Tag Archives: News

Maybe it’s time for a new Democratic Party mascot?

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

That scared little rodent in the picture is a Lemming.

Yesterday’s 14 to 9 vote by the Senate Finance Committee is being touted by the White House and Senate leadership as a “bipartisan” endorsement of the Committee’s proposed healthcare reform legislation. Of the 10 Republicans on the Committee, only Olympia Snowe of Maine voted for it. Good news for The Red Team: Notwithstanding Senator Snowe’s reservations and caveats, the Republicans are no longer officially the party of “No.” One of them has said “Yes.” In fact 10% of Republicans on the Committee, if you like using percentages for small numbers, support the Baucus plan.

What everyone seems to missing is that Snowe’s affirmative vote is not what’s striking here. What’s notable is the complete lack of dissenting votes among the 13 Democrats on the Committee. It’s frankly unbelievable that not one Democrat on the Committee – although there are a few elsewhere in the Senate –found enough wrong with Chairman Baucus’ legislation and had the balls to say so by casting a “No” vote.

No mistake about it, there are significant concerns being voiced by Democrats in both houses, but those concerns will be resolved soon enough by a combination of compromise that produces junk legislation and old fashion political pressure from Congressional leadership and The White House.

This is historic alright, but not in the same league as, for example, civil rights legislation. There’s no huge social principle at stake, although the President and Congress would like us to think so. This is about fixing a malfunctioning market for medical services. This is technical and “technical” isn’t something our government does well.

Only nincompoops – not a term I get to use frequently, but entirely appropriate in this instance – would try to resolve the myriad of issues that are involved in correcting this market in a single comprehensive piece of legislation to the satisfaction of 535 legislators and their various constituencies. This has been a botched effort from the beginning, initiated by an inexperienced President in cooperation with a Democrat controlled Congress with a herd mentality and leadership, particularly in the House, that is woefully inept. (Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi as President of the United States?)

Whew. Quite the rant. Sorry. Can’t help myself. (I’m not a Republican, in case you’re wondering, but a registered independent in a heavily Democratic state.) In any case, getting back to the unanimity among Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, I ask you: Should the Democrats stay with the Donkey which they’ve had since opponents of President Jackson called him a “Jack Ass” in 1828, or update their image to something more cuddly like the cute, but cowardly Lemming pictured above? Hmm? Pretty much a toss-up, now that I think about it.

-wf


Site Meter

Breaking News: Nobel Prize Awarded to Fetus

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Olso, Norway, October 11, 2009, 9:01 AM ET. Chairman (and former Prime Minister of Norway) Thorbjoern Jagland, speaking on behalf of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, announced the award of this year’s Nobel Prize in Genetics to the love child of American Actors Megan Fox and Robert Buckley.

The announcement, made just 60 seconds after a TMZ story that Ms. Fox was six weeks pregnant and that Mr. Buckley was probably the father, cited the contribution of the Fox-Buckley fetus to the gene pool. “We believe,” so said Chairman Jagland to drooling press of both genders covering the event, “that the child will evolve into a smokin’ hot twenty-something that members of the Committee had already begun fantasizing about.” Sweating profusely, Chairman Jagland, and the four women members of the five person committee, then excused themselves from further comments and interviews, asking for the indulgence of the press while they had some “private time” to reflect on their award.

Neither Ms. Fox nor Mr. Buckley, who are said to be vacationing in Cabo San Lucas, was available for comment.

The Fox-Buckley fetus qualified for the award based on Ms. Fox and Mr. Buckley having met for the first time at a Brentwood (Los Angeles), California Starbucks on January 31 of this year, the day before nominations for the 2009 award were closed.

Recommended reading… “Who is Thorbjoern Jagland?” by Dan Calabrese, writing in the The Northstar National, October 10, 2009

-wf


Site Meter

Question of the Day: Are US interests always consistent with world peace?

Friday, October 9, 2009

Today’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama raises the question of whether or not what’s in our best interest is also, invariably, in the interest of world peace?

First things first. We need a definition before this article begins to sound like the answer to a question at some beauty pageant. Mine is a very narrow concept. By “world peace” I’m referring to the balance among nations and/or ethnic or cultural interests that minimizes the use or material threat of military action to accomplish their objectives. We can all agree to disagree and keep talking – as long as no one gets hurt or dies in the meantime. And yes, I can be breathtakingly simpleminded sometimes, but I’m not writing a book here.

Are there circumstances when President Obama will take, or not take action to protect US citizens and interests, here and abroad, because those actions will be detrimental to world peace? It’s not a ridiculous question. Far from it.

We and some other Western countries have a problem with terrorism on the basis of which we have justified military action in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan. Those actions have, arguably, stimulated reactions by the terrorists, of course, but also on the part of other countries which sympathize with their beliefs, if not with their methods, with ramifications that extend beyond the original disagreement between “them” and us.

Have our actions in the Middle East had a calming effect or have they heightened international tensions in the region and elsewhere? What are we going to do if Pakistan, a nuclear arms power, doesn’t cooperate to the extent that we think is necessary to deny our enemies safe harbor and other support they are now receiving in that country? Under what circumstances will we – President Obama – tolerate what we perceive to be misbehavior by any sovereign nation, weak or powerful, in support of movements which threaten the United States? How far are we willing to go, on our own, to prevent Iran from developing and disseminating nuclear weapons given the implications for regional and world peace of a US-lead preemptive attack?

Don’t misunderstand my point. Without question, I’m certain the President takes into account the international ramifications of any military initiative he considers. But is it, his decision process that is, about “world peace,” or is really a matter of going as far as we can, of doing as much as we can get away with, militarily speaking, to protect the United States?

The former, global perspective is more civilized, broadly defined, and speaks to a loftier, more humane national character that puts the welfare of others at least on a par with that of our own people. The latter is all about selfishness and protecting our citizens and interests at the expense of others – others who may or may not be involved.

Nobel Prizes notwithstanding, the question is, which Presidential mindset do we want and have in The White House? In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, I think we’re about to find out.

-wf


Site Meter

Noise of the Day: That ruckus you hear is the sound of Alfred Nobel spinning in his grave.

Friday, October 9, 2009

As you know by now, President Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations to him, no kidding. I certainly do not begrudge the President his success. Far from it. The more successful he is – particularly in the pursuit peace – the better off we are as a country, and the more safe and successful my family and me.

Clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee isn’t awarding President Obama this honor based on his accomplishments. He had only been President for 11 days as of the February 1 deadline for nominations. He’s only been President for 253 days, including today, during which he’s talked a lot about all sorts of things, international relations among them, but accomplished nothing of historic note, and very little otherwise. No, this award is about attitude and charisma, about expectations and hope. To make an award on this basis may be precedent setting, may even cheapen the value of previous Peace and other Nobel Prizes, but it’s the Committee’s business to do what it wants with Alfred’s legacy.

While many – including reporters and others on the scene on Oslo – were stunned by the announcement, in a way it makes perfectly good sense. We did, after all, elect Barack Obama President based on only three lackluster, do nothing years in the Senate. It was not an election based on experience or accomplishments.

We elected Barack Obama for his style, based on the hope that his rhetoric would become reality and – it must be said – in reaction to 8 horrific years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Can you blame the Nobel Committee for doing the same, for wanting so badly to change the way things are in international relations that it would choose to break from tradition and make a statement about the way things ought to be?

Unfortunately, The White House is, more often than not, where dreams and expectations go to die in the bog of bad economic and social programs, and stupid foreign wars. The endorsement of his ideas by the members of the Nobel Prize Committee notwithstanding, the country and the world are waiting impatiently for the tangible results of his actions. Talk is cheap. Hype is a distraction neither he nor we can afford. Hope is important, even essential, but no antidote for bad domestic and foreign policy.

-wf

Additional reading… Breaking News: Nobel Prize Awarded to Fetus, published October 11 on the WordFeeder.


Site Meter

“No we can’t!” Where is Candidate Obama now that we need him?

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

If there’s something missing in the Obama White House, it’s a sense of déjà vu.

Candidate Obama kept telling us that the real fight against terrorism was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. (Wrong again. However unpleasant the Taliban, our problem is in Pakistan.) Now, not yet nine full months in office, President Obama seems surprised at General Stanley McChrystal’s assertion that a substantially greater commitment of troops and material will be required to accomplish the President’s objectives.

Hey! It’s not my imagination, but we’ve been here more than a few times before. In fact, this country, our country was born of an insurgency that overwhelmed the most potent military machine of its time which thought, mistakenly, that it could prevail at long distance, fighting in unfamiliar foreign terrain, against a native enemy. Sure, our Revolutionary War militia had vast, if not universal popular support. We were the good guys in that fight, but so what? It’s still reasonable to ask, when are we going to get the point?

Candidate Obama made a big deal about his having been opposed to the war in Iraq from the start. I’m referring, in particular, to his speech on October 2, 2002 at an anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago. While the wisdom and motivation of his comments are debatable, then State Senator Obama said the following:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

And then he added,

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Well, we now know President Obama’s definition of a “dumb war.” It’s one he didn’t start.

These meetings he’s having at the White House to deliberate the proper use of military in Afghanistan are admirable in one sense, shockingly naïve in another. It’s good that he’s taking his time and getting advice. It shows maturity in that he’s not sure of himself, willing to admit it and, presumably, not afraid to change course. Unfortunately, the entire premise of that military operation is wrong.

If history has taught us anything, it is not the role of the United States, it is not within the power of the United States (save our laying waste to an entire nation), it is not the legal right of the United States, nor is it the only or best strategy for the United States to employ on-site, regular military forces to stop insurgencies in foreign countries which we believe are undesirable – however correct that belief may be.

What, precisely, would happen if we pulled out of Afghanistan altogether?

We would still have the ability to monitor and take occasional military action against an enemy who would be far more visible. We deprive that enemy of much of the political capital which it derives from our occupying its country. Regrettably, we allow the Taliban to demonstrate, at the expense of the Afghanistan people, the very reasons we find them so deplorable – a reality which may eventually be the death of their movement, an objective which our military efforts in Iraq obviously failed to accomplish. And we can focus our attention through international politics and economics to cutting off the support and safe harbor that enemy and its terrorist cohorts enjoy in Pakistan.

Where is Candidate Obama now that we need him?

-wf


Site Meter

Bum’s Rush: What are the Democrats (and President Obama) so worried about?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

It’s been a bad and telling couple of days for our democracy.

The Senate Finance Committee has voted against language which would have required the Senate to post its healthcare reform bill on the Internet for public review before voting on it.* To their credit, it has been Republicans in both the House and the Senate who are the ones pushing for this public review – and for updated information from the Congressional Budget Office. It’s the Democrats, in marked contradiction to candidate Obama’s promise of a transparent government, who are opposing allowing the public time to study this legislation prior taking a vote.

Just to be clear, the Republicans are asking for only a measly 72 hours during which the public – ordinary citizens like you and me – would have to read over 1,000 pages of complex, comprehensive healthcare reform legislation, think about it, talk among ourselves and convey our opinions to our Congressmen and Senators who would then need days to sort through the deluge of comments they’re likely to receive. All this in just 72 hours, and the Democrats won’t even give us that? What in the world are they so worried about?

To be fair, they’re probably more concerned about what the Congressional Budget Office might tell us. Either way, this healthcare reform legislative process has just gone from “difficult” to “nuts.”

There’s a common sense rule in business that the more the other side is pushing to close a deal, the more carefully you need to look at what they’re offering. This is one of those times.

More importantly, there’s a bigger issue at play here than healthcare reform. What the Democrats – and we’ve got to include President Obama – are telling us is that we, the people, are not even allowed a peripheral role in the legislative process. Legislation is their business. They, the Democrats in Congress, will determine when we’re allowed to speak and under what circumstances. What arrogance. Fair enough. We’ll just wait until Tuesday, November 2, 2010 and let them know what we think when it’s our turn.

-wf

*See “GOP seeks 72-hour window to read bills,” in today’s on-line edition of The Washington Times.


Site Meter

Is President Obama considering resigning?!

Monday, September 21, 2009

Sure sounds that way. With the President’s approval, The White House has asked Governor Paterson of New York to withdraw his name for re-election on the grounds that Democrats in the state would benefit from having a stronger, more popular candidate at the top of the ticket.

It’s a free country, of course, in which the President has every right to suggest whatever he wants. His devotion to Party is especially admirable, and I’m sure he means what he says, that every Democrat considering running for election or re-election should put the good of the Party first and, if necessary, step aside in favor of a more qualified alternative.

Well, let’s think about that. What one politician is likely to have the most impact upon the electability of Democrats – Congressmen, Senators and Governors – around the country? Oops. Uh, that would be the President, President Obama himself, wouldn’t it? So, if it turns out that support of his healthcare, domestic economic, Iraq/Afghanistan and various other policies and initiatives threatens to adversely affect the chances of Democratic candidates in any meaningful way, he’s going to resign before the upcoming mid-term elections? Not run for re-election in 2012?

Wow. Is he a great American, or what? – the “what?” being the wannabe master of the old school politics candidate Obama told us he was coming to Washington to change.

-wf


Site Meter

What President Obama Could Learn From Johnny Carson About Healthcare Legislation

Monday, September 21, 2009

Johnny Carson, the 30 year host of The Tonight Show before Jay Leno, was a consummate comedian, a natural talent who worked hard to perfect his understanding of comedy and the skill with which he made it happen. Barack Obama is a skillful orator who talks too much. I’m beginning to think he doesn’t know the difference between campaigning for office and managing the government now that he’s been elected.

So far at least, Carson is turning out to have been far better at what he did, than President Obama is at what he does. I know, there’s an apples and oranges problem in this comparison, but they do have something in common.

Carson had his own rules of comedy that he would discuss occasionally in the self-deprecating humor he would use when he screwed up. He was a master at making the most out of blowing a joke, his seemingly adlibbed recoveries often being more humorous than the original material had he delivered it perfectly. One of his rules which he would use when a joke had gone badly was that, if you had to explain it to the audience, it couldn’t have that funny to begin with. (You had to have been there, to have seen his monologues night after night, to appreciate how good he was it this, at leveraging his own shortcomings to his advantage and our delight.)

It’s a point that President Obama should study. Doesn’t it occur to him that if he has to keep explaining his healthcare reform program again and again and again, at every possible venue save only weddings and Bar Mitzvahs although I expect it’s only a matter of time, that the problem may not be that no one’s listening, but that no one understands or likes what he’s talking about?

Once again, I’d like to suggest that the President and Congress step back and solve one specific healthcare issue at a time, rather than struggle to enact comprehensive legislation so complex that not even its originators fully understand the implications and costs of what they’re proposing.* Individual issues are easier to define, to legislate and budget – and for the public to understand.

In the meantime, President Obama’s pitch is beginning to sound worn, and more than a bit desperate. For a guy who used the media so effectively to get elected, as President he’s beginning to suffer from over-exposure.

-wf

*If you have time, you might want to read…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #5: Coverage for People Who Can’t Afford It”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #6: Standardization of Forms”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #7: Making Cigarettes Illegal”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

“Healthcare Reform Legislation: The Idea That Will Finally Make It Happen”


Site Meter

Missing the Point: President Obama’s Desperate Attempt to Pass Healthcare Reform

Thursday, September 17, 2009

President Obama is clearly desperate to pass healthcare reform legislation, even to the point of pressuring the Governor of Massachusetts to appoint an interim replacement for Senator Kennedy. He’s worried that the vote is going to be that close.

For President Obama, it’s clearly more about politics, about a selfish, immature, unstatesmanlike desire to get his personal agenda approved, than about the quality and general acceptability of what Congress enacts. When it passes, he’ll cross another major issue off his campaign checklist, and we’ll be left to deal with the consequences for years after his term(s) in office.

The question is simple: Is it wise to pass legislation this sweeping, this expensive, of such profound importance for all Americans, by what may turn out to be a margin of only a single vote?

We’ve waited all this time. Why not work a little harder, wait a little longer to get it right, to produce legislation which a substantial majority of our elected representatives support?

No less an impressive statesman and President than Thomas Jefferson once observed that “Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.” Although it was 200 years ago when he said that in 1808, it seems no less relevant an observation today.

If you’re interested, here are some recent posts on the subject of healthcare reform legislation…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #5: Coverage for People Who Can’t Afford It”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #6: Standardization of Forms”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #7: Making Cigarettes Illegal”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

“Healthcare Reform Legislation: The Idea That Will Finally Make It Happen”

-wf


Site Meter

President Obama is the problem alright. It’s just that race has little or nothing to do with it.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

My apologies to President Carter, but he’s apparently so sensitive to racial issues, he’s missing the point. He, and others who are, once again, “playing the race card” as the media likes to say, need to ask themselves what would cause such unusually aggressive reaction from some of the President’s critics if he were white?

Is race, in other words, the only or even the most likely explanation? I don’t think so. I think this is what we get when we elect a phenomenon President, instead of a seasoned government leader. Isn’t it just possible that people are reacting to President Obama’s inexperience, to his lack of demonstrated fiscal and administrative management of our government?

He proposes massive healthcare legislation, but hasn’t yet offered a specific, written program for Congress to consider.

On the unfounded threat of imminent economic collapse, he spends tens of billions to prop up key players in the financial sector – To what end? – while getting Congress to commit hundreds of billions more in emergency funding for various private sector programs, most of which has yet to be allocated and spent. And did I mention we now own General Motors?

He’s moved the war in Iraq, which is still ongoing by the way, to Afghanistan where our military leadership is telling us it needs more troops, and that it’s going to take a while to win this – as if we didn’t know that going in.

Budget deficits, current and predicted, are huge and going nowhere but up.

And unemployment continues to increase as we, hopefully, approach the bottoming out of our worst recession since the Great Depression. He can claim his efforts have helped minimize the extent of this downturn, but most of us know better.

All this in his first 8 months in office – while demonstrating an exceptional, naïve faith in the ability and appropriateness of unprecedented peacetime federal government intervention in private sector affairs.

Whew! Absolutely breathtaking.

Could it be that the American people are just a little rattled, just a little nervous, and that it’s the colorblind anxiety so many of us are feeling that’s bubbling to the surface?

Making matters worse, the President is clearly still in a campaign mode. Speech after speech, he’s everywhere campaigning for healthcare and his other objectives – when he should be, so some would say, actually managing the budget, preparing detailed programs, fixing this, fixing that, one small, and some not so small problem at a time. Talk, talk, talk. It’s not visibility we want, it’s results. He’s already been elected, so why does it seem like he’s still running for office?

It seems like he’s still running for office, because he is. It’s all he and the campaign leadership he brought to the White House with him know. Think about how he got elected. Highly charged caucuses at which his young and other supporters did little to constrain their enthusiasm, followed by rock star campaign rally performances in front of thousands, often tens of thousands of exuberant fans. Yes, he riled us up when it suited his purposes, but now when the excited utterances of a tiny minority of concerned citizens comes back at him, the best his core supporters can do is conclude that it must be about race?

A word of political advice to the President: You dared us to vote for you despite the fact that you were black, and we did – some of us for that reason, most of us because we thought you to be a better choice than John McCain to get the stench of the Bush administration out of Washington. Get it out of your head that you were elected as the second coming of Kennedy, Roosevelt, Lincoln and Jefferson. You’re a new President with three years of nondescript Senate experience behind you, who so far hasn’t proven you’re worthy of the confidence of the American people who elected you.

Race is a ploy you can use too often. Focus on the business of running the government. You’re scaring the American people, making us uneasy, and that’s never a good idea, particularly in the midst of a serious recession. Stop running for office, and get to work micro managing your administration, even if it means a little less face-time with your teleprompters.

-wf


Site Meter