Category Archives: Current Events

Present Foot…Load Weapon…Ready, Aim, Fire

1 Reply

Every four years, like clockwork, the far-left fringe of the Democratic Party comes out of the woodwork with one or another idea which is sure to polarize the electorate against them, driving vast tracts of voters into the waiting embrace of the right, and ensuring another insufferable term of Republican leadership. I know, I am a member of the far-left fringe. But, I can see this for what it is; a bad idea with the potential to screw the party out of yet another opportunity to lead.

“The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government’s business,” Frank said during a Capitol Hill news conference. “I don’t think it is the government’s business to tell you how to spend your leisure time.”
Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use – CNN.com

Four years ago it was Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, who just couldn’t wait for the law to catch up to his ambition, and almost single-handedly started the stampede towards same-sex marriage in California. This time it’s Barney Frank and marijuana. Jeez!

Must we? How does this do anything but help the right? Barack Obama will have to choose between endorsing the move, giving a potentially powerful wedge to McCain, or opposing it, further disenchanting a sizable chunk of the youth vote who are already disillusioned by his rightward tack on FISA and other recent changes (be they real or perceived).

Why did Frank have to bring this up now? What possible purpose is served when he knows, and he must know, that it will not possibly pass his own house, hell even his own caucus, let alone get to the president’s desk.

Yikes what poor legislative reasoning he has. Must have an old pot debt to clear.

Do us a favor Barney, go back to reading the New Yorker.

Presidential Hubris Or Truth? You Decide

1 Reply

In a move that puts the ass in classic, Geo. Bush left his final G8 summit with this parting shot:

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

President Bush made the private joke in the summit’s closing session, senior sources said yesterday. His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry.
Bush to G8: ‘Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter’ – World Politics, World – The Independent

Remind me again why we should be anything but grateful to see him leave the world stage?

And your point is…?

Leave a reply


Pawn was visiting western Wisconsin this past weekend, and read this bizarre missive in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a response to an article about same sex marriage. I am still not sure exactly what the writer, one Charles Charnstrom, of Watertown, was trying to get at:

Whenever objection is raised to GLBT issues or same-sex marriage, name calling is invoked, usually either “hate-filled” or “homophobic.” I am against same-sex marriage and I am not homophobic or hate-filled.

Civilization is fragile and marriage is hard. Living with a person of the opposite sex is much more difficult than living with someone of the same sex. If same-sex couples are granted the same benefits as married couples, people will cease to get married and have kids.

Proof can be found in other Western countries. Babies are not being born from Japan to Italy. Russia even made a national holiday for workers to stay home and procreate.
Letters to the editor for Sunday, June 29

Last time I checked, neither Japan, Italy or Russia permitted same sex marriage, so he can’t possibly mean that those countries were lead to extreme measures due to such a move. If I read it correctly, the only reason men and women marry is because it helps to compensate for the onerous duty of living together and having sex. At least I think that’s what he’s trying to say.

Hmm….

Gotta love the language

Leave a reply

Jaw-Jaw not War-WarThis from The Independent on Sunday in re Barack Obama planning a foreign trip:

An Obama international tour is likely to tap into the wave of enthusiasm in Europe – particularly Spain, France and Germany, where his colour, youth and, above all, message that jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war have created impassioned interest.
Obama plans foreign tour as Bush flies to Britain – Americas, World – The Independent

Say What – Part III

Leave a reply

A week ago The Independent online broke the story (poo-pooed in the US MSM) that the Bush administration and our viceroy in Iraq were negotiating a then secret agreement with the Iraqis which would allow Bush to “declare a military victory in Iraq and say his 2003 invasion has been vindicated before he leaves office.” Here is an excerpt from today’s follow-up, which details modifications to the agreement meant to molify an increasingly restive Maliki government:

The agreement is being negotiated by David Satterfield, the US State Department’s top adviser on Iraq, who still maintains it can be initialled by a July deadline which Mr Bush set last year last year. “It’s doable,” he told reporters in Baghdad. “We think it’s an achievable goal.”

At a news conference, Mr Satterfield kept repeating that the US wants only to create a more independent Iraq. “We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened,” he said.

But Iraqis say that US demands for long-term military bases in the country even if the numbers are reduced, give the lie to that assertion.

US negotiatiors are also determined to maintain policies that allow them to arrest Iraqis without the approval of Iraqi courts, maintaining immunity for US troops and contractors from Iraqi prosecution and carrying out military operations without the Iraqi government’s knowledge or approval.

Washington also wants to retain control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, which has raised concerns that President Bush wants to have the option of using Iraq as a base to attack Iran.
Bush forced to rethink plan to keep Iraq bases – Americas, World – The Independent

Is it just me, or is this guy up for the George Orwell Public Speaking award?

Vetting Whack-a-mole

Leave a reply

Just read this in Gail Collin’s column over at The Gray Lady and thought it precious. In regards to the “scandal” of Jim Johnson, and the vetting of vetters:

When Johnson quit on Wednesday, the McCain headquarters issued a statement saying that the fact that he had been selected in the first place raised “serious questions about Barack Obama’s judgment.” This does not seem like a great avenue of attack for a campaign in which a large chunk of the top staff was recently dismissed for being lobbyists.

Perhaps in an attempt to differentiate the cases, the McCain spokesman said: “America can’t afford a president who flip-flops on key questions in the course of 24 hours.” Under a McCain presidency, the bleeding would presumably go on for weeks and weeks before the inevitable occurred.

Although McCain has, so far, not demonstrated that he can manage anything more challenging than a backyard barbecue, that still does not make the Johnson story look any better.
Op-Ed Columnist – Gail Collins – Barack’s Bad Day – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

Persian Red Herrings

Leave a reply

I have been meaning for a week to get around to addressing this absurd question asked by George Stephanopolous, of Mickey Mouse dot com, at last week’s Democratic Presidential debate in Pennsylvania:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let’s stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States? (as per Council for Foreign Relations transcript)

I held off because there has been such a din off criticism of the debate, and criticism of the criticism, i figured someone else would raise this.

The responses to this question varied from Sen. Obama’s rather restrained

…I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons…

which was wrapped up in an answer which dealt mostly with the unasked question of non-proliferation and containment, and on follow up,

…it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

to Sen. Clinton’s more bellicose response

Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States

which then lead to a more extensive explanation of the importance of non-proliferation and containment.

This was only the begining, though.  Here is further belicosity from Sen. Clinton on Good Morning America (also a Mickey Mouse property) when asked by Andrew Cuomo to expand on her earlier comments she said this:

I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran…In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

So, what is my complaint here?  Is it the apparent inconsistency in Sen. Clinton’s position with regard to attacks, diplomacy or, for that matter, hypotheticals?  No, tho that is ably covered by Jake Tapper in this piece No, my complaint is the absurdity of the question, and why neither candidate demonstrated an understanding of the region by answering simply:

While such hypothetical scenario as an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel may seem stark, there is more heat there than light.  The more likely threat in the region is that with Iran’s expanding capability to enrich uranium, and their complicity in the training, arming and command and control of Hessbollah, and now Hamas; the more likely scenario is one in which the Iranians supply one of these terrorist forces, these avowed enemies of Israel, with a suitcase bomb.  If we are to be serious about such threats then we need to find productive means to engage Iran and bring them back into the community of nations who demonstrate through deeds as well as words their willingness to comply with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.  And should they fail to, we must make sure that they know that they will be held responsible not just for their actions, but for their client’s actions.

Of course the right question was not asked, and the right answer was not given.  Oh well, we can now look forward to World War III.

On Descent Into Mire

Leave a reply

Pawn had a discussion last night, as the results from Pennsylvania were first coming in, with his good buddy K. K went into a rant about this year’s campaign, the essence of which was “A Pox On Both Their Houses!” but expressed in infinitely more colorful language. This morning the New York Times agreed with him. Here is an excerpt from their lead editorial today:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work.
…
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.
The Low Road To Victory – The New York Times

I shared this with my buddy K, and here is his more considered, less colorful, but no less damning response:

So I’m not the only one who is mortally ill at the sight of what should have been, our Shaka Zulu(s), our 300, our “He/She has risen!” rolling around in the fetid diarrhea of what passes for modern governance. Would they have had to walk through it like the faithful through the valley of the shadow of death? Yes! Point the Finger of Shame at ourselves! We have invited that level of non-discourse into our houses simply by not bothering to examine the bottom of our shoes along with those of our guests when we come home. And the bottom of our shoes is the level that most of the activity and personalities in Washington apparently aspire to. No one can possibly listen and watch those craven idiots on a daily basis and think otherwise. But I expected, wanted, desired, needed… prayed for…these two to be like fire walkers, to have their eye on the prize and to deliver us from our self-inflicted evil, they were to stride over and past the na-na-boo-boo of the 2 major political parties, to actually talk about issues, to run on their own strengths, to be leaders, goddamnit!.Instead the two of them have slipped on the masks and dived willy-nilly into the barrel of monkeys and are now working double shifts in the clown factory.

Woe unto us.

Well put K! Why am I thinking about Pogo right now…

Rules? What Rules?

Leave a reply

There has been a lot of back and forth lately amongst the punditocracy and the campaigns about who, in the Democratic primary, has the most popular votes, and what that means.  Currently Sen. Obama holds that distinction, along with the most Pledged Delegates and most state wins.  But there is a movement afoot to convince the uncommitted Super Delegates that they should base their decision upon who has the upper hand in popular vote, as Sen. Clinton tries to rack up an advantage there over the next 6 weeks.

What is wrong with this picture, and why is no one talking about it?

The Democratic National Committee allows the state parties to choose how they select their pledged delegates; Caucus, Primary (open or closed) or a mixture (see Texas).  Only the primaries render a popular vote total — the whole point of the caucus process is to render a collective judgment, not a individual one.  So, if Super Delegates are to suddenly base their decisions solely upon popular vote, they will effectively be ignoring all of these states: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming.

Given that Sen. Clinton is so upset about the potential exclusion of Michigan and Florida delegations from the convention (and whose popular vote she choses to include in her totals) can we count on her to fight against the potential exclusion (disenfranchisement) of the voters of these 14 states and territories?

Pawn expects not.

It does beg the question: What is the point of party nominating rules?