I don’t have much tonight. Expended most of my energy 48-hours ago wallowing in the sorrow of Black Sunday. Feel free to delight in my misery when you’re finished here.
This afternoon, Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner declared that the 11-page healthcare compromise proposal revealed yesterday by the President in preparation for Thursday’s televised summit is too short. That’s right, too short. If this seems incongruous to you, it could be because you remember the very same John Boehner, as little as four weeks ago, roundly complaining that the previous bill was, wait for it, too long. Yes, Boehner spent months complaining that the bill was too complicated for anyone to understand, seeking out television cameras in front of which to wave the original 1,990 page, 20+pound bill and solid wood furniture on which to drop it. Now he claims the fix for that bill is not complex enough and far too easy to understand. Say John, what’s it like to punch yourself in the face?
On his program this afternoon, Rush Limbaugh declared to a caller that healthcare reform is nothing more than “...reparations for people who can’t read (the bill)...” It’s difficult - if not impossible to combat absolutely ridiculous, racism-tainted stupidity without giving it credibility merely by dignifying it with an answer, so I won’t. But the fact that so many people revere this bowling pin as some sort of prophet of truth is nothing short of disturbing.
In a Brooklyn, New York federal court on Monday, suspected would-be terrorist bomber Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country and providing material support for a terrorist organization. Beginning this June he will be interned at ADX Supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado for the remainder of his natural life. All of this after providing what prosecutors have called “useful, actionable intelligence,” without being tortured or turned over to military custody. I suppose the torture advocates will claim that we could have gotten more information than we did (how they know this I have no idea) had we only strung him upside down by his fingernails for ten hours, and that somehow, life locked in a 6x9 cell 23 hours a day without the possibility of parole in the Colorado desert for the rest of his life is some kind of a sweetheart deal for his cooperation. But with each mounting arrest and admission and conviction, the hysterical shrieking of those critics lacking respect for the law and order foundation and tradition of this nation fade thankfully into the background. As much hay as his naysayers have tried to make of it, his handling of terrorism is the one significant policy point in which on which President Obama’s approval rating has actually INCREASED since taking office.
Finally, last week, disgruntled Texas man Joe Stack, upset with the IRS, (due to the fact he owed tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes), set fire to his mouse, then loaded up his small plane with fuel and crashed it into the IRS offices in Austin. Pundits who typically insist people should be held responsible for their own actions (usually liberals, poor people and people of color) were quick to blame the government, for creating some nebulous feeling of outrage throughout the country that drove this idiot to do what he did. The interesting thing about the response to the incident however, was the extent some people went to in order to avoid labeling the man’s actions an act of terrorism. Well, in the interest We can clear this up pretty easily. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or threats to coerce and/or intimidate for political purposes. The four page manifesto left behind by the pilot detail his perceived grievances with the United States government and characterize his actions as him taking the only action he could against the “tyranny” of the IRS. Joe Stack was a terrorist, and flying an airplane into a government building in protest of political policy is an act of terrorism. End of story. If Joe Stack had been Joe Abdullah, would there even have been a debate?
2.23.2010
2.22.2010
Hockey Night in Canada
Last summer, after seven years of "process", I was granted my U.S. citizenship. But when it comes to ice hockey, I am now, always have been and always will be, Canadian. So it is without any conflict that I say that this is going to be a long, dark night for my country.
At about 10:00 p.m. Sunday night, Team U.S.A. defeated Team Canada 5-3 in the final game of the round-robin tournament. While the outcome means little in terms of elimination - neither team could have been eliminated with a loss - it means everything in terms of how Canadians look at themselves. In almost every other aspect we have become accustomed to, as one Canadian journalist described it following a second place finish in women's moguls, "the all-to-familiar feeling of pride mingled with disappointment." A nation of only 33 million, we often find ourselves playing second fiddle to someone bigger, stronger, faster and louder than we are. Usually it doesn't bother us all that much. We smile politely, shake hands and wish ourselves better luck next time. The one place we never expect to have to do that is on the ice. It's our game, we've been good at it for a long time, and we expect to win every time we play. Some people call that unreasonable. We call it identity.
It's bad enough to lose at a game we created, in our own arena, in our own backyard. It's a whole lot worse to lose to a country that cared so much about the outcome of the game that they relegated it to the desert of cable - the only one of NBCs cable channels not available in high definition. Yes, on Sunday night, curling - a sport which America only discovered last Tuesday - got a more prominent spot in the broadcast line-up than ice hockey. I don't have the vocabulary to express how disheartening it is to lose to a country that would rather watch paint dry than watch ice hockey on television.
Watching play over the past week, one thing became painfully obvious. Our miserable seventh place finish in Torino failed to light the fire underneath our team. Two-and-two-thirds of the three games might as well have been played four years ago in Italy. In fact, Canada hasn't played a solid game since Salt Lake City in 2002. It doesn't seem to matter who assembles the team, who coaches the team, or who the players are, the results are the same. The rest of the world caught up to us and we made it easy for them by taking a couple steps backward. Watching Russia play the Czech Republic earlier, and Sweden play Finland afterward, it's pretty easy to see that everyone else is playing the game at a completely different speed than we are. We're being out-skated, out-worked, and killing ourselves with stupid mistakes. For evidence of that look no further than the replay of the empty-net goal scored in the final seconds in which Ryan Kesler out-hustled two Canadian defensemen down the ice to the puck, then out-muscled one of them to put the puck in the net.
It's difficult to figure out exactly what has gone wrong with Canadian hockey. The easy answer would be that we just aren't as talented as the other teams we play against. But this is a case in which the easy answer is probably not the correct one. There's no shortage of talent on this team. The captain and assistant captain are both Stanley Cup champions, along with several others, most notably one of the most decorated goaltenders in the history of the National Hockey League. Nor is the team too old, as was one complaint against the 2006 squad. The problem appears to be simpler, yet far more daunting than one of size, speed or skill. The look on Sidney Crosby's face after scoring the game-winning goal in the shootout against the Swiss last week said it all. As he skated back to the bench with the deafening roar of a relieved crowd ringing in his ears, the anointed saviour of Canadian hockey looked up at his teammates with disbelief in his eyes, and you could almost hear him say, "How did it come to this?" I can't imagine how hard it must be carry the weight of the expectations of an entire nation on your back. But it doesn't seem as though our guys have broad enough shoulders with which to do it. It looks as though the stage is just too big for them, and they don't know how to tell us that the thing that we believe to be our birthright, is once again out of our reach.
Baring some dramatic turnaround, it is likely that Canada will fail to make the medal round later this week, let alone the podium. I don't say that because they lost one game to a good team. I say that because the math bears it out. Over the past two games, Canada has taken 92 shots on goal (96 if you count the shootout) and scored only 5 goals - a 5.4% shooting percentage. By contrast, on Sunday night alone, the Americans took only 23 shots, yet scored five times, for an efficiency rating of 21.7%. If that trend continues, Canada would have to take more than four times as many shots as their opponent just to keep the game tied. Their next game comes against Germany on Tuesday. While the Germans are far from an ice hockey powerhouse, Canada has already dropped one game and almost lost another to statistically inferior opponents, so nothing can be taken for granted. And even if they pass that that test, the real ice hockey powers will be right there waiting for them to lay another egg like they did Sunday night. Four years ago we sat staring at the television, shaking our heads in disbelief as Bob Costas interviewed a stunned Wayne Gretzky on the verge of tears, trying to explain how Canada had been eliminated from medal contention by a team nobody thought knew how to skate. Here's to hoping we don't find ourselves watching Steve Yzerman sitting in that same chair for a repeat performance.
At about 10:00 p.m. Sunday night, Team U.S.A. defeated Team Canada 5-3 in the final game of the round-robin tournament. While the outcome means little in terms of elimination - neither team could have been eliminated with a loss - it means everything in terms of how Canadians look at themselves. In almost every other aspect we have become accustomed to, as one Canadian journalist described it following a second place finish in women's moguls, "the all-to-familiar feeling of pride mingled with disappointment." A nation of only 33 million, we often find ourselves playing second fiddle to someone bigger, stronger, faster and louder than we are. Usually it doesn't bother us all that much. We smile politely, shake hands and wish ourselves better luck next time. The one place we never expect to have to do that is on the ice. It's our game, we've been good at it for a long time, and we expect to win every time we play. Some people call that unreasonable. We call it identity.
It's bad enough to lose at a game we created, in our own arena, in our own backyard. It's a whole lot worse to lose to a country that cared so much about the outcome of the game that they relegated it to the desert of cable - the only one of NBCs cable channels not available in high definition. Yes, on Sunday night, curling - a sport which America only discovered last Tuesday - got a more prominent spot in the broadcast line-up than ice hockey. I don't have the vocabulary to express how disheartening it is to lose to a country that would rather watch paint dry than watch ice hockey on television.
Watching play over the past week, one thing became painfully obvious. Our miserable seventh place finish in Torino failed to light the fire underneath our team. Two-and-two-thirds of the three games might as well have been played four years ago in Italy. In fact, Canada hasn't played a solid game since Salt Lake City in 2002. It doesn't seem to matter who assembles the team, who coaches the team, or who the players are, the results are the same. The rest of the world caught up to us and we made it easy for them by taking a couple steps backward. Watching Russia play the Czech Republic earlier, and Sweden play Finland afterward, it's pretty easy to see that everyone else is playing the game at a completely different speed than we are. We're being out-skated, out-worked, and killing ourselves with stupid mistakes. For evidence of that look no further than the replay of the empty-net goal scored in the final seconds in which Ryan Kesler out-hustled two Canadian defensemen down the ice to the puck, then out-muscled one of them to put the puck in the net.
It's difficult to figure out exactly what has gone wrong with Canadian hockey. The easy answer would be that we just aren't as talented as the other teams we play against. But this is a case in which the easy answer is probably not the correct one. There's no shortage of talent on this team. The captain and assistant captain are both Stanley Cup champions, along with several others, most notably one of the most decorated goaltenders in the history of the National Hockey League. Nor is the team too old, as was one complaint against the 2006 squad. The problem appears to be simpler, yet far more daunting than one of size, speed or skill. The look on Sidney Crosby's face after scoring the game-winning goal in the shootout against the Swiss last week said it all. As he skated back to the bench with the deafening roar of a relieved crowd ringing in his ears, the anointed saviour of Canadian hockey looked up at his teammates with disbelief in his eyes, and you could almost hear him say, "How did it come to this?" I can't imagine how hard it must be carry the weight of the expectations of an entire nation on your back. But it doesn't seem as though our guys have broad enough shoulders with which to do it. It looks as though the stage is just too big for them, and they don't know how to tell us that the thing that we believe to be our birthright, is once again out of our reach.
Baring some dramatic turnaround, it is likely that Canada will fail to make the medal round later this week, let alone the podium. I don't say that because they lost one game to a good team. I say that because the math bears it out. Over the past two games, Canada has taken 92 shots on goal (96 if you count the shootout) and scored only 5 goals - a 5.4% shooting percentage. By contrast, on Sunday night alone, the Americans took only 23 shots, yet scored five times, for an efficiency rating of 21.7%. If that trend continues, Canada would have to take more than four times as many shots as their opponent just to keep the game tied. Their next game comes against Germany on Tuesday. While the Germans are far from an ice hockey powerhouse, Canada has already dropped one game and almost lost another to statistically inferior opponents, so nothing can be taken for granted. And even if they pass that that test, the real ice hockey powers will be right there waiting for them to lay another egg like they did Sunday night. Four years ago we sat staring at the television, shaking our heads in disbelief as Bob Costas interviewed a stunned Wayne Gretzky on the verge of tears, trying to explain how Canada had been eliminated from medal contention by a team nobody thought knew how to skate. Here's to hoping we don't find ourselves watching Steve Yzerman sitting in that same chair for a repeat performance.
2.17.2010
A Snowball's Chance in Hell
It’s finally snowing in Vancouver. In February. Ordinarily, that wouldn’t be news.
I’m going to mix things up a little this week. I’ve decided to comment on the week’s news stories in order of least to most infuriating. Usually I do things the other way around after the first paragraph, but I’m going to let the rage simmer a little bit before releasing it to the page.
Today is Fat Tuesday! New Orleans is in full party mode. Although, anyone living in or around the Crescent City might not have noticed the difference, since New Orleans has been partying since Super Bowl Sunday. I mention this only as an opportunity to once again congratulate the New Orleans Saints on their first NFL Championship victory in their 43-year history. Couldn’t have happened to nicer guys in a nicer town. I know that talk has already shifted to the off-season and the draft and which players will be cut and which will remain. But the Saints should enjoy this one as long as they possibly can. Super Bowl championships don’t come around all that often. Ask the New York Jets.
The Winter Olympics finally kicked off in Vancouver last Friday night. While not nearly as bellicose or expensive as the opening ceremonies in Beijing two years ago, Canada’s bite at the apple came off as warm, friendly and sophisticated all the same. Despite a technical glitch, the torch lighting ceremony was dignified and uniquely Canadian, as four torch lighters shared in that most solemn duty. Congratulations to the host nation on a job well done, and here’s to hoping the weather begins to cooperate for the remainder of the games.
On a sad note, on the morning the games were to begin, 21-year-old Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili was killed when he lost control of his sled near the end of his training run and was launched out up over a wall, off the track and into a concrete column supporting the canopy. Instantly, questions were raised regarding the safety of the track and what measures could have been taken to prevent the accident. As a result, additional safety features were added to the track and the start position of the men’s race was reduced by more than 600 feet, while the women’s start was pushed back to the junior level. Few spectators and laypeople will argue with the additional steps taken. For most of us, more safety is always better. But there is an argument to be made that often the first reaction to a sporting tragedy is over-reaction.
While expressing regret over the death of the Georgian rider, at least several of the other competitors complained about the change of the starting point and the accompanying reduction in the speed of the course. They felt it detracted from the quality of the race. They cited the fact that World Cup events were held at Whistler last year without incident and expressed their confidence in riders’ abilities to race cleanly and safely on the original track. While that statement may seem ludicrous to some, there is something we need to understand about athletes – particular those that choose to participate in extreme sports. They simply are not wired the same way the rest of us are. Most of us avoid risk like the plague. We purchase the biggest, heaviest SUV we can find, we scour the shopping cart handle with the disinfectant wipe before we touch it, we don’t take a walk down the street after dark and we insure everything we own. For athletes, it is the risk that makes whatever it is they do worth doing. Of course skiing down an icy mountain at 90 miles-per-hour is dangerous. So is jumping out of an airplane, or bungee jumping off a bridge, or bumping another driver in a left turn at 200 mph. But that’s what makes those things fun. That is what makes them worth doing. If auto racing took place in ’84 Cadillacs at 35 miles-per-hour, nobody would do it. Athletes are not like the rest of us and we should not baby them as if they are. They are special people with special skills and that’s why we love to watch them do what they do. When we allow them to do that, sometimes, bad things will happen. But if you asked 100 lugers or skydivers or snowboarders or race car drivers if they would prefer to die on the track, in the sky, on the mountain or asleep in their beds, I doubt you could find two that would answer the latter.
My wife sent me this. It is presented below as an argument for re-instituting the draft.
I certainly have no desire to be dragged off to fight a war I don’t believe in, in a foreign country too many American couldn’t find on a map. But perhaps if more of us were confronted with the true costs of war, we might be a little more discriminating regarding the conflicts we chose to involve ourselves in.
In an interview over the weekend, former vice president Richard Cheney stated that he had indeed been an advocate of waterboarding. For those of you who are not aware, waterboarding is an internationally recognized form of torture. Cheney admitted to advocating torture. You might think this would rate higher on the rage-o-meter, but frankly, I expected at least this from the former VP, so I was neither surprised nor disturbed by his admission. The only surprising part about this story is that it’s taken him so long to come out and say what we’ve all known he’s been thinking and advocating behind closed doors for at least nine years now, if not more. It is sad, however, and terribly disconcerting that so many people in this country are so anxious – even giddy with anticipation – over the prospect of torturing another human being.
Last week, the mid-Atlantic region of the country was paralyzed by as much as three feet of snow. According to talk radio, Fox News and members of Congress with an (R) in front of their names, the fact that the District of Columbia is in the grip of a white February is proof that Climate Change is a hoax. I can’t be sure whether this latest foolishness represents merely ignorance of the science or willful misinformation of their constituents, but I’m leaning toward the latter. Snowstorms are a weather event. Weather changes from day to day, week to week, month to month and year to year. It varies by time of day, season and geographic location. Climate is a measure of long-term change. Change in average global temperature over decades, centuries and millenia. Two snowstorms in Maryland do not disprove the warming theory any more than a lack of snow in Vancouver this February proves the warming theory, or the lack of sunlight streaming through my window at this moment (1:30 am) proves that the world has been permanently plunged into darkness. Seriously, what is it going to take to get past the loopy, flippant bumper-sticker rhetoric and take some kind of action on this issue?
This past Monday morning I heard a news report noting that the healthcare bill passed by the Senate late last year with absolutely no Republican support is remarkably similar to the healthcare counter-proposal offered by Republicans to the Clinton healthcare proposal in 1994. Ideas central to the bill, like the individual mandate, outcome-based medicine and the healthcare exchanges, were created by Republicans as a “reasonable, market-based alternative” to what they termed “Hillary-care” 17 years ago. Some of those same Republicans now refer to their own ideas as irresponsible, unconstitutional socialist practices designed to “pull the plug on grandma.” Unfortunately, the media has only “discovered” this six months after it might actually have been useful to point out the hypocrisy of the “death panel” crew.
In a related story, President Obama has invited Democratic and Republican leaders of House and Senate to a televised healthcare summit to be held at the White House on February 25th. Republicans have responded by stating they believe the President’s invitation be a “trap.” Whaaa? An invitation to come to the White House and explain your ideas of what healthcare reform should look like to Americans on national television is a trap? Why? Can one Republican please explain to me what the “trap” is in standing up in a room full of television cameras – including those from at least one network sympathetic to your point of view – and explaining why your ideas for healthcare reform are superior to those being proposed by the President and the Democratic Party? Is it because they are afraid that the “mainstream media” will edit their responses in such a manner that makes them look foolish? Because according to all manner of research, the “most watched, most trusted, fair and balanced name in news,” would surely broadcast whatever Republicans said in whatever manner they would like it presented. So there must be something else. Is it possible, that the reason Republicans seem concerned about appearing in public with the President to discuss healthcare reform, is that they are nervous about what people will actually say and do if they get a clear, thoughtful, reasoned non-hysterical explanation of Republican proposals versus Democratic proposals?
In yet another related story, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday morning that at least 12 Republican Senators and about 100 Republican House members – including the House Minority Whip – sent letters to the White House begging for a share of the very same American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (stimulus) dollars they were decrying as socialist welfare to every microphone and television camera they could find. Much of this BEFORE the vote was even held! Again, information that might have been considerably more useful 12 months ago. But I guess timely accurate reporting isn’t quite as exciting as audio of Chuck Grassley babbling about “pulling the plug on grandma.”
A few weeks ago, President Obama attended the House Republican retreat and fielded questions for over an hour. It is a fantastic piece of educational political theater, and if you haven’t yet seen it, find it on YouTube and watch it. One of the questions he fielded on deficit reduction and the budget proposal came from Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, who offered the President an alternative Republican budget he claimed would lower taxes and eliminate the deficit entirely. Not having had the opportunity to read Ryan’s budget proposal, the President instructed the Congressman to send it to him. Several days later, he did. And what a proposal it is. Paul Ryan’s budget does indeed eliminate the federal deficit and reduce the federal debt – in 50 years. And in order to do so, Ryan would substantially raise the retirement age, privatize Social Security and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid completely. Now, those are all valid proposals worth of debate, and that is exactly what Democratic lawmakers should do. Every single Democrat running for office this fall should take a copy of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal with them to every single town hall meeting he or she attends and make the following point. In spite of what Republicans tried to tell you during the healthcare debate - that they wanted to prevent cuts to Medicare and protect Social Security – this is in fact what they want to do to the federal entitlements. This is their “solution” to the federal deficit. Physically point out – right there in black and white - to all those semi-retired yahoos carrying homemade picket signs reading, “keep your government hands off my (government-provided) Medicare” what their heroes like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann really want to do to their Medicare. Point out to them, in no uncertain terms, what would have happened to their retirement in September of 2008 had their Social Security pensions had been privately invested with Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG, as former President Bush had suggested be done in 2005. Ask them, point blank, is Paul Ryan’s vision for America, their vision for America. If so, then it is what it is. The smart money says that it's not. This budget counter-proposal is a gift Democrats need to unwrap and put to use immediately if they are to have any hope of averting disaster this coming November.
My final grievance this week is with what somehow passes for the modern Democratic Party. These are the sorriest, most pathetic excuses for politicians I can remember watching in my entire life. For 12 months they have floundered, unable to accomplish a single legislative feat despite a 50-seat majority in the House and a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. They have somehow managed to make a twelve point positive swing in GDP (from –6% growth to +6% growth) look like a failure of administration economic policy. Despite positive growth in the stock market, the housing market and, for the first time in almost three years, the job market, they still have a sizeable majority of Americans convinced the economy is headed in the wrong direction. They have even failed to put aside their petty differences and unite on one issue all Democrats traditionally agreed on, quality healthcare coverage for all Americans. The cold, unflattering truth is that the Democratic Party is a train wreck. They couldn’t sell snow cones to the devil in hell. At some point this fall someone is going to stand up at a town hall meeting and ask a Democratic candidate to give them ONE reason why he or she deserves to be reelected, and he or she will have absolutely no response, because there simply is no affirmative reason ANY Democrat should be reelected in November. Sure, they will point to bad economic circumstances and brazen Republican obstructionism, but as a point of comparison, President Bush had a mere two vote majority in the Senate, yet still accomplished pretty much whatever he damn well pleased. This party needs to grow up. Fast. They need to realize that while it’s all fine and good to be a party made up of many different people from many different backgrounds and with many different interests, there comes a time when they have to put the ridiculous punitive differences aside and do something to benefit the people who voted for them – even if the legislation they pass doesn’t contain everything each of them is looking for. Paralysis is bad for business. I realize there are some Democrats afraid to act because they feel it may cost them their seat. I’ve got some bad news for them. Refusing to do anything is also going to cost you control of the House – if not the Senate as well. So, if you’re going to lose your seat for acting, and you’re going to lose your seat for refusing to act, you might as well accomplish SOMETHING before the voters send you back to your room without any supper. It is always better to be known as someone who accomplished something – even if it wasn’t very much – than someone whose fear of failure prevented him from ever attempting anything.
I’m going to mix things up a little this week. I’ve decided to comment on the week’s news stories in order of least to most infuriating. Usually I do things the other way around after the first paragraph, but I’m going to let the rage simmer a little bit before releasing it to the page.
Today is Fat Tuesday! New Orleans is in full party mode. Although, anyone living in or around the Crescent City might not have noticed the difference, since New Orleans has been partying since Super Bowl Sunday. I mention this only as an opportunity to once again congratulate the New Orleans Saints on their first NFL Championship victory in their 43-year history. Couldn’t have happened to nicer guys in a nicer town. I know that talk has already shifted to the off-season and the draft and which players will be cut and which will remain. But the Saints should enjoy this one as long as they possibly can. Super Bowl championships don’t come around all that often. Ask the New York Jets.
The Winter Olympics finally kicked off in Vancouver last Friday night. While not nearly as bellicose or expensive as the opening ceremonies in Beijing two years ago, Canada’s bite at the apple came off as warm, friendly and sophisticated all the same. Despite a technical glitch, the torch lighting ceremony was dignified and uniquely Canadian, as four torch lighters shared in that most solemn duty. Congratulations to the host nation on a job well done, and here’s to hoping the weather begins to cooperate for the remainder of the games.
On a sad note, on the morning the games were to begin, 21-year-old Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili was killed when he lost control of his sled near the end of his training run and was launched out up over a wall, off the track and into a concrete column supporting the canopy. Instantly, questions were raised regarding the safety of the track and what measures could have been taken to prevent the accident. As a result, additional safety features were added to the track and the start position of the men’s race was reduced by more than 600 feet, while the women’s start was pushed back to the junior level. Few spectators and laypeople will argue with the additional steps taken. For most of us, more safety is always better. But there is an argument to be made that often the first reaction to a sporting tragedy is over-reaction.
While expressing regret over the death of the Georgian rider, at least several of the other competitors complained about the change of the starting point and the accompanying reduction in the speed of the course. They felt it detracted from the quality of the race. They cited the fact that World Cup events were held at Whistler last year without incident and expressed their confidence in riders’ abilities to race cleanly and safely on the original track. While that statement may seem ludicrous to some, there is something we need to understand about athletes – particular those that choose to participate in extreme sports. They simply are not wired the same way the rest of us are. Most of us avoid risk like the plague. We purchase the biggest, heaviest SUV we can find, we scour the shopping cart handle with the disinfectant wipe before we touch it, we don’t take a walk down the street after dark and we insure everything we own. For athletes, it is the risk that makes whatever it is they do worth doing. Of course skiing down an icy mountain at 90 miles-per-hour is dangerous. So is jumping out of an airplane, or bungee jumping off a bridge, or bumping another driver in a left turn at 200 mph. But that’s what makes those things fun. That is what makes them worth doing. If auto racing took place in ’84 Cadillacs at 35 miles-per-hour, nobody would do it. Athletes are not like the rest of us and we should not baby them as if they are. They are special people with special skills and that’s why we love to watch them do what they do. When we allow them to do that, sometimes, bad things will happen. But if you asked 100 lugers or skydivers or snowboarders or race car drivers if they would prefer to die on the track, in the sky, on the mountain or asleep in their beds, I doubt you could find two that would answer the latter.
My wife sent me this. It is presented below as an argument for re-instituting the draft.
I certainly have no desire to be dragged off to fight a war I don’t believe in, in a foreign country too many American couldn’t find on a map. But perhaps if more of us were confronted with the true costs of war, we might be a little more discriminating regarding the conflicts we chose to involve ourselves in.
In an interview over the weekend, former vice president Richard Cheney stated that he had indeed been an advocate of waterboarding. For those of you who are not aware, waterboarding is an internationally recognized form of torture. Cheney admitted to advocating torture. You might think this would rate higher on the rage-o-meter, but frankly, I expected at least this from the former VP, so I was neither surprised nor disturbed by his admission. The only surprising part about this story is that it’s taken him so long to come out and say what we’ve all known he’s been thinking and advocating behind closed doors for at least nine years now, if not more. It is sad, however, and terribly disconcerting that so many people in this country are so anxious – even giddy with anticipation – over the prospect of torturing another human being.
Last week, the mid-Atlantic region of the country was paralyzed by as much as three feet of snow. According to talk radio, Fox News and members of Congress with an (R) in front of their names, the fact that the District of Columbia is in the grip of a white February is proof that Climate Change is a hoax. I can’t be sure whether this latest foolishness represents merely ignorance of the science or willful misinformation of their constituents, but I’m leaning toward the latter. Snowstorms are a weather event. Weather changes from day to day, week to week, month to month and year to year. It varies by time of day, season and geographic location. Climate is a measure of long-term change. Change in average global temperature over decades, centuries and millenia. Two snowstorms in Maryland do not disprove the warming theory any more than a lack of snow in Vancouver this February proves the warming theory, or the lack of sunlight streaming through my window at this moment (1:30 am) proves that the world has been permanently plunged into darkness. Seriously, what is it going to take to get past the loopy, flippant bumper-sticker rhetoric and take some kind of action on this issue?
This past Monday morning I heard a news report noting that the healthcare bill passed by the Senate late last year with absolutely no Republican support is remarkably similar to the healthcare counter-proposal offered by Republicans to the Clinton healthcare proposal in 1994. Ideas central to the bill, like the individual mandate, outcome-based medicine and the healthcare exchanges, were created by Republicans as a “reasonable, market-based alternative” to what they termed “Hillary-care” 17 years ago. Some of those same Republicans now refer to their own ideas as irresponsible, unconstitutional socialist practices designed to “pull the plug on grandma.” Unfortunately, the media has only “discovered” this six months after it might actually have been useful to point out the hypocrisy of the “death panel” crew.
In a related story, President Obama has invited Democratic and Republican leaders of House and Senate to a televised healthcare summit to be held at the White House on February 25th. Republicans have responded by stating they believe the President’s invitation be a “trap.” Whaaa? An invitation to come to the White House and explain your ideas of what healthcare reform should look like to Americans on national television is a trap? Why? Can one Republican please explain to me what the “trap” is in standing up in a room full of television cameras – including those from at least one network sympathetic to your point of view – and explaining why your ideas for healthcare reform are superior to those being proposed by the President and the Democratic Party? Is it because they are afraid that the “mainstream media” will edit their responses in such a manner that makes them look foolish? Because according to all manner of research, the “most watched, most trusted, fair and balanced name in news,” would surely broadcast whatever Republicans said in whatever manner they would like it presented. So there must be something else. Is it possible, that the reason Republicans seem concerned about appearing in public with the President to discuss healthcare reform, is that they are nervous about what people will actually say and do if they get a clear, thoughtful, reasoned non-hysterical explanation of Republican proposals versus Democratic proposals?
In yet another related story, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday morning that at least 12 Republican Senators and about 100 Republican House members – including the House Minority Whip – sent letters to the White House begging for a share of the very same American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (stimulus) dollars they were decrying as socialist welfare to every microphone and television camera they could find. Much of this BEFORE the vote was even held! Again, information that might have been considerably more useful 12 months ago. But I guess timely accurate reporting isn’t quite as exciting as audio of Chuck Grassley babbling about “pulling the plug on grandma.”
A few weeks ago, President Obama attended the House Republican retreat and fielded questions for over an hour. It is a fantastic piece of educational political theater, and if you haven’t yet seen it, find it on YouTube and watch it. One of the questions he fielded on deficit reduction and the budget proposal came from Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, who offered the President an alternative Republican budget he claimed would lower taxes and eliminate the deficit entirely. Not having had the opportunity to read Ryan’s budget proposal, the President instructed the Congressman to send it to him. Several days later, he did. And what a proposal it is. Paul Ryan’s budget does indeed eliminate the federal deficit and reduce the federal debt – in 50 years. And in order to do so, Ryan would substantially raise the retirement age, privatize Social Security and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid completely. Now, those are all valid proposals worth of debate, and that is exactly what Democratic lawmakers should do. Every single Democrat running for office this fall should take a copy of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal with them to every single town hall meeting he or she attends and make the following point. In spite of what Republicans tried to tell you during the healthcare debate - that they wanted to prevent cuts to Medicare and protect Social Security – this is in fact what they want to do to the federal entitlements. This is their “solution” to the federal deficit. Physically point out – right there in black and white - to all those semi-retired yahoos carrying homemade picket signs reading, “keep your government hands off my (government-provided) Medicare” what their heroes like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann really want to do to their Medicare. Point out to them, in no uncertain terms, what would have happened to their retirement in September of 2008 had their Social Security pensions had been privately invested with Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG, as former President Bush had suggested be done in 2005. Ask them, point blank, is Paul Ryan’s vision for America, their vision for America. If so, then it is what it is. The smart money says that it's not. This budget counter-proposal is a gift Democrats need to unwrap and put to use immediately if they are to have any hope of averting disaster this coming November.
My final grievance this week is with what somehow passes for the modern Democratic Party. These are the sorriest, most pathetic excuses for politicians I can remember watching in my entire life. For 12 months they have floundered, unable to accomplish a single legislative feat despite a 50-seat majority in the House and a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. They have somehow managed to make a twelve point positive swing in GDP (from –6% growth to +6% growth) look like a failure of administration economic policy. Despite positive growth in the stock market, the housing market and, for the first time in almost three years, the job market, they still have a sizeable majority of Americans convinced the economy is headed in the wrong direction. They have even failed to put aside their petty differences and unite on one issue all Democrats traditionally agreed on, quality healthcare coverage for all Americans. The cold, unflattering truth is that the Democratic Party is a train wreck. They couldn’t sell snow cones to the devil in hell. At some point this fall someone is going to stand up at a town hall meeting and ask a Democratic candidate to give them ONE reason why he or she deserves to be reelected, and he or she will have absolutely no response, because there simply is no affirmative reason ANY Democrat should be reelected in November. Sure, they will point to bad economic circumstances and brazen Republican obstructionism, but as a point of comparison, President Bush had a mere two vote majority in the Senate, yet still accomplished pretty much whatever he damn well pleased. This party needs to grow up. Fast. They need to realize that while it’s all fine and good to be a party made up of many different people from many different backgrounds and with many different interests, there comes a time when they have to put the ridiculous punitive differences aside and do something to benefit the people who voted for them – even if the legislation they pass doesn’t contain everything each of them is looking for. Paralysis is bad for business. I realize there are some Democrats afraid to act because they feel it may cost them their seat. I’ve got some bad news for them. Refusing to do anything is also going to cost you control of the House – if not the Senate as well. So, if you’re going to lose your seat for acting, and you’re going to lose your seat for refusing to act, you might as well accomplish SOMETHING before the voters send you back to your room without any supper. It is always better to be known as someone who accomplished something – even if it wasn’t very much – than someone whose fear of failure prevented him from ever attempting anything.
2.10.2010
Who Dat!
Six inches of snow since noon today. Eat your heart out Washington DC.
Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints on their first Super Bowl victory in the 43 year history of the franchise! On Sunday night the Saints defeated the legendary Peyton Manning and the favored Indianapolis Colts 31-17 in front of the largest American television audience in history (106 million viewers) with a mixture of offensive efficiency, defensive opportunism and bold coaching maneuvers. New Orleans fell behind early after two ineffective offensive series’ to an Indianapolis team that seemed capable of moving up and down the field at will. But after about 15 minutes and a couple Colts miscues, the Saints settled down and began to battle back. The play of the game came at the start of the third quarter when New Orleans punter Thomas Morstead attempted the first on-side kick of his career - something he had never even attempted in practice until the week prior to the biggest game of his life - which was eventually recovered by the 45th man on the Saints depth chart (out of 45 active players), safety Chris Reis. New Orleans went on to score several plays later and take the lead. The teams traded scores until, with little over three minutes remaining, Manning was intercepted for a score by Saints cornerback Tracy Porter, which sealed the victory. To put the accomplishment in perspective, on the way to their Super Bowl 44 Championship, the Saints defeated (in consecutive playoff games) Kurt Warner’s Cardinals, Brett Favre’s Vikings, and Peyton Manning’s Colts, three men with Super Bowl rings who one day in the not-too-distant future will find themselves enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame.
As much as the victory means to the players and an organization that has been so awful for so many years, the impact on the city of New Orleans cannot be overstated. Just four-and-a-half years ago, most of the city was underwater and no one knew whether or not it’s citizens would be able to return to their homes, never mind return to football. During the 2005 season the team was the vagabond of the NFL, playing their home games in New York, Baton Rouge and San Antonio, and wondering whether or not the city would be able to support a professional football franchise in the future with only about a third of the population it claimed only a year earlier. But, then commissioner Paul Tagliabue insisted - over the owner’s objections - that the Saints remain in New Orleans. The fans, and eventually the city rallied around a new coach and an almost completely rebuilt team and rode the emotional roller coaster resulting in victory Sunday night. The feeling on the bayou is that this team of cast-offs and unfulfilled expectations that scratched and clawed their way out of 43 years of misery, symbolizes the spirit of the city itself, and that if the Saints can reach the top, the city of New Orleans can do the same.
I stumbled across the following Kos/Research 2000 poll last week. The questions in the pole were asked only to respondents identifying themselves as Republicans. If research by the Daily Kos raises your alarm bells the way anything from Rasmussen rings mine, then take the results with a grain of salt. But I as-of-yet have no reason to disbelieve the findings.
I’m not sure what bothers me most about those responses. In fact, there is so much wrong with the thinking behind many of those answers that there simply isn’t time nor space on the internet to even attempt to explain why. But if i had to pick out the theme of the poll I would have to say, in exasperated disappointment, that fully 30% to 40% of the Republican Party has taken a swan dive off the proverbial cliff.
This afternoon, Senator Richard Shelby, (Republican, Alabama), removed his blanket hold on almost 70 of President Obama’s nominees for key administration posts. While senators can place holds on nominees for virtually any reason, they typically do so because they have some objection to the nominee’s qualifications, work history or politics. Not so for Senator Shelby. His objection - the reason he was preventing a vote on 70 people needed to fill positions in security, finance, transportation and diplomacy - was because he felt he wasn’t getting enough pork. No, not the other white meat, federal government money specifically for pet projects in his home state. Shelby is one of the 41 Republican senators stumbling over one another to get to a television camera to complain about how the “big government” Obama administration is wasting money and running up the deficit and refusing to exercise fiscal responsibility. All of that while blackmailing the federal government into sending more of that “big government” money directly to his own backyard. Hypocrisy, thy name is Shelby.
Finally, Jenny Sanford, soon-to-be ex-wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (remember him) has a new memoir on the market. In it she goes through all the usual descriptions of shock and devastation upon finding out that her husband was “hiking the Appalachian Trail” with his Argentinean mistress. But she also reveals that years ago when she agreed to marry Mark Sanford, she did so even after he refused to use the word “faithful” in their marriage vows. Say whaaa? Should that maybe have been some sort of clue as to what might follow down the road? But apparently Mrs. Sanford failed to connect the dots until her husband started asking her permission to visit his mistress. After learning this, the respect I had for Jenny Sanford and her choice to leave her cheating husband evaporated completely. I’m sorry, but there is such a thing as enabling someone else’s bad behavior. It’s not like the Sanfords were swingers, with some sort of understanding regarding a number of mistresses and which South American countries they could hail from. She claims in her book that she believes that marriage is a vow of fidelity, yet went ahead and married a guy who refused to use the word when referring to his marriage! A politician’s wife - of all people - should understand that words mean things! And the refusal to use certain words means certain things as well! “I, Mark Sanford, promise to love, honor, cherish and only visit my Argentinean soulmate once in a while.” Come on!
Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints on their first Super Bowl victory in the 43 year history of the franchise! On Sunday night the Saints defeated the legendary Peyton Manning and the favored Indianapolis Colts 31-17 in front of the largest American television audience in history (106 million viewers) with a mixture of offensive efficiency, defensive opportunism and bold coaching maneuvers. New Orleans fell behind early after two ineffective offensive series’ to an Indianapolis team that seemed capable of moving up and down the field at will. But after about 15 minutes and a couple Colts miscues, the Saints settled down and began to battle back. The play of the game came at the start of the third quarter when New Orleans punter Thomas Morstead attempted the first on-side kick of his career - something he had never even attempted in practice until the week prior to the biggest game of his life - which was eventually recovered by the 45th man on the Saints depth chart (out of 45 active players), safety Chris Reis. New Orleans went on to score several plays later and take the lead. The teams traded scores until, with little over three minutes remaining, Manning was intercepted for a score by Saints cornerback Tracy Porter, which sealed the victory. To put the accomplishment in perspective, on the way to their Super Bowl 44 Championship, the Saints defeated (in consecutive playoff games) Kurt Warner’s Cardinals, Brett Favre’s Vikings, and Peyton Manning’s Colts, three men with Super Bowl rings who one day in the not-too-distant future will find themselves enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame.
As much as the victory means to the players and an organization that has been so awful for so many years, the impact on the city of New Orleans cannot be overstated. Just four-and-a-half years ago, most of the city was underwater and no one knew whether or not it’s citizens would be able to return to their homes, never mind return to football. During the 2005 season the team was the vagabond of the NFL, playing their home games in New York, Baton Rouge and San Antonio, and wondering whether or not the city would be able to support a professional football franchise in the future with only about a third of the population it claimed only a year earlier. But, then commissioner Paul Tagliabue insisted - over the owner’s objections - that the Saints remain in New Orleans. The fans, and eventually the city rallied around a new coach and an almost completely rebuilt team and rode the emotional roller coaster resulting in victory Sunday night. The feeling on the bayou is that this team of cast-offs and unfulfilled expectations that scratched and clawed their way out of 43 years of misery, symbolizes the spirit of the city itself, and that if the Saints can reach the top, the city of New Orleans can do the same.
I stumbled across the following Kos/Research 2000 poll last week. The questions in the pole were asked only to respondents identifying themselves as Republicans. If research by the Daily Kos raises your alarm bells the way anything from Rasmussen rings mine, then take the results with a grain of salt. But I as-of-yet have no reason to disbelieve the findings.
I’m not sure what bothers me most about those responses. In fact, there is so much wrong with the thinking behind many of those answers that there simply isn’t time nor space on the internet to even attempt to explain why. But if i had to pick out the theme of the poll I would have to say, in exasperated disappointment, that fully 30% to 40% of the Republican Party has taken a swan dive off the proverbial cliff.
This afternoon, Senator Richard Shelby, (Republican, Alabama), removed his blanket hold on almost 70 of President Obama’s nominees for key administration posts. While senators can place holds on nominees for virtually any reason, they typically do so because they have some objection to the nominee’s qualifications, work history or politics. Not so for Senator Shelby. His objection - the reason he was preventing a vote on 70 people needed to fill positions in security, finance, transportation and diplomacy - was because he felt he wasn’t getting enough pork. No, not the other white meat, federal government money specifically for pet projects in his home state. Shelby is one of the 41 Republican senators stumbling over one another to get to a television camera to complain about how the “big government” Obama administration is wasting money and running up the deficit and refusing to exercise fiscal responsibility. All of that while blackmailing the federal government into sending more of that “big government” money directly to his own backyard. Hypocrisy, thy name is Shelby.
Finally, Jenny Sanford, soon-to-be ex-wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (remember him) has a new memoir on the market. In it she goes through all the usual descriptions of shock and devastation upon finding out that her husband was “hiking the Appalachian Trail” with his Argentinean mistress. But she also reveals that years ago when she agreed to marry Mark Sanford, she did so even after he refused to use the word “faithful” in their marriage vows. Say whaaa? Should that maybe have been some sort of clue as to what might follow down the road? But apparently Mrs. Sanford failed to connect the dots until her husband started asking her permission to visit his mistress. After learning this, the respect I had for Jenny Sanford and her choice to leave her cheating husband evaporated completely. I’m sorry, but there is such a thing as enabling someone else’s bad behavior. It’s not like the Sanfords were swingers, with some sort of understanding regarding a number of mistresses and which South American countries they could hail from. She claims in her book that she believes that marriage is a vow of fidelity, yet went ahead and married a guy who refused to use the word when referring to his marriage! A politician’s wife - of all people - should understand that words mean things! And the refusal to use certain words means certain things as well! “I, Mark Sanford, promise to love, honor, cherish and only visit my Argentinean soulmate once in a while.” Come on!
2.03.2010
Love for Sale
Happy Groundhog Day. Apparently the little bugger saw his shadow this morning. Which means they have sunshine in Pennsylvania. Wonder what that’s like?
If you were paying attention last week, you know that biggest news story was the launch of the Apple iPad. Yes, iPad. Not to be confused with feminine hygiene product of similar name. The label aside, I, and many others, were decidedly underwhelmed. So it’s a 10-inch iPhone that doesn’t make phone calls. I’m not seeing the added value. Maybe that’s because I don’t buy books, magazines or newspapers and read them on the go. I’m just not sure it does anything not already done by something else equally as well. But, no company is better at creating a market where there isn’t one than Apple. We’ll revisit this in a year and see which of us was correct.
Last Wednesday President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I watched about half of it, during which time I think I heard the word jobs more times than there are people unemployed. So the message was pretty clear. The President wants to put Americans back to work, and he’s going to do everything he believes possible to get business hiring again. This means tax cuts for companies that hire new workers of increase salaries, funneling returned TARP money to smaller local banks to spur small business lending, making it less expensive to go to college, and billions of dollars to increase the quality of education. At the same time, President Obama signaled he wants to begin reigning in the budget deficit created during the course of managing the recession. To accomplish that he proposed a three year freeze on all discretionary, non-defense spending, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for all households earning over $250,000 per year and extracting more blood from many of the large financial institutions at least partially responsible for said economic downturn. At times it was vintage campaign-style Obama, intelligent and confident, stern, yet funny. If you believe the snap polls taken immediately afterward, 78% of viewers responded either very or somewhat positively to the positions he laid out. It is precisely that reaction which left me with a sinking feeling that has carried over to and amplified this week with the release of the White House’s 2010 budget plan.
Last week, the President did exactly what he needed to do politically - give the people what they want. The people wanted to hear about jobs, that he would do something to create jobs. So he told them he would do something to create jobs. The people wanted to hear something about the deficit, that he would take steps to reduce it. So he told them he would do something about the deficit. The people wanted to hear some feel-good mumbo jumbo about the indomitable American spirit, about how Americans never give up and never give in. So he told them that Americans never give up and never give in. The people wanted bumper sticker politics. So he gave them bumper sticker politics. He gave us what we wanted because we had already rejected what we needed.
He tried. I give him credit for that. He gave us the benefit of the doubt. He tried something his predecessor never once did, he treated us like adults. He spoke in complete sentences, with correct pronunciation, using multi-syllable words. He attempted to explain complex issues like financial regulation, healthcare reform and foreign policy in paragraphs, instead of phrases, expecting we would be able to grasp facts, dissect concepts and reject fabrications like “death panels.” He thought that by telling us what we needed to hear - that we need to fundamentally change the way we think about some of the issues in the this country - that we would lend a little time and a little support toward implementing solutions. He was wrong.
Should he have seen it coming? Maybe. He probably should have known that Washington DC is no place for thoughtful, intelligent discussion of issues, and certainly not for actually solving problems. He probably should have know that solving a problem only eliminates using it as an election issue against one’s opponent, and therefore grandstanding against change is always more profitable than actually embracing it. He probably should have known that Congress is no longer a place where ANYONE places the good of the nation above a campaign contribution, and by extension, re-election. But if he didn’t know those things before, he knows them now. And knowing what he now knows, I hope he won’t make those errors again. In recent days, President Obama seems to have slipped back into campaign mode, making stops in cities across the country touting jobs legislation and deficit reduction. People seem to like it. And why not. Campaigning has always been the feel-good, fun part of politics. It’s governing that’s the hard part.
While gushing over the State of the Union address in his post speech commentary, MSNBC analyst Chris Matthews made the following statement: “...I almost forgot he was black for an hour.” What. On earth. Does that even mean. You know what though, that’s okay. For a couple months, I even forgot that Chris Matthews was a MORON.
If you still need proof that the name of the Congressional Republican game is obstruction, look no further than the reaction to President Obama’s 2010 budget proposal. It was to be expected that the opposition would claim the hundreds of billions in spending cuts scheduled to take effect in August of this year are too small, the temporary increases in spending for job creation and education are too large, and that the real solution to solving a budget crisis is to cut taxes and eliminate the federal government. The truly telling part of the cacophony surrounding the budget is the fact that Republicans are objecting to budget cuts and shooting down idea they themselves have proposed. Last Friday, the establishment of a bipartisan commission with the power to make deficit reduction recommendations and have them voted on - an idea proposed by numerous Republican senators on numerous occasions - went down to defeat in the Senate, garnering only one Republican vote. This afternoon Republicans vowed to vote against billions of dollars in cuts to farm subsidies and and hundreds of millions in cuts to things like NASA’s moon mission, something many of them laughed at when President Bush proposed it near the end of his second term. Apparently, while Americans should have no right to meaningful healthcare reform, they sure as hell should be forced to pay farmers to grow crops nobody wants and fund missions to outer space, so long as those things are based in Republican districts.
I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Toyota has recalled more than two million vehicles and stopped selling 10 of its 16 models to repair accelerator pedals that could become stuck and cause the cars to lurch out of control. There has been quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the company acted quickly enough in recognizing a problem and bringing the vehicles in for servicing. Reports indicate that over the course of ten years, 19 people were killed in accidents where unexpected acceleration occurred. About two accidents per year. Considering all the accidents that take place each year and their myriad causes, it’s difficult to say if that should have been recognized by company officials as a design flaw earlier on. A fix for the problem has been developed and parts are being shipped to dealers to begin repairs this week. The company claims that the manufacturing freeze alone is costing them $200 million a week in the United States alone, and the process of rebuilding customer trust will be an arduous one. The big winners in this debacle are the domestic manufactures. Ford (which turned its first profit since 2005 last quarter) and GM dealers have been offering customers discounts on new models if they trade in a recalled Toyota product, and with most of Toyota’s products off the market for three to four weeks, customers are more likely to look in another direction. If you’re General Motors or Chrysler, sometimes it’s better to be lucky.
I am a regular viewer of the Maury Povich Show. That’s okay, laugh it all out now. It’s on when I come home for lunch and its good for a laugh while microwaving my macaroni and cheese. Anyway, there is something you pick up on after watching for a few segments. Most of the time, when a man says, “there’s no way I could be that baby’s father,” what he really means is, “there’s no way I want to be that baby’s father!” The only way they couldn’t possibly be the baby’s father, is if they never actually slept withe the mother, which none of them ever deny. Therefore, “cannot” becomes a euphemism for “don’t want to.” Today on Capitol Hill, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate that it is his believe that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals should be abolished. That is a bold statement for anyone in uniform to make. A statement not enough people in - and out - of uniform have made / are making. I am usually the last person to draw comparison between gays’ struggle for equal rights and the struggle of people of color for civil right, but in this case, the analogy is valid in the following sense. Many of the same arguments made against integrating the armed forces are being made against gays serving openly in the military. It was said that mixing black and white soldiers would be too disruptive to unit cohesion, that it was a bad idea in a time of war, that it would reduce enlistment and keep qualified (white) soldiers out of the military. Yet once the executive order to integrate was issued, it was carried out with positive results. In fact, it is an achievement military brass are still proud of today. In an interview with NPR, one Army general said the military was a shining example of the benefits of integration and the effectiveness with which it could be accomplished. When asked why the military could not then do the same with homosexuals, he replied that it simply couldn’t be done. With all due respect to the general, and the members of Congress that share his view, that’s a load of BS. The only reason it can’t be done, is because you don’t want it to be done. And that’s never a good enough reason to enforce bad policy.
No football update this week, as there was no meaningful football played. Go Saints.
Finally, inventor Douglas Hines unveiled his new $7,000 talking female sex robot at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas last month. According to Hines, “There’s a tremendous need for this type of product.” Really? Tremendous need for a $7,000 talking sex doll? I don’t know anything about Douglas Hines, but I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb in saying that perhaps if he put as much effort into relationships as he has put into his sex robot, there would not be a tremendous need for the sex robot. Perhaps it would help if we could see...
Ah, there we go. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
If you were paying attention last week, you know that biggest news story was the launch of the Apple iPad. Yes, iPad. Not to be confused with feminine hygiene product of similar name. The label aside, I, and many others, were decidedly underwhelmed. So it’s a 10-inch iPhone that doesn’t make phone calls. I’m not seeing the added value. Maybe that’s because I don’t buy books, magazines or newspapers and read them on the go. I’m just not sure it does anything not already done by something else equally as well. But, no company is better at creating a market where there isn’t one than Apple. We’ll revisit this in a year and see which of us was correct.
Last Wednesday President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I watched about half of it, during which time I think I heard the word jobs more times than there are people unemployed. So the message was pretty clear. The President wants to put Americans back to work, and he’s going to do everything he believes possible to get business hiring again. This means tax cuts for companies that hire new workers of increase salaries, funneling returned TARP money to smaller local banks to spur small business lending, making it less expensive to go to college, and billions of dollars to increase the quality of education. At the same time, President Obama signaled he wants to begin reigning in the budget deficit created during the course of managing the recession. To accomplish that he proposed a three year freeze on all discretionary, non-defense spending, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for all households earning over $250,000 per year and extracting more blood from many of the large financial institutions at least partially responsible for said economic downturn. At times it was vintage campaign-style Obama, intelligent and confident, stern, yet funny. If you believe the snap polls taken immediately afterward, 78% of viewers responded either very or somewhat positively to the positions he laid out. It is precisely that reaction which left me with a sinking feeling that has carried over to and amplified this week with the release of the White House’s 2010 budget plan.
Last week, the President did exactly what he needed to do politically - give the people what they want. The people wanted to hear about jobs, that he would do something to create jobs. So he told them he would do something to create jobs. The people wanted to hear something about the deficit, that he would take steps to reduce it. So he told them he would do something about the deficit. The people wanted to hear some feel-good mumbo jumbo about the indomitable American spirit, about how Americans never give up and never give in. So he told them that Americans never give up and never give in. The people wanted bumper sticker politics. So he gave them bumper sticker politics. He gave us what we wanted because we had already rejected what we needed.
He tried. I give him credit for that. He gave us the benefit of the doubt. He tried something his predecessor never once did, he treated us like adults. He spoke in complete sentences, with correct pronunciation, using multi-syllable words. He attempted to explain complex issues like financial regulation, healthcare reform and foreign policy in paragraphs, instead of phrases, expecting we would be able to grasp facts, dissect concepts and reject fabrications like “death panels.” He thought that by telling us what we needed to hear - that we need to fundamentally change the way we think about some of the issues in the this country - that we would lend a little time and a little support toward implementing solutions. He was wrong.
Should he have seen it coming? Maybe. He probably should have known that Washington DC is no place for thoughtful, intelligent discussion of issues, and certainly not for actually solving problems. He probably should have know that solving a problem only eliminates using it as an election issue against one’s opponent, and therefore grandstanding against change is always more profitable than actually embracing it. He probably should have known that Congress is no longer a place where ANYONE places the good of the nation above a campaign contribution, and by extension, re-election. But if he didn’t know those things before, he knows them now. And knowing what he now knows, I hope he won’t make those errors again. In recent days, President Obama seems to have slipped back into campaign mode, making stops in cities across the country touting jobs legislation and deficit reduction. People seem to like it. And why not. Campaigning has always been the feel-good, fun part of politics. It’s governing that’s the hard part.
While gushing over the State of the Union address in his post speech commentary, MSNBC analyst Chris Matthews made the following statement: “...I almost forgot he was black for an hour.” What. On earth. Does that even mean. You know what though, that’s okay. For a couple months, I even forgot that Chris Matthews was a MORON.
If you still need proof that the name of the Congressional Republican game is obstruction, look no further than the reaction to President Obama’s 2010 budget proposal. It was to be expected that the opposition would claim the hundreds of billions in spending cuts scheduled to take effect in August of this year are too small, the temporary increases in spending for job creation and education are too large, and that the real solution to solving a budget crisis is to cut taxes and eliminate the federal government. The truly telling part of the cacophony surrounding the budget is the fact that Republicans are objecting to budget cuts and shooting down idea they themselves have proposed. Last Friday, the establishment of a bipartisan commission with the power to make deficit reduction recommendations and have them voted on - an idea proposed by numerous Republican senators on numerous occasions - went down to defeat in the Senate, garnering only one Republican vote. This afternoon Republicans vowed to vote against billions of dollars in cuts to farm subsidies and and hundreds of millions in cuts to things like NASA’s moon mission, something many of them laughed at when President Bush proposed it near the end of his second term. Apparently, while Americans should have no right to meaningful healthcare reform, they sure as hell should be forced to pay farmers to grow crops nobody wants and fund missions to outer space, so long as those things are based in Republican districts.
I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Toyota has recalled more than two million vehicles and stopped selling 10 of its 16 models to repair accelerator pedals that could become stuck and cause the cars to lurch out of control. There has been quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the company acted quickly enough in recognizing a problem and bringing the vehicles in for servicing. Reports indicate that over the course of ten years, 19 people were killed in accidents where unexpected acceleration occurred. About two accidents per year. Considering all the accidents that take place each year and their myriad causes, it’s difficult to say if that should have been recognized by company officials as a design flaw earlier on. A fix for the problem has been developed and parts are being shipped to dealers to begin repairs this week. The company claims that the manufacturing freeze alone is costing them $200 million a week in the United States alone, and the process of rebuilding customer trust will be an arduous one. The big winners in this debacle are the domestic manufactures. Ford (which turned its first profit since 2005 last quarter) and GM dealers have been offering customers discounts on new models if they trade in a recalled Toyota product, and with most of Toyota’s products off the market for three to four weeks, customers are more likely to look in another direction. If you’re General Motors or Chrysler, sometimes it’s better to be lucky.
I am a regular viewer of the Maury Povich Show. That’s okay, laugh it all out now. It’s on when I come home for lunch and its good for a laugh while microwaving my macaroni and cheese. Anyway, there is something you pick up on after watching for a few segments. Most of the time, when a man says, “there’s no way I could be that baby’s father,” what he really means is, “there’s no way I want to be that baby’s father!” The only way they couldn’t possibly be the baby’s father, is if they never actually slept withe the mother, which none of them ever deny. Therefore, “cannot” becomes a euphemism for “don’t want to.” Today on Capitol Hill, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate that it is his believe that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals should be abolished. That is a bold statement for anyone in uniform to make. A statement not enough people in - and out - of uniform have made / are making. I am usually the last person to draw comparison between gays’ struggle for equal rights and the struggle of people of color for civil right, but in this case, the analogy is valid in the following sense. Many of the same arguments made against integrating the armed forces are being made against gays serving openly in the military. It was said that mixing black and white soldiers would be too disruptive to unit cohesion, that it was a bad idea in a time of war, that it would reduce enlistment and keep qualified (white) soldiers out of the military. Yet once the executive order to integrate was issued, it was carried out with positive results. In fact, it is an achievement military brass are still proud of today. In an interview with NPR, one Army general said the military was a shining example of the benefits of integration and the effectiveness with which it could be accomplished. When asked why the military could not then do the same with homosexuals, he replied that it simply couldn’t be done. With all due respect to the general, and the members of Congress that share his view, that’s a load of BS. The only reason it can’t be done, is because you don’t want it to be done. And that’s never a good enough reason to enforce bad policy.
No football update this week, as there was no meaningful football played. Go Saints.
Finally, inventor Douglas Hines unveiled his new $7,000 talking female sex robot at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas last month. According to Hines, “There’s a tremendous need for this type of product.” Really? Tremendous need for a $7,000 talking sex doll? I don’t know anything about Douglas Hines, but I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb in saying that perhaps if he put as much effort into relationships as he has put into his sex robot, there would not be a tremendous need for the sex robot. Perhaps it would help if we could see...
Ah, there we go. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
