On The Dock

A debt paid

2011-12-28T17:51:00.000-08:00

As the year wound down with the recent fracas over the payroll tax extension, America saw the sloppy back and forth of what passes for political dialogue these days. At the end of the dust up, Obama preened though his demand to tax those evil millionaires and billionaires to pay for his tax cut vanished. His pals in the press declared him the "winner" and off he jetted to Hawaii.

In the course of this mud-slinging, there was one interesting point when Obama called on the Congress to pass his tax plan to, in effect, live up to the standard set by veterans returning from the Iraq War. While this might seem an uncomfortable reversal of the maxim that domestic politics stops at the waters edge, remember this is a president that wages wars according to his domestic reelection schedule. Using live troops as a political cudgel to smack Republicans in the middle of some relatively minor tax spat, is simply business as usual. However, something seemed more askew in this reference. Barack Obama loves to soak up the adulation of the crowds and then use them, but what of those who can't be in the crowds? What of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan? What does their loss mean? What did they die for? With U.S. headed for the exits in both wars, don't we owe the dead at least that much?

With Iraq blanketed by bombings mere days after Obama met with Prime minister Maliki, the war that ended seemingly goes on. With Maliki issuing an arrest warrant for a governing coalition partner, a Sunni Vice President, the newly hailed stable democratic government appears unstable and rather undemocratic. In Afghanistan, due to a friendly fire incident, (or maybe not so friendly) Pakistan refuses to let shipments of fuel and supplies through to the United States and it's allies in Afghanistan. Though the U.S. has been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2002, in fact the United States overthrew them, we now hear from Vice President Joe Biden that the Taliban is not our "enemy per se." Rather than try to figure out what Biden means, (which may well be impossible) I'll let that statement stand. Asked to describe the future of Afghanistan recently, a Marine general replied "I don't know." Who can blame that response, since Obama has insisted on his own political strategy independent of the soldiers and their military strategy. What was the point of a surge in Afghanistan anyway if the end game was to simply declare victory and get out? This starts to have that old Vietnam flavor which is where the phrase "Declare victory and get out" came from originally. We all know how that war ended. We can go on about the ramifications of this current chaotic war effort like bases lost, geopolitical threats and countries falling like dominoes and perhaps this applies to Iraq and Afghanistan as well, but who pays the cost of all this? Who pays the debt? In this case, it's Steven Gutowski.

I never knew Steven Gutowski. I don't know his family. Nor would I ever write about his loss in a public forum except for one fact: he wanted you to know about his death. If he died his instructions were "Talk to the media, bury him in Bourne and throw the biggest party Plymouth has ever seen."

On September 29th, Gutowski was killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. The bomb exploded under a truck Gutowski was in with two other soldiers, who were also killed. His job in this war was one even those far from the fighting have heard of. He was "tasked with finding improvised explosive devices [and] had already survived two explosions." His was the deadliest job. "He grew up very quickly." his mother said. He also recovered "the bodies of 30 Navy SEALs killed in an August 6th helicopter crash in Afghanistan." This was taken from a piece in the Boston Herald by Natalie Sherman.

Gutowski didn't like his job. "I hate it." he wrote, but he kept doing it. Call that strength. Call it courage. Call it simply devotion. To have the fierce devotion to do this extremely hazardous job and not quit; this is a strength far greater than any physical kind. On a larger scale, his strength gave the United States a chance to stop the Taliban from harboring Al Quaeda. His strength gave the United States a chance to help Afghans establish a government free from the brutal elements that enslave, beat and maim half their population. His strength stopped Al Quaeda from using Afghanistan as a base to strike at places like New York, Washington D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. His strength meant that no more children were ever going to ask why their mother or father had gone to work on a fine September morning and were slaughtered. And his strength gave the United States a base to strike and kill Osama Bin Laden, so that there will never be another 9-11 from that foul source.

However true all this may be, the final and more succinct words of his strength belong to someone much closer to Steven Gutowski: his mother. She said "My son wanted to make sure the country and the state of Massachusetts and this town realizes that they just lost a proud soldier and a hero who was over there fighting for them, for their freedom." In Greek myths, fallen heroes are placed in the night sky as constellations to commemorate their deeds. Steven Gutowski saw that same night sky in Afghanistan. "1 cool thing about this place, on a clear night in some places u can see the arm of the Milky Way." He and the more than 4,400 men and women who died belong in that night sky. Also, the troops, live or dead, deserve a president who will not use them as a dodge, a hustle or a prop to smack rival politicians.

By the way, all the sentiments expressed here about the moronic politicians running these wars are entirely my own. The debt paid by Steven Gutowski and those who fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan is entirely their own. To them, under the free night sky, I say, thank you.

A rather simple choice

2010-10-13T18:16:00.000-07:00

I must admit I find this sturm and drang of this political season endlessly fascinating. In spite of this, there is a feeling that this was all really foretold. By this I mean that when Obama promised change, I believe a large chunk of people didn't really believe he could do it. The words about "spreading the wealth," remaking our economy" and "reaching out to our enemies"
were deemed momentary political posturing. However, with a Democrat Congress, Obama pushed ahead with his neo-Marxist agenda. Some voted for a guy who spouted the touchy feely talk of the left, but felt he would likely govern from the center, like Bill Clinton. Oh, how wrong they were.

You see to tack to the center, one has to believe that the system of parties, law and government in this country is essentially good. You simply move the furniture around in the house of government, not blast out walls to change things. Barack Obama was and is not that kind of man. His point of reference never was the government or laws and not really even the Democrat party. It is only himself. In his eyes, the American system has only worked once; when he was elected president.

I'll spare you the litany of sins America has committed over the years, though it is interesting that all of any degree get elevated to practically genocide level, as if no group in world history except America had ever wronged another. Still, it is amazing to me that a man purporting to be a constitutional law teacher has forgotten the most important and obvious lesson of America. John Adams put it in a way that has rarely been surpassed describing America as a "government of laws, not of men." The democratic system, not the people who run it, is the good in American government.

It's funny that ancient Rome used to have a slave whisper in the ear of a conquering general "you are only mortal." This poke at pride had a practical purpose. The republic and later the empire didn't want those powerful servants looking to themselves as the power of Rome. Of course, we know now that was the chief fault of Rome: generals who, though their armies did become the power/law of Rome. Obama seems headed in the same direction. He seeks to make all power personal.

Let's start with the Justice Department. The New Black Panther Party sends hoods to intimidate voters on his behalf on election day 2008. When Obama assumes power, the case is dismissed. The Gulf oil spill seems to highlight the confused uncoordinated response of the White House to a crisis. The solution: Eric Holder threatens criminal charges against BP. Any episode that casts a bad light on this administration whether accidental or not is deemed a personal attack on the power of Obama, demanding a counter-attack.

With Obamacare, the Health Insurance companies quite predictably raised rates after being forced to take people with chronic diseases, dependents until their 26 etc . . . This rather predictable display of the market undercut the fuzzy hope and change feeling promised with health care reform. More people covered means higher rates. Duh! So what happens when Team Obama sees their power undercut? Kathleen Sebelius threatens insurance companies for doing what any fool could see was going to happen. On a personal note, my premium went up 32%. Like a bed pan, that's change I'd like to relieve in.

Shall we move onto foreign policy? Israel is one country that doesn't seem to enjoy depending on The One. After the Jerusalem housing dust up, when VP Gaffe Master arrived in the Middle East, the White House sought to punish Israel through a variety of snubs, none too effective. It seems there is a resentment and fear in this White House that Israel will actually stand up to Iran militarily. Obama detests the fact that Israel seems to have realized from day one of his administration that they were on their own. Scolding by Obama had no effect on the Jewish state. Now Obama is attempting to restart talks with Iran in a desperate attempt to have some negotiations going on in the hopes that Israel won't attack Iran while yapping persists. This could be Obama's vanity playing him for a fool. Israel won't be held hostage to some public relations dodge.

Israel knows it's finished once Iran gets a bomb. With Obama stuffed shirt Richard Holbrooke, sucking up to Iranians at this very moment and ally Hamid Karzai admitting he's on Tehran's payroll, it's easy to see why the Mullahs, flush with these wins, decide to take a shot at Israel. What's hard to see is any benefit to being pals with this administration, especially when you're facing genocide. In sum, it's better to oppose America than be friends. Israel will go this route soon. After the election, it could be bombs away over Iran. Obama will be ticked, but after the drubbing he takes on November 2nd, Israel will ignore a weakened President more concerned with his own reelection.

Last has to be my cynical favorite: the failed $800 billion stimulus. It saved or created 3 million jobs according to the Democrat talking points. Too bad five out six of those jobs were government jobs. Scant help for the private sector accompanied this obscene money toss. What's more interesting now is that one in seven American workers who works for a paycheck is a state or local government worker. If we update Calvin Coolidge's phrase "The business of America is business," obviously the word government must be inserted into that phrase. As long as Ben Bernake keeps those printing presses humming, we can just "spend our way out of recession" can't we? Try that with your credit card bill. Obama still insists the stimulus was a success, but what Democrat is running election ads touting the stimulus? Answer: zero, but for Obama to admit failure saps his power or perceived power.

This is what the Tea Party is rebelling against: an Obama directed assault on this market economy for the enhancement of his personal power. Long after the 2012 election, we'll be left with the repercussions of his power grab in Marxist garb. At stake, isn't a government takeover of the economy, it's the government becoming the entire economy. As the dollar skids, this is a direct reflection of the fact that the economy is not companies like Walmart or Apple, but instead is the U.S. federal, state and local government. You don't have to buy an I-phone, but you must pay your taxes, which will increase next year. Walmart can undercut the competition, but the government can directly regulate them out of existence, like the student loan business.

For these reasons and more, this election is a rather simple choice. Republicans, certainly, are no prize bull here. However, as someone said to me "This is really a choice between Socialists(Republicans) and Marxists (Democrats)" It is a rotten choice, but to stop the Marxist agenda is a start. Come November 2nd, the choice will be made.

Just look in the mirror

2010-04-23T08:36:00.000-07:00

Ernest Hemingway said once that to live and thrive in the world, one needs a "finely honed crap detector." When this was said years ago, if may have seemed overly blunt, but certainly on target. Today this device is an absolute necessity, especially when listening to Barrack H. Obama. His recent attack speech on Wall Street may have been useful in a short term political sense, but it further illustrates why this president has a large and growing credibility gap.

By implying all Wall Street until now has been "bilking" America is a lie to say the least. Obviously, people lose money in markets. Obviously, people lie and commit fraud in this and other markets. When the SEC isn't ogling porn, they catch them and send them to jail. If Obama doesn't like the fact we have fraud in some markets, perhaps we should just abolish markets and have [drum roll please] communism. Perhaps I should take this back since he's already to taken this suggestion far too seriously.

Obviously, a man like Obama with such a limited understanding of capital markets really only embraces Will Rogers investing: "Only buy stocks that go up." To ideologue Obama, losing money is fraud, somebody betting against you dishonest, and people making more money you is not "fair." Funny, didn't JFK, the last decent Democratic president have something to say on this point? His quote was: "life is not fair." People lie and commit fraud all the time with little or no consequence. Ball players like Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Miguel Tejada etc. . . lied and committed fraud and never went to jail or forfeited one dime. And they continue to ply their trade. (though with Ortiz , who knows how much longer.) Back to politics, Barrack Obama said he wouldn't take private money for his campaign, but then he did. And lo and behold, the fraud was elected president. Barrack Obama raised cigarette taxes which raised taxes on those making less than $150,000 a year. Yes, politicians break promises all the time, but Obama has lied about breaking this promise ever since. One standard seems to apply to Democrats and another to everyone else.

Take this financial reform for instance. It doesn't even mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which provided most of the sub-prime loans that those "evil" Wall Street firms then repackaged, sold or shorted. In other words, the gasoline that caused our financial house to burn down is still lying around waiting to catch fire again. And this is touted as "real reform?" As we'll see later Obama and the Democrats have good reason for exempting Fannie and Freddie. But now, what about the banks themselves?

Are these banks still too big to fail? According to the bill, the government will simply step in and bail them out again. Doesn't this sound reminiscent of the mess we just got out of? The obvious threat of large institutions flopping and the taxpayer picking up the tab is still very much alive. This bill doesn't address that point at all. In fact, by creating a $50 billion dollar bailout fund, some might be further encouraged to make risky investments and again have the government clean up the mess. Also, chew on this: the first bailout of AIG was over $80 billion. That was just the initial bailout. So this bailout fund will be like fighting a house fire with a garden hose -next to useless. Right now, the government is already on the hook for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to the tune of over $400 Billion. Sad to say, but in bailout terms $50 billion is chump change.

Speaking of Freddie and Fannie, it is interesting that Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff was on the board of Freddie Mac. Should he give back his his $320,000 in salary and his $100,000 from sale of stock for helping run Freddie into the ground? Of course not! That would identify him as one of those dreaded Wall Street fat cats that the President is always decrying. No one wants Rahm to get in any trouble. After all, he wants to be the mayor of Chicago and we all know how spotless the reputation of that office is. Rahm also snatched $51,000 from Fannie and Freddie serving in Congress, after his stint with Freddie. My favorite taker of the cash from Fannie and Freddie has to be Democratic representative Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania. Kanjorski, a regular on CNBC, is chairman of the subcommittee overseeing Fannie and Freddie. He grabbed $65,000 in campaign cash from Fannie and Freddie. That sure is some oversight! Please ignore that politician with "his pants down and money sticking in his hole" as Lou Reed used to sing. Sure Obama could get off his lazy duff, walk down the hall at the White House and collar his very own fat cat, but he really doesn't have to go even that far. Who was the third largest collector of campaign cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all time? That's right: Barrack H. Obama.

Let's dig on this more. The other campaign cash hogs were Chris Dodd and John Kerry. Dodd was elected to the Senate in 1980. Kerry was elected in 1984. Both of these tainted money boys have been in Washington for 28 and 24 years respectively. So they had been on the Fannie and Freddie money train for awhile. Dodd collects $133,900 and Kerry grabs $111,000. Dodd, by the way, is the principal author of this financial "reform" bill. Certainly, no reason for him to leave Fannie and Freddie unmentioned.

So here comes Barrack Obama elected in 2004. He serves less than 4 years and heists $105,000! He certainly bilked Freddie and Fannie fast. Forget returning the Goldman campaign contributions for Goldman is still solvent. Will Obama give back the campaign cash from Freddie and Fannie? That money could go right back into the U.S. Treasury now that Fannie and Freddie are broke, Call it sharing the wealth, paying back the tax payer dime or just doing the right thing. If Obama really wants find one of the fat cats responsible for this financial mess, all he has to do is look in the mirror.

Afghanistan Lost

2010-04-10T18:03:00.000-07:00

Do I sound like Harry Reid? The Nevada Senator referred to the Iraq war as lost during the debate on President Bush's surge in Iraq. Unlike Harry Reid and his exercise in wishful thinking, I have no desire to see the U.S. fail in Afghanistan. I believe failure there would mean someday we would have to return and pacify that country all over again. Also, unlike Harry Reid I do not wish the Obama Administration take the wrong course in this war. I have made my thoughts plain as to what I felt was the right way: an increased force size backed by a larger U.S. Army with no timetable so our enemies could not plan around our thrust. Also, unlike Harry Reid, I believe we have chosen to lose this war, not been defeated on the battlefield.

It's been a little over two weeks since current President Obama visited Afghanistan in drive-thru fashion. Following, the usual Obama lecture and a few pictures, he was gone. Sadly the few photos and the brief discussion of this vital issue quickly disappeared in the next issue du jour and then the next.. First, came a phony off shore drilling proposal, followed by an appeasement arms control deal with Russia and finally, a Potemkin village dressed up as nuclear security summit. These were calculated gimmicks all. Transitory fluff aimed at obscuring a train wreck in progress.

Bill Clinton and Dick Morris pioneered the issue of the day mode of operation back in the nineties. The big difference is that the Clinton issues were minor and at worst, guilty of the usual left wing condescension and time wasting. School uniforms springs to mind. With Obama, the ante has been upped. Minor distractions no longer suffice. If the issues that distract America from a war she will lose, be large and complex, then so much the better. It does not matter in Obama's mind that America has stripped itself of missile defense or that foreign energy dependence is disguised or that banter about Chile replaces confronting Iran. All that matters is that a war that will be lost in two years time is given a quick push to the side. Then we're off to the next propaganda item.

Make no mistake this war is not being lost by the troops. Even now, U.S. troops and allies have made large strides in controlling former hot spots, but this is for naught. President Obama has declared that the United States will give up, turn tail and run and leave our Afghan allies twisting in the wind in two years. It's no wonder that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is talking about joining the Taliban. In two years, Kabul will be back under Taliban control. Obama will try to time the withdrawal near the 2012 election. This may work politically, but after the election, Mullah Omar and his pal Usama Bin Laden will be back in their old haunts. This will obviously be a large complex problem for Obama's second term (provided he lies well enough to get one) but he won't really care. He'll never face the voters again.

Am I too cynical?(perish the thought!) Take the example of sainted FDR and the Invasion of North Africa in 1942 during World War II. Lagging in the polls, FDR urged the generals to invade before the November Congressional elections. The generals informed the Democratic president that they weren't ready to invade. Lacking a positive event to spin, FDR and the Democrats watched as the Republicans made hefty gains in the Congressional elections. Trading lives for spin isn't new, but usually those who do have done so tend to have been Nazis or Communists, i.e. the political extremists.

Nowadays, Obama is often called a Communist/Marxist for his economic policies. By touting "social justice" and telling people what's "fair" he seeks to level society swiping from one class and giving to another, creating a group dependent on his stolen handouts. This fairly straightforward communist money grab has been widely commented on. Obama has reacted like a brazen hussy caught in a cat house by in effect saying "Who me a commie?" I'll let others fry the chief executives fish regarding the "share the wealth" con. My concern here is for the men and women who fight a war in Afghanistan that Obama has already thrown in the towel. Coincidentally or not, here too Obama is following a communist game plan. Remember who the last invader of Afghanistan was?

In his book, The Great Gamble, Gregory Feifer details the savage, insipid attempt by the communist Soviet Union to subdue Afghanistan. At first, there wasn't much resistance when the Soviets first invaded in 1979, but soon there was a fierce guerrilla war raging in the hills and mountains of Afghanistan. Gradually, the Soviets began to make headway. By the mid eighties, the Soviet trained Afghan Army was actually effective when used in tandem with Soviet forces. Fighting had become even more intense, yet the Soviets were "gaining the upper hand in the war." Then Soviet leader Gorbachev ordered the military to wrap up the war in one to two years. In December 1986, Gorbachev met with Najibullah, the Afghan communist leader to tell him that the Soviets would completely withdraw in two years time. In February 1989, a little more than two years later, the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan. The mujahedin quickly began to fight amongst themselves which led to almost complete anarchy. Out of this chaos, rose the Taliban, who subsequently rolled out the welcome mat for Bin Laden. For the record, in 1996, Najibullah was caught by the Taliban in Kabul castrated then beheaded.

It has been said history repeats itself, just not in the same way. In this instance, it seems once the U.S. and other coalition forces pullout, history will take the same path. For now, we are in the pullout stage. Obama may try to stiffen the spine of Hamid Karzai with talk, but Karzai better have his plane tickets for Geneva ready. It's beyond sad the sacrifice that U.S. servicemen and women have made and are being asked to make for a war already categorized as lost. As horrible as the waste our troops and treasure, it's even worse for the Afghans. They get played with this hoax of hope and soon the night of the Taliban will return. Hell is returning to Afghanistan. What is right next door to this future hell hole? That's right, tottering unstable nuclear armed Pakistan. The sheer stupidity, senseless waste and nauseous political grandstanding by the Obama Administration boggles the mind.

Afghanistan never was and probably never will be an easy place to fight a war, but sometimes preventing things like another 9/11 are not easy. Sometimes, it requires decades of time, thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Some people don't want hard answers, but the answers life gives are in accord only to themselves.

Can Karzai survive on his own? Let's let Najibullah answer that one. Perhaps the dead can provide a view that will be illuminating. After a departing Russian Communist general gave him a pep talk, the Afghan Communist had a curt response. "There used to be 100,000 Soviet troops here," Najibullah replied defiantly. "And together with our army they couldn't neutralize the enemy. Now your forces have gone. What can we hope for?"

Those who still wait

2010-03-07T18:55:00.000-08:00

As the Obama health care takeover grinds to a conclusion, (or not) there has been much focus on expanding health care as if it were a right denied. In truth, your health is your own. This bill seeks to take this away. Dictating behavior, fining, taxing all seem like very much akin to a police state mode-if not Mussolini then perhaps Franco. Maybe, I'm too naive to be scared or perhaps since I've lived (very shortly- thank goodness) in a police state, I know where this is headed. Still, this talk of rights strikes a chord

Are there rights being denied today? Are constitutional rights granted to all American citizens being abridged? Strangely enough steps away from where the anointed one lays his head there are Americans who had no voice in the recent vote in the House of Representatives. If you live in the District of Columbia, you have nothing but a non-voting delegate to represent you. To translate that in airy Obamaspeak, the voice of these people was not heard. Some might think this a paltry issue. If, over half a million Americans with no democratic participation in the debate about the travesty of Obamacare is paltry then America is truly off course. Seems that democratic representation is the sole reason this country exists. If that is violated or ignored, this country is betraying the main reason why it was set up in the first place.

Now, in own wonderful technologically advanced society, the Internet has give us many opportunities to express opinion. However, as the old saw goes, everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it. Well, why don't we do something about it. Instead of Obamacare creating complicated, budget-busting, new "rights" to say nothing of the threats of prosecutions if you don't abide by your new "rights, why don't we work on the rights created by Washington, Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson. Let's put out a plan to help bring those into the tent set up by Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams. They've been waiting over 200 years. So, let's hit the practical then the political.

Certainly, D.C. is small relative to other states. So you could attach it to other states like Maryland or Virginia to provide representation. Actually, the southern part of the District was taken back by Virginia in 1847, so Maryland could take northern portion that exists today. However, since the Constitution mandates a Federal seat of government, regardless of what you do you'll need to carve out an area (probably around the White House, Capitol and Supreme Court) that is run by the federal government itself, perhaps by the Dept. of the Interior.

A more daring idea would be to create a new state. The federal area in the center of D.C. would be retained, but the rest of the district plus perhaps the original portion (now Virginia) would constitute a new state. While small its' population would be about the same size as Rhode Island. Statehood would allow the residents full representation in the House as well as much more importantly two senators. Now let's head over to the political.

Even a water walker like Obama, would have trouble doing this one. To create a new state might be too much, but perhaps a swap might be easier. Republicans would fight against a new state that was perceived as likely left leaning. The solution: swap Rhode Island for the new state. (let's call it Columbia) This allows many things, like the number of seats in Congress to remain the same. Presumably, Republicans wouldn't care about switching one set of Democrats for another. And would anybody miss Rhode Island as a state?

Face it Rhode Island's state government is a cesspool of corruption and has been for years. Even bubble-gum-for-brains Patrick Kennedy is quitting representing the state. Word has it that perennial name coaster, dolt Lincoln Chaffee is running again for statewide office. Didn't that guy give himself a lobotomy at some point? Economically, Rhode Island is dog food as well. The unemployment rate was 12.9% in January, third highest in the nation. Those folks really do need some change. Why not slap little rhodey onto Massachusetts and give those who are unrepresented in D.C. the Rhode Island seats in Congress? Obviously, you've got to amend the Constitution. That's tough, but it's been done before. What is so wrong about enfranchising half a million Americans?

This is about a simple choice. Do we fix the concrete problems of America or do we try to use Marxist tactics to live in some Rube Goldberg dystopia? Is the American way about asset theft, thousands more IRS agents, government health files on everybody and a bankrupt budget? Or is the American way giving democratic song to those Americans who hear the music everyday, but cannot sing?

If it's not working, keep talking

2010-02-15T20:03:00.000-08:00

The Tiger Woods recent televised confessional contained a revelation for me. There was nothing intriguing about the props, aside from the fact that his wife wasn't there. The content wasn't especially novel. The way of delivery wasn't anything new either. Mere days later, President Obama used the same method in his weekly internet address to flog his increasingly stale health care revamp. Now Obama didn't have an audience of potted plants like Woods, but perhaps he could have used Michelle to give him a big smoochie teary kiss, like Woods got from Mom. One might think, gosh, somebody loves this guy, so his health care plan can't be so bad. That, at least, would have spiced up yet another plodding dull Marxist/Leninist Health Care 101 lecture.

The thing that struck me is how the set piece speech is now almost worthless as communication device on great issues. The heavy scripting has so reduced the information value, that it's no wonder most Americans have little interest or time to waste on these artifacts of the past. In a world on twitter, we only want the most important fact and it must be conveyed in the shortest possible form. Lies, dodges and evasions seem ever more blatant. Even a day later Obama could put no price tag on his increasingly costly boondoggle. A trillion? two trillion? The CBO cannot even venture a guess at the final cost of Obamacare.

So with these speeches, airy generalities and verbose phrases begin to seem not dull, but offensive, as if someone is committing a crime. Interruption becomes a necessity. Joe Wilson may be pioneer in this sense. Some would say this exposes an obvious loss in civility and this probably is true, but should one willing be silent for such drivel? I guess the tactful path would be not even to bother showing up. If someone is going to, at best use you as a prop or at worst lie with your seeming approval, then absence is probably warranted.

The Republicans now face such a choice with the Obama Tax Increase Commission and the Health care negotiations. If they want join Obama in land of vague babble and lies, they can and may gain something from it, though what I cannot fathom. Whatever they decide, the obvious manipulated nature of these things means like the set piece speech, the script has already been written. A beginning, middle and end has been drafted and the Republicans simply have to show up. Does anyone think the Republicans get the role of the good guys in this production?

The opposition party has a duty only to oppose, nothing more. Plans are laid out, so that America has an idea of an alternative path, but the job of passing the agenda lies in the majority. The fetish of bipartisanship as a goal in itself embraces only imbecility. If one side simply caves to the other, that's not America. That's Hitlers' Germany, Chavezs' Venezuela or Castros' Cuba. As Lloyd Cutler used to say " America was founded by dissidents and smugglers" Why should we lose our independence and our probing minds for something of undefined effect and with untold cost?

At the bottom line, America has thrived on substance. Yes, we've had lots of pretty words along the way, but all words that meant something had a direct substantive effect. In other words, they were almost mathematical in their precision and scope. The Gettyburg Address, FDRs' Pearl Harbor speech, JFKs' go to the Moon speech and Reagans' Tear down this Wall speech. All described the state of affairs, a plain goal and a way to reach it. The goals may have been extremely hard to reach, but the stakes were acknowledged and the speeches lent solemnity to decisions that almost all felt must be made. The humanity of these individuals shines through those speeches because the purpose rang true. How was this so? Those were all set piece speeches and yet any one of them has the sense, the feel of an intimate almost extemporaneous conversation. Tiger Woods and President Obama give speeches drenched in artifice, pretense and simulation. The speeches of Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and FDR had no need or time for pretense. The enormous issues of their day were duly understood and confronted with speeches that were not only well made, but direly needed.

Perhaps I mourn for the loss of such speeches. Almost three decades ago Walter Ong noted the rise of secondary orality, speech based only on written words. Long before "talking points" became household words, Ong noted this shift and something else. There was still a desire or perhaps need for primary orality or speech alone with no props or printed words or reminders. Obama himself decries talking points in speeches and yet that negative attitude about the medium is now a talking point. This is why the speeches of our ancestors have vanished. We have speeches exclusively about speeches. This serves only as cover or concealment for an agenda most people don't want.

When we see reversion to the primary oral form, the truth can be revealed quickly in resonant fashion. Think of two examples from the 2008 campaign. Obama's "share the wealth" comment revealed a decided Marxist/Leninist bent, now proudly displayed. The possessors (i.e whoever is the target that day) should tithe, donate, invest, etc . . . to the disposed. The dictatorship of the Politically Correct decide how resources of the society are to be allotted, not the individual or the merits of ability. Yes, Comrade, central control is best for all.

While John McCain had many more revealing unscripted moments, his snap decision to suspend his campaign revealed his primary orality actually seemed to dictate his decisions. The stream of conscious oral formulation gave McCain an appeal, but showed a mind heavily influenced by intuition. In the chaotic environment of the fall of 2008, this characteristic reflected poorly on him and he subsequently began a drop in the polls from which he never recovered.

For Obama, talk is the goal in itself, until someone else caves or something else happens. This almost mimics a pick up artist at party. He works the room until a willing accomplice is found or prospects dry up and he goes to another party. Above all for Obama, if it's not working, keep talking. The Narrative (I predict this word will eventually be as loathsome as "mission statement") must be continually pushed to dominate the national discourse and to stiffen the spine of an increasingly wobbly Democratic Party, that perhaps is not sold on the idea of Obama running for re-election in 2012. Unfortunately, dullness has set in. President Obama has become one long boring ineffectual scold. In the age of Twitter, this President is digging his own political grave, unless Republicans decide to help dig him out. They would be better served to let him keep talking.

The Massachusetts Miracle?

2010-01-12T18:42:00.000-08:00

Next week in Massachusetts, a special election to fill the Senate seat of the departed Ted Kennedy will take place. The Republican candidate Scott Brown has overcome a huge 30 point deficit in the polls to pull within two points of Democrat Martha Coakley, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. With less than a week to go before the election, the candidates took the stage for a last debate.

The physical contrast was striking. A fit and chiseled Brown (he once posed in the buff for Cosmopolitan) looked ready for action. Though appearing pale and almost lethargic, Coakley interrupted Brown on issues she felt played to her advantage, mainly abortion. This could be a mistake. As Creigh Deeds found out in Virginia, the social issues seem to have taken a back seat to the economy. On his short side, Brown didn't have much to offer on the economic side except tax cuts and stopping Obamacare as the 41st Republican Senator. For Republicans, that may be enough, but will it convince the 50 percent of Massachusetts voters who call themselves Independents?

Also, on stage was third party candidate, Joe Kennedy (no relation to Ted) who was a pretty much a one trick pony devoted to stopping spending. When Moderator David Gergen drew him out as to how to cut spending, Kennedy took the bait and said he'd go after entitlements like medicare and social security. After this political self-immolation, Gergen (looking rather old himself-I guess he needs to get back to those soft lights on CNN) tossed a softball to Coakley about how her campaign was going. Her tepid response said volumes about a candidate that seems to want to appear substantive without actually saying anything specific. She couldn't even nail the fattest of political pitches. Her flat response about working hard landed with a thud.

Her other responses were the usual Democratic rote about that dastardly pair Bush/Cheney or about how something must be done on health care. The moronic "anything is better than the status quo" argument doesn't hold water because we don't really know what the "anything" is. More importantly, we don't' know how will we pay for "the anything". Coakley simply said it's deficit neutral, leaving out the half-billion in cuts for the Medicare program that may or may not occur.

Before the debate, state Democrats may have hurt Coakley by saying even if Brown is elected they will hold up his swearing in until the health care vote is taken in D.C. This delay could be as long as a month, unlike a recent Democrat special election winner Nikki Tsongas, who was sworn in two days after her special election win. This brazen con job doesn't help the Democratic brand, the health care debate or Coakley. It simply highlights the rapacious one party system in the Bay state.

With regard to foreign policy, what Coakley stands for is largely a mystery. However, she wants to give Al-Qaeda civilian trials and she asserts that Al-Qaeda has withdrawn from Afghanistan and the U.S. should pull out. This last claim makes the false assumption that if we left Afghanistan that Bin Laden and company would not return. Brown hammered Coakley on her anti-war stance, her support of Al-Qaeda civilian trials, particularly the Christmas Day Bomber. He also showed up her dubious claim of an Al Qaeda free Afghanistan by pointing out that Bin Laden and the boys would love Afghanistan as a base to topple Pakistan and, thereby, get nuclear missiles.

What was the final tally? This observer would say Brown bested Coakley, but more on energy and image than actual arguments or rebuttals. Before somebody says Brown is all fluff, you have to say that JFK wasn't exactly known for his substantive policies before becoming president. His young handsome countenance was a marked difference from the aged warrior Ike or the rather oily Richard Nixon. Image was important then as now. In their famous TV debate, Kennedy won among TV viewers, while Nixon actually was preferred by radio listeners. In the current Senate debate, Scott Brown looked engaged and energized, while Coakley seemed distant and sported a rather thin smug smile from time to time.

In a sense, Scott Brown has already won. Everyone now knows how amazingly weak the Democratic party is in a race that should have been a cakewalk. Now this could be an early protest vote against a radically unpopular Democratic governor, Obama pal Deval Patrick. His lone achievement, if you can call it that, has been to raise the sales tax. With his approval numbers in the low thirties, Patrick stands little chance of re-election this year. Even a visit by President Obama failed to stir enthusiasm at a Patrick fundraiser in December that was sparsely attended.

Given the anti-Washington, anti-Beacon Hill mood, a flaccid machine candidate like Coakley could lose. However, should Brown lose by a point or two, the damage will have been done. In the original blue state, the message will be unmistakable. Democrats ran the last two cycles against incumbency as change agents. Now they are the incumbents. Having offered wild spending, more taxes and 10% unemployment, the Democrats are about to feel the pain of the electorate in a most visceral way. In head spinning fashion, the former agents of "change" are now in danger of being changed. If the facts could be a rally cry, it might be "change the change!"

The Biggest Cynic

2010-01-06T19:10:00.000-08:00

It's been over twenty posts since I started here. While I'm a firm believer in Satchel Paige logic that marking milestones can be dangerous, I thought it might be appropriate to tell you little bit more about myself. In the immortal words of Elwood Blues "My brother would like to become increasingly intimate . . . with you"

Now I'm part of a group that has been pilloried at length by many during the last two years. Candidate and now President Obama rails on us and our outlook at almost every turn. We were bashed in the West Point speech. He even flayed us in his second Christmas Bomber speech from dreamy Hawaii. While we never get the top billing on the villain list that "extremists" (actually jihadists) or Republicans receive, we are always brought up for the usual sucker punch. I have no idea what's in the State of the Union speech except for the usual unpaid for handouts and mandates, but I'm rather certain that our group will be brought up for the usual drubbing.

You see I am a cynic and life under Obama is tough. Now before you simply equate cynicism with simple greed, let me say we are concerned with "the self" When you think about it, our Greek school of philosophy predates that whole West Coast Zen Buddhist thing which runs along similar rails. Left coaster Mr. Star Wars George Lucas calls himself a cynical optimist. We try to help the world through ourselves.

Now can a greedy slug be cynical? Sure and it's easy to get the two confused. Take Bill Clinton- a man of immense appetites. The women, the food (until heart surgery) White House furniture all flowed toward the maw that was Bill. Even now remnants remain, like the unending flow of cash from Saudi Arabia into the Clinton Foundation. Old greedy ways never die.

In the interest of bipartisan ship, I would posit that Richard Nixon was a total cynic. It is hard to admit, because he hurt so many, but the truth stands. Nixon could take any adversity and spin it for his own advantage. Whether it was a personal adversity like the Chequers Speech when Nixon was caught with hand in the political money cookie jar or the country wide chaos of 1968. Nixon deftly spun any crisis his way. Of course, that eventually led to the idea that virtually any deed legal or not could be taken and consequences could be avoided. Say hello to Watergate, Mr. President.

Now we have a President, rising to power in the midst of a great crisis, who seems positively repulsed by cynics. Thou doth protest too much? We got an inkling of the budding cynic within when Obama opted out of campaign finance rules for his own benefit. He played by the rules until it was best not to. The dance followed the same steps with C-span and health care. He was going to televise health care negotiations until it didn't serve his political interests. Too many people seem to oppose Obamacare and further exposure could get them riled up. Probably the most odious/Nixonian cynical move was putting troops in Afghanistan in 2010, but beginning to pull them out in 2011. The goal seems to have all troops out by the 2012 election. This way Obama creates a positive military issue to land him back in the White House. This truly Nixonian move makes you wish that when it comes to the troops a different standard would apply, that personal power wouldn't always be the goal, especially with troops in the field. Is this a cynical use of the troops? Even a cynic can go too far.

Lately, the turn to the cynical side seems even more pronounced. On the eve, the Massachusetts Senate election, Obama declared war on the banks with hefty taxes even though the government had made a nice profit on TARP money loaned to said banks. The President said "Bankers don't need another vote in the United States Senate. They've got plenty" Perhaps most of the Senate has been bought by the banking industry. But that seems a rather cynical statement given the fact that the President himself is engaged in buying senate votes for Obamacare. Do I hear a Cornhusker Kickback or a Louisiana Purchase anyone?

Now, if Obama came out as a cynic, we could overlook some of the little stuff, like the truck.
Obama seemed fixated on the truck that Scott Brown campaigned in as some patently false prop. Perhaps it was, but Brown did put over two hundred thousand miles on it and pointedly corrected the President not everyone could buy a truck. I guess in the Washington world of bailouts and kickbacks a new truck is such a small item. It's like a nice parting gift on a game show. Johnny O, what fabulous parting gift do we have for Barry?

After getting clocked by the Massachusetts Miracle win of Scott Brown, what did the President do? Why he went chumming with regular folks in of all places Ohio. Ohio, that most pivotal of states that had John Kerry got a mere hundred thousand votes more, we might be in the second term of the Kerry Administration. Now it might appear cynical to flee to Ohio once your presidential career seems threatened. The president however had a different take. He simply wanted to "escape" from Washington. I would suggest that given the fact that Mike Huckabee is now leading Barrack Obama in the latest PPP poll, the Presidents' escape from Washington may not be all that long in coming. Or perhaps it's too cynical of me to suggest that end, especially without offering a parting gift, like a truck.

Gold, the Dollar and Obama

2009-12-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

Last year gold went over $1,200 an ounce. Barton Biggs once described gold as a "barbarous relic." While pleasing to the eye, Biggs was essentially right about gold in a monetary sense. Gold as money comes from a time before the Enlightenment when cheating in the coin of the realm was common. Only the look and feel of a proper gold coin conveyed security and trust in a transaction. Paper money came when a government could back it with gold. In other words that relatively worthless paper was backed by something someone would buy no matter what happened. Through disaster of nature or man, gold endured as a store of value. My favorite story about this vein of thought doesn't directly concern gold.

During the 900 day siege of Leningrad by the Nazis in World War II, a woman was confronted with a choice. The city was in a state collapse barely holding off the Nazis, but bereft of food. Over a million Russians would die during the stygian siege. None would ever be mourned individually as their bodies were dumped in mass graves. Death assumed many guises. Sometimes it appeared instantly through bullets or bombs. Other deaths rose slowly from freezing cold or starvation. The story of a single Russian woman revolves around a dilemma. Should she trade her diamond engagement ring for a sack of potatoes or starve?

Of course, she traded that treasured item. Even on the brink of societal dissolution, this ornament with little or no industrial use had value. Gold is much the same. Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but it shows the persistence of value in something that by all rights shouldn't have any value. In the present day with technologic wizardry making value even more quantifiable in everything, gold should have even less value, shouldn't it?

Unfortunately, one thing has not changed from that battle in the Soviet Union many years ago. Human beings are inherently competitive. When this rises to a national level,you have wars. Put it on a cultural level, you have a clash of civilizations lasting decades. The West has been experiencing this with radical Islam since the 1970's. This instability with the threat to mushroom (pun intended) means a persistent store of value remains desirable.

With regard to world monetary policy, gold is experiencing a tailwind as well. Japan recently announced a stimulus program i.e. a money print. China had a huge one last year. The United States leads the pack by having a ballooning debt and printing more money on top of that for scads of new government programs and bailouts. Recently Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government ponzi schemes that they are, lined up for, wait for it,. . . ."unlimited funds" to stay afloat. Some say the true amount could be $400 billion or more. Who knows? Anyway, that's more than half the size of Obama's much trumpeted stimulus plan. At this point we don't even know how much the health care boondoggle will cost, but Harry Reid during debate let it slip that it was in $2 trillion dollar range. It's a wonder the U.S. dollar has any value at all.

Perhaps the dollar has taken all the bad news of crazy spending and finally stabilized, but that would assume the spending spree is over. Also, the dollar used to represent more the U.S. economy than the U.S. government, but as the latter encroaches more and more on the former, the dollar will increasingly be representative of Uncle Sam, not Microsoft, Walmart et al. So if the dollar is now a proxy for the government, does the low value of the greenback represent an opinion of the government and those who lead it. If that's the case, do any of the current leaders inspire trust in the "full faith and credit" of Uncle Sam to pay his bills?

Ben Bernake seems competent enough, but since he's lowered rates to zero, there is only one way for rates to move. His course is set and his options limited. Raising rates will hammer an extremely tepid recovery.

Does Harry Reid inspire confidence? Does his slimy buy off Sen. Ben Nelson exempting Nebraska from paying for medicare constitute effective leadership? Does forking over $300 million to purchase the Senator from Bourbon Street Mary Landrieu highlight a skill all leaders should possess?

Does Nancy Pelosi inspire confidence? Last year she called the CIA a bunch of liars. Last week, seven of those "liars" perished in suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan defending her right to continue to make vile, moronic statements in pursuit of the crowning prize: dingbat of the decade. She make me want to ralph.

And what of our president? The self confessed movie "buff" took in the latest James Cameron movie while on vacation in Hawaii. Doesn't a buff require lots of time be devoted to your area buff-dom, in this case movies? Don't you have a day job, Mr President? Oh well, I'd rather catch a double feature than deal with Harry Reid as well. I'm with you on that one, Mr. President.

Still, wasn't this the man that promised "not to rest until everyone who wants a job can get one". With the Hawaiian vacation, I guess that means the 10 percent unemployed don't really want to work? Why should they work anyway? With unemployment and Cobra being extended virtually indefinitely and health care in the pipe why bother? Unlike Obama, we don't want to push ourselves too hard, do we?

According to the AP, Obama was briefed two hours after the Al Qaeda Christmas attack. The briefing lasted fifteen minutes and then Obama skipped off to the gym. You wonder if he even inquired if there were signs of any more attacks. Does this devotion to duty inspire confidence?

The usual lapdog press said nothing. Hey would you jeopardize your Hawaiian vacation by pointing out the emperor has no work ethic? Can you imagine what the press would have said if George W. Bush had gone mountain biking when they nabbed the shoe bomber? With an inexperienced, indolent, p.c. dilettante holding the reins of power, the U.S. is in for a rough ride for the next three years. I hope the dollar gets better and the economy recovers, but I'm not counting on anything from this guy. As Ben Franklin said "He that lives upon hope dies fasting."

After an unprecedented time in U.S. history, individuals may want the security of something not associated with individuals who are intent on reviving Marxist-Leninist thought. Gold or any other commodity is one avenue. This doesn't mean value will be exactly preserved. Commodities are EXTREMELY volatile, emphasis on extremely again.

Democrats in the past have understood that commodities can be a haven for value and have tried to tax or confiscate such forms of value. FDR ordered the confiscation of gold. Carter slapped a "windfall profits"tax on U.S. oil and gas operations making them even less competitive with the Arabs. Obama is trying something similar. Cap and trade is a stealth way to get utilities to collect taxes for Uncle Sam. For now, there is little to stop him, but 2010 is an election year. Should gold remain high or soar, and the dollar remain moribund, these will be shorthand signs people do not trust this President and the errant fiscal course he has vowed to keep.

Can a PC nation defend itself?

2009-11-14T18:30:00.000-08:00

In the United States, we have been living with political correctness for decades. As an outgrowth of Affirmative Action, it was seen as the logical extension for leveling the the racial playing field. The legally mandated inclusion of certain minority groups would be backed up by a psychological component of enforced group think. While Affirmative Action very starkly chose winners and losers for education, business and government, political correctness was suppose to force inclusion in a social sense. Those failing to toe this racial line of behavior were supposed to be ostracized. While this may have cowed the bigots and fostered a nascent inclusion, some else started to happen.

Tolerance and inclusion became deference. Instead of a level playing field, new justifications arose so that minorities should be placed in a superior position to others in school, business or government. Since to be called a racist publicy has become the 21st century equivalent of a scarlet letter, people would do any number of contortions mental or otherwise to avoid being labeled as such. While many have recognized this incredible distortion of a noble effort, the bill is here from this twisting of the American instinct for fairness. While many are unhappy with the fact that affirmative action has become a legacy for minorities, the cousin of Affirmative Action, political correctness has been revealed as threat much more damaging than some warping of the admissions process or government contract selection. We now bend over backwards to accommodate those who wish to destroy America and all she stands for. This has become crystal clear after the Ft. Hood shooting.

When Major Nidal Hassan, an Army psychiatrist massacred servicemen and women at Ft. Hood, it was a culmination of events in a chain of obvious signs of Jihadism, Terrorism and Anti-American feeling that had been going on for years. Political correctness or Minority favoritism, allowed this open sore of a person to not only work, but to advance in the military. Soliciting worshippers for Islam among patients, touting horrid punishments for non-believers and proclaiming sharia law over the U.S. Constitution were just some of the outward signs pooh poohed by those interested in avoiding being labelled a bigot, the now highest crime in America.
Is this an exaggeration?

Not according to General George Casey Jr. who said of the massacre "This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty." So over this slaughter rises the saving grace that we are still marching forward under the banner of political correctness. In other words, all personnel should continue to allow any proto-jihadist full support as they climb the career Army ladder. Imagine if another extroverted jihadist mole assumes command of a nuclear bomber or sub. Can this only be fantasy?

Well, the guy sitting in the White House had no problem being on seminar panels with Bill Ayers, American Terrorist. That guy in the White House had no problem going to church with a guy like Reverend Wright saying essentially America got what it deserved on 9/11. Barack Obama had no problem with Van Jones, an adherent to the 9/11 "truthers" If I were head of the Al Qaeda propaganda department , I doubt I could come up with a better, more divisive fiction than the one that the U. S. government was complicit in 9/11. If Barrack Obama had no problem with these figures actively working to break down America, would appointing some openly jihadist mole to a position of power in the name of political correctness be so much of a stretch?

On the more mundane level, Barrack Obama himself was recipient are tremendous recipient of the PC largess. How many people voted for Obama simply to prove they weren't a racist? Obama cleverly played the race card using surrogates in the primary and when McCain wouldn't stoop to the level of using racism, Obama played the race card himself. And it worked. After Obama was inaugurated, how many critics of the president were labeled "racist"? The administration and their parasites slapped every single dissent with that label. We can expect this label to appear again in 2010 and 2012.

If PC games were only confined to who runs the country, this land might be able to survive, but when it directly affects how we stop our enemies, the life of the republic is in jeopardy. Ponder this: did the immense growth through technology of asymmetrical threats exist even twenty years ago? Did the ubiquity and power of computer involved personal technologies exist even fifteen years ago? Did the ease of logistical coordination between disparate and far flung actors exist even a decade ago? We cannot afford any blind spots due to self-censorship, submissiveness or capitulation to ideas that threaten liberty or life. Individuals have a myriad of ways to attack slow Nation-state actors with enormous, cumbersome and docile bureaucracies. All it takes is the will, the increasingly portable technology and a handful of fanatics, sometimes only one.

The jihadist Major Hassan was conversing via email with an Al Qaeda imam in Yemen, but according to the gun shy PC Department of Defense investigators this was "research" One of Hassan's classmates at Uniformed Services University summed up the motivation. "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody religious beliefs, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit." So said Lt. Col. Val Finnell. So the PC enablers have to make up reason, plausible sounding ones, why Major Hassan got to remain in the Army. According to the AP sources at Walter Reed hospital " . . . some doctors and staff were concerned their unfamiliarity with the Muslim faith would lead them to unfairly single out Hassan's behaviour." In other words, they felt themselves to be insensitive bigots when it came to Islam. Better to dodge this guy, and hope you don't get sued for asking him if he'd like a baloney sandwich from the deli.

Even when the term fanatic seemed just around the corner, Hassan's coworkers could not bring themselves to call him the name. As one unnamed staffer at Walter Reed said " . . . he embraced his religion with such intensity that one wondered whether he could have suffered from a form of 'delusion.' " Whoever this dope was, he has been so PC programmed, he wouldn't realize Hassan or any other jihadist was a threat until the round is in the chamber and the trigger is being squeezed. Then again this was in a story in the Washington Post entitled "Army sought ways to channel Hassan's absorption with Islam." Amazing as the embrace of this therapeutic psychobabble is, what's more shocking now is that this psycho drivel is widely accepted at the highest levels of our society.

We can now assume the beltway crowd is completely inert when it comes to spotting the enemies here. The Army high command (Casey), the bureaucracy (Walter Reed, DOD) and the press (Washington Post) are all smugly ensconced in the PC blind spot. Speaking of blind spots, the White House has asked that Congress to slow down investigating Hassan and his attack. Why bother trying to track down possible co-conspirators or government blunders? After all, Major Hassan's Al Qeada imam in Yemen said he acted alone. He seems PC enough.

To have others investigating not firmly under the thumb of the Executive branch might muss things up. And the President is now an experienced foot dragger, so why not push this out until there's some other event to distract attention. Why bother committing all the resources of the government to investigating the first Jihadist attack on America since 9/11? After all, we had the FBI said this was not being looked at as terrorism, right after the attack. The attacker opens fire screaming the jihadist war cry "Allu Akbar!" and it's not Islamic terrorism? Please ignore that man screaming "God is Great" unless he blows your head off. Then we're off to mourning mode replete with more odes to political correctness like "our diversity is our strength." In this instance, our "strength" was a police officer pumping multiple rounds into a still-firing fanatic. Sanctimonious homilies are a tissue thin shield against terrorists.

The enemies of America are not stupid. There are very capable of learning lessons and applying them. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 failed, but the lessons of that failure paved the way to the horrendous massacre that was 9/11. They are watching and learning. Whether planned directly by Al Qaeada or not, this Ft. Hood slaughter enabled by a PC blind spot will be understood and filed away. Perhaps, it will give action to another plot immediately. Maybe it will give rise to another long term plot just as deadly as 9/11. Either way, a new weakness has been shown. They know it now, but the question is: do we know it? Will we ever know it?

Embrace the Powell Doctrine

2009-11-08T20:06:00.000-08:00

After returning from his minor flop of a trip to Asia, Barrack Obama has convened yet another strategy meeting on Afghanistan. Of course, part of the politics of this empty trip seems to have been to delay supporting the troops again. Perhaps, Rham Emannuel counseled that sending reinforcements now would undermine Democratic nerve on the health care bill. Who knows? One thing we do know the the Chinese pulling the plug on the Obama's nationwide town hall was an embarrassment plain and simple. And what trip would be complete without a bow or two. The bow to the Japanese emperor proves one thing is improving in the Obama Administration. The presidents' bowing is getting much better. He really has the bend down pat. Though in the interest of variety, next time the president might curtsy, just to show he's versed in other ways of showing submission before a king or dictator.

Moving from the vapid Asia trip onto an issue the President should have addressed four months ago, Afghanistan continues to fester. Honest Americans can debate this war in all of its aspects, but the Taliban are still there, Pakistan is still tottering and Bin Laden is still on the lam. From this point of view, the question is not whether, but how many troops should go. Concurrently, the President should seriously enlarge the Army. Obama promised to do so already, but there is scant evidence he is following through on this pledge. More troops are needed in Afghanistan and a larger Army is needed so that troops don't have to spread thin throughout the world and redeployed over and over again in combat theaters. No question these are hard decisions. However, when American troops need reinforcements, the job of the President is to call for those troops, not sight see on the great Wall of China. The mixed up priorities of this novice executive had better straighten out and fast.

Apart from the blundering manner this decision is being reached, the leaked number seems completely inadequate. Multiple news reports place the number of troops being committed in the 30,000 to 40,000 range. While nobody here is a general, we can draw some basic conclusions. Land wars in Asia are expensive in every way. Going in with few troops or a light footprint is a recipe for losing, as Iraq certainly proved. With regard to Afghanistan vis a vis Iraq, it is much larger, much more mountainous and has almost no government outside of Kabul. Iraq required 150,000 troops. Afghanistan looks like it needs 250,000 to 300,000 troops, allies included. If Obama looks to go with a lighter surge than requested, say around 40,000, he'll still be about 150,000 short. Our NATO allies perhaps could bump up to 50,000, but to expect more than 20,000 or 30,000 capable Afghani troops seems a stretch, at least for a year or two. Do the math. We're still short 75,000 to 100,000 troops. With highly porous borders with Pakistan and Iran, even 300,000 may be too small a force.

Obviously, we, and even the generals, can only make educated guesses as to the size of the force truly needed. We can however have an approach that seeks total victory. What would comprise total victory? First criteria would be a stable democratic central government. Next, would be secure control of the border and interior of the country. Vanquishment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. would be necessary for victory as well. At this stage, all these pose serious challenges, but first secure control of the country must be established before any democratic or governmental progress can occur. While General McCrystal seems to have an idea as to what to do on the ground, the U.S. government needs an overall strategy. As it happens there is one that might give some insight and direction to a policy that seems confused.

Here's one. The strategy is called overwhelming force. Who, you ask, is credited with such an idea? The man would be Obama supporter, Colin Powell. Overwhelming force or the Powell Doctrine at war might be summarized asking you to think of the size of the force you need, then double or better triple it. This constitutes overwhelming force. This is our modern version of the Von Clausewitz idea of using more force than your enemy. However, this is not some lab theory. The Powell Doctrine was a large part of the United States winning the first Gulf War. The surge in Iraq was another success in a very similar vein. In this case, that means Obama should commit at least 80,000 to 120,000 troops to overwhelm the enemy. This provides the Karzai regime time and security to plug the holes in leaky Afghan nation state. Since Colin Powell publicly endorsed Barrack Obama during the campaign, he should be happy fill in this rather uncertain, shallow president on the merits of such a strategy.

As said before, this is a President that promised us a larger army. Now that we need it, we've started to hear unnamed officials say the military can't provide more than 30,000 additional troops at this time. This is war. The president should not permit lolly gagging in logistics or anywhere else. This piecemeal approach is what doomed us in Vietnam and almost lost Iraq. We need a heavy footprint or none at all. It does little good to let understrength troops get shot at so we can crow at some news conference we are doing something. Obama needs to embrace the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, so we can win this war in the shortest time possible and go home. Overwhelming force is the surest, quickest route to victory, if that is actually our goal.

Of Children and Politics

2009-10-18T18:36:00.000-07:00

Recently, our constantly campaigning President found time in between Democratic party fundraisers to squeeze in some time to visit New Orleans, Louisiana, one the places devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Having copiously used that disaster as a rhetorical cudgel against Republicans, Obama now decided to bask in a some glorious Not-Bush love. If there was one place on earth that was truly justified to loathe George W. Bush, it is the New Orleans. Joining him in a plethora of egregious blunders during the storm, happened to be the Democratic governor and the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans. (who was reelected after Katrina) In spite of this, history looks to ordain this a Republican disaster and a weakened Obama, currently struggling in the polls looked for a friendly audience. At the usual stage managed "town hall" at UNO, he got his warm reception.

The headline of the day was the a question asked by one Terence Scott. After the fourth grader, was ushered onto the stage, he asked his rather obviously planted question "Why do people hate you? They're supposed to love you." before saying something about God. The President answered with disjointed banalities that ranged "I'm tough" to" I was elected" to "that's politics." Then being clever enough to embrace the old showbiz adage never follow animals or children, Obama quickly ended the affair right there on the child induced high and split. The whistle blows and another day at the propaganda factory is over, right? Not quite.

I couldn't get over the second part of the question. "They supposed to love you" Leaving aside the child mentioning God, (haven't we dealt with the Messiah complex and this President enough?) this is really starting to be a very disturbing trend. First, children in a New Jersey school singing an ode to "Barack Hussein Obama" Next it was Obama, the glorious leader speaking nationwide to school children and attempting to get them to write essays on how to "help" him. Then, it was CNN, the network of those who fact check jokes, having schoolkids on to do a song and dance number pushing for the creative destruction know as the Obama health care plan.

Obama and his web of Democratic operatives have targeted children in a way that is unprecedented, scary and absolutely vile. The slavish devotion that is being foisted on these children is beyond reprehensible. Have other presidents used children as props? Remember Bill Clinton and his constant mantra about doing it "for the children?" With this president, though, it is truly breathtaking to see the swiftness, breadth and the cold cynicism grasping so many young lives for squalid poltical gain.

A long time ago, now, there was something called childhood. It was truly a special place devoid of most if not all of the sins of adulthood. In one of the most benevolent, wisest and far sighted decisions, Western Civilization or the Enlightenment created this special time before the heavy burdens of life must be shouldered. Children would be educated, not worked. They would play amongst themselves and not be part of the adult entrainment world, as was frequently the case before the Enlightenment. They would be treated tenderly, not cheated as if they were stupid adults. And simple special events, like a childs' birthdays, would be celebrated as they were not before. Children were no longer little adults, who were thrust into the adult world as soon as they could speak. They would gradually be taught things about the world, not shoved into the glare of a ribald, vicious day. They would be shielded from the depravity and duplicity of life until they had formed a protective mental membrane or as much as they would ever have in this life and then, only then, would the world with all it's joys and sorrows be opened to them.

Obviously this was the ideal or goal and couldn't be achieved with all children. Life would intervene in its' random fashion as it does in all lives. However, for most, it worked. As children of the Enlightenment, we know it is one of the the greatest achievements our civilization. Now, we are bent on destroying it. The book referenced here "The Disappearance of Childhood" makes this abundantly clear. We can argue about degree, but only the willfully blind ignore this trend.

Like much of his Presidency, Barrack Obama is simply exacerbating this already bad problem. You want more onerous government debt for nothing? You've got it. You want more vacillation on the wars? Can do. You want more government run boondoggles? Give me a high five. You want more empty talk? Just feel the love. Problem here is this propaganda push uses in a very visceral manner the most innocent among us for highly dubious political activities. These are not adults willfully participating in the discourse of the nation. You can't involve children in this without stripping them of some of their innocence. Sure, Obama and his crew are simply the latest bunch of exploiters to work this angle, but does this make it right?

Using children for various political tasks or more is nothing new in the recent past. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, children were excellent spies and informers. Of course, near end of the war, the Hitler Youth were given rockets and machine guns and sent into battle. They did their task and if they ran, well, they were children, anyway, weren't they? During the Rustification Plan, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge used many children to help drive thousands of Cambodians out of the cities into the infamous Killing Fields. Today, in central Africa, the Lords Resistance Army fights it's guerrilla war largely with child soldiers, kidnapped from their families. In the depraved regimes of the 20th century and in the third world today, children are simply one more tool in an arsenal for use. In fact, they are preferred due to their malleable nature. Their special nature is all but ignored.

When we ignore this special nature, as heirs to one of the greatest gifts of the world, we have to ask ourselves, what are we doing? We betray ourselves as intellectual heirs to one of the sanest inventions in human history and we betray those who depend on us and love us. Obama seems all about the means justifying the ends. However, here, the means in this case are not only our future, the "better angels of our nature" walking around in the present. Gandi used to say you can judge a society by how it treats it's animals. I would say the same about children as well.

When we try to warp them for political gain, we show not only coldness in executing a political plan with innocents, there is something else. We exhibit a sadism to take something we know is beneficial from those who cannot stop us. This political exploitation of children speaks volumes about the people who do it. Only a bully goes after the weak or children as he or she looks for easy prey. Perhaps the bully himself is a rather weak figure who was exploited himself and now turns the trick on others. The United States used to stand against this coldly cynical exploitation of those who can never understand until it's too late. Now it's all part of a days work in a world stripped of another innocent beacon of hope by our cynical commander in chief. All hail the glorious leader and please cue the singing children.

Dithering at the fork

2009-09-26T19:51:00.000-07:00

Yogi Berra once said "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." After the rank absurdity of transforming two options into one passes, the road and the split suggest something about the inevitability of events in life. We must choose a road and go forward. Time permits no other option. We can try to go back the way we came, but since we have already travelled this road, the view can't help but be different however similar we may think it is or wish it to be.

Like the road and the fork in it, we like to think nothing is certain in life, but death and taxes, inuring ourselves to the constant fragile flux that compromises human existence. However, there are a good many other things that present themselves as inevitable. We like to think that we have free will, self -determination and such, but channels of thought and conditioning run long and deep.

Take the current situation with the Iranian Nuclear standoff and Barrack Obamas' response to it. Even with the Iranian government lying about its' nuclear program, the President wants a relationship based on "mutual respect." Why anyone would want to respect such a bunch of flagrant deceivers seems rather mysteriously masochistic. You are just asking for more abuse. Unfortunately, this diplomatic dance with Iran is nothing novel as a return to the Presidency of James Earl Carter shows.

Let us return to those dejected days of the Carter Presidency. In the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis, President Carter said to the Iranians "The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based on equality, mutual respect, and friendship." [italics mine] Then Carter "approved of the the establishment of a UN commission to investigate American iniquities against Iran. Of course, the Iranians flung that back in his face. In fact, this actually was Carter meeting a demand of the kidnappers. Earlier, "[kidnappers] insisted that the president apologize for a long list American crimes against the Iranian people, beginning with the overthrow of Mossadegh."

Wait. Didn't Barrack Obama just apologize for U.S. involvement in overthrowing Mossadegh in his recent Cairo speech? Apologizing to Iran today is just as ineffective as it was in 1979. Barrack seems to believe that craven banter with this same regime will bear some kind of diplomatic fruit. This man rooted in the "fierce urgency of now" seems completely oblivious to the past history of relations with Iran.

Also, the rather limp wristed condemnation of Iran at the G-20 in Pittsburgh, highlights a leader with seemingly little cooperation with his allies. When chastising Iran, the French and British leaders both had much stronger words than Obama. Perhaps this mousy public performance was inadvertent. Whatever the intention, the effect is unmistakable. Obama seems wholly reticent about confronting Iran. In this episode, Obama bears all the hallmarks of a weak and inexperienced leader dithering before making a big decision.

Barrack Obama, man of deadlines, (health care, Gitmo, though now ditched) seems to have none when it comes to stopping Iran get nuclear weapons. It also appears the Iranians see this fickle trait in Obama. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Ali Akbar Salehi said of the U.S. /European denouncing Iran secret plant, "Their embarrassing reaction and their unbalanced response has shocked us." This faux outrage is part of the familiar U.S./Iran diplomatic dance. After the Iranians hoodwink the U.S. at the upcoming negotiations in Geneva, Obama will either crow about some toothless agreement the Iranians have signed or try to push sanctions the Europeans probably won't back. Either way Tehran wins by gaining more time to work on the bomb.

So what did Jimmy do? As talks endlessly dragged on, Carter had reached a critical point in the negotiations with hostage takers. The Iranians were completely uncooperative. Since an offer of admission of American "crimes" didn't bring about the desired result, Carter finally acted. "He severed ties with Tehran, froze its American assets and prohibited the import of Iranian oil into the United States. Proposals for imposing a broader boycott on Iran failed to gain international support, however, even from the Europeans." We know that these actions also had no effect on the radical Muslim government in Iran, which led to the disastrous rescue attempt code named Operation Eagle Claw.

In a parallel way today, Obama and the Europeans simply have no leverage of a threatening nature with Iran . And without a stick, a carrot is simply a morsel to be stolen without further care by the thief. Even at this late date the carrot is still available for the taking. As the Washington Post reports (Iran pressured over new plant) "As an inducement for cooperation, the United States and other powers have offered economic and diplomatic incentives if Iran reins in its nuclear ambitions." So Obama is reduced to the role of an almost comic salesman begging the Iranians to take the deal for cash, clout or maybe even a NEW CAR!!! (GM of course)

This bribe strategy is familiar too. Remember the framework agreement negotiated with North Korea in 1992 to get rid of their budding nuclear weapons program. That payoff that failed was negotiated by none other than Jimmy Carter. North Korea got two light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per year all free, courtesy of Uncle Sam. That really worked didn't it? And now North Korea is a nuclear parts supplier to Iran.

This really shows one rather blatant theme of Democratic foreign policy: the bribe. At one point during difficult negotiations during the Vietnam War, LBJ turned to an aide said "Can't we just buy Ho Chi Minh a dam or something?" The habits of machine politics run deep, even into the arena of foreign policy. Unfortunately, these methods don't translate well abroad because these recipients of cash, unlike domestic money grubbers never vote and can't do much for those who do. After all, the cash or favor leaves the United States and contact with the recipient after this usually revolves around one sentence: send more money.

The nuclear standoff with Iran will follow the same path. After much posturing, Obama will try the payoff as well. He'll dress it up as artful, very slow diplomacy in an attempt to forestall an Israeli attack. If the Iranians test a bomb before the talks have ended, then the military option may be off the table entirely and it's hello nuclear blackmail. If they are still some way off to a bomb, the Iranians may even take the cash and fabulous parting gifts and all sides are happy. The Iranians continue work on the bomb, Obama nominates himself for the Nobel Peace Prize and Israel is left facing the nuts working on nukes. Like the Czechs in 1938, Israel faces the threat directly and is being treated as little more than a bargaining chip by Obama doing his best Neville Chamberlain imitation. At the fork, Obama will choose baksheesh over force and it probably won't even slow down the Iranians quest for a bomb.

But what would Jimmy do? Let go back one last time. It is the end of the Carter Presidency. The hostage crisis has effectively brought down a president. Defeated in the election of 1980 by a gaping margin of 440 electoral votes, Carter had one duty left: the payoff. Thus, " he offered to pay the modern form of tribute by unfreezing Iranian bank accounts in the United States and indemnifying Iran from future lawsuits by the prisoners. Temporarily pacified, the Iranians ended their captives' 444-day incarceration . . ."

The payoff is coming. So watch for it. I think another Yogiism is due here. "It's like deja vu all over again."

A fear of our own

2009-09-12T18:55:00.000-07:00

At his first (of four!) inaugurations Franklin Roosevelt said " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." This phrase has become trite, it has been used so many times. Today we have "No fear!" T-Shirts and such as a modern distillation of this idea. Personally, I much prefer the way H.L. Mencken captured the paralysis of fear. For he said "People don't do things because they are either lazy or afraid." Wisdom or intelligence don't enter the inaction equation for him.

On the other hand, fear can be a great motivator. It can be a psychic canary in the mental coal mine squawking and therefore spurring an immediate response. Part of why I am typing this is fear of something I haven't ever seen before in America. As John Adams stated in such succinct fashion "America is a nation of laws, not men." So the arbitrary nature of party, sect, religion or other condition should play no role in how justice is found. The fear I have today is that those who charged with upholding the law are under constant open and subtle attack by those hold political office.

The Attorney General has decided to launch an investigation into the CIA and their treatment of guerrilla soldiers, like Khalid Shiek Mohammed. That people at the CIA will now have to fight a legal battle as well as catch and kill terrorists seems unimportant to this insipid individual. But then this is a man who called America "A nation of cowards" If the dead could rise from Bunker Hill, Antietam, Omaha Beach, the Chosin Reservoir, or Hue, I shudder to think what would happen to Eric Holder. At the very least, they would teach him to gaze into the mirror if he wished to see a coward.

Perhaps if he would like a living example he could look up the author of the book cited here and ask him how someone from "a nation of cowards" gets to be a Navy Seal; how someone from "a nation of cowards" does his duty in the face of harsh terrain, an utterly fanatical enemy and with loved ones so very far away; and how someone from "a nation of cowards" fights for people who traffic in lies and willingly lays down life so those same people have the right to despise him.

I doubt the Attorney General will venture outside the rarefied circles of the anointed liberal elite, but as the crowds of the events of 9/12 have shown, the "nation of cowards" seems more than willing to come to Washington D.C. to engage him and his master. Why? Because they have a fear that America is irreversibly turning into a cesspool of lies, corruption and, yes, cowardice. The lies of a health care takeover that is full of "details that are to be ironed out later" when no one is looking. The corruption of elected officials serving for life and if they do happen to leave before death, pocketing millions in campaign cash contributions on the way out the door. The cowardice of a president too afraid to even specifically name the Muslim murderers in an op-ed piece on the 9/11 massacre. He referred to it once as an attack and twice as a tragedy, and nothing more. Then he called for a "day of service . . . .on this day and every day." What does a horrific massacre have to do with picking up trash?

This weasel maneuver to dumb down 9/11 is loathsome as it is clever. It weakens the spirit of America by diluting the memory of our sacred dead. "Never forget" is a slogan seen in regards to 9/11, but the President would have us ditch a piece of ourselves for some recycling project. Talk about your green jobs. Is it any wonder Van Jones, the former green jobs czar signed a petition to twist 9/11 into some insanely foul inside job?

While those who perished on 9/11 by the hands of jihadist killers and those who took up arms to avenge them, occupy the most cherished place in the heart of America, for all those heroes, there are the silent or almost hidden ones as well. They are the men and women who don't have to be called to serve "every day" because they have already chosen to do so by enforcing the laws of this land.

Sadly, even these people are sandbagged by this administration. President Obama chastised a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer for "acting stupidly" in the arrest of a Harvard professor, who verbally harangued the officer. The charges were mysteriously dropped. Now a national commission has been set up to investigate this incident and, of course, the police officer involved. This attempt to provide, one more race card for Obama is all the more disgusting, since it trashes the reputation of a man that by all accounts (save the arrested Harvard professor) is a fine police officer. One thing about Barrack Obama solidly on display is his ambition, It is absolutely ruthless. Trashing the men and women who serve and support the laws of this country proves it.

For a president and his minions to attack, the CIA, local police and then call everyone else in the country gutless shows where we're headed. This president of ours is young and quite used to getting his own way. His rigid attitude may have worked as a state senator, but such an attitude at this lofty post will cripple him. The attacks on this group or that are to be expected on a man weaned on identity politics. Even the moronic decision to spark a trade war with China by slapping tariffs on tires can be seen as pleasing to some union and quite predictable. Attack someone to please someone else. Of course, the people made to suffer will be other businesses like poultry or cars that feel the wrath of Chinese retaliatory tariffs.

When you attack Americans keeping the peace here and around the globe, you've made a colossal political blunder. You may have pleased Bill Ayes, Rev. Wright or Van Jones, but that just shows a president pandering to the fringe. Such pandering on this level is an invitation to a world of political hurt as most Americans are obviously not radical revolutionaries. To be fair, attack is the usual mode of operation for any radical revolutionary and part of our president seems to yearn immaturely for this tough guy mode. Others are watching and learning the patterns of this young and inexperienced leader.

To the world, the lesson is indisputable. an American President who will attack his own is a fool and will suffer a fools fate. Allies back away and enemies are emboldened. This is my fear. It comprises a fear that this President is undermining the laws of this country. It all starts by attacking our own.

Dems fighting words

2009-08-20T17:41:00.000-07:00

Now that Van Jones, the so-called Green Jobs Czar has resigned, one might say the cost of fighting words has risen. While he signed onto the cause that 9-11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration, the amazing foul mouth line against Republicans says something about the hubris of the Democratic power elite. Evidently, there is an assumption that thoroughly rotten behavior is forgiven if one is a Democrat and in power. Others feel that this kind of lunacy and profanity are now par for the course in our national dialogue. Perhaps that's why Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarret, close advisor to the President, according to Politico.com, heaped praise on Van Jones rather recently. Perhaps only Republicans are accountable for wretched speech or insane conspiracy theories.

That words now count differently for some who lead rather than others comprises a fundamental distortion in our national discourse. It also exposes the craven. If say, a Republican now votes for Obamacare after Democrats have called them "Un-American" (Pelosi/Reid) racist (Patterson, Rangel) or "Asshole" (Van Jones), that person is a punk. If someone called you these to your face, you'd dispute it to say the least, if not take a swipe at them. These are fighting words. Do nothing and you deserve the abuse you will receive. Anyone who's vaguely aware of how people interact know there are certain words and phrases that are certain to inflame a conversation. It's that attempt by someone to make general attacks personal that is so evil. To sink a phrase hook into someones consciousness, is to try to intimidate someone on an intellectual plane.

Unless one replies in kind, the verbal smear artist has achieved a hold over the target.
However, this verbal intimidation has not worked, so far. Barrack Hussein Obamas big speech to Congress can do little fix things. As Walter Ong wrote, once something is uttered, all else afterword is simply patchwork on the previous oral expression. Obama's soothing words can do little to stop the rancor that has engulfed the national conversation this summer. Sure' we'll get a speech of the grand visions and the individual sob stories, but for most, the system works. Look, once someone has called you a vile name, no amount of sweet words can change your opinion.

Obama cannot persuade with facts because they are completely against him. Of the 50 million newly insured in Obamacare, less than 10 million are actually indigent U.S. citizens who lack means for coverage. So we're paying over one trillion so as to insure less than 3% of the population? We're cutting Medicare to insure illegals? Will doctors want to practice in a profession that will pay them less and make them take more patients? We're taking a hatchet to one sixth of our economy when we're in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression? If this weren't so close to becoming law, it would be laughable, it's so bad. The program as it stands described now is an absolute farce.

In spite of this obvious contradiction between between facts and words, language is the way out for Obama now. Obama will, as one Congressman advocated as a course of action in Vietnam, "declare victory and get out". Obamacare is doomed in its' present form. This means the administration will pass some weasel bill supported by Democrats and a few punk Republicans probably costing a "mere" 200 or 300 billion dollars. This "victory" declared by his hoard of media toads will allow Obama to segway into another issue, probably energy. However, he is damaged goods. The vicious vile language of the health care debate will haunt him.

On the other hand, maybe it's best to take a different tack. Let's go along with the smear job in one specific instance and see if it leads somewhere. Perhaps we should assume Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Brian Baird are right and the Republicans opposing this really are "Nazis" Absurd? sure, but allow this to play out.

We know know from history the Nazis were murderous scum, but how driven were they really? Assuming Obama believes his own teams' propaganda, what is he up against? How determined are these Republican/Nazis. If history is a guide, here is an example from North Africa, 1942. It highlights the observations of one captured American officer watching the workings of a German military airfield from a holding pen.

"At El Aouina airport, whence the captives were to be flown to prison in Italy, the Americans watched as Allied bombers briefly pummelled the field and flew away. At the all clear signal, German soldiers heaved grappling hooks into a burning Junkers transport plane bombed moments after landing from Italy. Bulldozers dragged the wreckage off the runway. Landings resumed instantly, and Wehrmacht troops clattered down the aircraft ramps before the propellers stopped spinning. Only then did an ambulance pull up to the burning Junkers, and German rescue workers in asbestos suits begin pulling injured men from the wreckage.

Another captured officer turned to Frelinghuysen. "People who fight a war like that," he said, "will be hard to beat."

I'm not sure those "people" have that much in common with Republicans, so let's put them in the role that they might actually fit in, that of Americans in the same place and same time. However, let's be fair to Pelosi and use a Nazi description of them. Attributed to Erwin Rommel after he saw them fight in North Africa, this assessment of the American troops could perhaps apply to Republicans. He supposedly said of American soldiers, he had never seen worse soldiers in their first battle, nor ones who had learned so much by their second.

Republicans were drubbed in their first electoral encounter with Obama, but his youth and inexperience is showing and they seem to be learning fast. We'll find out how much they've learned next year, 2010.

Here's my vote, Mr. President, take it

2009-07-26T17:50:00.000-07:00

Recently, President Barrack Obama has started to slide in the U.S. national opinion polls. His health care overhaul is sagging under a shadow of a more than one trillion dollar price tag. The U.S. economy continues to stagger along shedding more and more workers. His own Secretary of the Treasury said unemployment will peak in the second half of next year. His rhetorical about face on the Iranian Election turmoil made him no friends, save the despots in Tehran who needed the time granted by his shilly-shalling to crush the protesters. . His insistence on being a lapdog for Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers during the still developing Honduran Presidential crisis has exhibited his swooning for all things dictatorial. Still, I have to admit, he is the most cheerful Marxist I know. He's much more chipper than dour Daniel Ortega, more lively than the moribund Castro brothers, and more suave than loopy Hugo Chavez.

So I must say I was a bit shocked by his rhetorical hit job on the Cambridge police during the Gates fracas. Why was he so harsh when the President admitted he didn't know what was going on? Some have suggested that he needs to hit the reset button on his Presidency- to start over. Perhaps this now trumped up racial incident was just this - an attempt to reset a Presidency that is gradually sliding from a showy burst of optimism to turgid mediocrity or worse.

The President has declared this media event a "teachable" moment. Well, what does this teach us about Barrack Obama? When does Obama talk of race? He spoke about it in the campaign when things seemed to get bumpy or when he needed a lift. When Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in the Democratic primary, she and hubby Bill were blasted as racists over remarks that could only be construed as racist if you had some network news pundit tell you they were. This helped Obama big time as Hillary Clinton could never shed the label of a racist throughout the rest of the campaign. It hung around like a bad smell.

In the second race card play, Obama himself played pundit by explaining what the McCain camp strategy would be. According to candidate Obama, they would simply mention he's black and thereby make his race an issue. This ludicrously simple take on the opposing strategy allowed Obama to introduce race himself and drape himself as the righteous victim when no insult had occurred. This smear helped Obama open up space before the Democratic convention and fill a void in news that his media servants dutifully exploited.

So now fast forward to an Obama Presidency that is clearly struggling despite tremendous advantages. The old cheery Obama seems less so. Governing is tough. So what to do? A minor police incident is blown up to national scale. Racial profiling is solemnly invoked though by all accounts except the arrested Harvard professor, nothing of the sort ever occurred. Obama clearly knew he was raising a red herring, but this is not the campaign anymore. Obama now runs the show. A ruler must be more careful and constructive. This sloppy play of the race card seems out of character for the formerly suave, cheery Marxist. The race card can only played one way lest it boomerang. Most of us know, after almost 50 years of affirmative action, how the game is played.

In any discussion of race in America, there are sadly essentially two paths on which these things track. One involves invoking bland platitudes to skirt the issue until the proverbial commercial break. The other is a vicious verbal blood sport meant smear the other side as racist as quickly as possible. These smears can be as blatant as the Harvard professor screaming about race at the police. They can be slightly more subtle as Obama implying that someone white isn't smart enough to carry out the arrest of a black man. An even more brassy smear would be Sonia Sotomayor saying that her group, Latinas is smarter than another group, white men.

Now the interesting part is these people know the importance of what their saying, but are rolling the dice that they can bulldoze folks with their supposedly enlightened point of view. However, when challenged, they back down because they recognize that the larger society realizes their opinion foul and hateful. The Harvard professor had contemplated a lawsuit, but now wants to "move on." Judge Sotomayor now says her comment was "bad" After accusing the police which was one white officer on the scene, of "acting stupidly" President Obama retreated to a slightly more humble attitude of recalibration which was wise since he said himself he didn't know all the facts. Bud light anyone?

Why haven't I mentioned any white racists? Think about this one. Don Imus, radio show host made a scummy racist remark about a women's' college basketball team. When he's called out for it, he's fired as he should have been. Sonia Sotomayor is about to become a Supreme Court Justice. Barrack Obama is lauded for raising the issue of race relations in this country. And certainly no one is calling for the firing or even censure of the Harvard professor. It's easy to see which side benefits by raising the race card. Race relations are severely lopsided in this country and affirmative action is to blame. You can't create a privileged group without that privilege eventually skewing the way that group thinks about itself and other groups.

Racism was a widespread evil in the United States, but it is gradually fading. How do I know this? Because over time, the races in a heterogeneous country mix. People don't fear or hate those to whom they are related. So you get a Mariah Carey, a Derek Jeter and yes, a Barrack Obama. In time, Affirmative Action will seems rather ludicrous as everyone will say they are part this or that, but the real duty we can do now is to ignore race and focus on ones thoughts, words and deeds. Sure poor American-Africans and others need help. I would not be against means testing for jobs or education, but a blanket category of race seems insipid in this day and age. After all, you have black CEO's, black Secretaries of State (two of them) and now a black President. Affirmative action worked. As the Harvard professor would say it's time to move on.

Obviously, playing this card still works to a degree and encourages people to think of themselves as only a racial entity. However, as stated this country is becoming more mixed and those that continue to cry racism at the drop of a hat will be seen as crying wolf. Once someone is tagged as a whiner or a punk, especially a leader or prince then they have little real power. Machiavelli warns a prince must never been seen as odious. Crying wolf about racism or anything else is a big step in that direction. Lest this whole essay be seen as whiny itself, let's give the President a suggested course of action.

Want higher poll numbers Mr. President? Take a bold decisive path with actions not just words. Show that your an individual that sees what America will be like and aid her getting there. End Affirmative Action in your term. This would square nicely with your post racial billing. Eventually, it will be superfluous anyway. Why not get ahead of the historical curve? You've said you want "parity." Why not remove this last government sanctioned distortion of racism in American life once and for all?

I'm not a one issue voter, but if you do this, I will vote for your reelection. Many will toss verbal slings and arrows. Among the American-African aristocracy, I'm sure there'll be howls. However, you know this is the right way: a completely equal America before the law, in academia and in the market place. Ironically, because of your race, you may be the only one in the foreseeable future who can do this. As has been said "Only Nixon could go to China."

Iran, "the magic key" and the Samson Option

2009-06-29T17:41:00.000-07:00

Now that the Iranian demonstrators are almost ground under the heel of the Revolutionary Guard, we, simple spectators in the West can take stock of the situation and reflect on where the Middle East is headed now. While the protests for electoral integrity are heartening to most democrats, the flame that sprung to life seems now spent. Though the catalyst of this expression was state sponsored event, unlike Tianemmen Square, the end result seems much the same. While there was much hue and cry via new media, on the dominant state media the song of hate remains the same. Strangely, for one, this whole episode might seem a welcome respite.

If you're President Obama, you have to be happy. The electoral protest has bought Obama needed time to try to browbeat Israel some more or to offer more sweet words to Iran in hopes of a some face saving "peace in our time" agreement. Some have felt that the reticent and self-critical reaction offered by Obama initially was a ploy. By hanging back rhetorically, Obama gave the odious Iranian regime p.r. breathing space to crush the protesters. This theory continues that Obama wanted to create a p.r. debt so that the Mullahs essentially owe him one. Having given them something the President now has a chit in the Iranian favor bank.

I don't quite buy this notion. I don't doubt for a moment that Obama would leave the brave protesters in the lurch. After all, this was a man who denied the Iraqi surge after it succeeded. If he would play politics when the lives of American soldiers are at risk, why wouldn't he cynically use foreign protesters?

The real stumbling block in this theory is that it assumes Obama is naive enough to believe he could extract some sort of viable deal from Iran. Woodrow Wilson was duped into believing the he could get the concessions he wanted in the Versailles Peace Treaty, but that was by his allies not his enemies. To believe Obama would strike a deal with the America-hating nuclear jihadists seems a stretch since any deal would be violated instantly. The fallout from such a deal gone sour could cost Obama his second term. That is his one overriding priority. This doesn't mean the Arabs won't try to sell the snake oil of a phony deal anyway.

Many deals seem to be floating around the Middle East these days. Saudi Arabia was recently trying to push a deal when Obama was in the Kingdom recently. (for the second time in less than six months) According to Saudi media, King Abdullah ordered Obama "to solve the Palestinian issue and impose a solution if necessary." You can bet Obama promptly bowed and scurried from the room. Still, he'll have a tough time finding the so called "magic key." This "key" is what some Arabs believe will solve all the problems of the Middle East. It encompasses the favorable settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

What is favorable to most Arab governments just happens to be not so favorable to Israel. Some Arabs favor the instant destruction of Israel (Iran, Syria, Yemen) or the slow dismemberment of the Jewish state through repatriation. (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) Unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in any deal that allows the Arabs to ship any number of Palestinians real or ersatz into Israel. Unlike the United States, Israel built a wall. That solved the people problem, but not the rocket barrages. However, the small conventional rockets are nothing compared, the nuclear jobs Iran has in mind, but here too Netanyahu has a defense of sorts. It's called the Samson Option.

You see, though the U.S. press (perhaps still obsessed with all things Obama) never mentions it Israel is a nuclear nation. How many bombs and what kind are obviously a closely guarded secret. We do know however that they work. In the 1980s, Israel tested a nuclear device off South Africa, courtesy of the then racist Apartheid government.

The most important aspect of the Samson Option is the saying "never again" Having suffered mass slaughter at the hands of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, the resolution that the nation of Israel was founded on is explicit. Any threat of a new Holocaust would be stopped with all due swiftness and certainty by whatever means possible. The Jews, themselves, would die as a race fighting rather than be killed via the manner of the Nazis. Samson was killed when he tore the building down, but all his enemies were destroyed as well. In nuclear terms, this means Israel would obliterate all countries that pose a threat if Israel were attacked with nuclear weapons. Paralleling the biblical story, though she would perish, Israel would destroy the entire Middle East if attacked.

I guess Iraq and Afghanistan might get a pass due to U.S. forces present, but all other countries would get flattened. Harsh? Absolutely, but this is part of what has allowed Israel to survive all these years, not "tough negotiation." Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD has kept the peace, until the rise of a fanatical Iran. Now, today, we have in Iran, people desperately trying to change course. If they succeed, the Middle East may take a path away from nuclear holocaust. If not, then there is only one deal left. It is the Samson Option.

President Barack Buchanan?

2009-05-11T18:26:00.000-07:00

Well, there I was innocently reading a bio of our 15th president, listening to Jesus Christ Superstar when I came across a phrase that seemed familiar. "My God, are calamities never to come singly!" That whiny phrase uttered by President James Buchanan rang a bell. Ah yes now I know where I heard it. At his last news conference, current President Barack Obama said he wished crisis' came one at a time and that the average president usually didn't have so much on his plate. This woe-is-me sympathy routine was rather transparent, but I wondered who the "average" president or presidency is? Van Buren? Fillmore? Harding? You got me. That Obama should wish to channel the mediocre of presidential history seemed rather odd.

But wait, what if Barack Obama really wanted to summon the aura of another president with his one at a time comment. What if he wanted to refer to a president who was elected to heal a vicious partisan divide? What if he wanted to refer to a Democratic president that worked hand in glove with a Democratic House and Senate? What if he wanted to cite a president who was a "well intentioned public figure?" What if he wanted to shoulder the cloak of a past president who had unique personal characteristics never before seen in the White House? If so, then let's grant Obama his wish and draw the curtain back on President James Buchanan, the worst president in U.S. history.

OK, I'll own up. What little I remembered from my high school history class concerning this "abysmal failure" was that Buchanan dithered and the Union promptly broke apart liked dropped china. That hazy recollection is not only untrue, but rather charitable to Old Fuss and Feathers. Barack Obama likes to stress the importance of action over inaction. "Influenced by two strong chief executives-Jackson and Polk-"James Buchanan would have heartily agreed with Barack Obama. While Buchanan saw the presidency as limited or constrained by the Constitution, this thin veneer often covered a plan of action that deemed certain ends or action actions justified by extreme means. In this case, with the preservation of the Union as the end, the means would be the defacto adoption of slavery throughout the land.

In a risky move, he would violate the Constitution to save the country. Mere days into his term, his secret arm twisting of some on the Supreme Court resulted in a solid majority in the the vile Dred Scott decision. Prior to the decision Buchanan said he would "cheerfully" abide by the decision. This weasel job is typical of a slick lawyer. Only ask a question that you already have the answer for, goes the old lawyer saw. In this case Buchanan already knew the outcome so he feigned subservience. This have gave Buchanan the short term political gain for additional long term pain for the nation.

In his young presidency, Obama has quite openly engaged in arm twisting for political gain while sticking the nation with the pain. The auto makers and the banks are a perfect example. Obama has advanced his own political agenda by strengthening his union allies with power and cash at the expense of the legitimate creditors and taxpayers. The long term pain will be felt as tax money via the unions goes to buying elections, the banks are slower to loan and taxes inevitably rise to cover the cost of yet another government boondoggle. Nothing rises or more accurately falls to the morally repugnant depth of slavery, but Obama's blatant interference will have serious, massive and long term negative economic consequences. However, economy isn't the only area where Obama is practicing extreme means.

As said, nothing rises to slavery, though bowing to the Saudi tyrant, who keeps half his population as serfs is a step in that direction. Obama also seems to have a stubbornness, like Buchanan, of doing things, he knows will insult people. De facto branding Harry Truman a war criminal, chatting up gangster Chavez, sucking up to Iran; these acts work well if his only goal is to irritate. For Barack Obama, the cynical play at schmoozing the world allows him solace to push his agenda at little cost or so he thinks.

For Buchanan, if slavery had to be expanded to save the union, that was a price he deemed affordable. If northerners didn't like it, then they were "disloyal."To extend slavery in the territories, Buchanan had to ram through Congress recognition of the pro-slave state government in Kansas. Buchanan offered favors and threats to push the bogus plan through Congress. Obama, like other, shall we say "average" presidents, did much the same with the stimulus bill. While he had both houses of Congress on his side, like Obama, Buchanan got most of what he wanted.

However, in the election of 1858, things started to slip. The pro-slave government in Kansas appeared as such an obvious farce, that a backlash developed against Buchanan's rigged maneuver. Congressional Democrats paid the price for Buchanans pro-south attitude as Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate. And an Illinois lawyer named Lincoln began to use Buchanan's name as a political club against his senate race opponent Stephen Douglas. Buchanan did little to help himself by ignoring the recession of 1857 and obsessively trying to buy Cuba, which northerners rightly saw as another slave state in the offing.

Only if you're Nostradamus, can you know how Obama will affect the midterm elections of 2010. Most "average" presidents lose seats in Congress. Obama may too, but it is really too early to tell. Perhaps, he'll play the race card to smear his opponents. It worked well against the Clintons and John McCain. Unfortunately for him, James Buchanan could not use his unique characteristic of being a bachelor for political advantage. While he was quite possibly gay, this trait was not a plus either when it came to politics in the 1850s. When he became president in 1857, his niece burned all correspondences with a certain southern "dandy" Said dandy's niece also torched letters received from Buchanan. In the end, Buchanan was and Obama will be, measured by actions not skin color or sexual preference.

As the secessions crisis built, Buchanan sealed his fate by negotiating with southern secessionist (talking with our enemies anyone?) which by the way is treason, flip flopping on sending supplies to Ft. Sumter (interrogation photos anyone?) and allowing southerners within his administration unchecked power until the last days of his administration (relying on mendicant Nancy Pelosi and Dumkopf Harry Reid serves a close though not identical parallel). Directly contrary to the interests of the nation, Buchanan's secretary of war was sending supplies to the south at a speedy pace. On the eve of war, Secretary of War Floyd was sending heavy canon south. When the war began, he duly resigned and picked his commission as a Confederate general.

As mentioned, the parallels aren't exact. Obviously, Nancy Pelosi isn't about to join the Taliban, though that might actually help us to have such an accomplished bungler join their side. One thing is sure: Pelosi's savaging the CIA as liars can only hinder the our war effort and aid Bin Laden. This is also why the Bush bashing is getting moronic. If we believe Pelosi and the CIA lied then perhaps they lied about weapons of mass destruction with Bush, hoodwinking him into attacking Iraq. Off the wall? certainly, but thoroughly plausible in the kooky mendacious universe of Nancy Pelosi. Obama may have confidence in himself, but the minions leave much to be desired.

Like Obama, Buchanan had much confidence in himself. Buchanans' confidence was born of being a member of the House of Representatives, a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Great Britain and being offered a seat on the Supreme Court not once ,but twice. Obama is confident because . . . well . . . he's Obama. Rhetorically Obama is probably leagues above Buchanan, but then Buchanan knew the risks of rhetoric. He had been cautioned by his father "that success was often followed by misery." For Obama, electoral success has given way to the turgid pace of governing. Still, Obama rushes to cram through as many things as possible. This invites disaster. The train of events in any number of areas could fly off the track taking Obama with it because he is unable to devote proper attention to them. Once one goes down a road on an issue, there reaches a point where you cannot go back.

Buchanan never realized this and continued in folly even after leaving the presidency. He didn't support the Emancipation Proclamation and blamed all but himself for the Civil War. This wretch can serve an important lesson for neophyte Obama. Action, however well intentioned, can lead to catastrophe, not easily mended. Or as Vietnam era Democrat McGeorge Bundy "Once you get on the tiger, you don't get to choose where to get off." There are no "average" presidencies, only average presidents. With the approach he's taking, Barack Obama will be lucky if he's one of them.

Barack Obama, Warlord

2009-05-03T17:09:00.000-07:00

Didn't think that Winston Churchill and Barack Obama had anything in common? Well, you'd be wrong there. As it happens, for both men, their first military command of troops comes very close to the same spot on our troubled globe.

Obama has committed some 22,000 new soldiers to southern Afghanistan making it his first deployment of troops as commander in chief. For Obama, Afghanistan is the "right" war, not the "distraction" that Iraq is. I doubt this distinction makes much difference to the U.S. soldiers deployed there or Al Quaeda in Iraq trying to kill them, but I digress. This new commitment of troops is supposed to stabilize a shaky regime in Kabul and give them time to organize an army, a police force, judicial system etc . . . The broad scope and large numbers of troops are much different from the deployment of a brash young Lieutenant W.L.S. Churchill. While Obama is understandably much more cautious about continuing a war by a man his followers revile, Churchill was rushing to meet his ambition. The revolt of the Mullah of Swat in, yes, the recently turbulent Swat Valley, signaled a golden opportunity for young Churchill or so he thought. War in Pakistan was a means to a very personal end: a political career.

For Obama, ambition is also extremely important. War has been a very profitable means to an end for him. His opposition to the Iraq War aided greatly his drive for the Democratic nomination. While Churchill's youthful glory seeking made obvious the downside to his ambition, the dark side of Obama's is rather more complex. Having now tied himself to this war, will he see it through? Or will he cut and run for political gain just before the election in 2012? The answer is not clear.

This is a man who denied the success of the surge in Iraq and then admitting it's success still held it was the wrong thing to do in the first place. Obama's implied message that it is better to lose a war than win it is chilling. That an officer, general or commander in chief would rather lose a conflict than win it shows a massive cynical canyon between the leader and those who must follow orders. The grunts who serve become nothing more than push pins on a map somewhere. One hopes Obama could grow to understand what is necessary in war, so lives aren't thrown away recklessly. Obama has bragged about his perseverance. That is about to be tested. As Alexander Hamilton stated, "War, like most other things is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice." The advantage here is that the force Obama will command has had much practice, as Hamilton would call it, in the last six years. The troops are tested as their commander in chief is not, much like Churchill arriving at the hot dusty HQ in the Malakand Pass.

Churchill left his unit in India to join the Malakand Field Force commanded by Sir Bindon Blood. This action during the summer of 1897 consisted of a British force of "about two thousand men, mostly Indian army troops commanded by white officers, matched against some twelve thousand Pathans." The goal of relieving forts in jeopardy and dispatching any hostiles was to lead to restoration of control by the British.

This assertion of control in Malakand started uneventfully, but duly escalated into a nineteenth century version of search and destroy. As Churchill wrote, "we proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation." Not too surprisingly, the fiercely independent tribesman (a description that applies today) struck back. As Churchill's unit became spread out over a large valley floor, a roiling Pathan assault issued from the hills. Forced to retreat and to abandon their wounded, which the Pathans promptly hacked to pieces, Churchill's unit found a defensible position to repel the attack. Churchill himself used a rifle and wrote " . . . I think I hit 4 men. At any rate they fell."

The glory seeker had a new perspective to view armed struggle. It's doubtful Barack Obama will get this view. However, with the modern communications revolution, the savagery of war may not be as far away as it once was for those who command from afar. Churchill sensed this gap in perception between those who fought and those far from the killing. Writing to his grandmother, he reflected " I wonder if people in England have any idea of the warfare that is being carried on here . . . no quarter is ever asked or given. The tribesmen torture the wounded & mutilate the dead. The troops never spare a man who falls into their hands-whether he be wounded or not . . . I wish I could come to the conclusion that all this barbarity-all these loses-all this expenditure-had resulted in a permanent settlement being obtained, I do not think however that anything has been done-that will not have to be done again."

In this light, what is the path to victory in Afghanistan? Notice how victory is not mentioned in this war. If no victory, then what is the timetable for withdrawal? What are the benchmarks of success, Mr. President?

Afghanistan is barely mentioned. You'd think with neighboring nuclear Pakistan teetering on the brink of disintegration and the deployment of 22,000 troops next door, a major speech by the President would be in the offing, to set goals, chart a course and bolster a flagging ally, but none seems forthcoming. When it comes to war, Barack Obama seems to prefer to lead in silence. He can fly to Iraq and bask in glow of security largely provide by his predecessor, Bush, but he seems to have little to offer when it comes to Afghanistan. Whether he's experienced or not, the warlord Obama must make his case or else "all these loses" will serve no purpose and may in fact have to be "done again."

A Bridge Too Slow

2009-04-15T18:28:00.000-07:00

"Is this a shovel-ready project?" Mr. Biden asked Scott Christie, the state transportation official charged with deploying economic-stimulus money.

"It's ready to go," Mr. Christie answered. "I literally have the plans in the car right now."

It turns out, though, that shovel-readiness is in the eye of the beholder. Soon after his visit, Mr. Biden found out that his model stimulus project wouldn't see a shovel for almost four more months, possibly longer, knowing how such timetables slip. In North Middleton, [Pennsylvania] a White House eager for action had run up against locals eager to avoid disruption. The locals won."

So begins a piece by the Wall Street Journals' Michael Phillips on a flubbed photo op at a decaying bridge in Pennsylvania. While the Obama administration was eager to put a quick muscular public relations shine on the stimulus bill, the mundane reality of filling potholes means a much slower and much more pedestrian approach. While Obama was depending on the public works aspect to provide a burst of cash coursing through the economy, the reality is that these projects will take more time, therefore, have less economic impact. The town featured in the article wanted to put off the bridge project because the construction would disrupt a school bus route. So they did. The reality on the ground trumped the airy Washington propaganda needs.

In fact, the stimulus itself is a bit of a fraud. Most of the $787 billion goes to the states to prop up increasingly onerous state entitlement programs. When this amount of cash runs dry in two years, then what will the states do? Oh rats, I forgot the Obama group think line. It goes like this: In two years the economy will be better and state coffers will runneth over with plentiful tax receipts. Never mind, that some like Obama supporter and Depression-Era Investor, Seth Glickenhaus (he's 94) believes this economic swoon will last five years. Of course, if the imagined recovery doesn't take place, yet another stimulus bill will be required. Billions more will be thrown around. For what effect, we can't be certain. This is looks to be another spot for sunny rhetoric to fall to the hard ground of reality.

Near me, the stimulus money is repaving a stretch of road. While there are many such spots around here, the obvious need is two ancient massive nearby bridges nearby. While tossing a few thousand on a road to make the local news, works for some transitory positive spin, the greater needs are unmet. Building two huge bridges would take years. By the time, they're built Obama might not even be in office. No short term propaganda gain to be made there.

And this is the real problem with much of what is attempted by Barrack Obama. Talking and PR to create group think can work wonderfully on the campaign. By creating an illusion of experience, one can fool others into pulling that vote lever. When it comes to governing , it's different. Talk can facilitate action, but it can't substitute for it. Governing requires more than just spin. Spin only affects those within the group think orbit. Sometimes, those in that orbit cannot tell the limits of group think. This can lead to tragic consequences.

Take the book referenced here, A Bridge Too Far . This airborne operation by the Allies during WWII was supposed to end the war in four months, but the Germans were not subscribers to this sunny group think mindset. All doubts harbored by the soldiers involved were shunted aside in pursuit of a goal that in reality was the operational equivalent of a deadly lottery ticket. Dissenters were quickly dispatched. A young intelligence officer, who spotted two SS tank divisions in the landing zones near the Arnhem bridge was quickly forced onto sick leave. To their credit, the Allied soldiers fought with incredible vigor, but the plan was flawed from the start. The last bridge over the lower Rhine could not be taken, no matter what spin was applied. Allied casualties were more than double D-Day, including the almost total annihilation of a British airborne division. Such are the bitter rewards when group think meets reality.

In the present day, we are in an economic debacle. At some point, though, people want actions that lead to improvement in their economic lives. Obama can spin all he wants, but the tangible fruits of jobs, healthy companies and increased cash are the only things that matter. The group think mindset can still dominate if the experience and expectations are in sync. However, as the experience replaces the expectations, the chance of stumbling increases, especially if these two states become unlinked. Obama can rectify this, but he must embrace reality. In a word, he must change. As someone who has been quite adept at fashioning reality to his own needs, this may be all but impossible. Barrack Obama may end up one bridge short of his goal. Not because he couldn't change the reality, but that he couldn't change himself in that reality. Such are the perils of those who live in the bubble of group think.

Getting Smoked

2009-04-06T17:51:00.000-07:00

Amid all the hoopla of Obama's World Tour '09, the initial act of the Obama tax raising saga took place back home. Who felt the bite first? Was it the ultra-rich, like Obama pal Warren Buffet? Nah. Was it those shady real estate types, like Tony Rezko, who profited handsomely from the housing bubble? Nope. Was it Rev. Wright and his profitable political operation masquerading as a church? Not a chance. However, it was another group who happen to have been almost as enthusiastic about Obama as the three I just mentioned.

And the unlucky winners are . . . cigarette smokers. They got the first puff on the Obama tax smoke and it was a harsh one. Obama signed a law that raises federal cigarette taxes by more than 150% to $1.01 a pack. Yeow!! Insert hacking cough here. Now most of the people smoking are: you guessed it, poor. In a recent Gallup survey, 34% of people making $6,000 to $12,000 smoked. For those making more than $100,000 in the survey, only a little more than 10% smoked. Since Obama got 60% of the votes of those making $50,000 or less, it would seem these Obama lovers got duped. Perhaps, they fully expected and wanted to be taxed more. According to Joe Biden logic, they are all more patriotic than the rest of us. However, all these mental meanderings are rendered mute by the O-man himself.

In his speech at the Democratic convention in Denver, Obama said ". .. the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." I would call less than $100,000 middle class, though maybe to Obama these folks are working poor and therefore, raising their taxes first doesn't qualify as breaking a campaign promise to the middle class. If if we allow Obama this lawyerly puff of smoke, there is still another problem, that dratted $250,000 pledge. In Dover, NH on September 12th, 2008, the smokestack in chief said "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase." Having ditched this promise with only a lone AP news story as a witness, we all know why those families will never "see" this tax increase until it hits them. With legions of media sycophants, any substantive story about Obama is quickly drowned out with puff pieces about the First Dog or Michelle's lip gloss. For the vast majority of the news media, I feel exactly the same way LBJ did about Time magazine's Hugh Sidey, accusing him of being a "goddamn whore" for the other party.

Returning to the smoke room, here's another thought. This tax is supposedly being done to bestow health care for four million children. Funny thing though, with Obama care on the way (price tag $1 to $3 trillion!!) why was this needed at all. If you going to overhaul the whole system, why bother raising taxes for a program soon to be swallowed in the sea change of health care reform?

I'm guessing Obama care is going to cost way more than planned, though not a soul on god's green earth really knows what it will end up costing. The "placeholder" or first installment is around $600 to $700 billion. So that's just for starters. Odds are President Smoke Screen is going to need every single dime he can squeeze from everybody and anybody. As a constantly reviled group, smokers are the low hanging fruit. Or maybe, as a smoker himself Obama wanted to clock them as some kind of way for him to stop puffing.

In psychological terms, substitution works sometimes. The man who wrote Cigarettes are Sublime, supposedly substituted writing about cigarettes rather than smoking them as a way to kick the habit. One things for sure, there's no substitute for the voracious maw of government when it comes to increasing taxes for colossal undefined programs. Also, there's no alternative way to deal with lying grandstanding politicians. When they lie, it's best to just depart or tell them you're going out for a smoke and don't come back.

Investment: This Word Must Die

2009-03-28T17:37:00.000-07:00

When words die, so to speak, because of overuse or misuse, this can provide an important view into what we feel and think. When I hear someone of advanced years, say something is "cool" a harsh wrong note is struck. At some point, certain words must be dispatched for sanity's sake. Otherwise, the whole individual demeanor becomes pathetic. Moving on can be tough, but one must. Language moves on too.

When I see politicians, Barrack Obama is simply the latest, spouting the joys of "investment" in education, health care etc . . . I feel that "investment" is the latest candidate for euthanasia. It must die.

Ponder this, investing is putting your money in a financial instrument and getting your money back plus some sort of return or profit. If I buy a stock, it appreciates (hopefully) and I sell it, get my money back and a profit on top of that. Bonds do it differently, but the result is the same. (again hopefully) I'll forgo the list of investments like real estate, art, gold, baseball cards etc . . . because the concept is rather obvious. However, now, politicians of all stripes extol the virtues of "investment". You'd think after the Internet Bubble, this term would have been ditched. Enron, World Com, Global Crossing should have damaged this one, but words die slowly.

We interrupt this blog for a disclosure announcement.

Yes, I once did own Enron. No, I didn't lose everything. I lost 10 percent. The thing that saved me was something I read in this book, The Battle for Investment Survival by Gerald Loeb It's called the ever-liquid account. I won't explain it here because if you are interested, I want you to read the book and learn. What's so special about this book? I could say Barton Biggs loves it, but then I'd have to admit I'm just using his name cause I like the sound of it. (like something from Dickens) The real reason is because this book lays out exactly what we do when we "invest." We are speculating. Our money may vanish in a flash. This is risk. Like the ocean, speculation holds no mercy in her. You adapt to her, ride her or suffer the consequences.

If this were exactly 10 years ago. I might have gotten a lot of hearty laughs. In 1999 stocks simply went up, they didn't go down and they certainly didn't disappear, presto-chango. Now, sounding like the AP, some of America's most trusted companies are gone or on the rocks. Still, the word "investment" endures.

For years, politicians have been borrowing words from other occupations, they feel engender trust. The use of the word "investment" could follow this path. Or it could be that many of the pols have been hanging (can we get rid of this word too?) with the financial companies that use this word everyday in the course of business like AIG.

How would I know who "hangs" with AIG? Well, I only know who got money from AIG. In 2008 alone, Senator Chris Dodd got $103,000, President Barack Obama got $101,000, Senator John McCain got $59,000, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton got $36,000 and Senator Max Baucus got $25,000. That's only the top five AIG beneficiaries.

So when some pol talks about "investment" in education in failing schools or "investment" in an unproven health care system or "investment" in uneconomic energy, reflect on it. Think about what investment really is. It's speculation pure and simple. Or as Barney Frank would say "it's a roll of the dice." Unless, of course, you're being paid like the aforementioned pols to speculate, I mean, "invest" with other peoples' money. That's not risk. That's a layup and I think we can still use that word. Let that one live.

The More Times Change . . .

2009-03-15T17:30:00.000-07:00

Last Friday at the Brookings Institution, Lawrence Summers, an Obama economic advisor repeated the phrase "in the coming weeks." Both times it referred to struggling Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, rolling out new plans for an economic resurrection. The usual stalling by Team Obama with their economic recovery plan was spiced with a dash of cheer. With little detail as to how banks and the financial system would be fixed, Summers tried push the glass half-full picture of the economy. In time, things will get better.

This shift of tone by Summers and others comes as El Presidentes' poll numbers have started to slide. The honeymoon is clearly over and Bush bashing carries little weight now. Decades ago, the slower news cycle might have given Obama six months or a year of breathing space. The instantaneous news cycle that worked to his advantage during the campaign, now demands not just actions, but results. The feel good offensive attempts to get the spending train rolling so the economy picks up, so Obama can pass stimulus 2.0, health care ( a meager $600 billion down payment ), more money for Detroit, more money for banks etc . . .

However, time is not an ally of Obama. Unemployment in the U.S. has already hit the level the Obama folks felt it would hit at the end of the year. Clearly, things are getting worse faster than the pr folks can plug the holes in the propaganda dike. The Bush Recession is fast becoming the Obama Depression. More spending must be rammed through fast and taxes must be raised now, before people start digging in their heels. The health care plan is now seen as needing more funds. Obama minion Peter Orzag has floated the idea of taxing private health benefits, something Candidate Obama skewered John McCain for proposing.

It's also necessary to buy some time by attacking the critics. Mouth off any doubts about Obama economics or a plummeting stock market and you might wind up in front of jokester Jon Stewart and his video editing steamroller. Since his chief prop W has departed, Stewart has to make ends meet by staging a Soviet-style show trial complete with a remorseful stooge. And he's rather good at it. As the volume goes up on the criticism of Obama and the flaccid economy, look for this comedic Robespierre to swing into action again all in the name of the public good, of course.

Speaking of jokes, Lawrence Summers had one in his speech. With a subdued wistfulness, he recounted how in 2000, at the end of the Clinton Administration, he had joked with colleagues about how the government would issue debt since the government was running a surplus. The laughter quickly evaporated as each audience member grasped the real punchline. We will be living with deficits and massive debt for our lives and generations to come. The Obama spending behemoth guarantees that fact. Additionally, the liberal playbook states taxes must be raised and raised again. The result will be slower growth, a longer recovery and a lower standard of living for all.

Liberals made the same mistakes in the Great Depression. Funny thing is they were copying Republicans initially and then wanted to outdo them. Required reading for today must include Amity Shlaes now eerily prescient history of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man. Here, you find a fascinating parallel between that depression and this one. Under Hoover as the Depression set in, Republicans raised taxes and funded massive new public works projects, like Hoover Dam to stimulate the economy. This time around Bush pumped out billions in checks last spring and then followed with TARP and the Detroit bailout in the fall. Substituting this time for a tax increase was a rocketing up of the price of oil during the summer of 2008. The wealth sapping effect effect was very similar.

FDR arrived and not only continued the massive spending of Hoover, but he cranked it up and raised taxes some more. Obama has outdone imitation here. He's seriously ratcheting up spending to a level well in excess of FDR and he's raising taxes. We can't really say the parallel works with Smoot-Hawley tariff act because Bush was mostly for free trade. However, Obama seems more inclined to go the protectionist route and made noises to that effect during the campaign.

The chilling big difference between then and now: the government then wasn't running a huge deficit and fighting two wars. Another difference is the role of the states. States in the 30's didn't provide near the number of programs they fund now, so they didn't mightily tax the way the do now. Big states like California and New York are planning massive tax increases along with smaller fry like Utah, New Hampshire and, of course, Massachusetts. As an example, the Bay State is planning to raise the gas tax 19 cents, raise the sales tax by 20%, raise the meals tax, and my favorite put a tax on candy. How these guys missed taxing a constituency (children) that can't vote all these years is beyond me. Obama can brag all he wants about not raising taxes on 95% of Americans, but the states will do the job for him and then some. And when the stimulus runs out in two years, the states will have to raise taxes again to fund their programs once again.

And one last parallel, between the Great Depression and today's the Roosevelt Administration was very active in pursuing a list of enemies. Whether they were people from the Hoover Administration or those who could frustrate their current plans, people like Andrew Mellon and Sam Insull were attacked via the media and the courts. The Obama crew hasn't gotten to the court just yet, but the media take downs are just beginning. As the pie shrinks, the divisions in America are about to get nasty. No amount of cheerleading or pr hit jobs can stop that. Let's just hope somebody else besides comedic inquisitor Jon Stewart and Obama, with the inevitable multimillion dollar book deal waiting, prosper in the next three years. Or else the obvious question of 2012 will be, are you better off than you were four years ago?

Look no further

2009-03-01T18:30:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, I shudder when I see the economic news these days. The wrenching monetary disaster has shattered lives, dumped dreams and tied a lead weight to so many other tasks great and small. It seems everywhere. As Neill Young sang "There's a shadow running though my life, like a beggar goin' door to door." And this doesn't look to be over any time soon. Like the Depression or Japan's Lost Decade, this could go on indeed ten years. For most, it's so hard and heartbreaking because as Bill Clinton used to patronizingly intone, they played by the rules. The powerful few, whether in business or government, who have abused the system, have added massive insult to the massive injury. We have been collectively kicked in the teeth. We may get new teeth, but that promises to be a long arduous process for the national body.

So, now we get Obama and his new carping campaign. The State of the Union, the Budget and the surrogates all decry how "irresponsible" we've all been. More than 90% of people with mortgages pay them on time. Yet, now, 10% renege on their payments and we're all to blame? Obama insisted on wagging his finger during the State of the Union as if the nation were some wayward child, not someone in need of, dare I say, hope. We all know full well the honesty and fairness of the last famous finger wagger. The phrase "I did not have sex with that woman . . ." accompanied by the pointing index finger was effective . . . for a time. In time, though, it became a joke. The words and attitude were found not match reality. A product of the sixties, the credibility gap had arisen and the Clinton presidency was effectively over.

Now that we're hurting, we get David Axelrod, Obama minion, doling out the healing salve of tough talk because "sternness is appropriate." What absolute rot. Like a cheesy ad for Ronco, there's more. In pushing the budget, Axelrod says the budget is "a candid call to return to ethics and responsibility." If this isn't the usual cheap cynical play, I've got a good place to start this return movement for ethics. Let's look no further than Barrack Obama's old Senate seat. Why not flush the liar holding Obama's seat? Roland Burris said he had no contact with the Blago camp, but he did. His son got a job from Blago. His consulting company (a politician with a consulting company-now there's a licence to steal literally) got state contracts. This guy couldn't get any dirtier.

Everyday that crook occupies Obama's old seat is a day the Obama administration has zero credibility calling anyone on ethics or responsibility. If you want to return to something, why not make it what actually has worked in this country, like say, the Constitution. John Adams said "A government of laws, not men." When the laws do not apply to leaders like Roland Burris because he's a buddy of Obama, there's no incentive for the people to follow the rules. Forget about the economic turmoil, the fabric of the democracy is now threatened.

Obama seems determined to flirt with the infamous credibility gap. Besides William Clinton, that trap caught and destroyed one of the most able politicians in U.S. history: LBJ. Obama and his lackeys would be wise to avoid that trap, but, as with LBJ, hubris may prevent such action.

Who knows? Maybe the application of laws to some of the openly crooked in our political class like Roland Burris, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd etc . . . might spur a return to confidence in government. Perhaps, this might even buck up the sagging confidence in the economy. Perhaps, this could happen, but then, I've always been far too much of a dreamer.

Here Comes Your 19th Nervous Stimulus

2009-02-04T18:27:00.000-08:00

"oh who's to blame?
that Congress is just insane

Well, nothing they do seem to work
It only seems to make matters worse"

My sincerest apologies to the Glimmer Twins, the long distance runners who penned that ditty. I simply had to use it as it captures exactly the mood, frenetic pace and ultimate futility of the latest stimulus bill. Filled with around a trillion bucks worth of water parks, snow making equipment, mob museums, a minor league hall of fame, a frisbee disc golf course . . . hey wait.

I love disc golf. Congress has finally found something I can use. Forget all the partisan attacks by Obama that Republican tax cuts have caused the World Credit Crisis. He really doesn't believe his own propaganda. At least, I hope not or else were in big trouble.

Come on guys vote for this stimulus!! With more and more people out of work, we'll all have plenty of time to play a 36 hole course!! It will be so excellent. After a gruelling round or two, we can adjourn to the Obamaland Waterpark to cool off where free protection against STDs will also be available-that on the very off chance we get stimulated. Happily all these goodies are provided by this wonderful stimulus. Won't everything be grand.

Oh wait, there is one problem. We could use a little social lubrication.

You know, booze. Come on guys. According to the Chief, this economy will be rotten for years, so we need our stimulation now. Call it the Social Enhancement and Protection Act of 2009. And the money? Oh, come on, you guys just print more. You'll never have to pay, right? Whatever, just vote and vote fast.

And for the next stimulus, can you put some Yankee tickets in there? I'm desperate to see the new Stadium. I hear they're having problems selling the luxury boxes. What could more patriotic than buying Yankee Luxury boxes? Tell you what, I'll even be bipartisan and take in a game with Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy. Baseball, a couple of dogs and enough beers to keep those two blabber mouths full of suds so they won't say squat and pass out by the 4th inning. Is it a deal? Hurry, Hurry Faster, Faster guys. Pitchers and catchers is coming up fast.

Pitching Ideas

2009-01-28T19:04:00.000-08:00

One of the fascinating things about the the Internet is the ability to reach a mass individual audience any number of times. Of course, they can reply any number of times as well. With the use of forums, for example, you get something akin to a Socratic dialogue minus the visual aspect of speech. (facial expressions, eye contact etc. . . )

The ideas shine through brightly and quickly. Stupidity, silliness and aggression can be spotted instantly. The real juice, though, remains that co mingling of ideas and the resulting offspring. At this very second, ideas in philosophy, art, science and any other subject are being born at a rate never before imagined. Also, somewhere someone is asking someone else what they want on their pizza. The profound and the mundane on a scale never before achieved

Lest this all sound wonderful beyond compare, think of how this all could have been used a few decades ago. If the heinous Nazi regime had the Internet at their disposal, the world we know now might not exist. Obviously, their mastery of propaganda would have allowed them to develop a powerful new weapon of persuasion and control. However, I thinking more in the realm of ideas. If the Nazis had been able to hook up their scientists with captured Danish physicist Neils Bohr, who the Allies felt had the ability to help make an atom bomb, then the monstrous Nazis might have beaten the Allies to the nuclear punch. With V-2 rockets to carry the payloads, they would have won WW2. All because certain people were able to exchange ideas at a certain place and time. A what if to ponder.

On the positive side of the ledger, at this time, our new President, is asking for the help of citizens in surmounting the problems of the day. Is this a P.R. stunt? Of course, but I think we should start taking the president at his word and holding him to it. If he wants ideas, give them to him.

And don't be dissuaded that you don't have a fabulous new idea for the newbie president. Harry Truman said " The only thing new in the world is the history you don't now." More on point, paraphrasing Edmund Burke there are no new ideas in liberty. Many ideas get passed around for years until people finally see the path of wisdom. Think voting rights for all. Passed in 1865. Fully executed:1965.

With a completely corrupt federal legislative branch, my idea is a federal amendment for congressional term limits. Is this old hat? Sure, but it's never been more needed with rampant corruption today. When the former Governor of Illinois on his corruption tapes talks about taking the seat himself, he's acknowledging that this seat is a cash cow. If he could not get something for it, then he'll milk it himself for all it's worth. We must protect the seats in Congress from such lecherous twisters. We try to forestall corruption for the Presidency, the federal executive with term limits. Why not the federal legislature?

Six consecutive terms for House members would be twelve years. This would preserve turnover in a chamber meant for this dynamic. Three consecutive terms in the Senate would give a longer view to the chamber and yet, would prevent the disturbing Senator for Life syndrome. (see Kennedy, Byrd, Thurmond and far too many more to mention) Now this was tried before in the Contract with America, but was never passed. Perhaps, Obama will see the wisdom of this or use it as a practical instrument for a measure of control over Congress.

I know you're saying why would he clock a Democratic Congress with this. First, unfortunately, you'd probably have to grandfather in all the current sitting members, meaning they would get to serve six or three terms from the next election. This means the measure would take effect after Obama himself has left office. So he pays no political price in power terms. Second, it helps him put meat on the bones of his ethical ballyhoo pronouncements. If he wants to avoid a credibility gap, he'll need actual accomplishments, not vague declarations about what he will, should, could or wants to do. With a Democratic Congress, Obama will risk disunion in his own party. However, Obama may actually be in the unique position of getting his party to move in the right direction. As has been said, only Nixon could go to China. If Obama is bold enough he can help America, himself and even that corrupt Congress from itself.

It all starts with one man or woman and an idea. Could be you. Could be me. It could be simple like this idea of term limits or it could be more complex. The Internet has made this exchange more possible than at any other time in human history. Will you heed the clock on the wall?

If so, go here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

The threat of 535 little kings and queens

2009-01-24T19:14:00.000-08:00

Let's face it. Barack Obama is in a real pickle. Whether you voted for him or not, he's stepped into three massive crisis unfolding at the same time. The War on Terror continues in Iraq (winding down), Afghanistan/Pakistan (cranking up) and worldwide. (Mumbai, the latest, but certainly not the last surprise attack) The Worldwide Credit Crisis is still in about the 3rd or 4th inning as credit is still nowhere near where it needs to be for the system to function in normal working order. Lastly, subtly perhaps the most dangerous is the ongoing massive corruption in the U.S. political system.

Why could this be the most dangerous? It seriously affects the ability of the government to address the War on Terror and especially the Worldwide Credit Crisis. The constant distraction of crooks/politicians being busted or pursued or brazenly waltzing around collecting cash or favors keeps Obama from focusing on Usama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar et al. The fact that many of these payoffs are directly and indirectly related to the Credit Crisis only further impedes the Presidents' ability to twist arms in Congress to get something done. The average Congressional crook is already bought and paid for.

From the fraudulent Minnesota Senate recount, to the Blago Senate Sale, to Bill Richardson and his own kickback scheme, to Geithner's tax dodge to the simple everyday payoffs in Congress big and small, the system is cracking asunder. All of the examples I just mentioned have come in just the last three months. Many others could be found if we go back further on both sides of the aisle. Now when a crisis arises which demands Congress discipline a constituency they are monetarily in bed with; surprise! they can't crack the whip. In fact, they side with the miscreants!! Here is exhibit A.

Some congressmen that were involved in creating the housing mess, like Barney Frank are supposedly in charge of trying to clean it up. Already, this cleanup seems like a fools errand as Frank has been revealed to be steering TARP money to a bank with which he has had a lengthy relationship. Frank's now infamous statement about wanting to "roll the dice" with taxpayer money is what started this debacle. Why should someone with such blatant disregard for the consequences of his actions be entrusted to fix a crisis of this magnitude and importance? Is Frank some sort of kook who just popped on the scene like Jesse Ventura? Hardly, Frank has been in Congress for over 25 years. This congressional handmaiden for "change we can believe in" has been at the trough for over a quarter century. This man reeks of the status quo.

Look, I'm no fan of Obama and his cult of personality, but I do believe he's right. Everyone has some "skin" in this game. Problem is he'll never do the right thing with this aged crew of beached congressional whales. They know it too. They know that long after Mr. Hope and Change has left the White House to write his memoirs, they'll still be in Congress stuffing their pockets. The system needs to change. If Barack Obama was elected for "the change we need," then he needs to change Congress. The change America needs can never take place when one third of the government is so obviously corrupt.

How can he do it? He can give speeches and threaten sanction, but Congress only understands political measures aimed at it. The only way to hit Congress where it lives, so to speak, is stop or limit it's access to the federal trough. Now since Congress itself controls the budget, this is tough, but if one were to limit the time one spends in Congress, this would necessarily limit the time one could gorge oneself on taxpayer money. Term Limits for Congress would force out the dead wood that is simply collecting favors and funds.

If change is beneficial, as seems to be the case with the presidency, why not make it part of this institution too? Say six terms in the House and three terms in the Senate. The twelve years in the House is four more than the president and would insure a flow of fresh faces and ideas into government. The Senate members could serve just short of two decades. If you can't accomplish in almost twenty years what you set out to D.C. for, then either you aint the one or the idea isn't so great. Either way you wouldn't get any more senators for life. Isn't that what America is all about anyway?

We started this country to avoid the obvious flaws of kings. They don't know when to let go. Congress is like that now, 535 little kings and queens, gumming up the system. Unless, Obama changes the system, they'll stymie whatever he proposes. And " the change we can believe in" will remain just talk.

Obama and his real group

2009-01-18T18:20:00.000-08:00

While festivities for President-elect Obama and his inauguration saunter along, there's only one thing that seems out of place here to me. No, it's not Nancy Peliosi talking about cutting Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid during the cover of the hoopla. Democrats can freely cut a program they originated and then say they are "protecting" it. The media zombies and whipped-dog Republicans will readily assent. It's not Roland Burris, Senator from Blagoland, being sworn in while possibly being involved in a Federal crime. Crooks seem to abound in Chicago politics, so it's pretty obvious this country is moving toward affirmative action for the lawfully challenged with the right connections.

While the seeming shock of someone from black America being elected president, may titilate, this label has been misapplied. Perhaps, this is understandable, perhaps not. Still, the fact remains, Obama is not part of this group. Barrack Obama has the distinction of being a member of a different group that has, if not a massive record of success, some group wide success. What do I mean? Let me show you.

First, Obama is a real African-American. His father was Kenyan. He could be a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. if he so chose. In contrast, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Roland Burris etc . . . are Americans of African descent. In fact, many blacks living in the U.S. have several generations of ancestors born in America. In 1776, half of the slave population was born in these new United States. Why does this matter? Obama and his group have a rather different track record.

In his book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell shows some of the achievements of Obama's group. In talking about Caribbean (British West Indian) and African blacks, Sowell raises the curtain on an overlooked group.

"The first black borough presidents of Manhattan were West Indian. As late as 1970, the highest ranking blacks in New York's police department were West Indians, as were all the black federal judges in the city. The 1970 census showed that black West Indian families in the New York metropolitan area had 28 percent higher income than families of American blacks. The incomes of second-generation West Indian families living in the same area exceeded that of black families by 58 percent. Neither race nor racism can explain such differences. Nor can slavery, since native-born blacks and West Indian blacks both had a history of slavery. Studies published in 2004 indicated that an absolute majority of black alumni of Harvard were either West Indian or African immigrants, or the children of these immigrants."

After graduating from the top Hawaiian prep school, Obama graduated from Columbia, then Harvard Law School. Barrack Obama has been successful at reaching goals for years. His individual achievement is impressive and this also bears out the pattern for his group. Think about it. Barely six years after the Voting Rights Act and some members of this group were federal judges. Motivation, persistence and achievement don't appear to be lacking in this group, at least in the past.

I do not wish Obama success as President. I know he will succeed. That much is certain from his own past and that of his group. What he will succeed in doing is something only time will reveal.

The Senator from Blagoland

2009-01-13T20:05:00.000-08:00

According to American Pravda (AP) news, Rolland Burris will get to take over President-electo Obama's senate seat now. Unlikely as this seemed only a week ago. Dumbkoff Harry Reid has been under a lot of pressure to sweep this side show under the rug before the coronation of Mr. Socialista Fabuloso. Of course, the fact that Burris claimed he had no contact Gov. Rod Blagojovich or his aides and then said he talked to Blago's former chief of staff made no difference. That little tidbit reported by ABC news caused no stir since no one wants to hold up the joyous march to communism. The fact that he could be mixed up in conspiracy, bribery etc. . . means nothing to the media ding-a-lings. Under Bush, where there was smoke, there was a raging inferno. For Obama, openly shading doings or crooked nutjobs like Blago are no big deal, government as usual. Ignore that man behind the curtain.

There's little point mulling over the moronic justifications offered by Reid and fellow goober Dicky Durbin. Point is, they got the live Democratic body they wanted to pass their gargantuan spending bill and they'll let CNN move the eyeballs onto something else. There's no time to waste when there's money to be swiped.

In the tradition of Blago, we know that everything has a price, Now, we find out the price of the latest orgy of spending, I mean, stimulus, is $775 Billion. That happens to be almost the exact amount the Death tax will be raised to. Tax the rich? Sure, if you own a business or family farm you are now officially rich. Thus, when you die Obama may sock it to your heirs so hard, they have to sell to pay the taxes. And what happens if they have a profit? Then they pay capital gains to the Obamster and he gets more taxes, I mean investable income. If you had a loss, well then you simply lose money and Obama couldn't give a rat's behind. They never get a chance to fix up the farm or business to make it profitable because they've got to do their patriotic duty as big spenders Obama/Biden force them to sell to pay for more waste. Neat, huh?

This is only the beginning. Everybody ought to have a Senator from Blago. I'll do you one better. I'll give you a President from Blagoland and he's coming soon to a country near you. Of course, as the old saying from prison goes, you play you pay. We're about to pay for his play. So, enjoy. Just sit back, enjoy the show and don't bother checking your wallet, it's empty. That cumbersome weight has been removed by Senator Knows Better, nay, President Knows Better. Don't you feel better in Blagoland?

Holy Jettisoning Jewelry!! A Madoff Sequel

2009-01-05T19:34:00.000-08:00

Now, it could be just me, since I'm a rather simple fellow, but shouldn't a guy who orchestrated the biggest scam or more plainly theft in US history be held in jail without bail. Nobody has committed fraud on this level and this guy gets "home confinement!?" I mean if ever there was a flight risk, this guy has got to be it. Out of the thousands of lives ruined, you would figure that Madoff would think that somebody would seriously want him taking a dirt nap and split the country.
I don't have a doctorate from some ivy or anything, so maybe the Feds or the NY A.G. (where the heck is a rabid dog like Spitzer when you need him. Sure he was Mr. Kinky, but he never missed a chance to perp walk someone right into the cozy confines of a cell) or NYC aristocracy have some stellar reason for keeping this guy out that I can't see. Maybe they all lost money to him and feel stupid about it too.
Now, according to Bloomberg, Madoff is sending jewelry to his kids and some couple in Florida. I mean come on. The guy's a thief and he's getting away with goods in front of 300 million people!!

Hello, Hello?? Is anybody on duty in our government? Bush should get a shotgun, go to NYC and drag this guy's butt down to The Tombs immediately. I know, I know the response would be more like this: Bush: "We know he's a threat and we're working round the ummm clock. The American people need to know every things being underdone, to, you know, get him." Huh?

Of course, Obama could open his mouth too and say something substantial, but that's out of character. Obama: "Right now we're engaged in a serious study of options as they relate to him, to ascertain a plan that's both efficient and cost effective. All options are on the table. You''ll hear from us very soon. No more questions at this time." Snoooooze.

Uh, guys, I hate to break it to you. He's laughing at you. That's why in odd moments getting into his car outside his condo, you see that little smirk steal across his face. To him, you're a joke that just keeps on playing along. The Joker in Batman couldn't ask for more. In fact, at least, Batman, Com. Gordon and Chief O'Hara (bless his soul) nabbed the Joker once in a while. This guy Madoff has always gotten away with it and he's still doin it! Have some self-respect and throw this confessed weasel in the can. Rise from your lethargy of nincompoopery !!

That's it. Chief, get me the Bat Phone!

It's a Madoff, Madoff, Madoff World

2009-01-04T19:27:00.000-08:00

I must say that the whole Bernard Madoff Ponzi scandal has me more fascinated than anything else these days. True, it is simply a financial version of a bus ploughing through a crowded city park. However, there is something here about how focused our trust has become. Bitten by a jaded bug, one feels constantly betrayed and searches for that one honest man or woman to entrust everything to without question. Some of the people who gave Madoff millions had little or no personal communication with him. His membership in the right clubs, his former title as president of the NASDAQ and the other people who would give him money provided an almost unbreakable wall of respect that allowed him to con for so many many years.

As more financial bodies continue to float to the surface, the need for reason in finance and public life has never been greater. Yet another stimulus, this one packed with pork, like a minor league hall of fame, can do very little. So we can't really expect much help from a flaccid, aged political class, can we? Even viewed brightly, Obama has little chance to move the entrenched political class. He could term limit them out, but this would take years and be of little immediate benefit. But the financial situation makes the political chaos look like the proverbial day at the beach.

Is it really that bad anyway ?
Class let's review

Unemployment probably going to 10-15% maybe the highest since the Depression
GDP set to go down 5-6% for 4th quarter, that's Monster Big!
Consumer confidence the lowest since 1981
No more rate cuts since FED is at 0%
Government taking a stake in almost every major bank
Credit markets still totally turgid
And last and worst, Everybody, I mean everybody in America is demanding government cash. Rescue us, Uncle Sam, from our stupidity!!

If you lost money with Bernie, you'd want to be rescued too, but alas the coming Ponzi scheme will dwarf Bernie. Why? because this scheme, foisted on us to "create jobs" and "save our economy" will involve every last soul in this country. They'll be no chance to keep your money from this Ponzi scheme.

There are only two ways out of any financial distress: inflate or contract. Contract would mean cutting the money supply and you may have noticed the jellyfish in Washington can never cut any program of size. Inflating means printing money, lots of it. The problem here is obvious: the money is worth less. But the government has pumped out billions since this whole mess began, you say, and no inflation? Ahh, but inflation takes time, especially since the most of the money allocated so far has already disappeared down the bad loan hole. Rest assured, the government will always over do it. Greenspan did it in 2002. Since the metrics of the economy can only be seen after they happen, the Feds always pushes the peddle too long. The worst part, though, is the FED must attract money once all this bogus paper is floated. How do you do this? Raise interest rates and of course, the weak economy sputters once more. The double whammy of stagflation rears its' hideous head. I truly hope I'm a dog barking up the wrong tree. If I'm right though, we might as well have elected Madoff president for all the good it will do.

Ride the WAAAAAAAve in '09

2009-01-01T18:18:00.000-08:00

As we mosey into the new year, initially we always surrounded by this banter about what's so splendidly new trendy and fabulous. Of course, Presidente-to-be is new and shiny with his new brand of politics which brandishes the same old carrots and sticks, but with snazzy new language. What was in years past a gas tax is now a carbon tax. It's a little more abstract and sounds enviro-wonkish. We know Obama loves abstract, since then you can't pin his squirmy, scrawny policies down.

Of course, when it's comes to the Obama Seat Scandal, he's very specific that the people on his team didn't do anything wrong. It's all in a report Obama so diligently created himself and generously gave to the A.P. (American Pravda) which then trumpeted that Obama had been cleared by a report. Though they neglected to include in the headline that Obama had investigated himself and cleared himself. Nixon should have tried that trick. Unfortunately, Tricky Dick didn't have the majority of the thankfully crumbling media in his back pocket.

Between the new ways to lie and the new lies about ways, we are going to have bumper crop of things to talk about. It's new that two of the three branches are in Democratic hands. Hands that know only two things: taxing and spending. Taxes have and will be dressed up as "fairness" (JFK said "life isn't fair") "investment" (you get money back from an investment) and my favorite "patriotic." ( I guess the Founding Fathers should have shut up and paid King George his taxes)

The new ways and means will be a craven dog Congress and a ridiculously slavish media establishment. Expect three types of stories crime puff pieces like OJ to distract, the Obama puff pieces like what his dog's name will be (Blago? here boy, ) and attack stuff about dose evil Republicans (cue The Empire Strikes Back music)

Boba Phett: "What if he doesn't survive? He's worth a lot to me"
Vader: "The Empire will compensate you, if he dies. Put him in!"

We now return to our regularly scheduled blog.

It will be a very tough year. No amount of P.R. can hide that fact. In fact, the incredible fiscal mismanagement that took place under Bush looks to continue in 2009. Obama may try his best, but he simply has no experience, no finance background and too little time to climb the learning curve. The full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is on the line. With Neophyte Obama, Klink/Peliosi, Schultze/Reid and so-past-their-expiration-dates Frank, Schumer, Dingel, Rangel etc. . . . we're going down for a hard count. So what's a soul to do? Odd you should ask, since next time I'll be giving wave riding tips. Until then, as they say in Obama vacation land, (Hawaii) never turn your back on the ocean. Face the wave and bite it.

RIP Dock

2008-12-23T20:55:00.000-08:00

If you know who Dock Ellis was, then you know why I'm writing this one. If not, well let's start by saying Dock was a ballplayer, baseball to be exact. To me, though he was more than some guy who played in th 60's and 70's. He had a style, panache, a flair about him. As a kid seeing that wicked FU Manchu you knew this guy was a serious character. Arriving at the ballpark with your hair in curlers was sure to get attention, but this guy was good.

He played a big part helping the Pirates win the series in '71. When the Pirates got tired of the Dock and traded him to the Yankees, that lefty arm was perfect for Yankee Stadium and his character was perfect for the so called Bronx Zoo Yankees. Dock could still pitch well and did. The Yankees won the pennant in '76, the first time in over decade. I know if you're a Cubs or Indian fan you say big deal, but for the Yankees a barren decade is like 50 losing years for other clubs.

Anyway, Dock arrived a Yankee Stadium with an unknown bonus. The Pirates had included Willie Randolph, an untried second baseman in the deal. In the end, Randolph became much more valuable to the Yankees, winning rings as a player and a coach joining the Yankee pantheon of stars. However, I like to think that Willie is the sort of bonus you get in life when you embrace the spirit of life, the absurdity of the moment and the characters around you. At that moment, then you get a glimpse of the reward of living, a merger of peace and happiness. It quickly ducks away once you realize it, but for a moment you can taste it, feel it, almost touch it.

Sure, now that he's dead, some people now will want to focus on the circus aspect of Dock, like throwing a no-hitter on LSD, but what's important was his natural passion. Obviously, he didn't live his life in the cookie cutter good way. Playing it safe is a great lesson for life in some newspaper, but life isn't lived in the abstract. Perhaps, later on reflection like most, he would have done many things different, but that's also not such an uncommon thing. His spunk, his funk, his fiestiness; that was uncommon then and seems rarer now in sport and in life.

If you embrace that natural spontaneous passion in life, then the bonus, the hidden gem, the "Willie Randolph" will appear. So much of life, especially public life now is scripted, pre-planned, pre-packaged. The spontaneity as we discover the joy of being human is locked down. That didn't seem like Dock.

A World Reversed

2008-12-19T19:29:00.000-08:00

So today, President Bush announces he's going to bailout Chrysler and GM to the tune of $13 Billion dollars. This is money Bush is nabbing from the already approved TARP i.e. the rescue plan for the banks. This sloshing of money from one side of the drain to the other is isn't such a surprise, but the manner suggests yet another nail in the coffin of George Bush's legacy; which is ironic because this maneuver was done for one reason and one reason only: Bush's legacy.

Rep. Senator Judd Gregg let the cat out of the bag last week by revealing Bush was simply pushing the date of a auto company implosion out of his term and into another, namely an Obama Presidential term. The $13 Billion won't keep GM or Chrysler afloat for six months. Even this guess might prove optimistic. The record is now complete. After getting up off the mat by pushing the surge in Iraq, Bush has slugged himself again by signing up for seat-of-the-pants socialism. These temporary measures will fix nothing, not even the legacy which looks to be mixed at best. After a first term that was pointed in such a promising direction, Bush has succumbed to Washingtonitis and become the type he professed to loathe in the 2000 campaign. "I want to change the culture in Washington" he said and then it changed him into the usual turn on the money spigot type. As Obama might say "I am shocked and saddened" expressions that I can't quite seem to link to him.

Speaking of Obama, we may have budding Republican in town. In response to the last question today at a newspeak event, Obama, electo to be, said the the way to bring down the deficit was to grow the economy so the government got more revenue. Hallelujah!! he's got the religion of capitalism: Growth. By golly, he didn't even mention raising taxes. If Nancy Peliosi and Harry Reid were watching this gaffe, it must have produced quite a scene. Peliosi and Reid, the respective Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultze of the DC set might have had a split reaction. Reid obviously would have agreed with everything said, then Peliosi would slapped him and said "Idiot, he didn't mention raising taxes!!" Col. Hogan is uncast since it would have to be a Republican of charm and intelligence and such doesn't exist in DC now.

Perhaps, the religion thing is a bit much. As we know with Rev. Wright, Obama can ditch a religious persuasion as quickly as giving one his patented twinkie speeches. Tastes good at the moment, but doesn't last. But maybe this is an education of Mr. O. Melville said a whaling ship was his Harvard. Maybe, this meltdown is the Obama B school. Maybe, all that trendy college Marxism made sense until you were actually responsible for the stewardship of the economy. With capitalism fading, many roles are changing. Perhaps, Obama is learning his new one. At least, that is the hope. With capitalism reduced to dying embers, maybe that's a foolish hope. But dying was never a match for wishful thinking.

Tangled up in Blago

2008-12-16T20:09:00.000-08:00

I never heard of this guy Democrat Gov. of Illinois Rod Blagojevich before, but the audacity of this guy under investigation for two years by feds was mind blowing. Either he figured he was protected with Obama in the White House or this was business as usual so why stop now. His attitude at the lone news conference seemed more like some poser version of "just try and catch me now" His bringing up Richard Nixon is telling also.

Unfortunately, for Obama, we will have Blago to kick around for a while. Now, it seems there's a conflict between the nascent impeachment movement in the Illinois legislature and the federal investigation. By offering immunity for testimony, the legislature might muck up the investigation allowing Blago to skate. Sure, Obama might want that so that he and his other pals of Blago like Rahm Emmanuel and Tony Rezko weren't tied to a criminal. However, a messy farce of justice in Obama's hometown doesn't help the LW media push the "smart" government angle Obama has slogged via the campaign. It also becomes a ready made Republican campaign ad in 2012.

Next week supposedly more info on Rahm Emmanuel and his conversations with Blago pops. Rahm has ducked around a corner for the time being, but we can assume they'll have some fancy footwork already choreographed for that one. Assuming Blago trips up the deputy dog legislature and stays on during a trial, he still has power to appoint and could use it embarrassing fashion. If he nominates somebody, anybody, they will have to be investigated too. If he does a wacko appointment like Republican Alan Keyes, the Democrats will be freakin' tryin' to keep Keyes out of the seat, thereby taking the heat off Blago. The What If . . . possibilities are almost endless.

Of course, the really big date is when Obama takes office. Technically, he could fire the Feds running the investigation and then Blago only has to fend off the droopalong legislature, though one would assume the impeachment might pick up speed since there's no Fed investigation to interfere. This option might be considered problematical, since Nixon tried firing his own people investigating him and the judiciary shoved it right up his keister with a candle on it. The conflict of interest is about as large as Lake Michigan.

Speaking of which, short of Blago being fitted with cement overshoes (hey, this is Chicago and Lake Michigan is oh so close. No walks by the lake, Blago, please for your own sake) there doesn't seem a presto chango solution for this one for Obama. The legislature could set up a special election and that campaign might take the spotlight off Obama a bit. However, Obama has had his cake and eaten it to ever since he's been a pol, so you figure he'll try to vanquish Blago, keep Rahm out of the Federal crosshairs somehow, and stick a Democrat in the seat minus an election. Riding a unicycle while balancing a stack of plates on your head during an earthquake would seem easier, but hey, this is Mr Fabulous. Wonder if they teach that at Harvard Law. We're about to find out.

Intermission: Trek Sex Talk

2008-12-13T20:57:00.000-08:00

With El Presidente Electo busy tidying up after his Chicago Corruptos, we have some free time here. The Chiefy-to-be is taking no questions, a sound tactical manuever, but is releasing his cabinet picks via YouTube.

Well since were over here, we might as well see what other video distractions are available. Hmm, here's one

I'm more of a TOS guy, but TNG kept the franchise afloat.

check the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOw_2f4lpY

Yet Another Home

2008-12-13T20:45:00.000-08:00

Well I've decide to move yet again. The new, now old blog, had technical issues. I guess the internet mechanics are asleep over there. Anyway we'll try it here for now and see how it goes.