Damn it. He did it. President Barack Obama today pardoned a turkey named Courage he preferred to eat but was vetoed by his two daughters. This is one presidential custom I hoped the president had the audacity to change.
At least Obama conducted the ceremony with dignity. No turkey slaughter in the background a la Sarah Palin's press conference last year in Alaska.
Some presidential customs are dumb and pardoning a turkey the day before Thanksgiving is one of them. If you have raised turkeys you will believe me when I say they are the dumbest creature on earth with sheep and lemmings tied for second.
These aren't wild turkeys our ancestors discovered after setting foot at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Somewhere in the archives of my family history is a letter written by a great-great grandmother who described the beast as tough, greasy and smelled gamy. Today's turkeys are bred for eating, a mutation of their former selves.
But, Americans in their short history cling to customs established by our ancestors. Face it, some are really dumb. Remember how ridiculous Calvin Coolidge looked wearing an Indian headdress while campaigning at an Indian reservation in the 1920s.
Flash forward to several years back when an unknown Barack Obama was photographed wearing African garb. His 2008 presidential campaign went bonkers trying to quash the photo that circulated the Internet and fanned by Republican attack teams.
I admired President George H.W. Bush when growers presented the White House with a crate of broccoli. He said he hated that veggie and refused to eat it. Good for him. At least he was being honest even though broccoli is my main vegetable of choice.
The problem with American customs played out by our leading politicians is that they kowtow to a particular constituency. Hillary Clinton in New York said she was a life-long Yankee fan when in fact her roots had her heart with the Chicago Cubs.
Next up on the dumb presidential custom list is the ceremonial lighting of an imported Christmas tree. As if our nation's retailers didn't plant that idea of buy buy buy weeks earlier.
Bah. Humbug.
Actually, I consider Thanksgiving the best holiday in the year. It is a time for families to unite and give blessings for themselves and their fellow countrymen. That is the message our presidents should convey.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Republican Trial Balloons For 2012
After scanning the news wires this morning, I was forced to take a second look at the calendar. Yep. Two days before Thanksgiving 2009. Then why are there stories floating around suggesting Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs run for president in 2012? President of what? POTUS? Yep.
Oh. My. God. Seriously, folks, Mrs. Palin is a contender despite her political warts.
Beck has shown no interest despite a website petition asking for signatures.
Dobbs says he's exploring the possibility which immediately conveys images of Rush Limbaugh as meek and timid.
Of the three, Beck scares me the most. Not that he would be drafted to run for president by the Republicans or a third-party conservative group. But his announced plans to hold conventions to educate people about self-reliance, the economy and community organizing as a step toward building an effective electoral force.
That's right. Glenn Beck, the community organizer.
"America, we cannot wait for a leader anymore," Beck told his radio and TV audiences Monday. "The people must lead, and the leader will follow." Professor Beck at the lectern poses a frightening scenario of spewing hate, fear, untruths and bigotry with an uncanny knack of adding two and two equaling five.
Even those who disagree with his causes, to not take this demagogue seriously backed by the Fox News Corp. and top ratings on the cable news channels is a dangerous path. Think of those 9/12 crowds he attracted to Washington whether they numbered 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000. Doesn't matter. The guy's a real life pied piper.
Reports The Los Angeles Times:
Beck's announcement is the latest in a series of attempts by well-known, right-leaning figures to fill a leadership void in the Republican Party -- which has no clear standard-bearer and has seen a schism open between its moderates and conservatives. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is drawing large crowds on a national book tour. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham is asking GOP candidates to sign a 10-point pledge on her website.
Should Beck make progress in his efforts, it could widen the split within the party. He has cast himself as an outsider, an enemy of the "bipartisan corruption" in Washington. Many of his viewers and listeners favor the tea-party movement that has developed in reaction to fears that Obama is enlarging government's reach into the economy. Many also view the GOP establishment with suspicion.
Here's the Beck For President petition:
Was it crazy talk, Dobbs was asked on another radio show. "What's so crazy about that?" Dobbs fired back.
Unlike Beck, Dobbs can be introspective. "I don't think I've got the nature for it...But we've got to do something in this country. And I think that being in the public arena means you've got to be part of the solution."
In recent years, Dobbs has been an outspoken critic of undocumented workers burdening our labor force, health, welfare and justice systems. During those years Dobbs insisted he was a registered independent. An independent hasn't been elected POTUS since the early 1800s, my friend John Adams once told me.
Palin, meanwhile, got encouragement for president today by Matthew Dowd, President Bush's 2004 campaign strategist. On condition she follow five suggestions to refine her image, Dowd said the political climate leading into 2012 are in her favor.
Like it or not, if Sarah Palin decides to seek our nation's highest office, she has a shot. The probability of her success depends on her ability, and that of President Obama, to admit and learn from their mistakes.
I reject Beck and Dobbs on grounds of lack of temperament and totally clueless on how to govern. President Beck? President Dobbs? It even sounds grotesque.
President Palin? If you thought Barack Obama was glitter over substance, you are surely being hoodwinked by this lady. Her few policy statements are broad bromides of conservative talking points for less spending, lower taxes and a robust national defense. That sounds nice on the campaign trail, but the devil is in the details of governing, a lesson Barack Obama is still trying to grasp.
It would come as no surprise at this writing if Palin won the Republican nomination for president in 2012. Can you imagine the options Democratic strategists would have. First question out of the shute:
"Mrs. Palin. If you are elected, do you plan to serve an entire term?"
Oh. My. God. Seriously, folks, Mrs. Palin is a contender despite her political warts.
Beck has shown no interest despite a website petition asking for signatures.
Dobbs says he's exploring the possibility which immediately conveys images of Rush Limbaugh as meek and timid.
Of the three, Beck scares me the most. Not that he would be drafted to run for president by the Republicans or a third-party conservative group. But his announced plans to hold conventions to educate people about self-reliance, the economy and community organizing as a step toward building an effective electoral force.
That's right. Glenn Beck, the community organizer.
"America, we cannot wait for a leader anymore," Beck told his radio and TV audiences Monday. "The people must lead, and the leader will follow." Professor Beck at the lectern poses a frightening scenario of spewing hate, fear, untruths and bigotry with an uncanny knack of adding two and two equaling five.
Even those who disagree with his causes, to not take this demagogue seriously backed by the Fox News Corp. and top ratings on the cable news channels is a dangerous path. Think of those 9/12 crowds he attracted to Washington whether they numbered 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000. Doesn't matter. The guy's a real life pied piper.
Reports The Los Angeles Times:
Beck's announcement is the latest in a series of attempts by well-known, right-leaning figures to fill a leadership void in the Republican Party -- which has no clear standard-bearer and has seen a schism open between its moderates and conservatives. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is drawing large crowds on a national book tour. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham is asking GOP candidates to sign a 10-point pledge on her website.
Should Beck make progress in his efforts, it could widen the split within the party. He has cast himself as an outsider, an enemy of the "bipartisan corruption" in Washington. Many of his viewers and listeners favor the tea-party movement that has developed in reaction to fears that Obama is enlarging government's reach into the economy. Many also view the GOP establishment with suspicion.
Here's the Beck For President petition:
To: Glenn Beck
As a concerned American citizen, I am in search of an American presidential candidate for 2012 that will represent truth, our founding fathers' principles, and a strong sense of ethical and moral standards.
If you do not know Glenn Beck, I encourage you to get to know him. Please watch his show on Fox News. I encourage you to research his background and listen to his concern for our country and its citizens. Above all, please recognize that he is a man with a high regard for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in all American citizens.
He is truly an American patriot and a caring, compassionate individual. The amount of honesty and empathy he has shown would make him an excellent presidential candidate for 2012. Right now, honesty and empathy are virtues completely lacking in Washington D.C. It is time to make a change!
If you are in support of the nomination of Glenn Beck for president in 2012, please sign below and this petition will be sent directly to him.
Thank you in advance for your support!
Sincerely,
Former CNN anchor Dobbs is not at all shy about his presidential ambitions. Asked by former Sen. Fred Thompson on his radio show whether he was considering the presidency, Dobbs was quick to respond "Yes, is the answer."Was it crazy talk, Dobbs was asked on another radio show. "What's so crazy about that?" Dobbs fired back.
Unlike Beck, Dobbs can be introspective. "I don't think I've got the nature for it...But we've got to do something in this country. And I think that being in the public arena means you've got to be part of the solution."
In recent years, Dobbs has been an outspoken critic of undocumented workers burdening our labor force, health, welfare and justice systems. During those years Dobbs insisted he was a registered independent. An independent hasn't been elected POTUS since the early 1800s, my friend John Adams once told me.
Palin, meanwhile, got encouragement for president today by Matthew Dowd, President Bush's 2004 campaign strategist. On condition she follow five suggestions to refine her image, Dowd said the political climate leading into 2012 are in her favor.
Like it or not, if Sarah Palin decides to seek our nation's highest office, she has a shot. The probability of her success depends on her ability, and that of President Obama, to admit and learn from their mistakes.
I reject Beck and Dobbs on grounds of lack of temperament and totally clueless on how to govern. President Beck? President Dobbs? It even sounds grotesque.
President Palin? If you thought Barack Obama was glitter over substance, you are surely being hoodwinked by this lady. Her few policy statements are broad bromides of conservative talking points for less spending, lower taxes and a robust national defense. That sounds nice on the campaign trail, but the devil is in the details of governing, a lesson Barack Obama is still trying to grasp.
It would come as no surprise at this writing if Palin won the Republican nomination for president in 2012. Can you imagine the options Democratic strategists would have. First question out of the shute:
"Mrs. Palin. If you are elected, do you plan to serve an entire term?"
Monday, November 23, 2009
A Pace We Can Ill Afford
Most of us fail to grasp the enormity of trillions of dollars, let alone billions, so let's just throw the numbers out the window and for the sake of argument concede we'll never pay back what we as a nation owe in our lifetimes or those of future generations.
Instead, let's focus on ending this insanity and establishing our priorities. For the most part, these are tough decisions our elected leaders do not have the guts to enact.
National Security. We are a bankrupt superpower being drained with diminishing resources in money and manpower. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the same people who harbored and trained terrorists who hijacked our planes on Sept. 11, 2001. Why field a standing army of 150,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan when we fight the same terrorists in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia and Indonesia with special operation forces, the CIA and drones?
Foreign Aid. Cut it to humanitarian purposes only.
Space Exploration. Put it on hold and redirect the brain trust to national defense measures such as developing missile defenses, IED detection devices and improved satellite surveillance technology.
Energy and Climate. Reduce and eliminate dependence on foreign fossil fuels by tapping into natural gas as a bridge to wind, solar, nuclear and electrical power as well as building a new electrical grid infrastructure. Tax credits to those who cooperate; tax penalties to those who don't.
Health Care. Extend Medicare to all U.S. citizens. Subsidize private insurers to run the programs administered by the government comparable to the way in which Medicare Part D is now handled for drug coverage but with the stipulation purchasing of drugs is based on competitive bidding. Tort reform and capping malpractice awards must be imposed.
Certainly, some domestic programs will cost more in the short term but pay dividends in savings in the larger view. Yes, Virginia, there will be tough decisions to ration care as we saw last night on "Sixty Minutes." Get over it.
Congressional earmarks would be abolished and federal appropriations for local districts must prove a positive cost-benefit ratio. One good policy from the Nixon administration should be restored -- checks written directly to cities, counties and states to be spent on projects they deem appropriate.
Finally, Congress must pass a law with teeth that forces a federal balanced budget. Yes, Nancy, the time has come.
The way it works now, Congress's priority is getting reelected than living within its means. The Republicans say no to everything except national security. The Democrats can't decide if everything they want is worth it.
The way I see it, watching our economy going to hell is akin to watching the Hindenburg crash. "Oh, the inhumanity of it all."
Instead, let's focus on ending this insanity and establishing our priorities. For the most part, these are tough decisions our elected leaders do not have the guts to enact.
National Security. We are a bankrupt superpower being drained with diminishing resources in money and manpower. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the same people who harbored and trained terrorists who hijacked our planes on Sept. 11, 2001. Why field a standing army of 150,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan when we fight the same terrorists in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia and Indonesia with special operation forces, the CIA and drones?
Foreign Aid. Cut it to humanitarian purposes only.
Space Exploration. Put it on hold and redirect the brain trust to national defense measures such as developing missile defenses, IED detection devices and improved satellite surveillance technology.
Energy and Climate. Reduce and eliminate dependence on foreign fossil fuels by tapping into natural gas as a bridge to wind, solar, nuclear and electrical power as well as building a new electrical grid infrastructure. Tax credits to those who cooperate; tax penalties to those who don't.
Health Care. Extend Medicare to all U.S. citizens. Subsidize private insurers to run the programs administered by the government comparable to the way in which Medicare Part D is now handled for drug coverage but with the stipulation purchasing of drugs is based on competitive bidding. Tort reform and capping malpractice awards must be imposed.
Certainly, some domestic programs will cost more in the short term but pay dividends in savings in the larger view. Yes, Virginia, there will be tough decisions to ration care as we saw last night on "Sixty Minutes." Get over it.
Congressional earmarks would be abolished and federal appropriations for local districts must prove a positive cost-benefit ratio. One good policy from the Nixon administration should be restored -- checks written directly to cities, counties and states to be spent on projects they deem appropriate.
Finally, Congress must pass a law with teeth that forces a federal balanced budget. Yes, Nancy, the time has come.
The way it works now, Congress's priority is getting reelected than living within its means. The Republicans say no to everything except national security. The Democrats can't decide if everything they want is worth it.
The way I see it, watching our economy going to hell is akin to watching the Hindenburg crash. "Oh, the inhumanity of it all."
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A Little Respect For The Left Coast, Please
I'm bummed out on politics for the moment and as Keith Olbermann does more often than not escape into the world of sports entertainment as Plan B. Just to piss off Glenn Beck and annoy Rush Limbaugh who hasn't thought of it, I am applying for the position of College Football Czar as an adviser to President Obama.
With the powers invested in me by executive order, the first and only decision I will make is abolish the Bowl Championship Series aka BCS.
College football is the only major sport in America not decided on the field but by sportswriters, broadcasters, coaches and computers. It is not an objective way to determine a national champion. The reason it is this way is money, greed by college presidents and ESPN.
My plan is to install a 16-team playoff format. It would consist of conference champions, independents-at-large (i.e. Notre Dame) and, if necessary, conference runners-up if their records warrant an invitation to the Sweet 16. That way, the school ranked 17th, has no one to blame but itself. More on those guys later.
I would reduce the season to 11 games that would conclude on the Thanksgiving weekend with conference championship games played. The three Saturdays in December would hold the first three rounds of the playoffs. The national championship game would be played the first week in January. Proceeds from the games would be distributed proportionally to all the conferences participating based on how far they progressed.
That would mean the most any two teams would play is 15 games in a season which is two more than the way it is now under the BCS. Four teams would play 14 and, of course, 16 play 13. I believe that deflates the argument the college football season is too long since more than 100 other NCAA Division One teams would play 11 or 12 at the most.
Most of the nation is glued to their television sets during March Madness when college basketball holds its 64-team tournaments. Who's to say college football couldn't draw equal frenzy?
Under the playoff system, no longer would we hear sour grapes from Boise State or TCU because they played a weaker conference schedule than the SEC, Big 8, Big 10 or Pac 10.
It also would determine if the Southeast Conference is really the best football conference in America. They say they are but that's not enough. Prove it on the gridiron, not the press box.
I'm a native Southern Californian and for years believe the East Coast bias short-changed the really good teams playing in that media's wrong time zone. USC under coach Pete Carroll has received its national acclaim rightfully. But, why are they in the top 20 at the moment when they have been killed by Oregon and Stanford as well as losing to Washington?
Stanford is getting no love outside of the West Coast because they have the reputation of bad teams in the past. The last two weekends they could have beaten Florida, Alabama or Texas. The Pac 10 does not have a championship game so their chances for the national title are nil in the BCS format but a darling of destiny in a playoff system.
Under the playoff system, teams not qualifying could still play in bowl games and the bragging rights for the winners just the same as under the BCS. Last year, the Pac 10 was 5-0 in bowl games which raised no eyebrows from those elitist experts on the East Coast.
Unless they lose their next games, the BCS most likely will select either an undefeated Boise State or TCU play the loser of the SEC championship game. That's a half loaf compared to what really would be meaningful under a playoff format.
You see, Glenn Beck, being a czar is not a bad gig. Besides, I have the president covering my backside. He, too, wants a playoff system in college football.
Yours truly, a West Coast biased football fan. Go (Oregon) Ducks. Go (Stanford) Cardinal.
With the powers invested in me by executive order, the first and only decision I will make is abolish the Bowl Championship Series aka BCS.
College football is the only major sport in America not decided on the field but by sportswriters, broadcasters, coaches and computers. It is not an objective way to determine a national champion. The reason it is this way is money, greed by college presidents and ESPN.
My plan is to install a 16-team playoff format. It would consist of conference champions, independents-at-large (i.e. Notre Dame) and, if necessary, conference runners-up if their records warrant an invitation to the Sweet 16. That way, the school ranked 17th, has no one to blame but itself. More on those guys later.
I would reduce the season to 11 games that would conclude on the Thanksgiving weekend with conference championship games played. The three Saturdays in December would hold the first three rounds of the playoffs. The national championship game would be played the first week in January. Proceeds from the games would be distributed proportionally to all the conferences participating based on how far they progressed.
That would mean the most any two teams would play is 15 games in a season which is two more than the way it is now under the BCS. Four teams would play 14 and, of course, 16 play 13. I believe that deflates the argument the college football season is too long since more than 100 other NCAA Division One teams would play 11 or 12 at the most.
Most of the nation is glued to their television sets during March Madness when college basketball holds its 64-team tournaments. Who's to say college football couldn't draw equal frenzy?
Under the playoff system, no longer would we hear sour grapes from Boise State or TCU because they played a weaker conference schedule than the SEC, Big 8, Big 10 or Pac 10.
It also would determine if the Southeast Conference is really the best football conference in America. They say they are but that's not enough. Prove it on the gridiron, not the press box.
I'm a native Southern Californian and for years believe the East Coast bias short-changed the really good teams playing in that media's wrong time zone. USC under coach Pete Carroll has received its national acclaim rightfully. But, why are they in the top 20 at the moment when they have been killed by Oregon and Stanford as well as losing to Washington?
Stanford is getting no love outside of the West Coast because they have the reputation of bad teams in the past. The last two weekends they could have beaten Florida, Alabama or Texas. The Pac 10 does not have a championship game so their chances for the national title are nil in the BCS format but a darling of destiny in a playoff system.
Under the playoff system, teams not qualifying could still play in bowl games and the bragging rights for the winners just the same as under the BCS. Last year, the Pac 10 was 5-0 in bowl games which raised no eyebrows from those elitist experts on the East Coast.
Unless they lose their next games, the BCS most likely will select either an undefeated Boise State or TCU play the loser of the SEC championship game. That's a half loaf compared to what really would be meaningful under a playoff format.
You see, Glenn Beck, being a czar is not a bad gig. Besides, I have the president covering my backside. He, too, wants a playoff system in college football.
Yours truly, a West Coast biased football fan. Go (Oregon) Ducks. Go (Stanford) Cardinal.
Monday, November 16, 2009
What Big Pharma And Mexican Drug Cartels Share
The murderous Mexican drug cartels are known for their viciousness conducting their illicit trade. U.S. drug manufactures are less sanguine but equally adept at protecting their profits.
In anticipation of new health reform legislation that would curb their oligarchy, drug makers have raised their prices about 9% this past year while the Consumer Price Index has fallen by 1.3% during the same period.
The widely acclaimed deal the industry struck with the White House and Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus to shave $80 billion in prices over the next 10 years looks as if someone got snookered. It wasn't Big Pharma.
The industry's rapid price increases on brand names protected by patents are fairly chronicled and explained in an article in today's New York Times.
What the article fails to mention is that an amendment to the senate committee's bill was defeated that would have allowed Medicare to purchase drugs for low-income seniors at the same price that Medicaid pays for the drugs. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would result in a loss of $106 billion over 10 years to drug makers. That tells you who has the upper hand in this process. It isn't the consumer. The House bill hopes to cut drug prices by $140 billion over the next decade.
The thrust of the price increases is to protect profits required for research and development of new drugs, the Times story quotes industry spokespersons. One of them, Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the industry association — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — argued medicines create health savings.
"Medicines often reduce unnecessary hospitalization, help avoid costly medical procedures and increase productivity through better prevention and management of chronic diseases,” he said.
Artificially inflating prices is nothing new for Big Pharma. Reports The Times:
A Harvard health economist, Joseph P. Newhouse, said he found a similar pattern of unusual price increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago, giving tens of millions of older Americans federally subsidized drug insurance. Just as the program was taking effect in 2006, the drug industry raised prices by the widest margin in a half-dozen years.
Don't you love our free market sources at work? It's more civilized than the Mexican drug lords. After all, we consumers are mere peons.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Ugly American Syndrome
The right-wing tsk tsk tskers are at it again. This time it is a deep bow of respect President Barack Obama offered when greeting Japanese emperor Akihito this weekend in Tokyo.
That bastion of conservatism, The Drudge Report, signaled its disgust by shouting in 42-pt. boldface headlines "How Low Can He Get?"
And, get this. Drudge uses as an example of diplomatic decorum none other than former Vice President Dick Cheney shaking hands with the emperor at the same residence in a 2007 file photo.
The Drudge article written by Andrew Malcolm didn't stop Obama's kissie pooh of royalty there. It reminded us of its outrage when our president had the gall to bow to the Saudi Arabia king earlier this year and Michelle Obama's patting Queen Elizabeth on her back.
Oh, my gosh. Obama has denigrated our national dignity to the level of some third world country -- say Somalia -- the report would have us believe.
Let's review. World opinion of the United States sunk to an all-time low during the cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush and the ever-popular Mr. Cheney. Obama has spent a good part of his first year in office trying to restore our image after eight years of an administration that flipped the bird to our friends and foes alike.
I see Obama as showing respect to the other world leaders by recognizing their customs. That doesn't diminish our role in international affairs. It enhances it. And, in the case of Japan and China, it's not like he is giving away the key to our treasury. Hell, they already own it by acquiring our debt.
So what's the problem? It's what I call the Ugly American Syndrome. It's the belief we are the greatest country on earth and if others don't like it then stuff it. If others still resist, we will nuke them.
Now, it is only natural patriotism for any given country is a healthy thing. It is natural one wants to defend what he cherishes. The French are masters of that. Americans consider the French arrogant because they cling to the past, as Bush's former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld observed.
Because fate delivered me born in the USA, I'm perfectly content and fortunate for all the perks it offers. Do I think we're the greatest nation on earth? Not really, but I wouldn't want to change places with any citizen in any other nation on the planet.
Unlike the rightists, I don't need to thump my chest and claim I'm better than you, you poor slob living in the caves of Afghanistan. Look at the public opinion polls. The U.S. can't make the Top Ten list in numerous categories, the most embarrassing one being education. We can't spell without a computer spellcheck system. We can't locate our states on our maps. We can't do math without a calculator.
But, yes, we do one thing very well. We can knock the crap out of any nation at any time by pushing a red button.
It makes the discussion about how deep did our president bow so petty it stinks.
Author's Note: The link to The Drudge Report referred to a Los Angeles Times story. I couldn't find it on-line but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
That bastion of conservatism, The Drudge Report, signaled its disgust by shouting in 42-pt. boldface headlines "How Low Can He Get?"
And, get this. Drudge uses as an example of diplomatic decorum none other than former Vice President Dick Cheney shaking hands with the emperor at the same residence in a 2007 file photo.
The Drudge article written by Andrew Malcolm didn't stop Obama's kissie pooh of royalty there. It reminded us of its outrage when our president had the gall to bow to the Saudi Arabia king earlier this year and Michelle Obama's patting Queen Elizabeth on her back.
Oh, my gosh. Obama has denigrated our national dignity to the level of some third world country -- say Somalia -- the report would have us believe.
Let's review. World opinion of the United States sunk to an all-time low during the cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush and the ever-popular Mr. Cheney. Obama has spent a good part of his first year in office trying to restore our image after eight years of an administration that flipped the bird to our friends and foes alike.
I see Obama as showing respect to the other world leaders by recognizing their customs. That doesn't diminish our role in international affairs. It enhances it. And, in the case of Japan and China, it's not like he is giving away the key to our treasury. Hell, they already own it by acquiring our debt.
So what's the problem? It's what I call the Ugly American Syndrome. It's the belief we are the greatest country on earth and if others don't like it then stuff it. If others still resist, we will nuke them.
Now, it is only natural patriotism for any given country is a healthy thing. It is natural one wants to defend what he cherishes. The French are masters of that. Americans consider the French arrogant because they cling to the past, as Bush's former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld observed.
Because fate delivered me born in the USA, I'm perfectly content and fortunate for all the perks it offers. Do I think we're the greatest nation on earth? Not really, but I wouldn't want to change places with any citizen in any other nation on the planet.
Unlike the rightists, I don't need to thump my chest and claim I'm better than you, you poor slob living in the caves of Afghanistan. Look at the public opinion polls. The U.S. can't make the Top Ten list in numerous categories, the most embarrassing one being education. We can't spell without a computer spellcheck system. We can't locate our states on our maps. We can't do math without a calculator.
But, yes, we do one thing very well. We can knock the crap out of any nation at any time by pushing a red button.
It makes the discussion about how deep did our president bow so petty it stinks.
Author's Note: The link to The Drudge Report referred to a Los Angeles Times story. I couldn't find it on-line but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Fort Hood: Hindsight Is Always Perfect
Americans such as myself step into troubled waters when we try to understand why an Army shrink would kill 13 and wound 33 on the pretext he didn't want to be assigned to Afghanistan.
Therefore, I find it not at all unusual that today's authors of Op-Ed columns in today's Los Angeles Times argue amongst themselves. The issue is not whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed a terrorist act. He did.
The issue which is only partially addressed in the opinion pieces is why the army failed to connect the dots of his behavior that culminated in the massacre.
The questions are -- was it because he was a Muslim? Was it because the army was protecting its investment in his education since it not only was short on Muslims it was short on mental health experts? Or was it because the army brass was intimidated and too politically correct?
That last question really bothers me. It forces a hypothetical question which really cannot be answered. That is, what if the major was a white Christian from our nation's heartland whose religious views trampled his objectivity as a psychiatric specialist? Or worse, what if he was totally incompetent as judged by his peers? Either way, would he have been drummed out of the corps? We don't know. He should have been discharged without prejudice so he could rise or fail by market forces in private practice with an unblemished service record.
The problem with my analysis and the army's is that hindsight is seen from a prism that is 20-20.
The Times commentaries are worth reading. One was offered by Tim Rutten, the paper's resident conservative. The other by Judith Miller, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Fox News contributor, and David Samuels, a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine.
Therefore, I find it not at all unusual that today's authors of Op-Ed columns in today's Los Angeles Times argue amongst themselves. The issue is not whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed a terrorist act. He did.
The issue which is only partially addressed in the opinion pieces is why the army failed to connect the dots of his behavior that culminated in the massacre.
The questions are -- was it because he was a Muslim? Was it because the army was protecting its investment in his education since it not only was short on Muslims it was short on mental health experts? Or was it because the army brass was intimidated and too politically correct?
That last question really bothers me. It forces a hypothetical question which really cannot be answered. That is, what if the major was a white Christian from our nation's heartland whose religious views trampled his objectivity as a psychiatric specialist? Or worse, what if he was totally incompetent as judged by his peers? Either way, would he have been drummed out of the corps? We don't know. He should have been discharged without prejudice so he could rise or fail by market forces in private practice with an unblemished service record.
The problem with my analysis and the army's is that hindsight is seen from a prism that is 20-20.
The Times commentaries are worth reading. One was offered by Tim Rutten, the paper's resident conservative. The other by Judith Miller, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Fox News contributor, and David Samuels, a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)