Category Archives: Politics

The Washington Post: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Sunday, March 20, 2011

I wasn’t going to write this. I wasn’t going to write anything today. I’ve got work to do coming out my tush, but I can’t help myself.

We, here in America, tend to focus on the crisis at hand. Charlie Sheen’s self-destruction was, thank goodness, replaced in the headlines, and on television in particular, by the mass destruction in Japan, still underway. And today, coverage of Japan is running behind what’s happening in Libya, even though the former is at least equally interesting, deadly and profound, if not much more so.

Yes, there’s only so much paper a newspaper can afford to publish, only so much air time, even in today’s world of 24 hour cable and Internet news.

Unfortunately, we’re still fighting in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan. These are wars of which our President and his administration are keenly aware, which is why we waited, maybe too long, to take any action in Libya without UN endorsement and coalition support. Nobody, least of all the President, wants to talk about these other actions, not in any overt, explicit way. They long ago became yesterday’s news.

Our long-term presence in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to suck billions from our starving economy, destroying the lives of our soldiers and their families, not to mention the innocent people in the countries where we are engaged, while fueling our enemies’ anti-American propaganda. No, these other actions are not something our government wants to talk about. It’s not something that helps get politicians elected, and the sense is that we’re all stressed out enough already, what with the slowness of our economic recovery and all the other bad news on the air.

Is one major crisis at a time all we can take? Heaven forbid we should let multiple, simultaneous crises affect our view of government, social and economic policy.

Not to worry. Thank goodness we have a free press to keep us real. But wait… I read the Sunday Washington Post. In today’s paper, the right side headline is about Libya, the color picture on the left, a view of (and story about) Three Mile Island with references to what’s happening in Japan. The front page section is 22 pages long, the “Outlook” section, 6 pages. And on not one of those 28 total pages is there a single discussion of what’s happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. They’re obviously just not that important, not as important as “Thomas Jefferson (High School) adds English help amid debate” on the front page, or “Amtrak renames station for Biden” in the second page “Digest,” or “Visiting India, Palin talks tough on China, other topics” on the third page, and so on.

-wf

Misdirection: The stupidity of increasing the retirement age.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Hi. Increasing the retirement age by a couple of years is a meaningless gesture that will have little or no sustained impact on the affordability of Social Security. It’s sort of like asking a Cheetah that hasn’t eaten a few days, at least nothing really tasty – Can you tell I’m on a diet? – to give your 90 year old grandmother an extra few seconds for her and her walker to get a head start. Dollars to donuts – Hmmm, donuts. – she’s had it.
Continue…

It’s time we paid China off.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

By “we,” I mean us. Literally, you and me, as opposed to Congress which could order the pay off, or the Department of the Treasury which could just do it. More on this distinction in a moment.

You know how your relationship with a person, a friend or relative, changes when you let them do you a favor? Especially if you borrow money from that person? It does, doesn’t it. You lose leverage. You know it, and the other person knows it. It may, in fact, be why the other person offered or agreed to do you that favor in the first place, to change your public, if not private, attitude toward his or her behavior. It used to be okay for you to be openly critical of that creep in your department, until he covered your ass with your supervisor when you blew that assignment.
Continue…

Political Quote of the Day: “They’re all a bunch of yahoos.”

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

That honestly profound observation in the headline was made by no more or less an authority than… than my wife. In her own, wonderfully direct way, she has summed up what’s wrong with our government.

It’s not about who we elect. Not really. Maybe it used to be, but not anymore. No. The media, obsessively focused on the politics of it all, may lead us to believe that it’s about ideologies, about inherent differences between Democrats and Republicans and now the Tea Party movement. Those differences are overblown, interesting at most, and pretty much irrelevant as a root cause for the mess we call “Washington.”

There are deeply rooted structural problems with our government which, until they are fully appreciated and corrected, will continue to prevent that government from managing effectively.

We have way too many players constantly running for office, who are, for all meaningful intents and purposes, clueless. What we have, is a simple political tradition which has evolved, which has been perverted to the point of requiring a very different skill set to get elected, than it takes to do what we need our representatives – the President included – to do after they are elected. The result is a superficiality of government which invariably misses the point.

All the pundits, analysts and victory speeches aside, after yesterday’s election, the only thing I know for sure is that I love my wife. If only she had political aspirations.

-wf

Question of the Day: Exactly whose war is McChrystal fighting?

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The question isn’t whether or not General McChrystal and his high ranking aids should have criticized the President and other national security senior players in public. His remarks, however accurate and commonly held within the military, were entirely inappropriate. He deserves to be fired. The President has no choice but to make an example of him and those of his staff who were unable to keep their opinions to themselves, on the record or not, in the presence of a Rolling Stone reporter.

The question is not even whether or not the General’s comments were accurate and, if so, what their implications might be for our foreign policy and politics.

The question is, given the considerable differences between the General and the President and our civilian national security management, whose war has the General been fighting? The one the President, our elected leader, has instructed him to fight, or the one General McChrystal believes he should be fighting?

The question of the day is, “Who’s in charge?” Has General McChrystal honored his Constitutional obligation to the maximum extent of his abilities, regardless of his personal opinions of the quality and direction of elected decision-making, or has he allowed those personal opinions to affect the course of our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

-wf

a href=”http://s32.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s32Words” target=”_top”>
Site Meter

Question of the Day: Who are we to tell Iran (or any country) that they can’t have nuclear weapons?

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

For the record, I find nuclear weapons, for any imaginable purpose, including self-defense, to be abhorrent. I don’t want there to be nuclear weapons, and I certainly don’t want Iran to have them for all the obvious reasons.

My problem with the repeated demands we have made has to do with the integrity of our position. My rule about telling other countries what to do is simple. Don’t expect them to acquiesce to demands that we wouldn’t agree to ourselves.
Continue…

They’re the “BP” in “bupkis.” The solution they haven’t and won’t consider.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

There is arguably enough oil in the earth, gushing out of the failed BP well in the Gulf of Mexico, to eventually cover the world’s oceans.  After all, it only has to be a molecule thick.  At the very least, we are in the midst of a continuing environmental disaster of potentially biblical proportions.  While BP’s various failed attempts to stop the flow are laughably pathetic, the fact is, this mess isn’t the least bit funny.

What is curious is BP’s failure to consider and implement the most obvious, quickest, least expensive solution: Set off a substantial explosive device at the wellhead on the bottom of the ocean floor.

The hole they have drilled to find the oil is relatively small and proceeds from the ocean floor more than two miles into the earth.  A carefully engineered device with sufficient power would seal that hole, fusing it shut, and that would be that.

And if BP isn’t up to it, Congress should give President Obama the authority to seize the well and get the job done without a moment’s further delay – at BP’s expense, of course.

-wf


Site Meter

It’s not what Senator Reid said that’s so troubling, as it is our reaction to it.

Monday, December 11, 2010

We live in an age in which everybody is way too sensitive.

For the record, I’m not a big fan of Harry Reid, Majority Leader in the Senate. I don’t think he’s that bright. I think he cares more about politics than about the American people. And I think he has a reckless disregard for the Constitution and our laws as recently demonstrated by his having bribed some of his colleagues to secure their votes for what has got to be one of the most ill begotten pieces of major legislation in the our country’s history. With any luck, the voters of Nevada will consider it their duty to throw him out of office in November.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, as reported in a new book, “Game Change,” by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, Senator Reid made the observation that America was probably ready for a “light-skinned” African American, well-spoken, “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” (Breathtaking, isn’t it, the things a person of Senator Reid’s intellectual power thinks about in his spare time.) Senator Reid has now apologized to President Obama. To no one’s surprise, Republicans are busy complaining about there being a double standard based on what they imagine the Democrats would be screaming if Reid had not been one of their own.

To his credit, President Obama has accepted Senator Reid’s apology, for what it was worth. While Candidate Obama may have used race to help him get elected, the last thing President Obama needs right now is the distraction of another headline-stealing discussion of racism in America. Between healthcare legislation, Afghanistan, Yemen and other crises real and imagined, he has other things on his mind.

Hmmm. My problem is that I don’t think Senator Reid said anything to apologize about. We might not like what he said for its implications about lingering racism, but the fact that he said it doesn’t change anything for the better or worse. That he said it at all, apparently in what he thought was a private conversation, says more about his age and profession than it does about any personal biases he may hold. In fact, it says nothing at all about the latter.

For another, what if it hadn’t been Harry Reid who said it? What if it had been, oh, I don’t know, an academically objective black Professor of Political Science at a major, well respected university? The point is, as an academic observation, it has merit. It’s at least debatable, and certainly no cause for panic – or apology.

No. The problem here is not what Senator Reid said, it’s the fact that he felt the need to apologize for it, that President Obama considered it appropriate to accept his apology rather than decry the need for it, and that it’s now become a big deal.

What is going on? Is our country being run my nincompoops? Does anyone not involved in Washington politics really think this is worth talking about – other than the media, of course? And please… Please don’t tell me that rank and file black people are insulted. With the exception of most of our elected officials in Washington, no one is really that small-minded.

-wf


Site Meter

Implausible Deniability: Who is President Obama kidding?

Monday, January 4, 2010

Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Two questions:

1. Would any of us who believed in and voted for President Obama thought that he would have allowed or even endorsed the deals struck by Senator Harry Reid to procure the votes of hold-out Democrats for the Senate’s healthcare legislation?

Exempting Nebraska from paying its share of expanded Medicaid… forever …for Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, saving Nebraska an estimated $45 million over the next 10 years.

$10 billion (with a “b”) for community health centers in Vermont for Senator Bernie Sander’s vote.

A $300 million increase in Medicaid for Louisiana for Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote.

Not to mention the deal President Obama, himself, struck with representatives of American pharmaceutical manufacturers earlier this year, the price of which was the failure of Senate Democrats to approve the importation of prescription drugs from Canada – this from a candidate, now President who has persistently denounced the influence of lobbyists.

2. Do any of us really believe that President Obama was, in fact, unaware of these deals being struck? …that Senator Reid made these arrangements – the first 3 I’ve listed above, among others – without the prior knowledge of key Administration insiders, including the President to whom those insiders report?

-wf


Site Meter

Unemployment Benefits: Too little to be effective.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Unemployment compensation has been a tool for reducing the impact of any downturn since the 1930s. The idea is simple. In a consumer driven economy, when employers feel the need to lay off workers, one of the most effective tools at your disposal is to continue to pay the unemployed for humanitarian reasons, of course, but also so that their demand for goods and services will not decline so substantially as to make matters worse.
Continue…