Dear America,

so anyone else wonder about what comes after Gadhafi?


but here we are, in foreign territory once again, believing oh, if we just get rid of 'fill-in-the-blank', everything will be fine, a democracy will grow, and everyone will be happy...cake for everybody.

We have a president, acting without congressional approval, using the United Nations as the quintessential liberal order throwing out the first stone...as if having the Arab Emirate's also in our corner made it that much more okay...

only now morphing into, some version of,  it has nothing to do with Gadhafi -- it's all about the humanitarian vibe -- even though, if my memory serves me clearly, for the last three weeks you, big O (and Clinton, and ...and ...) have repeatedly said, Gadhafi has to go.

...yes, indeed..."when the entire international community..." says it's okay, it must be okay; making every effort to rationalize the very behavior you said you would never do, that this sort of thing is not okay, that it is never okay; this time, you say, things are different.

"I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush..."

Obama, responding to McCain, after a question posed by Jim Leherer, during the presidential debates in 2008.

And then to top it all off, you fly off into the opposite direction, heading as far south as you can go, taking the family, making a vacation out of it; when the going gets tough, you take American interests south -- ushering in a new age in energy dependence -- finishing off that slap in the face following a fist full of oil moratoriums, and enough regulations to poke an eye out, and cutting off any preconceived idea that America is the birthplace of self-reliance, production, and innovation, taking us to new lows in jobs, economic growth and prosperity for all... yeah, that's right.


Are you intentionally trying to take us down?

For all we know right now, you have entered us into a third war in the middle east -- and you are a Nobel Peace Prize recipient?  How is that 'sitting down with rogue dictators and kings and merchants of death' working out for you?

But the biggest question I have going on in my head this morning is, how in the world, could the UN take away our personal power, here in America?  The UN does not speak for America's interests...it only speaks on behalf of a larger world order; the UN wants fundamental transformation of the global marketplace and have control on the organizing for social justice everywhere and often -- and we let them dictate how we should proceed?

Begging the question, does the UN have any idea who replaces the crazy man and Colonel, Moammar Gadhafi?  As far as we can tell, rebels and radicalized groups are waging the war against the crazy man -- making a situation where just more crazy follows crazy.  Is there a bona fide leader, of the "democratic persuasion" ready and waiting in the wings?  ...and surely, not to be confused with the real American wings that have just recently crashed landed and burned...

Rumor has it -- whatever the GOP has just saved, through the direction of the Continuing Resolution over the next several months, saving approximately 61 Billion dollars -- it's as good as vaporized, if we keep going at this rate -- and maybe as early as the end of next week... all upon the shores of Tripoli....

And then, if that's not enough, we have the Arabs running away with cold feet; we have Gadhafi claiming this to be the beginning of a "long war"; while Russia's Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, had the audacity to say this: "The resolution is defective and flawed," said Putin, whose country did not use its power to veto the resolution at the UN. "It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades." Read more here.

More troubling and confusing is the recent back track of what began as the primary goal -- to effectively oust the evil one and leave Libya back in the rightful hands of "it's people"  (whatever that looks like).

All the while, the messaging has centered on the humanitarian efforts to save lives (not to be confused with the killing fields of oil, now left alone and lonely and wondering about it's own fate); for merely three percent of the world's production, Libya's future sure poses far more questions and concerns than any confidence in a no-fly zone bringing a sense of calm and order.

How can the arrival of the cavalry only ring in greater mystery?

More questions remain -- how long will this take? what are the goals (considering they keep shifting overnight)?  are the goals of the United Nations the same goals as the United States -- and should they be the same, in this instance? and just who is there to wonder why and how and what gives?  how does this distract us from keeping "the peace" in Afghanistan, and in Iraq? shouldn't Congress question the authority of the president to start a third war?  what is the budget?  who is paying for it? will the UN reimburse us for lost planes and tomahawk missiles?  will this just make America appear that much more like the crazy Imperialistic "crusaders" masquerading around the world as the peace keepers for democracy and human rights?  if we, in America and in Europe, did not rely on the Middle East for oil, how would things be different?  what will it take to drill here, in America, for god's sakes?  does Obama really want Sarkozy to lead on this one -- what does that tell us -- he hates Sarkozy -- and given Obama is supposed to be the Commander in Chief of all of the free world, and specifically America, how could he be happy with taking 'just an assist' for the history books?   (that was a plug for his greater interest on the day, being in the middle of March Madness and all).

and just who follows after?

after Gadhafi?

whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, the Islamic caliphate is upon us; and timing is everything, isn't it?

for here we sit, with a  president,  who seems willing to jeopardize everything -- America's sovereignty, freedom, and essential liberties; a president, who, for all we know, is sitting in some South American cafe, drinking an iced tamarind latte right now, totally oblivious to the laws of  engagement; as our energy dependence grows stronger, relying more and more upon the kindness and generosity of other nations --  we lose ourselves; as we enter into a foreign lands, emerging as a nation promising peace while waging war, through mandates lost in the valley of unknowns, contradictory intentions, under misguided allegiances  -- we lose ourselves.  But we are fully engaged now, aren't we?

The thing is, normally, as history goes, the position that holds the power to explain things more clearly, define things more definitively, and communicate things more deeply comes out of the Oval Office; this nation, more often than not, is led by a President, with a capital P.   In other words, we -- in the US of A -- are not led by the intellectual global elite, deciding our fate, any fate, by a show of hands around a quarter moon table.

We decide when we enter into war, by a show of a Congressional mandate; we decide when we put our machines and our boys/girls in harm's way -- we decide; we are not easily swayed, while we also do not sit idly by for week's on end, hoping and praying for a change to come; we act.  We act -- and when we do -- we stay home to witness our decision play out, leading it, systematically and methodically,  every step of the way.

Our President is not even counting himself 'present' on this one -- and that is what is wrong with our leadership today; letting Sarkozy lead us in this march against time, among other things, is becoming my favorite mistake on the day.

happy tuesday.

Make it a Good Day, G

"...Number two, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

Number three, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaida and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.


And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe." 

Obama, again, during the debate...wow.  so easy to talk about it, isn't it?  The entire transcript is fascinating,  you know, given where we are today...if you got the time, read more here.

Dear America,

Don't Ask! but oh, do tell...

this is a tale of two faces

both pretty and neither outpaces

with candid remarks

disgrace indeed sparks

while all elegance falls out of good graces

Apparently, the new black according to international law, under "propriety/lady etiquette" is slipping into grey area, the fine lines are starting to blur...scuzi, pardon moi...

For Carla and The Ambitious is on the loose; now prowling and roaming literary circles seems to be the latest fashion of the avant garde, peddling the indiscreet with daring impunity and high style.

The nerve of her, really; to quote Carla, quoting Michelle, "Don't Ask! It's hell. I can't stand it."

According to Sarkozy's second lady, our first lady whispered sweet burning somethings in her ear; openly and unsparingly, Michelle didn't even attempt to pass off illusions of grandeur, held in high esteem and sheltered deep in Americana, of her role as close to royalty as we get -- she made no ivy league try at
even hiding her true disdain -- she laid it right out, "it's hell," oh bloody hell, I tell you, "I can't stand it."

Of course, it may not be true; but what if it is?

Besides the intital embarassment of being party to the likelihood of an international cat fight about to ensue, what would motivate another first lady to attack our first lady in such a way -- even if sparring with the truth? What would bring her to that point of no return?

It is funny when we call the President's wife, the first lady; in truth, Michelle is actually the 44th, just as Laura was 43rd, and so on and so on.  The reality of title alone -- "first lady" -- of role, of place in the world, remains to be found more in metaphor and history, than in the specifics of the long line of women who came before and in actuality. 

For she stands for America.

Just as this seems to be going off message, let us twist this drivel one more time; as I started this day reading an article highlighting the "happiness gap", comparing the level of happiness of whites and blacks from the 1970's and over the last several decades; as time should have its way with us, blacks are showing greater progress than whites, according to this study and making little difference of economic status, in the pursuit of happiness.

The gap is slimming; blacks are finding a way to find happiness in spite of the imagined inequities and self-fulfilling  prophecy of austerity and lack; perhaps the generation holding tight to old truths and past wrongs, are finally giving way to new thought, allowing for the shackles of the past to unveil a life filled with hope and prosperity -- and maybe even a little happiness -- if nothing else.

But the thing is, flowing with the daily chatter, catching wind of the prevailing attitudes chiming in with wanton commentary and personal opinion, it led me down a tangent unsuspecting...and that being, the early slave trade in America (as well as along the Barbary Coast... then into the lands of "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters"...but that would take days to traverse, and we don't have that kind of time today).

And it was there, in a sea of print, I found a prized-worthy quote:

"when someone removes the cataracts of whiteness

 from our eyes, and when we look with unclouded vision

on the bloody shadows of the American past,

we will recognize for the first time the Afro-American,

who was so often second in freedom,

was also second in slavery." 

Lerone Bennett Jr.

author and African American

The first flings of free-enterprise in this country had everything to do with the tabacco industry -- how to plant, process, and package, and bring it to market; white, volunteers -- commonly known as "free-willers" -- gladly exchanged a few years of indentured servitude for free passage to the new world.  Some 300,000 of these "free-willers" came over between the years 1620 - 1775, amounting to every two out of three voyagers, free choosing to migrate to America under such terms.  Only, upon arrival, finding their rights all but gone, and at a point of no return; they were stuck, and now slave to the master and commander.

But the seed was planted decades before, as the motivation of boosting the number of migrant workers to do their dirty work was so great, England had long been cleaning out their prisons, and sending to America their criminals and the unwanted  -- boasting the growth of the happiness factor back at home, I'm sure, albeit that study not to be found; while no one was safe, forwarding women, and children -- as young as toddlers, strikingly became all too easy to do.  Sometime around the early 1600's, Australia became the new dumping ground for derelicts, but the point is, many of the early "settlers" were simply migrant workers -- and predominantly white.

Whites were not only well documented to have been slaves and servants throughout world history,  they were the FIRST slaves of America!

Slavery, in any color, is nothing to stand up and be happy about, whether you came first or second; no question, and no doubt about it.

But, being First Lady, of the nation commonly recognized as the leader of the Free World -- even if for the 44th time -- now THAT is something, when afforded such stately position and sweet success, to talk about!  A reality that, if one should ever find herself  -- and maybe for the first time -- a situation one could almost be very, very proud of.  A position that, some might say, is happy-stance (just made that up) to remarkable timing, unfathomable good fortune, with luck and pure chance playing brilliantly to that end.

To speak, on behalf of all 43 first ladies who have come before, and gossip amongst the wives of the politico-elite around the entire globe, is a rare thing.

While on the contrary, to be in a position, where all girls, in a rainbow of color and custom, look to you with honor, watching your every move, and quite possibly hanging on your every word, is an everyday occurrence.

Matter of fact, the entire world is watching, listening, imagining how in bloody hell could this ever happen; we're talking about our first lady!  Did she or didn't she, it doesn't matter now; we're nestled in the bottom of a frigate and past the point of no return. 

The word is out and it ain't pretty; with one click, the world sees our first lady as whiner in chief -- and not of the good, nouveau beaujolais kind; while we witness Sarkozy's second time around exhibiting behavior unbecoming of a lady.  Either way, the manuscript and the media holds us hostage to the titilating amusement of it all.

I would laugh, if only it wasn't so sad.

Make it a Good Day, G