Category Archives: Politics

Dick Cheney, Grumblemaster

Dick Cheney, in full self-justification mode, is running around criticizing everything about the Obama administration. This is like Microsoft griping about bugs in another company’s software. Most of us wish Dick Cheney would just go away, because his legacy is not exactly shimmering.

  • We continue fighting two wars, with no end in sight.
  • The economy is in the worst shape since the 1930s.
  • We went from a surplus to our largest national debt ever (though that number will soon be shattered).
  • Our moral standing in the world, built over 230 years, is shredded.
  • We went soft on the Taliban so we could divert our resources and attention to Iraq. And now the Taliban threatens to take over the world’s 6th most populous country, along with their 100+ nuclear warheads.
  • Because the Bush administration (with Cheney’s insistence) refused to talk to North Korea and Iran, passing up opportunities early in the administration, one now has nuclear weapons and the other will soon have them. 
  • Eight years of campaign strategy based on dividing the electorate have left the country severely divided, and the idea of states seceding from the Union has even arisen. 
  • We went eight years with nothing done in the name of energy independence.
  • We went eight years with nothing done to fight climate change. 
  • A major American city, New Orleans, remains in tatters.
  • While the number of millionaires exploded, the middle class was pummeled. Remember that dream of settling into a comfortable retirement at age 65? Dream on.

Mr. Cheney, we don’t expect you to apologize. We just want you to go away. You had your chance to show how to do things. It’ll take us a long time to recover.

Share Button
Comments Off on Dick Cheney, Grumblemaster

A New Definition for Stupid

airplane_nyc.jpeg

Overheard in the White House Military Office:

We need some new photos. So let’s send a 747 up to New York City, let it swoop around the city, real low. Oh, and we’ll give it an escort of two F-16 fighters, so that nobody gets alarmed. We’ll keep the mission classified, so nobody will even know it’s happening…right?

While we’re at it, let’s shoot off a huge fireworks display from atop a few skyscrapers. That’ll be cool.

Let’s do it without telling President Obama. Keep it a surprise. I’m sure he’ll love it.

I can imagine the 747 pilot, plus the F-16 pilots, all thinking to themselves, “This is a bad, very bad idea.”

Share Button
Comments Off on A New Definition for Stupid

Jack Welch Grades Barack Obama

I’ve been reading BusinessWeek for about 25 years. It’s a nice supplement to Time and Newsweek (which strike the same chords). Since it targets the business crowd, it’s generally quite conservative.

The first thing I read is the last page, the weekly column by Jack and Suzy Welch. Jack Welch, of course, is the legendary former CEO of GE, sometimes considered the greatest CEO of the 20th Century. 

Their April 20 column was titled “Obama: A Leadership Report Card.” They started out with some disclaimers, saying they disagreed with Obama on many policy issues. 

  • They “passionately oppose” eliminating secret balloting in union elections. 
  • They’re “suspicious” of the cap-and-trade proposal (okay, I don’t know what that means). 
  • They find the new budget “alarming–with its optimistic forecasts and staggering short-term deficits.”
So they have major disagreements with Obama policies. But their column, they stressed, is not about policy, but about leadership. How is he operating as the country’s CEO? 
  • Vision. “Whether you like his politics or not, Obama’s obviously got it. From the economy to the environment, education to health care, the President has articulated his goals to the nation.”
  • Communication. You must state your vision “consistently, vividly, and so darn frequently that your throat gets sore….Every time he speaks, which is often, he’s thoughtful, expansive, and candid.” And they like that he’s getting out of Washington to impart his message, like on the Leno show.
  • Team-building. They were initially skeptical about how Larry Summers and Tim Geithner would work together, and how Hillary Clinton would mesh. But they see Summers and Geithner working together “seamlessly, egos in check.” And, “Hillary is refreshing in her new role, with the President clearly giving her the latitude to make a mark.”
  • Speed. At first, “We actually worried that he was moving too fast on too many fronts, diverting attention from the economic crisis.” But as the weeks progressed, they saw Obama tighten his focus and take some decisive actions (whether you agree with those actions is irrelevant to the column). 
  • Authenticity. This trait, they say, is “the hallmark of evey effective leader.” And for that, they say, “Thank goodness for Michelle.” Barack Obama is “somewhat cool in his effect. That’s fine. But people crave humnanity in their leaders. Luckily, his wife, with her warmth and broad appeal, is supplying it in buckets.”

In summation: “When it comes to the traits a successful leader absolutely has to have, the President is hitting on all cylinders.”

Having said all this, they stress that Obama hasn’t been tested in two key areas: resilience, and championing unpopular causes. Time will tell on those issues.

They conclude, “While we’d like to see his skills applied to different plicies, when it comes to leaership, Barack Obama has certainly earned an A.”

Share Button
Comments Off on Jack Welch Grades Barack Obama

If Time Equals Money….

I heard this morning, while traveling to Indy and listening to CNN, that Joe Biden and his wife gave a whopping 1 percent of their income to charity. An additional press release said they not only give of their money, they give of their time. Yeah, right. Like, 9 percent of their time?

I’m going to put a percentage value on the time Pam and I give to our church, and then reduce our monetary tithe by that much. 

Or maybe no. Because, Joe, that’s not BIBLICAL.

Share Button
Comments Off on If Time Equals Money….

Bo as a Pro-Choice Symbol

bo_dog200.jpgI think Bo is a cute First Dog. But animal rights groups are picking nits (like everyone else). They think the Obamas should have chosen a dog from an animal shelter, rather than a purebred dog from a breeder.

So I’ve been toying with ideas about family choice and the pro-choice view. 

Animal rights groups tend to occupy the political left (though there are plenty of us in the middle and even on the right horrified by the conditions in factory farming). Those animal rights activists would probably be pro-choice–if you don’t want a baby, choose abortion. Your family is your personal business.

Now, the Obamas very deliberately chose Bo. They could have gone to the local dog pound, but didn’t. Their family, their decision.

Actually, you could think of Bo as a dog that had been given up for adoption. Bo didn’t work out with his original owners, so they returned him to the breeder. So in an analogous sense, the Obamas were rescuing an unwanted child. But that apparently doesn’t count with the PETA people.

Let’s play with this some more. Should we criticize parents who give birth to a child, when so many children are awaiting adoption? Many children languish in orphanages and the foster care system, just as untold thousands of cats and dogs sit in animal shelters. 

Maybe we should criticize the Obamas for giving birth to Malia and Sasha, rather than adopting children. How terribly selfish of them. What kind of example does that set for other Americans? How can they encourage adoption, when they themselves chose differently?

In their own families, do those animal rights people adopt children rather than having their own biological children? That would be consistent with their values. 

Or do they, indeed, birth their own children (at least the ones they don’t abort), but only adopt when it comes to pets? Are pets worth rescuing, but not children? 

These are just ideas I’m toying with as I search for something profound to say. I’ll find it eventually.

Share Button
Comments Off on Bo as a Pro-Choice Symbol

Wise Words from the Sage of Omaha

AudacityofHope.jpegToday, dweebs and lawyers run the world. I’m a marginal dweeb. Put me in Medieval society, and I’d be very ordinary. Not strong. Can’t make stuff. If the Vikings attacked my town, I’d be one of the villagers killed while running toward the forest, an arrow in my back. I’d be one of the nameless millions starved under Stalin or Mao. But as it is, because of what our current society values, I have a good place, and Google knows my name.

I think of the minions toiling in construction, logging, and in steel factories–able-bodied men, big, rough-hewn. In centuries past, they would be the warriors, the hunters–important people. Mountain Men. They didn’t need to be smart or articulate. They just needed to be big and fit. I look at some of the people in my church struggling to find a job, and with no education to put on a resume. Some of them might have made excellent Vikings.

Warren Buffet made this point to Barack Obama several years ago. 

After becoming a senator, Barack Obama was summoned to Omaha by Buffet. The billionaire wanted to talk about tax policy–specifically, why Washington kept cutting his taxes. He told Obama, “If there’s class warfare going on in America, then my class is winning.”

Obama writes about the visit in The Audacity of Hope.

Buffet told him he’d done some calculations. “I’ll pay a lower effective tax rate this year than my receptionist….And if the President has his way, I’ll be paying even less.”

“Effective rate” has to do with deriving most of your income from dividends and capital gains, which Bush reduced in 2003 to a mere 15% rate. Meanwhile, the receptionist was taxed at nearly twice that rate.

Since Reagan, tax policy has increasingly favored the wealthy. It’s something Jesus would condemn, but most Christians seem okay with that, since it’s a Republican policy.

“It just makes sense that those of us who’ve benefited most from the market should pay a bigger share,” Buffet said.

And then came this wonderful insight:

I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I’d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can’t run very fast. I’m not particularly strong. I’d probably end up as some wild animal’s dinner.

But I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place where society values my talent and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing–and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that.

Share Button
Comments Off on Wise Words from the Sage of Omaha

What to Make of Obama’s Trip

David Sanger, one of the best reporters out there, wrote an overview of President Obama’s recent overseas trip. It’s neither positive nor negative–just a fair look at what he did and didn’t accomplish, and how much of a “grand strategy” we’re beginning to see (and he warns against looking for a grand strategy, especially so soon). He quotes one Obama adviser as saying, “This trip was more about reattaching all the cars on the train and convincing the other leaders that we’re no longer headed for derailment.”

He also writes, “Tellingly, Mr. Obama talked about taking on terrorists but not tyrants. Al Qaeda had to be destroyed, he said, but Iran, North Korea and Cuba would all be engaged. Gone was Mr. Bush’s signature line that ‘freedom is on the march’ or the insistence that democracy was a God-given right.” So some foreign policy themes may be emerging.

I’ve also been hearing about Sanger’s book “The Inheritance,” which looks at the foreign policy world that Obama inherited from the Bush administration. People like Jim Lehrer, Bob Schieffer, and Michael Beschloss laud the book. It evidently gives all kinds of inside dope that hasn’t yet made the light of day, with some stories that sound like they come from a Le Carre novel. I may need to get this one.

Share Button
Comments Off on What to Make of Obama’s Trip

Go to the Source

Rudy Giuliani was on Morning Joe, criticizing President Obama for not talking tough with Iran. I thought his messages have set a good tone (but what do I know?), and that seems to be what most people think. But Rudy, of course, knows better.gaddafi.jpeg

Years ago, when Muamar Gaddafi of Libya was in the news regularly, you would see his name spelled all kinds of ways. His name contains sounds that lack any exact English equivalent (the initial sound is like a throaty k, like the German pronunciation of Bach, and the middle sound is similar to the English th, but with the tongue pulled back further behind the teeth). So, how to spell it? News sources used all kinds of variations, such as:

  • Gaddafi
  • Khaddafi
  • Gadhafi
  • Qaddhafi
  • Qaddafi
  • Kaddafi
  • Qadaffi
  • Kazzafi
  • Qathafi
  • al-Quadhafi
  • Quathafi
  • Gheddafi
  • Khadafy
  • Qudhafi

That’s the short list. So Americans, entrenched in their vacuum, debated back and forth on the proper pronunciation. Then someone asked, “How does the Libyan press, when publishing in English, spell his name?” Well, they aren’t in accord, either.

  • Libyan Embassy in Washington DC: Col/Muammar Elkaddfi
  • Libya Online: Muammar Al-Qathafi  
  • Libyan American Chamber of Commerce: Muammar Gadafi 

Then the Big Man himself settled it. Turns out said Big Man responded to a letter from some American second-graders, and he signed his name this way: Moammar El-Gadhafi. I would say that’s somewhat definitive. Though if you check Wikipedia, you’ll find that they insist on al-Gaddafi. Whatever.

My point, in a tediously roundabout way, is: how do Arabs feel about Barack Obama’s approach? Forget Rudy–he’s not the target audience (nor is anyone in America the target audience). Nor are any of the professional pundits infesting TV news. How do Obama’s messages come across to Arabs?

queennoor.jpegQueen Noor of Jordan, one of the classiest persons on the planet, came on Morning Joe after Rudy. She was asked about the same issue. Her response: it is not diplomacy to talk with aggression and confrontation. That, she said, does not work. She thought Obama’s speeches, from the inauguration on, have struck the right tone.

This is one of the problems with American news: we just have a bunch of pundits (usually WASPs) sitting around spouting semi-informed or totally uninformed opinions (but faking it well). They go from show to show discussing the Topic of the Day, as if they are authorities on everything. They aren’t. And we shouldn’t take their pronouncements so seriously.

Share Button
Comments Off on Go to the Source

More of the Same

On the way home from work yesterday, I switched the radio to WOWO, and these are the first words I heard: “Obama is just a sack of manure.” That may not be an exact quote, but it’s close. 

I, of course, had stumbled onto the Rush Limbaugh World of Hate show. I listened for a few more minutes as he ranted on about Barack Obama, hateful stuff. I imagine this is what he does for hours on end, day after day. Spewing hatred for all things Obama. A few minutes of Garbage In is all I could take.

Rush likes to throw out stories that “you won’t hear this from the liberal mainstream media.” Fox does that, too. I occasionally look up things like this. There’s bountiful info available, and a discriminating mind (that would be me) can sort through what is and isn’t credible. Often, the reason the “liberal mainstream media” doesn’t report these gossipy tidbits is because they are unverified, unverifiable, or just plain boloney. 

Share Button
Comments Off on More of the Same

Good for Mitt Romney

romney.jpgPeople like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter have no credibility with me, because you’ll never hear them say anything positive about Democrats. No matter what Democrats do, it’s wrong. And if something does go right, it did so in spite of them.

That’s just not how the world works. Democrats do good things, and Republicans do good things. And both do stupid things. There are good motives, and bad motives, on both sides. When someone can acknowledge that, they have credibility in my eyes. (That would be you, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, David Gregory, Bill Bennett, David Gergen, and even James Carville and–this pains me–Karl Rove.) When they can’t admit anything positive about The Evil Opposition, I write them off as hopelessly partisan. As cemented in a Cowboys and Indians mentality, Good Guys and Bad Guys. As seeing the world in black and white, and unable to recognize grays.

So I appreciate what Mitt Romney said the other night at a GOP fundraiser. After criticizing Obama’s budget, he said, “”I also think it’s important for us to nod to the president when he’s right. He will not always be wrong, and he’s done some things I agree with.”

He will not always be wrong. Did you hear that, Sean and Rush?

For standing up to the auto industry, Romney said, “I hope he continues to be tough and shows some backbone, because that industry is not going to make it unless we have real backbone and get those guys to fundamentally restructure all of their obligations.”

And of Geithner, “I think he’s finally getting close to the right answer.”

Hearing stuff like this, I really don’t think Romney would say, “I hope the President fails.”

Different subject: Notre Dame came under fire recently for inviting Obama to speak at Commencement, since it’s a Catholic school and Obama is pro-choice. I voted for Obama, knowing this was an area in which I disagreed with him. I’m glad the pro-life crowd is creating a ruckus here, just as a good reminder to Obama.

Share Button
Comments Off on Good for Mitt Romney

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives