I find the medical marijuana debate fascinating. Last night, the substitute host of Larry King Live on CNN moderated a good-natured debate on medical marijuana between Montel Williams and Steven Baldwin, with Williams pro and Baldwin con. If you were neutral on the issue and watched it, I suspect neither of them would have persuaded you to their position.
Williams, who has struggled with multiple sclerosis for over a decade, ingests marijuana for neurological pain, although he doesn't admit to smoking it. Whenever discussing the issue, he always brings up some program at the University of Mississippi where the US Government has been growing marijuana and dispensing it in "joint" form to a dozen or so people for 25 years. This, coupled with the illegality of marijuana, is a high hypocrisy to Williams but also evidence that such a program can work. He is genuine and sincere given his personal stake in the issue.
Baldwin is a recovering drug addict and former marijuana user who opposes legalizing pot for patients. He relies on his past experiences to argue that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to much harder and addictive stuff. He is concerned that widespread pot availability, even for medical purposes, will make it much more accessible for casual use. He is genuine and sincere given his experiences and long term sobriety.
Williams' argument seems disingenuous. You can't take an arguably successful program with about 10 people, in an extremely controlled environment, and expect to replicate it across a nation of 300,000,000 people and [voila!] everything's solved. On the other hand, if you Google "medical marijuana" and "Steven Baldwin" you'll find hundreds of references to an earlier Larry King debate between the actor and Republican Representative, former presidential candidate, and medical doctor Ron Paul. All the pro-marijuana sites predictably hammer Baldwin for being a boob, a Christian fundamentalist, and for getting taken to the woodshed. In fairness, and meaning no offense to Baldwin, his debate with Dr. Paul was unfair--the equivalent a debate about the interpretation of some clause in the US Constitution between a Federal Circuit Court judge and a celebrity who has been to small claims court a couple of times.
Who's right? Who knows?
Of course, Pres. Obama has been all over the place on the marijuana issue, shifting again most recently to oppose changing our drug laws. What makes me currently an opponent of medical marijuana is not Obama's endless flip-flopping. It's the fact that we don't have honest debates on the issue.
Marijuana might have some medicinal benefit to some people suffering with certain conditions/diseases. But, let's be honest. A lot of Americans simply want to smoke some doobage without getting arrested. Thousands of "medical" marijuana supporters want it approved so that they can take the next step: legalize pot for personal use. And it is this fact that completely clouds the issue. On websites and message boards for pot-heads, it couldn't be clearer that this is the true motivation for many. Hippies and health advocates make strange bedfellows.
Ever been to a "hemp festival"? You see lots of posters and t-shirts with Bob Marley, Che Guavara and the Jamaican flag on them. People set up booths showing all the great industrial uses for hemp, and selling their homemade hemp clothes, indigenous musical instruments, and reggae CDs. Sure, you can make some great things with hemp. And, yes, hemp was grown and used legally in our nation for scores of years. But, honestly, these people simply want to get high. The fact that you can make a purse out of a pot plant is nice, but it's a diversion.
That's how it will always be until we put all the issues on the table. I'm a "small government, low tax, 'originalist' Constitution" type of conservative, so I almost always prefer less regulation to more. Especially at the federal level. But I don't trust the pot-heads either.
The debate should not be over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. Rather, the debate should be whether marijuana should be legalized for any and all purposes. The pot-heads, hippies, medical marijuana supporters, and college professors can legitimately square off against the former and recovering addicts, the medical establishment, religious and children's advocates, and general opponents of drugs. We'll hear all sides and make a democratic decision. Regardless of the outcome, people will still study the benefits of pot legally or illegally and, over time, the debate and support may shift.
Until and unless that honest debate happens, I won't be persuaded to support medical marijuana.
That's just the way it is, Dude.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Vote for Your 3-Year Old in 2010!
In this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a University of Colorado, Boulder psychology professor published his findings from a study involving the cognitive development of toddlers. Now, surprisingly, PNAS is not on my "must read" periodicals list. I'm sure it's a fascinating publication, what with studies on "The capillarity of nanometric water menisci confined inside closed-geometry viral cages". I'll bet that's a real page turner.
Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."
In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.
The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."
In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.
Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.
Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.
How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.
Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.
Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.
Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.
Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.
Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."
In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.
The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."
In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.
Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.
Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.
How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.
Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.
Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.
Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.
Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Euphemisms Suck
Pres. Obama will be making the most headlines tomorrow--and tonight on line--for his second prime-time press conference. Lots of people will report or blog on his comments and performance. Personally, I thought his effort was another warmed over campaign speech made more topical only because he is the POTUS and actually has to address the issues.
Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.
First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.
When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.
By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?
Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?
I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.
As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.
Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.
No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.
Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.
Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.
First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.
When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.
By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?
Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?
I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.
As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.
Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.
No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.
Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Quick Hit--That Evil Bush
I had my problems with George W. Bush during his Presidency, but always thought he was a good, smart man. Not the most articulate president, but neither "evil" or "stupid". It always bothered me that many people had (and still have) this visceral hatred of W. We all can recall the countless instances of left-wing kooks manifesting their anger into irrational criticisms. Bush is a monkey, a puppet to Cheney's puppeteer, idiot, dumb, stupid, Hitler, etc.
Can we finally put the "Evil Bush" hysteria to rest now? He is exhibiting precisely the type and level of class we should expect from a former president...and someone who puts country over politics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the Obama Administration when it stumbles, which seems to happen regularly. But a former president should respect his successors and keep his opinions to himself. We don't have a parliamentary or multi-party democracy where a two-term leader might return to the office (see Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu). Certainly W should get credit for being far more gracious, kind and respectful than, say, liberal darling wacko Jimmy Carter, who took every opportunity to slam W on issues from Iraq, to Israel and Gaza, to keeping too many secrets, to the faith-based initiative, to W's extremist views, etc.
W stands head and shoulders above Carter for class and respect after his presidency. You liberal moonbats could apologize to him for your vitriol, but he's probably already forgiven you.
Can we finally put the "Evil Bush" hysteria to rest now? He is exhibiting precisely the type and level of class we should expect from a former president...and someone who puts country over politics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the Obama Administration when it stumbles, which seems to happen regularly. But a former president should respect his successors and keep his opinions to himself. We don't have a parliamentary or multi-party democracy where a two-term leader might return to the office (see Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu). Certainly W should get credit for being far more gracious, kind and respectful than, say, liberal darling wacko Jimmy Carter, who took every opportunity to slam W on issues from Iraq, to Israel and Gaza, to keeping too many secrets, to the faith-based initiative, to W's extremist views, etc.
W stands head and shoulders above Carter for class and respect after his presidency. You liberal moonbats could apologize to him for your vitriol, but he's probably already forgiven you.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Feigned Disgust at AIG
Corporate executives are ultimately responsible for only one thing: pleasing their shareholders. There are moral obligations, too, of course. And businessmen who pursue profits with everything else be damned typically reap what they sow. But shareholders have the final say in executive pay because they can replace the executives.
In the case of AIG, we now are the shareholders. The American taxpayers own nearly 80% of AIG. We have pumped nearly $180 billion (that's $180,000,000,000.00) into AIG to bail it out of the poor decisions it, through its executives, made. That means we have the right to be outraged at the $165 million (that's $165,000,000.00) in "retention" bonuses AIG/Our Company recently paid its executives. Our tax dollars that we generously gave our battered and beleaguered company are being used in part to pay poorly performing, failing executives outlandish bonuses. Calling it an outrage is a gross understatement.
There are several people, however, who have tried to get out in front of this protest parade. They express disgust and deep anger at these developments. But, instead of letting them lead our parade, we should trample them under foot for their roles in making it all happen. Here are just a few of them.
First and foremost is the Shareholder-in-Chief Barack Obama who yesterday lambasted AIG and expressed shock and anger. Candidate Obama, while waffling on whether to support the AIG bailout in September 2008, unequivocally stated that "It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG." Fast forward 6 months and, surprise!, that's exactly what is happening. He can blame the Bush Administration all he wants for bequeathing all the world's problems to him, but the fact is AIG management is getting bailed out on Obama's watch. Meanwhile, Obama is proposing a budget with a projected deficit of $1.75 trillion (that's $1,750,000,000,000.00), or about more than 10,000 times the amount the AIG executives got. Who's wasting more of your money? By the way, still no word on whether the Shareholder-in-Chief--the second highest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG in 2008--will return any of the more than $100,000 he received last year.
Second is Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT. Dodd is a government-employed, duly elected welfare queen, having already, for example, gotten a sweetheart mortgage from troubled Countrywide that you and I couldn't get. Recently we learned that Dodd's amendment to the $787 billion "stimulus" package exempted from a restriction on executive pay the very AIG bonuses he roundly criticizes. Could the fact that Dodd was just ahead of Obama in AIG 2008 campaign contributions have anything to do with it? Naaaah. It was just a co-inkydink. Or maybe leprechauns clandestinely inserted the exemption in after Dodd put forth the amendment.
Third on our list is Sen. John McCain, R-AZ. At the time Candidate McCain cut off his campaigning to return to DC and fix the financial crisis, I thought it was a gutsy gimmick and applauded the move. Then, of course, he decided to support the $85 billion AIG boondoggle bailout (that's $85,000,000,000.00) and the $25 billion automaker bailout (hattip: Michelle Malkin), and lost any remaining "maverick" luster.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA leads the list of also-rans but I simply don't have enough space to cover his involvement in this debacle.
Now we have Obama claiming he'll use "every legal avenue" to get the bonus money back. New York AG Andrew Cuomo is also looking at the situation. Have these guys--both allegely accomplished lawyers--ever heard of contracts? AIG may be contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. You don't think the AIG employees who were to get the bonuses wouldn't sue AIG in a New York minute if they didn't get paid? Oh, the Shareholder-in-Chief and his outraged pals will try to "undo" the contracts now, and they might eventually succeed. But you mean to tell me these clowns didn't think to put restrictions on bailout funds when they were debating and proposing them? Someone should have sat down with whoever was running AIG and said, "Look, we'll give you the money but we're building in provisions to ensure you don't squander it on executive bonuses, spa trips, and other such stuff. If that's not acceptable, then you get no cash."
And some in Congress (including Dodd) are proposing to tax the snot out of those bonuses with at least one congressman saying they should be taxed at 100%. While we're throwing out contract law, why not toss the Constitution too. Ex post facto laws? Nobody really knows what that means anyway, and people are so mad at the AIG executives that nobody will care if they get screwed.
Politicians feigning disgust and outrage is nothing new. It's just so obviously self-serving, hypocritical, and smarmy, especially in these difficult times. Obama's "change" mantra doesn't echo as loudly anymore. He sounds more like Captain Renault in Casablanca: "Shocked! Shocked!" to find out these shenanigans have been going on right under his nose.
I don't know who is more disgusting: the AIG executives who got bonused with our bailout money, or the politicians who took campaign contributions from AIG, eagerly approved their bailout money and set up the mechanisms to be misused. A pox on all of their houses...especially the one Dodd got that sweetheart deal on.
In the case of AIG, we now are the shareholders. The American taxpayers own nearly 80% of AIG. We have pumped nearly $180 billion (that's $180,000,000,000.00) into AIG to bail it out of the poor decisions it, through its executives, made. That means we have the right to be outraged at the $165 million (that's $165,000,000.00) in "retention" bonuses AIG/Our Company recently paid its executives. Our tax dollars that we generously gave our battered and beleaguered company are being used in part to pay poorly performing, failing executives outlandish bonuses. Calling it an outrage is a gross understatement.
There are several people, however, who have tried to get out in front of this protest parade. They express disgust and deep anger at these developments. But, instead of letting them lead our parade, we should trample them under foot for their roles in making it all happen. Here are just a few of them.
First and foremost is the Shareholder-in-Chief Barack Obama who yesterday lambasted AIG and expressed shock and anger. Candidate Obama, while waffling on whether to support the AIG bailout in September 2008, unequivocally stated that "It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG." Fast forward 6 months and, surprise!, that's exactly what is happening. He can blame the Bush Administration all he wants for bequeathing all the world's problems to him, but the fact is AIG management is getting bailed out on Obama's watch. Meanwhile, Obama is proposing a budget with a projected deficit of $1.75 trillion (that's $1,750,000,000,000.00), or about more than 10,000 times the amount the AIG executives got. Who's wasting more of your money? By the way, still no word on whether the Shareholder-in-Chief--the second highest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG in 2008--will return any of the more than $100,000 he received last year.
Second is Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT. Dodd is a government-employed, duly elected welfare queen, having already, for example, gotten a sweetheart mortgage from troubled Countrywide that you and I couldn't get. Recently we learned that Dodd's amendment to the $787 billion "stimulus" package exempted from a restriction on executive pay the very AIG bonuses he roundly criticizes. Could the fact that Dodd was just ahead of Obama in AIG 2008 campaign contributions have anything to do with it? Naaaah. It was just a co-inkydink. Or maybe leprechauns clandestinely inserted the exemption in after Dodd put forth the amendment.
Third on our list is Sen. John McCain, R-AZ. At the time Candidate McCain cut off his campaigning to return to DC and fix the financial crisis, I thought it was a gutsy gimmick and applauded the move. Then, of course, he decided to support the $85 billion AIG boondoggle bailout (that's $85,000,000,000.00) and the $25 billion automaker bailout (hattip: Michelle Malkin), and lost any remaining "maverick" luster.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA leads the list of also-rans but I simply don't have enough space to cover his involvement in this debacle.
Now we have Obama claiming he'll use "every legal avenue" to get the bonus money back. New York AG Andrew Cuomo is also looking at the situation. Have these guys--both allegely accomplished lawyers--ever heard of contracts? AIG may be contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. You don't think the AIG employees who were to get the bonuses wouldn't sue AIG in a New York minute if they didn't get paid? Oh, the Shareholder-in-Chief and his outraged pals will try to "undo" the contracts now, and they might eventually succeed. But you mean to tell me these clowns didn't think to put restrictions on bailout funds when they were debating and proposing them? Someone should have sat down with whoever was running AIG and said, "Look, we'll give you the money but we're building in provisions to ensure you don't squander it on executive bonuses, spa trips, and other such stuff. If that's not acceptable, then you get no cash."
And some in Congress (including Dodd) are proposing to tax the snot out of those bonuses with at least one congressman saying they should be taxed at 100%. While we're throwing out contract law, why not toss the Constitution too. Ex post facto laws? Nobody really knows what that means anyway, and people are so mad at the AIG executives that nobody will care if they get screwed.
Politicians feigning disgust and outrage is nothing new. It's just so obviously self-serving, hypocritical, and smarmy, especially in these difficult times. Obama's "change" mantra doesn't echo as loudly anymore. He sounds more like Captain Renault in Casablanca: "Shocked! Shocked!" to find out these shenanigans have been going on right under his nose.
I don't know who is more disgusting: the AIG executives who got bonused with our bailout money, or the politicians who took campaign contributions from AIG, eagerly approved their bailout money and set up the mechanisms to be misused. A pox on all of their houses...especially the one Dodd got that sweetheart deal on.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Amateur Hour on the World Stage
Long before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she was revered by many Democrats and the MSM as "the smartest woman in the world". This despite her distinct lack of uniquely significant accomplishment. Oh she has done some things that are unusual for a woman of her age. She graduated from Yale Law School when most law schools had few women students. She served as Congressional legal counsel, and became the first female partner of a (then) well-respected law firm. Those are accomplishments and women who serve in such capacities now stand on her shoulders to some extent.
But let's be real. Hillary's public popularity (or notoriety) are directly attributable to her marriage to Bill. That's not intended as an insult; it's just the truth. No one would know or revere Hillary if she hadn't hitched her wagon to her husband. Frankly, there is nothing wrong (or new) with a person trading a bit on a loved one's success.
Measuring her intelligence with reference to these accomplishments (or how she got where she is) would be strange since she finally has her own position. No, I don't count carpetbagging to get her Senate seat. Thanks to Pres. Obama, she is on the world stage, now, as Secretary of State, unhitched from her husband, free to display her intelligence in diplomacy, foreign policy and influence world affairs.
Unfortunately, a quick survey of Hillary's performance in Act I, and that of the Obama Administration, shows that this is Amateur Hour. Hillary and Barack are acting on Broadway while mis-delivering lines in a style more akin to a Little Rock dinner theater.
Scene 1: Meeting with her Chinese counterpart. Enter Hillary, hat in hand, begging the Chinese government to keep buying American debt. In exchange, she chooses not to linger on those pesky human rights issues. Shortly after the meeting, Chinese warships challenge US Naval vessels in international waters, suggesting China is no longer bedazzled by Hillary, if it ever was.
Scene 2: Meeting in Israel. Hillary touches the "third rail" of the Mideast peace process by declaraing the establishment of a Palestinian state is "inescapable", while expressing the desire to normalize relations with world terror leader Iran and its surrogate Syria--both sworn enemies of Israel. Israeli officials are not amused. Hamas officials--perpetually unamused--express anger at Hillary's failure to criticize Israel, but she still gives them a check for nearly $1 billion.
Scene 3: Meeting with her Russian counterpart. Enter Hillary with a gift in hand. Hillary presents a button to Foreign Minister Lavrov and, while taking an indirect swipe at the previous administration, tells him its a "reset button" to "reset" our relationship. The button was supposed to say "perezagruzka", which means "reset" but instead it said "peregruzka", which means "overcharged".
Scene 4: Brussels and the EU. Hillary claims she has "never understood multiparty democracy" and claimed that "our own democracy...has been around a lot longer than European democracy." Apparently, she either forgot Greece was in the EU or never studied Greek history. She also refers to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as "High Representative Solano", and European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito." The MSM excuses her missteps as symptoms of fatigue.
Now, it goes without saying that the MSM would never have let George Bush, Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld get away with such gaffes. It's expected from those dolts. But Hillary? She's too smart for that. She must have been tired.
Admittedly, Hillary is probably taking orders from Pres. Obama when she discusses policy positions. Clearly the Obama Administration has staked out positions in the mushy middle, which is just what we'd expect from loyal adherents of political correctness. Don't come on too strong, don't offend anyone, keep standards and expectations low, and never truly take a forceful stand. But, as Secretary of State, Hillary has a say in these positions...or she's entirely feckless. America must support her friends and gain compliance or concessions from her enemies, and defeat them if necessary. Staking out the mushy middle is a sure way to lose the upper hand. For example, in the Mideast, taking the mushy middle in an effort to secure "peace" risks alienating good friend Israel while never truly getting anything meaningful out of the PLO/Syria/Iran, in large part because Israel's enemies won't let peace and Israel coexist.
Luckily for Hillary, she is not on the hook for the insulting treatment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. When the leader of your greatest friend and ally pays his first official state visit, you should welcome and treat him as such. Pres. Obama did not see fit to hold a joint press conference and barely had time to meet with Brown. Obama did, however, have a couple of toys from the White House gift shop for Brown's kids and a box of DVDs. Do you think he was smart enough to give him DVDs that will play on European systems? Doubt it. It's unclear whether Blockbuster will waive the late fees if Brown doesn't return them on time. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way back to 10 Downing, Gordo.
Unlike dinner theater, you only get one performance on the world stage. You can't show up for the next night's show with a clean slate and a new audience. For America's sake, and that of the free world and emerging democracies and capitalist nations around the world, we can only hope the performance will improve as Act II begins.
But let's be real. Hillary's public popularity (or notoriety) are directly attributable to her marriage to Bill. That's not intended as an insult; it's just the truth. No one would know or revere Hillary if she hadn't hitched her wagon to her husband. Frankly, there is nothing wrong (or new) with a person trading a bit on a loved one's success.
Measuring her intelligence with reference to these accomplishments (or how she got where she is) would be strange since she finally has her own position. No, I don't count carpetbagging to get her Senate seat. Thanks to Pres. Obama, she is on the world stage, now, as Secretary of State, unhitched from her husband, free to display her intelligence in diplomacy, foreign policy and influence world affairs.
Unfortunately, a quick survey of Hillary's performance in Act I, and that of the Obama Administration, shows that this is Amateur Hour. Hillary and Barack are acting on Broadway while mis-delivering lines in a style more akin to a Little Rock dinner theater.
Scene 1: Meeting with her Chinese counterpart. Enter Hillary, hat in hand, begging the Chinese government to keep buying American debt. In exchange, she chooses not to linger on those pesky human rights issues. Shortly after the meeting, Chinese warships challenge US Naval vessels in international waters, suggesting China is no longer bedazzled by Hillary, if it ever was.
Scene 2: Meeting in Israel. Hillary touches the "third rail" of the Mideast peace process by declaraing the establishment of a Palestinian state is "inescapable", while expressing the desire to normalize relations with world terror leader Iran and its surrogate Syria--both sworn enemies of Israel. Israeli officials are not amused. Hamas officials--perpetually unamused--express anger at Hillary's failure to criticize Israel, but she still gives them a check for nearly $1 billion.
Scene 3: Meeting with her Russian counterpart. Enter Hillary with a gift in hand. Hillary presents a button to Foreign Minister Lavrov and, while taking an indirect swipe at the previous administration, tells him its a "reset button" to "reset" our relationship. The button was supposed to say "perezagruzka", which means "reset" but instead it said "peregruzka", which means "overcharged".
Scene 4: Brussels and the EU. Hillary claims she has "never understood multiparty democracy" and claimed that "our own democracy...has been around a lot longer than European democracy." Apparently, she either forgot Greece was in the EU or never studied Greek history. She also refers to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as "High Representative Solano", and European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito." The MSM excuses her missteps as symptoms of fatigue.
Now, it goes without saying that the MSM would never have let George Bush, Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld get away with such gaffes. It's expected from those dolts. But Hillary? She's too smart for that. She must have been tired.
Admittedly, Hillary is probably taking orders from Pres. Obama when she discusses policy positions. Clearly the Obama Administration has staked out positions in the mushy middle, which is just what we'd expect from loyal adherents of political correctness. Don't come on too strong, don't offend anyone, keep standards and expectations low, and never truly take a forceful stand. But, as Secretary of State, Hillary has a say in these positions...or she's entirely feckless. America must support her friends and gain compliance or concessions from her enemies, and defeat them if necessary. Staking out the mushy middle is a sure way to lose the upper hand. For example, in the Mideast, taking the mushy middle in an effort to secure "peace" risks alienating good friend Israel while never truly getting anything meaningful out of the PLO/Syria/Iran, in large part because Israel's enemies won't let peace and Israel coexist.
Luckily for Hillary, she is not on the hook for the insulting treatment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. When the leader of your greatest friend and ally pays his first official state visit, you should welcome and treat him as such. Pres. Obama did not see fit to hold a joint press conference and barely had time to meet with Brown. Obama did, however, have a couple of toys from the White House gift shop for Brown's kids and a box of DVDs. Do you think he was smart enough to give him DVDs that will play on European systems? Doubt it. It's unclear whether Blockbuster will waive the late fees if Brown doesn't return them on time. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way back to 10 Downing, Gordo.
Unlike dinner theater, you only get one performance on the world stage. You can't show up for the next night's show with a clean slate and a new audience. For America's sake, and that of the free world and emerging democracies and capitalist nations around the world, we can only hope the performance will improve as Act II begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
