Trump's Wall According to Pat Buchanan

I'm on Twitter, as all seven people who visit this blog once a year to see what I've posted know, but I'm growing so tired of the political talk on Twitter. It's not that I don't want to talk politics or I'm not interested, but the saturation of political talk at times is overwhelming. So after having said that, let's talk some politics. Specifically, "The wall." No, not "The Wall" by Pink Floyd, an album that was released in 1979 and (the answer to a Jeopardy question recently) hit #1 in 1980, but "the wall" that Donald Trump and his administration wants to build. For me personally, I don't like the aesthetics of a wall around the bottom of the United States to separate us from Mexico. Walls are generally pretty ugly. It's just an absurd thought to me, that there would be a wall separating the United States and Mexico.

I've found that I'm better at getting my thoughts down using "fisking" as opposed to writing 100% original content. I still prefer 100% original content, but maybe I'm just so uncreative I can't get an entire 100% original post written, maybe it's a time issue (for example, I started writing this short post four days ago), or maybe it's that I tend to write too much and therefore a combination of the first previous two reasons is the answer. So my Twitter friend and overall good guy @jonashdaniels (follow him...not literally, though he is nice enough to where if you literally followed him he may not mind entirely...just as long as you bought him a beer), wrote a post on Medium, which must be the 2017 version of the extremely dated Blogger (hi!), about Trump's wall. It was good and inspired me to (a) take on the same article and bring up similar/different points and (b) post his reactions to expound on them.

Here is the original post about Trump's wall and it is written by Pat Buchanan. Yeah, THAT Pat Buchanan. It reveals the hidden and not hidden agendas that he may have. I'm opposed to the wall, simply because I don't believe it will fix the issue Trump believes exists and it's going to be ugly, aesthetically at least. Plus, the wall reminds me of a song by Carlos Varela which states in part:

Ever since the world's existed
There's one thing that is certain
There are those who build walls
And those who open doors
Ah but this my love I'm thinking you already knew

For some it's always winter
While others have the spring
Some people find good fortune
While others never find a thing
Ah but this my love is something you already knew

That's how it's always been
And I know you know it
There can be freedom only when nobody owns it
I'm going to say that again
Because I know you know it
There can be freedom only when nobody owns it

It's pretty hippie-ish but for some reason it always pops in my head when a discussion of Trump's wall comes up. So, following up on Jon's post, here is where I see hidden and non-hidden agendas behind Buchanan's support of the wall.

And on the American left there is something like revulsion at the idea of the “beautiful wall” President Trump intends to build along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico.
The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.

These are all totally legitimate reasons to not build the wall though. It's not required, it won't work and it's too expensive. These are nearly the exact same reasons many Republicans use to justify getting rid of Obamacare. I'm not sure why Buchanan would immediately dismiss reasoning that is based on economics and practical. 

Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place.
 
It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care.

There is a lot of "preaching to the choir" taking place here. And preaching to the choir was Trump's campaign message that worked so well, other than "My opposition is Hillary and no one likes her, so vote for me because I'm the only other major party candidate and if you don't like her then vote for me if you want to vote for the only other candidate that can win."

Illegal immigrants are being deported. This is happening and was happening under President Obama. The United States is changing. Nothing, outside of mass genocide/deportation of anyone who doesn't fit the "classic" perception of what an American should be, is going to change this fact. We are becoming more diverse and the wall is simply another way to temporarily deny this fact. The wall may not be about immigration, but about a fear of change and covert xenophobia that new immigration will result in more parades for nationalities that believe/represents things Pat Buchanan doesn't understand or want to understand. People who believe/represent things many Americans don't understand. That's scary to many. I get it. I don't agree with it, but on an intellectual level I do understand. A wall between Mexico and the United States isn't going to change the eventuality that America is changing any more than the Berlin Wall didn't change the eventuality that Germany would never be a fully Communist country.

Also, I don't mind stealing talented individuals from Mexico and bringing them to America. Illegal migrants do jobs many Americans don't want to do because they are too busy trying to make college free so they can eventually believe themselves too good to do those menial jobs. Not to mention, Americans commit crimes and require subsidies as well. If the wall is about subsidies, then Pat Buchanan should want a wall around every Social Services building in the United States.

It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

Another non-hidden hidden agenda. "Our country" isn't our country. It's OUR country, which includes non-white people, and the change of who "we" are is going to happen, again, unless Trump's next plan is mass genocide/deportation of non-white individuals who don't believe what he believes. Even then, that will fail. Mass deportation (I'd rather not think too much about mass genocide, but I felt the need to mention it as a very extreme way to reach the goal of ensuring the United States doesn't change) will eventually fail in creating a "united" United States that has one unique set of beliefs and experiences.

Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate and identifiable people like the British, French and Germans?
Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?

It's interesting that Buchanan brings up Dr. King, since Dr. King's ancestors were essentially illegal immigrants forced to come to the United States to serve mainly as slave labor. I would say bringing slave labor to the United States changed who the United States is/was/will be. Abraham Lincoln also fought FOR changing who we are when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He fought against keeping the country the same and fought against the status quo. He wanted African Americans to serve as more than slaves, which means he wanted African American culture to become a part of American culture. So I don't think Lincoln and Dr. King share as many ideals with Pat Buchanan as he may like to think they share.

We did not become a new nation because we embraced Jefferson’s notion about all men being “created equal.” We became a new people from our familial break with the Mother Country, described in the declaration as a severing of ties with our “brethren” across the sea who no longer deserved our loyalty or love.

The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed.

Yes, the land that makes up the United States was already here. It didn't just magically pop up out of the sea in 1789, just in time for George Washington to become President. Prior to The Constitution being created, the United States belonged to a group of natives who were forced to change who they were to accommodate the new settlers. So "who we are" goes back further than 1789.

When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.

Every single group Pat Buchanan mentions here that legally immigrated came to this country, also changed the makeup of of the United States. They came here legally, not necessarily illegally. It doesn't matter when it comes to immigration though, the result of changing the United States is the same. Buchanan previously stated:

It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

Legal immigration also changes our country and changes who we are. The ethnic makeup of the United States, the traditions shared by the people of the United States and customs celebrated in the United States all changed with this legal immigration. So is the wall about the country not changing who America should be (in Pat Buchanan's mind) or is the wall about illegal immigration? I don't think Buchanan is entirely clear. It's fine for the United States to change as a result of immigration, but it just has to be legal immigration? That doesn't make sense in the context of what is being written. Does Buchanan think those who legally immigrate will come to the United States and adjust their customs to traditional United States customs, thereby not changing the makeup of the republic? I think this is so far-fetched no person could truly believe this is true.

Not until decades after the Great Migration of 1890-1920, with the common trials of the Depression, World War II and Cold War, were we truly forged again into one united nation and people.

This is the same period of time when women didn't have the right to vote and African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens. Is a "one united nation and people" really what the United States was at this point or did the nation seem united because certain groups of people didn't have a voice to express displeasure or even their own point of view? The fact Buchanan aims for this era when women and minorities had their voice suppressed as the shining example for how the current United States can "be one" says more than 10,000 more words on this topic could ever say.

By 1960, almost all of us shared the same heroes and holidays, spoke the same language and cherished the same culture.

Again, this is what was assumed because certain classes of people were not encouraged to treat themselves as individuals who deserve the same rights as all other individuals. Or as Jon said,

Is that really true? In 1960, blacks in the south couldn’t attend the same schools as white children. They couldn’t drink from the same water fountain. They didn’t have equal rights. This after a 1954 ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that ended segregation. Yet we all “cherished” the same culture? That sounds prima facie absurd.

The white-washing of American history in this banal, uninspired article continues with the kicker: 

“Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.”

Third Worldization? Most people associate the third world with the immense poverty of non-white people. Buchannan seems to be insinuating that our country is becoming third world because it is becoming less white.

Remember, we are talking about building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out. Doesn't it seem like from Pat Buchanan's perspective the wall is built more to keep anything that doesn't fit his view of when American was most unified from filtering in and ruining the utopia that has been created? It's no coincidence his utopian time frame coincides with when African Americans, women, and other minorities didn't have the equal rights they have now.

Is the wall about illegal immigration or the changing of America's culture from that which Pat Buchanan is comfortable with? It seems he is less concerned with immigrants taking his job and more concerned with the culture of American changing. And again, this will happen no matter what. So he should prepare for American to change, regardless of whether a wall is built or not.

In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.

And there we go. It's all about preserving our roots and preserving our  nation as it was. Going to desperate measures to keep the purity of a nation for Christian principles, or any other religious principle, has a long history of starting wars, genocide, and various other fights that ended up costing American lives. But hey, I'm sure this could be different.

To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism.

Remember when the wall was about illegal immigrants? Remember when it was about jobs, crime and subsidies? Legal immigration will still be...legal. So what's the difference in a family slipping across the border (if there is no wall) and that family legally immigrating to the United States when it comes to the culture of America and preserving the identity of the nation? If a family immigrates legally, then they will be "taking away" part of the United States' national identity by simply staining our fine country with their own cultural identity.

Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?

Definitely by building a wall. That's totally going to work. Once Trump builds a wall, California will decide not to secede and Texas won't be broken up.

I feel like the solution of building a wall doesn't answer the questions being posed by illegal immigration.

Though, as a side note, if the wall is being built around the southern border where the Texas-Mexico line is, what happens if that part of Texas secedes? Now there is a wall in the middle of a territory that doesn't even belong to the United States. Time to move the wall up north a little bit more so the new United States is separated from the new Texas! In this situation, would Trump tear down the wall and have Texas pay for it?

President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.

There is literally no need for a wall to make this statement to the world. The United States defends its borders and decide who comes and goes. Building a wall is equivalent of the "Three Strikes" laws in the 1990's which resulted in prison overcrowding. It's basically saying, "We can't defend our borders, we can't enforce our own laws. We can't figure out who is and is not entering the country, so we can't decide who comes and goes. Let's build a wall in a way to just keep everyone out, as opposed to putting in the time and effort to defend our borders, while accepting some illegal immigrants will get through."

It's an overzealous response that isn't congruent to the problem it is attempting to fix. Trump may as well fill a moat around the US-Mexico border and put crocodiles in it. Parents put gates up so their young children can't go upstairs, because the alternative is monitoring their children at all times to make sure they don't go upstairs. Trump puts up a wall so illegal immigrants can't get into the United States, because the alternative is to think of new and different ways to monitor who crosses the border. Building a wall is much easier than thinking. More expensive, but easier.

The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.

The irony of Pat Buchanan saying many Americans are too paralyzed to embrace what is happening to their country, while actively refusing to embrace the move to a more diversified and less traditional America, while pining for the days when the United States was "united" through the refusal of equal rights to all is too much for me to bear. If anything, the crisis is that many like Buchanan think a wall built on the US-Mexico border can stop legal immigration from changing the makeup of the United States. Buchanan is in denial if he thinks the wall can.

Michael Nutter Tells Us How to Stop Urban Violence

I'm not a registered Republican and I am not a registered Democrat. So I want to get that out of the way since any sort of commentary on, about, or not about Trayvon Martin turns into a political discourse where a person's position depends on his/her political party. It's obviously a tragedy that Trayvon Martin was killed, but I'm not surprised George Zimmerman was acquitted. The prosecution went for Murder 2 and that's pretty hard to prove in a case like this. They would have been better off going for Involuntary Manslaughter or another charge easier to prove, but politically they had to go for Murder 2. It's somewhat ironic the media and political focus on this case could have played a part in Zimmerman's acquittal. If the prosecution felt pressure to go for Murder 2 because of the politics and attention surrounding the case then they took the hard route. I hear some saying and writing they thought Zimmerman would be guilty of something and I think he would have been found guilty of something if there wasn't pressure to charge him with murder. That's just my opinion.

On a related note Michael Nutter, who is the current mayor of Philadelphia, writes an op-ed for "Time" where he tells us how the United States can stop urban violence. I appreciate his effort, even if it comes off as naive. Unfortunately much like solving hunger, urban violence can't be "stopped," so I think more realistic terms need to be used in the headline to this op-ed. I feel like Nutter's heart is in the right place, but he's also a little bit off in his execution to "solve" urban violence. He seems to want to talk about solutions, but ignores (what I see as) the best solution to the urban violence problem.

Why is it that African-American males are so disproportionately both the victims and the perpetrators of violence, more often than not against one another?

If you have to ask this question then you aren't paying attention. Crime is a sociological issue that can't easily be attributed to one or two factors. Crime can be attributed to income level, household life (one/two parent household) and various other factors. Obviously all African-American males who were the victim or perpetrator of violence can't be explained away by sociological factors, but it is usually a good start to explain the perpetrators of violence no matter what race that person is.

In Philadelphia, where I am mayor, 75% of our homicide victims are black men. About 80% of the people we arrest for homicide are black men.

I'm sure some racism plays a part in these black men being locked up, no doubt. A question I might have would be how many of those 80% arrested for homicide that are black men end up acquitted of the homicide charge versus the percentage of other races that are arrested and acquitted of homicide. To me, that tells me more than the percentage of black men arrested would tell me. If the result found is that more black men are arrested and then acquitted for homicide (as compared to other races) then I could probably feel good about discussing the race issue contained therein, but if the percentage of black men arrested for homicide and then acquitted is close or equal to the percentage of other races arrested and acquitted of homicide then it just shows the unfortunate possible truth that black men are arrested and found guilty of homicide by a wide percentage more than any other race/gender. I tend to like it when people are arrested for homicide and found guilty if that person is truly guilty.

Of course there is also the whole "the justice system goes against black men" and that would take me too far down the rabbit hole for what I am trying to write. It's possible the system is against black men, but simply given the statistic that 80% of people arrested for homicide are black men is a meaningless statistic without some further investigation into what percentage of these men are found to be guilty or are acquitted as compared to other races. Violent crime among black men is a social issue obviously. That is what Nutter is discussing without going into too much depth as to the legal results from these arrests, so I will skip over the legal results of these arrests for the sake of discussion. What solutions does Michael Nutter have for this issue?

Black men across the country are killing one another, yet that epidemic is rarely part of any national conversation.

Not entirely true, though I wish there was as much protesting and anger about a murder when it comes to black-on-black crime, as opposed to the over-focus on this specific Zimmerman-Martin situation. Chicago could certainly use some protesting and national recognition of the crime problem they have, but most people are too busy protesting to get justice for Trayvon Martin. The citizens of Chicago need justice too. 

With each death, the networks aren't interrupting game shows or soap operas to give you that information. We get lulled back into complacency and somehow live with the fact that we have a Newtown every day in America. And a disproportionate number of those dying are black men.

By the way, if the issue is black-on-black crime (as Michael Nutter seems focused on) then this has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin (which Nutter is writing this column as a result of the Martin trial) and George Zimmerman since that crime didn't fit into this category.

Our priorities are askew. Our leaders talk a lot about international terrorism. I often talk about domestic terrorists, by which I mean not foreign nationals plotting violence on these shores but the day-to-day crime that is even more devastating to our cities than the episodic threats from overseas.

Let me be honest here. The United States could greatly curb crime on the local level, but this would turn parts of the United States into a police state. I'm not sure anyone wants that. Americans are known for craving freedom and liberty, while doing more to curb crime in American cities would require more of the invasive police techniques and suspicions of normal people going about their day in order to curb crime. This isn't the kind of thing people like Michael Nutter want to hear though. He wants more of a focus on preventing crime, but he also wants less harassing and racial profiling of individuals. Frankly, I want less harassing, invasive monitoring and racial profiling of individuals too. But to try extreme methods to curb violence when 80% of murders are committed by black men would require some police racially profiling of black men (and other races) in order to prevent this crime. It's only logical it would work this way for three reasons:

1. The intent is to do more to curb violent crime at the city level.

2. To curb this violent crime the city would need to find out who is committing the violent crime and statistically it says black men are committing 80% of the homicides.

3. In order to best curb the crime of homicide, cities should pay more attention to black men who are acting suspiciously in and around society. 

Obviously black men would not be the only members of society racially profiled, but unless American cities get exponentially at crime prevention the best solution to curb crime at the police level is to make sure the authorities catch a crime before it occurs. And remember, if America really wants to prioritize curbing domestic terrorism (as Nutter calls it) stronger and more invasive tactics would need to be used. Of course Michael Nutter and myself don't want stronger and more invasive tactics to be used, so prioritized efforts to curb crime would really have to start before the individual is about to commit the crime. I will get to what where I believe these efforts should start in a minute, but this early effort is what Michael Nutter conveniently skips over when discussing how to curb (or "stop" as the headline says) urban violence. So the United States could prioritize the occurrence of violent crime on the local police level, but it will take a larger police presence and some sense of profiling. I don't want this, but a stronger police state could significantly curb violent crime.

(Also if anyone reads this and thinks I'm saying the best way to curb crime is to profile African American men then you are an idiot and stop reading now please. I'm saying if the United States wanted to treat domestic terrorism the way they treat international terrorism there would be need to be an increased focus on stopping crime before it starts, which much like is required in preventing international terrorism requires a certain amount of profiling of individuals. If 80% of those arrested for homicide for black men then the city police would be wise to keep a larger eye on these certain individuals. Obviously this is an extreme way to prevent crime, and though I don't doubt it would be somewhat successful, it is also a violation of civil liberties and racist too. I don't recommend this method, but am merely saying how the United States treats international terrorism isn't a transferable to domestic terrorism because of the whole "civil liberties" issue. It's always beaten around the bush on how local police need to do more to prevent violent crime, but then no one rightfully wants their civil liberties disrupted, so the police end up in a more reactionary position in regard to preventing crime. No certain race should be profiled ever.)

The United States could be turned into a police state and cities could start to get more aggressive in trying to prevent crime, but along with this aggressive prevention will come the violation of civil rights and profiling that so many people absolutely hate and had become an issue in the Trayvon Martin situation. Airports are good at preventing terrorists from getting on the plane because they treat every person as a terrorist suspect and (secretly of course) keep an eye on certain individuals. I'm not advocating racial profiling, but simply stating the truth as I see it, that if America really, really wants to curb violent crime in cities then there will have to be a little bend to the civil liberties Americans are used to. It's an option that I don't like.

My focus comes from my experiences and the buildup of living all my life in West Philadelphia and Wynnefield, and as a city-council member and then later as mayor, attending numerous funerals and talking to moms and dads who have lost their children and other loved ones to senseless acts of violence.

No offense, but attending funerals and talking to the loved ones of victims doesn't make you an expert on crime. If so, funeral directors would be the police chief. 

What's missing are the fundamentals. It's about jobs. It's about education. It's about economic investment and job retraining.

Here's where Michael Nutter and I diverge. What's missing is all of those things, but he leaves out the most important one. Responsibility. I'm not going to give a high-and-mighty lecture, but Nutter leaves out the parental responsibility in not raising a little shithead child who ends up living a life of crime. That's the biggest discussion I consistently see missing from this issue. Responsibility and how parents and relatives need to take responsibility in raising their children in the best way possible and giving that child good role models to look up to. Having a job, education, and economic retraining will work well with a person who wants to make something of himself and not live a life of violence. 

It's about getting benefits to people who need them. We know that in Philadelphia, thousands of people are not even signing up for the available benefits to take care of themselves and their families.

How silly of me. I didn't know the key to stopping urban violence was to make sure families were relying on welfare opportunities or getting involved with government programs that may not fix the core of what is the cause of violent crime. Again, we are missing the responsibility portion of the discussion. I understand how signing up for available benefits and non-violent programs can help a family, but I'm missing how this is going to help a child not head towards a life of violence. A kid has a hand full of food stamps or spends 10% of his week at a community outreach so he won't join a gang? What about the 90% of the time he spends at home or at school? Won't that affect the child's current and future behavior?

We know clearly that there are a few things that work: investing more in Head Start programs, summer jobs and programs for teens and community-development block grants for cities to put people to work.

Great idea. Got money? 

Also, where are the parents at in this discussion? Not once does Michael Nutter mention parental involvement and that shows me his priorities are askew. America is so afraid to criticize a person's parents for how a child was raised or the life of violence the child may have led. I'm not saying a parent is at fault every time a murder is committed, but there needs to be dedication to ensuring kids growing up get a great opportunity to look up to successful people and have a support system to help them achieve their goals in life. Curbing violence is about giving people a chance to choose a life outside of violence and an example that this type of life is fulfilling. That's just my opinion.

Those three areas have been cut significantly over the past few years. The U.S. seems to be more invested in nation building in other countries around the world, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, than in nation building--or rebuilding--here at home.

Not a terrible point by Michael Nutter. I can see where domestic concerns take precedence over nation building.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu and I co-lead an effort called Cities United. We now have close to 50 mayors signed up. It's specifically focused on reducing the violence affecting African-American men and boys across the country.

It's fine if Latino kids kill each other of course. Who cares about them?

The first step is getting municipal leaders to acknowledge these challenges and then deciding on the best practices for addressing them. What are some programs and services we can provide?

Ah yes, throw money at the problem. Provide the kids with programs and services and other taxpayer subsidized solutions. I'm all for spending money when it works, but as we have learned in regard to the war on drugs, parts of the education system, and various other pet projects Congress has had through the years, throwing money at the issue isn't always the best option. 

It disturbs me that programs and services are recommended rather than a focus be on the home life and what the parents can do to raise their children to where the child has the option of choosing a non-violent lifestyle. It doesn't always take a village to care for a child, sometimes it takes family members that give a shit. If as a parent you are relying on programs and services or a mentor to help instill the proper values and direction in life then you are doing parenting incorrectly. 

I've done stupid shit in my life and I managed to make these stupid things I have done into a short detour from where I want to be as opposed to a new direction I want my life to go. I was fortunate to have parents who could show me an example of where I want to go in life and the kind of person I want to be. I've been accused of stealing twice in my life because a convenience store clerk and a bookstore clerk didn't like the way I looked (or for some reason they thought I was stealing, I'm not sure). I've had a knife pulled on me once at a McDonald's because I had the wrong color shirt on. These aren't obviously situations I intentionally chose to put myself into and good people can get into bad situations, but it's easy to go down the wrong path without having role models or mentors. What better people than your parent(s)? I don't like this part of the discussion on how to stop urban violence is missing from the discussion entirely. 

If we get this right, everyone would be involved. We need a partnership among cities, states and federal agencies; the corporate community; the philanthropic community; the religious community; the social-advocacy community--all working toward helping African-American men and boys.

Sounds great and yet it means very little if African-American boys and men go home to a shitty household that doesn't support and encourage him. All of this hard work will go down the drain if buy-in from parents isn't obtained. There can be a great partnership of every community thought of, but if an African-American boy is surrounded by a bad group of people I venture to say these programs won't be successful. 

I know that President Obama cares about these issues, but as powerful as the President of the United States is, he will need a lot of folks to rally with him to work toward solutions

The most powerful man in the free world can't do anything. Got it. It's a team effort, but any sports fan knows one team effort can be undermined by one bad apple who doesn't buy into the team concept.

It will require folks to have open minds and open hearts and, more than anything, to be dedicated to change.

I don't even know what this means. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be dedicated to changing violence and death. Quite frankly, this all sounds like a lot of talk and talk about future action with no action.

The question is, are we ready to do it? Are we willing to set ego aside, be vulnerable and hear things that none of us necessarily want to hear?

Like what? You are the author, so tell me what don't we necessarily want to hear?

Spoiler alert: Michael Nutter never tells us. I would venture to say he can't give examples of what we don't want to hear and is just writing in generalities. 

It sounds to me like Michael Nutter doesn't want to hear that real change starts at home. He knows if he starts blaming the parents who can vote for him then he won't get re-elected. If he thrills us all by creating a plan of future action and talking in general about the community getting involved then no one person gets offended and it feels like it is on all of us to curb the epidemic of violence. It is on all of us to curb the violence, but on a micro-level as well as a macro-level. By not calling out shitty and uncaring parents no one feels responsible and no one gets offended. Michael Nutter gets votes. 

We have to try right now, because our children are dying in the streets every day.

You write "our kids" but not much can happen if the people who really can claim these children as "our kids" don't take action and do what they can to ensure their children head away from violence. No mention of the responsibility of the parents means Michael Nutter's plan is doomed to fail.

One last thing. On my local FOX news Sunday night they showed a "Justice for Trayvon Martin" rally that had taken place in Raleigh. The very next news story was about the police searching for a suspect who robbed and killed a convenience store clerk near Greensboro, North Carolina. The police were asking for the public's help to identify the man who killed the convenience store clerk and then the local FOX news showed the suspect's picture from the store video tape. The suspect who killed the clerk had done so while wearing what looked like either a white or gray hoodie, but you couldn't see his race or any of his features due to the hoodie being over his head. I don't think it was intentional and it certainly doesn't prove George Zimmerman was right to "stand his ground," but I thought it was interesting. The stories went from a kid who was suspected of being up to no good because he was wearing a hoodie to a person who really was up to no good and happened to be wearing a hoodie.

As someone who has worked at a store that was robbed at gunpoint I have to admit that if I am in a convenience store over the next week and see a guy walk up to the counter in a white or gray hoodie I am going to remember a guy wearing a white or gray hoodie robbed and killed a convenience store clerk recently. Obviously I won't immediately shoot this guy because he happens to be wearing a hoodie, but my enjoyment of living would at least remind me in that moment there was a murder committed by a guy wearing a white and gray hoodie and I have no idea what the guy who committed the murder looked like. There is a clear difference in the hypothetical situation as I just presented and the events surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin. I found it interesting the news transitioned from the Trayvon Martin protests to this story of a murder committed in a convenience store.

My Complicated George W. Bush Feelings

I don't usually like talking about politics, but I think I'm going to end up doing that from time-to-time on this blog. I'm not an expert on politics and probably won't ever claim to be. I generally dislike nearly everything about it as well. It's a dirty game and I (like probably everyone else) worry about our country's future with the political discourse that goes on. Of course any person who has studied history knows political discourse has always been dirty. Chester Arthur spent much of his short Vice-Presidential tenure trying to undermine James Garfield. This was due to a Republican party that was split (sound familiar?) and had two different factions of the party wanting to further two different agendas. Two centuries ago Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton dueled to the death because they disagreed. So relative to that, political discourse right now is pretty tame. I'm probably considered a moderate, though I am not exactly moderate on a lot of issues in my own opinion, I am just open-minded.

Anyway, the opening of his Presidential Library has gotten me thinking a lot about George W. Bush and the legacy he tells us he doesn't care much about right now. In 1998, the young, naive Bengoodfella swore he would never vote for George W. Bush if he ran for President (I also was a big John Edwards fan, so I hope that gives some more perspective on my naivety) because I thought he should have stayed Karla Faye Tucker's execution. 15 years later I know of greater injustices caused by our legal system than a reformed murderer being executed for her crime. So when George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, I listened to the debates, became horrified at Al Gore's makeup in the first debate, became confused by what a Compassionate Conservative really was, and eventually did not vote for George W. Bush. This was my first election where I could vote so I was very interested to find out the outcome...at least until 1am when the election wasn't decided and I had a Biology exam at 9am the next morning that I had not studied sufficiently for. I gave up and just decided I would catch up on who won in the morning. Little did I know I would have another month or so to catch up and find out who the next President would be.

I immediately got wrapped back up into my own personal dramas and life, while thinking school vouchers weren't a bad idea and spent very little time trying to figure out what a Compassionate Conservative truly was. Roll on to September 11, 2001 when everyone's life in the United States changed in some way. I was that jerk who was saddened, scared and angry at the attacks on the Pentagon and New York City. I say I was that jerk because I wasn't really, really shocked at the events of 9/11 and this angered some of my friends. I knew people hated the United States and after Columbine, the Oklahoma City federal building attack, and the fact Saddam Hussein was still alive I thought it meant we could never rule out terrorist activities on U.S. soil. I didn't expect the enormity of the terrorist attack on that day though. The idea I wasn't shocked at the idea of a terrorist attack on American soil upset some of my friends, as if I was demeaning what had occurred or wasn't feeling any of the same emotions they were, which could not have been further from the truth. I knew the United States was hated and knew there were crazy people out in the world. I never thought the hatred would manifest itself in exactly the way it did on September 11.

So pushing ahead, wars occurred, WMD's weren't found, and I supported George W. Bush in 2004 because I wanted to give him a chance at four more years and I didn't like John Kerry as a candidate for President. That's sort of the problem with the two-party system, if you greatly dislike one candidate and want to vote to make a difference, then your options are limited. I had to go with the candidate I sort of liked over the candidate I didn't really like. So skipping ahead again, Bush didn't do a bang-up job in his second term. He made controversial decisions, controversial comments/actions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and then became a war criminal to many people. It's not exactly how I envisioned his second term going. So war protests happened frequently and nobody liked George W. Bush.

An interesting side-note to this is there is a very, very liberal college in my area that used to have students protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the front of the school with signs and yelling about Bush/Cheney being war criminals and begging the passing motorists to end the wars. I'm not sure what protesting to motorists was intended to accomplish, but at least they were speaking their mind. Then Barack Obama got elected, the same wars continued, Gitmo stayed open, and the protests magically stopped completely. It led me to believe the protests were less about Bush's policies and more about the fact they didn't like George W. Bush because of his political orientation. That's their right, but I can't say it didn't have an effect on me and show me this is how politics really works. If anyone could close Gitmo and stop the war it was Obama, right? It wasn't his war and he was resoundingly elected in 2008. We're getting to ending the war of course and bring our troops home now, but the protests just stopped immediately outside the college even though the war was still going on. I guess they don't feel the need to protest if it's their guy in office.

So after Bush's policies and me feeling the need for a fresh voice I voted Democratic in 2008. Yeah, I'm apparently a swing-voter and I hate it. I believe nothing, I have no real opinion, but only vote based upon how the wind blows. That's what you will hear/say. When I'm given two options for a meal I sometimes end up choosing a meal that I don't completely like, but won't give me indigestion. I like the idea of a two-party system, but I don't like having to compromise parts of what I believe every four years to vote for one of the two candidates. Trying to rectify this, I didn't vote Democrat and Republican in 2012 and was accused of wasting my vote by pretty much everyone. That's America for you. Agree or disagree with us, but you can only vote for the two options you are presented. You get chicken or steak. If you choose to only eat a salad then you get looked down on.

I'm getting off-topic now. I'm supposed to be describing my complicated feelings about George W. Bush. I have read his biography and watched all the interviews leading up to the Presidential Library dedication. He's unapologetic and clearly believes history will judge him more fairly. That's his choice and probably a good way for him to get past the fact he was extremely unpopular as he left office. I still look at a lot of his presidency as wasted, because 9/11 got him side-tracked and his agenda went with it. More about this in a minute, but he couldn't pass Social Security reform or immigration reform and he created the policy of attacking the enemy before they attack you (again). A foreign policy of preemptive action, that's part of his legacy. Punch someone before they punch you. His presidency wasn't a high point for this country and all the momentum he built on September 14, 2011 standing on the rubble at Ground Zero never completely took shape into other areas of his presidency.

The more I think about Bush, the more I see him as an example of American politics at its worst and how the Republican party has betrayed him. He's person non grata in the Republican party now. What's funny to me is that I don't think this is completely Bush's fault (his relationship with the Republican party). There are portions of Bush's immigration reform that can be seen in the immigration reform bill that is being proposed now. At no point will you hear that Bush's idea of immigration reform was rejected in 2007 by some of the same people who now think it is a good idea. The same goes for Social Security reform. Obama is proposing Social Security reform that looks a bit like what George Bush proposed and couldn't get passed. Of course, it was Republicans preventing him from passing the Social Security reform since he couldn't get support from his own party. So two of Bush's proposals that didn't pass in Congress while he was President still have legs in today's world. I don't think this obviously changes his legacy or anything like that, but it shows me that had there been an alternate universe where 9/11 never happened maybe we could have had meaningful Social Security or immigration reform prior to Obama's election. The Republican party didn't help him pass this legislation when he was President and it probably feels he is too moderate now (you know, if they didn't stay away from him because they also view him as a huge failure) to really help the Republican party with new ideas to attract voters. He's poison on all levels to them.

So Bush is at this bad spot politically. He's a war criminal who took away civil liberties away in the opinion of many Democrats, while to Republicans he is a person non grata who helped set them back as a party by having a failed Presidency (I would argue very strongly Bush isn't the cause of the Republican party losing the White House in 2008 and 2012). Bush really didn't do a good job of pleasing either party. He was considered hateful by Democrats, but wasn't quite hateful enough by some Republicans. His presidency was a failure, much of it his fault, but I can't ignore the fact he faced stern opposition from even in his own party when trying to pass reforms.

Nearly every interview given with Bush nowadays has the interviewer desperately trying to get him to apologize or admit he was wrong. Then they ask him about his legacy and he reinforces the fact he doesn't care about his legacy. It's become repetitious and slightly boring. Bush has said repeatedly that he doesn't care to talk about his legacy or guess what his legacy will be. He even told John King of CNN (in essence) "I will be dead when my legacy is finally decided, so I wish I would stop getting asked." He seems secure in his legacy and I think that frustrates many people. They want him to list all of the mistakes he made and he just won't do that. He's certainly being a very good ex-President, that's for sure. He has been quiet and not criticized his successor, which is always a classy thing to do.

I don't feel bad for Bush or anything like that, but he's poison within his own party and I don't know if it is completely because of his policy decisions as President. I think it is because his values don't match up with the direction part of the Republican party wants to move. He has to take some satisfaction in knowing there are many who bash his presidency but also don't completely disagree some of the ideas and proposals he submitted as President. Republicans love Bush when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, but otherwise they would rather he just go away and stay away, even if he isn't as grating as Karl Rove or give off an icky feeling like Dick Cheney can.

It's interesting how Bush goes out of his way not to apologize for his decisions and claim he doesn't care what we right now think of him, but he also goes to great, great lengths to make us understand his decisions and why the decisions he made were made. So I think he does really care what the public thinks about him. His autobiography went about explaining why he made certain decisions as President and he has a "Decision Points" exhibit in his Presidential Library where a visitor can interactively go through the decision-making process for big decisions based entirely on the advice that Bush received from his advisors. For a guy who doesn't care about his legacy he is trying very hard to convince people the decisions he had to make weren't exactly easy.

My feelings about Bush are very conflicted. I don't think he did a great job as President but I also don't understand the decisions he had to make in the climate where he had to make those decisions. I have no concept of the advice he was being given and had to act upon to keep America safe. I'm not excusing him, just saying the climate after 9/11 was pretty heated and preventing another terrorist attack was a major concern. Bush is certainly responsible for the Housing crisis in some ways, but I am not entirely sure another President could have avoided the housing bubble from popping and Wall Street going belly-up. I obviously could be wrong. It's complicated for me because I voted for him once, didn't vote for him another time and I don't hate him. I think he really believes he did the best he could. There was not another terrorist attack on American soil during his Presidency and Bush takes that as a success. Obviously there is a means to this end which has caused some controversy.

Bush seems convinced history will judge his legacy in a different way, but I'm not entirely sure. Who will his champion be 30 years from now? He is still a punchline four years out of office, Democrats generally don't like him and Republicans don't dare speak his name since it is synonymous with failure to many in the party. Who will stick up for him and try to change his legacy or help history see him differently? Even those who are furthering the political agenda that Bush began (or parts of that agenda) won't share credit or mention where some of these ideas originated. History is written by the winners and Bush didn't win. He presided over the failing economy, the housing crisis, two unpopular wars, Hurricane Katrina, and enhanced interrogation techniques. His work in Africa, the integration of his Cabinet, and keeping the United States safe after 9/11 will probably be a footnote to his presidency. I'm not sure history will judge George W. Bush any crueler than the present has done, but with no one being his champion I'm not sure Bush will need to be dead before he can fully understand what his legacy will be either.