First Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi praised Obama in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly yesterday. Then Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lauds Obama in an address to the same body today.
"We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president," Qaddafi said, after referring to Obama as "my son." He continued, "Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I'm afraid we may go back to square one.
"Can the U.S. guarantee after Obama that they'll be a government? We're happy and content if he can stay forever," said the Libyan dictator.
Chavez also was effusive in his feelings for the new American president. "It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore," Chavez said, referencing an attack he had made on former President George W. Bush in a speech there three years ago. "It smells of something else. It smells of hope."
I can see the reelection campaign developing already. Alongside the iconic "Hope" t-shirts, there'll be "Forever" ones. Obama, the dictators' choice.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Hypocrisy -- Brought to you by the great state of Massachusetts
When Democratic Senator John Kerry ran for president in 2004, the Massachusetts legislature, worried that then-Republican Governor Mitt Romney would be able to appoint his interim successor, stripped the power of appointment from the governor. It passed a law prohibiting the governor of the state from filing vacated senate seats, instead providing for a special election.
But now that there is a Democratic governor in the state, the legislature has decided that perhaps they were wrong five years ago. Now, it is of the utmost importance that Massachusetts have its full number of representatives in the Senate. Now, they trust the governor to fill a vacant seat. Now, the voice of the people is not their biggest concern.
If a Republican-led legislature had done the same thing, would the media be this quiet about it? Is this not the most blatant example of hypocrisy by those supposedly elected to serve all the people of their state?
"The Democrats' power play in Massachusetts has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics. With their unpopular government-run health care bill on the brink of failure, Democrats in Washington desperately need another vote in the U.S. Senate, and it is clear that this administration will stop at nothing to ram it through the Congress," said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in a written statement.
But the power play here is not all on the shoulders of the legislature, because even it had exercised a modicum of restraint. The real villain here is the governor, Deval Patrick. The Massachusetts legislature approved the bill permitting the governor to name a successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. But the legislature did not include a provision in the bill to have it take effect immediately. Instead, like any other bill, it came with a 90-day waiting period before it could come into effect.
So the governor has taken it upon himself to override the part of the law. Gov. Patrick said yesterday that he would send a letter to the secretary of state to declare an emergency that would allow him to make the bill take effect immediately. He has already named a replacement, Paul Kirk, a longtime aide to the late Senator.
An emergency? The idea that the Democrats may not be able to ram a health care bill down the throats of America without having to hear, consider or – heaven forbid – include input from the minority party. That’s their idea of an emergency.
So where is the outrage? Besides, Fox News Channel and the right-wing radio shows, that is. Why is the rest of the media not as offended by this as the Republicans are? This should not be a partisan issue – it should be about fairness. The Democrats in Massachusetts stripped their elected Republican governor from being allowed to fill a vacant seat, then gave that right to their Democratic governor just a few years later. And then that governor went a step further, declaring an emergency to give him the right to act immediately – for the sole purpose of pushing through legislation in the Senate that the public is split on.
The governor of Massachusetts is allowed to unilaterally announce an emergency to give himself this extreme power and what is the disaster he is seeking to avert? Debate on the issue of health care. Compromise in the Senate. Or, worse, the prospect that President Obama won’t get what he wants.
Sadly, in the new Obama era, that does qualify as an emergency.
But now that there is a Democratic governor in the state, the legislature has decided that perhaps they were wrong five years ago. Now, it is of the utmost importance that Massachusetts have its full number of representatives in the Senate. Now, they trust the governor to fill a vacant seat. Now, the voice of the people is not their biggest concern.
If a Republican-led legislature had done the same thing, would the media be this quiet about it? Is this not the most blatant example of hypocrisy by those supposedly elected to serve all the people of their state?
"The Democrats' power play in Massachusetts has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics. With their unpopular government-run health care bill on the brink of failure, Democrats in Washington desperately need another vote in the U.S. Senate, and it is clear that this administration will stop at nothing to ram it through the Congress," said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in a written statement.
But the power play here is not all on the shoulders of the legislature, because even it had exercised a modicum of restraint. The real villain here is the governor, Deval Patrick. The Massachusetts legislature approved the bill permitting the governor to name a successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. But the legislature did not include a provision in the bill to have it take effect immediately. Instead, like any other bill, it came with a 90-day waiting period before it could come into effect.
So the governor has taken it upon himself to override the part of the law. Gov. Patrick said yesterday that he would send a letter to the secretary of state to declare an emergency that would allow him to make the bill take effect immediately. He has already named a replacement, Paul Kirk, a longtime aide to the late Senator.
An emergency? The idea that the Democrats may not be able to ram a health care bill down the throats of America without having to hear, consider or – heaven forbid – include input from the minority party. That’s their idea of an emergency.
So where is the outrage? Besides, Fox News Channel and the right-wing radio shows, that is. Why is the rest of the media not as offended by this as the Republicans are? This should not be a partisan issue – it should be about fairness. The Democrats in Massachusetts stripped their elected Republican governor from being allowed to fill a vacant seat, then gave that right to their Democratic governor just a few years later. And then that governor went a step further, declaring an emergency to give him the right to act immediately – for the sole purpose of pushing through legislation in the Senate that the public is split on.
The governor of Massachusetts is allowed to unilaterally announce an emergency to give himself this extreme power and what is the disaster he is seeking to avert? Debate on the issue of health care. Compromise in the Senate. Or, worse, the prospect that President Obama won’t get what he wants.
Sadly, in the new Obama era, that does qualify as an emergency.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama's UN Speech: Four Pillars towards One World?
President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly today in a speech that was apologetic and toothless, signaling his intention that the United States should occupy the seat in the back of the world's bus. The speech was shocking both for how little respect and authority it gave to America's role on the world stage and for how well it has been received by most of the media.
Alternately prostrate and self-flagellating, Obama took aim at and distanced himself from the policies of the past. But not just those of George W. Bush, but of all presidents with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. He identified this change of direction right at the outset, indicating that his America is “determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.“ Note the word “collectively.” That means not acting on our own, independently, for the best interest of the United States. No, his new world order has our Commander in Chief addressing the world’s issues as if he were a representative of all the people on the globe and not our republic.
He then raised the issue of how the rest of the world views us, as if it had any relevance at all. I doubt he would tell his daughters that their behavior should be tied to how others will perceive them, as opposed to teaching them rules of proper and ethical conduct that they should follow regardless of how that is viewed by others.
He blamed the fact that “many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust” in part on the belief that ”America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.” But for whom else should we act? It should be the primary responsibility of the President and Congress to do that which is best for America – with or without the support of other countries. He even paid lip service to this idea, stating “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interests of my nation and my people. And I will never apologize for defending those interests.” But then he goes on to do just that, apologize for our so-called unilateral actions.
The President, however, ignores the fact that, when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan for example, we did reach out to other countries, even though we had no obligation to do so, and were able to get some to join us in our fight against extremist organizations. We brought our concerns to the United Nations and sought participation in our efforts to root out Al Qaeda from all of our allies.
I will not ramp up hysteria by noting that Obama used the word “pillar,” stating that he was setting forth “four pillars” that our fundamental to our future. That wording stood out to me because the Five Pillars are the foundation for the Muslim religion. It is an interesting that he chose that specific word and possibly reflects another attempt by Obama to signal some special kinship with the Muslim world?
There is one part of the President’s speech with which I agree. At the outset he said, “I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer.” Indeed.
Alternately prostrate and self-flagellating, Obama took aim at and distanced himself from the policies of the past. But not just those of George W. Bush, but of all presidents with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. He identified this change of direction right at the outset, indicating that his America is “determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.“ Note the word “collectively.” That means not acting on our own, independently, for the best interest of the United States. No, his new world order has our Commander in Chief addressing the world’s issues as if he were a representative of all the people on the globe and not our republic.
He then raised the issue of how the rest of the world views us, as if it had any relevance at all. I doubt he would tell his daughters that their behavior should be tied to how others will perceive them, as opposed to teaching them rules of proper and ethical conduct that they should follow regardless of how that is viewed by others.
He blamed the fact that “many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust” in part on the belief that ”America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.” But for whom else should we act? It should be the primary responsibility of the President and Congress to do that which is best for America – with or without the support of other countries. He even paid lip service to this idea, stating “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interests of my nation and my people. And I will never apologize for defending those interests.” But then he goes on to do just that, apologize for our so-called unilateral actions.
The President, however, ignores the fact that, when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan for example, we did reach out to other countries, even though we had no obligation to do so, and were able to get some to join us in our fight against extremist organizations. We brought our concerns to the United Nations and sought participation in our efforts to root out Al Qaeda from all of our allies.
I will not ramp up hysteria by noting that Obama used the word “pillar,” stating that he was setting forth “four pillars” that our fundamental to our future. That wording stood out to me because the Five Pillars are the foundation for the Muslim religion. It is an interesting that he chose that specific word and possibly reflects another attempt by Obama to signal some special kinship with the Muslim world?
There is one part of the President’s speech with which I agree. At the outset he said, “I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer.” Indeed.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Happy Beatles Day!
With the launch of The Beatles Rock Band, as well as the release of remastered Beatles music, I thought I'd take a break from the usual blog fodder for a countdown of my personal favorite Beatles' songs.
"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup." So begins Across the Universe, a beautiful and hauntingly poetic song written by John Lennon in the late 60's. There is no question that Lennon had a gift with words, but here he paired his lyric imagery with a melody that was both hypnotic and seductive.
There is probably no song that has affected me more than A Day in the Life. This time Lennon's lyrics are straight forward as he tells three separate stories. He seems to be reaching his hand out through the speakers, to take you to a new place where you would see and feel things you'd never experienced before. Brilliantly broken up by a change in tempo and tone with Paul McCartney's brief interlude, the song builds musically to a literal crescendo (created by playing an orchestra's warm-up backwards).
For No One was written by McCartney, but no reason to hold that against a song with a musical hook that still gets me forty years later. First released on one of my favorite Beatles' albums, Revolver, the song is a gem. The descending notes of the clavichord, the French horn solo, the sweet, unadulterated sound of Paul's voice, combines for a sad, beautiful song.
Beginning with the most memorable starting chord in all of music, how can you not love A Hard Day's Night? Putting aside the lyric simplicity (rhyming dog and log was not one of Lennon's crowning achievements), the song nevertheless epitomizes the excitement, energy and vibrancy of the Beatles. It's fast-paced, easily memorable, and a true collaboration (unlike most Lennon/McCartney songs, this one really was written with the help of both). Just the sound of Lennon's voice moaning "ahhh" before repeating the title is enough to make this a favorite. But the story of the title's derivation -- coming from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms -- makes the song even more endearing. And enduring.
Another song that is also the title of a Beatles' movie, Help! also deserves inclusion on this list. The vocal overdubbing created a layered and intense sound that gave more intensity to the desperate lyrics. "And now my life has changed in oh so many ways," was probably the understatement of the year. And to have the ultimate supergroup convey feelings the rest of us ordinary folk felt (echoing insecurity and doubt) was both liberating and disconcerting.
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I like I Will. It's a sweet, sappy love song, written by McCartney for Linda. But unlike his truly awful Silly Love Songs written post-Beatles, this is actually a wonderful, pure admission of devotion. Who wouldn't want a song like that to be written for them? Lennon wrote a similarly "madly in love" song for Yoko years later, Oh Yoko, which I'd include as a favorite were it not a solo effort. And I'll give a nod to George Harrison for his similarly themed, Byrds-esque If I Needed Someone.
"There are places I remember, all my life though some have changed." In My Life. Is there another song that both grabs you by the throat and touches your heart as much as this song? It is a reminiscence, it is a love song, it is a plaint, it is a celebration. It is Lennon laid bare.
George Harrison's guitar introduces an urgently paced, buoyant I've Just Seen a Face. Falling? Yes, Paul, we were falling every time we heard your happy, heavily-Liverpudlian-accented voice go almost country as you professed your love.
By contrast, Julia is almost a dirge. A love song to his dead mother, Lennon again did what he did best -- open up his heart and lay it all out for us. There appeared to be no filter, no need to hide or hedge when he wrote a song. He put what he felt out there, this time in a strange mix of lullaby and prayer.
In Let it Be, McCartney sings of his own departed mother, "mother Mary," whose lasting influence is to help strengthen him in "times of trouble." The piano introduction is almost hymnal in tone and the song, with its angelic backing vocals and gentle melody, seems somehow sacred. Then the electric guitar and drums come in and shakes things up. This is no old-time gospel music, this is something else.
Lennon oozed sex in Norwegian Wood. Released on the album Rubber Soul, Lennon starts out naughtily :"I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me?" Introducing the sitar to Western ears, the song was unlike anything being heard in 1965. And the band, who had started out with innocent songs like the virginal I Want to Hold Your Hand, was now opening up a whole new direction. Lennon's voice was full of wry sensuality and his lyrics admitted to multiple indiscretions. The Beatles were definitely moving in a new direction.
You've Got to Hide Your Love Away has my favorite Lennon vocal. Pained, angry, demoralized, he sums up all the feelings of a failed relationship even down to the resigned, sardonic laugh at his own misfortune.
These are just a few of the songs that I will never tire of and it's nice to have an excuse to celebrate them.
"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup." So begins Across the Universe, a beautiful and hauntingly poetic song written by John Lennon in the late 60's. There is no question that Lennon had a gift with words, but here he paired his lyric imagery with a melody that was both hypnotic and seductive.
There is probably no song that has affected me more than A Day in the Life. This time Lennon's lyrics are straight forward as he tells three separate stories. He seems to be reaching his hand out through the speakers, to take you to a new place where you would see and feel things you'd never experienced before. Brilliantly broken up by a change in tempo and tone with Paul McCartney's brief interlude, the song builds musically to a literal crescendo (created by playing an orchestra's warm-up backwards).
For No One was written by McCartney, but no reason to hold that against a song with a musical hook that still gets me forty years later. First released on one of my favorite Beatles' albums, Revolver, the song is a gem. The descending notes of the clavichord, the French horn solo, the sweet, unadulterated sound of Paul's voice, combines for a sad, beautiful song.
Beginning with the most memorable starting chord in all of music, how can you not love A Hard Day's Night? Putting aside the lyric simplicity (rhyming dog and log was not one of Lennon's crowning achievements), the song nevertheless epitomizes the excitement, energy and vibrancy of the Beatles. It's fast-paced, easily memorable, and a true collaboration (unlike most Lennon/McCartney songs, this one really was written with the help of both). Just the sound of Lennon's voice moaning "ahhh" before repeating the title is enough to make this a favorite. But the story of the title's derivation -- coming from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms -- makes the song even more endearing. And enduring.
Another song that is also the title of a Beatles' movie, Help! also deserves inclusion on this list. The vocal overdubbing created a layered and intense sound that gave more intensity to the desperate lyrics. "And now my life has changed in oh so many ways," was probably the understatement of the year. And to have the ultimate supergroup convey feelings the rest of us ordinary folk felt (echoing insecurity and doubt) was both liberating and disconcerting.
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I like I Will. It's a sweet, sappy love song, written by McCartney for Linda. But unlike his truly awful Silly Love Songs written post-Beatles, this is actually a wonderful, pure admission of devotion. Who wouldn't want a song like that to be written for them? Lennon wrote a similarly "madly in love" song for Yoko years later, Oh Yoko, which I'd include as a favorite were it not a solo effort. And I'll give a nod to George Harrison for his similarly themed, Byrds-esque If I Needed Someone.
"There are places I remember, all my life though some have changed." In My Life. Is there another song that both grabs you by the throat and touches your heart as much as this song? It is a reminiscence, it is a love song, it is a plaint, it is a celebration. It is Lennon laid bare.
George Harrison's guitar introduces an urgently paced, buoyant I've Just Seen a Face. Falling? Yes, Paul, we were falling every time we heard your happy, heavily-Liverpudlian-accented voice go almost country as you professed your love.
By contrast, Julia is almost a dirge. A love song to his dead mother, Lennon again did what he did best -- open up his heart and lay it all out for us. There appeared to be no filter, no need to hide or hedge when he wrote a song. He put what he felt out there, this time in a strange mix of lullaby and prayer.
In Let it Be, McCartney sings of his own departed mother, "mother Mary," whose lasting influence is to help strengthen him in "times of trouble." The piano introduction is almost hymnal in tone and the song, with its angelic backing vocals and gentle melody, seems somehow sacred. Then the electric guitar and drums come in and shakes things up. This is no old-time gospel music, this is something else.
Lennon oozed sex in Norwegian Wood. Released on the album Rubber Soul, Lennon starts out naughtily :"I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me?" Introducing the sitar to Western ears, the song was unlike anything being heard in 1965. And the band, who had started out with innocent songs like the virginal I Want to Hold Your Hand, was now opening up a whole new direction. Lennon's voice was full of wry sensuality and his lyrics admitted to multiple indiscretions. The Beatles were definitely moving in a new direction.
You've Got to Hide Your Love Away has my favorite Lennon vocal. Pained, angry, demoralized, he sums up all the feelings of a failed relationship even down to the resigned, sardonic laugh at his own misfortune.
These are just a few of the songs that I will never tire of and it's nice to have an excuse to celebrate them.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
When Remembering Kennedy Don't Forget Mary Jo
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
There is no other way to start a discussion on the death of Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. He is being hailed throughout the media as the "liberal lion" of the Senate, somehow confusing the loud Bostonian accent and thick mane of hair for regal bearing.
Ted Kennedy lived the last forty years of his life running away from the first thirty-seven. I'm not sure if the scant years on the "good" side of the scale make up for the bad. Not when that includes his responsibility for the death of a young woman who made the mistake of trusting him to give her a ride.
The Boston Phoenix is keeping track of where Chappaquiddick is mentioned in the Kennedy obits.
For those keeping score at home: the Globe put it in the fifth paragraph, the Herald in the tenth. Which isn't that odd, given the considerable attention paid to the fatal accident in the Globe's recent Ted Kennedy bio, and the Herald's recent love affair with Kennedy.
Chappaquiddick will be discussed here, in the fourth paragraph. It is the name of a small island where Kennedy attended a party with a group including six girls who had worked on his brother Bobby's campaign. Kennedy left the party with Mary Jo Kopechne after offering to drive her to the ferry. He took a wrong turn, the car went over Dike Bridge and ended upside down in a channel. Kennedy was able to get out of the car, but Mary Jo was not so lucky.
He walked past four houses until reaching the house where the party was held and grabbed two male friends to accompany him back to the channel where efforts to save Mary Jo were restarted, to no avail. The rest of the party-goers were not informed of the accident. After the men were unsuccessful in trying to rescue Mary Jo, they drove Kennedy to take the ferry to his hotel where his sleep was interrupted by some noisy guests -- according to a complaint he made to the hotel staff.
By 8 o'clock the next morning, Kennedy (who took the time to complain to the front desk about noisy neighbors) still had not reported the accident to authorities. A half hour later, a fisherman spotted the overturned car and went to the neighboring house to alert them -- they called the police.
John Farrar, the diver who eventually discovered Mary Jo's body in the car, testified at the coroner's inquest that Mary Jo did not drown but, rather, suffocated. He stated that when he found her the next morning, she was pressed up with her head against what may have been an air pocket. He testified that had rescuers been notified of the accident within a half hour, she likely could have been saved.
We know the rest of the story. Kennedy received the statutory minimum, a two month sentence -- suspended -- for leaving the scene of an accident causing injury. His driver's license was suspended for six months. He paid some money to the Kopechnes, but not much as they did not want to appear to be taking blood money.
Kennedy lived out the rest of his life in the public spotlight and will be laid to rest in Arlington as a national hero, but what did he do that was so heroic? He didn't serve in the war (he was stationed in Europe during the Korean War and would have been on academic deferment had he not been expelled from Harvard for cheating). And his "service" to his country was the luxury of having one of the guaranteed seats in the Senate -- being a Democrat in Massachusetts, a state so in love with the Kennedys he was reelected with 62% of the vote after Mary Jo's death.
As the media remembers Kennedy, let us remember the entire story of this politician. It includes a young woman left to die forty years ago this past July, in a car on the island of Chappaquiddick.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Boycott Scotland
This year marks the “Year of Homecoming” in Scotland, a program designed to attract those of Scottish descent to visit their ancestor’s homeland. The vast majority of those they are hoping to attract come from the United States. With the recent release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the Libyan terrorist convicted for the Lockerbie bombing that took the lives of 270 people including 189 Americans, it is time to rethink our support of Scotland’s tourism and economy.
The U.S. has been good for Scottish tourism in general, accounting for about 260 million pounds a year in revenues from American tourists. The U.S. is the source of the greatest number of overseas tourists to Scotland, making up 24% of tourists from outside the British Isles. Ironically, it was a plane full of tourists returning home from Great Britain to the U.S. that was brought down by al-Megrahi and his fellow Libyan terrorists.
It was devastating enough for the families of Pan Am Flight 103 victims to see the hero’s welcome that greeted Megrahi upon his return to Libya. But then they learned that the release was a crucial part of ongoing oil and gas deal negotiations between Scotland and Libya. A convicted mass murderer was released to freedom and cheers in order that government could negotiate the best energy deal from Libya.
The website BoycottScotland.com is calling for a tourist boycott of Scotland as well as a boycott of Scottish products. A boycott is the only way to demonstrate opposition to the Scottish government's action. Since their decision was motivated by purely economic interests -- without considering its emotional impact -- it is only fitting that we respond in kind. They wanted to get a better deal from Libya? It'll cost them in money from the U.S. It's that simple.
The boycott Scotland movement is already having an impact. According to Bloomberg, "Visit Scotland, the government-funded agency promoting tourism, received e-mails from Americans saying they plan to cancel holidays and staff have been preparing for a backlash after the release of al-Megrahi, spokeswoman Alison Robb said."
Is this locking the barn door after the horse escaped? Well, yes, to some extent. Obviously, nothing done now can change what happened. But that doesn't mean you do nothing. Joining the boycott movement is a way to take a stand. It doesn't take much effort -- buy domestic whisky instead of Scottish, travel to Dublin instead of Glasgow.
The Scottish government displayed callous insensitivity to the memory of those who died and those their loved ones, in approving the release. What makes their decision even worse is the fact that it was spurred not by “compassion” for the dying terrorist but by purely economic interests.
To quote everyone's favorite whipping boy, George Bush, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Right now, Scotland made a very unfortunate alliance. If they're not with us, we shoudn't be with them.
The U.S. has been good for Scottish tourism in general, accounting for about 260 million pounds a year in revenues from American tourists. The U.S. is the source of the greatest number of overseas tourists to Scotland, making up 24% of tourists from outside the British Isles. Ironically, it was a plane full of tourists returning home from Great Britain to the U.S. that was brought down by al-Megrahi and his fellow Libyan terrorists.
It was devastating enough for the families of Pan Am Flight 103 victims to see the hero’s welcome that greeted Megrahi upon his return to Libya. But then they learned that the release was a crucial part of ongoing oil and gas deal negotiations between Scotland and Libya. A convicted mass murderer was released to freedom and cheers in order that government could negotiate the best energy deal from Libya.
The website BoycottScotland.com is calling for a tourist boycott of Scotland as well as a boycott of Scottish products. A boycott is the only way to demonstrate opposition to the Scottish government's action. Since their decision was motivated by purely economic interests -- without considering its emotional impact -- it is only fitting that we respond in kind. They wanted to get a better deal from Libya? It'll cost them in money from the U.S. It's that simple.
The boycott Scotland movement is already having an impact. According to Bloomberg, "Visit Scotland, the government-funded agency promoting tourism, received e-mails from Americans saying they plan to cancel holidays and staff have been preparing for a backlash after the release of al-Megrahi, spokeswoman Alison Robb said."
Is this locking the barn door after the horse escaped? Well, yes, to some extent. Obviously, nothing done now can change what happened. But that doesn't mean you do nothing. Joining the boycott movement is a way to take a stand. It doesn't take much effort -- buy domestic whisky instead of Scottish, travel to Dublin instead of Glasgow.
The Scottish government displayed callous insensitivity to the memory of those who died and those their loved ones, in approving the release. What makes their decision even worse is the fact that it was spurred not by “compassion” for the dying terrorist but by purely economic interests.
To quote everyone's favorite whipping boy, George Bush, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Right now, Scotland made a very unfortunate alliance. If they're not with us, we shoudn't be with them.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Israelis Not Feeling the Love from Obama
In a recently released poll that should surprise no one, just 12 percent of Israelis believe President Barack Obama's policies are supportive of Israel. The poll, conducted jointly by the Palestinian Center for Police and Survey Research and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was conducted earlier this month but released yesterday.
Of course, everyone’s perspective is clouded by their own personal beliefs and it should also come as no surprise that the poll found Israelis and Palestinians view the President somewhat differently. Indeed, while 40 percent of Israelis believe Obama’s policies are instead supportive of the Palestinians, 64 percent of Palestinians feel Obama's policies support Israel.
But reading between the lines, it is a stunning turnaround for an American president to be viewed as anything but overwhelmingly pro-Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and our strongest ally in the region. The fact that a sizeable percent of the Palestinians do not find the U.S. President’s policies as pro-Israel is quite stunning evidence that things have changed in US-Middle East policies.
Many in the pro-Israel community allowed themselves to be comforted by the presence of Rahm Emanuel in the Obama White House. With his ties to Israel, it seemed that Israel would have a supportive voice in the president’s ear. Instead, it now looks as if Emanuel is window dressing, a symbol without any meaning behind it.
Obama has been quite clear in where he stands on Israel – and it is not by her side. As Allen Dershowitz wrote last week, “Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch.” The Obama administration has been particularly week in two areas: its apporach to Iran and its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its apparent softening on negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas.
A nuclear-armed Iran would be one of the greatest threats to Israel’s security. In the past, the Obama administration had suggested linking effort to negotiate an end to their nuclear program to discussions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nothing should be a precursor to efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – we cannot be weak on that issue.
Similarly the Obama administration’s counterterrorism expert, John Brennan, has recently suggested we engage in negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas, stating that within these organizations are non-terrorist factions with which we can talk. Brennan said, of Hezbollah, in an interview on TheNation.com:
He went on to say that Hamas was, also, an organization with both terrorist and political dimensions to them. What a careful way to dance around Hamas’ true nature and intentions.
It is pretty clear why Israelis would fear a lessening in support for their country from its heretofor biggest supporter. This is a dangerous direction for us to go in. If our friends cannot count on our support, can we count on having any friends in the future?
Of course, everyone’s perspective is clouded by their own personal beliefs and it should also come as no surprise that the poll found Israelis and Palestinians view the President somewhat differently. Indeed, while 40 percent of Israelis believe Obama’s policies are instead supportive of the Palestinians, 64 percent of Palestinians feel Obama's policies support Israel.
But reading between the lines, it is a stunning turnaround for an American president to be viewed as anything but overwhelmingly pro-Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and our strongest ally in the region. The fact that a sizeable percent of the Palestinians do not find the U.S. President’s policies as pro-Israel is quite stunning evidence that things have changed in US-Middle East policies.
Many in the pro-Israel community allowed themselves to be comforted by the presence of Rahm Emanuel in the Obama White House. With his ties to Israel, it seemed that Israel would have a supportive voice in the president’s ear. Instead, it now looks as if Emanuel is window dressing, a symbol without any meaning behind it.
Obama has been quite clear in where he stands on Israel – and it is not by her side. As Allen Dershowitz wrote last week, “Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch.” The Obama administration has been particularly week in two areas: its apporach to Iran and its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its apparent softening on negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas.
A nuclear-armed Iran would be one of the greatest threats to Israel’s security. In the past, the Obama administration had suggested linking effort to negotiate an end to their nuclear program to discussions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nothing should be a precursor to efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – we cannot be weak on that issue.
Similarly the Obama administration’s counterterrorism expert, John Brennan, has recently suggested we engage in negotiations with Hezbollah and Hamas, stating that within these organizations are non-terrorist factions with which we can talk. Brennan said, of Hezbollah, in an interview on TheNation.com:
“Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
“However, within Hezbollah, there’s still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large – they’re going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they’re trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.”
He went on to say that Hamas was, also, an organization with both terrorist and political dimensions to them. What a careful way to dance around Hamas’ true nature and intentions.
It is pretty clear why Israelis would fear a lessening in support for their country from its heretofor biggest supporter. This is a dangerous direction for us to go in. If our friends cannot count on our support, can we count on having any friends in the future?
Ted Kennedy's 180
Back in 2004, when John Kerry was running for president, his fellow Senator, Ted Kennedy, was concerned that under Massachusetts law Republican Governor Mitt Romney would be the one to fill the vacancy should Kerry win. Kennedy successfully lobbied the state legislature to change the law and take the power of the appointment out of the Republican governor's hands. Instead, the bill required a special election to fill the seat, while making no provision of a temporary appointee in the interim.
Flash forward to today as Kennedy confronts not only his own mortality, but what it would mean for his Senate seat. Senator Kennedy has had a sudden change of heart about the law he worked so hard to pass. Now he wants the law changed back again, to give the power of the make the appointment back to the governor -- who now just happens to be a Democrat.
Why the sudden flip-flop? With the President's health "reform" bill needing every one of the sixty Democratic votes in the Senate, the loss of that one seat would be disastrous for the bill's future. So, suddenly the arguments used back in 2004 no longer apply. Kennedy is no longer worried about the voters being represented by an un-elected appointee of the governor's choosing. At least not when the governor is of his political party.
It is ironic that Kennedy himself was a one-time beneficiary of the old law. When his brother vacated his Senate seat after the 1960 presidential election, then then governor, a Democrat, appointed a former college roommate of the president's to fill the seat until Teddy was old enough to run in 1962.
Is it bad taste to call a man with a terminal illness a hypocrite? I don't think so. Because there are larger issues here about how power corrupts and how convenient it is for the powerful to try and manipulate the system to their own advantage. Kennedy will be leaving a complex enough legacy, he doesn't need to add hypocrisy to the mix.
Flash forward to today as Kennedy confronts not only his own mortality, but what it would mean for his Senate seat. Senator Kennedy has had a sudden change of heart about the law he worked so hard to pass. Now he wants the law changed back again, to give the power of the make the appointment back to the governor -- who now just happens to be a Democrat.
Why the sudden flip-flop? With the President's health "reform" bill needing every one of the sixty Democratic votes in the Senate, the loss of that one seat would be disastrous for the bill's future. So, suddenly the arguments used back in 2004 no longer apply. Kennedy is no longer worried about the voters being represented by an un-elected appointee of the governor's choosing. At least not when the governor is of his political party.
It is ironic that Kennedy himself was a one-time beneficiary of the old law. When his brother vacated his Senate seat after the 1960 presidential election, then then governor, a Democrat, appointed a former college roommate of the president's to fill the seat until Teddy was old enough to run in 1962.
Is it bad taste to call a man with a terminal illness a hypocrite? I don't think so. Because there are larger issues here about how power corrupts and how convenient it is for the powerful to try and manipulate the system to their own advantage. Kennedy will be leaving a complex enough legacy, he doesn't need to add hypocrisy to the mix.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Musings on PA jury finding poker is a game of chance
A Pennsylvania jury of seven men and five women decided last week, after just two hours of deliberation, that poker is a game of chance and not skill. In making this finding of fact, the jury found defendant Lawrence R. Burns, 65, guilty of running an illegal gambling enterprise.
Burns had admitted that he advertised and ran poker tournaments, for profit, in Westmoreland County, but his defense to illegal gambling charges was that Texas hold'em should be exempt from the definition of illegal gambling as it is a game of skill and not chance.
His defense attorney presented testimony from University of Denver Professor Robert Hannum who conducted studies that established what is obvious to those who play poker, but apparently unknown to the twelve who sat on the jury. Poker is not about the cards, but the skill of the player.
Too bad the jury didn't have the chance to watch last night's broadcast of the first day of the 2009 WSOP Main Event. They would have seen Dutch pro Lex Veldhuis put on a clinic on how to play poker skillfully, leaving nothing to chance.
In hand after hand, he bluffed his opponents off better hands. There was no show down, no chance for a miracle card on the river to change things. He read his opponents (correctly) as weak and made his move. How does chance figure into that? The outcome of every hand was his correct interpretation of the facts in front of him.
Playing the player, not your hand, is the cornerstone of the most skilled poker player. It's what separates them from the casual player who waits for good cards and then prays they hold up. For most people, especially those who don't want to feel responsible for their own lack of skill, it's easier to attribute poker losses to "bad luck." But when someone's cagey bet gets you to lay down the best hand, that's not bad luck. That's being outplayed.
I wonder if the jury's take is part of a larger problem with most people. The tendency of people to blame others for their problems. It's also what makes us so dependent on the government. We can't take care of ourselves. We have bad luck. Forces are out to interfere with our success. So we ask the government to fix everything, instead of looking inward.
That jury in Pennsylvania apparently didn't want to accept that some people are better than others at poker. They would have no trouble agreeing that practice makes you better at golf or pool (other games where wagers are often made), but since cards are involved, they assume the outcome of a poker game is all luck. If they lose, it's not their fault, it's the cards.
But, as Shakespeare wrote, "the fault...lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Burns had admitted that he advertised and ran poker tournaments, for profit, in Westmoreland County, but his defense to illegal gambling charges was that Texas hold'em should be exempt from the definition of illegal gambling as it is a game of skill and not chance.
His defense attorney presented testimony from University of Denver Professor Robert Hannum who conducted studies that established what is obvious to those who play poker, but apparently unknown to the twelve who sat on the jury. Poker is not about the cards, but the skill of the player.
Too bad the jury didn't have the chance to watch last night's broadcast of the first day of the 2009 WSOP Main Event. They would have seen Dutch pro Lex Veldhuis put on a clinic on how to play poker skillfully, leaving nothing to chance.
In hand after hand, he bluffed his opponents off better hands. There was no show down, no chance for a miracle card on the river to change things. He read his opponents (correctly) as weak and made his move. How does chance figure into that? The outcome of every hand was his correct interpretation of the facts in front of him.
Playing the player, not your hand, is the cornerstone of the most skilled poker player. It's what separates them from the casual player who waits for good cards and then prays they hold up. For most people, especially those who don't want to feel responsible for their own lack of skill, it's easier to attribute poker losses to "bad luck." But when someone's cagey bet gets you to lay down the best hand, that's not bad luck. That's being outplayed.
I wonder if the jury's take is part of a larger problem with most people. The tendency of people to blame others for their problems. It's also what makes us so dependent on the government. We can't take care of ourselves. We have bad luck. Forces are out to interfere with our success. So we ask the government to fix everything, instead of looking inward.
That jury in Pennsylvania apparently didn't want to accept that some people are better than others at poker. They would have no trouble agreeing that practice makes you better at golf or pool (other games where wagers are often made), but since cards are involved, they assume the outcome of a poker game is all luck. If they lose, it's not their fault, it's the cards.
But, as Shakespeare wrote, "the fault...lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Poker -- Luck or Chance? Pittsburgh jury to decide
If poker wants to raise its profile, towards the ultimate goal of having it taken out of the sleazy "gambling" realm and elevated to a cerebral battle of wits played with cards, it's going to have to be careful how it is portrayed on TV.
For most casual players, and non-players, their only exposure to the game is what they see on TV. Similarly, all I know about golf is what I see broadcast. If I saw amateur golfers beating Tiger Woods, I might think that this golf thing is pretty easy. If a lucky swing gave you a hole in one, I'd be hard pressed to see the skill involved in the game.
On TV we have the new show Face the Ace, in which an amateur poker player takes on some of the greats in heads up matches. On the first episode, in the very first match, we see one amateur be dealt some premium hands and quickly dispense with one of poker's finest players. What is the message? It's all about the cards you're dealt -- exactly what those who oppose poker believe and what those who play seriously know is not the case.
Realizing how lucky he was to win, to beat the expert with such ease, the amateur walked away with his first round winnings and did not try to test his luck any further.
Poker has always had a tough time being accurately reflected in the media. ESPN, which broadcasts the World Series of Poker, distills twelve or more hours of play into at most 40 minutes worth of hands (less after the human interest stories concerning the oldest or most physically challenged player that year). With so few hands shown, it is not surprising that the ones that do make the cut have the biggest visual and visceral impact -- often the big suck outs.
Sadly, it is not riveting TV for most viewers if the player makes the right read, gets it all in with the best hand, and it holds up. But ESPN could show last year's November Niner Scott Montgomery suck out with a brutal one-outer late in the tournament, defeating a player who made a brilliant read, over-and-over. And when they do, it gives support to those who claim, "It's all luck@"
In a courtroom in Pittsburgh today the two sides are once again at it -- is poker illegal gambling or a game of skill exempt from anti-gambling laws. One of the prosecution witnesses says of course poker is gambling -- she testified that "the outcome of the game is determined by your cards." Not surprising, she said she always loses.
Any pro will tell you that if you are only playing your cards, you're missing a least half of the game. And any pro would love nothing more than to play against a player who believes that it's all about the cards.
But when poker winning is shown so often to be a result of a miracle card or a great run of hands, it shouldn't be surprising that there are people out there who believe it. The defense attorneys in Pittsburgh will be bringing in experts (as has been done in other courtrooms around the country) who will enlighten the jury as to the true nature of poker. And it is likely that they will come to the same determination as other juries have recently -- that poker is a lot more about who is playing than what they are dealt.
For most casual players, and non-players, their only exposure to the game is what they see on TV. Similarly, all I know about golf is what I see broadcast. If I saw amateur golfers beating Tiger Woods, I might think that this golf thing is pretty easy. If a lucky swing gave you a hole in one, I'd be hard pressed to see the skill involved in the game.
On TV we have the new show Face the Ace, in which an amateur poker player takes on some of the greats in heads up matches. On the first episode, in the very first match, we see one amateur be dealt some premium hands and quickly dispense with one of poker's finest players. What is the message? It's all about the cards you're dealt -- exactly what those who oppose poker believe and what those who play seriously know is not the case.
Realizing how lucky he was to win, to beat the expert with such ease, the amateur walked away with his first round winnings and did not try to test his luck any further.
Poker has always had a tough time being accurately reflected in the media. ESPN, which broadcasts the World Series of Poker, distills twelve or more hours of play into at most 40 minutes worth of hands (less after the human interest stories concerning the oldest or most physically challenged player that year). With so few hands shown, it is not surprising that the ones that do make the cut have the biggest visual and visceral impact -- often the big suck outs.
Sadly, it is not riveting TV for most viewers if the player makes the right read, gets it all in with the best hand, and it holds up. But ESPN could show last year's November Niner Scott Montgomery suck out with a brutal one-outer late in the tournament, defeating a player who made a brilliant read, over-and-over. And when they do, it gives support to those who claim, "It's all luck@"
In a courtroom in Pittsburgh today the two sides are once again at it -- is poker illegal gambling or a game of skill exempt from anti-gambling laws. One of the prosecution witnesses says of course poker is gambling -- she testified that "the outcome of the game is determined by your cards." Not surprising, she said she always loses.
Any pro will tell you that if you are only playing your cards, you're missing a least half of the game. And any pro would love nothing more than to play against a player who believes that it's all about the cards.
But when poker winning is shown so often to be a result of a miracle card or a great run of hands, it shouldn't be surprising that there are people out there who believe it. The defense attorneys in Pittsburgh will be bringing in experts (as has been done in other courtrooms around the country) who will enlighten the jury as to the true nature of poker. And it is likely that they will come to the same determination as other juries have recently -- that poker is a lot more about who is playing than what they are dealt.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Obama shoots from the hip -- stupidly
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet used the president's press conference on national health insurance to delve into the deep waters of race in 21st Century America by asking the president his take on the arrest of his friend, Harvard Professor Henry Gates, Jr., on charges of disorderly conduct following a stop at the professor's home
By way of background, Gates' neighbor called the police about a potential burglary when she spotted two black men with backpacks breaking down the front door of the Gates home. Apparently, Gates had lost his car keys following a out of town trip and he, along with his driver, broke down the door to gain entry.
Police responded and, upon seeing Gates and asking to speak to him, were allegedly confronted by an angry Gates who refused to talk instead reportedly shouting, "This is what happens to black men in America." Rather than talking to the police and confirming that he was the home's owner, he accused the police of being racist. He was arrested then later released for failing to cooperate with authorities.
The journalist asked the president for his take on the incident. Instead of doing what any other person who had graduated from law school would do -- decline to comment on the specifics of the case if he does not have all the relevant information -- the president decided instead to unilaterally and without substantiation attack the police of Cambridge, Mass and assert that they "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates at his home.
Interesting how "prejudice" has as its component parts "pre" and "judge." And that is precisely what Obama did in taking sides in this case -- he immediately prejudged the policy actions as "stupid" without for a moment considering his friend's complicity in the fracas. Admitting "he might be a little biased here," he nevertheless went forward to castigate the arresting officers and raising the broader history of the police disproportionately arresting minorities.
But then, the journalist's question basically begged him to go down that road. "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America," she asked the president. Given an opportunity to weigh in on such a large question, while in the process avert attention away from his failed health care policies, the president jumped at it.
He didn't need the facts, he didn't need the circumstances beyond police versus black professor. The police must be the stupid ones. Not the professor who immediately -- and since his whole professional life has been about race issues, how could he not -- made this a racist issue. They were there because he was black, not because he had broken down the front door. He refused to answer their questions because they had no right to question him. He was being treated unfairly because of his race.
It is a racist self-fulfilling prophecy. Act as if you can't trust the police, as if they're suspicious of you, as if they won't give you a fair deal, and voila you have an incident like this one. How would you have handled the police coming to your home on a burglary call after you broke in yourself? Probably not as Professor Gates. He has possibly let his life's work take over his life view and sees everything through the prism of race.
But what is the president's excuse for taking sides in a potentially explosive situation without the facts? What was benefited by his glib comment of stupidity? He is as much the president of those officers, who risk their lives every day on the job defending all of Cambridge, Mass., as he is the president of his friend, Prof. Gates. They all deserved his impartiality and neutrality until the facts were known, and then a sober and reasonable assessment of the facts of the situation. He owes those policemen an apology.
By way of background, Gates' neighbor called the police about a potential burglary when she spotted two black men with backpacks breaking down the front door of the Gates home. Apparently, Gates had lost his car keys following a out of town trip and he, along with his driver, broke down the door to gain entry.
Police responded and, upon seeing Gates and asking to speak to him, were allegedly confronted by an angry Gates who refused to talk instead reportedly shouting, "This is what happens to black men in America." Rather than talking to the police and confirming that he was the home's owner, he accused the police of being racist. He was arrested then later released for failing to cooperate with authorities.
The journalist asked the president for his take on the incident. Instead of doing what any other person who had graduated from law school would do -- decline to comment on the specifics of the case if he does not have all the relevant information -- the president decided instead to unilaterally and without substantiation attack the police of Cambridge, Mass and assert that they "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates at his home.
Interesting how "prejudice" has as its component parts "pre" and "judge." And that is precisely what Obama did in taking sides in this case -- he immediately prejudged the policy actions as "stupid" without for a moment considering his friend's complicity in the fracas. Admitting "he might be a little biased here," he nevertheless went forward to castigate the arresting officers and raising the broader history of the police disproportionately arresting minorities.
But then, the journalist's question basically begged him to go down that road. "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America," she asked the president. Given an opportunity to weigh in on such a large question, while in the process avert attention away from his failed health care policies, the president jumped at it.
He didn't need the facts, he didn't need the circumstances beyond police versus black professor. The police must be the stupid ones. Not the professor who immediately -- and since his whole professional life has been about race issues, how could he not -- made this a racist issue. They were there because he was black, not because he had broken down the front door. He refused to answer their questions because they had no right to question him. He was being treated unfairly because of his race.
It is a racist self-fulfilling prophecy. Act as if you can't trust the police, as if they're suspicious of you, as if they won't give you a fair deal, and voila you have an incident like this one. How would you have handled the police coming to your home on a burglary call after you broke in yourself? Probably not as Professor Gates. He has possibly let his life's work take over his life view and sees everything through the prism of race.
But what is the president's excuse for taking sides in a potentially explosive situation without the facts? What was benefited by his glib comment of stupidity? He is as much the president of those officers, who risk their lives every day on the job defending all of Cambridge, Mass., as he is the president of his friend, Prof. Gates. They all deserved his impartiality and neutrality until the facts were known, and then a sober and reasonable assessment of the facts of the situation. He owes those policemen an apology.
Let Michael Vick Play
For his role in an interstate dog fighting ring, Former Atlanta Falcon quarterback Michael Vick was ordered to pay approximately $1 million for the care and rehabilitation of some of the involved dogs and sentenced to serve a 23 month federal prison term. He also was sentenced in a separate Virginia state court action to an additional 3 years in prison, a sentence which is suspended on the condition of good behavior.
Immediately after Vick's guilty plea to the federal court action, the NFL suspended him without pay for conduct that was "not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible." That may be what they said, but with the number of other NFL players involved in DUI manslaughter, attempted murders and assaults, without facing an indefinite suspension by the league, it is apparent that there was more here that tweaked the NFL.
In fact, the real reason Vick was treated so harshly by the NFL was not because he was involved in the mistreatment of animals, but because he violated their "no gambling" policy by providing money to the gambling side of the dog fighting organization. You can hurt and kill humans and get back in the game, but gamble -- now you're talking about a crime the NFL cares quite a bit about.
For Vick's crimes he has lost endorsement deals worth millions, been released by his team, was ordered to repay the nearly $20 million signing bonus the Falcons had given him back in 2004, and is being treated like a pariah. Now he is awaiting word on whether he will be allowed to play in the NFL again.
Enough is enough. Yes, dog fighting is bad and we should punish people involved in the mistreatment of animals. But this has been done. Vick has gone through the court process, been sentenced, and served his time. Continuing to punish him beyond the scope of the law is, if you pardon the expression, beating a dead horse.
Vick is a football player by profession. He has already missed two years of what, putting aside Brett Favre, is not a lifelong profession but one limited to just a few years. There is a reason football players, and especially talented quarterbacks, make so much money -- there are very few of them and they work for a very limited time. At 29, Vick only has a few more years where he can work in his chosen profession and denying him that after he has already paid his debt to society is wrong.
Commission Roger Goodell is not the morality police. He certainly has allowed worse offenders than Vick to play in the NFL and should stop the grandstanding right now. Both the federal and state government has dealt appropriately with Vick, it's time to let him get back to work.
Immediately after Vick's guilty plea to the federal court action, the NFL suspended him without pay for conduct that was "not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible." That may be what they said, but with the number of other NFL players involved in DUI manslaughter, attempted murders and assaults, without facing an indefinite suspension by the league, it is apparent that there was more here that tweaked the NFL.
In fact, the real reason Vick was treated so harshly by the NFL was not because he was involved in the mistreatment of animals, but because he violated their "no gambling" policy by providing money to the gambling side of the dog fighting organization. You can hurt and kill humans and get back in the game, but gamble -- now you're talking about a crime the NFL cares quite a bit about.
For Vick's crimes he has lost endorsement deals worth millions, been released by his team, was ordered to repay the nearly $20 million signing bonus the Falcons had given him back in 2004, and is being treated like a pariah. Now he is awaiting word on whether he will be allowed to play in the NFL again.
Enough is enough. Yes, dog fighting is bad and we should punish people involved in the mistreatment of animals. But this has been done. Vick has gone through the court process, been sentenced, and served his time. Continuing to punish him beyond the scope of the law is, if you pardon the expression, beating a dead horse.
Vick is a football player by profession. He has already missed two years of what, putting aside Brett Favre, is not a lifelong profession but one limited to just a few years. There is a reason football players, and especially talented quarterbacks, make so much money -- there are very few of them and they work for a very limited time. At 29, Vick only has a few more years where he can work in his chosen profession and denying him that after he has already paid his debt to society is wrong.
Commission Roger Goodell is not the morality police. He certainly has allowed worse offenders than Vick to play in the NFL and should stop the grandstanding right now. Both the federal and state government has dealt appropriately with Vick, it's time to let him get back to work.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Familiarity Breeds Lower Poll Numbers
Six months into the Obama administration and the mass hypnosis that hit most Americans is beginning to wear off. They are waking up as if from a collective coma to see that what they believed -- or, more pointedly, hoped for -- was not to be. Obama, who ran on a vague promise of hope and change, has lived up to at least half that mantra. He has changed the United States, but not for the better.
He has taken the country on a radical shift away from its roots. We are tacking to the left increasing government spending to a previously unseen extent and putting the burden squarely on the backs of a few. He has revved up the language of class warfare and pitted Americans against each other. The "wealthy" are the new enemy and the government the only true salvation.
He has turned our foreign policy on its head, embracing our enemies while distancing us from our allies. America hasn't looked so weak internationally since Jimmy Carter. He has sided with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega in the Honduran conflict despite the fact that the military was well within its constitutional rights to remove the President at the request of their Supreme Court. Yet in Iran, he stayed out of the conflict over the disputed election for a number of days lest he seem to be opposing the incumbent Ahmadinejad (and supporting free elections and democracy).
He and the Democrats in Congress are pushing for the U.S. to agree to cap and trade despite the fact that: other industrializing countries will not be bound, it will severely damage U.S. businesses, and dramatically increase energy costs to the average American.
Recent polling has shown that, now that we have seen the initial results of an Obama administration, reality has not matched expectations. Obama's approval rating has fallen from an astronomical 76% back in February to 61% late last month, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey. That is about where George Bush's approval rating was six months into his first term.
The poll also showed a ten percentage point drop in those who say Obama "a strong and decisive leader," a nine point drop in those who see Obama as tough enough to handle a crisis, a seven point drop in those who think Obama generally agrees with them on issues they care about, and an eleven point drop in those who say he has a "clear plan" for solving the nation's problems.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland evaluates the results thusly: "Obama's stand on the issues and his plans for the future appear to be his biggest weakness." In other words, Obama is still widely popular personally, but popularity for his positions and strategies is plummeting.
But this cannot be all that surprising. Obama's entire campaign was based on the cult of personality, and was never about moving the country away from its core values. We are basically a moderate, even slightly right-leaning, country. We will not in the long run support a president who wants to move us to the left and Americans may be on their way towards full recovery from the celebrity hysteria that allowed us to choose an untested, inexperienced but highly telegenic personality as the leader of the free world.
He has taken the country on a radical shift away from its roots. We are tacking to the left increasing government spending to a previously unseen extent and putting the burden squarely on the backs of a few. He has revved up the language of class warfare and pitted Americans against each other. The "wealthy" are the new enemy and the government the only true salvation.
He has turned our foreign policy on its head, embracing our enemies while distancing us from our allies. America hasn't looked so weak internationally since Jimmy Carter. He has sided with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega in the Honduran conflict despite the fact that the military was well within its constitutional rights to remove the President at the request of their Supreme Court. Yet in Iran, he stayed out of the conflict over the disputed election for a number of days lest he seem to be opposing the incumbent Ahmadinejad (and supporting free elections and democracy).
He and the Democrats in Congress are pushing for the U.S. to agree to cap and trade despite the fact that: other industrializing countries will not be bound, it will severely damage U.S. businesses, and dramatically increase energy costs to the average American.
Recent polling has shown that, now that we have seen the initial results of an Obama administration, reality has not matched expectations. Obama's approval rating has fallen from an astronomical 76% back in February to 61% late last month, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey. That is about where George Bush's approval rating was six months into his first term.
The poll also showed a ten percentage point drop in those who say Obama "a strong and decisive leader," a nine point drop in those who see Obama as tough enough to handle a crisis, a seven point drop in those who think Obama generally agrees with them on issues they care about, and an eleven point drop in those who say he has a "clear plan" for solving the nation's problems.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland evaluates the results thusly: "Obama's stand on the issues and his plans for the future appear to be his biggest weakness." In other words, Obama is still widely popular personally, but popularity for his positions and strategies is plummeting.
But this cannot be all that surprising. Obama's entire campaign was based on the cult of personality, and was never about moving the country away from its core values. We are basically a moderate, even slightly right-leaning, country. We will not in the long run support a president who wants to move us to the left and Americans may be on their way towards full recovery from the celebrity hysteria that allowed us to choose an untested, inexperienced but highly telegenic personality as the leader of the free world.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
More thoughts on Iran
Has anyone else noticed the missed opportunity following the disputed Iranian election for President?
We could have taken a more direct approach to the questionable Iran election outcome by reminding the Iranians, and the rest of the world, that we here in the United States know a thing or two about election controversies.
We could have reached out to Iran as experts in post-disputed election etiquette. George Bush could have spoken on how to mount a non-violent campaign to challenge the results. Al Gore could have spoken as a member of the party in power on how not to abuse that power in an effort to manipulate the outcome. We could have offered to send the team that scoured the Florida ballots to Iran if it needed help in the proper counting of ballots.
Norm Coleman and Al Franken could have flown to Iran to show the appropriate way to handle election controversies -- by each announcing themselves the winner, then hiring teams of lawyers, embroiling the courts in conflicting legal arguments, and keeping the voting public unsure about the results for months.
But all that done without a drop of blood being shed.
We could have used our own recent history that is full of claims of voting irregularities and suspect results, but fundamentally void of violence and terror.
It is a clear line of demarcation between our country and theirs. We may make light of our propensity to litigate every dispute, but when you see protesters being shot in the streets, it makes you thankful you live in a country where we litigate instead of conflagrate.
We could have taken a more direct approach to the questionable Iran election outcome by reminding the Iranians, and the rest of the world, that we here in the United States know a thing or two about election controversies.
We could have reached out to Iran as experts in post-disputed election etiquette. George Bush could have spoken on how to mount a non-violent campaign to challenge the results. Al Gore could have spoken as a member of the party in power on how not to abuse that power in an effort to manipulate the outcome. We could have offered to send the team that scoured the Florida ballots to Iran if it needed help in the proper counting of ballots.
Norm Coleman and Al Franken could have flown to Iran to show the appropriate way to handle election controversies -- by each announcing themselves the winner, then hiring teams of lawyers, embroiling the courts in conflicting legal arguments, and keeping the voting public unsure about the results for months.
But all that done without a drop of blood being shed.
We could have used our own recent history that is full of claims of voting irregularities and suspect results, but fundamentally void of violence and terror.
It is a clear line of demarcation between our country and theirs. We may make light of our propensity to litigate every dispute, but when you see protesters being shot in the streets, it makes you thankful you live in a country where we litigate instead of conflagrate.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama's Double Standard -- Honduras v. Iran
President Obama was decidedly tight-lipped in his initial reactions to the election irregularities and resultant demonstrations in Iran. By contrast, he has come out quite forceful and direct in his opposition to what he – and Hugo Chavez and the United Nations – call the illegal ouster of the president of Honduras, Jose Manuel Zelaya.
Zelaya was quick to notice the unusual reaction by the American president. “The United States has changed a great deal,” he said at the news conference after the U.N. passed a resolution condemning the military’s seizure of power in Honduras. Well, change is what Obama ran on and change is what we’re getting – heaven help us.
Not only did Obama denounce Zelaya’s removal from office, calling it an illegal coup, but he went so far as to call for Zelaya’s reinstatement. This from the president so hesitant to tell other countries what to do lest the U.S. be seen as bullying. Interestingly, he chooses this situation and this leader to support loudly and without reservation.
Zelaya was elected president of Honduras in 2005 and, under that country’s constitution, he was to serve a four year term, ending this year. Instead, he had been pushing for a referendum to eliminate the presidential term limit and allow him to continue as president. He was ousted by the army on June 28 which stormed the presidential palace and took the president from his bed to a plane heading to Costa Rica. Later, the Honduran Congress replaced the exiled president with Roberto Micheletti, the president of Congress.
The Honduran Supreme Court had ruled that the proposed referendum was unconstitutional and the Honduras Congress agreed. With no backing down from President Zelaya, those opposed to his efforts to expand his term organized the ouster.
Zelaya is a socialist who is a close ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.
The Obama administration had apparently been trying to prevent the constitutional crisis in Honduras from exploding into a military clash, but those efforts failed.
Rather than taking the wait-and-see approach used in Iran, Obama immediately came to defend the ousted president – despite the fact that his removal seemed to have been in an effort to defend democracy and oppose a unilateral grab for power. The newly sworn in president would like the U.S. and the rest of the world to acknowledge that fact.
According to the New York Times, Micheletti has reached out to the world community, explaining that “Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.”
“We respect the whole world, and we only ask that they respect us and leave us in peace,” the Times quotes Mr. Micheletti from a radio interview. The Times also indicated that Micheletti confirmed that the “previously scheduled elections called for November would go on as planned.”
It would be nice if our president would at least pay lip service to the idea that the U.S. supports democracy and opposes efforts to silence the will of the people. If, in fact, the proposed constitutional referendum was an unconstitutional, illegal power grab, as their Supreme Court ruled, then perhaps arresting and removing the president was appropriate.
It begs the question why Obama was so quick to denounce the military’s action in Honduras (as “anti-democratic"), while not loudly supporting the pro-democracy protesters in Iran. Curious.
Zelaya was quick to notice the unusual reaction by the American president. “The United States has changed a great deal,” he said at the news conference after the U.N. passed a resolution condemning the military’s seizure of power in Honduras. Well, change is what Obama ran on and change is what we’re getting – heaven help us.
Not only did Obama denounce Zelaya’s removal from office, calling it an illegal coup, but he went so far as to call for Zelaya’s reinstatement. This from the president so hesitant to tell other countries what to do lest the U.S. be seen as bullying. Interestingly, he chooses this situation and this leader to support loudly and without reservation.
Zelaya was elected president of Honduras in 2005 and, under that country’s constitution, he was to serve a four year term, ending this year. Instead, he had been pushing for a referendum to eliminate the presidential term limit and allow him to continue as president. He was ousted by the army on June 28 which stormed the presidential palace and took the president from his bed to a plane heading to Costa Rica. Later, the Honduran Congress replaced the exiled president with Roberto Micheletti, the president of Congress.
The Honduran Supreme Court had ruled that the proposed referendum was unconstitutional and the Honduras Congress agreed. With no backing down from President Zelaya, those opposed to his efforts to expand his term organized the ouster.
Zelaya is a socialist who is a close ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.
The Obama administration had apparently been trying to prevent the constitutional crisis in Honduras from exploding into a military clash, but those efforts failed.
Rather than taking the wait-and-see approach used in Iran, Obama immediately came to defend the ousted president – despite the fact that his removal seemed to have been in an effort to defend democracy and oppose a unilateral grab for power. The newly sworn in president would like the U.S. and the rest of the world to acknowledge that fact.
According to the New York Times, Micheletti has reached out to the world community, explaining that “Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.”
“We respect the whole world, and we only ask that they respect us and leave us in peace,” the Times quotes Mr. Micheletti from a radio interview. The Times also indicated that Micheletti confirmed that the “previously scheduled elections called for November would go on as planned.”
It would be nice if our president would at least pay lip service to the idea that the U.S. supports democracy and opposes efforts to silence the will of the people. If, in fact, the proposed constitutional referendum was an unconstitutional, illegal power grab, as their Supreme Court ruled, then perhaps arresting and removing the president was appropriate.
It begs the question why Obama was so quick to denounce the military’s action in Honduras (as “anti-democratic"), while not loudly supporting the pro-democracy protesters in Iran. Curious.
Legalize Online Gambling Now
Sun Tzu said, know thy enemy. For those of us supporting online gambling, we have a number of otherwise incompatible enemies to deal with.
The conservative Christian organization “Focus on the Family” is opposed to any form of online gambling. As they see it, “We must keep families safe from online predators that seek to exploit people for a profit.” To FOTF online gambling is not an issue of personal freedom, relief from excessive governmental interference, or the rights of a free market. It is about sin and degeneracy – and they see it as their moral responsibility to save you from evil.
What is ironic, of course, is that in their quest to shut down online gambling, Focus on the Family is doing the bidding of other purveyors on gambling: the NFL, brick and mortar casinos, Indian gaming, and state lotteries.
On the side of online gambling there is the million plus member Poker Players Alliance (PPA), headed by former Republican Senator Alfonse D’Amato, the Interactive Media and Entertainment Gaming Association (iMEGA), and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), among other groups. Their motivation is, primarily, old-fashioned capitalism, the economic outgrowth of freedom and democracy.
Focus on the Family believes it has Jesus on its side and its drive to impose its religious beliefs on others is boundless. And Jesus wasn’t much of a capitalist, anyway.
This coalition of the religiously fervent – who, we know, is tireless, well-organized, and well-funded – with the industries that would be hurt by the expansion or legalization of online gambling makes for a formidable opposition.
Add to this mix liberals such as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein who incredibly find themselves in the political bed of the rightest of the right in their opposition to online gambling. The Senators are not religious zealots, nor do they seem to be motivated by ties to traditional gambling businesses.
Instead, they take their position from a third category – the liberal “I know what’s best for you” position that makes certain left-wingers believe they have the moral duty to protect you from yourself. And if it interferes with your economic and personal freedom, oh well. They're only looking out for your well being.
Even with a poker player in the White House, we have opposition in the administration – Obama’s Attorney General, responding to questions during his confirmation hearing confirmed his opposition to online gambling. Agents from the Department of Justice recently intercepted payments from online poker sites to players, freezing assets and causing tens of millions of dollars in payments to be suspended.
Strange bedfellows, indeed.
How to combat a motley association such as this one?
We have to be larger, better funded, more organized, and louder.
And, possibly, we need a spokesperson a tad more eloquent, more approachable, and more telegenic than Barney Frank.
We need to frame this as an issue of economic and personal freedom, which it is. We as a country do not ban all forms of activities that might have some negative consequences. We establish rules and guidelines, laws and penalties. We’re not Iran, we don’t need the government telling us what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our own homes, with our own money. If we are the country of freedom, then let us have that freedom.
I don’t want Focus on the Family running my life, nor those who feel economically threatened by online gambling, and certainly not by the self-appointed nannies Boxer and Feinstein. I want the right to spend my free time and my money as I see fit. Is that really too much to ask?
The conservative Christian organization “Focus on the Family” is opposed to any form of online gambling. As they see it, “We must keep families safe from online predators that seek to exploit people for a profit.” To FOTF online gambling is not an issue of personal freedom, relief from excessive governmental interference, or the rights of a free market. It is about sin and degeneracy – and they see it as their moral responsibility to save you from evil.
What is ironic, of course, is that in their quest to shut down online gambling, Focus on the Family is doing the bidding of other purveyors on gambling: the NFL, brick and mortar casinos, Indian gaming, and state lotteries.
On the side of online gambling there is the million plus member Poker Players Alliance (PPA), headed by former Republican Senator Alfonse D’Amato, the Interactive Media and Entertainment Gaming Association (iMEGA), and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), among other groups. Their motivation is, primarily, old-fashioned capitalism, the economic outgrowth of freedom and democracy.
Focus on the Family believes it has Jesus on its side and its drive to impose its religious beliefs on others is boundless. And Jesus wasn’t much of a capitalist, anyway.
This coalition of the religiously fervent – who, we know, is tireless, well-organized, and well-funded – with the industries that would be hurt by the expansion or legalization of online gambling makes for a formidable opposition.
Add to this mix liberals such as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein who incredibly find themselves in the political bed of the rightest of the right in their opposition to online gambling. The Senators are not religious zealots, nor do they seem to be motivated by ties to traditional gambling businesses.
Instead, they take their position from a third category – the liberal “I know what’s best for you” position that makes certain left-wingers believe they have the moral duty to protect you from yourself. And if it interferes with your economic and personal freedom, oh well. They're only looking out for your well being.
Even with a poker player in the White House, we have opposition in the administration – Obama’s Attorney General, responding to questions during his confirmation hearing confirmed his opposition to online gambling. Agents from the Department of Justice recently intercepted payments from online poker sites to players, freezing assets and causing tens of millions of dollars in payments to be suspended.
Strange bedfellows, indeed.
How to combat a motley association such as this one?
We have to be larger, better funded, more organized, and louder.
And, possibly, we need a spokesperson a tad more eloquent, more approachable, and more telegenic than Barney Frank.
We need to frame this as an issue of economic and personal freedom, which it is. We as a country do not ban all forms of activities that might have some negative consequences. We establish rules and guidelines, laws and penalties. We’re not Iran, we don’t need the government telling us what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our own homes, with our own money. If we are the country of freedom, then let us have that freedom.
I don’t want Focus on the Family running my life, nor those who feel economically threatened by online gambling, and certainly not by the self-appointed nannies Boxer and Feinstein. I want the right to spend my free time and my money as I see fit. Is that really too much to ask?
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Hands-Off President
President Obama, during a news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, was asked about the dispute over the Iranian election. He replied, “You know, I take a wait and see approach… It’s not productive, given the history of US- Iranian relations to be seen meddling. The US president, meddling in Iranian elections.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the “observer in chief.” So fearful of making the wrong move, he opts instead to do nothing. The leader of the world’s largest and most influential democracy, he won’t even stand up for the basic principles on which the country was founded and by which he was elected.
He says, tepidly at best, that "people's voices should be heard and not suppressed." Way to go out on a limb. He might as well be discussing the mini-controversy surrounding the final voting on American Idol and not a dispute about a sham election in a theocratic country run by Islamic extremists who control every aspect of daily life.
This was an election in name only. No one can run for president who isn’t approved by the Guardian Council which is comprised of six members appointed by the Supreme Leader and six others selected by the Majlis. This Guardian Council ensures that no true reformist candidate ever runs for president as they only approve candidates who are dedicated to Islamic values as they see them.
Regardless of whether Mousavi was, in truth, a “reform” candidate, it is clear that as between him and Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was the lesser of two evils and a more “democratic” candidate.
Mousavi ran on a platform that sounded some familiar democratic themes: to institutionalize social justice, equality and fairness, freedom of expression, and to root out corruption. He supported private ownership of the TV airwaves and moving supervision of the police to the President and away from the Supreme Leader.
Mousavi also took a less hard line on the U.S. and Israel and, unlike his opponent who denies the Holocaust, denounced the killing of Jews.
When it was announced that Ahmadinejad had won – indeed had won in a landslide – the news was disappointing to the West. But when further news started coming out of Iran that pointed to voting irregularities – for example, Mousavi’s home town voting overwhelmingly for his opponent – that was even more troubling for the West.
So how did Obama react to the news that the election may have been a sham? Obama said that he had "deep concerns" about the election and "stands strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed."
He hastened to add, however, that "how that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide."
Not exactly, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” material. No, Obama sounds much more like Jimmy Carter … and we know how well that worked out for U.S. foreign policy.
Before the election, Obama was quick to paint Mousavi’s candidacy as a victory for Obama’s approach in Iran. “We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran,” Obama was quoted as saying. “Obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.”
“Ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities,” the president said. “Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
Well, the “robust debate” ended up with the status quo – no change, no reform and a slap on the hand of anyone hoping for any form of democracy in that country. Protests were met harshly and reports are that over twenty protesters have been killed. Communication from Iran to the outside world is being hampered by the government and the foreign media is being limited in what it can show of what is going on there.
Foreign leaders have taken a clear stand against the violence in Iran, with Britain's Gordon Brown saying that the European Union unanimously condemns violence against protesters and the German Prime Minister using similarly straight-forward language in denouncing the attacks on protesters.
This is what the president has said of these recent developments:
That's it -- the extent of the U.S. President's interest in Iran is that he'll be watching. He has no opinion, he has no suggestions, he has no requests, he has no preference and little reaction beyond the stalwart "deeply troubled" -- whatever that means.
Obama has perfected the art of saying very little in quite a few words. He is troubled that the election may have been stolen, he is troubled that protesters are being treated harshly, he is troubled that the perception that there was a chance for reform in Iran was just an act. Troubled?
But that's as far as he's willing to go. He's happy to sit back and watch as events unfold. That is not leadership -- that's disengagement.
Obama's VP, known for his lack of self-censorship, said, of Iran, “There's an awful lot of questions about how this election was run." True, Joe, but your president isn’t asking for any answers. He’ll just wait and see. He's no meddler.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the “observer in chief.” So fearful of making the wrong move, he opts instead to do nothing. The leader of the world’s largest and most influential democracy, he won’t even stand up for the basic principles on which the country was founded and by which he was elected.
He says, tepidly at best, that "people's voices should be heard and not suppressed." Way to go out on a limb. He might as well be discussing the mini-controversy surrounding the final voting on American Idol and not a dispute about a sham election in a theocratic country run by Islamic extremists who control every aspect of daily life.
This was an election in name only. No one can run for president who isn’t approved by the Guardian Council which is comprised of six members appointed by the Supreme Leader and six others selected by the Majlis. This Guardian Council ensures that no true reformist candidate ever runs for president as they only approve candidates who are dedicated to Islamic values as they see them.
Regardless of whether Mousavi was, in truth, a “reform” candidate, it is clear that as between him and Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was the lesser of two evils and a more “democratic” candidate.
Mousavi ran on a platform that sounded some familiar democratic themes: to institutionalize social justice, equality and fairness, freedom of expression, and to root out corruption. He supported private ownership of the TV airwaves and moving supervision of the police to the President and away from the Supreme Leader.
Mousavi also took a less hard line on the U.S. and Israel and, unlike his opponent who denies the Holocaust, denounced the killing of Jews.
When it was announced that Ahmadinejad had won – indeed had won in a landslide – the news was disappointing to the West. But when further news started coming out of Iran that pointed to voting irregularities – for example, Mousavi’s home town voting overwhelmingly for his opponent – that was even more troubling for the West.
So how did Obama react to the news that the election may have been a sham? Obama said that he had "deep concerns" about the election and "stands strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed."
He hastened to add, however, that "how that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide."
Not exactly, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” material. No, Obama sounds much more like Jimmy Carter … and we know how well that worked out for U.S. foreign policy.
Before the election, Obama was quick to paint Mousavi’s candidacy as a victory for Obama’s approach in Iran. “We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran,” Obama was quoted as saying. “Obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.”
“Ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities,” the president said. “Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
Well, the “robust debate” ended up with the status quo – no change, no reform and a slap on the hand of anyone hoping for any form of democracy in that country. Protests were met harshly and reports are that over twenty protesters have been killed. Communication from Iran to the outside world is being hampered by the government and the foreign media is being limited in what it can show of what is going on there.
Foreign leaders have taken a clear stand against the violence in Iran, with Britain's Gordon Brown saying that the European Union unanimously condemns violence against protesters and the German Prime Minister using similarly straight-forward language in denouncing the attacks on protesters.
This is what the president has said of these recent developments:
“Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we....respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.
Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.
My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.
But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.
Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.
We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days.
And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.
And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.”
That's it -- the extent of the U.S. President's interest in Iran is that he'll be watching. He has no opinion, he has no suggestions, he has no requests, he has no preference and little reaction beyond the stalwart "deeply troubled" -- whatever that means.
Obama has perfected the art of saying very little in quite a few words. He is troubled that the election may have been stolen, he is troubled that protesters are being treated harshly, he is troubled that the perception that there was a chance for reform in Iran was just an act. Troubled?
But that's as far as he's willing to go. He's happy to sit back and watch as events unfold. That is not leadership -- that's disengagement.
Obama's VP, known for his lack of self-censorship, said, of Iran, “There's an awful lot of questions about how this election was run." True, Joe, but your president isn’t asking for any answers. He’ll just wait and see. He's no meddler.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor -- Our Next Supreme Court Justice?
Today President Obama announced his choice to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor is a dream candidate and likely to be quickly approved. She was first nominated to the bench by a Republican, the first President Bush, and she had the wisdom never to have children, which eliminates the otherwise automatic nanny-gate fiasco any time a woman is nominated for anything.
She has a compelling story which the Republicans will fail to jump on even though it provides ample proof – as does our President’s ascendancy -- that America is the land of opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve beyond their wildest dreams in this great country.
But we will probably miss the opportunity to tell that story and instead we will allow the Democrats to bathe in her glory while simultaneously telling the average American that you cannot achieve anything without the government’s help.
How did she manage to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and become editor of the Yale Law Review when the United States is such a white-male-dominated bastion of unequal opportunity and institutionalized racism? Perhaps she did it by not believing the Democrats’ version of two Americas and by realizing that the American dream is available to all its citizens.
Now, all this is not to say that I’m thrilled with her selection. She has written some opinions recently that I am entirely opposed to, most notably her ruling supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to discard the firefighter promotion exam results when no black or Latino passed the exam. I would think her own life story would tell her that it is not one’s race or ethnicity that matters, but their abilities. Somehow, she was able to make her way through three separate exams to achieve her goals.
Her confirmation hearing will be interesting because, as an appellate court judge, she has been the author of a number of appellate decisions that her future brethren on the court have overturned. While Obama may want to paint her as a centrist, moderate jurist, that does not seem to reconcile with her record.
Yes, she “saved” baseball by ending the strike when, as a district court judge, she ruled in favor of the player’s association and against the owners who had been trying to end free agency and salary arbitration. With this pro-union decision, her liberal bona fides were secured.
But, as they say in the TV infomercials, that’s not all. We also have her statements to guide us as to her view of not just race and gender issues, but the issue of the role of the Supreme Court. And none of these will warm a Republican’s heart.
In a speech given at the liberal Valhalla, U.C. Berkeley, back in 2002, Sotomayor embraced the idea that a jurist’s gender and racial identity would influence their decision-making. She said in part, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....” She then elaborated, “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....”
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
I haven’t seen such blatant white male bashing since the Wanda Sykes baby shower.
With her belief that the gender and race of a jurist i is at all relevant to making a just decision, one wonders how the all white Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education or an all male Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade.
There is no question that Sotomayor intends to be an activist judge as she has gone on record that it is in the highest courts that does more than merely interpret the law.
During a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor answered a student’s question about the difference between the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, by saying that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She went on to say, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [Audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."
In addition to obvious elocutionary gifts, Ms. Sotomayor seems to suffer a bit of Biden-esque excessive sharing. This could make this question and answer session during the confirmation hearings DVR-worthy.
She has a compelling story which the Republicans will fail to jump on even though it provides ample proof – as does our President’s ascendancy -- that America is the land of opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve beyond their wildest dreams in this great country.
But we will probably miss the opportunity to tell that story and instead we will allow the Democrats to bathe in her glory while simultaneously telling the average American that you cannot achieve anything without the government’s help.
How did she manage to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and become editor of the Yale Law Review when the United States is such a white-male-dominated bastion of unequal opportunity and institutionalized racism? Perhaps she did it by not believing the Democrats’ version of two Americas and by realizing that the American dream is available to all its citizens.
Now, all this is not to say that I’m thrilled with her selection. She has written some opinions recently that I am entirely opposed to, most notably her ruling supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to discard the firefighter promotion exam results when no black or Latino passed the exam. I would think her own life story would tell her that it is not one’s race or ethnicity that matters, but their abilities. Somehow, she was able to make her way through three separate exams to achieve her goals.
Her confirmation hearing will be interesting because, as an appellate court judge, she has been the author of a number of appellate decisions that her future brethren on the court have overturned. While Obama may want to paint her as a centrist, moderate jurist, that does not seem to reconcile with her record.
Yes, she “saved” baseball by ending the strike when, as a district court judge, she ruled in favor of the player’s association and against the owners who had been trying to end free agency and salary arbitration. With this pro-union decision, her liberal bona fides were secured.
But, as they say in the TV infomercials, that’s not all. We also have her statements to guide us as to her view of not just race and gender issues, but the issue of the role of the Supreme Court. And none of these will warm a Republican’s heart.
In a speech given at the liberal Valhalla, U.C. Berkeley, back in 2002, Sotomayor embraced the idea that a jurist’s gender and racial identity would influence their decision-making. She said in part, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....” She then elaborated, “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....”
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
I haven’t seen such blatant white male bashing since the Wanda Sykes baby shower.
With her belief that the gender and race of a jurist i is at all relevant to making a just decision, one wonders how the all white Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education or an all male Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade.
There is no question that Sotomayor intends to be an activist judge as she has gone on record that it is in the highest courts that does more than merely interpret the law.
During a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor answered a student’s question about the difference between the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, by saying that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She went on to say, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [Audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."
In addition to obvious elocutionary gifts, Ms. Sotomayor seems to suffer a bit of Biden-esque excessive sharing. This could make this question and answer session during the confirmation hearings DVR-worthy.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Pelosi, Obama and the Facts
The next episode of everyone's favorite political game show "What did she know and when did she know it? -- Pelosi Edition" is brought to you by factcheck.org.
Claim: Pelosi has asserted that she was never informed that the enhanced interrogation technique waterboarding was being used.
Fact: According to a CIA memo released earlier this month, Pelosi was told in September 2002, of the specific times of techniques that were employed.
Bonus Fact: If you choose not to believe the CIA memo -- and we can't pin her down to 2002 -- she's not off the hook. Because she has, since her original flat out denial, now admitted that, yeah, she was informed back in 2003 by an aide. I guess it all just slipped her mind for the past six years.
Yes, Pelosi lied. As my favorite mendacious character on Lost would say about himself, "It's what I do." Well, lying is what Pelosi does as well. I'm not sure that's even the point any more. The more serious matter is that our country is so timorous that we suddenly care whether we're liked. The world is high school and we're the new transfer student.
The bottom line is a year after the devastating attacks by Al Qaeda, virtually no one would object to any enhanced interrogation techniques (short of actual torture, which waterboarding -- while certainly extreme -- does not equal) if they would prevent any further such attacks. Now, almost eight years since the 9/11 attacks, memories fade and we become comfortable and complacent again and suddenly our interest in the safety and security of our country is no longer de rigueur.
Today President Obama claims that these enhanced techniques, and indeed our holding and trying suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe. Prove it. Release the data. And release the data that purports to show the opposite, that planned attacks were discovered and stopped by these methods.
Obama has instead put our moral standing in the world above our safety. How we look to other countries, especially our enemies, is more important that how we keep ourselves safe and strong.
This is scary stuff. I keep hearkening back to Teddy Roosevelt, who, yes, did want to be friendly and accommodating and didn't seek to make enemies of the rest of the world. But he understood you could do that so long as you maintained a strong and determined resolve. Ronald Reagan was affable and courteous, but no country questioned his resolve to take whatever action was necessary to protect the U.S.
We cannot risk appearing weak or fearful or eager to please. We are the greatest country in the world, not the world's lap dog.
Claim: Pelosi has asserted that she was never informed that the enhanced interrogation technique waterboarding was being used.
Fact: According to a CIA memo released earlier this month, Pelosi was told in September 2002, of the specific times of techniques that were employed.
Bonus Fact: If you choose not to believe the CIA memo -- and we can't pin her down to 2002 -- she's not off the hook. Because she has, since her original flat out denial, now admitted that, yeah, she was informed back in 2003 by an aide. I guess it all just slipped her mind for the past six years.
Yes, Pelosi lied. As my favorite mendacious character on Lost would say about himself, "It's what I do." Well, lying is what Pelosi does as well. I'm not sure that's even the point any more. The more serious matter is that our country is so timorous that we suddenly care whether we're liked. The world is high school and we're the new transfer student.
The bottom line is a year after the devastating attacks by Al Qaeda, virtually no one would object to any enhanced interrogation techniques (short of actual torture, which waterboarding -- while certainly extreme -- does not equal) if they would prevent any further such attacks. Now, almost eight years since the 9/11 attacks, memories fade and we become comfortable and complacent again and suddenly our interest in the safety and security of our country is no longer de rigueur.
Today President Obama claims that these enhanced techniques, and indeed our holding and trying suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe. Prove it. Release the data. And release the data that purports to show the opposite, that planned attacks were discovered and stopped by these methods.
Obama has instead put our moral standing in the world above our safety. How we look to other countries, especially our enemies, is more important that how we keep ourselves safe and strong.
This is scary stuff. I keep hearkening back to Teddy Roosevelt, who, yes, did want to be friendly and accommodating and didn't seek to make enemies of the rest of the world. But he understood you could do that so long as you maintained a strong and determined resolve. Ronald Reagan was affable and courteous, but no country questioned his resolve to take whatever action was necessary to protect the U.S.
We cannot risk appearing weak or fearful or eager to please. We are the greatest country in the world, not the world's lap dog.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Republicans and Happiness
A new Pew Research Center survey shows that Republicans as a group are happier than Democrats. And this is not, as some might assume, because Republican are wealthier than Democrats (one need only look to Hollywood to see that money does not always equate with Republican Party identity). Adjusting for income, Republicans, whether rich or poor, were happier than their economic counterparts in the other party.
I’m not surprised. Being a Republican means having a clear set of values devoid of the moral relativity that plagues the Democrats. When you fail to have a clear concept of good and bad or right and wrong, it can leave you ungrounded and unsure. You have no touchstone on which to rely, no way to assess the merit or worth of anything. If there is no clear better or worse, then how do you know if you’ve achieved a satisfying result? How can you ever be happy if there is nothing you value as superior to something else? If everything is relative, then nothing is special.
This is why having a leader who represents Democratic Party values is a mistake. If you believe that Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Il-Sung are merely friends we haven’t yet made, you don’t understand friendship. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Gordon Brown are not more important to you than the Castros, then you have no clear cut values. If everyone is treated the same, with no accounting for their character and behavior, then we have moral chaos. This is not the road to peace, it’s a path to our own destruction.
Republicans tend to believe in the inherent ability and value of each person and to trust that people can achieve if they are free to do so. Democrats view people as victims of some wrong or another who need to be taken care of and shown what to do. This is why the Democratic Party proposes the golden handcuffs that come with the welfare state. They don’t want to see individual achievement; they want to have their hand in whatever anyone accomplishes. They need to justify their existence and their continuing control over our daily lives.
The Democrats love the story of Robin Hood and have taken it upon themselves to take from the rich and give to the poor, in some twisted notion of nobility. In reality, they are trying to make the successful feel guilty about their success and the unfortunate believe that their situation is beyond their control and they own the government their very life. This is a dysfunctional relationship that any therapist would encourage you to run from – but it is the basic economic and social platform of the Democrats.
Republicans have no trouble prioritizing, Democrats cannot choose. Republicans put their country first and their family first. Democrats think this is arrogant, biased and uncaring – we should treat all nations, all people the same. It must be hard to figure out if you’re happy or not if you don’t consider one thing more important than another.
Despite the campaign rhetoric from last year, it is the Republicans who believe in hope, the Democrats who believe in doom and gloom. The Democrats ignore any evidence that the world is not coming to an end – scientific studies that dispute the global warming hysteria, for example. The more diseases we get a handle on, the more new threats the Democrats raise (high fructose corn syrup follows second-hand smoke as the scourge of the world). Carbon emissions! Saturated Fats! There’s a new calamity just around the corner for the Democrats.
Republicans aren’t putting their heads in the sand, but they are willing to be satisfied. Republicans can be content, without being complacent. We can appreciate the good, without ignoring the bad. But it takes discernment and a willingness to make value judgments to do that. So, if the Republican Party is on its way out as many in the media are saying, does that mean that happiness is also endangered?
If you see yourself as an optimistic person, with clear values and morals, and you’re not yet a Republican, maybe you should rethink that decision. You might find some happiness here.
I’m not surprised. Being a Republican means having a clear set of values devoid of the moral relativity that plagues the Democrats. When you fail to have a clear concept of good and bad or right and wrong, it can leave you ungrounded and unsure. You have no touchstone on which to rely, no way to assess the merit or worth of anything. If there is no clear better or worse, then how do you know if you’ve achieved a satisfying result? How can you ever be happy if there is nothing you value as superior to something else? If everything is relative, then nothing is special.
This is why having a leader who represents Democratic Party values is a mistake. If you believe that Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Il-Sung are merely friends we haven’t yet made, you don’t understand friendship. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Gordon Brown are not more important to you than the Castros, then you have no clear cut values. If everyone is treated the same, with no accounting for their character and behavior, then we have moral chaos. This is not the road to peace, it’s a path to our own destruction.
Republicans tend to believe in the inherent ability and value of each person and to trust that people can achieve if they are free to do so. Democrats view people as victims of some wrong or another who need to be taken care of and shown what to do. This is why the Democratic Party proposes the golden handcuffs that come with the welfare state. They don’t want to see individual achievement; they want to have their hand in whatever anyone accomplishes. They need to justify their existence and their continuing control over our daily lives.
The Democrats love the story of Robin Hood and have taken it upon themselves to take from the rich and give to the poor, in some twisted notion of nobility. In reality, they are trying to make the successful feel guilty about their success and the unfortunate believe that their situation is beyond their control and they own the government their very life. This is a dysfunctional relationship that any therapist would encourage you to run from – but it is the basic economic and social platform of the Democrats.
Republicans have no trouble prioritizing, Democrats cannot choose. Republicans put their country first and their family first. Democrats think this is arrogant, biased and uncaring – we should treat all nations, all people the same. It must be hard to figure out if you’re happy or not if you don’t consider one thing more important than another.
Despite the campaign rhetoric from last year, it is the Republicans who believe in hope, the Democrats who believe in doom and gloom. The Democrats ignore any evidence that the world is not coming to an end – scientific studies that dispute the global warming hysteria, for example. The more diseases we get a handle on, the more new threats the Democrats raise (high fructose corn syrup follows second-hand smoke as the scourge of the world). Carbon emissions! Saturated Fats! There’s a new calamity just around the corner for the Democrats.
Republicans aren’t putting their heads in the sand, but they are willing to be satisfied. Republicans can be content, without being complacent. We can appreciate the good, without ignoring the bad. But it takes discernment and a willingness to make value judgments to do that. So, if the Republican Party is on its way out as many in the media are saying, does that mean that happiness is also endangered?
If you see yourself as an optimistic person, with clear values and morals, and you’re not yet a Republican, maybe you should rethink that decision. You might find some happiness here.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Farewell to Jack Kemp
Jack Kemp passed away this weekend. It’s a sad reality that his passing was better covered by the sports media, who respectfully recalled the former quarterback, than the mainstream media. Kemp was a true ideologue and visionary in the best sense of both words. He believed in something and put his beliefs into action. He wasn’t a politician out of any need for attention or power, but because he wanted to make the world a better place. Only his view of a better world was not the unrealistic, Utopian Kumbaya of the liberals but grounded in economic and political reality. And he eschewed knee-jerk right wing politics for a kinder, gentler capitalist agenda that, if realized, would benefit all Americans.
I once looked to him as the future of the Republican Party. He was the original “compassionate conservative,” the real deal. He was a Republican through and through, yet realized the GOP would need to remind the public of its heart if it wanted to maintain its status. It was quite a blow to me when Kemp finally had the national stage, during his run for VP, when he was unable to articulate his position as well as he had previously. During his debate with the robotic and un-charismatic Gore, Kemp was surprisingly incapable of conveying his passion or his message. It was a golden opportunity missed, and Kemp never regained the national stage.
Still, he continued to speak and his voice was worth listening to. Not long after Obama’s win, Kemp wrote, “the GOP needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.” He was right, again. The Republican Party cannot hand over those issues to the Democrats and hope to win elections in the future. We need to remind the pubic of our core values and how they will make for a stronger America. Kemp took bold stands – his position in favor of drastic changes to the federal tax code, including imposition of a form of a flat tax, was radical, but more necessary today than ever. And as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development he showed that Republican and concern for the poor were not mutually exclusive concepts.
With our party in disarray, we could use a man like Jack Kemp. We need to be the party of strong values, visionary ideas and concern for the health and safety of all Americans. Let’s honor Jack Kemp by living up to his ideals and shaping our party to be a shining beacon for liberty, freedom and justice for all.
I once looked to him as the future of the Republican Party. He was the original “compassionate conservative,” the real deal. He was a Republican through and through, yet realized the GOP would need to remind the public of its heart if it wanted to maintain its status. It was quite a blow to me when Kemp finally had the national stage, during his run for VP, when he was unable to articulate his position as well as he had previously. During his debate with the robotic and un-charismatic Gore, Kemp was surprisingly incapable of conveying his passion or his message. It was a golden opportunity missed, and Kemp never regained the national stage.
Still, he continued to speak and his voice was worth listening to. Not long after Obama’s win, Kemp wrote, “the GOP needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.” He was right, again. The Republican Party cannot hand over those issues to the Democrats and hope to win elections in the future. We need to remind the pubic of our core values and how they will make for a stronger America. Kemp took bold stands – his position in favor of drastic changes to the federal tax code, including imposition of a form of a flat tax, was radical, but more necessary today than ever. And as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development he showed that Republican and concern for the poor were not mutually exclusive concepts.
With our party in disarray, we could use a man like Jack Kemp. We need to be the party of strong values, visionary ideas and concern for the health and safety of all Americans. Let’s honor Jack Kemp by living up to his ideals and shaping our party to be a shining beacon for liberty, freedom and justice for all.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Conflicting Views on the Threat of Swine Flu
At least we know where the head of Homeland Security stands on, well, securing the homeland. According to a recent interchange between Janet Napolitano and John McCain, when asked by the Senator "What conditions would prevail that would say we need to close the border between the United States and Mexico, if any?" she replied "I don't think there are any."
So unwilling to protect the borders of the United States, Napolitano could not envision any scenario where we would stop entry into America by foreigners. I guess the quote on Ellis Island should be augmented to include "your coughing, feverish masses."
So whether it's a 23-month-old affected with the flu or a terrorist plotting against the U.S., Napolitano's view is the same -- let's keep those borders open!
From her extreme example of lack of concern, we go to the overly-protective Joe Biden who told the media to run, run for the hills, duck, cover, stop, drop and roll. Well, actually, he was more inartful than that, offering to close down the transportation industry as we know it by warning the American public about traveling in any enclosed quarters including planes, trains, and subways. Horse drawn carriages are Biden-approved, however.
Personally, the whole topic seems overblown, the media latching onto a story that they think will excite the public enough to get them to change channels away from Dr. Phil and Oprah -- so being able to throw around terms like epidemic or the cooler sounding pandemic is just a means towards boosting ratings.
So unwilling to protect the borders of the United States, Napolitano could not envision any scenario where we would stop entry into America by foreigners. I guess the quote on Ellis Island should be augmented to include "your coughing, feverish masses."
So whether it's a 23-month-old affected with the flu or a terrorist plotting against the U.S., Napolitano's view is the same -- let's keep those borders open!
From her extreme example of lack of concern, we go to the overly-protective Joe Biden who told the media to run, run for the hills, duck, cover, stop, drop and roll. Well, actually, he was more inartful than that, offering to close down the transportation industry as we know it by warning the American public about traveling in any enclosed quarters including planes, trains, and subways. Horse drawn carriages are Biden-approved, however.
Personally, the whole topic seems overblown, the media latching onto a story that they think will excite the public enough to get them to change channels away from Dr. Phil and Oprah -- so being able to throw around terms like epidemic or the cooler sounding pandemic is just a means towards boosting ratings.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Minnesota Goes After Online Gambling
Minnesota is not considered a conservative state by any means, having elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura its governor and Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken as a senator (give or take fifty votes). Yet, when it comes to the Internet, Minnesota is making a move that will bring the ACLU knocking faster than you can say, “yah, sure.”
Today, state officials from the Department of Public Safety have aimed their sights on an area which they believe threatens the safety of their citizens. Child porn, drug dealers, gangs? Nope something even more insidious -- Internet gambling. Yep, the full force and power of the state government of Minnesota is rallying to protect us all from the scourge that is online gambling.
According to a news report in the Star-Tribune, the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division has instructed 11 national and regional telephone and Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access by all Minnesota-based computers to nearly 200 online gambling websites.
The article quotes John Willems, the director of the agency instituting the crackdown, as saying, "We are putting site operators and Minnesota online gamblers on notice and in advance. State residents with online escrow accounts should be aware that access to their accounts may be jeopardized and their funds in peril."
According to the article, Willems does not know how much Internet wagering is going on in Minnesota either in the amount of dollars or the number of players, but believes that the amount of gambling going on in his state over the Internet “is fairly large.”
What has motivated this decision? That can be deduced fairly easily as Willems notes that the Canterbury Park in Shakopee has said that its casino-style games have been hurt. Once again, protection of the local state gambling operation, and not any issue of law or morality, carries the day. This is a near replay of the efforts in Kentucky to protect their online gambling site, TwinSpires.com, by attempting to seize the domain names of gambling sites used by residents of that state.
Here, the state of Minnesota is not trying to seize the websites – a wise move as the Kentucky appellate court halted the seizures there ruling that the state misapplied its seizure laws. Instead, the state agency sent notices to ISPs ordering them to block their sites to Minnesota residents. But the move would have the same effect -- probibiting what is otherwise legal conduct.
The state is apparently relying on a 1961 federal law that gives states the authority to control illegal gambling, yet how that gives them the right to interfere with free speech and violate interstate commerce is another question. One I hope will be answered in favor of online gambling.
To me, it's a basic Republican position to want as little governmental intervention in our lives as possible. I should be free to decide how I want to spend my free time and my money, without unnecessary governmental interference. Poker is not a crime and should not be treated like one. The citizens of Minnesota, like those of Kentucky, do not need their government to act as their babysitter. And they certainly don't need their states interfering with their free speech rights for the sole purpose of protectionism. This is just censorship, plain and simple, and as a Republican I don't need the government stepping in to stop every form of communication they don't agree with. While I'm not often on the side of the ACLU, I'm looking forward to their weighing in on this issue.
In the meantime, the Poker Players Alliance has already issued a statement objecting to the Minnesota’s anti-online gambling efforts, writing:
Today, state officials from the Department of Public Safety have aimed their sights on an area which they believe threatens the safety of their citizens. Child porn, drug dealers, gangs? Nope something even more insidious -- Internet gambling. Yep, the full force and power of the state government of Minnesota is rallying to protect us all from the scourge that is online gambling.
According to a news report in the Star-Tribune, the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division has instructed 11 national and regional telephone and Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access by all Minnesota-based computers to nearly 200 online gambling websites.
The article quotes John Willems, the director of the agency instituting the crackdown, as saying, "We are putting site operators and Minnesota online gamblers on notice and in advance. State residents with online escrow accounts should be aware that access to their accounts may be jeopardized and their funds in peril."
According to the article, Willems does not know how much Internet wagering is going on in Minnesota either in the amount of dollars or the number of players, but believes that the amount of gambling going on in his state over the Internet “is fairly large.”
What has motivated this decision? That can be deduced fairly easily as Willems notes that the Canterbury Park in Shakopee has said that its casino-style games have been hurt. Once again, protection of the local state gambling operation, and not any issue of law or morality, carries the day. This is a near replay of the efforts in Kentucky to protect their online gambling site, TwinSpires.com, by attempting to seize the domain names of gambling sites used by residents of that state.
Here, the state of Minnesota is not trying to seize the websites – a wise move as the Kentucky appellate court halted the seizures there ruling that the state misapplied its seizure laws. Instead, the state agency sent notices to ISPs ordering them to block their sites to Minnesota residents. But the move would have the same effect -- probibiting what is otherwise legal conduct.
The state is apparently relying on a 1961 federal law that gives states the authority to control illegal gambling, yet how that gives them the right to interfere with free speech and violate interstate commerce is another question. One I hope will be answered in favor of online gambling.
To me, it's a basic Republican position to want as little governmental intervention in our lives as possible. I should be free to decide how I want to spend my free time and my money, without unnecessary governmental interference. Poker is not a crime and should not be treated like one. The citizens of Minnesota, like those of Kentucky, do not need their government to act as their babysitter. And they certainly don't need their states interfering with their free speech rights for the sole purpose of protectionism. This is just censorship, plain and simple, and as a Republican I don't need the government stepping in to stop every form of communication they don't agree with. While I'm not often on the side of the ACLU, I'm looking forward to their weighing in on this issue.
In the meantime, the Poker Players Alliance has already issued a statement objecting to the Minnesota’s anti-online gambling efforts, writing:
Matt Werden, the Minnesota state director of the Poker Players Alliance, the leading poker grassroots advocacy group with more than one million members nationwide, and more than 21,000 in Minnesota, today issued the following statement following the press announcement by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that they are attempting to block citizens from accessing any commercial gambling sites, including online poker sites.
This isn't simply a heavy-handed tactic by the government; this is a clear misrepresentation of federal law, as well as Minnesota law, used in an unprecedented way to try and censor the Internet. I don't know what U.S. Code they're reading, but it is not illegal to play this great American pastime online, and we're calling their bluff.
The fact is, online poker is not illegal, it's not criminal, and it cannot be forcibly blocked by a state authority looking to score some political points. What are they going to do when this fails, ban poker books and burn our players at the stake?
We see headlines like this coming from communist China but never expect that it could happen here in Minnesota. The good news is groups like the Poker Players Alliance are here to protect the rights of poker players and set the record straight when government reaches too far. But this is more than just protecting poker – this is about keeping the internet free of censorship and ensuring that law abiding citizens can enjoy a game of Texas Hold 'Em in the comfort of their own home, whether it's online or with a group of friends.
The PPA will take any action necessary to make sure our members and the general public are aware of these oppressive and illegal actions, and to make sure the game of poker – in all its forms – is protected in the state of Minnesota."
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama's Foreign Policy -- I'm Sorry, So Sorry
We all remember Michelle Obama’s statement in early 2008 that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” I am sorry to say that after fewer than one hundred days into her husband’s administration, I am not proud of my country. At least, not proud of the America that Obama and his administration represent.
In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).
Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.
And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation. Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.
Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S.
I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America. Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.
I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012.
In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).
Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.
And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation. Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.
Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S.
I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America. Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.
I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea Party and the Liberals
The conservative's attempt to show that they can rally people to their cause was not a rousing success this past Tax Day. The nationwide tea parties were a sparsely attended affair in most locales. Still, the thought behind the protests -- a retro, grassroots effort to speak out about unnecessary and excessive government spending and taxation -- was a noble one.
Traditionally, it has been the left that galvanizes its supporters to sing songs and carry signs (to paraphrase The Buffalo Springfield) while the people on the right has been relegated to "silent" status. The right stay at home and watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh, but seldom march or chant. So it was refreshing to see an effort to unite and inspire that group not to sit and grumble, but to make their voices heard.
At least that was my take on it. The always reliably anti-Republican militant Janeane Garofalo had a different take. Speaking to the like-minded Keith Olbermann -- friend to Conservatives everywhere -- Garofalo maligned and slandered the Tea Party protesters in the most vicious way possible.
"Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."
Garofalo then continued her tirade equating conservatives with "average white power activists," and accused Republicans of having a serious mental deficiency.
And, in case her racism charge against the protesters -- who were, mind you, carrying signs saying "Stop Big Government" and "Taxation is Piracy" -- she continued. "Again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House."
It is disturbing enough that this woman holds such irrational thoughts, but the fact that she was given a national platform to spew them, while been egged on gleefully by her conspiratorial pal, is even worse. Liberals like these do not debate issues -- they just make unfounded, hateful allegations knowing they won't be challenged. Indeed, Olbermann brought Garofalo on precisely because she wouldn't discuss the issues raised by the protesters, but would turn the debate into an open attack on everyone who dared to come out and speak their minds against the president's budget.
It's ironic, I suppose, that the same liberals who wouldn't say a cross word against real evil in the world -- excoriating Bush for using phrases such as the axis of evil against totalitarian regimes that deny their citizens basic rights -- have no trouble at all calling their fellow Americans the most vile things possible.
The protesters were motivated by the economic changes they see in America, not by racism or any other evil motive. They object to liberal efforts to move this country towards vastly increased governmental expansion, greater government spending and greater burden on a smaller number of taxpayers.
Garofalo and Olbermann owe them an apology.
Traditionally, it has been the left that galvanizes its supporters to sing songs and carry signs (to paraphrase The Buffalo Springfield) while the people on the right has been relegated to "silent" status. The right stay at home and watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh, but seldom march or chant. So it was refreshing to see an effort to unite and inspire that group not to sit and grumble, but to make their voices heard.
At least that was my take on it. The always reliably anti-Republican militant Janeane Garofalo had a different take. Speaking to the like-minded Keith Olbermann -- friend to Conservatives everywhere -- Garofalo maligned and slandered the Tea Party protesters in the most vicious way possible.
"Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."
Garofalo then continued her tirade equating conservatives with "average white power activists," and accused Republicans of having a serious mental deficiency.
And, in case her racism charge against the protesters -- who were, mind you, carrying signs saying "Stop Big Government" and "Taxation is Piracy" -- she continued. "Again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House."
It is disturbing enough that this woman holds such irrational thoughts, but the fact that she was given a national platform to spew them, while been egged on gleefully by her conspiratorial pal, is even worse. Liberals like these do not debate issues -- they just make unfounded, hateful allegations knowing they won't be challenged. Indeed, Olbermann brought Garofalo on precisely because she wouldn't discuss the issues raised by the protesters, but would turn the debate into an open attack on everyone who dared to come out and speak their minds against the president's budget.
It's ironic, I suppose, that the same liberals who wouldn't say a cross word against real evil in the world -- excoriating Bush for using phrases such as the axis of evil against totalitarian regimes that deny their citizens basic rights -- have no trouble at all calling their fellow Americans the most vile things possible.
The protesters were motivated by the economic changes they see in America, not by racism or any other evil motive. They object to liberal efforts to move this country towards vastly increased governmental expansion, greater government spending and greater burden on a smaller number of taxpayers.
Garofalo and Olbermann owe them an apology.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Obama in Europe
President Obama's first trip to Europe has been hailed -- as pretty much everything he does -- as an enormous success. The media applauded his humility and conciliatory approach. They cheered the end of the age of arrogance, the hallmark of the Bush Administration.
Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.
Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.
He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.
This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.
Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?
Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.
Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.
Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.
France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.
And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.
After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."
Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.
So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.
I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.
When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.
Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.
I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.
Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.
Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.
He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.
This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.
Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?
Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.
Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.
Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.
France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.
And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.
After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."
Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.
So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.
I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.
When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.
Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.
I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Blame the Victim, Rely on Doublespeak
Earlier this week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of the drug war raging through Mexico, claiming lives and threatening communities on both sides of the border, that the U.S. was to blame for this problem.
She said: "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians.
"I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility."
And I suppose a provocatively dressed woman is co-responsible for being raped?
Now, at least Ms. Clinton voted in favor of erecting a border fence between our two countries when she was in the senate, as did the president. Unfortunately, our new Secretary of Homeland Security, former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, was not in favor of such a measure.
As she simplistically told the Associated Press when she was still governor, "You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's the way the border works."
And she’s now in charge of keeping America safe.
Her first step in this direction is to play with words. Because, of course, if you do not use the word “terrorist,” terrorism itself will disappear. Or so must be her thought process.
In an interview with Der Spiegel last week, the reporter noted that in “your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano replied, “Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Well, I feel safer.
But Ms. Clinton's blame the U.S. and Ms. Napolitano's let's play with words pale in comparison to the blame the victims doublespeak that occurred in Oakland yesterday.
The victims there are four dead police officers, shot by Lovelle Mixon. Approximately 60 protesters held a rally in Oakland to condemn the police and pay their respects to Mixon, who was killed after he shot the officers.
The protest was organized by the Oakland branch of the Uhuru Movement for Economic Development who, not having received notice of the semantic change of Secretary Napolitano, hoisted signs reading “Stop Police Terror.”
"OPD you can't hide - we charge you with genocide," chanted the demonstrators. They were honoring Mixon, a fugitive on parolee who killed two motorcycle officers who had pulled him over in a traffic stop, then killed two more officers who tried to capture him when he was hiding out at his sister's apartment nearby.
Mixon had bought the gun he used to shoot the officers after being released from prison, in violation of his parole. He knew he had committed a felony that could send him back to prison. And this is who the protesters decided to honor?
One woman at the rally chanted, “Lovelle is a hero! Lovelle is a hero!" Others told reporters that Mixon was fighting back against an oppressive police force. A man summed it up thusly, “I don't condone what he did, but karma comes around. What goes around comes around."
Another protester, who claimed to be a cousin of Mixon said, "He needs sympathy too. If he's a criminal, everybody's a criminal."
If he’s a criminal, everybody’s a criminal? That is not just doublespeak, it's an outright lie. If we continue to blur the lines between good and evil, criminal and victim, we'll have no moral center. Where are our values?
There was justifiable outrage around the country at the AIG executives who took contracted bonuses -- I don't think you could find anybody who sided with them. But a multiple murderer can get 60 people to march and chant on his behalf? What is wrong with us?
She said: "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians.
"I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility."
And I suppose a provocatively dressed woman is co-responsible for being raped?
Now, at least Ms. Clinton voted in favor of erecting a border fence between our two countries when she was in the senate, as did the president. Unfortunately, our new Secretary of Homeland Security, former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, was not in favor of such a measure.
As she simplistically told the Associated Press when she was still governor, "You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's the way the border works."
And she’s now in charge of keeping America safe.
Her first step in this direction is to play with words. Because, of course, if you do not use the word “terrorist,” terrorism itself will disappear. Or so must be her thought process.
In an interview with Der Spiegel last week, the reporter noted that in “your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano replied, “Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Well, I feel safer.
But Ms. Clinton's blame the U.S. and Ms. Napolitano's let's play with words pale in comparison to the blame the victims doublespeak that occurred in Oakland yesterday.
The victims there are four dead police officers, shot by Lovelle Mixon. Approximately 60 protesters held a rally in Oakland to condemn the police and pay their respects to Mixon, who was killed after he shot the officers.
The protest was organized by the Oakland branch of the Uhuru Movement for Economic Development who, not having received notice of the semantic change of Secretary Napolitano, hoisted signs reading “Stop Police Terror.”
"OPD you can't hide - we charge you with genocide," chanted the demonstrators. They were honoring Mixon, a fugitive on parolee who killed two motorcycle officers who had pulled him over in a traffic stop, then killed two more officers who tried to capture him when he was hiding out at his sister's apartment nearby.
Mixon had bought the gun he used to shoot the officers after being released from prison, in violation of his parole. He knew he had committed a felony that could send him back to prison. And this is who the protesters decided to honor?
One woman at the rally chanted, “Lovelle is a hero! Lovelle is a hero!" Others told reporters that Mixon was fighting back against an oppressive police force. A man summed it up thusly, “I don't condone what he did, but karma comes around. What goes around comes around."
Another protester, who claimed to be a cousin of Mixon said, "He needs sympathy too. If he's a criminal, everybody's a criminal."
If he’s a criminal, everybody’s a criminal? That is not just doublespeak, it's an outright lie. If we continue to blur the lines between good and evil, criminal and victim, we'll have no moral center. Where are our values?
There was justifiable outrage around the country at the AIG executives who took contracted bonuses -- I don't think you could find anybody who sided with them. But a multiple murderer can get 60 people to march and chant on his behalf? What is wrong with us?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Kentucky Continues Hypocrisy Against Online Gambling
The commonwealth of Kentucky is known for three things – bourbon, tobacco, and horse racing. So it may come as a surprise that Kentucky is taking on the role of the temperance police in the Court of Appeals as they attempt to confiscate the Internet domain names of over one hundred online poker sites. But in a fifty-six page brief, the sanctimony – along with the hypocrisy – comes dripping off the page as the Commonwealth warns of the “particularly harmful” nature of Internet gambling.
The background of this dispute is as follows. After the Kentucky governor Steve Beshear was unable to follow up on a campaign promise to bring casino-type gambling to Kentucky, he decided to marshal his forces behind closing 141 Internet gambling sites that were available in – though not located in – Kentucky. His secretary of justice and public safety brought a criminal seizure action against 141 Internet domain names pursuant to Kentucky statue 528, which provided for seizure of “unlawful gambling devices” operating within the Commonwealth.
In a closed-door hearing, the Commonwealth was able to convince a judge to order the seizure despite the fact that the domain names had not been notified, had not had an opportunity to object, and were not located in the state. At a subsequent forfeiture hearing, lawyers representing the domain names, the online gambling industry, and other free speech organizations objected to the seizure on a number of grounds, including that domain names are not “gambling devices” (defined under the statute as being a device such as a slot machine or roulette wheel. They also argued that the Commonwealth improperly used a criminal forfeiture statute in a civil proceeding, and improperly ordered seizure without first finding a criminal violation.
Those representing the defendant domain names lost at the trial court, but were successful in bringing a writ prohibiting the trial court from following through with the forfeitures. The Commonwealth appealed this decision and last month filed its mammoth brief. Despite the fact that the governor of Kentucky had run for reelection on the promise of bringing casino gambling to the state, and despite the fact that the Kentucky-based online gambling site TwinSpires.com was excluded from the seizure and forfeiture order, the Kentucky brief wraps the Commonwealth in all that is good and pure in its fight against the evils of demon-gambling.
The brief calls the world of online gambling an “illegal racket” which is particularly dangerous because it is easy, available and anonymous, operating in an “unregulated underworld” where gamblers can gamble in relative isolation and “instantly wager and lose retirement savings or college funds in secrecy.”
Putting aside the over-wrought, hysteria in this loaded language, what the brief fails to do is explain how that differs from the Kentucky-based TwinSpires.com, the online gambling site of Churchill Downs, where the first button on the home page is “wager now.” If their complaint is that these gambling sites are located off shore, then welcome them to set up in Kentucky. I’m sure they‘ll be happy to.
But this case is not about protecting the citizens of Kentucky from the sin of online gambling at offshore sites, but about protecting the business of Churchill Downs from losing money to competing online gambling sites. The Commonwealth’s attack on online gambling is about two things – protectionism and money. They want to protect their own gambling interests and hold these off shore sites hostage in exchange for monetary payoffs.
Hopefully, the Court of Appeals will see through the hysteria and evaluate the legal issues at the heart of this case and affirm the order prohibiting the seizure of the domain names and letting them operate free from protectionist interference.
The background of this dispute is as follows. After the Kentucky governor Steve Beshear was unable to follow up on a campaign promise to bring casino-type gambling to Kentucky, he decided to marshal his forces behind closing 141 Internet gambling sites that were available in – though not located in – Kentucky. His secretary of justice and public safety brought a criminal seizure action against 141 Internet domain names pursuant to Kentucky statue 528, which provided for seizure of “unlawful gambling devices” operating within the Commonwealth.
In a closed-door hearing, the Commonwealth was able to convince a judge to order the seizure despite the fact that the domain names had not been notified, had not had an opportunity to object, and were not located in the state. At a subsequent forfeiture hearing, lawyers representing the domain names, the online gambling industry, and other free speech organizations objected to the seizure on a number of grounds, including that domain names are not “gambling devices” (defined under the statute as being a device such as a slot machine or roulette wheel. They also argued that the Commonwealth improperly used a criminal forfeiture statute in a civil proceeding, and improperly ordered seizure without first finding a criminal violation.
Those representing the defendant domain names lost at the trial court, but were successful in bringing a writ prohibiting the trial court from following through with the forfeitures. The Commonwealth appealed this decision and last month filed its mammoth brief. Despite the fact that the governor of Kentucky had run for reelection on the promise of bringing casino gambling to the state, and despite the fact that the Kentucky-based online gambling site TwinSpires.com was excluded from the seizure and forfeiture order, the Kentucky brief wraps the Commonwealth in all that is good and pure in its fight against the evils of demon-gambling.
The brief calls the world of online gambling an “illegal racket” which is particularly dangerous because it is easy, available and anonymous, operating in an “unregulated underworld” where gamblers can gamble in relative isolation and “instantly wager and lose retirement savings or college funds in secrecy.”
Putting aside the over-wrought, hysteria in this loaded language, what the brief fails to do is explain how that differs from the Kentucky-based TwinSpires.com, the online gambling site of Churchill Downs, where the first button on the home page is “wager now.” If their complaint is that these gambling sites are located off shore, then welcome them to set up in Kentucky. I’m sure they‘ll be happy to.
But this case is not about protecting the citizens of Kentucky from the sin of online gambling at offshore sites, but about protecting the business of Churchill Downs from losing money to competing online gambling sites. The Commonwealth’s attack on online gambling is about two things – protectionism and money. They want to protect their own gambling interests and hold these off shore sites hostage in exchange for monetary payoffs.
Hopefully, the Court of Appeals will see through the hysteria and evaluate the legal issues at the heart of this case and affirm the order prohibiting the seizure of the domain names and letting them operate free from protectionist interference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)