President Barack Obama's decision to take a vacation to Chicago during Memorial Day and not place a traditional wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery is truly disturbing. I have no objection to his taking a vacation, even though it is his second in the last 35 days and even though it is during one of the worst oil spills in our history, during a time when the economy and unemployment continue to lose ground, and when North Korea is embarking on war with South Korea.
As a veteran, what is really offensive to me is Obama's judgment to skip the traditional Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington so he can be in Chicago with his friends. It is hard to accept such disdain for tradition by "The Commander-In-Chief." It explains why many of my active-duty friends do not respect him.
Perhaps Mr. Obama feels there is no need to keep the "Arlington Tradition" alive because he feels the servicemen and women who gave their lives for our country since he took office is George Bush's fault, too.
Mark Desmarais
Hawaii Kai
***
It’s truly a national scandal. Obama’s not going to honor our fallen soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery, he’s going to honor our fallen soldiers at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.
Only Arlington counts!
The critics were either ignorant of the facts or they failed to mention the 2007 Veterans Day ceremony when Vice President Dick Cheney spoke while President George W. Bush observed the holiday in Texas.
Vice President Dan Quayle laid the wreath at Arlington on Memorial Day, 1992. I recall covering President George H.W. Bush, a distinguished World War II vet, as he marked the holiday that year at his favorite vacation spot, Kennebunkport, Maine, where he spoke to a veterans group.
Back in 1983, a Defense Department official laid the Memorial Day wreath at Arlington when Ronald Reagan was at a G-7 Summit meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Actually, Poppy Bush had so much contempt for the dead at Arlington that he blew it off all four years. W. cared so little about our country and our heritage that he also skipped out on Arlington in 2001 and 2002.
And while our troops were dying in Vietnam, Richard Nixon made the curious choice to spend Memorial Day in 1973 and ‘74 in Key Biscayne, Florida.
[Suddenly, I'm Olbermann.. ]
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
party of surpluses?
Democracy was invented in Greece 2,500 years ago. If Charles Djou is elected to Congress, it will confirm the cynical judgment of a friend who recently told me that, in America, "Democracy means one dollar, one vote." I refer to a half-hour of prime-time TV several evenings ago, during which Djou's mean-spirited attack ads, and those of Colleen Hanabusa, outnumbered the ads of their target, Ed Case, by five to one. Djou is trying to buy this election -- and he may succeed.
But Djou's brand of "fiscal responsibility" would transform America's tomorrow into that of Greece today. Remember that our only years of budget surpluses in nearly half a century came when Democrats were in charge, during the 1990s.
Steve Bartlett
Kaneohe
***
Steve Bartlett need look no further back than 2008 to find a candidate for president who spent in excess of $700 million ("Democrats were party of surpluses," Star-Bulletin, Letters, May 20), which is greater than the combined totals for Bush and Kerry in 2004. The current race for the 1st Congressional District pales in comparison.
As far as federal deficits, I am no champion of the GOP, not a member of any form of tea party, and will not pretend to be an economist. But Mr. Bartlett seems to need some help remembering things from recent history. If he wishes to equate "party in power" with budget deficits, then we need to look at the legislative branch, as well. This is important because Congress actually controls spending, not the president.
During the final two years of Ronald Reagan's, all of George H.W. Bush's, and the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidencies, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. These were all "deficit" years. Republicans won control of both houses in the 1994 elections, and held control of both houses until the 2000 elections. These were "surplus" years.
For most of the first two years of Bush's presidency, Democrats controlled the Senate. One might credit the dot-com bust and 9/11 as factors in the economic downturn. We had (widely reported) record budget deficits then. One trillion dollars were added to the gross debt in two years.
Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2002, with Republicans retaining control of the House. The federal deficit remained steady, basically keeping pace with GDP growth. About $2.2 trillion was added in four years.
In the 2006 election, Democrats regained control of both houses. About $3.4 trillion was added in two years.
Finally, the Democrats gained super-majorities in both houses (and the White House) in 2008. An estimated $3.3 trillion more will be added by the end of the current Congress.
Joseph Holtzmann
Pearl City
But Djou's brand of "fiscal responsibility" would transform America's tomorrow into that of Greece today. Remember that our only years of budget surpluses in nearly half a century came when Democrats were in charge, during the 1990s.
Steve Bartlett
Kaneohe
***
Steve Bartlett need look no further back than 2008 to find a candidate for president who spent in excess of $700 million ("Democrats were party of surpluses," Star-Bulletin, Letters, May 20), which is greater than the combined totals for Bush and Kerry in 2004. The current race for the 1st Congressional District pales in comparison.
As far as federal deficits, I am no champion of the GOP, not a member of any form of tea party, and will not pretend to be an economist. But Mr. Bartlett seems to need some help remembering things from recent history. If he wishes to equate "party in power" with budget deficits, then we need to look at the legislative branch, as well. This is important because Congress actually controls spending, not the president.
During the final two years of Ronald Reagan's, all of George H.W. Bush's, and the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidencies, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. These were all "deficit" years. Republicans won control of both houses in the 1994 elections, and held control of both houses until the 2000 elections. These were "surplus" years.
For most of the first two years of Bush's presidency, Democrats controlled the Senate. One might credit the dot-com bust and 9/11 as factors in the economic downturn. We had (widely reported) record budget deficits then. One trillion dollars were added to the gross debt in two years.
Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2002, with Republicans retaining control of the House. The federal deficit remained steady, basically keeping pace with GDP growth. About $2.2 trillion was added in four years.
In the 2006 election, Democrats regained control of both houses. About $3.4 trillion was added in two years.
Finally, the Democrats gained super-majorities in both houses (and the White House) in 2008. An estimated $3.3 trillion more will be added by the end of the current Congress.
Joseph Holtzmann
Pearl City
crack down on chicken outfits
RENO, Nev. — Voters dressed in chicken costumes won't be allowed inside Nevada polling places this year.
State election officials on Friday added chicken suits to the list of banned items after weeks of ridicule directed at Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden.
The millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen recently suggested that people barter with doctors for medical care, like when "our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."
Democrats responded by setting up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and by sending volunteers in chicken suits to her campaign events.
State election officials on Friday added chicken suits to the list of banned items after weeks of ridicule directed at Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden.
The millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen recently suggested that people barter with doctors for medical care, like when "our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."
Democrats responded by setting up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and by sending volunteers in chicken suits to her campaign events.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Honolulu Advertiser: the final chapter
Today's final edition of The Honolulu Advertiser ends a 154-year run that helped document and define the course of Island life from the days of the Hawaiian kingdom to the arrival of jets and the digital age.
Honolulu is now a one-newspaper town for the first time in its history. Like Seattle and Denver, cities that also lost newspapers as the global recession deepened, Honolulu will now adjust to life with only one thump on the front step, one headline peeking from the newsbox on the corner.
The death of The Advertiser came at 12:01 a.m. today after a decades-long newspaper war with its neighbor just makai on South Street, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
The closing also marks the shutdown of one of Hawai'i's oldest and largest businesses. About 400 people will lose their jobs — most at The Advertiser, but also about 91 workers at the printing plant in Kanē'ohe that produces the Star-Bulletin and MidWeek.
The surviving daily will debut as a broadsheet tomorrow with a new name that pays homage to both newspapers: the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
The company will employ about 474 workers — including 265 hired from the Advertiser, among them 28 editors, reporters, columnists and a photographer — and will be produced at the plant built by The Advertiser in Kapolei in 2004.
The Advertiser's landmark, 81-year-old News Building at 605 Kapi'olani Blvd., which has been on the market for five years, is now closed.
Honolulu is now a one-newspaper town for the first time in its history. Like Seattle and Denver, cities that also lost newspapers as the global recession deepened, Honolulu will now adjust to life with only one thump on the front step, one headline peeking from the newsbox on the corner.
The death of The Advertiser came at 12:01 a.m. today after a decades-long newspaper war with its neighbor just makai on South Street, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
The closing also marks the shutdown of one of Hawai'i's oldest and largest businesses. About 400 people will lose their jobs — most at The Advertiser, but also about 91 workers at the printing plant in Kanē'ohe that produces the Star-Bulletin and MidWeek.
The surviving daily will debut as a broadsheet tomorrow with a new name that pays homage to both newspapers: the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
The company will employ about 474 workers — including 265 hired from the Advertiser, among them 28 editors, reporters, columnists and a photographer — and will be produced at the plant built by The Advertiser in Kapolei in 2004.
The Advertiser's landmark, 81-year-old News Building at 605 Kapi'olani Blvd., which has been on the market for five years, is now closed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)