Some Bad Behavior For Ya

Well, one cannot help but be entertained by the bad behavior of those in oppositions to one's own beliefs. After all, their bad behavior must make them look bad to the thinking folks in the country, right? Besides, it's either be entertained by it or severely irritated. I prefer to go through life happy -- thus, I choose ENTERTAINMENT. 

San Fran Nan (otherwise known as Nancy Pelosi) recently had a moment. And the moment was not a good one, but it was momentous. She exposed herself as the seventh grade thinker that she is. No, really!! Check it out, because it's hilarious. 

Apparently she was in the middle of a press conference of some sort outside an old train station. Some demonstrators were there, and they (rudely, I imagine) interrupted Nancy with chants of "Drill here! Drill now!" Now, I should take a moment to say that I can understand feeling a certain level of frustration on her part. I mean, she's taken a very strong stand against us taking any of our own oil out of the ground, and I'm sure she's been taking some serious heat for it pretty much everywhere she goes (except, maybe San Francisco). Certainly, she should be able to have one lousy press conference without people hounding her about her beliefs and political practices. 

However, Nancy cracked. Not immediately, mind you. Initially, she tried to douse the situation with a bit of humor. "Right here?" she replied. Now, THIS was funny. A great response to a situation that had to be very annoying for her. Of course, she followed this up with her middle school speech, "Can we drill your brains?" 

WHAT?! Did that just come out of the mouth of a grown up? Like from a tall person? A fully grown human being? How strange!! Almost makes you wonder if her next sentence was going to be, "My daddy is bigger than your daddy..." Quickly followed then by a one-word sentence, "MINE!" The regression was that fast!

Of course the "drill your brains" comment was, by far, the most entertaining thing she said. But she followed it up with a speech about how drilling for our own oil would result in a reduction of gas prices by only a couple pennies a decade from now. And then majority leader Hoyer condescendingly insinuated that people who are for drilling here are not "thinking Americans." 

So,  yes... they're losing it. 

The bigger question is: Does anybody notice?

An Opportunity To Complain

The ability to never never never be pleased has been honed to a fine art. 

In an article in the NYT, Roderick J. Harrison (a demographer who happens to have black skin) is quite excited about Barack Obama becoming the Democratic nominee -- his excitement, however, is tempered (in spite of the chills he may feel now and again) by uneasiness as he wonders: "Will Mr. Obama's success further the notion that the long struggle for racial equality has finally been won?"

As I read this, my first thought was, "You have GOT to be kidding me." But no -- they're not kidding. As the NYT reports, "But even as they cheer him on, some black scholars, bloggers and others who closely follow the race worry that Mr. Obama's historic achievements might make it harder to rally support for policies intended to combat racial discrimination, racial inequities and urban poverty." 

Mr. Harrison is, at the age of 59, a sociologist at Howard University and a consultant for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Well, he certainly SOUNDS important... I'm bettin' that he had some opportunity in order to get to the positions he's in. But he says, "I worry that there is a segment of the population that might be harder to reach, average citizens who will say: 'Come on. We might have a black president, so we must be over it.' That is the danger, that we declare victory. Historic as this moment is, it does not signify a victory in the ongoing, daily battle." 

"Such concerns have been percolating in black intellectual circles for months, on talk radio and blogs, in dinner conversations, academic meetings and flurries of e-mail messages crisscrossing the country." says the article. 

Hmmm... wait a minute. We have black people in professorial positions in colleges and universities... black people in "intellectual circles," black people on talk radio and writing blogs - having dinner conversations, sitting and participating in academic meetings, etc... and their main concern is that it's not yet easy enough to be a successful black person? How easy does it need to be? And a bigger question: if it's easy... is it really success?

Lawrence Bobo, a black sociologist from Harvard, said, "If Obama becomes the president, every remaining, powerfully felt black grievance and every still deeply etched injustice will be cast out of the realm of polite discourse. White folks will just stop listening." 

Huh? No offense, Bobo, but that sounds like typical victim mentality talking there. "Oh no!! We can't have a black man become president of the United States!! If that happens, the white folks will just stop listening to our grievances... and we feel those powerfully! Plus, they'll just keep on racially discriminating and shutting up more black folks than white folks in the prisons! And there won't be anybody trying to dole out bigger hand-outs to lift the black folks out of poverty! You know, there are TWO Americas!!" Well, I'm pretty much in agreement there. There ARE two Americas. There are the workers and there are the takers. 

Bev Smith is a black talk radio host based in Pittsburgh and nationally syndicated. That sounds successful, doesn't it? But here's her concern about Obama: "There's an assumption now that we've made it. Our concern is that we'll get lost in the shuffle." But Bev... you're heard nationally on the radio. I hardly think that you need to worry that YOU'LL get lost. 

I'll tell you... I live in the south. And I live near a large black population. I have met some black people who have been very nice and easy going... but there is another segment of the black population here who are carrying a great and heavy weight... it's holding them down, to be sure. Unfortunately, the only weight they're actually carrying is the large chip on their shoulder - and if they'd just lose that, they would be more capable of looking high enough to see the opportunities available to them. 

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, says, "A few of my white friends have asked me, 'With Barack achieving all of this, will we be in a position where we can put race aside?'" Mr. Cummings points them to statistics on lingering racial disparities in eduation, health and income. "I hope that progressive-minded people will not make a blanket conclusion that if Barack has made it everybody can make it."

Oy. Mr. Cummings -- you've "made it," haven't you? Or... are you not satisfied unless YOU'RE elected president as well? You do realize that most people in the United States - white OR black - don't end up becoming president? And I'm sorry -- but I already believe that everybody CAN make it, with or without Barack Obama. That's not to say that everybody will. I'm afraid that too many people get confused about equal opportunity. Not all white people have the same opportunity as one another, either. Many white people don't have the opportunity to go to a fine college... many don't have the opportunity to join NASA, be in professional basketball, football, hockey, etc... many don't have the ability which pretty much leaves them out of the opportunity equation. And many don't have the desire, which leaves the opportunity moot. 

But get the chip off your shoulder, seize the opportunities available to you, and make something of yourself. If you don't have the desire to do so, then stop complaining. 

The Chosen One Makes His Choice

And the jury is IN! Obama has officially announced his running mate and, frankly, I couldn't have asked for a more entertaining figure. There's so much I find funny about this I don't even know where to start.

Joe Biden, while running for the presidency himself this time around, made some of the most hilarious comments. To name a few...

In commenting on the growth of the Indian-American population in Delaware, "You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Oh, I'm not joking."

When asked how a "northeast liberal" could compete against more conservative southern candidates, "Better than everybody else. You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state."

When visiting South Carolina, Biden referred to Delaware as a "slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way."

When describing Barack Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's storybook, man."

When trying to get out of the above comment, "Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I've been around. And he's fresh. He's new. He's smart. He's insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world 'clean.'"

What a hoot. I had never seen lips quite so puckered up! And the fact that the only thing he could find offensive about his prior comment was his reference to "clean" is just hilarious.

The New York Times, in their article on the subject, cited among Biden's strengths his "familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues" and that "he is also something of a fixture in Washington, and would bring to the campaign - and the White House - a familiarity with the way the city and Congress works that Mr. Obama cannot match after his relatively short stint in Washington." Apparently, the candidate who seeks "change" cannot make this change without a Washington insider at his side? 

Not to mention the fact that when Biden was jockeying for the presidential position himself, his loudest argument was that Barack Obama was "not yet ready" to be president. Apparently, these last few months have made him ready. Ah, ambition is an interesting animal!

Joe Biden ran for the presidency in 1988 as well. He was forced to quit this presidential bid after being accused for plagiarizing one of his speeches in part. In truth, this same speech was given multiple times with credit voiced to the original author of the disputed words in all speeches but one. It seems to me quite possible that this was an oversight, and I really wouldn't hold it against him.

BUT... He also received an F in one of his classes in college for plagiarism and had to re-take the course. And he was questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school (which seems a silly question to ask of a candidate, but whatever) and his response was a direct lie. I couldn't care less about his grades, but I do care about his integrity. He claimed to have graduated in the top half of his class (which is a claim to intellectual mediocrity - if you're going to lie you might as well try for something better than that). The truth was that he graduated 76th in a class of 85. He stated that he attended on a full scholarship and received three degrees. He actually graduated with two majors on a single B.A. - and went on a half scholarship based on financial need. 

To top it all off, Biden seems perhaps not too sure of Barack Obama's chances to win. His senate seat is up for re-election this year as well and it is said that he will be simultaneously running for both positions. There's some confidence for ya! 

I feel encouraged -- No matter how the election cycle turns out in the end, it's bound to be an entertaining ride on the way there. 

A Perfect Example

Ashante Mayfield is dead at the age of 14.

This sad story was reported in the Charlotte Observer on August 20th. I read the headline and thought, "That's sad," and then moved on to other news. 

Today, there was another article about Ashante titled, "A Troubled Past, An Early Death." And, in reading the article, I found a perfect example of what's wrong with our society today. 

Ashante's family gave up custody of her when she was twelve, saying that she was out of control. She spent time in group homes and foster families, but had a record of consistently running away. But here's the kicker: "Now her family members wonder why authorities didn't do more to prevent their daughter from running away, or track her down before she was killed. 'She wasn't in New York, she wasn't in California, she was right here in Charlotte,' said her aunt. 'Her mother tried to get help for her. Social Services is supposed to help you out when you have children and need help.'"

Whoa... back up the truck a minute! These people are this girl's family. Yes, family! And they gave her up to the state saying, essentially, "I can't take care of this kid anymore. She's out of control, I don't know how to control her, and I've had enough. YOU do it." She consistently ran away from every environment in which the state placed her (calling home occasionally to let them know that she was alright). Now that she's no longer alright, the family wants to know why the state didn't do more? What should they have done? I can guarantee that the state cannot do more to love your children than you can. And while there is a system in place, that system is notoriously imperfect. 

I'm not judging this family for giving up custody of a child they couldn't handle. Not ever having been in the stressful position of trying to raise a truly out of control child, I wouldn't dare to suggest options for them. I honestly have no clue. But this assumption that the state could and should do better than we as individual citizens is a dangerous one. 

And it sounds a lot like what I hear coming from many liberal circles... The state should take care of health care - the state should make sure every child can go to college - the state should, the state should, the state should. It's irresponsible to just hand over our freedoms so that we can have the "protection" of the state. 

Once we hand over the custody of our freedom to the state, we give up control. It might sound nice to have somebody else responsible for our children, for our healthcare, for our education, for the price of our gasoline and groceries, etc... But with somebody else responsible, we lack the ability to make a change to our situation. State-controlled health care? What happens when somebody is ill and the state decides it's not worth the cost to care for them? What happens when the public education system is failing and there are few options available beyond that system? 

I'm sad for Ashante's family. They are grieving the loss of a loved one. But blaming the state seems to me a bit irrational. Not that they're not entitled to a bit of irrational thought in their grief. 

Obama and McCain Square Off

So... did you catch the "faith forum" at Saddleback Church? Pastor Rick Warren hosted both major candidates separately, asking them the same questions. It was an interesting way to juxtapose the two men. After seeing this affair, I think I may be able to go vote McCain after all -- and without holding my nose shut too tightly to do it. This is not to say that I'm a new McCain fan. Far from it. But the idea of Barack Obama in the White House is just so terrifying to me that a vote for McCain doesn't really seem all that bad.

A few questions and answers really stood out. Warren asked them what three people they would rely on the most for wisdom and expertise in their administration. Frighteningly enough, Barack's first two people were his wife, Michelle, and his grandmother. He then went on to say some more people, naming politicians and their political affiliations... but his focus was heavily on Michelle. I cannot think of a person I would want LESS influencing a presidential administration, to be honest. 

McCain, on the other hand, immediately named David Petraeus. Considering the fact that our country is at war, it's a good thing that an intelligent military official came to his mind first. He then went on to say John Lewis and Meg Whitman. 

When asked which Supreme Court Justices each man would NOT have nominated, Obama said Clarence Thomas (and received a round of applause upon saying so - ??!?). He went on to say he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a great legal thinker at the time he was nominated. He then named Alito and said that while he was an intelligent man, Obama disagrees with his interpretation of the constitution. Warren asked specifically about Roberts, and Obama said that was more difficult because he finds Roberts to be a "compelling person in conversation individually." It really should have been an easy answer -- Obama would never have nominated Roberts... he cast his vote against confirming him.

Obama then expounded on what he considers to be the courts "most important job." And get this: it is to "guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the other branches." Huh. Isn't that interesting?? Somehow, in Obama's mind, the judicial branch's most important job is to make sure the executive branch of the government is controlled by the judiciary. Doesn't this make the judicial branch the most powerful branch of government? 

McCain's answer to the same question was "with all due respect" Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. If this is indeed true, I will vote for McCain on the basis of the Supreme Court alone! 

You know what I find to be interesting? The primaries are over - the general election has begun. And, predictably, Obama has moved to the right. Of course, he started out so far left as to be almost off the page... so there wasn't too much room to wiggle except to the right. But what's really fascinating is that McCain has been moving to the right as well. 

He was unequivocal in his response to the question on abortion. At what point is a life deserving of human rights? AT CONCEPTION - no hesitation, no waffling. And this, I think, I would expect from McCain. He's always been pretty staunchly pro-life. Obama? The question was "above my pay grade." And he gave the old song and dance about how nobody is pro-abortion, but he knows that women don't make these decisions lightly. (That's an entirely different blog, so I'm not even going to go there.)

McCain was outspoken in his willingness to drill for oil here. Now... I'm thinkin' this is new for him. He's usually quite the environmentalist. But he spoke about how we're paying money to the people and governments who "don't like us very much." Well stated.

Could it be that McCain was speaking to his audience - and he figured that he was talking to Evangelicals so he needed to be more conservative? Perhaps... but his statements were made in such a decisive manner that it would be pretty difficult for him to speak differently to a different crowd. 

I'm newly interested in the general election. Wouldn't it be great if the networks could host their debates as effectively as this forum?

Arabian Proverbs Gone Awry

Most of us have heard the old Arabian proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Militarily and diplomatically, this proverb has rung true throughout history -- there have been times when people with great differences have come together to fight a common enemy. 

Considering this, what would be the best course of action for the United States in the conflict between Russia and Georgia? 

First of all -- a brief explanation of current events. There is a place in Georgia (South Ossetia) which is very pro-Russia. Tensions have been heating up there for a few years, apparently. Russia sent in military "peacekeepers." Georgia elected a president who called for the reunification of Georgia. The Georgian military went into South Ossetia and tried to forcibly remove the Russian military. (According to some news reports, the Georgians were trying to "take back their capital," which I don't understand as Tbilisi is the capital.) It didn't work and Georgia withdrew. And here's where it gets interesting... Russia followed them. 

I must admit, I find myself wondering if the Russians deployed their troops into the region in order to spur a conflict. They didn't fire first, but clearly the Georgians felt a threat by their presence. Imagine if there was a large percentage of the population in Southern California who believed California would be better off as Mexico. There was disagreement in the region regarding this, and so Mexico deployed troops there and called them "peacekeepers." Do you think it possible that the United States might frown on this action and feel a threat there? But this way, Russia can say, "They started it," (which they are already saying) and follow through and take out the president of Georgia. 

Putin has been pretty vocal in his ambitions for Russia. He wants to expand the empire and re-create the powerful Russia of yesteryear. Nobody expected him to truly relinquish power when his presidency was over, and it's been made pretty clear that he is now working just as powerfully with a different title.

Clearly, a little country like Georgia is going to be no match for the Russian military. They're calling for help. "We need large supplies of humanitarian aid, because we have thousands of wounded. And weapons. We need weapons." 

So what is the best course of action? The United States is currently airlifting Georgian troops from Iraq as they've been understandably recalled. But please tell me this isn't the best we can do... giving them back 2,000 of their own troops? They've been with us in Iraq during our engagement there. I am hopeful that the current administration is working on something to help our friends in the middle east (since they're few and far between, we cannot afford to alienate the one's we've got). Something needs to be done sooner rather than later because our friends are outnumbered and already exhausted. One soldier is quoted as saying, "We killed as many of them as we could, but where are our friends?" They want to know, Where is the U.S.? When is NATO coming?

Then I thought to take a look at the rhetoric being spewed by the presidential contenders and their spokespeople. Apparently, the candidates "clashed" over the issue. You don't say!! The AFP reports that "a McCain adviser came under fire for his links to the government in Tbilisi." Governor Bill Richardson, boob extraordinaire, out stumping for the Obama campaign on various news organizations, said that McCain's campaign "is run by lobbyists that represent Georgia and other countries. He takes huge amounts of money from oil companies that are profiting in the (former) Soviet Union and many parts of the world." Of course, the AFP added the "former" to the Soviet Union. Nice of them to correct Richardson's faux pas.

McCain has immediately called on Russia to stop its incursion into Georgia. Obama called for restraint on both sides. Kind of funny after Georgia already tried to pull away and Russia followed them. 

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a republican under consideration as running mate to McCain, said it was wrong for the Obama campaign to focus on any ties between members of the McCain campaign and the Georgian government. "I wish Senator Obama had actually confronted the issue, not trying to detract our attention by focusing on a McCain adviser." He also pointed out that the conflict underscores why a president with experience in international affairs is important. 

I'm making the assumption that Bill Richardson is authorized to speak on behalf of Barack Obama. I assume this because he's opening his big mouth everywhere and I haven't heard anything from Obama stating that he thinks differently or that Richardson doesn't speak for him and/or is not involved in his campaign. On that order, knowing what Richardson said on ABC's "This Week" becomes telling:

"Well, look, my view is that the United States - if we had a stronger relationship with Russia, we could exercise strong diplomacy to stop this effort against Georgia. We should immediately go to the UN Security Council, condemn Russian's [sic] action, and then get the security council to pass a strong resolution getting the Russians to show some restraint and possibly at the same time generate some UN peacekeeping troops. The problem, though, is that we don't have the kind of influence and strength in our relationship with Russia to persuade them. This has been one of the failures of the Bush administration. Failing to build a strong relationship - a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia so we have the kind of influence to persuade them to stop some of these very very dangerous efforts within their territory." 

Then the reporter breaks in with:

Well, so you see this incursion as an example of the lack of diplomatic skills by the Bush administration, but some might see them as evidence that McCain is correct when he says that Russia has no business being in the G8 because it does not share the same values as those western nations. Does this incursion not verify that Senator McCain's assessment of Russia is correct?

Richardson: Well, Senator Obama has said, "Let's use diplomacy." I believe what Senator McCain is proposing is totally, totally wrong. Keeping him out of the G8? Russia is a major super-power. We have to build the kind of relationship with Russia so that we can deal with them on restraining Iran from building nuclear weapons. So that we can deal with Russia in the middle east, help us in the situation in Iraq. You know, Senator Obama's policy of diplomacy, of building international support for our goals, makes sense. What Senator McCain wants to do is continue the Bush policies of trying to isolate Russia. You know, build this missile system there. Find ways to be aggressive against Russia. It's not working. And Russia doesn't respect our efforts to try to restrain them. So I believe what Senator Obama is proposing - international diplomacy, build a strong relationship with countries like Russia and China, find the United Nations as a vehicle to bring this crisis possibly to an end, that's what we need. Look what's happening. Senator McCain wants to isolate Russia further, that's not going to work. That will make Russia more detrimental in their relationship with the United States.

Does this scare anybody else? Somehow, Richardson (speaking for Obama) wants to go to the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a veto-holding member, and get them to pass a resolution condemning Russia. I'm not thinking Russia is going to let that fly. Then, he moves on into "let's use diplomacy." But listen carefully to what he's saying -- because he's actually making the case for us to join forces with the Russians and the Chinese. Russia is not going to respect anybody's effort to restrain them. Russia chooses friends who are as aggressive as they are (Syria, Iran, etc...) 

So the Obama campaign actually has a foreign relations policy of "The friend of my enemy needs to be my friend." Sorry, Democrats. But with people like Russia and Iran, you need to just decide whose side you're on. They are not going to be talked out of their agendas, either one.