Clinton; Husband Claims Popularity "Preconditioned." Former Supporter Says "No"
Bill Clinton Defends Hillary On Today Show, September 05, 2007, Part 1
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Dear President Bill Clinton . . .
I apologize Sir. I voted for you in two Presidential elections, and while on the first occasion you were not my first, second, or third choice, by the time I cast my second ballot, I was proud to do so. I admire your scholarship and some of what you did while in office. However, I must admit there are times, this being one of them, when I question your wisdom, or at least I realize I do not relate to your impression of "truth."
Days have past and I said nothing. However, I can no longer remain silent. I learned in years past that none of us benefit from what is not stated. I will not, I cannot remain quiet. Just as your wife brilliantly made reference to the words of the Honorable Doctor Martin Luther King Junior months ago, today, I too quote the sage advise of a this great leader.
For me, the future of my country, the United States of America matters. Who leads it and how, is of utmost importance.
Last week, I saw and heard you on the Today Show. In an interview with Host, Matt Lauer you discussed your latest book. I appreciate, "Giving" is good. Then Mister Lauer asked of your wife, the Senator from New York, and Presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton. Lauer addressed the issue of likeability.
Host, Matt Lauer offered poll results to demonstrate Senator Clinton has high negatives. He mentioned her proposed policies do not define her as polarizing. Hillary Clinton is probably a "shoe-in' for the nomination for the Democratic Party. However, Lauer stated, many admit they are not comfortable with her personality.
You Mister Clinton were prepared to discuss the issue. In an earlier statement you said the topic was a "canard and not worth a hill of beans." President Clinton, you defended your wife; you offered she has been demonized. I heard your words and stood stunned. The expression on my face must have mirrored my total disbelief. I recount the conversation so we each may reflect.
Mr. Lauer: [T]here’s a poll that just came out in Iowa that deals with your wife. And when people there were asked about who they respect most and who they trust most in the areas of leadership, handling of Iraq, protecting against terrorism, Hillary Clinton ranked tops out of four candidates. When they asked the people in Iowa, “Who do you like?” she ranked fourth out of four candidates.Statistical evidence may offer some insight into what is; however numbers can be interpreted to fit any scenario a person prefers. May I submit some anecdotal assessments. Of course, I can only speak for myself; however, you may find this information enlightening.Now, this has got to be something that puzzles you, not only as a keen political observer but as a husband. Why do you think, when asked on a number of occasions, people simply say they’re not sure if they like Hillary Clinton?
Mr. Clinton: Well, because she’s the only person running who, for 15 years, has been regularly hit by the swiftboat tactics of the Republicans — the first year when I ran for president, the eight years I served, the six years she was in the Senate. I guess 16 years now. None of the others have been subject to that. They will be if one of them’s nominated.
Mr. Lauer: But it seems personality. It doesn’t seem about policy. It doesn’t seem about ideology. It seems that there’s something in her personality people are saying they’re not comfortable with.
Mr. Clinton: Yes, but it’s something they’ve been preconditioned to think about by 17, 16 years of attacks. And the reason I know this is true — I have two pieces of evidence for you. When she ran for re-election in New York, she carried 58 of the 62 counties, 36 of the 40 counties President Bush carried in 2004, with 60 percent of the vote.
In elections, often a voter will cast a ballot against one candidate, rather than in favor of the person, they endorse. As I stated, in 1991, I did not support your candidacy. As a then resident in Orange county, California, I was appalled to read of . . .
head-swelling raves coming in -- even from Republicans. In December, Clinton was invited to breakfast by 60 California executives, several of whom had contributed as much as $100,000 to the 1988 Bush campaign. A few are hedging their bets this time around by pledging money to Clinton.I recall, as I have often stated, that you Mister Clinton are far too conservative for me. While in office, it became clear, you believe in war. That alone is a traditional value I think highly flawed. I trust that there is strength in peace.
President Clinton, when your Secretary of State, Madeline Albright justified the deaths of half a million Iraqi children in support of Clinton imposed embargos, I lost all faith.
As I assess the business-backed North America Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and your efforts to secure solidarity with corporate moguls, I am reminded of how the conservatives courted your campaign, or how you embraced their continued support.
The profound connection between you, Mister Clinton, and those on the "right" cannot be ignored. The Welfare Reform program you so proudly initiated gives further reason to pause. Men, women, and children were profoundly affected by alterations in the plan, and not for the better. Women on welfare were further separated from their families with the introduction of novel requirements. Forced to work for meager wages, the dire circumstances of impoverished Moms often placed these caregivers in a more precarious position. Fathers continued to be subtly removed from homes; standards demanded they not be in the house with their wives and progeny. As you spoke of "family values," in practice, your policies further destroyed the familial unit. Again, children suffered immeasurable pain. The scars still linger. Indeed, the wounds increase. What occurs in our formidable years has a lasting effect.
Conservatives applauded your efforts to change the system, and they still do.
Clinton's rhetorical boldness helped create a climate where serious welfare reform could take place. "You have to get the values right," Clinton told his aide Bruce Reed during the early stages of the process. "If you get the policy right and the values wrong, the whole thing will fail; but if you get the values right, then this whole thing will work out."Granted, President Clinton, you are not the subject of this campaign, or are you. America understands that this may be a two-for-one proposition,. and would that not be wonderful. It may be for some however, for me, more likely it is not. As the Democratic dance develops before our eyes, the veils are peeled away, and Americans wonder.To a large extent, Bill Clinton "got the values right" on welfare reform. And because he did, Clinton not only helped end welfare as we know it, but he helped end welfare as we know it before anyone even knew it.
Robert Rector is senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a leading Washington-based public policy institution.
The Complicated Legacy of Bill ClintonIt seems to me there is too much that went unquestioned in the Clinton years. After a two-term Reagan Reign and the Bush Forty-One Blast Back to the Past, American liberals were pleased as could be to have a democrat in the White House. They could hardly contain themselves, and admittedly, your characteristic charismatic charm helped. Even I was enamored when I met you at a fund-raiser in Santa Monica, California. You touched my shoulder as we hugged, you on the stage and me in the crowd. I met your wife, current Presidential candidate, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on that evening. I shook her hand. On that evening, I was honored to make her acquaintance.
Bill Clinton's Legacy May Be a Double-Edged Sword for Hillary Clinton in '08
By Rick Klein
Aug. 23, 2007 —President Bill Clinton is his wife's not-so-secret weapon -- the single most popular Democrat on the planet, a campaigner who ranks with the all-time greats, and one of the best political minds in the country.
But, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is learning every week, his legacy can be a mixed blessing -- a reminder of peace, prosperity and Democratic victories, but also of scandal, gridlock and "triangulation" that frustrated many liberals.
On the campaign trail Thursday, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards delivered a speech filled with coded language aimed at reminding Democratic voters of the less-than-pleasant aspects of the Clinton administration. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate," Edwards said in Hanover, N.H., in a not-so-subtle reference to a famous fundraising scandal.
"The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't," Edwards continued. "It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today -- it's that the system that produced them was corrupt."
The Clinton campaign dismissed the thinly veiled swipes as a ploy by a desperate candidate.
"Running against Bill Clinton isn't going to improve Mr. Edwards' flagging campaign," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.
"Bill Clinton was a great president, and his presidency made America a better place," said Wolfson.
But it's not the first time that Clinton has been confronted with aspects of her husband's presidency that many Democrats view unfavorably. At recent presidential forums, she's faced pointed questions about the failure of her health care plan, her husband's support of NAFTA -- which is loathed by labor groups -- and Bill Clinton's decision to sign the Defense of Marriage Act, which many gays and lesbians consider an affront to equal rights.
In several areas, Clinton has distanced herself from steps taken under her husband's administration. She has vowed to support a partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, for instance. She has also expressed disappointment in NAFTA, and said she would rescind the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
"I've concluded that it is not the best way for us as a nation to proceed," Clinton said when asked about "don't ask, don't tell" at a Democratic debate in June.
Nevertheless, times have changed or more accurately, the physical presence of the Clinton couple, the formidable man or the now former First Lady no longer moves me. As a former supporter of yours, I have come to question much that I missed when the lights were low. Actually, your wife helped me to reflect on the future in a manner I had not. Well over a decade ago, I thought Hillary Rodham Clinton exceptionally strong. I admired her, infinitely.
Even during the Monica days, Hillary was undaunted. She did as I would have done, she chose to consider more than the circumstances. She felt a need to seek counseling, for you and for her. [President Clinton, you may remember I wrote to you and your wife on what I thought was a need for therapy.]
Prior to Hillary's entrance into the Senate, I was not only a sponsor of her cause and a contributor, when my Mom passed, my father and I asked that donations be made to the Hillary Clinton for Senate Campaign. However, once in office I observed a woman whose philosophies rarely parallels my own.
I hear the eloquent rhetoric Hillary Clinton recites on numerous occasions. However, it was not difficult to read between the lines. Senator Clinton spoke on the floor of the Senate in 2002 just before she cast a ballot to authorize our current war effort. Her words were carefully crafted.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.Today, her hawkish supporters use the text to defend her position as a person who seeks peace. Yet, in truth, Senator Clinton knew; she understood as we all did, President Bush was intent on war. It does not surprise me that Hillary might have advocated in favor of combat then. She does so now. In 2003, Senator Clinton, in Afghanistan, Calls for More Foreign Troops. Only months ago, Senator Clinton reiterated her hawkish position,
Bayh, Clinton Call for More Troops in Afghanistan. The Senator may wish to appear strong; however, I never doubted that she was.
For me, authentic strength comes from within. Genuine empathy, I think is veritable power.
I accept that many disagree. The majority thinks martial might wins wars. Those that endorse this philosophy believe the best Commanders-In-Chiefs fight for freedom. Hillary has proven she is there for the battle. Thus . . .
It is no accident that hawks inside and outside the military are reconsidering Hillary Clinton. She may have entered the Senate in 2001 with three strikes against her—she was a woman, a Democrat and a Clinton. But Senator Clinton immediately began a methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal with no interest in military affairs.Post 9/11, she was quick to recognize that Democrats—and especially one all but openly running for president—were vulnerable on defense issues. It was a trap she has seemed determined to avoid. She supported the Iraq invasion and has resisted the call for a quick withdrawal championed by Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha. "In the wake of 9/11, America will not vote for anyone they do not trust to protect them," says national-security analyst Lawrence Korb. "She grasps that." In New York, Clinton's pro-military posture helped broaden her appeal beyond liberal-leaning Manhattan.
The Military Industrial Complex wants a woman that believes in their business. Building bullets and bombs is profitable. Hillary Clinton definitely asserts financial assets are important to her campaign.
During numerous debates, the former First Lady happily flaunted her desire to accept donations from big business lobbyists and their ilk. Indeed, her own top adviser in intimately intertwined with industry Goliaths.
Sen. Clinton: Big business liberalHowever, there is no inconsistency for Hillary Rodham Clinton. As a six-year member of the Board of Directors for the mega-conglomerate, the infamous, and noted " union-busting behemoth," anti-labor Wal-Mart. Hillary Clinton may praise Teamsters and other unionized workers, but her heart lies with the wonders of Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. He raises funds for her campaign and advances her stature among the rich and influential. What could be better?
Timothy P. Carney
The Examiner
July 13, 2007Washington - Journalists left and right recently have noted that Mark Penn, the top adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, continues to work full time as a public relations consultant for corporate giants from the oil, pharmaceutical, software and tobacco industries. Clearly, there is something contradictory, these journalists assert, in Penn’s running the campaign of a liberal politician while also laboring in Washington for the biggest companies in the most controversial industries.
In truth, Penn seems to be serving both of his masters well, as Sen. Clinton backs a series of regulations that would aid these industry giants, sometimes by hurting smaller competitors.
A veteran Democratic pollster who first hit it big on Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election, Penn is the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, after having served in key roles in her 2000 and 2006 Senate elections. He’s also the chief executive officer of Burson-Marsteller, one of Washington’s top PR firms, with clients that include Microsoft, Royal Dutch Shell and Altria. Penn has made it clear that he will keep up his corporate work while serving, by some accounts, as Clinton’s de facto campaign manager.
Bloomberg News has commented on this arrangement, pointing out “contradictions between Penn’s private business dealings and Clinton’s public policy positions, which Penn helps formulate. …” Similarly, The Nation, a liberal monthly, says Penn’s double-hatting “cast[s] doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion,” contrasting Penn’s “corporate ideology” with Clinton’s “consistently liberal voting record.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Conservative understands.
“Corporate ideology” often includes such “liberal” or “progressive” positions as stricter federal regulation and more environmental or health mandates. Rather than seeing contradictions in Penn’s work for both big business and the liberal senator from New York, a cynical observer would suspect that Penn is having Hillary do the bidding of his big business clients. More likely, he’s a typical “third-way” liberal like her, who sees that big business and big government mesh very well.Thus, she does not struggle when confronted with talk of conflict. Hillary, the Hawk welcomes the battles here, aboard, and on the campaign front at home. This stalwart Democrat knows how to walk the line between Left and Right with distinction. She is a Conservative Democrat, a Progressive with an eye towards profits. She is a woman, a hard-worker, she is part Bill, and with the dynamism only a duo can secure, she is Billary!Penn personally works on Burson-Marsteller’s Microsoft account, which at first glance appears odd — given that it was Hillary’s husband who prosecuted the software giant for anti-trust violations in the late 1990s. But that unpleasant experience taught Microsoft CEO Bill Gates a lesson: You can’t beat big government, so you may as well join it.
Today, a top item in Microsoft’s $8 million lobbying campaign is support for “net neutrality” legislation — which would impose new federal regulations on Internet service providers so as to help Microsoft and other content providers such as Amazon from having to pay higher rates in the future. Google and eBay are also on board with this unprecedented federal regulation of the Internet, of which Hillary Clinton is an original co-sponsor.
Mister Clinton, President, Bill, no; I was not unduly influenced by Right-Wing Republican rhetoric. Indeed, from what I read the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” for the most part, is staying on the sidelines. –They do not find Hillary as vile as they did. Actually, some say even you were good for them and too them. After greater examination, it seems Republican realize as did I, you, and perhaps more so your wife have corporate interests at heart.
Sir, President Clinton, I am not preconditioned to believe there is reason to dislike or distrust Hillary Clinton. The First Lady herself fashioned my opinion. As I stated, when she said, I'm In, I, Mister Clinton replied "I am out!" I will not support your wife, the Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While I still receive every mailer you and she send, these only serve to further alienate me.
Perhaps you might consider, "actions speak far louder than any words" might.
Clinton, Clinton, the Candidate, or the Canard . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 11, 2007 at 07:45 PM in Afghanistan, Bill Clinton, Former President , Elections, Hillary Clinton | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hillary Clinton or Her Husband; War in Iraq
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Hillary is resolute even while campaigning in Iowa. She will not apologize for her position on Iraq. The Senator from New York spoke in favor the war in 2002. She voted for the invasion, and she still supports the effort. Missis Clinton prefers we adjust the strategy. Last week she called for a troop increase into Afghanistan. However, for the Senator, the war must be won. She as he, George W. Bush thinks we must succeed in Iraq. Neither proposes a swift exit from this battle. President Bush wants a temporary surge in Iraq. Hillary believes we must extricate the troops slowly. Bush must bear the burden and clean up his mess before he leaves office in January 2009.
Clinton has stayed steadfastly on a centrist path, criticizing President Bush but refusing to embrace the early troop withdrawal options that are gaining rapid favor in her party. This careful balance is drawing increasing scorn from liberal activists, frustrated that one of the party's leading lights has shown little appetite to challenge Bush's policy more directly and embrace a plan to set a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Perhaps, Presidential candidate Clinton believes as she does because her husband Bill intimated "regime change" when he was President. Former President Bill Clinton "hinted" that under Saddam Hussein the people of Iraq would never be able to "rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member." In 1998, William Jefferson Clinton proclaimed . . .
Statement By The PresidentPresident Bill Clinton acted on his beliefs and his Statement. He ordered an attack on Iraq. Operation Desert Fox was born. The official intent of this mission was to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. The targets were vast. Facilities thought to be associated with chemical and biological weapons production were bombed. Missiles were aimed at buildings intelligence sources claimed housed the regime’s secret police and elite Republican Guard forces. Airfields, air defense sites, and a Basra oil refinery were all hit.
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
William J. Clinton
The White House
October 31, 1998.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz reported 62 military personnel were killed and 180 injured. Yet, there was more. Many deaths occurred because the United Nations with the blessing of the United Sates imposed cruel and inhumane restrictions on the people of Iraq. These sanctions were imposed while George Herbert Walker Bush was in office. However, Hillary's husband Bill did nothing to lift the authorizations. Clearly, from his statement in 1998 a reader can only conclude he endorsed such horrors.
With "thanks" to sanctions against this Middle Eastern nation, one-half a million children perished in Iraq! Children were slowly slaughtered, starved in mass! Apparently, that was all right with the Clinton Administration as is evident in this article. A Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting journalist offers . . .
"We Think the Price Is Worth It"Perchance, Senator Hillary Clinton agrees. The ends justify the means. Hence, she supports a 'successful' combative mission, as long as it does not continue into her [possible] watch.
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here
By Rahul MahajanLesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).
We can presuppose that Senator Clinton, who openly states her support for brutal battles, can stomach sanctions that destroy young lives. Unlike former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and I, war and death are options this Presidential candidate endorses. For me, Mister Clark says it all.
Neighborhood BullyI thank you Ramsey Clark for speaking out when others do not. I appreciate that you advocate peace and policies that do cause no undue harm. While I might admire former President Bill Clinton, and I do, on domestic issues, I have deep reservations when assessing his policies towards Iraq. I cannot and do not support strategies that cause death, slow and sustained. War and sanctions hurt the innocent. Civilians, even or especially the children suffer when sanctions are imposed. Imagine what a surge in Iraq or Afghanistan might do.
Ramsey Clark on American Militarism
An interview by Derrick Jensen
The SunClark is founder and chairperson of the International Action Center, the largest antiwar movement in the United States. A vocal critic of U.S. military actions around the globe, he calls government officials "international outlaws," accusing them of "killing innocent people because we don't like their leader."
[Clark] He has traveled to Iraq, North Vietnam, Serbia, and other embattled regions of the world to investigate the effects of American bombing and economic sanctions there. The sanctions, he says, are particularly inhumane: "They're like the neutron bomb, which is the most 'inspired' of all weapons, because it kills the people and preserves the property, the wealth. So you get the wealth and you don't have the baggage of the hungry, clamoring poor."
After the Gulf War, in 1991, Clark initiated a war-crimes tribunal, which tried and found guilty President George Bush and Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, among others. Clark went on to write a book, The Fire This Time (Thunder's Mouth Press), describing the crimes he says were committed by U.S. and NATO forces during the Gulf War. When asked why he focuses on the crimes of his own country, instead of those committed by Iraq, Clark says that we, as citizens, need to announce our principles and "force our government to adhere to them. When you see your government violating those principles, you have the highest obligation to correct what your government does, not point the finger at someone else."
I, for one, think if world leaders wish to argue over their differences, let them. They alone can sit in a room together, perhaps, play a game of chess, or chat. One never knows what might occur when communication is the first, last, and best option.
As for Hillary, when Senator Clinton is sincerely ready to begin a conversation, to be part of a discussion that stimulates a solution, I'll be there. I will be in her camp. Until then, I will continue to talk, to chat. I will start a dialogue about her ideas and mine. Dear reader, if you are wondering, I believe sanctions and war cause great suffering, even death. These are not options! I ask for peace. Might we give it a chance!
I thank you Max for once again, stimulating my mind. May I present Back To The Future, By Max Sawicky. MaxSpeak. January 29, 2007
Why, for me, War is Not an option . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, Bill Clinton, Former President , Current Affairs, Defiant Diplomacy, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, Middle East Resolution, Military Missions, Pathways To Peace, Political Campaigns, Presidential Politics, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Wars Bush Commanded, Weapons of Mass Destruction, “War; Not an Option” | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Childhood Obesity. Adult On-Set Diabetes. Osteoporosis. Soda ©
Mr. Clinton realizes conditions such as theses are more prevalent in today’s society because people are drinking more soda. Scientifically there is connection between our sweet sodas and our failing health. I offer much of this research at the conclusion of this treatise. However, my concern goes beyond what I believe is a superficial solution to the problem. Having been a person saturated in soda water, I think removing the culprit from our schools, may not alter the effects.
The Former President, along with the American Heart Association, negotiated an agreement with the three largest soft-drink manufacturers. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schweppes, will willingly stop selling fattening sodas and sugary drinks in American elementary and middle schools. The companies will no longer offer the larger sized sweet beverages in the high schools. The elder students will be able to buy diet drinks, sports beverages, and brews that are lower in calories. The President and the producers propose, if young people have less access to the high caloric carbonated beverages, they will drink less and be healthier. Possibly that is true; perhaps, it is not.
The hazards soft-drink consumption is a subject I have thought of for decades. I, as Mr. Clinton did imbibe great quantities of soda. I knew as the President discovered, this action had its effects. I am famous among hundreds of students for my “Mountain Dew Story.” For close to a decade students have asked me to write and publish the tale. This week as Former President Bill Clinton and soft drink manufacturers get much press for the simplistic solution they are presenting I feel compelled. I will share the oft-told tale in writing.
For me this story is not about soda, though superficially some may see it as that. It is about choices, habits, and the decision to be healthier. I offer this narrative to classes at the beginning of each term. Students call it the “Mountain Dew Story.” However, they know that is not the lesson of this tale. They can quote the real reason for this narrative. The lesson it teaches is, “The manner in which we think, say, do, feel, and are is a choice.”
We often think that who we are and what we think, say, do, and feel is our nature; we were born this way. We are not. We learn these habits at a very young age; so young we do not recognize that we are learning. We do not know we have other options. Therefore, we choose what we know, what is familiar, and what our families teach us, knowingly or not. We adopt habits and assume these are personifications of us. They are our nature; they are not.
I offer this my own story in an attempt to illustrate that we can choose to change. We can choose wisely; we can become healthier and happier. Your habit may be one of zillions. When I offer this thought to students I relate their possible habits to classroom conduct or aspects of life that relate to school. I might suggest procrastination as a habit. Nervous energy may be the practice I mention. For those of us older; yet barely wiser our conventions may be different. Whatever your custom may be the correlation is clear, if we decide to consider these.
I grew up in a family that did not drink milk. We had milk in the house; it was only for cooking and baking. The first time I ever ran away from home was when my Dad decided I needed to drink the milk remaining at the bottom of the cereal bowl. I did not want to do that. I did not like milk. I used it only as a conduit to moisten my cereal and to soak up the sugar. After the cereal was gone and I had slurped up all the sugar, I was done. My Dad thought not; he said so. I fled from home with him hot on my tail. However, that was only a moment, it occurred later in my life. I was eight years of age at that time.
When I was younger, very young, I began walking, talking, and I toilet trained my self. I did all this by the age of eight months. Therefore, I could be easily left with a babysitter. The sitter my family and I preferred was my Grandfather. My Grandpop owned a pharmacy and in those days, pharmacies had what were called soda fountains. These were counters with stools in front of them. Behind the counters were grills for short order cooking. Soda was on tap. I could have all that I wanted. Happily, I would sit all day. I read comic books, ate candy, and drank a lot of soda.
I suspect my sisters did similar in their youth. I am uncertain. However, I have reason to believe that my eldest sister might still be drinking soda for breakfast. I can relate.
My grandfather did not like the way Coca-cola did business. He worked with and sold only Pepsi products, and yes, I knew the difference. In discussing this, my Mom shared, he had posters hanging in the back of the store. They were pro-Pepsi and anti-coke banners. I got the message.
Year