The Worst President? IV

No. 6.  Worst reversal of policy for political expedience than even other politicians.

Yes, I know that politicians are human; that humans frequently change their mind; that we want our presidents to have open minds.

I also know that politicians seem to change their mind in the most cynical ways, for their own good or that of their party.  Presidents are no different than any other politicians, but it is more visible when they do it.

As just a few examples, Jefferson ran as a states rights, small federal government, strict constitutional interpretation candidate. Not so.  Roosevelt ran as an anti-spending, anti-big program president in the face of the depression and ended up doing the opposite. Reagan raised taxes, whatever his program (though overall reduced them). So did George W. Bush. You could go on and on.

But, Obama seems to be destined to be the worst offender. Time and time again he does exactly the opposite of what he said presidents should not do or his administration will or will not do. It's hard not to call some of them just outright lies. And, it's not that I disagree with everything he did once he flopped. The point is, he so frequently says he won't and then does or he will and then doesn't.

• In his 2008 presidential campaign he went back on his pledge to take public funding, which would have limited his spending. When his -fund-raising advantage became obvious he changed his mind and of course denied what he had promised.
• He said he would no sooner throw his long time mentor (and nut) Jeremiah Wright under the bus than his grandmother and then through him under the bus. It wasn't that Wright got any crazier. It just became more politically difficult.
• He said lobbyists would not work in the White House. There are long lists available on the web of those who do.
• He said that raising the debt limit was "irresponsible," a "failure,"" and "unpatriotic." And then he continued to raise the level of deficit.
• He said he would not use federal law to circumvent state law on marijuana. Yet, his administration had more raids on dispensaries in states with medical marijuana laws in one term than his predecessor did in two terms.
• He said he would close Guantanamo Bay and he didn't.
• He set a red line for Syria for the use of chemical weapons and then went back on it. Amazingly, he even denied having said it.
• He said we would get out of Afghanistan and increased the troops. Far more soldiers died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush.
• He vehemently argued against the Patriot Act in the Senate and then extended it.
• He said that we should not have military tribunals with respect to terror suspects. And then. . . .
• Before he was president he wrote that we should end renditions and then . . . .
• Before he was president he said that the executive did not have the constitutional power to attack another country short of self defense without the blessing of congress. Libya anyone?
• Soon after he became president, he said we would retain the plans for a third site missile defense in Eastern Europe against the threat of Iranian missiles. He reversed. Why? Few disagree it was mostly because our great friend Russia didn't like it.
• He said that Mubarak (Egypt) was an ally and a force for stability and then demanded he go. We got Morsi (and I'm for one grateful the military essentially took over).
• He said he would put health care negotiations on C-Span. Well, there was that one meeting where he told John McCain that "the election is over." Okay, he did apologize later, but, there were no negotiations on C-Span. In fact, the way Obamacare was passed set new records in government secrecy and opaqueness.
• He  "promised" and "guaranteed" that people could keep their health insurance after his plan was passed. Later, the government had to admit it wasn't true.
• He promised that no family making less than $250,000 would see any tax increase. This so incensed me during his initial campaign as a ridiculously seethroughable lie (why could I not convince anyone of this?) and it was, of course, just that. Even Obamacare raises taxes.  He also phrased it sometimes to make it appear that it was per person. He also made it sound like capital gains taxes depended on your total income. 
• He said promised he would make it quicker and easier to pay our taxes. Nothing has happened that would remotely make that a possibility.
• He said that he would have the most transparent administration in history. James Risen (NY Times - hardly among his chief critics) said - "He’s the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.” ABC (also, hardly your normal Obama critic) Ann Compton said it is day to day the most opaque of the 7 administrations she has covered. It's not even close.
• He said he would wait 5 days before signing non-emergency bills so that the public could read them online. One of his first promises. Nope.
• He said that he would cut the deficit in half by end of his first term, but has only ever sought to increase it. 

I'm going to stop here because I'm trying to write shorter posts. There are others. I didn't even include the Obamacare deficit because some argue the point (I don't know how, but they do) and it is very hard to argue something that has not happened yet.  You get the point.


By the way, was Romney the most forthright guy? No.  But, I really do think that if our president has not set the gold standard, he is among the worst, and that is bad enough.

The Worst President? III

This is a continuation of my series on why President Obama is the worst president in my lifetime (hard to believe worse than Nixon, who was undoubtedly a criminal, but he is). For an intro go back a few weeks to the first posting on it.


7) Foreign Policy - I knew from his campaigning that President Obama was going to be a disaster in domestic policy. There are few things I can agree with him on there. But, in his first year or so, I thought his foreign policy was not going to be so bad. I do not doubt his patriotism or his firmness of will once he makes up his mind. It's that he believed his press clippings that he could be humble with foreign leaders and countries which would get behind him and watch the waters recede.


His so-called apology tour getting that label is really not off the mark though it is probably overstated by many. It is hard to understand, for example, a President of the United States telling France that we have been arrogant and dismissive - even derisive. Of course, there have to be Americans who are all these things, and no one argues but that we have by far the most powerful military on earth. It's hard to understand him giving a long speech to an audience in Cairo (not an entirely bad speech) which seemed to say - we are just culturally different, but morally and in other ways the same. Given the treatment of women alone (he did not even mention the ubiquitous horror of female genital mutilation practiced in Egypt and elsewhere - and no, not the same as male circumcision. And his reluctance to talk about American exceptionalism would humble and admirable on a personal level, but not for the president talking about the country he was elected to lead. I think he may have realized his error as his second term heads downhill.






It was a sentence here and there, but they were pregnant sentences and bound to get media coverage.


Robert Gibbs, his former press secretary said his confessing our sins changed our image around the world. He may be right, but, if anything, it changed it for the worse.




It may be appealing to President Obama and perhaps it is personally appealing of him as a person, not to lord it over others and show humility (though, in the rough and tumble of politics that has not always been the case). But, our country is actually based on something, and it is not just the right to vote, but that things like capitalism and freedom work. Sure, we have sins, and I don't have a problem with discussing them, even in other countries, but let's mostly talk about now - not centuries ago.




That may make a foreign audience feel good about itself, but its not going to help anyone, particularly oppressed women and minorities or help us in the world.






What he was looking for in Cairo was reset, just as with Russia. Well, he got both and it hasn't done us much good either.








The truth is, since then, our foreign policy has failed virtually everywhere in the world. It's not that I expect America to be able to control the world or dictate to any particular country. It's that there seem to be NO successes in his administration. All failures.








Russia - it sneers at us and the so-called reset was just made Putin more popular at home. Obama told Putin he'd have more flexibility to work with him after the election (read, I'm not going to be entirely honest with the American people), but Putin has run rings around him, particularly in . . .






Syria - Assad was on the run for a while. But, after the use of chemical weapons (which, along with very few other voices, I claim was not a violation of any international treaty, regardless of what SecState Kerry said or how horrendous it was), and with supposedly Russia's help, we forced Assad to give up his weapons - and in doing so, practically guaranteed his survival, as we needed him to do it. I heard Robert Gates, Bush and Obamas SecDef state this himself only a few days ago. The reversal of Assad's fortunes was almost immediate. 






Egypt - in his Cairo speech, Pres. Obama said we respect democratic elections but winners could not then rule by coercion and pick on minorities. That, of course, is exactly what Egypt's elected prime minister did and it ended up in a military dictatorship which we opposed because Morsi was elected - even though the takeover by Sisi (and his subsequent election) was better for Egypt, better for us, better for our allies in every way.






Iraq and Afghanistan - Well, in his Cairo speech, Pres. Obama explained how we wanted nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq and would not force our type of government on them. Fine, we should not take their property or their land. But, we should have insisted on a certain type of government. We did not and look where it got us. Iraq is being torn apart. Afghanistan appears to be little better off.  I'm not going to suggest that Obama is worse than Bush in his handling of these two countries. You couldn't be. But, he may be as bad. I'm not going to suggest we force our ways on other countries either. But, we can insist on it in exchange for the "blood and treasure," can't we?


Perhaps he learned his lesson. He stated that he would only help Iraq now if they agreed to be inclusive. On the other hand, maybe not. Our actual help seems tied to nothing at all. I do want us to help the Kurds and stop genocide if we can. Groups like ISIS(L) can't be defeated fast enough. If they take Baghdad, there will be worldwide ramifications. But, at the same time, I want us to stop with the United Iraq nonsense. It is a fantasy we chase that does them and us no good. Help those who want an open and free society. Do not help the others. At the same time, we are now bombing ISIS. Do you think we will not kill more innocents? It is almost inevitable in war. Ironically, we demand Israel stop defending itself when it kills, against its intentions, innocent people in Gaza. Which brings us to -






Israel - all presidents in my lifetime have struggled with our relations with Israel. Pres. Reagan, who is touted by conservatives as having had the best relation with them had his U.N. ambassador vote to condemned Israel in the U.N.  But, there can be no doubt that our relations with Israel are at their low point ever right now.  Pres. Obama has deliberately snubbed Israel and Netanyahu time and again. Sure, he went there while campaigning in 2008 because it was good politics, and I do not disagree with him that Israel must stop building in disputed areas. On the other hand, we are prolonging the pain of the Gazan people by forcing Israel to stop its destruction of Hamas. Do you notice that Hizbollah has not attacked Israel in 8 years. Despite the cries of knuckleheads in the media that Israel lost, Hizbollah took a terrible beating it does not want repeated. I cannot even understand Hamas, which seems to have an endless capacity to sacrifice its people, though, they do have guts. That's all I will give them. But, we allow (and more than us - Europe) an unfair double standard where we can defend ourselves however we want and make mistakes despite our best intentions and Israel cannot. I feel horrible for the Gazans, but I feel more lives will be saved if Israel can destroy Hamas. I have much more to say about this problem, but it would take over the post and I want to move on to -






Iran - our so-called breakthrough in negotiations has gotten us nowhere. There is no success.






Libya - Not only did Pres. Obama further weaken congress and constitutional law by not only eradicating Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 11 (congress's war power) but he ignored the War Powers Act by determining our aerial assault in Libya wasn't a war. Since our help, of course, we had the debacle in Benghazi and now have completely fled the country, which is in great disarray. Again, he can't be blamed for the problems of these countries - but he just has no successes.






China - our relations with China are worse than ever since before Nixon went there.  Moreover, China grows more powerful in the pacific with a growing navy and growing confidence in pressuring its neighbors over disputed islands. China is a country which has no moral restraints on who it does business with and who it supports. It is almost always on the wrong side. But, how are we better off since 2008 in respect to China? We are not.






North Korea - the most we can possibly ever hope for during my expected lifetime with respect to this pathetic and sad country led by madmen is that they keep quiet. But, there is certainly no success here.






Germany - one of our allies and they are barely speaking to us over the Ed Snowden revelations. They recently expelled our CIA chief.






Brazil - ditto. Bad medicine all around.






Argentina - since at least last year, we are barely considered allies.






Colombia - at least we can say, he didn't screw up here. Thanks largely to our aid in helping Colombia conquer some of its narco-terror problems, relations have been improving - but for a long time, at least back to Pres. Bush's terms. There is nothing different.  This is probably the closest  Obama can do. But,






I could go on, but, if you think we have a success, tell me - with what country and how? And please don't say, we are not at war with Canada and Mexico.

Obama and Palin: Both inexperienced

Do you remember back when it was not politically incorrect to call a Down’s Syndrome kid a “retard,” and occasionally two of them would yell at each other “You’re a retard.” “No, you’re a retard.” “No, you’re a retard.” and so on? Not only did I personally witness that, but I have heard enough people talk about it that I know it was not a singular event. Sad but true.

But, sadder, that’s pretty much how I see the current argument about who has too little experience, Obama or Palin. Both have relatively little experience. Obama’s supporters don’t care a fig that he doesn’t have it. They rely on his “judgment”. Even thought they favor electing an actual president with little experience, they sneer at the Republicans putting up someone with relatively the same experience for Vice President.

And, of course, hypocrisy in politics is so often mirrored by the opposition. The Republicans say that having a president with Obama’s lack of experience is dangerous, but somehow it is ok to nominate a woman with virtually the same limited amount of experience to back up a candidate who has already exhausted the average life span of American men. And who wouldn’t agree that if the Republicans win, due to his age she at least as good a chance of being sworn in as president as any VP ever did.

What amazes me is that partisans make these arguments without shame as if they make perfect sense. We should not be surprised that two people in their 40s don’t have that much political experience. You will not be the only one who sees that the emperor has no clothes. Kirsten Powers, an Obama supporter, was being temporarily lionized right at this moment by the right wing of the blogosphere for pointing out the hypocrisy of these charges from Obama’s supporter.

She was the mayor of a small town for a few years. He was a state senator for a few years. She has been a governor for two years. He has been a Senator for two years. She has executive experience, which she doesn’t. He has federal experience which she doesn’t. It seems pretty clear that even if you want your candidate to be the one with greater experience you should have to acknowledge that they are relatively the same in length. But, that’s not what you hear from the partisan warriors.

The truth of the matter is it matters not a whit if either of them has lots of federal or executive experience, although it would be nice if they did. Bush and Cheney both have tons of experience right now. Who would want to vote for them again? A few, not many. Biden and McCain both has tons of experience. But what conservative thinks he wants to vote for Biden because he has been in the senate for over 30 years. What Democrat wants to vote for McCain because he has a quarter century in the Senate and military experience to boot. Not a one.

What people really care about is whether the candidate agrees with them which feeds into what party they are in and whether they can trust them. If they do trust them, then that person’s failures are overblown and their attributes are lionized. If they do not agree with them, then they feel the candidate is anything from untrustworthy to a criminal who have not been caught.

I know as little about Sarah Palin as most people do. I’ve been aware of her for a few months and actually did think she would have been a good pick, particularly while Obama struggled for support from Hillary supporters. But, I let the pundits (who get nothing right with astonishing regularity) scare me off because of the Alaskan ethics investigation. It is never wise to listen to pundits.

Although I always acknowledge that I am likely to vote for McCain I was disappointed that he did not run as an independent in 2000 and 2004 and still think it was a mistake. I’m equally disappointed that he has run not only as a Republican but an avid one.

But, being likely to vote for him doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything or even most things. His star has been dimming for me lately with every dark voiced ominous commercial slamming Obama, who seems to me to be a pretty decent guy too and certainly not scary to me, as the right would like you to think.

I was prepared to be really disappointed if he chose Romney as his running mate. Romney may also be a really decent guy himself (how do you ever really know?) but I do not trust him and even see him as the quintessential used car salesman. The expression is certainly not original to me with regard to him, but that shows that I’m not alone in my opinion.

McCain’s pick of Palin revived my respect for him some for a number of reasons. Even though she is a popular choice in her party, he had to stand up to forces in his party that really wanted Romney at this point or someone like him. He showed he was comfortable choosing someone who is much younger and perhaps personally more appealing than he is. He showed that he could pick someone who has made her short career attacking Republican corruption, which takes the kind of courage McCain knows about.

The pick is not without some risks. Palin is not going to be able to answer questions about federal public policy issues without trouble unless she is the fastest learner on the planet and you know the media will be gunning for her with no reasonable expectation of fairness. And then there is the investigation, which, if pursued aggressively, will greatly hamper the campaign.

However, you have to admire the way she is handling the investigation. If you haven’t heard what it is about yet, this is apparently the skinny: Her sister was going through a bad divorce with a State trooper who supposedly even threatened to kill their father. Among the number of appointees her predecessor put in office just before he left and that she let go was her bro-in-law’s boss. There is no doubt that someone from her staff made inquiries into whether the brother-in-law was going to be fired or not. The guy she let goes feels it was because he wouldn’t fire her brother-in-law.

That’s one side of it, of course. Here’s the other. The investigator says that cooperation has been so good from the governor that he didn’t even need to issue subpoenas. His main piece of evidence that might be held against her is an audio tape of the guy who made inquiries from her office. But it was provided to the investigator by her own office. She claims that she has absolutely nothing to hide and knew nothing about it. Certainly, her cooperation at least suggests innocence. Compare that to the stone walling of almost every president under investigation (I’ll exempt Carter) and you have to be impressed.

Nothing would surprise me. She may be totally innocent (I don’t even think it would be a crime) or she may be guilty of at least bad judgment and the type of bullying we don’t like to see. If so, it would not fit in well with the reputation she has made for herself on pressing ethic investigations against people in her own party.

She seems like the type of person you want for a neighbor. She married her childhood sweetheart and they have five kids. When she had her last child this year and she learned he was going to have Down’s Syndrome she stuck with her pro-life values and had the child. Plenty of pro-lifers have abortions. Personally, I admire anyone who makes the hard choice she did.

The fact that she is young and personable and, arguably, beautiful, is not really important. The fact that she has an 80% approval rating in her state (go ahead – how many other governor’s have ratings like that) means that pretty much all but a small group of the most extreme partisan’s have thought highly of her over a two year period. That doesn’t mean everything, but it must mean something.

She also steals thunder from both Obama and Hillary. Suddenly, Obama really looks like a Washington insider compared to her. If he wants to claim that he has more experience than she does, it can only be for his Washington experience. But, just as he has that on his side, she has the executive experience he lacks. She also vaults into Hillary’s spot as the woman most likely to become the first female President.

If she wins VP, it will, of course be historical, just as it will if Obama wins. I don’t know about the rest of you, but even if my guy loses, I will feel very good that America has grown so much since my childhood that it can elect a black president. I know lots of conservatives who feel that way too.

However, having a women VP, particularly a young one, will raise a lot of other issues that maybe should not be raised. What will her relationship with McCain be like? If he treats her the way most VPs have been treated throughout history (and Cheney was a rare exception) and she goes to funerals and meets a lot of other politicians, will he be accused of paternalism? Remember, this is politics; it doesn’t have to be fair.

What will her relationship with Cindy McCain be like? Will that cause problems that would not exist if the VP was a male? You hate to think yes, but, remember, they are humans who will react to things like other humans. People who think that there is no difference between women to women interactions and women to man ones, live with their eyes shut. Will Palin have to go shopping with Cindy and pay court to her?

You don’t need precognition to suspect there will be rumors of an affair between her and McCain. In our culture it seems almost unavoidable even if there is not an iota of evidence. Will they hug more warmly than, say, a McCain and Romney would? Or, do they keep each other at a distance simply to tamp down on any insinuations. And that in itself will lead to insinuations.

Like all controversial picks, any woman or minority presidential or vice presidential pick is exciting whether you like them or not. Our media makes it so. It usually means fun for us political geeks because there are so many opportunities for partisans to unfairly berate them for every one of their choices or failures which will be counted much more heavily against them than if made by a white man.

Count on it.

McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden go into a bar

Once upon a time, Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin were scheduled on the same flight to Ohio to campaign when they were grounded by a storm. They walk into the airport lounge and start drinking. Fortunately, everyone else in the bar had video recorders in their phones, cameras and hats, and we can pick up the conversation when they get loud.

Biden: I'm just saying, and I've said this before, and you've heard me say this, John, because, we're good friends, and friends are important, particularly in the Senate, and you know, or maybe you don't, but I'm certainly aware. . . .

Obama: Joe. Joe.

Biden: . . . that it goes without saying that not one person who thinks, and I'm all in favor of people thinking . . . .

Obama: JOE!

Biden: Sorry, boss. What's the matter?

Obama: Didn't we talk about this?

Biden: Sure, we've had lots of talks, but, you know. . . .

Obama: JOE! Look at me. Joseph. Stop. Ah! Look . . . at . . . me. Good. Now, remember, short sentences and wait for someone else to reply.

Biden: 'Kay.

Palin: I’ve been in National politics for 15 seconds and already I want to gag him.

McCain: Don't feel sorry for yourself, baby doll. I've had to listen to that blowhard for 25 years. Bet you can't name the other Senator from Delaware, Barack.

Palin: (to herself) Baby doll?

Obama: Ummm. No. Who is it?

McCain: No one knows. He was seated on a plane next to Joe and when they had to circle before landing he couldn't take it anymore and jumped.

They all laugh, including Joe.

Obama: What I was trying to say before Joe's filibuster is that I can't win. Either I'm an Uncle Tom or I’m bought and paid for by the Black Caucus. Just pick one, please.

McCain: Now that isn't true. We all look at you as a human, not as a black man or a white man, or a gook.

Palin (whispering to McCain): Psss, John, you can't say gook. You have to use another word.

McCain: Oh, is gook not good anymore, Sugar pants? No offense. I should have said the yellow man.

Palin: (to herself) What did I do to myself?

Biden: Sheesh. And they say I can't control my mouth.

Obama: Look, I'm not Asian, anyway. OK?

McCain: Really? Sorry. I just noticed the high yallow coloring and . . .

Obama: OK, that's it. Now I seriously have to kick your ass. You can't say that to a black man, you mummified honky.

McCain: No offense meant, my friends (laughs grandly). Actually, you look more Vietcong to me.

McCain goes glassy eyed.

Biden: I think he's having a flashback. Or . . . .

McCain: Szzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Obama: Look, I'm bi-racial. Is that so hard for old guys to understand?

Palin: I have no problem with that. (She shakes McCain) It's just you seem to be black one day and bi-racial the next. How come you never say you are white?

Obama: Well, I identify with blacks because we've been persecuted.

Palin: Persecuted? You live in a mansion. Your suits cost more than my home town.

The white guys laugh and slap five.

Obama: JOE!

Biden: I'm sorry. It was funny. And you won't let me say anything.

Obama: Maybe I'm just worried you'll steal something I said.

Biden: You know, that plagiarism thing is getting old. Were you even out of diapers when that one was passed around, Bambi?

Obama: Don't go whining again, Joe. If I wanted whining I would have asked Hillary to be VP.

Palin: Careful. There she is, Barack.

Obama: (Ducks his head and furtively looks around) That's not funny, Sweetie.

Palin: (sputtering) S-s-s-sweetie?

Obama: I have been persecuted. You guys wouldn't know from that.

McCain (raising his hand): HelllO! Prisoner of war here. 5 1/2 years. Torrrrrrtured.

Obama: Wah! Wah! Wah! Here we go with the poor little war Admiral’s son story. You're starting to sound like "9/11" Giuliani. . . . . Hey, Joe, can I get a chuckle.

Biden: Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah. Hoooo boy. Yep, my wife is gorgeous.

Palin (to the bartender): The guy with the big teeth and balding yellow hair is cut off. Now, wait a minute, Barack. You can't talk to a vet like that. John McCain is an American hero (whispering - John, your hand is on my leg).

Obama: He got shot down and beat up. Big whoop. Any pro wrestler can do that and make it look more realistic.

Palin: You boys think you know persecution. Try being a mayor of a town where the collective IQ is lower than the seal catch every spring. Try being a governor and every male cashier and janitor you have lunch with still expects you to clean up after them.

McCain: (into his hand) Bee-otch.

Palin: Drop dead, you stupid old man.

McCain: I knew I should have gone with Lieberman.

Obama: (pretending to sneeze into his hand). Aah aah aah-Jew!

They all laugh and Obama and McCain give high fives.

Palin: Oy veh!

They all crack up and pound the table.

Biden: Ah, that was rich. Can I say something?

Obama, McCain and Palin: NO!

Obama: I'm just saying that you whitees don't know what it's like to be pulled over and questioned by the police because you were driving while black.

McCain: For crying out loud, Barack, they beat me so bad I cried for longer than you've been in the Senate. They wouldn't set my broken bones. I lost over five years.

Biden: Like that's as bad as having to turn over your driver's license on a rainy day.

Obama: Just shut up, Joe, or I put the shock collar back on.

Biden (Put's his hand over his own mouth): Srrybss.

Palin: I admit blacks still have issues in America, but a black man with a law degree from Harvard can make out his own ticket. You have no ideas what barriers there still are for women.

Obama: Women! You mean like women who are beaten fair and square in a contest AND JUST WON’T GIVE UP? LIKE WOMEN WHO STARE DAGGERS AT THEIR HUSBANDS BECAUSE YOU CAN’T READ THEIR FRIGGIN’ MINDS? PERSECUTED? MORE LIKE BLOOD SUCKING VAMPIRES. I mean that respectfully, of course.

Palin: So much for liberal tolerance.

Obama: I'm tolerant. And I still am getting heat from Southern Democrats and Republicans for choosing a Catholic VP.

Biden: Hey, I'm Catholic too.

Obama: I was talking about you, moron.

Palin: Well, at least I'm not a Muslim.

Obama (standing): Oh, I am so telling the media on you. Where's Brokaw?

McCain: Look under you. The whole media’s got their head up your ass, soldier.

Biden laughs hysterically and Obama glares at him.

Biden: I'm sorry. I just love it when McCain does that whole military tough guy humor thing.

Obama: Look. I am not a Muslim. Not that there is anything wrong with it. But, you know, wait a second -- is there any media around?

Biden: No, Boss.

Obama: OK, to tell the truth, those guys give me the creeps. Especially the ones who use their shirts for hats. Muslims think they are the new blacks but they haven’t suffered as much.

Biden: I don't know. The swamp Arabs and the Kurds, for example . . . .

Obama: JOEEEE! (To McCain and Palin behind his hand) He's been like this ever since I told him I need his foreign policy advice. Palestinians, Kurds, Abadabadooistan. I have no idea what he babbling about?

Biden: All right, all right, that’s it. I'm getting a little sick of your whole victim mentality, too. I mean, McCain's been tortured, Palin isn’t taking serious because she’s a foxy little minx . . . .

Palin: He really is a human gaffe machine.

Biden: Sorry, foxy little minx is one of those subtle racial or misogynist things I say that I get forgiven for because, frankly, I’m considered a little daffy. But, seriously, guys, I lost my wife and daughter in an accident. That was really tough and please make it into a joke. I don't want to hear how the rest of you think you suffered.

There is silence at the table for a minute as they all look down, broken by --

McCain: Where are we and why is there a gook at my table?

Palin (head in hands): Good God. Al Zeimer here is going to be MY boss. AND TAKE YOUR HAND OFF MY KNEE you albino walking corpse.

Biden: Don't you complain. I'm taking orders from a black guy. Oops, there I go again. Didn't mean anything by that. Look at my record. Somebody get Sharpton on the phone.

An airline pilot approaches.

Pilot: I'm sorry, folks, but I have to tell you that your flight has been commandeered for some VIPs and frankly, it’s no contest.

Biden: Who is more important than us? Not the Pope?

Obama (shaking his fist): I bet it’s those Clintons!

McCain (getting in a rage) That Bush!

Pilot (shakes his head): Nope. Brangelina.

Various nonsense

Ah, a week off from the draining profession of blogging does the mind wonders. I’m in a potpourri mood tonight. Get ready for nonsense.

Best reality show
Why haven’t we seen a reality show called “Take my virginity – please!”? It can’t be because it is too low. Could it be lower than a show about women competing to marry a millionaire they don’t even know?

I see it like this – one young woman, safely over the age of 18 (even thought it is legal to have sex younger than that in many places) has the taking of her virginity competed over by 10 great looking young men.

The men will be differentiated by age, at least one a little younger than the woman (the “baby” or “kid”) and one twenty years or so older (the “old man” or “grand pa”) and of various ethnicity, at least one of African, Asian, Hispanic and Northern European descent, with the rest other ethnic groups. If basing this partly on ethnicity offends, remember, we are not creating a government, we are making a reality show, and ethnicity can actually be an interesting and positive thing as it sometimes was before the age of hyper-sensitivity.

One man will turn out to have a wife or a girlfriend who is ok with his experiment, another will be a laborer, another an executive. You get the idea.

The woman may be of any ethnicity, occupation, etc. She can be older as well, so long as she is beautiful, a virgin and willing to tell a camera how her loins ache for a man. This is not a politically correct show, which is why it will draw millions of viewers.

The men compete over her, but do not get to meet her for weeks into the show. They engage in sports (a different one each time, but I suggest naked Graeco-Roman wrestling for the first one), trivia contests, double blind massage with the virgin, singing and poetry writing (limericks one time, sonnets another). Maybe they can rescue her from a dragon. I’ll leave that to special effects.

The victorious champion and the virgin get to go to a resort, are followed around by cameras, but have adjoining suites of which only she can open the door. When the deed is done, I guess I should say if it is done, he will ascend to the top of a tower and ring a bell. Naturally, the virgin does not have to go through it, just as they can back out on the shows where participants seek a spouse. However, if she does, she has to go through a walk of shame in the morning.

Of course, there will be legal problems. Although I see no prostitution here, I’d suggest locales where it is legal (e.g., Nevada) and the producers even have to be careful about America’s antiquated Mann Act which almost snared NY’s disgraced governor, Eliot Spitzer. The participants are paid, of course, but only for their on screen performances at a flat rate. There is no additional money for winning the contest or to her for going through it. If there is a legal problem from the Henny Youngmann estate over the name, they can just call it “Take Me”.

Spin offs will follow, as sure as the night follows the day, such as where the virgin is a male. There will be a spin-off for lesbians and another for gay men, another one for lesbians (I know I said lesbians twice, but that’s the only one I’ll watch – I hate reality shows) and one for convicts, another for wives and husbands with permission. They can even do (no pun intended) different ethnic groups (Take me, guido, Take me, boychik, Take me, Mr. Moto). Does it matter just as long as the people on it are attractive? There can even be destination events like Take Me, Polynesia, Take Me, Vegas and Take Me, Rio.

Raise your hand if you think this would not make money. I’d say it is a lock. If only my entrepreneurial skills were in were in line with my ability to think of degrading reality shows.

Why aren’t comedies in the running for Oscars?
We all love to laugh. Some comedies are great. Movies like The In-laws (the Peter Falk version NOT the Michael Douglas version), Play It Again, Sam, My Cousin Vinnie, Midnight Run, Back to the Future, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Duck Soup, The Return of the Pink Panther, Ace Ventura, Pet Detective, 48 Hours, Beverly Hills Cop, When Harry Met Sally, Borat, You’ve Got Mail (am I the only guy who loves that movie?), Hitch and so on deserve at least a nomination, if not to win.

Take the last suggestion, for example. I’m not saying Hitch was one of the all time great movies. But it was fun and I have watched it numerous times. It was better than Million Dollar Baby, Finding Neverland, The Aviator and, what may have passed for a comedy for the Academy that year because it was so un-funny, Sideways, all of which got nominations. Million Dollar, Baby won. It was an ok movie, but not great in my mind.

You might think this year’s nomination for Juno broke the ice. I don’t think so. The film was a typical teen comedy, but its topic, teen pregnancy and its occasional darkness made it just “serious” enough for the Academy. I just didn’t think it was all that good.

In my professional opinion (that is, I pay good money to see movies) it is a lot harder to make a good comedy than a good drama and it is time that was recognized. And, as Mike Meyers just proved with his Love Guru, it’s really hard to continue to make good comedies, even if you have done it repeatedly before. Meyers took his “art” too seriously and forgot how to be funny. If you don’t think so, listen to an interview of him talking about it. It was enough to kill any possibly interest I had in seeing it.

No doubt, the Academy doesn’t want to undermine its own credibility and you can see how they might think it would do so by nominating some of these silly films. But, that’s because, like any self-identifying wealthy group of people, they become self-important, uptight, power hungry and just plain ridiculous. In my humble opinion, anyway.

The fact is that including great comedies that people love to see would in no way reduce the stature of the Academy or the awards (you can hear the argument – what next -- should we include great porn movies? Well, why not, if they were actually good enough. Someday, some is going to make a great porno movie, but it would be dangerous to hold your breathe.

There is a compromise position. Have a separate category for comedies. The problem might be that there will be consecutive years with very slim pickings. That’s because being funny is a lot harder than being dramatic. Honestly, I think Jim Carrey is more talented than Robert DeNiro and I like DeNiro. However, I think lots of actors, known and unknown, could have played DeNiro’s roles, many worse, but some as well and probably some better. But replace Jim Carrey in Me, Myself and Irene or the Pet Detective movies. Go ahead and try. Wouldn’t work.

The Bus
Politicians are distinctly disloyal when running for president. For me, a little loyalty for people who were trying to help them along the way and aren’t didn’t do something heinous would go a long way. Here’s an idea. Let’s rate our candidates not on how they cringe before the media and their political correctness, but on how loyal they are to their friends who make a mistake, or, much worse, tell the truth when they weren’t supposed to.

How many people will be scolded or thrown under the bus this year by the candidates? Let’s see. Obama’s has already “thrown under the bus” –

Jeremiah Wright, whom he first likened to family. Thrown under because of his wacky anti-whitey theories and other “bombastic” hyperbole like the government created AIDs and that blacks and whites learn on different sides of their brains. After the very strange Reverend Fleger spoke at Obama’s church, Obama had enough and threw his whole church under the bus. By Obama’s own analogy, it meant he was also throwing his own “white” grandmother under the bus along with his church.

Jim Johnson, who was one the small committee vetting VP possibilities was thrown under because due to his connections he derived benefits from Countrywide, the mortgage company. Why would Obama, who allegedly received a deal on the price and mortgage for his own house, care about that? Because he had already castigated Clinton for having advisors with connections to Countrywide. Thus, the phony attack on Clinton backfired and he had no choice. “Jim, come here a second.” Had he refrained from scoring the cheap political point he would not have needed to fire Johnson.

Samantha Powers, a writer, teacher and voracious Obama supporter was thrown under too because she said that the 16 month pull out of Iraq would be re-examined by him after he was elected. Her mistake was not that what she said was false but that she gave Obama too much credit. He didn’t wait until he was elected to back pedal. He has already re-thought Iraq and acknowledged when we leave will depend on circumstances. It was inevitable. As I’ve said here before, the candidates can say what they want about Iraq, once they become president the situation will determine what they do, not their rhetoric. Doesn’t Obama owe her an apology now after making a speech that went further than she did in her speech.

Enough for Obama. Let’s look at Mr. McCain who I heard Peggy Noonan tag this week as pale and white as a pillar. Not fair, but I kind of like the description.

Phil Gramm, former senator, good friend and co-chair of McCain’s campaign was just recently cast under the bus. His crime -- saying that we are a nation of whiners. Well, we can’t have that, can we? We don’t want to lose voters by telling the truth, do we? Of course, Phil Gramm is right and McCain knows it. But, can he say it? Absolutely not. He has to pet us and stroke us and tell us we are wonderful. Why? Because we are a nation of whiners, that’s why. Meanwhile, Phil Gramm has tread marks on his face. I have to give McCain some credit and note that he didn’t actually fire Gramm.

John Hagee, the kooky anti-Catholic, anti-semitic evangelist was thrown under the bus by McCain too. Now, there’s an example of a divisive, anti-semitic, anti-Catholic man who should get thrown under a train of buses. But, that’s not my problem with it. McCain didn’t just accept Hagee’s endorsement blindly, he sought it out, along with those of other leaders of the Christian right. You might say McCain was hoisted by his own petard. McCain should have at least symbolically tied himself to Hagee when he threw him under and taken the blame for his own pandering.

Wesley Clark. A little twist on this one. The weird thing was, McCain tried to throw this former candidate and Obama supporter under Obama’s bus and, to his credit, Obama wouldn’t do it. I said a lot about Clark about two weeks ago, so I’ll be brief. Clark spoke a truth – getting shot down and imprisoned doesn’t qualify you for the presidency, and that was enough for McCain to ask Obama to lose him. Lighten up, McCain. Have you gone from not talking about your captivity to insisting that everyone celebrate it? Ironically, who was McCain willing to throw under the bus – A highly decorated member of the armed forces you would expect him to be supportive of if he were not running for office.

Politicians, at least successful ones, apparently think they must be prepared to sell their own grandmothers. The conventional wisdom is wrong here. We’d respect them more if they would stick to their guns, particularly when someone tells the truth.

Thoughts of the week
Flop flops: When I hear a newsperson, politician or poll use the phrase “flip flop” about their adversary, I just turn off. It’s usually unfair. If there was ever anything to flip flopping, it is now just political name calling, up there with “card carrying liberal” and “right wing nut”. It is Republicans hoping to recapture their spearing of John Kerry, an easy target if there ever was one, and Democrats desiring to turn the fearful flip flop tag against those who wielded it so successfully against them. Accusations of flip flops are tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

The run to the middle: Are we all so jaded that although we know politicians will run to their base during the nomination phase and then head to the center when it is all sewn up, we will not call them on it? Apparently so. It happens every election and if anybody gets called on it in passing, it doesn’t seem to lose them any votes. How can it when they all do it?

McCain has a tougher job in this election than Obama in this respect. Obama can move center and despite some irritation among his base, where are they going – to Ralph Nader or Ron Paul? I think not. McCain’s base has always been shaky, and therefore he must satisfy those on his far right in order to get them to the polls, yet find a way to make the independents who will decide the election happy too.

Waterfalls in New York City: Oh, brother. Now, generally speaking, I like Mayor Bloomberg. He is smart and pragmatic and fairly non-partisan. But watching him yahoo about the artificial waterfalls, really just fountains set on top of high steel girders, made him a little ridiculous to me. But, his statement that "[t]hese waterfalls will be just as awe-inspiring as any found in nature" made me laugh while I sat under a real hundred foot tall waterfall last week. It was stone and water flora and fauna, the way waterfalls are supposed to be. No, Honorable Sir, although my waterfall was seasonably reduced to a trickle, yours was still not as awe-inspiring. Not even close. Metal waterfalls and the like are pathetic attempts to pass for art in the age of the camera phone and made for people who are starving for something real. New York paved its real waterfalls under long ago (and I mean long, long ago) to make room for the greatest city in the world. They should have kept some waterfalls. After all, don’t we all love Central Park?

I may be trying to shoot a mosquito with a cannon, but these contraptions are a little ridiculous. Reminds me of those ridiculous gates they set up in Central Park a few years ago under the auspices of art. Amazing how many more people will come to see phony art than real art.

Banks: Sometimes it appears that we have gone insane in our efforts to govern ourselves. Would you say that it is a good thing to lend money at a low rate to someone who is trying to make it and needs a break? Haven’t many of us counted on that a little in our lives? Do you have any idea how many big companies or people started their march to success with a loan they didn’t deserve on paper?

Would you also say that it is the responsibility of the borrower to make sure they can pay it back and that we shouldn’t blame the lender for trying to help make someone’s dreams come true?

Well, we have reversed all of that now. The banks that lent money at rates less than the prime rate are now called “predators” and we are supposed to want to bail the “victimized” borrowers out. Isn’t that what bankruptcy is for? Are we now not just forgive the debt (which I’m not against in certain circumstances) to make heroes out of them?

Now, I’m not arguing that the banks weren't foolish in lending money to so many people who couldn’t pay it back. The really strange part, though, is why they did it. We, that is, the government, apparently created this situation. So testified Stan Liebowitz, an economist at the University of Texas before Congress just last month. And if you need to decide that he is just being political, consider that he started writing about this in economic publications in 1998. No one listened.

Here's what happened. Remember redlining? This was the political catch phrase that accused banks of discriminating against blacks and other minorities by turning them down for loans. The study upon which this was founded, claiming that a quarter of minority applicants were turned down were for discriminatory purposes, may have been seriously flawed (Mr. Liebowitz claims ridiculously so, as has been proved by his examination and others).

Yet, based on this study, the federal government used its muscle to force lenders to work with minorities to an unprecedented degree, meaning giving loans to people with bad credit and little income, and by insisting that relaxing underwriting rules would not lead to an increase in defaults. Get it? Hence, my favorite Ronald Reagan line – The scariest words in the English language are – I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.

Who does it turn out was the ballyhooed leader in ignoring good banking practices to loan money to lower income minorities? Countrywide, that’s who -- today’s villain. Oh, brother.

It gets worse, though. Just now, the Federal Exchange, the guardian of our financial system, has announced it is going to crack down on lenders who give loans to those who might not be able to pay them back. The media is all on board, forgetting about the earlier policy and castigating banks who lent money to poor people as evil. Huh? Picture your favorite movie scene where someone’s head rotates and shakes vigorously before exploding. That’s what your head should be doing right now.

Now, thanks to government intervention, banks will only be able to loan money for houses to people who can afford to pay it back (good idea), in fact, they will probably be denying many who could afford it but don’t meet the new strict standards.

I know this sounds crazy, but shouldn’t we just let banks lend money to who they believe are qualified, just like we want to do ourselves? I’m not saying there is no discrimination, but, real discrimination is a far cry from the phony over-protective discrimination that our overly legal and sensitized world has created.

Maybe it’s just me.

What side of the brain are you reading this on?

I listened to two speeches by The Reverend (which used to be the correct title – the former adjective is now a proper noun) Jeremiah Wright this week. I thought he was a good speaker, except when he sang. But, admittedly, I am almost always bored when speakers sing. To me, but apparently not many others, he is a somewhat entertaining distraction from the election and the issues. On the other hand, I really don’t care if he is ever mentioned again. And I certainly could care less if Obama has seven friends like him. Wouldn’t it be terrible if one of your friends couldn’t get elected because of some of your idiotic beliefs.

In fact, most people, maybe all people, believe and say ridiculous things all the time, including Plato, who defined a man as a biped without feathers, and I, on the other extreme, who has labored to convince people that that the discovery of an economic method of growing square peas will save the economy. Politics, particularly partisan politics, makes us exaggerate the importance of the stupid things political enemies say. If there wasn't a political penalty for admitting it was a stupid thing to say, more politicians would admit their mistakes.

I do NOT believe that just because a peace advocate, which is what Wright intends to be, says “God damn, America,” and believes the government is capable of great evils, that he hates Americans or can’t be patriotic. Frankly, many Americans (and our friends around the world) feel much like Wright despite Obama's statement that all Americans are offended by what he says. Personally, I am disappointed that Obama has now totally discredited his former pastor, who was probably hurt when his friend and "family member" denounced what he believed in and has preached openly for years.

Although it is obvious Obama takes this route under tremendous political pressure (much like McCain sidling up to the religious right and all the candidates being against gay marriage) I would have been more impressed if he showed some personal loyalty to someone as close to him as Wright was, however nutty he might be to most of us, particularly as Wright had done nothing to Obama, but only defended himself from personal attack. It is the Clintons who we are told are so ambitious all the time, but, obviously, it is just a political thing, to which even the saint-like Obama is susceptible. I much preferred his original approach and do not accept the refrain that by defending or promoting himself, Wright has now attacked Obama.

Of course, as I have also already said in an earlier post in this almost unbearably riveting blog, Wright will be Obama’s undoing one way or another either during the primaries or the general election. Many people don’t feel as tepid as I do about Wright's anti-American (government) statements, and the partisan opportunities are too good for Obama's opponents to ignore, and much too good for ratings for the media not to play over and over. Of course, they, our own collective media imbeciles, are so in love with Obama, many continue to pronounce that this has all passed now that Obama has "thrown Wright under the bus". Nope.

Four paragraphs into this and I still did not come to my point. Here it is. I am stunned, just stunned, that some in our supposedly intelligent media, while noting that Wright has hurt Obama politically, actually say he makes sense when he talks about black children learning on the right side of their brains and white kids on their left. Are you kidding me? For those who will rely on pseudo-science to support him -- there is absolutely no scientific evidence which would support such a statement. And I once did a whole coloring book on the brain, so I should know.

While scientists have taught us that the left and right side of the brain have somewhat different functions, it is not so simple as thinking of them as separate compartments in which some people learn in one box and other people in the other one. Different attributes are associated with different parts of the brain like the medulla oblongata (motor stuff) and Broca’s area (language, comprehension). Let me repeat for the hard of thinking, yes, there are two parts of the brain, but blacks and whites don’t learn on different sides of it. Wasn't there a sport's commentator a few years ago whose career was ended just because he opined that black's muscles twitch faster than white's.

Here’s Wright’s basis for his theory: Black children come from a culture where African griots memorized long histories and stories. So what? How many black people have you met who were trained as griots. I know there are a few griots left in the world because I looked it up. But, are not black children in American and European schools learning from the same methods as white kids – generally watching the same television shows and movies; playing the same video games? How many black kids in America does Wright think learned from griots? How many of there parents or grandparents learned from them? Or great grandparents, for that matter. My guess, with little fear of contradiction – it is pretty close to zero, if not exactly zero. Does he believe in hereditary learning? Does our media?

Is Wright not aware that there is a black man now running for president who went to Harvard Law School and seems to take to logic and math just fine? Or, does he think he was capable of doing so only because he is half white and could learn on both sides of his brain? That’s where his logic leads. Does he not realize that same man was actually the son of an African (unlike most blacks in this country) and was raised for a few years in an Asian country and yet was a tip top student in Western schools? If you don’t know who I am talking about, stop reading and watch cable news for a few weeks.

Does Wright not realize that the Western world has a history of bards who memorized long passages too. Ever hear of Homer, or traveling minstrels? Ever see a concert orchestra play a several hour long piece? What about all of the Muslim students who memorized the Koran? Are they incapable of learning in Western schools? As a Hispanic commenter on a blog said this week (I’m paraphrasing) – “I am Hispanic – what side of the brain do I learn on?” Does Wright not realize that not all black’s ancestors came from places in Africa that had griots? Does he not realize how many Africans in West Africa live in cities these days, not in villages without any schools.

This is why blacks, he says, can memorize rap lyrics – they are learning on another side of their brains. How would he explain the fact that many white people can also recite the words from dozens of songs, including rap. It is just what they are interested in and motivated to learn – nothing more.

He also says that blacks have a different rhythm than whites. I was a little stunned when he was imitating a black marching band as if they had vaguely simian qualities. I am not denying that different forms of music have different beats. But black people are perfectly capable of performing Western music and excelling at it and whites are perfectly capable of playing jazz and blues as well as blacks, regardless of Wright’s suggestion to the contrary. It has nothing to do with what side of the brain they are learning on.

Can you imagine, can you imagine, can you just imagine, if John McCain or Hillary Clinton or any white politician dared say that black kids learn on a different side of their brain than whites, and that is why they don’t do as well in school? Everyone would be screaming racism. Can you imagine if John McCain imitated a black marching band by crouching down and swaying as if he were an ape? I shudder to think about it. Yet, somehow, some of the same people who condemn the authors of The Bell Curve for racism (I'm not getting into that here -- but read the book before you condemn it thus) swallow these silly comments whole as if Wright had just spent a year doing neurological research.

Wright’s message is just horrible for blacks struggling with the educational system. It is a pretty rare specimen these days who doesn’t believe that the way blacks were treated in this country for centuries was horrific right up into our life times. There is still a need for better education opportunities for many of them, particularly in primary and secondary schools (certainly not all and obviously, not Barack or his wife). And, I am sympathetic with Wright’s message that we have to look at differences in cultures and people and understand that because it is not the same as we do it is necessarily worse. BUT THAT DOESN NOT MEAN THAT EVERYTHING IS OF THE SAME VALUE. This is the same as the relativistic argument that all wrongs are equal (stealing a pen is the same as killing someone to steal their pen). It is a mistake to say that because we all have different accents that there is not a range of proper speech that will permit people of all races to better succeed in school and work. Yet, Wright would hold otherwise. Even his specifics lack a factual background. Yes, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had strong accents, but there accents on vowels did not mean they spoke ungrammatically or idiotically. In fact, if you listen to the speeches that he makes fun of, they were perfectly understandable (he would have done better picking on our current president's syntax.

Television and movies are now filled with black men and women who speak excellent English, are highly educated and are getting an opportunity to show it. They are good role models. Barack Obama and his wife are perfect examples. Black journalists are another. But, ministers telling parents of a child who isn’t learning or can’t sit in a chair that he or she is doing fine, that he or she is just different or speaking some type racially diverse English, is generally helping doom that child in terms of education and earning a living.

We love celebrities as a people, and the media has now made one of Wright. Remember, the press also made Paris Hilton famous, so there really are no limits to how talentless or generally nonsensical a person can be and still stay in the limelight. Wright can now go on talk shows and have people take his silly remarks seriously. Chris Matthews will likely interview him someday with the same seeming infatuation he has for Al Sharpton, who appears quite rationale compared to Wright (sorry, Chris has disappointed me lately and I just felt like taking a mild shot at him). I am not even going into Wright’s theories about AIDS and why terrorists attack us. His educational theories are enough to make my point.

Sometime this year Wright will come out with a book, or maybe more than one. Although he has done very well, he might make more money in one year than he did in many an earlier one thanks to the publicity from his (former) friend running for president and his own wacky imagination. Had he been unoffensive and mild, he would not be known to us today.

Whenver you comment on race, there are those people who will quickly condemn you as a racist, which is a far worse insult in my mind, than someone hurling swear words at you. To some, I would be considered a racist although I believe there is at least no substantial difference in learning ability between what we call races (however possible some such differences might be among groups of people with different genetic backgrounds), and Wright, who thinks that black kids can’t succeed because they are being taught on the wrong side of their brains (if we could only bring back the griots) would likely not be considered a racist by those some people.

There is only so much energy we should spend listening to people who spout nonsense, unless we are just entertained by them. Discussing Wright yesterday with a relative, I was not surprised to hear him say that even if what Wright said was not true in my mind, he was stating a “different truth”. Unfortunately, this wisdom is all too commonly overused these days.

I mean, doesn’t there have to be at least just a little “truth” in the truth?