Sunday, June 19, 2011

How's this for package emphasis, Weiner?

Rep. Anthony Weiner: "I had hoped to be able to continue the work that the citizens of my district elected me to do ... Unfortunately, the distraction that I have created has made that impossible. So today I'm announcing my resignation from Congress."
Hecklers: "Yea! Bye-bye, pervert!"
It may have been a prank engineered by Howard Stern, but that is a classic. One of the most amusing press conferences of all time.
Distraction, Anthony? Distraction? This nogoodnick—last year, I called him a "schmuck extraordinaire"—still can't admit the nature of this scandal. By using that word, Weiner is acting as though this was simply a political inconvenience beyond his ability to control.
It seems pretty straightforward to me: You don't send a photo of your crotch in tight boxer briefs to a young female follower on Twitter when (a) you're a Congressman elected to do the people's work (even if the people in question are moonbats) and (b) You're married.
And if this was a distraction that you created, Mssr. Weiner, then why the bullish attitude over the past couple of weeks, acting as if you did nothing wrong? Why lie about it all, since you surely knew it would eventually backfire?
Instead, as we all know by now, Weiner claimed that his Twitter account was "hacked"—insinuating that it was the work of Andrew Breitbart. He called CNN producer Ted Barrett a "jackass" for insisting on a very direct answer to a very direct question, instead treating him and reporter Dana Bash to a rambling statement about thrown pies or insults that he wouldn't spend the next two hours responding to. It was glaringly obvious why he parried by talking about Clarence Thomas and the debt-limit vote, and never contacted law enforcement with regard to the alleged hacking.
Have you heard about the e-mails that Weiner sent to former porn actress Ginger Lee? Gloria Allred read them out the other day: "I have wardrobe demands too, I need to highlight my package," "Alright, my package and I are not gonna beg," and "You aren't giving my package due credit."
I'm all for male pride, but jeez. This is ridiculous, not to mention gross.
Anthony Weiner spent his entire political life trying to stick it to the middle class that he claimed he stood up for. He used the usual Democratic code-speak to sound friendly to working people. But the dudes who shoved him into lockers at school grew up into responsible, working, contributing members of society, and Weiner couldn't tolerate the thought of them being successful. He was a member of Congress; he had power and a generous pension that those guys, as taxpayers, were funding. His whole demeanor over the past 12 years of his Congressional career screamed, "Look at me now! How's my ass taste?"
He probably spent the last few years asking every female he came across during his on-line activities how their asses tasted, I regret to say.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of "beautiful people" just like Anthony Weiner out there, in the private sector as well as public "service": Smug, arrogant, and too quick to look down upon everyone around them. People with no reason to be as self-assured as they are. People whom you just ache to kick to the curb.
Would it were that they could all be brought down with such punishing, poetic justice as Anthony Weiner.

Friday, June 17, 2011

The Canucks—and Vancouver—reap what they've sown

Well, I'm sorry, dear reader, but my rating on the city of Vancouver isn't zero. It's well into the negatives. That's where it will remain for a long time to come.
If anyone from Vancouver happens to be reading this right now—and I'd love to hear from you—perhaps you could answer me one question: What is up with the incredibly babyish attitude? You people must be the sorest losers on the globe. Just pathetic.
Hey, it's your city: Tear it up, blow it up, wipe it off the map—whatever. I'll still sleep comfortably at night. But you did yourselves no favors. For once, the world is witnessing just what a lie we've all been sold with respect to the idyllic utopia Vancouver supposedly is or the peaceful, law-abiding orderliness with which Canadian society conducts itself.
Ice hockey is a Canadian invention—and look how thuggish the game is. Just put two and two together. (But at least their skating rink ice isn't stained with Ottawa-sanctioned seal blood.) I'm not saying Canadians are worse than anyone else. I've just had it with the fairytale existence they want us to believe everyone leads up there. The Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot of 2011 should forever dispel that myth—and I honestly hope it does.
You can point the finger south and sneer only so many times before something like what occurred yesterday afternoon in Canada's third-largest city brings a big smile of satisfaction to an American's face.
But I digress, really: Let's stick to just the Canucks' fan base. What does the all-out war that broke out in downtown Vancouver yesterday say about them? First of all, you need to understand that the Canucks have been in the Stanley Cup Finals three times: In 1982, 1994 and this year. Two out of those three times, there were riots.
The 1994 riots, after the New York Rangers defeated the Canucks in seven games, were disgraceful enough, worthy of staining the city for several decades after the fact. But after the Bruins won in seven games Wednesday, the mayhem and violence that occurred was, according to some reports, three times as worse.
So, two large-scale riots after two lost causes in the Cup finals. Pretty bad, eh? It's begun to look like a not-so-healthy trend.
But—and this is really good—the city had already planned a parade route for the Canucks. The positive air of expectation surrounding the Canucks permeated everything. Crowds watching the game outside Rogers Arena were joined by jubliant policemen, who were exchanging high-fives with fans early on in the game. Fans actually expected their team to come back from a 3-goal deficit in the third period. The Cancuks were going to win, damn it all!
Honestly, not even New York Yankees fans are this arrogant. They at least know when they are beaten. It was only after Boston scored goal #4 that things turned ugly.
One fan was heard to shout after the game, "Boston, I hate you!" For what? Daring to compete with your boyfriends and being good enough to win against them, you candy-assed crybaby? Excuse me, but I thought that's what hockey, like any other sport, was about: Playing the game and having a winner and a loser.
No surprise that the Canucks currently have the most hated fan base in all of sports. Even Canadians who aren't from British Columbia hate the Canucks and their fans. The Canucks themselves were notorious for their cheap shots, unnecessary roughness and general dirty play.
If this was the only riot to have occurred after a sporting loss in Vancouver, I'd be willing to chalk it up to the anarchist freaks that magically materialize at any large event to cause trouble. We experienced that ourselves here in London during an anti-budget cuts protest in March. The 1994 riot, combined with this one, makes that excuse less easy to explain. Especially since "true Canucks fans" were not honor-bound to participate in the violence, then or now. But they did.
I'm no hockey fan. However, I congratulate the scrappy, but gentlemanly Boston Bruins for capturing the Stanley Cup for the first time in 39 years. This wasn't just a hometown team done good; the Bruins were an underdog in the truest sense of the word. But it's good for the city, and it's great for the Bruins die-hards who watched as all the other professional Boston teams won fresh championship titles during the past decade and wondered when their time would come. At no point along the way did Bruins fans riot to express their displeasure over how long they were expected to live off the fumes of 1972.
I will tell you something about the city of Boston though: It won't have to spend several years trying to wipe an ugly stain off its complexion—the way Vancouver will.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

What does CEO stand for—chief executive ogre?

For a month or two last year, I had a Facebook page. I balked, however, when Facebook executives refused to take down the page dedicated to British gunman/killer Raul Moat. Facebook claimed it was all about free speech. My understanding is that once the public expression of views crosses over into death threats and the encouragement of violent, anarchic activity, defense on the grounds of freedom of expression is no longer relevant.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain, even got involved and asked the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, to remove the site; Zuckerberg refused. In the end, the creator of the page removed it herself, though she only did so, she claimed, so things could simmer down a bit, and then she would re-launch it.
In disgust—and also considering that I had gotten into a serious fight with someone over the subject of capital punishment—I de-activated my page and left Facebook. I haven't been back since, nor have I missed it.
Mark Zuckerberg just ensured, beyond any shadow of doubt, why I won't reconsider my decision.
The Facebook chief likes to set little challenges for himself every year, such as learning Chinese or wearing a tie every day. If I had a douchebag face like his, I'd consider it a challenge just stepping out my front door and into the public domain every day. But apparently, that's not enough.
Zuckerberg now wants to eat meat only from animals he kills himself. He says this personal goal of his represents the need for people to be "thankful for what they eat rather than trying to ignore where it came from." I'll admit, this is good advice for carnivores/omnivores and in making this statement, Zuckerberg has a valid point.
Some meat-eaters are uncomfortable with how their food ends up on their plate and they'd rather not think about it. Luckily, the pickings available at the grocery store sanitize the whole sordid business. The supermarket or butcher is the middleman between the slaughterhouse and the consumer.
Using that exact same argument, why should anyone feel guilty about purchasing drugs from a dealer? He will never tell you who he shot dead for stepping onto his turf the night before, so you have no need to worry about it. Let that not interrupt anyone's narcotic-cloaked enjoyment of life.
Rather than finding the slaughter of animals deplorable, and using that as an excuse to set a vegetarian challenge for himself instead, Zuckerberg endorses it.
"I think many people forget that a living being has to die for you to eat meat, so my goal revolves around not letting myself forget that and being thankful for what I have," Zuckerberg proclaimed.
Have I missed something? Who exactly is forcing people to eat meat? Has meat-consumption become the law of the land? As for the inane argument that meat-eating is vital for human nutrition, the last time I checked, humans weren't canines nor felines.
Zuckerberg has all-too-predictably received well-wishes and plaudits from those who pretend that their psychopathic hatred of any life form on Earth that dares not to be human is the very essence of libertarianism.
Well, I'm a libertarian too and my goal for the year is to hope in earnest every waking day that Zuckerberg swiftly becomes the victim of a hunting accident.
Only you won't find me encouraging that on Facebook.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Barack Obama: Spiritual leader of the British

Previously published by Blogcritics

It's odd. I know there are conservative people in Britain. But they're like God: I need faith that they actually exist, because, aside from my wife, I have never met anyone who came even remotely close to scoring 0.001 percent on the conservative scale.
I've certainly never worked with any. A good example came last week when the Daily Express arrived to the scanning room where a younger co-worker and I were stationed. The headline announced "40 Percent Rise in Ethnic Numbers." My immediate thought upon reading the headline was, This is not good for social cohesion. My colleague, however, gruffly stated, "Let's leave this paper with its racist headline till last."
Its racist headline? Score another point for the rose-colored glasses wearing, blue-sky thinking crowd, because that kid is clearly part of it. Who cares if foreign influx into the country is so high that we quickly find ourselves possessing no common language, cultural references or shared values with each other? We should care. After all, don't the British complain incessantly about the "Americanization" of their culture? Alas, I suppose it's far easier and more fashionable to complain about American words infiltrating Brit-speak (which are actually English words that Americans preserved) than how closely British immigration policy—or lack of it—resembles that of the U.S.
Why exactly do I bring this up? Sky News reported that President Obama signed the Westminster Abbey guestbook but dated his comment "May 24, 2008." A harmless gaffe, but do you know what the reaction to the story would have been had George W. Bush done that? It would have been proclaimed the dumbest mistake in the history of mankind. Reader comments would have declared: "Further proof the President's an idiot," "The American people deserve this man," "George Bush, worst president evah," and peppered throughout by the occasional but obligatory "GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMINAL!"
It should come as no surprise that the reaction to the Obama story was all "peace," "love" and "what's the big deal?"
Give up nit picking [sic], so what he made a mistake with the date [sic], I think the President is a great guy and doing a grand job. It was lovely to see him and his wife at Buckingham Palace with the Queen.

What is it, fashionable to hate on Obama now?

Which only goes to show he is also human and open to the same effects of media exposure and jetlag!! Good for him.

you all are hatters. [sic] why don't you get a life. [sic] We all make mistakes. who haven't? [sic] put your hands up. leave the poor man alone people [sic].
And on, and on, and on the Obama bum-kissing goes, for over 1,000 mind-numbing, grammatically appalling comments. Suddenly it's fashionable in Britain to stick up for the American President. And golly gee, aren't those Yanks nice, cuddly people for electing him too? The world's such a snuggly-wuggly place!
The world's not coming to an end just because Barack Obama signed the wrong year to his guestbook entry. I get that. It's to be expected, I suppose. The man has never stopped campaigning, after all. That's why he's hardly ever in the office he got elected to. He's living in a perpetual 2008. One of these days, he's going to say that's when he had Osama bin Laden executed.
But doesn't it speak volumes about a man who pronounced corpsman as "corpseman," said he visited 57 U.S. states, and thinks Austrian is spoken in Austria? Are we going to have a book on Obama-isms to join the volumes of tomes dedicated to Bushisms?
How about Mr. Obama completely screwing up while delivering a toast to the Queen? The band is instructed to play when they hear "the Queen." That's their cue. Obama and his defenders will try to blame the orchestra, when the truth is, Obama never should have spoken those words until the end of his speech.
I ask again, if Dubya had done this, what would the reaction have been? Of course, Bush never would have fouled up like that for he would have pulled all the stops to get it right before speaking. He would have bothered to study the protocol. Beautiful people like Barack Obama, however, have no need for that because their brilliance is beyond the reach of normal people. Or so we're told, time and time again by the fawning media, both American and international.
What really throws me is the completely fake bonhomie that Obama is presenting to the Queen, David Cameron and the British people themselves. Obama is a notorious Brit-hater. Nile Gardiner spelled it all out in his commentary "Does Obama Have it in for Britain?":
Obama seems strangely oblivious to the dangerous path he has embarked on, becoming the first U.S. President in modern times to place no importance on the historic relationship between the U.S. and Britain.
We cannot say, however, that we weren't warned.
This, after all, is a man who, within days of being sworn in as President, ordered that a bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from the British people to the U.S. in the dark days that followed 9/11—be removed from the Oval Office.
... When the U.S. marches in, it's only ever the British who can be depended on to march alongside them.
And yet all that proud history, all that noble sacrifice, seems to count for nothing in Obama's eyes. He seems oblivious to the debt of gratitude he, and the American people, owes this country.
Despite that, Obama is enormously popular in this country. The British talk a good game about being different from Europeans, but the President's popularity numbers continue to hover between the 75 to 80 percent mark, as with France and Germany. Obama might very well declare in the House of Commons, "Screw it, I'm not pretending to like you anymore. You're all evil and you should consider yourselves lucky if I don't nuke you all to hell where you belong." Sky News would report it, and you'd still have Brits commenting, "Come on, take it easy on the President. He's a wonderful man, the most brilliant in all of history. He wants to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony," only without the punctuation or capital letters.
I learned years ago that a strong, confident America is not what the world, including Britain, wants—and everyone can relax because that's certainly not something the world is going to witness under the present administration. But this is ridiculous. I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn or gryphon walking the streets of Britain than I would someone who isn't an Obamabot, to use Ted Rall's appropriate term. I prefer the phrase "Obama rumpswab," but that would be politically incorrect, now wouldn't it?

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Revenge of the anti-Obama liberals, part II

Yesterday, this blog told the tale regarding the curious case of far-Left loonie Ted Rall. For the past two years, Rall has been spitting vitriol at Barack Obama, calling him a "monster" and a "terrible leader," and the resultant rejection of his animated commentaries by editors confirms what we all know: the media is not only biased, but you are in for hard times if you dare to diss their anointed saint and savior, even if the color of your blood runs pink(o).
Robert Fisk has no such worries as he is not a freelancer. He is the established Middle East correspondent for the left-of-center British paper The Independent. I will acknowledge that Fisk is a brave man to have made Middle East reporting his specialty. But he long ago upgraded from objective reporter to subjective columnist and that's the trouble with him. A socialist, Fisk predictably decries U.S. (and some British and European Union) policy in the region and is always denouncing Israel. A recent column of his demonstrates this all too well.
I've loathed Fisk for years, but, as with Rall, I find myself fascinated by his denouncements of Obama. Like Rall, who wrote that Obama is timid and all-too-readily gives in to political correctness, Fisk also states the obvious, accusing the President of "speechifying" and calling him "vain and cowardly."
Here's where it really gets enjoyable: Fisk nearly blows a gasket by sarcastically mocking Obama as "our favorite President," preferring the adjective "mealy-mouthed" to describe him, and makes the spot-on prediction that whatever Obama says about the Middle East (or anything for that matter), "we will be treated to all the usual analysts in the States, saying how fine the President's words are." Whoa!
I must give Fisk some credit. He nails it when he declares, "We will be asked—oh, I fear we will—to turn our backs on the Bin Laden past, to seek 'closure' and 'move on' (which I'm afraid the Taliban don't quite agree with)." Even Fisk gets what Obama apparently doesn't.
I can hardly wait to read what Fisk will say about Obama's depressingly clueless pronouncement that Israel should revert back to its pre-Six-Day War borders. I'm guessing Fisk will approve.
But whatever. If the Independent's editors instructed him to "go easy on O," Fisk's columns would lose any shred of entertainment value they currently carry.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Revenge of the anti-Obama liberals?

Sometimes a truly incredible phenomenon occurs and it's a wonder to witness. Whenever there's a split within the Left, or a member of the Left rants against his or her own, I get very excited by it. It's like an orgasm for my mind.
Case in point: editorial cartoonist Ted Rall. If you're a patriotic American, there's nothing nice you can say about him. I don't like Ted Rall for having the nerve to call Bill Maher a "libertarian," for starters. But he's not afraid to go against the grain.
Rall made a name for himself internationally and became a hit with the champagne socialists and limousine liberals in the lamestream media—sorry for the clichés, but it's all true, isn't it?—because he unrelentingly attacked President Bush, the War on Terror, Republicans and conservatives in general. But Rall isn't so popular in the elitist liberal camp these days. Why? He dislikes Obama.
One editor told Rall, "Can't you focus more on the GOP?" in response to Rall's anti-Obama work. Rall admits to nearly going broke, angrily writes "I didn't realize how besotted progressives were by Mr. Hopey Changey," and excoriates the militant Democrats a.k.a. Obamabots.
Granted, Rall's considerable distaste for Obama is the result of his dismay that the President has not closed Guantánamo and continues to rely on Bush-era intelligence techniques. (Interestingly, Rall hates Obamacare as well.) But he also calls him out for political correctness. Get a load of this, from this Universal Syndicate Press column that somehow managed to work its way past the Messiah-loving censors:
"From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning? Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now—before he drags us further into the abyss."
Obama is timid, worries too much about offending, and dangerous? Mr. Rall, now surely you jest! When you read the column further, it becomes clear that Rall is offended by Obama because he thinks the President is doing too much to secure America's safety. In Rall's twisted brain, that just won't do. But I am absolutely fascinated by a Leftie who would call Obama a "monster" and a "terrible leader." Rall is saying all the right words; he's just arguing from the wrong side of the fence.
Rall makes a good point about his work being turned down by the operatives of the mainstream media who idolize Obama. I dare to critcize their man, Rall is saying, and I get shut down. Where's freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I agree. The media is censoring Rall and, despite how vicious, mean-spirited and small-minded Rall is, that isn't right.
You could argue that Rall is reaping what he has sowed. See, Ted, this is why there have been no denouncements of the war in Libya. The Obamabots you criticize do disagree with it, but they refuse to say one critical word against their Messiah.
Ted Rall isn't the only Leftie ticked off at Obama. Another recently called him "cowardly" and "mealy-mouthed." But I'll leave that for my next entry.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Obama's become Common since bin Laden killing

Consider the following poetry, dear reader:
"I got the black strap to make the cops run
They watching me, I'm watching them
Them dick boys got a lotta cock in them
My people on the block got a lotta Pac in them
And when we roll together, we be rocking them to sleep."

Those lines are from a 2007 piece entitled "A Letter to the Law," written by actor-cum-rapper Lonnie Rashin Lynn Jr., a.k.a. Common, who is referring to and apparently advocating the killing of cops.
Well, it was Poetry Night at the White House on Wednesday night, held to display the breadth of American culture in metered words, to which Common was invited to perform. He did not perform "A Letter to the Law," speaking instead of the illustrious world achievement that Barack Obama's presidency represents.
It gets worse. The White House poetry slam coincided with Police Memorial Week in Washington, D.C. Law enforcement officials, paying homage to their slain colleagues and remembering the families they left behind, must have been thrilled to acknowledge Common's presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and reflecting on the "black strap" he wears to enable him to rock police officers "to sleep."
It turns out that Common, a Chicago native, attended the Trinity United Church, listening to the "sermons" of pastor Jeremiah Wright, spiritual leader of the Obamas.
I was proud of Obama for a few days after the bin Laden execution, and it was great while it lasted. I truly enjoyed the opportunity to praise the President. But consider what has occurred since the Prez gave the capture/kill order on bin Laden:
(1) He refused to release the photos. These are photos which every American deserves the right to see, but Obama doesn't want to offend "Muslim sensitivities."
(2) The White House sent out form letters to a lottery list of fifty families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks, inviting them to the President's visit to the World Trade Center site, but addrressing every one as "Dear 9/11 Family Member," which one such family member, John Vigiano, politely described as "kind of lame."
(3) Obama snapped at Debra Burlingame, who lost a sibling in the attacks, when she asked the President during his Ground Zero visit if he would consider advising Attorney General Eric Holder to drop the investigations of the CIA agents accused of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The information KSM gave interrogaters led us to bin Laden's courier. Obama cannot order Holder to stop the prosecutions, but Burlingame was aware of this. She just wanted the President to ask Holder to reconsider his inquisition of these agents. Instead, true to his egotistical nature, Obama grumbled "No, I won't" at Burlingame and walked away from her. Whatever happened to "Yes We Can," Mr. President?
(4) Obama had to rush back to the White House after his sojourn to New York City to host a Cinco de Mayo party. I understand that Cinco de Mayo is part of American history, given that the U.S. helped Mexico to oust the French who had occupied Mexico and were attempting to influence the direction of the Civil War in favor of the South by arming Confederate troops. Cinco de Mayo commemorates the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862 when the Mexican army temporarily defeated French forces. (The U.S. would step up military assistance to Mexico in 1865 in helping to defeat the French for good.) All very well. But America's much more recent victory is a lot more relevant. And isn't Cinco de Mayo, as celebrated by this Administration, laced with the theme of granting amnesty to illegals and denouncing Arizona's immigration law?
(5) This is unrelated to bin Laden's execution, but during the same week that they scored a foreign policy victory, the Obama administration continued to show that they're clueless on domestic policy by proposing to tax drivers by the number of miles driven. Ray La Hood, the Transportation Secretary, says the proposed Vehcile Miles Traveled scheme would be short-term, but when has a new tax scheme ever been sunsetted? I can't think of one either. It would take several years to implement, by which time the gasoline-tax revenue issue might no longer be relevant. We'd be stuck with a gas tax and a VMT tax.
Only Obama could so quickly go from hero to horror show. Against all this, Common's sanctioned participation in the White House poetry evening rubs off as ... well, commonplace for this particular g-crew. Obama will keep us safe from al-Qaeda because giving us nightmares is his job.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Justice at long last

I don't know what it is, but big things have happened lately whenever I've posted an entry here. I write about Donald Trump, making mention of the birther phenomenon—and suddenly Obama releases his birth certificate (or what we've been led to believe is the real birth certificate).
I then write about a silly spat between the Prime Minister and the opposition bench in the House of Commons—and Osama bin Laden is killed.
So, naturally, I'm expecting big news to break after I've posted this. I fail to see how the news can possibly get any grander or more spectacular than that—but hey, first "proof" that Obama is native-born citizen, then proof that Osama is dead, now proof that extraterrestrial life exists? It's not as if I'm calling the shots here, but the nightdragon is indirectly controlling world events, or so it would appear.
There's not much I can say about bin Laden's demise that hasn't already been said. Naturally, I'm relieved and thankful to the courageous US special forces, glad that Pakistani officials worked with us, and I'm celebrating as much as any red-blooded American that revenge has, at long last, been exacted.
I'm disappointed that this did not happen on Bush's watch, preferably during his final months in office so he could have left on a high and been remembered the way he deserved to be. Obama's approval ratings will rocket skyward as a result of this. "Obama got Osama!" is the rallying cry from sea to shining sea.
But, then again, let's not be politically selfish. President Obama watched every minute of this raid unfold and, by all accounts, was genuinely relieved at the end result. His slight smirk during the early morning White House address was not the product of his usual unctousness, but a heartfelt joy that he could not wait to share with the country. We need to give the President the credit he's earned. Obama (and Hilary Clinton) displayed the same anxious emotions during those nerve-shredding moments that you or I would have had we just given the "go" order.
It has to be said that Obama has not been as timid in conducting the War on Terror as his oppenents have alleged, and this is the proof.
It remains to be seen how humble the President will be in the wake of this. If he acts gracious and humble, as he should, we may finally witness a true leader of the free world emerge.
The economy will eventually return as the focal-point issue and the President will still have to answer to that. Would it were that he saw the light on the price of living as he did the price on bin Laden's head.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Labour needs to calm down, dearies

Proof that Labour has not learned any lessons since they lost control of the Government a year ago came last week during a Parliamentary question-and-answer session.
Shadow (Labour) Treasury minister Angela Eagle accused Prime Minister David Cameron of getting his facts wrong regarding the defeat of a former minister and general practice doctor who supports the reforms. Cameron replied, "Calm down, dear, calm down," urging her to "listen to the doctor." For this, the Prime Minister has been accused not only of unprofessionalism, but of sexism and discrimination.
Three things:
One: "Calm down, dear" is the catchphrase used by film director Michael Winner from the multitude of insurance commercials he's starred in. There cannot be anyone in England who hasn't seen nor heard Winner utter that phrase, and Winner used it with males and females alike. Cameron may have mimicked Winner for jocular effect, and Winner himself said he was honored, adding that Labour were acting like "politically correct lunatics."
Two: Although Cameron is not a Northerner, Miss Eagle is from Yorkshire, and words like "love," "pet," and "dear" are used affectionately by a good slice of the populace in Yorkshire and other Northern counties. Men use them with women, and women use them with men. If Cameron was not mimicking Winner, he may have simply been trying to affectionately parry with Eagle.
Three: This is the nature of Parliamentary debate. It's always a show, rife with wordplay, insinuations, catcalls and a chorus of boo-birds. This is the way it's been for centuries. If Cameron was not mimicking Winner nor affectionately parrying with Eagle by using Northern words, then he was simply acting like a British politician in a Parliamentary debate.
Labour leader Ed Miliband has demanded answers from David Cameron and the Tories, calling the PM's remarks to Eagle, "patronising, sexist, insulting and deeply un-prime ministerial." Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman called the remark "contemptuous." Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was the only Labourite with ... well, with any balls to acknowledge that Cameron was only joking, but also opined that the Prime Mininster was "silly" and would regret the humorous moment.
Angela Eagle herself said, "I don't think any modern man would have expressed himself in that way." You mean the modern man with the pink shirt, man-bag and subscription to Cosmopolitan who cried during the Royal Wedding? Give me a break! Calm down, dear.
I, too, dear reader, would be disgusted by any mean-spirited remarks aimed at Miss Eagle. But the insensitive rejoinders by Cameron are only too conspicuous by their total absence. As always, the figment of easily-riled imaginations on the part of the opposition give life to the ghost of malice.
Labour is being hypocritical. Watch the video provided with the Daily Telegraph story. At 1:33, you can see Ed Balls and Ed Miliband laughing and Harriet Harman smirking, evidently enjoying the moment for all it was worth. (Poor deputy PM Nick Clegg just looks plain embarrassed throughout the whole thing—but he didn't say one word about it.)
Cameron was floored by the reaction. He confronted Ed Balls at one point, telling him, "I said 'calm down.' Yes, 'calm down, dear.' I'll say it to you, if you like."
Kudos to Speaker John Bercow who, fed up with the pointless uproar, erupted at the Labour bench, "There's far too much noise in this chamber, which makes a ... order! ... which makes a very bad impression on the public as a whole and the other people waiting to contribute."
The Labour party under "Red Ed" is displaying the same knee-jerk, politically correct mannerisms that got them into trouble in the first place. "New Labour" was new for a limited time period after its phenomenal election in 1997, and everything that's new eventually becomes old. And "Old Labour" is the stuff of nightmares.
The Conservatives believe Miliband performed badly at the debate or wanted to suppress figures showing gradual economic recovery under the Coalition government, so he resorted to that tried-and-tested political shenanigan of creating a controversy out of nothing, trotting out the same old Leftie accusations of insensitivity upon hearing a style of speech they disagree with.
Labour needs to grow a backbone and to stop engaging in political deception, because it does them no good and it is really sad to see them acting like this. Cameron did nothing wrong. Time to get back to real issues.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Donald Trump cannot be allowed to trump the Executive Office

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Note: This piece was written and submitted to the queue on Blogcritcs two days before President Obama released his birth certificate, its eventual publication occurring a day after the event. Talk about irony.

It made for intriguing conversation at first, but now I'm getting thoroughly tired of all this talk about Donald Trump.
We must give Trump credit where credit is due: he is a shrewd businessman and success story. Even after nearly going bankrupt after his disastrous financing of the Taj Mahal casino, he picked himself up, dusted himself off and rebounded to greater heights in the business world.
But can we ignore the fact that other people paid the price and got screwed when Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy? The creditors he messed with during his fluctuations in wealth accrual—how'd that work out for them?
It amazes me that there are members of the American electorate who are prepared to support Trump. It proves that if you strike a chord on just one issue —in Trump's case, it's the Obama birth certificate controversy—you will attract a salivating crowd of lapdogs.
Now it's cool that Trump has been hounding Obama on the subject of the whereabouts of his birth and what his certificate really says about him. I do not understand why the President won't simply put the issue to rest, unless he's just incredibly stubborn (gee, do you think?) or there's real cause for concern on his part about the information his birth certificate contains.
But does this issue alone justify Trump's persual of the Oval Office? Hardly. Think about it: Is Trump the sort of man who can compromise? Trump will find that he cannot bully and bluster his way through the Executive branch. When it comes to the Congress, Trump will meet his match. He cannot just yell "You're fired!" at John Boehner. (Though, if he did, it would be worth sticking around to see if Boehner started crying.)
Trump has ignored all concerns from the locals of Menie, Scotland with regard to his construction of a golf course there. Though Trump did testify at a Scottish Government planning inquiry, the issue of family evictions remains a threat, yet Trump won't back down. God only knows what deals he struck with Scotland's Government, but the release of Libyan bomber Ali al-Megrahi proves they are easily manipulated. So there you have it: Trump, who doesn't need any more cash or can look elsewhere for it, has railroaded his project through a small community in a foreign country. What a hero. This alone speaks volumes about his penchant for foreign policy.
Grab all the oil in Iraq? Launch a trade war with China? Dude, seriously?
Trump has a capricious history with regard to what politicians he has supported and whose campaigns he has contributed large sums of cash to. If Trump is anti-foreign aid and checks the conservative box for most social issues, then why did he contribute to the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Anthony Weiner and Tom Daschle?
If Obama was the product of dissatisfaction with Bush, then how does Trump justify his own condemnations of Dubya? He wants to call Obama the worst president ever, but he previously reserved that moniker for Bush. What gives? Is this man capable of making his mind up about about anything in politics?
Furthermore, how do we know this isn't all one huge ego-trip and promotion for his show The Apprentice? If Sarah Palin has discredited herself with her own reality show, can the same thing not be said for Trump? We don't need celebrities such that Palin and Trump have become. I know the argument about looking outside the system for Presidential material, but this is ridiculous. We need level-headed people who know the system like Chris Christie, Alan West, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, et al.
Please, Donald, just go back to your show and WWE and leave politics to the players.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The sexploitation of men on public transportation reveals gender hypocrisy

I don't know who Dan Juan is, not even if that's his real name or just a clever play on "Don Juan," but his recent on-line column in the Yahoo! UK & Ireland Lifestyle section was very frank and courageous in its admissions.
Women riding the London subway system have been taking photos of their travelling male counterparts that they consider hunky and posting them on a "sexy Tube" website for other rapacious females (or male homosexuals) to ogle over. Here's the catch: the men in question have no idea they're being shot. The photos on Tubecrush are all of guys whose privacy and right to be anonymous have been violated, as Juan points out.
As it's only men who are being secretly photographed, Juan alleges that it's sexist. I agree. Can you imagine a website on which women's photos were posted without their consent and treating their images as mere fodder for silly, lustful, and/or dirty minds? The howls of outrage from the so-called fairer sex would be eardrum-splitting. So why should we guys accept the same treatment?
Juan writes: "It's brazen objectification of men, with photos accompanied by demeaning innuendos like, 'this guy has a package that won't fit in a normal letterbox.'" Again, just imagine a man writing in a thread underneath a picture of a woman whose right to privacy has just been gang-raped: "Oh, I could smother myself in those jugs!"
One of the replies to Juan's objections, I thought, nailed the bewildering difference in attitude that has made Tubecrush so successful: "[M]ost of the men in TV and magazine adverts are also impossibly good looking—the difference is men aren't allowed to moan and complain about it without being ridiculed and told to grow a pair, whereas a woman has carte blanche to complain all she wants."
It's been obvious to me for years now that most men are willing to be bullied by feminism-crazed (note: I didn't say all) women, swallowing their pride and conforming to all their expectations simply in the hope of "getting some."
Let's face facts: many guys are just plain stupid, mindless sheep to molded and manipulated as desired. They are ruled by their crotches, not their craniums, and couldn't care less about being treated like a poor man's Adonis.
Even worse, Dan Juan and I might just qualify as "poofs" (or the plural of that repugnant "f"-word) due to our objections to this rank sexualization of our gender. To which I would reply, "So, it would be alright if you found yourselves the object of adoration on a gay version of this website?" The sound of their backtracking would sound positively cartoonish.
Gay, bi or straight, no-one has the right to be doing this, to either gender. Even if you classified this as porn and subjected the site to the same regulations (namely, pay-per-view), you would still have the right-to-privacy issue. But Juan doesn't care about the sexuality of the photographer by acknowledging that not only women are enjoying Tubecrush.
Now here's where you think Juan might have just stepped in the doggie-doo of hypocrisy. He dressed up to the nines one day in the hope of soliciting Tubecrush-worthy attention. Here's what he wrote after the experiment: "I logged on to Tubecrush, eager to see how I looked. Nothing. Not a single one of those girls or possible gay men had taken my photo on the tube. Or if they had, I had been rejected by the website's elitist proprietors for being deemed lower than a 6 out of 10 (this is the site's attractiveness cut-off point)."
Poor Dan Juan. He's not being hypocritical; he just gave in to human nature. Other men are no doubt looking for and not finding themselves on Tubecrush. It has to be, as Juan would say, a "crushing" experience. Honestly, if you want to encourage a man to cease his personal grooming habits and exercise routine because he thinks it's obviously doing him no good, a phenomenon like Tubecrush is the way to go about it.
What Juan writes next is heartbreaking: "Some Tube crushes are actually photographed while sitting right beside other men, who are completely ignored! Imagine being one of those poor sods. Seeing half of your face cropped out in the corner, unacknowledged." He's right: How demeaning and sexist can this possibly get?
It used to be, in the days of yore, you might hop onto the subway looking smart and dashing and imagine that someone, or perhaps several people, were secretly admiring you. It was fun to imagine and even if you had no concrete evidence to back up your flight of fancy, it helped to boost your confidence. You liked what your mind was telling you. Now you've got the proof that your fantasy was just that—a fantasy. No-one cares about you. Just go home. You're in the way of someone I want to take a photo of.
Dan Juan, I can't say I ever previously thought too much about this issue, but I can imagine what it's like to feel your pain. Thankfully, I hardly ever take the London subway system anymore and I certainly have no reason now to reconsider it.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Is the North Star a warmonger?

I was pleased to see that, via a poll question, 50.2 percent of respondents on the EU Politics Today website think that choas/civil war will be the result in Libya. Well, not exactly pleased, but the strength of my conviction received an amount of satisfaction and justification.
This war is a total farce. I do understand that because Britain and France are involved, we have an obligation to help out our fellow NATO members. If Obama wants to provide a few drones, fine. But for our involvement to stretch any further than that, which it has and which it will continue to do, is preposterous. Remember, "no boots on the ground." US military personnel must be wearing tennis sneakers.
How come we're not in Syria? How come we haven't intervened in the Ivory Coast?
During his war-justification address at the National Defense University in Washington, DC on March 28, Obama said: "I know that at a time of upheaval overseas, when the news is filled with conflict and change, it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I've said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star, the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources—to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a well-spring for our power, and to live the values we hold so dear."
Looks like in addition to his logic-defying Nobel Peace Prize, Obama's attempting to win the Nobel Prize for Literature as well for a flourish of poetry worthy of the Harvard elite.
Looks like the North Star doesn't shine for the Syrians or the civilians of the Ivory Coast.
Not that I want to be in either of those places, but how can our intervention in Libya not be seen as selective?
It could be argued that Libyans have had the courage to do what the Iraqis would not by challenging their autocratic leader. But Saddam Hussein was a much fiercer ruler. And for all the terror that Gaddafi sponsored, we had him contained. The war in Iraq indirectly knocked Gaddafi off his pedestal.
The world is not fair. We should pay Gaddafi back for his past crimes against us, but who are the rebels? Some of them are genuine and they have launched a pursuit for freedom; I can't fault them for that. But they made a choice and they rolled the dice. When you consider that the insurgency in Iraq was backed by eastern Libyans who are the main source of rebellion against Gaddafi, and taking into account the Al-Qaeda infltration into their camp, you are left with a scenario that does not qualify as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And why are the Arab nations sitting on the sidelines? After all, they told the West that they had to help to topple Gaddafi who, I'm inclined to think, is not as unpopular in Libya as we are being led to believe.
And there you have it: The nation of Libya, where the people either love Gaddafi and hate the West, or hate Gaddafi and hate the West. And we willingly walked into their civil war. Golly gee. Mission creep: 1, common sense: 0.
It's "kinetic military action," folks. That's all it is. No boots on the ground, we're simply enforcing a no-fly zone. Think of those comforting words and expressions whenever you feel the bile of anxiety rising in your throat. Just overlook the fact that KMA can also stand for "kiss my ass."
The British wanted drones and we provided them. It was the least we could do for an ally who had our backs in Iraq. I just want this President to acknowledge that this is a war, not "kinetic military action," and that selective interests, not the North Star, are guiding our involvement in this "free Libya" operation.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Another moment of clarity from a public-sector union

For once, I agree with Bob Crow, General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT).
Crow is one of these elitist, thuggish union types who believes in a privileged class of public-sector employee who should be free of the pains that the private sector is experiencing. The already lavishly paid Tube—that is, London subway system—employees he represents are forever calling strikes at inconvenient times of the year to demand the sort of pay raises that much-harder working bus drivers are lucky to receive. The RMT did not organize the recent "March for the Alternative"—that was the Trades Union Congress. But, along with Unison and Unite, they marched in tandem with the "gimme gimme" crowd to let the Con-Dems in Parliament know of the pain and sacrifice they'd suffer if a few arts grants met the cost-cutting knife.
But Mr. Crow, to his credit, nailed down the issue of public relations-sponsored national days and weeks. You know, the never-ending litany of days and weeks that we never knew existed: World Pinhole Camera Day, National Coffee Week, National Karaoke Week, British Pie Week, etc.
Prince William and Kate Middleton even have to share their wedding ceremony with—get this—World Dance Day.
Crow slammed these special events for the public relations stunts that they are, calling them "a sick joke," and alleging that they steal attention away from worthy causes such as World Malaria Day.
"Maybe we should have a special Ignore PR Puff Day to remind journalists to swerve the kind of garbage that the PR and ad agencies make a fortune out of inflicting on the rest of us," Crow opined.
I couldn't agree more.
I have nothing against capitalism, but these "special" days and weeks are ridiculous.
I wonder, when is the National Institute of Proctology day? The thing is, I'll bet it's a much more worthy cause than "Shake Your Ass" day.
Maybe they should team up with National Coffee Week and we can all receive caffeine-rich enemas at discounted prices. w00t!

Monday, March 28, 2011

"Did she say anything about spatulas?"

A friend and fellow reader here on Blogger recently wrote about her total disdain for the saying "that's what she said."
I used to overhear that a lot at a sports bar I would frequent at the old Boston Garden during the early '90s (a place that became rather Cheers-like to me). But I was also reminded of the job I had while attending college.
For five years, I worked night-shift at a large supermarket in Cambridge. One guy who worked there, Ernie, said that all the time. It's as if he was finely attuned to picking up on any instance in which he could utter it; he never missed the opportunity. For instance, if Ernie was present when the grocery manager approached and asked you what time you could report to work, and you replied "I'll come early," Ernie would quip, "That's what she said."
We did some crazy shit. We'd holler "whooo-hooo!" like cowboys. Another guy started a tradition where if you had to pick up a heavy box—a box containing supersize jugs of bleach or large cans of tomato puree, for example—you'd scream "urrrrgh!" in a manly way, like a weightlifter trying to lift 400 pounds.
One time, I saw Neil walking by with a large wooden spatula that he'd obviously borrowed from the homewares aisle. I instinctively knew what he was up to. My suspicions were confirmed just seconds later when I heard, from two aisles away, Billy's playfully outraged holler.
Salvage time was always fun. "Salvage" referred to all the cardboard waste—boxes and box-lids—that we'd load our dollies with and transport out back to an empty delivery truck. We'd throw all this cardboard trash in there for recycling. If you were in the cargo bay of the truck, off-loading your boxes full of box-lids, and someone else came up behind you with his own dolly full of cardboard, he would chuck and shove all the boxes at you at breakneck speed, sending you flying into the big pile of cardboard with box-lids raining down on you, and you'd spend the next fifteen or so minutes carefully planning your revenge.
I've saved the best for last. There was also a penchant for us to sneak up behind a co-worker, as he was bending over to pick up a box or block the lower shelves ("blocking" is supermarket-worker parlance for making the shelves look good by bringing all products forward if the spaces allocated to the products aren't full). You would dry-hump him and the guy getting humped would have to squeal like a pig: "Weeeeeeek!" We all engaged in this endearing activity at some point, perpretrating it against our fellow workers and having it perpetrated against us.
That gives you a pretty good idea of what an all-male crew doing blue-collar labor get up to. Against all that, muttering "that's what she said" seems rather tame.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

The aftermath of the alternative-embracers ...

Well, as predicted here, there was mayhem on the streets of central London yesterday. The usual suspects sprayed anarchist graffiti on nearly every available surface, smashed up the fronts of stores and banks, lit fires and threw ammonia-filled lightbulbs at cops. A fun-filled family event, to be sure.
Apparently, the marchers turned on the troublemakers, resorting to that great British tactic of showing indignity, which is to shout "shame on you!" What the hell kind of confrontation is that? C'mon, let's have some real in-fighting here! Where were the scuffles? How about letting some fists fly, breaking protest signs over some greasy-haired vacant heads and throwing some of that human flotsam underneath police vans, if you're that upset about being so ill-represented? I'd have given up a month's salary to see that.
"Shame on you," indeed. Trouble is, these vagrants, vandals and vigilantes know no shame.
Even at 10:30 p.m., things hadn't returned to normal. The bus terminated its route at Parliament Square, because Whitehall was blocked off to all traffic and there was obviously no pre-planned detour to Regent Street. So I had to walk the two miles into work—Trafalgar Square, I noticed, was still heaving with outraged mindlessness—my feet crunching litter almost the whole way. Thank you, Trades Union Congress. You're not just a public-sector union, you're a "keep fit" motivation club as well.
I will add one positive note here. At 7:30 a.m., the sidewalks and streets were clean. Bus routes were fully operational again. Trafalgar Square had been hosed down, a quiet expanse of wet concrete. It's public-sector employees of the city and Westminster Council who were picking up the mess from a public-sector mass protest. How ironic is that? I was so tempted to ask, "So, enjoying the extra work this morning, fellas?" But, honestly, massive props go out to every employee who helped return the city to normal by daybreak.
Don't get me wrong, either: I'm not defending the banks. These whack-headed protestors say it's the banks' fault we're in this financial crisis, and I agree. But, as most of them were bailed out courtesy of the taxpayers, the public has part ownership of them. These people need to realize that they're to blame too, because we will end up like Greece if we don't clamp down.
The fact of the matter is, you have absolutely no right to bash the banks if you're demanding lavish salaries, pensions and services that are simply not affordable. If it's your belief that we're "all in this together," then prove it by being willing to share the burden and the pain. If not, then shut up about the banks and the financial crisis.
Honestly, it's a case of one group of spoiled-rotten, clueless fat-cats criticizing another.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

As if they're interested in alternatives ...

They're going to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square today. The Trades Union Congress has organized a mass rally protesting the Government's cost-cutting. It's entitled The March for the Alternative.
They haven't explained what "the alternative" is. But then, you can't expect a rag-tag motley collection of layabouts, anarchists, and public union thugs to explain much. You'll get plenty of platitudes, but no real in-depth explanation of why we should continue to allow the unwashed, "gimme gimme" crowd the sort of raises and pensions that private-sector workers can only dream about.
I love how this crowd has embraced the word "alternative." That's not something they ordinarily promote. They're all about diversity, except when it comes to opinions or politicians that dare not be left-of-center.
Two Labour MPs, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, have helped to organize the demonstration that will "turn London into Cairo". Do they know that ordinary Egyptians were trying to overthrow a man who'd been in power for 30 years and was completely out-of-touch with the hoi-polloi, a man they considered a cruel dictator? No, not Ted Kennedy, though Hosni Mubarak, so far as I know, was never responsible for the drowning of a young woman.
McDonnell and Corbyn wrote, in their joint statement, "On March 26 we are inviting everyone to join us to stay in Trafalgar square [sic] for 24 hours to discuss how we can beat this government and to send a message across the globe that we stand with the people of Egypt, Libya, Wisconsin and with all those fighting for equality, freedom and justice."
Fight the power! This is the ultimate test of our democracy! We're talking about the "haves" and the "have-nots" here, and we're the "haves." We're gonna scream and holler and smash up storefronts to ensure it stays that way! But, please remember, we Lefties are never violent. We're the agents of peace—which is why we so valiantly stand in defence of terrorists, domestic or foreign.
Question: Are McDonnell and Corbyn aware that Wisconsin is an American state? They probably think Wisconsin is a Canadian province, because Canada is a righteous, peaceful regime (just ignore the seal blood stains). Someone needs to drop the 4-1-1 to them that Wisconsin is part of the U.S. I'll bet the sudden downplay in sympathy will be like water down the drain.
They do not realize that the whole point of our new government was to tackle the severe financial crisis facing us, that cuts are necessary because the money is running out. But somehow, the results of our general election in May, and the results in Wisconsin in November that put cost-cutting Republicans in office, don't count as part of the democratic process. Obama himself said that elections have consequences, but if the Left witnesses an election they don't like, it amounts to "shock doctrines and neo-liberal attacks (that) threaten to devastate the lives of ordinary people the world over," in McDonnell's and Corbyn's opinion.
Honestly, it would make for great satire if it wasn't so sadly true.
Philip Collins, a columnist for The Times, summed it up succinctly when he referred to the mindset of the alternative-embracers:
"Conjugate with me the verb 'to be on the Left':
I care.
You don't.
He / she is oppressing me ideologically."
I just hope London is London once more by the time I have to head in there tonight, because I have a real job to do where I earn my own money, what little of it there is in my paycheck. It's the price I pay for being an honest, tax-paying member of the proletariat.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Hey hey, ho ho, to Libya we won't go!

No blood for oil! Not in my name!
You know, part of me wants to shout that from the rooftops with regard to American military involvement in Libya. President Obama did not gain Congressional approval for launching strikes against the North African country. So, it's an illegal act of war, is it not?
Say what you will about Dennis Kucinich, the far-Left whackjob Representative from Ohio, but he was the very definition of consistency in denouncing the air strikes and calling Obama's action a potentially impeachable offense.
From a recent interview with MSNBC:
Interviewer: "Alright, so, Congressman—impeachment? Really?"
Kucinich: "I raised the question ... because the President is acting outside of the authority of the Constitution. There is no question about that whatsoever ... And then you think about, there's no imminent threat, there's no end-game. They're still after regime change. We could be strengthening Islamic extremists who could be setting up camp in eastern Libya. There are people who want to divide that nation. This is a nightmare."
Regarding the United Nations approval for these actions, Kucinich said during an interview with the RT America network, "It's good that the U.N. is involved in security matters, except for one thing: When it comes to the United States, we have a prior process that trumps the U.N., and that's called our Constitution, which requires that Presidents have to get Congressional approval to take our country into war. If the President feels there's an imminent or actual threat to the United States, he can move forward. This threat is to citizens in Libya. That's regrettable. But last I checked, Libya isn't one of our states."
I could never have imagined a scenario in which I would like to give Kucinich a slap on the back, but give him credit. He is absolutely correct. I, of course, disagreed mightily with Kucinich's objections to action in Iraq, but as I say, at least he's being consistent.
(I dearly wish these men of the Left, such as Kucinich, would realize that the Constitution also doesn't authorize the mass invasion of American soil by foreign nationals viz-a-viz illegal immigration. But, alas, that's a different topic ...)
Consider this: While campaigning for the Presidency in December 2007, Obama said, clearly referring to the War in Iraq, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
So, Mr. President, how on earth, given your own apparent convinction in that very process, could you authorize attacks, from outside the nation no less, while on your "working vacation"?
Furthermore, where are the massive protests? Who's out there shouting "not in my name"? Libya has oil, so why no large-scale denouncements from anti-war liberals about this being another war for oil? Why no demonstrations against the French, who kicked-started this attack on Libya? (Looks like they're not "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" anymore!) I don't care what the anti-war crowd says, Bush did not act illegally with regard to Iraq. The resolution for the action against Iraq granted the authorization by the Constitution and Congress, so where's the uproar over the complete absence of a similar resolution in this case?
I direct you, dear reader, to this extremely well-written column by John Hawkins. Hawkins writes:
"Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean personally, I've been waiting for years to wear a "No Blood For Oil" sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let's do this thing!"
I concur that this was unconstitutional, that we can ill afford it, and that the U.S. does not need this diversion from Afghanistan. NATO isn't sure what the end-game, as Kucinich calls it, is either, and France and Turkey are bickering over what route to take in these proceedings in Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi is a horrible little man, no doubt about it, and he had this coming. It's the perfect opportunity for us to work with NATO and with U.N. approval to exact our revenge on him for all the American deaths he's been responsible for in the past. But isn't it also true that Gaddafi kept a low profile with regard to terrorism after Saddam Hussein's fall? We can, and should, ensure that Gaddafi goes six feet under, but who will replace him? Does anyone know the motives behind the rebels' insurrection and what they hope to achieve? Who will take over Libya in Gaddafi's absence?
Let's get to the nuts and bolts: Should American troops be put in harm's way in a conflict whose objectives are unclear if not totally missing? Absolutely not!
This story in Libya is completely missing a plot. Dennis Kucinich and I are in total agreement on this one.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

The King hearings do not amount to a witch hunt

Peter King, a Representative from New York, has led the House homeland security committee's hearings on the homegrown Islamist terror threat. The investigation cannot go down the road of McCarthyism: on that, I'm sure we agree. But it is a necessary procedure to collect information on whatever radicalization we face on our own soil and what steps are necessary to defuse it.
I believe the Ford Hood disaster merits these hearings, as well as the opportunity to repair the consequences of Homeland Security incompetence under Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration who would rather see the bogeymen in straw dogs, i.e. Americans who are unapologetic in their patriotism.
Mike Ghouse, the Muslim president of the America Together Foundation, has said of the investigative hearings: "We thank God for this opportunity to put the doubts and nagging behind for good so we can continue to participate in and contribute towards the well-being of America, our homeland."
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, a Muslim convert, wept during the opening moments of the hearings, relating the tale of a Muslim paramedic who perished in the 9/11 attacks, reminding us that the man was "an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens." Fine, but that's not the sort of member of the Muslim community the hearings are targeting. Maybe the paramedic in question didn't even consider himself part of a "community," and thought of himself solely as American—something that should be lauded.
King and the investigative committee would like to know about those Muslim Americans who White House spokesman Jay Carney said "are part of the solution." Isn't that what this is all about? Finding solutions to radicalization and presenting the chance to the American Muslim community to participate? Doesn't sound like a "witch hunt" to me.
The one problem with Peter King acting as chair of the hearings is that he was an ardent supporter of the IRA. King had his head in the sand regarding the suffering the IRA has meted out, so is he really the man to condemn terror? What isn't often mentioned, however—certainly not by the New York Times readership—is that King participated in and helped to mediate the Good Friday agreement. So I think we can give props to him for that.
We need someone to expose Al Qaeda-style homegrown terrorist activities. If King can deliver, if he's got the determination and the tools to carry out full disclosure on the subject, then let nothing stand in his way.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Milking it, the sequel

My wife took a poke at me regarding the issue of human breast milk ice cream. Just click these purple words to read her counterpoint.
To be fair, she has a point. It's a free society in which unique business ideas should be given a chance for success, as long as they are legal. Westminster Council, the authorities who removed the "Baby Gaga" ice cream, had it tested, found it to be safe, and returned it to the ice cream parlour in question.
Nevertheless, my personal antipathy toward this product remains unchanged. I still think the inventor of this unorthodox dessert is a nutjob, and that it appeals mostly to guys who use only two words throughout their workday—"jackhammer" and "oogah!"—as well as the "crunchy granola" crowd that Squirrel mentioned. Interesting bedfellows. I'll leave them to it.