Notes of
Concern…
…Jackson Blair
A Little of This & That
I
apologize, in advance, that I will deal with a number of random issues in this
column rather than focusing more completely on just one. Contemplating writing
the column for this week, I found more than one topic on which I really wanted
to voice an opinion.
* * * *
DEATH
IN FLORIDA
The
President of the United States once again made comments on an issue of current
local law enforcement that will eventually become an issue in a court.
Just
as I found his comments about the liberal Harvard professor’s treatment of
local police a number of years ago, followed by a beer drinking photo-op for
the professor and the policeman at The White House inappropriate, I continue to
think as the Chief Executive of the nation, in charge of the Attorney General
and the appointment of jurists, he would be well advised to keep his opinions on
sensitive legal matters to himself. His public utterances can affect judges and
juries and harm the legal process. I am referring here to the case in Sanford,
Florida, where a neighborhood watch official shot a young black teenager.
Since
the facts continue to be in question and no one has reached a conclusion about
the veracity of reports, it would seem we all should take a deep breath and
await the detail before condemning the shooter, the victim, or the Governor of
Florida.
Frankly,
when I see the Reverend Al Sharpton racing to Florida, stirring up the minority
community and appearing all over television, I am reminded of his role in the
Tawana Brawley fiasco in New York City decades ago where a young woman claimed
to have been abused by New York City police, and the turmoil ruined the careers
of attorneys and policemen and was eventually determined to have been built on
rabble-rousing and lies with the assistance of newspapers and television. What
Ms. Brawley said happened did not happen.
These
things are rarely what they seem at the outset, and it is time for cooler heads
to review all the details -- not be in a rush to judgment.
Each
of us should wait until the pertinent facts are known.
* * * *
THE
“SUPREMES” & OBAMACARE
Moving
on to the “Supremes,” dealing with the Obama Health Care law. As I was writing
this column huge numbers of people were
queued up, seeking admission to the Supreme Court to hear arguments for and
against Obama’s Health Care Plan.
When
this column appears, come of the following things will have happened. As of
today, they have not.
Not
one word has been spoken on the matter at the Court.
Not
one testimony has been heard at the Court.
The
justices have asked no questions in the Court.
That
being said, every political prognosticator is writing about whether the
ultimate decision will hurt or help Obama in his election campaign.
I
have absolutely no interest in whether the decision of the Supreme Court helps
or hurts anyone’s political campaign. I hope the Court, wizened as it is, can
determine whether the legislation is appropriate under the Constitution and
then let us know.
Bottom
line: Is it legal?
Whether
Governor Romney is the eventual nominee of the GOP is also of no import to the question
of what health plan, or stance on health issues, should be the purview of the
federal government. The President gets to propose legislation. The Congress
gets to pass legislation. It falls to the Supreme Court to determine its
legality.
Many
have their “boxers in a wad” over what Mitt Romney decided was best for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts many years ago when he was the Governor. The man
has explained his position then and has taken a position on the completely
different question of how the feds should handle the issue. Suggesting
that the actions a Governor takes at a State level should be considered more
deeply than his current comments about how he might operate differently in the
Presidency is as silly as assuming Obama’s behavior as a radical on the
campuses of his youth is an accurate reflection of his views today.
And
while I am complaining about this foolishness, let me tell you that the Romney
family decision to carry their dog thirty years ago, securely fastened and
crated on the top of their family car, as well as decisions a young Obama made
that in hindsight look pretty silly, have little to do with the next
presidential election.
There
is a huge difference between running any state and being President. The issues
are more complex at the federal level and the decisions more far-reaching and
one’s constituency quite different. The views--the current views--of
whoever is the GOP standard bearer will be vetted nicely in the late summer and
fall, as will the performance of the sitting President.
Will
the court uphold all the provisions of Obamacare?
If
they do, so be it.
If
they do not, back to the drawing board.
The
only sure thing is that when the legislation passed in Congress, most Americans
polled indicated they were against it. So when it is discussed in the next
national election, the people will have an opportunity to speak at a time when
their views can really impact the direction the executive and legislative
branches take on this issue.
The
Court is supposed to be non-partisan. Let them do their thing.
* * * *
DOCTORS & EDUCATORS
AS BANKERS
Recently
the President had occasion to nominate someone to head the World Bank. He
selected a man who has considerable success as an educator and health
professional.
Banking
experience or international finance experience?
Nada!
I
admit to a knee-jerk moment when I thought that the President was making a huge
error. On reflection, knowing the work of the World Bank is primarily in
underdeveloped nations, working with serious food and health issues, I decided
this might prove to be one of Obama’s better selections.
It
shows him thinking outside the box, pushing the envelope, and changing the
paradigm! Kudos to the President on this one.
How
about that!
I
got all the contemporary “buzz words” into one sentence complimenting the
sitting President of The United States!
Do
they give Nobel Prizes for this?
If
so, I am a shoe-in!
