Conscientious Observer

I have been off the political radar lately, for the most part. Mostly due to non-political reasons, but partly due to the feeling that the political sphere to which I am acclimated seems to be running itself pretty much on auto-pilot lately. The decisions and statements made by various politicians, pundits, and activists on both sides of the aisle are basically sticking to the script that one would expect to see or hear. That's not necessarily a good thing, but at least there haven't been any real surprises... until now.

In my home state of Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker has made a pretty big name for himself. He has been vilified by his detractors, and practically deified by his supporters -- standard political fodder for the current climate. But a couple of years ago, while he was vigorously defending himself in an historic recall election, it also was made public that he was amassing a personal legal defense fund. Despite the fact that a John Doe investigation had been initiated to look into the activities of several of his current and former staff members (Walker was declared to not be a target of the investigation) and several of those staff members have since been indicted for their wrongdoing, no explanation was ever given for why Walker felt the need to build a legal defense fund. I guess he felt he didn't need to say anything about it. He said plenty, though. He travelled all over the country, talking to big-wig donors, drumming up support for the ways in which he "accomplished" what he has done back here in Wisconsin. As a result, he is considered to be a conservative hopeful to run for President. But if anyone ever asked him about the John Doe investigation setting its sights on him, he basically brushed it off.

And then the news broke. He has been accused of illegal campaign fundraising practices. Of course he's going to claim that this is all a "liberal witch hunt" that was orchestrated from day one... which is why he hasn't done anything suspicious, himself, from day one... like amassing a personal legal defense fund, right? Why would he have felt the need to do that? And why then? Tell me those things aren't related. Go ahead.

On Ukraine

I'm not a political junkie. (Really... I'm not!) And I'm not even a huge nationalist, either. I mean, I love my country and all. I still believe, for many various reasons, that America is the best country in the world, despite all the screwed up things we sometimes do. But I look at the current situation in Ukraine, the tension that exists between them and Russia, and how the U.S. is inserting itself into it all to try and influence the outcome, and I have to wonder... why? Not, why is Ukraine in such turmoil. Not, why is Russia so interested in what's going on in Ukraine (that part, I actually get). But, why are WE so interested in what's going on in Ukraine? Outside of the global, humanitarian interest in seeing things settled peacefully without bloodshed -- which is the only legitimate concern, if you ask me -- why do we feel the need to stick our nose in? I certainly see value in talking with all sides and helping them mediate a peaceful resolution, if there is one. But mediators don't pick sides. Like we have told Russia... we, too, need to know our place.

Of ducks and men...

Where does the blame lie for all the hub-bub about the comments Phil Robertson made, resulting in his suspension from the entertaining 'Duck Dynasty' show on A&E. Does he have the right to make such comments? Absolutely! Should he have? Well, look at it this way... if someone asks you what you believe, how would you respond? Okay, then... should the reporter have even asked the question? Now we're getting a little closer to the heart of the problem. But it's still not that simple. The reporter was just doing his job trying to write an article that will get people to read his employer's magazine... which worked quite well, I believe. Should A&E have issued a suspension for comments made by one of its stars not directly pertaining to the star's show? As a privately-owned corporation with a reputation to consider, they were well within their right to do so, because what that star says or does represents, by extension, the corporation. I think we could argue 'til we're blue in the face whether they should have suspended him, but the fact remains that they had that right.

But here is the most important question we should be asking: Why would a magazine have to worry so much about asking such a controversial question, and then printing the obviously controversial answer, in the first place? Answer: Because we, the consumers, demand to be entertained by such controversy. So aren't we truly the ones to be blamed? And honestly, why are we even trying to pin the blame on any party when it should be very clear from this example that ALL parties had a fair amount of responsibility in creating the problem or causing it to continue to the point where it became the problem we have today.

When are we all going to start acting like the grown-ups as which we want to be seen?