid sources for accurate and complete insights into the Vietnam situation you cite.


Henry Ruark December 2, 2008 7:55 pm (Pacific time)

P.S.: Now we learn from whence you truly cometh, sir. Yours is UNtypical of many military I've know, perhaps even the equal of some of what you claim, while carefully UN-ID'ing self. What you add re unique mental response after combat experience points directly to denial symptoms from your own personal reactions, I will venture. (With all due respect for many vets in same moral plight.) What you state is factually incorrect, unable to rebut in detail in small space here. IF you will ID to Editor Tim, will continue direct to you, thus freeing Comment space here for more relevant and meaningful participation by others. Sorry for your plight, and we can hope for remediation.


Henry Ruark December 2, 2008 7:42 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Check on PS link turns up The Heritage Foundation. Happens to be neocon hq., where 12-vol. briefing manual was specially prepared for Reagan when he was elected. He followed it page by page, and it was also source for initiation of major neocon policies: deregulation, privatization, "free trade" corporate-controlled, as well as "supply-side" economic theory termed by Reagan's own David Stockman as fraud and fantasy knowingly peddled. Heritage established as part of GOP "noise machine", financed by billionaire families, involved in open attack on FDR New Deal as stated "defensive" objectives, and to shape understandings of U.S. citizens via now very well-recognized activities to distort/pervert by intentional "information flow". That's how "liberal" got to be bad word,and where "greed is good" was built, to follow Reagan's own now-notorious "Government IS the problem !" movie-guru misstatement. (See series of previous Op Eds with documentation cited.) Heritage is part of support group that built Project for A New American Century now seen as root of Iraq preemptive attack, costing nation more than 4,000 dead, trillions in treasure, and heavy load of veterans returning with desperate physical, mental, moral wounds. FYI, Clinton refused strong attempt to force him to act on PFAC by public letter served on him by same cabal that then joined Bush as colleagues. PNAC justifies assassination, sir. Will you now assert you did not know that fact ? We await your reply vs previous statements. You expect us to see Heritage as source acceptable here ? If so, as shown by your use of link, that's contempt for reader intelligence. If you cannot use fully recognized national sources with recognized integrity, do not flourish your contempt for readers by relaying muck from now thoroughly discredited ones. We need no help here from such obvious political pandering, sir. This is NOT free-fire political war-zone, but open, honest, democratic channel seeking to assist all in sharing and learning, from checkable, testable sources displaying journalistic characteristics of truth via balance, integrity, fairness and professional reputation, including acceptance as major publications by millions, as for TIME, NEW YORKER, FORTUNE, New York TIMES (still the world leader), et al, et al.


Henry Ruark December 2, 2008 7:04 pm (Pacific time)

P.S.: You wrote:"The Soviet Union collapsed because of what Reagan did, effectively ending the cold war. It is now starting once again. " Consensus on Reagan "winning" Cold War is now reversed,with many historians (and leading economists) stating Soviet was in collapse when R. arrived. Soviet history appears to show truth of the new findings. IF you really giving Obama his fair shot to succeed, your previous language legitimizing negative action certainly more than a bit peculiar. You further state Pentagon cut off from supplies and left with soldiers unprotected. If you have proof, it flies in face of budget totals for those years and employment figures for allathose huge military supply companies. How come no collapse of those industries denied sales ? Your watchful waiting for O/s first "disasters" hardly counts as "support", sir, but does reflect your previous negativities.


PS December 2, 2008 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

All presidents, other than George Washington inherit the existing military. What I pointed out in the below post was that Carter and Clinton had an averse impact on our military, both in readiness and morale...a matter of public record. I fear the same may happen again. I have close ongoing relationships with current military and veterans of conflicts from WWII up to the present. They have a different take than you and their opinion polls bare that out. I can appreciate your travels to both Afghanistan and Iraq, but it would be quite difficult for anyone other than a true combatant to understand what combat really is about. In addition going over there for a short time period, even if you were academically trained/experienced would disallow you to make accurate assumptions on maco-military opinions, that is why scientifically constructed polls are used to get a more accurate picture. I was a combat veteran during a very bloody war where in my time approximately 5 times more were killed in around one year than the nearly six years of present hostilities. LBJ was no friend of the active military nor the veteran. It was the democratic congress during the Vietnam War that cut the funding and in effect allowed millions to perish. It takes a long time to get the military up to speed when they have been damaged by irresponsibility, so don't expect things to get much better. Iraq is going the way of Cambodia eventually anyway, and Afghanistan with their tribalism is not going to change. No matter how much I detest Bush, he has kept the homeland free from attack. Will Obama? We'll see.


Gary McDowell December 2, 2008 6:13 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King are you serious? The below article said nothing about racism or anything that was hateful. As far as Jeremiah Wright goes, it was Obama that threw him under the bus, as well as other people that he had had long relationships with until they were negatively impacting him. If your assessment of Wright held validity you would think some high profile politicians would have come to his defense. They did not and for probably the same reason they don't promote that explosives brought down the buildings on 9/11. Critical thinking is a skill that I myself continually work on, so may I suggest the same for you.


Henry Ruark December 2, 2008 10:18 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" link to President Obama's website, with unique "join the conversation" feature: www.opednews.com December 2, 2008 Obama: Join the Conversation by Richmond Shreve The Obama transition team’s web site http//change.gov on November 25th offered a new feature: a blog with reply features. You can check it out here. I am hopeful that this new opportunity for dialog will be monitored by the transition team’s staff and that there will be an “official” participant in the various threads. This would be a milestone in participative government, one that would really be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” --------------- Surely this new opportunity to be heard should prove valuable in direct proportion to how responsibly it is used in good faith by true Americans, as intended. Others seeking to delay, deny, defeat will of millions may find themselves in deep doodoo earned by their own continued denial of new realities.


PS December 2, 2008 9:57 am (Pacific time)

To Editor: Here is some info dealing with the military and past presidents. Also keep in mind that it was a democratic congress that cut spending for the special groups you mentioned. They did it.
CARTER reduced the military. For example at the end of his administration navy ships went from 847 to 538. Navy personnel went from 675,000 to 525,000. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scn-1981-reagan.htm
"During REAGAN'S two administrations, the US military increased to unprecedented peacetime levels. True, Reagan did increase the size of the military, spent billions on national defense, and fought Communists in Latin America. Yet, more cordial relations with the USSR, arms reductions, and a shift away from anti-Soviet policies characterized Reagan's second term in office." The Soviet Union collapsed because of what Reagan did, effectively ending the cold war. It is now starting once again. Watch the Ukraine become a hotspot this spring.
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/reagan/section9.rhtml CLINTON reduced our military readiness. Bill Clinton had slashed the military by 30 percent as part of a post-Cold War "peace dividend. Under Clinton,The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000.
In 1995 the Pentagon was not allowed to buy a single new tank. President Clinton did the armed forces a disservice when our soldiers and sailors went without essential training because equipment is broken and there are no parts to fix it. The Pentagon under Clinton was not given the training, equipment, spare parts and supplies it needed to fulfill it's mission.
So under him our fighting men and women can be thrown into the middle of a conflict without the proper support, and we can just hope for the best?
Was this the Clinton's administration's military strategy? Then we have 9/11 and you all know the rest and the shortages our military has had to deal with in our present conflicts. WE NEED TO PULL TOGETHER, LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS. I WILL GIVE MY FULL BACKING TO OBAMA UNTIL HE PROVES HE CANNOT DO THE JOB. http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed042596e.cfm

Editor:  President Carter inherited the military when he became the President in 1977, two years after the cessation of hostilities in SE Asia.  Military downsizing happens in the aftermath of a conflict like Vietnam, so that is sort of like comparing apples and oranges.  I think most of us believe in maintaining a strong military but these forces need to be used only as a last resort, not as some sort of game.  Morevover, the veterans of these wars need to be properly cared for and any national leader that really gave two cents about it, would have bolstered our veteran's care system.  Anyway, we will have to wait and see what happens with Obama. 

I read what you wrote about putting troops in harms way without proper support and mind swirls with images of Bush and all the soldiers and Marines I have interviewed here and abroad who talk about unarmored vehicles, no strategy to win the war, etc.  They feel that Bush already put them through all of those moves.  Again, having "what it takes" to wave a flag and root for sending Americans into these situations, does not equate to being a friend of people in uniform.

I fail to see anything coming from these attempts to take Bush's mistakes and attribute them to Bill Clinton.  Anyway, it will be interesting, thanks for the correspondence.

Tim King

 


Henry Ruark December 2, 2008 9:44 am (Pacific time)

To all: Never, ever, does any Reagan fan mention Iran/Contra, or its desperate damaging impacts in S. America. OR its historic role in setting up, then motivating support for Project for A New American Century, now broadly recognized as root of the Iraq preemptive attack. OR the massive national debt inevitable by "supply-side" Reaganomics, termed a living lie by David Stockman, Reagan's chieftain then. OR Altheimer's symptoms, known early-on, no longer denied. For documentation see his own chosen biographer Edmund Morris, in "Dutch", cited in Op Eds for years now. WHY is that ? Facts are FACTS. That's what drives "informed opinion", making it reliable since rapidly checkable. For thoughtful readers, see past Op Eds for detail and deadly-accurate sources of unquestionable reliability. Easy-access at STAFF via 'Writen by"-line. Please note I sign all my stuff, too, so professional reputation right on the line. For others, see Blogger source at NJ weekly cited by GM. No comment on it to shape your "see with own eyes" evaluation with own mind. If you prefer small-weekly raid by casual reader, seek out his blog --and save your nickel here.


PS December 2, 2008 7:52 am (Pacific time)

HR I thought you might like to know: "A judge dismissed indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday and told the south Texas prosecutor who brought the case to exercise caution as his term in office ends on 12/31/08.. Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra had accused Cheney and the other defendants of responsibility for prisoner abuse. The judge's order ended two weeks of sometimes-bizarre court proceedings. Guerra is leaving office at the end of the month after being [soundly defeated] in the March primary election." By the way, any of you who have investments in mutual funds could heve been indicted by this moronic DA (there are literally millions of us). He has also indicted judges and a special prosecutor that rebuked his past bizzaro actions.


Gary McDowell December 1, 2008 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

Some see reality for what it portends:
2008: The Year of Obama and The Stock Market Crash
Bayshore News ^ | December 1, 2008 | Gordon Bishop
Thanks to Barak Hussein Obama and his ACORN friends, America is poised for a multi-trillion-dollar Depression.

Ever since Obama decided to run for President in 2007 (democrats also took over congress that year), the stock market and “Main Street” – the backbone of our economic system – have been teetering on a Depression collapse.

How the Democrat Party chose Obama to represent their party remains a mystery. Obama, the most liberal tax-and-spend Senator in the United States Congress, owes his Presidential candidacy to an unrepentant admitted terrorist and community organizer friend, William Ayers.

The Democrat party has known about Bill Ayers, the 1960s bomb-thrower who hates America, not to mention Obama’s spiritual leader, Jeremiah Wright, who not only hates America, but hates “White America!”

Now we find out from Obama’s paternal grandmother that he was allegedly born in Mombosa, Kenya, Africa – not in America. I wonder where his college transcripts are from Columbia University and Harvard are? Past candidates have provided them. Where are his former classmates? What's the big deal to provide that info? They say he's the smartest to ever be elected to the presidency, so let's have some proof that he just didn't get by because of affirmative action (overlook and ignore) policies.

Tim King: Gary, are you serious?  What in the hell bothers you so much about this guy?  Deal with your racism friend, you will benefit and so will all people in your life.  You guys lost this on, and you lost by A HUGE MARGIN. Don't give yourself an ulcer trying to vest yourself in this fictitious stuff.  If Obama was not a citizen if ACORN mean anything, then he would be dealing with it.  Come on, your part has Karl Rove on its team.  If there was any dirt to be had, than man would be rolling in it.   I hope you and others can move forward.  What Rev. Wright said was not rooted in BS; the white man did very poorly for many generations in terms of treating people of color with fairness.  Thanks to circumstances, Obama offers even you a bit of redemption.


Kramer November 30, 2008 12:22 pm (Pacific time)

After Jimmy Carters horrid administration and putting America on the brink of both a depression and growing inflation (interest rates were over 22%), it took a president with the ability to make some hardball decisions to reverse course. No doubt Reagan rankled many, but he came into office where some tough decisions had to be made and he pulled us out of a steep economic dive and gave us some of the country's most prosperous times. He invested heavily in seeing that research and development in our technology advanced and by the time Clinton came to office another wave of prosperity was about to advance. Of course Clinton broke his promise immediately after taking office by raising taxes. In 1994 the taxpayer revolt happened and from then on Clinton signed republican legislation. You really can find no Clinton policy/legislation on his own design that was of benefit. It was his executive decisions that hurt us badly. Both he and Carter decimated our military and by the time of the 9/11 attack we had to spend so much to build up our military which is still in need of regaining our past strength levels. Had the Clinton Administration left the military alone as Reagan had built it up, very few if any National Guard personnel would have been serving in Iraq/Afghanistan. In 1999 Clinton's executive leadership (lack of) set up the subprime fiasco that we presently have. In fact since 2007 when the demo's took over just look at what happened to the economy. They control the purse strings, not Bush.

Editor: Wow, interesting point of view.  Reagan balanced his books by removing the programs that aided the mentally and physically handicapped.  If you lived in Salem, Oregon you might already be familiar.  As far as the military downsizing, most of that started under Reagan and continued under the first Bush.  The GOP rarely supports our military; politicians from this party sure like to get Americans killed though.. .  I'm not saying that Democrats are angels or anything ridiculous, but Carter is probably one of the best human beings ever to hold office in this country.  He is a Christian and he never bowed to the pressure from the GOP and he paid for it.  But then any political party that operates like criminals the way the GOP has in recent years, is going to win for a while.  Clinton was a good president, though he catered to the GOP so much I honestly had a hard time believing he was a Democrat at times.    It is time now for President elect Obama to have his day and most of the United States is happy about it.  Bellyaching won't change anything and outright fictitious claims are getting very boring these days.


Henry Ruark November 30, 2008 10:54 am (Pacific time)

To all: For our (many) serious readers here's two informative reports from NYT Magazine 11/30: www,nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t You're Leaving a Digital Trail, What About Privacy ? by John Markoff. Google's Gatekeepers; by Jeffrey Rosen The first confirms fears of many re Internet links now destroying privacy. The second enlarges scope of the problem with detail re Google worldwide experience. S-N is high on Google-engine. Together they demonstrate the "black arts" continuing strong impacts and emphasize the absolute necessity for open, honest democratic dialog via RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE participants engaging in CIVIL conversation for learning and sharing for 21st Century need.


Eastern Oregon Conservative November 29, 2008 11:45 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King:  Your debasing comments and delusional thoughts are not welcome here.  End of story.


Eastern Oregon Conservative November 29, 2008 8:42 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King: Sir, your tirade will not be published here.  I will consider publishing your comments on my stories but not on Henry's.  The purpose of the comment section is to provide a place for intelligent dialog.  Your rants do not qualify.

[Return to Top]
©2018 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for November 28, 2008 | Articles for November 29, 2008 |
Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar




googlec507860f6901db00.html
Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.