Trump And Misuse Of Nouns

For the most part, I'm not one way or the other on Trump. As far as actions go, I think he's done some good stuff and some shortsighted stuff. The recent walkback of the family/immigration policy is an example of the latter.

What does bother me about Trump is that he capitalizes regular nouns as if they're proper nouns. I know, I know. Compared to my lefty friends, who want him drawn and quartered for ruining the planet in innumerable ways, worrying about nouns is nitpicking. But what can I say, it bugs me. Maybe he's channelling his Germanic heritage, as the krauts capitalize every noun in sight. Anyway, this:

Borders is not a proper noun. Neither is country. Exasperating.

Trudeau Won't Condemn Trump On Child Detention? No Surprise

From Global News: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he will not “play politics” over immigration policies when it comes to the controversial U.S. practice of charging and separating illegal migrants from their children when they cross the border into the United States.

I'll bet he won't. At least not yet. We'll see how long that lasts.

People enjoyed Trudeau's butch talk on tariffs this month - "We won't be pushed around" - but are finding his language on migrant families wanting.

The reason he's playing coy is simple: Canada has a similar practice with regards to illegal immigrant family crossings. Not identical, but similar, to the point where 150 or so kids per year are put in immigration detention. Often they are with their mother, but sometimes not, and the father is often only allowed to visit for a little while each day, as he is held separately:

The study examined the experiences of 20 families who were detained in the Toronto and Laval holding centres and found that, in nearly half the cases, children ended up being separated from their parents at some point in the asylum-seeking process.

In detention, mothers are normally permitted to stay with their children. Fathers, on the other hand, are kept separate and only allowed to visit their spouse and children twice a day for about 15 to 30 minutes, according to the study.

This is why when a reporter asks about kids in Canadian detention, officials say things like, "We only do that as a last resort." Which is not a synonym for, "Never."

Anyway, the point is that a picture of a child in Canadian detention is there for the taking, so there are similar practices at work, which Trudeau doesn't want to shoot the breeze about. So far.

Trudeau has a growing migration problem of his own. Thousands of migrants are coming over the border in Quebec and Manitoba, and there's been a huge spike in refugee claims from Mexicans, Bulgarians, and Romanians, who are taking advantage of Canada cancelling their visa requirements in the past two years. The upshot is that Trudeau might have to make some hard choices in the near future, and he doesn't want to kick the US in the shins lest he invite some kicks from his own citizens down the road. In any case, I have no doubt that he's been talking to his cabinet about a way that any similarity between Canada and the US on the kids/detention issue can be eradicated, before the headlines really get rolling.

The above are the similarities. The real differences between the Canadian situation and the US boil down to 1) population, 2) it's America and 3) Trump.

First, The United States has such a massive border migrant problem that it's a cinch for anyone to raise hell about any aspect of it. Canada speaks in single digits, the US speaks in thousands. Ten or twenty kids in a detention centre is an interesting Dateline episode. 2,000 is boffo headline stuff for at least a week or two.

2) It's America. No one really cares about the French clearing out their migrant camps, the Italians last week refusing to let a refugee ship dock in Sicily, or the jolly Aussies sticking people in internment camps on a remote island in the Pacific (well, someone cares about that; ironically, the US took 1,200 of those refugees last year, in a deal brokered by Obama but authorized by Trump). As anyone with an internet connection can tell you, bad news ain't big news unless it's happening in the US. Who wants to pick on Japan for only taking 20 (!) refugees last year? Nobody. But America? Mouths are foaming already.

3) Trump. His election, née candidacy, was a spark for an endless Roman candle of outrage. Now re: Kids in the detention centres, sure, it happened under Bush and Obama, and yeah, it goes on in other places, but none of those places have the Orange Man. Riffing on Children of the Corn for a moment, the internet of the past two years - maybe three; feels like forever - is like that scene from the movie, where the cult repeats "The blue man, the blue man, the blue man!" whenever the freaky leader kid asks whom they hate and fear most.

In this director's cut-length movie of ours, the man is orange, and my is he feared and loathed. So much so that when a Republican senator proposes a bill to keep migrant families together, it's dismissed out of a hand by the opposition because, hey, the current Two Minutes Hate isn't over yet; we dislike the idea of kids being separated from their mothers, but they can hang tough until this new outrage has run its course, right?

Update: As for Trudeau, his commitment to not playing politics on this issue lasted 24 hours, enough time to make sure he wouldn't totally screw himself:

“What’s going on in the United States is wrong,” Trudeau said.

“I can’t imagine what the families living through this are enduring. Obviously this is not the way we do things in Canada.”

You'd better be sure about that.

Brace Yourself: Fighter Pilots Might Be Sexist Pigs

AP Photo/U.S. Navy, Jen Blake

Uh-oh. I hate to spoil it, ladies, but it turns out that arrogant fighter plane jocks might be sexist pigs:

A former Blue Angels commander tolerated inappropriate sexual comments and pornographic images in the workplace — including photos of naked women in the cockpits of the precision flying team’s planes, the Navy said Tuesday. 

Capt. Gregory McWherter was found guilty of violating two articles under the military’s code of justice during nonjudicial proceedings convened Monday in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The articles were failure to obey an order or regulation and conduct unbecoming of an officer by fostering a hostile command climate and failing to stop “obvious and repeated instances of sexual harassment, condoning widespread lewd practices within the squadron and engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional discussions with his junior officers,” the Navy said in a statement. 

He will be given a letter of reprimand that will go in McWherter’s permanent file and is widely seen as a career-ender in the service. McWherter told Navy officials he did not wish to speak to the media, said Cmdr. Kevin Stephens, a spokesman
at Naval Air Forces.

There's a couple of way to look at it. One, it's strange that another military guy can apparently desert his post, get promoted, and have his father and mother pay a visit to the Rose Garden, while at the same time a different military guy can master his craft but get rapped on the knuckles for being a frat boy. Life's funny that way.

Two, the military has a code of conduct and if you go against it, it doesn't matter how good you are at what you do. When the day comes that you look cross eyed at the wrong commanding officer, you've given him all the kindling he needs to cook you.

Thoughts on Gun Control in The US

The Political Tidal Wave Recedes

I didn't have much to say after the mass murder of children and teachers in Connecticut on December 14, 2012. I knew that it would only take about an hour before the horror faded into memory, to be replaced by political axe grinding for gun control in the US. I didn't feel like getting involved in that. It seemed distasteful, especially at Christmas. But I knew the political tidal wave would arrive within hours after the massacre.

On this, social media didn't disappoint: within minutes, my Facebook and Twitter feeds were alive with cries for more gun control in the US.

I wasn't too bothered by this. This is the way political tidal waves work. I knew the cries would become grumbles, then whispers, and finally they would recede as if nothing had happened. Carnage in the households of those directly affected, but beyond that, nothing. At least, until the next massacre in the United States.

Those last two words are key: United States. When something happens in the US, it makes headlines around the world, and everyone comments on how US citizens should live their lives. When a massacre happens in Norway, there aren't too many calls to question laws in that country, even when the guy knocks off 77 people and draws 21 years (yes, yes, they can keep him longer if they deem him a threat to society - but should that possibility even exist?). Similarly, when a man walks into the cafeteria at one of the biggest malls in Canada and opens fire, the proponents of Canada's laws are silent on the fact that Canada's gun laws obviously failed.

When it happens anywhere else in the world, it's about the victims and flowers on the sidewalk. When it happens in the United States, it's about the politics. Either way, the pain for the families of the victims goes on forever, but for the rest of us, whatever "pain" we feel fades after a matter of days.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's not cynicism, it's human nature. I've written before that caring is about proximity, both in time and place. Terrorist in Iraq? No worry. Terrorist in my city? Worry a little. Terrorist in my living room? Worry a lot.

So it is with time. The further back, the less and less we care about it, until it might as well not have happened at all. So long as it didn't happen directly to us, we lose our ability to care about things pretty quickly, no matter how big or important they seemed at the time. It has to be this way, otherwise we'd be basketcases.

When I'm in a smartass mood, I sometimes ask people how things are going in Myanmar lately. Or Fukushima. Or Haiti. I usually get some quizzical looks, but these places were a really big deal not too long ago. I couldn't escape them on Facebook. People were asking me for money, or posting how they were going to fly somewhere and help. With regards to Myanmar, there were people saying an invasion might be advisable, while some women's libbers were going to send their bras and underwear there to embarrass the regime.

That was 4 years ago. It was a major news story, and a lot of people really cared about it. I wonder how many people remember that it started as a response to a hurricane? In any case, all the hurricane did was uncover what a godawful mess Myanmar is all the time. Myanmar is still a mess, but we've since moved on to the BP oil spill, nuclear reactors in Japan, the Occupy movement, presidential candidates talking about Sesame Street, gun control in the USA. That Myanmar hurricane might as well have happened in 1920.

Which is when the worst massacre in a US school took place. May 18, 1920. It happened in Bath Township, Michigan. A man named Andrew Kehoe set off bombs at his house and farm, and then at a local school. After rescuers arrived at the school to tend to the wounded, Kehoe arrived and set off a truck bomb at the site, killing himself and a few more people. 38 children and 6 adults lost their lives. It was discovered that before the destruction, Kehoe had also killed his wife.

It must have seemed like hell on Earth in that little Michigan town. If it happened today, the wall-to-wall press coverage about the demise of American society and culture would be suffocating, and it would be hard to disagree. Yet it was almost 100 years ago. In our mind's eye, we tend to see those olden days in sepia tint, and can easily imagine a man doffing his cap as a lady walks past. Men used to do that. They also used to gas people at Treblinka.

The killings in Bath Township show us that evil is old, but the killings in Connecticut remind us that evil never dies.

100 years ago, of course, there were no video games, and not too many violent movies. The motive for Kehoe's crime appears to be foreclosure on his house, as well as a loss in a town election. Maybe he was under pressure, felt slighted, and snapped. Maybe he was just evil or nuts. Whatever it was, he formed a hideous plan in his head and he brought it to fruition, without any help from computers, video games, or the latest bogeyman, the National Rifle Association.

Point is, there's really no way to defend against any of these people, and nothing is going to stop killings like this from happening again, though it may make people feel better to talk about it.

Gun laws or not, a nut will find a way to do what he wants to do. I'm of the reasoning that the US has a large population, and sooner or later one of those people is going to go off the rails. Would it be better if the person didn't have easy access to a gun? Sure. But people don't have easy access to guns in Canada or Norway, and people still get shot. A few days ago, two people were shot at a nightclub about a mile from my front door. How'd the shooter get the gun in a place you "can't get guns?" Beats me. But he got it, and he used it.

Looking in One Direction

Again, the hew and cry isn't about the guns. It's about the United States. If it was about the guns and - more generally - criminal violence, then people would be audibly outraged by what is going on in Brazil and Mexico. They are the bad boys of rock 'n roll when it comes to murder. Especially Brazil.

Though the US has more guns per person than anywhere else, the US murder rate hovers around 5 per 100,000, or a little less than the worldwide average of 6.9. Mexico and Brazil sit around 22 and 21 respectively. Average-wise, though, they are as nothing when it comes to Honduras. Though the body count in Honduras is much lower than in Mexico and Brazil, the average is a whopping 91 people murdered per 100,000 population.

Last year, the US saw over 12,000 people die in intentional homicides of all kinds. Chump change. According to the UN, between 1979 and 2003, half a million Brazilians were killed by firearms alone, or roughly 20,000 people per year. This average doesn't do the butcher's bill justice, as 2004 saw 36,000 Brazilians shot and killed. It hasn't gotten better since.

Simply put, Brazil and Mexico are very violent places. You have a much better chance of being killed by intentional homicide in Brazil and Mexico than you do in the US. But when it comes to protesting violence, no one ever mentions those countries in my social media feeds. Ever.

Cop in Brasilandia. Photo: CNN.

No surprise. People are busy. Why dig, when things are served up for you? People see America on their TVs, computers, and tablets every day whether they want to or not. Ask anyone on Earth what they think of the US and they will have an answer of some kind. Ask those same people what they think of Brazil and they may mention soccer or beaches. Leastways, they might know that Brazil has the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics on the horizon. They probably don't know that someone is shot in Brazil every few minutes, that the country has a growing crack epidemic, and that drug gangs execute police officers on a regular basis.

America has a great megaphone but a lousy publicist.

Why "Gun Control" in the US Won't Happen

I hazard to guess that when people say "gun control," they don't mean they want gun regulations tightened. They want guns to cease to exist. I don't think I know anyone who says "gun control" and actually means something like, "Yes, US citizens should own guns, but no assault rifles, no semi-automatic pistols, a limit of ten shotgun shells per person, and a 2 month waiting period before taking a weapon home."

No, when I hear people say, "The US needs gun control," I know what they mean is, "US citizens shouldn't have guns."

This is why I'm not one way or the other on "gun control." It's not an argument worth having, because nothing is going to substantively change gun ownership policy in the United States. You might as well tell me that you think the sky should be purple. I will agree with you to save time, but I know it's a load, so I don't bother getting into it.

The gun issue has been argued before the Supreme Court for decades, and the gun side keeps winning. Some people may detest the 2nd Amendment, but there it sits. To ban guns outright and take them away from US citizens can't be done without amending the constitution, and that simply is not going to happen. Besides, even if you could ban them, it's a practical impossibility that you'll ever round them all up. There are millions of guns in American households. No chance.

I yield to no one in the volume of my giggles when President Obama calls himself a constitutional scholar, or when he swears to be a defender of that document, but even he knows this argument's already over. If I had to guess, I'd say he'll let this issue drift off to nowhere over the next month or two. But if he actually did try to get something through Congress, it will probably be some kind of high capacity magazine limit, or a stricter background check on gun buyers. A bone to throw to the anti-gun crowd to say he tried.

Contrary to what I'm reading and hearing everywhere, NRA members are not the only people who own guns or want the right to own them. Every story needs a villain, but right now NRA membership is around 4.5 million people. That's not a small number, but it's not exactly a quarter of the country, either. The city of Philadelphia has more people than that. So there are a lot of people out there who aren't carrying NRA membership cards, but they are carrying guns - and they vote Democrat.

Obama knows it. This Gallup poll taken after the Connecticut shootings shows that a little more than half of Americans would like to see some stricter rules on the sale of firearms, but when it comes to an outright ban on assault weapons and especially handguns, you can forget it. Even after 24/7 coverage of Newtown children being killed by firearms, 75% of the country rejects the notion a handgun ban and, as the Gallup pollster states, Americans' views on the sale of assault rifles are unchanged. The slight majority, 51%, remain opposed to making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.

Piers Morgan may make fun of NRA spokespeople and tell them that they're "incredibly stupid," but Morgan is 1) a Brit, and 2) working in a professional bubble surrounded by people who think like he does. In short, when it comes to America, he just doesn't get it (co-hosting America's Got Talent probably didn't help, either). If he thinks the NRA is the problem, he's way off. The problem - if you believe it is one - is that a lot of Americans view the right to bear arms as an important part of their daily lives.

I remember the first time I saw a gun up close and personal while I was staying in LA. I'd held and fired weapons before, but never seen one in a civilian setting. I opened the trunk of a friend's car, pulled out a bag, and saw a pistol on the floor. I told her later, "Hey, I saw a gun sitting in your car." She replied, "Yeah, my dad got me that." Her tone would have been no different if I had told her I had seen a pair of scissors.

Many Americans, of all political stripes, are used to guns. They've seen them, handled them, fired them. They don't like massacres, but they don't like the idea of someone taking their gun rights away, either.

As for the president, after some tough talk early on, he has slowly begun distancing himself from "gun control." Here is what he had to say two days after the massacre, in a moving and poignant speech:

We can't tolerate this anymore...These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.

Fourteen days later (and perhaps not coincidentally 3 days after that Gallup poll came out), in an interview with David Gregory, the president was asked what his single biggest priority would be for his second term. The president was generous, and stated four big priorities. In order, they were: 1) Immigration. 2) Stabilize the economy. 3) Energy policy. 4) Make sure taxes don't go up on middle class families.

David Gregory noticed something was missing and quickly cued the president with this: "Those are four huge things and you didn't mention after Newtown, although I know you're thinking about it, new gun regulations."

Heh.

David Gregory and several other people working in network news might be thinking about new gun regulations, but apparently it slipped the president's mind. So the president gave David a few minutes of boilerplate - task forces, we'll see what public opinion looks like, I don't want to see mass murder happen again - and then they moved on to foreign policy.

Here's the rub, and it's a rough one for people who don't like the idea of American civilians owning guns: the majority of US citizens want the right to own a firearm. That simple. The Colorado and Connecticut massacres of 2012 didn't change that. It may have seemed like they did on your social media feeds and in conversations over dinner, but that was a brief snapshot in time with people who mainly agree with you, anyway. Fact is, a person can lament what happened in Connecticut and still want to own a firearm. That may seem like a paradox to an outsider, but to many Americans, it's not something they lose sleep over.

A friend of mine remarked to me about the 2nd Amendment and how it should be scrapped. I said, "It's the rules. They're allowed to own guns."

He said, "But the rules are 200 years old."

"I know," I said. "But it's the rules there."

They won't change anytime soon.

The "Conservative" Ax Falls on Gingrich

The "conservatives" - whatever that is these days - down in the US have been having quite the time putting their presidential hopefuls to the torch over the past couple of months. Nobody eats their own like these folks.

In a special twofer today, the National Review decided to take out Gingrich and Perry in one swoop. Merry Christmas, guys:

Gingrich is not the only candidate whom we believe conservatives should, regretfully, exclude from consideration for the presidency. Governor Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas but has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage.

Please. Enough with the sanctimony. If it's "regretful," you should be finding ways to put Gingrich over the top, not tighten the noose. If you don't like the guy, just say so, have a danish, and get on with your day.

Steyn, Will, Krauthammer, the National Review, the Examiner, they've all been pretty good with the ax. With writers and rags like these, who needs a DNC? Just let the "conservatives" sic their own people until you're left with some schlub who can say the words "Second Amendment" and "Free Market" without drooling too much on the teleprompter.

Let's be real. Some of these writers are the same clowns that tried to sell Sarah Palin three years ago. And now they're going to give sage advice on who should be on the GOP's ticket in 2012? (I stuck up for Palin a long time back - and still do - purely on feminist and fairness grounds. But as a presidential or VP prospect with any chance of success in the future, you can forget it).

Here we have "conservative" talk radio host Hugh Hewitt pulling out the sanctimonious stops with gusto. This is in reference to Gingrich picking on Romney, which caused panties to twist in the my-capitalism-is-better-than-your-capitalism crowd:

Newt should take Bill Kristol's advice offered on my show last night and apologize and retract the remarks. Certainly he will get that chance to day if he's anywhere near the media.

It is very difficult to be for capitalism after you have been against it in so public a fashion.

Right. Gingrich made the remark, then cashed another cheque from one of his book sales. I suspect Newt Gingrich finds it quite easy to be "for" capitalism.

Hewitt manages to grab three "conservative" life buoys to hold him up: Bill Kristol, Brit Hume, and, of course, Saint Krauthammer. I'm sure all of them at one time or another dug Donald Rumsfeld, so I'll channel him now: "You go to elections with the candidates you have." Time's running out, guys. If you can't raise Reagan from the dead or get Governor Christie to run, I'm afraid you're stuck.

Such an interesting time. All the big shot "conservatives" can't bring themselves to anoint Romney aloud, but they keep lopping off their conservative limbs until only Romney will be left.

I can't wait to read their columns then. If you think Romney or Gingrich speak in forked tongues, they'll be as nothing compared to these snakes come June.

Photo: Forbes

The "Person of the Year"

Drudge has a good nose for news. He's also got a very good knack for putting two stories back-to-back and letting one shoot the other to pieces.

The latest example:

One: Time's Person of the Year: 'The Protester'

And two: Occupy Portland Mom Places 4-Year-Old Daughter On Train Tracks During Protest To Shut Down Port of Portland.

Here's video of one of Time Magazine's People of the Year. No word on how her kid's doing.

Smokescreens Upon Smokescreens

Senator Barbara Boxer (D) from California:

“The message I have for climate deniers is this: you are endangering humankind [...] It is time for climate deniers to face reality, because the body of evidence is overwhelming and the world’s leading scientists agree.”

"“Wishing that climate change will go away by clinging to a tiny minority view is not a policy — it is a fantasy,” Boxer said. “Problems do not go away by pretending they do not exist. And the longer that vocal minority insists on keeping their heads in the sand, the more it endangers billions of people around the globe and threatens to dramatically and negatively reshape the world as we know it.”

Listen up, oh great and wonderful Oz. Want to hear about some facts that don't go away by pretending they don't exist? Your state's unemployment rate is currently 11.7% and you're in debt up to your eyeballs. Put down the crystal ball and worry about 3000 AD after you find some people a few jobs.

Sound good to you? Ma'am?

Old Guy

I ran across a blog named Altara. You can find it here.

The guy who runs it describes himself as an "Old Guy. Retired lawyer-businessman. Love living at beach in North Carolina."

He's got some good, short takes on things. Mainly politics. Check it out sometime.

Arab Spring to Simmering Summer

Not great:

Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt's parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The judges spoke on condition of anonymity because official results are expected to be released later Thursday.

Less than good:

Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo's government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.

Bad:

“When I asked Shams el-Din, the Brotherhood neurologist, whether he believed that homosexuals should be stoned, he said, “Yes.” “We think that the laws should conform with what has been put forward by the revelation, using parliamentary means.”'

I was talking to an Egyptian, who said that the Muslim Brotherhood will never have control of Egypt, because the military won't give them the run of the country. I said, "What if the military simply becomes the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood? The MB gives them popular support in exchange for the military being a bodyguard. 'Keep your guns, just kick the asses of people we tell you to.'"

My friend blinked and said, "Don't even think that."

My friend didn't say it couldn't happen.

Photo: CNN

Surrender

Whoa.

This is a huge shift in foreign policy:

AP: President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.

McChrystal wants troops. The President doesn't want to send them. Solution? Don't declare the war's over - declare an enemy isn't an enemy.

As for the "increasingly unpopular war" stuff, it doesn't always mean what the media wants it to mean. If they mean "increasingly unpopular and pull out now," they're wrong. If they mean "increasingly unpopular with the way it's being fought," then they're on the money.

Eight years ago, the Taliban provided a haven for fanatical religious thugs to get boned up on how to shoot guns and knock down buildings. Eight years later, the US is prepared have them involved in Afghanistan's political future. Spin it any way you want, but this action only has one label: surrender.

Time: Last month, Taliban fighters in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, hijacked two NATO fuel tankers. The robbery escalated into an international incident because NATO aircraft, following a German request, bombed the two stranded tankers while civilians were siphoning free fuel. The death toll — more than 125 Afghans perished, nearly half of them civilians — overshadowed the gruesome fact that the Taliban had beheaded one of the tanker drivers. Beheadings and killings of NATO supply drivers are a common occurrence, according to several private security contractors.

Wonderful ally, that Taliban. Man, the outlook for the political future in Afghanistan looks pretty good, huh?

The Bus Idles - McChrystal

From the Telegraph:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid...

Word is the president is furious over McChrystal's speech. A taste:

[McChrystal] told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

That may be, General, but it isn't your problem. Your problem is to follow orders from your civilian commanders. Public support and long term strategy are concerns of the president. Your job is to carry out orders until you retire or get canned.

I may agree with McChrystal's assessment, but you can't have a military commander mouthing off in another country about how much smarter he is than the president. It smacks of insubordination and brings up memories of MacArthur vs. Truman. Didn't end so well for MacArthur.

One more speech like this and expect the bus to arrive for McChrystal.

Between the Lines

It's not his fault. They all do it. The hollow words, the meaningless threats, the tired warnings. That sound you hear is the roar of inevitability.

Ask North Korea. Threats and threats and threats. Then they made a nuke, test fired a missile into the Yellow Sea, and now nobody says boo. There they sit. The game's over.

The one guy who didn't follow the script was George W. Bush. Right or wrong, he did something after threats didn't work. It got him a two-term presidency, but it also got him lambasted as a dummy and an evil dictator the world over. Politicians want the former, but not at the price of the latter.

There's the big L word: legacy. Or the G word: guts. They don't always go together too well.

Some guys do well with their legacy by going the gutsy route, but it's so damn risky. Better to play it the easy way, the way most Western politicians do when faced with thugs.

Here's President Obama's weekly address from this morning. I'm reading between the lines:

This week, we joined with the United Kingdom and France [this is NOT a unilateral decision] in presenting evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility to enrich uranium [this is different then the totally out in the open facility; they have two]. This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime [which didn't stop North Korea, but hey, there's always hope], and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion [please ignore the word "pattern," as it might make you believe that they won't change their tune after we ask pretty please]. That is why international negotiations [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency [as opposed to before; now it's important].

My offer of a serious, meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue remains open [no doubt the Iranian dictators will listen this time - because we're serious]. But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions [last month they shot women in the street for taking part in political demonstrations; the regime also hangs people for the crime of being gay; but now they have a chance to show their peaceful intentions; look, we all know this a load of bull, but I have to say this stuff].

On this, the international community [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] is more united than ever before. Yesterday, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] in condemning Iran’s program. In our meetings and public statements, President Medvedev of Russia and I agreed [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] that Iran must pursue a new course or face consequences. All of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], and Germany [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], have made it clear that Iran must fulfill its responsibilities [okay, okay; Iran doesn't have any responsibilities except to themselves, but we're going to pretend that they share the same world view as us. We're making it up. Easier that way].

Iran’s leaders must now choose [I hate using that 'with us/with the terrorists' language, but I wrote this first thing in the morning and I was still a little groggy. Don't ask me about it later] – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people [sure, this paragraph was full of beans, but cut me some slack. Iran doesn't have any responsibilities, true, and they don't care if they're isolated, fine, and they don't care about their own people, okay. But...well, what do you want me to say? It's all a farce, anyway].

These are the urgent threats of our time. And the United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation [this is NOT a unilateral decision, etc. Huh? Come again? Oh. How can there be international cooperation when nobody's cooperating? Search me.] to meet them. This new chapter will not be written in one week or even one year [sorry, but this my out. I know it's a bit slippery, but come on, there's nothing I can do about this stuff. Iran's going to get a nuke one way or the other. If they get it within a year, I need to be able to say that it was going to take more than a year to get international cooperation kick started. A week, a year, who cares? I'd say 'decade' but you'd think I flipped my lid]. But we have begun. And for the American people and the people of the world [in case you thought this was a unilateral decision], it will mean greater security and prosperity for years to come [in other words, we aren't going to accomplish jack; but it feels good to know that in some mystic future, you'll have a safe, secure life. Anybody got a glass of water?].

Pressure For Whom?

Jake Tapper:

This morning President Obama, French President Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will accuse Iran of building a clandestine underground nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, which Iran's leaders have hidden from weapons inspectors, senior administration officials tell ABC News...

The president is expected to say that this news "increases pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program," a senior administration official tells ABC News. He will described "great and increasing doubts about the strictly peaceful nature of the program -- which is what the Iranians suggest."

Uhhhh...How does this even remotely increase pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program? Saddam Hussein violated international law for years, ignored sanction after sanction, kicked weapons inspectors out of his country, and refused to say where his weapons of mass destruction were. So Bush invaded and bingo, people around the world called Bush's war illegal and dubbed him Hitler.

Will Obama et al have have the stones to roll the dice like that? Unlikely. Obama has been saying for over a year that he's willing to have a chat with Iran. He said this even though he knew about the second secret reactor. So for him, this is just old news. When the US failed to condemn Ahmadinejad's "election" and the violence that followed, this sent a clear message: no matter what happens, we're still willing to talk. And talk. And talk. Which translates as "time."

At a stretch, I can one day see some cruise missiles or an Israeli airstrike. But a full-on, "Here's your pressure, jerkwad" invasion is a fantasy. And Ahmadinejad knows it.

Harper

Well, maybe someone with a fancy title was reading the Twitter reports of women being gunned down in the streets of Tehran.

Frank Rich and Cindy Sheehan

Frank Rich pulls out all the stops on this one: Sarah Palin as Grand Wizard of the Klan. Joe Wilson stepping over the free speech line. People protesting against their government = violent rage. Joe Wilson giving carte blanche to the oh-so-many nutcases out there, and man, there's plenty of 'em.

NYT: With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the “real America.” Joe Wilson may or may not be in that camp, but, either way, that’s not the news. As we watched and rewatched the South Carolina congressman’s star turn, what grabbed us was the act itself.

What made the lone, piercing cry of “You lie!” shocking was that it breached a previously secure barrier. It was the first time that the violent rage surging in town-hall meetings all summer blasted into the same room as the president. Wilson’s televised shout was tantamount to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When he later explained that his behavior was “spontaneous” rather than premeditated, that was even more disturbing. It’s not good for the country that a lawmaker can’t control his anger at Barack Obama. It gives permission to crazy people.

Where was all this talk when Cindy Sheehan and thousands of others were protesting Bush at every turn?

Speaking of which, I have to tip my hat to Cindy Sheeehan. I thought she was just some loudmouth who would pipe down as soon as Bush left office. Turns out, she really is anti-war, no matter who is boss. This was Sheehan last month:

Cindy Sheehan and other antiwar activists held a press conference today at the Oak Bluffs School, where the White House press corps is working as its reports on President Obama during his vacation in Martha's Vineyard

Sheehan said that she's opposing Obama the same way she opposed George W. Bush. "The facade has changed but policies remain the same," she told reporters. "Integrity in our movement means we have to do same for Obama as we did for Bush."

Who knew that Cindy Sheehan would give me a cold slap of integrity right in the kisser?

Funny, though. I don't hear much about her these days. It could have something to do with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's attitude: "Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."

Odd. A few years back, Charlie gave interviews to Sheehan with words like, "Mom Stands Her Ground," and "Can Anti-War Moms Stop Bush?" written on the screen.

Now it's, "Shut up, Cindy."

I Really Care About Nucle--Michael Jackson's Dead?

I was walking down the street a few minutes ago and heard some jackass blaring a radio from his mid-life-crisis Jeep. In a roundabout way this got me thinking that there hasn't been much trouble in the world lately. Weird connection, I know, but it went something like this: If a friend told me about a guy blaring a radio outside his house, I'd shrug and say, "Yeah, there's fools everywhere." But when Jeep Guy does it in front of my place, it becomes, "There's goddamn fools everywhere!"

The debacle in Myanmar a long time back - feels like long; it's been a year - proved to me that caring is about proximity, both in time and place. Modern media has the power to make every place on the planet seem like it's right next door, if only for a few minutes. The tsunami (or was it an earthquake?) in Myanmar was on everybody's minds last year. The president had to do something, we had to raise money to help the people. Even peaceniks were saying that an invasion would be proper, to topple the government in Myanmar because the thugs weren't feeding their people.

And it all went away. Just like that. I have to assume that Myanmar's people are still living in abject poverty and that their rulers are still thugs. But I haven't received a chain-email request for money in a long, long time, and nobody on Facebook has the word "Myanmar" on their profile, declaring that we need to help these people. In a strange way, Myanmar just ceased to exist.

Maxim: time doesn't heal all wounds; it heals our wounds.

Caring is about proximity and time. The 9/11 memorials prove that. 8 years on and there's token gestures of remembrance, but not too many moments of silence in the office. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor warrants an occasional hat tip on the evening news, and in fact if it wasn't for the evening news' hat tip, nobody would remember the date of Pearl Harbour. And when's the last time somebody asked us to remember the dead from Waterloo? When women were being gunned down in Iran a couple of months ago, everybody was glued to the Twitter reports. Now, nothing.

Time. Proximity. They're all that matters when it comes to caring. Tornado in Kansas? Interesting. Tornado on my street? Terrifying. The thug states of the world understand this better than anyone. Give people enough time and they will forget everything. The further away the "crisis," the faster they'll forget. Nowadays, it only takes a few weeks, even less if a pop star dies.

Not that any of this is all bad. We'd be basket cases if we wandered around for the rest of our lives feeling exactly as we did the moment after something traumatic happened. But I do laugh when people screech how concerned they are with far flung places on the earth that are going through a hard time. My answer? "Call me in a year." There's no chance they will. (Incidentally, I Googled "Myanmar," clicked the news link, and was greeted with the today's headlines: Seven Bomb Blasts in Myanmar. Apparently no one was hurt. In other news: Myanmar Doubles Political Arrests; Elections a Sham, Group Says).

So there I was walking down the street thinking about this kind of stuff, and then I flicked to Drudge and it suddenly seemed prescient or at least apropos:

Czechs and Poles expressed rancor and relief Thursday that President Barack Obama had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield on their territories, reflecting deep divisions over a proposal that had also enraged Russia..."Considering Iran as a threat has been a wrong policy since the beginning," said Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for Iran's influential parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy. "Iran has said that it is ready to discuss and share responsibilities in global security."

Whether it's a good or bad idea isn't my point. Fact is, a decision like this doesn't happen the day after 9/11, but it does happen 8 years after 9/11. That's life. Always the way it goes. A little bit of quiet - besides, you know, the odd missile from North Korea landing in the ocean - and things like missile shields seem unnecessary and kind of silly to people with an Everyone's Beautiful In Their Own Way bent. The administration says that they're not really scrapping missile defense, they're redesigning it. Doesn't sound so bad. Besides, if the Russians and Iranians agree with it, then it must be a good idea.

Proximity and time. Thugs building missiles in Iran? A little nervous. Thug loading a shotgun outside my door? A lot nervous.

Should you care about Iranian missiles and American defense shields? Depends what happens next. See you on Facebook.

Your Daily Preening (II) - Updated

In the previous post I had a few extra paragraphs and then I deleted them. Race is a touchy subject and I'd said my bit. The paragraphs I deleted were about noticing that a lot of people are bringing up racism vis-a-vis the president, but that I haven't seen any overt examples of racism to back up the claims. I went on for a bit and then stopped. Racism is stupid, and I know it when I see it. I'd said enough. [I caught some email flack over this, of the "Chicken," variety. The deleted paragraphs were wiped out during the draft, not in response to criticism. My point was that writing about phony racism is boring if you spend too long on it. There's nothing you can say to make someone change their mind if they see a bigot around every corner].

In this clip below, NBC finds a couple of lame swastika signs which I suppose could be about race. If you've read this blog then you'll know my feelings on the Nazis and their symbol. Idiots use the swastika these days for all kinds of things, some of them race, but mostly because they think someone's an overbearing jerk. Their boss is a Nazi. Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi." Bush is a Nazi. Everybody they don't like - Right or Left - is a Nazi. The Nazi name and its symbol have become jest. Is that good or bad? You tell me. Anyway, in this case I think the boneheads with Nazi signs are just that: boneheads with Nazi signs. I don't figure race has anything to do with it. It seems every mass rally for any event on Earth comes with a few token Nazi signs.

New York governor Paterson has said that the word "socialist" is racist. Kurtz wrote today that "communist" and "like Russia" are racist. The Obama "Socialism" sign is supposedly racist, and Maureen Dowd claims that Rep. Wilson is racist for calling Mr. Obama a liar.

I guess this is going to be the way it is from here on out, and it's shameful for the media to push it this hard with such a lack of evidence. It's self perpetuating: if you call something racist, people will avoid using it, therefore why not start calling everything racist? If "socialism" is racist and "liar" is racist, what's next? But that's probably the point.

Six months ago a great many people celebrated the first black president in US history. 6 months later, politicians and network newsies are claiming the country is overrun by the Klan.

Jimmy Carter has weighed in. He adds more fuel to the fire by claiming that yes, the furor over Mr. Obama from his opponents is simply racism.

This is irresponsible stuff from writers and politicians alike. Before the Iraq invasion, I remember millions of people around the world marching against Bush's war. People were mad as hell. They called him every name in the book. I was in Italy at the time, and the stuff they were writing on the walls about Bush (Italians love their graffiti) was mean and dirty. But that's life: when people are mad, they say so. Now, though, it's all being summed up as simply 'racism.' This doesn't bode well.

If someone is a racist, they deserve scorn and ridicule. But if someone has a real beef about something and wants to speak his mind, nothing could anger or alienate them more than being told their words aren't worth listening to because it's just bigotry. This kind of stuff can only divide people further. I don't like where it's heading.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Your Daily Preening

Howard Kurtz:

Is it racial?

Are the protesters, tea-partiers, birthers, deathers, doomsayers and hecklers motivated, at least in part, by a distinct discomfort with the country's first black president?

Or is that a smear against disgruntled Americans who have every right to express their dissent?

There is no definitive answer, of course, since we are talking about millions of people, from Joe Wilson, the disrespectful congressman who's now raised $700,000 for his "you lie" outburst, to the woman who told Arlen Specter that Obama is trying to transform the US of A "into Russia, into a socialist country."

But I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about "the Constitution" and "taking our country back." Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there's a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.

You started wondering about racism when you heard people shouting about the Constitution? Sure wouldn't want those critics to shout about "the Constitution." That's dangerous talk, all right.

There is not one bit of racism in any of Kurtz's examples of disgruntled people. Nada. As for the "taking our country back" stuff, I assume two things: 1) people are going with the "Congress shall make no law" stuff and running with it, and 2) they might not understand the constitution any better than the people who said George W. Bush was shredding the thing on a daily basis.

The Left wanted to "take the country back" since 2000, when Dubya "stole" the election. Hey, buddy, is that a white trash smear?

Talking about racism when there's no evidence of it is lazy and boring.

Life's Overrated

I think Sarah Palin hit it on the head with the "death panel" thing. Her opponents see it as demagoguery, but they keep coming around to it. They call it "end of life care," or, as Evan Thomas puts it (without uttering the dreaded Palin's name), "Although demagogued as a 'death panel,' a program in Wisconsin to get patients to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death was actually a resounding success."

Well, what exactly is a "program to get people to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death?" If that's not a death panel, what is? I guess you could call it a death group, or a death meeting, but it's all the same thing: old people sitting around with their doctors talking about buying the farm.

That's the thing about dummies like Palin. They're so dumb, they have to say things simply so that they make sense. How provincial. In the world of big thinkers, death panel will lose against program in Wisconsin every time.

In Thomas' latest piece he uses his dying and now dead mother as an example. It's tough to go after a guy when he does something like that, but at the risk of being heartless, let's look at what he says:

There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients. In his address to Congress, President Obama spoke airily about reducing inefficiency, but he slid past the hard choices that will have to be made to stop health care from devouring ever-larger slices of the economy and tax dollar. A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that's where the money is.

The next time you're at the hospital, don't ask if they can save your life. Ask if they can make sure not to overtreat you.

Pretty much gives the whole game away, doesn't it? He doesn't say "death panel," nor does he say "rationing," but it's all in there. He is quite literally saying that the best way to bring down the cost of health care is to save money on keeping old people alive.

Palin was right. With ObamaCare there will be death panels. If that makes you uncomfortable, just call them something else. Rationalize while you're rationing. Or for the love of Pete, just learn to think of death properly. Thomas: "Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable."

He's right. Death is more than science. It's dollars and sense. Ready to do your part?

CNN Screws Up. Blames Everybody Else.

The righteous indignation in this piece from CNN is a joke. They got caught reporting a story that wasn't a story, and boy are they angry:



I agree with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: "Before we report things like this, checking would be good," Gibbs said.

Responding directly to a CNN reporter's question about whether the public should have been notified about a training exercise, Gibbs was harshly sarcastic: "If anybody was unnecessarily alarmed based on erroneous reporting that denoted that shots had been fired, I think everybody is apologetic about that."

When another journalist noted that the Coast Guard was holding a news conference to take questions on the morning's events, Gibbs jabbed: "Hopefully CNN will go."

I've seen some pieces asking why the Coast Guard would hold such an exercise on the anniverary of 9/11. Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a Friday. Maybe they were due for a refresher. Maybe they just felt like it. Point is, it's good to have the military work on their training no matter what day of the week it is. The only reason this story made the news is because CNN reported that shots had been fired - and they hadn't.