There is so much political nonsense going on this week. Holder wants to talk OTR-Off the Record, Lerner intimidated an opponent of Dick Durbin in the mid-90s, when she was at the Federal Election Commission, Shulman went to the White House 159 times in five years and President Obama is no longer acting like a President, but rather, the ringmaster of this three ring circus.
But today's commentary is not about politics. Instead I have news of a different sort. I am reporting on an event that in the history of New York baseball, something happened this week that has never, ever happened before.
The New York Mets swept the season series from the New York Yankees. Let me say that again. The New York Mets SWEPT the SEASON SERIES from the New York Yankees.
I have been Orange and Blue since '62 and I can tell you, nothing this big has EVER happened before. Not even the Santana no hitter last June 1 was this great, because an umpire made a bad call on a line drive that hit the foul line and was called a foul ball in error.
Dillon Gee was the winning pitcher last night, probably pitching himself the game of his life while giving up 1 run on three hits, no walks and striking out 12. What makes this game even more special for Gee, is that his manager, it was reported, sat him down before the game and told him his position as a starter was no longer secure. He obviously rose to the challenge.
Each night, someone new was the hero, Murphy, Wright, Byrd, Duda, Parnell. The starting pitching was outstanding in each game. Niese, Harvey, Hefner and the aforementioned Gee all pitched outstanding baseball. Even the much-maligned Met bullpen, led by Rice, shined brightly each night.
So, the Mets made history this week. But while the season series was only four games, instead of the usual six, it was a home and home four game straight win. Couple this extraordinary event with the win on Sunday, and suddenly the Mets are hot.
The Mets aren't going anywhere this year. Primarily, this is another year of rebuilding, which seems to be the goal over the last few seasons. But I don't care. And neither do other long-suffering Met fans. Because the Mets swept the Yankees.
For one brief moment in time in the last week of May, 2013, the Mets and their fans can say with pride, truth and glee: We are the best baseball team in New York. Even the Yankees and their fans have to admit that.
And no one can take that away. Let's Go Mets!
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
The Legacy of Gitmo
Guantanamo Bay. It has different meanings to different people. To some, it is the the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba, the only military installation in a communist country. To others, it represents the prison which, since 2002, has housed enemy combatants captured by our military in the so-called war on terror. For still others, it reminds them of a day gone by when Cuba and the USA maintained diplomatic relations. And finally, to Fidel Castro, it is a sore spot because the treaty that leased the area to the US, is still in force because someone cashed a $4,065 check after Castro came to power.
In fact, the US has continually mailed a check to Cuba every month for that amount since 1934, when the new treaty went into affect, superseding the original treaty signed in 1903. During the 70s, Castro opened his desk and showed all the uncashed American checks stuffed in a drawer, all in the amount of $4,065.
The lease has no expiration. In fact, the only way the lease can be voided, ended or otherwise abrogated, is by mutual consent. While Castro would do it, the United States has no plans to surrender the property and leave.
President Obama keeps talking about "closing Gitmo" (the generic term for the base), but in actuality he is talking about the detention center. Presently, there are no plans to close the center, since there is no feasible place to put the prisoners in the United States. He campaigned in 2008 on a promise to close the facility, and when he was inaugurated, one of his first executive orders was to close the detention center by January, 2010. To date, it is still opened.
The base is a strategic location in the middle of the Caribbean Sea. To the south is Jamaica, to the east is Puerto Rico, to the northeast is Haiti and Dominican Republic, to the north are the Bahamas, and to the south is South America. It has a special history involving the US since 1898.
As part of war reparations from Spain at the end of the Spanish-American War, the United States received Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippine Islands and Cuba. In 1903, as part of the US-Cuba treaty, when the US granted independence to the Republic of Cuba, it was agreed that the US would maintain a naval base and coal station at Guantanamo and pay $3,000 a month on an open ended lease. As as discussed above, this lease was upgraded both in terms and payment.
During WWII, the base was utilized extensively to maintain protection of the Caribbean region from Nazi submarines. Later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the base was the focal point in setting up the quarantine, preventing Soviet ships from gaining access to other Cuban ports to offload additional military hardware for MRBMs already on the island.
Technically, Gitmo is US soil, similar to what the Canal Zone was in Panama. Babies born at the naval hospital are US citizens, as were the children born in the Canal Zone from 1914 to 1979, when President Carter ceded the property back to Panama long before the 99 year lease expired. The Congress would never let that happen again.
To sum up, once the Castros pass on, the next Cuban government will in all likelihood cash the checks that are already deducted from our balance sheet and will cash future checks, as well. Guantanamo will play an important part on our future relationship with Cuba, as well it should. There is no good reason for our two countries to be adversaries.
As I wrote in "Cuba... Why?" on March 18, 2013, both countries would benefit from normalization of relations and recognition of each other's government. After all, we are not separated by 90 miles of water, but rather, 3 feet of fence line. And we share Bahia de Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay.
President Obama, for all his current troubles, would do well to look at Cuba and the normalization as a legacy issue. Recently, all his policies have been thwarted, either by the Congress or the misdeeds of members of his administration. He needs something good to which he can latch on.
Guantanamo, and Cuba, could just do it for him. It's worth the try; there is nothing to lose here.
And the legacy of Guantanamo continues.
In fact, the US has continually mailed a check to Cuba every month for that amount since 1934, when the new treaty went into affect, superseding the original treaty signed in 1903. During the 70s, Castro opened his desk and showed all the uncashed American checks stuffed in a drawer, all in the amount of $4,065.
The lease has no expiration. In fact, the only way the lease can be voided, ended or otherwise abrogated, is by mutual consent. While Castro would do it, the United States has no plans to surrender the property and leave.
President Obama keeps talking about "closing Gitmo" (the generic term for the base), but in actuality he is talking about the detention center. Presently, there are no plans to close the center, since there is no feasible place to put the prisoners in the United States. He campaigned in 2008 on a promise to close the facility, and when he was inaugurated, one of his first executive orders was to close the detention center by January, 2010. To date, it is still opened.
The base is a strategic location in the middle of the Caribbean Sea. To the south is Jamaica, to the east is Puerto Rico, to the northeast is Haiti and Dominican Republic, to the north are the Bahamas, and to the south is South America. It has a special history involving the US since 1898.
As part of war reparations from Spain at the end of the Spanish-American War, the United States received Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippine Islands and Cuba. In 1903, as part of the US-Cuba treaty, when the US granted independence to the Republic of Cuba, it was agreed that the US would maintain a naval base and coal station at Guantanamo and pay $3,000 a month on an open ended lease. As as discussed above, this lease was upgraded both in terms and payment.
During WWII, the base was utilized extensively to maintain protection of the Caribbean region from Nazi submarines. Later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the base was the focal point in setting up the quarantine, preventing Soviet ships from gaining access to other Cuban ports to offload additional military hardware for MRBMs already on the island.
Technically, Gitmo is US soil, similar to what the Canal Zone was in Panama. Babies born at the naval hospital are US citizens, as were the children born in the Canal Zone from 1914 to 1979, when President Carter ceded the property back to Panama long before the 99 year lease expired. The Congress would never let that happen again.
To sum up, once the Castros pass on, the next Cuban government will in all likelihood cash the checks that are already deducted from our balance sheet and will cash future checks, as well. Guantanamo will play an important part on our future relationship with Cuba, as well it should. There is no good reason for our two countries to be adversaries.
As I wrote in "Cuba... Why?" on March 18, 2013, both countries would benefit from normalization of relations and recognition of each other's government. After all, we are not separated by 90 miles of water, but rather, 3 feet of fence line. And we share Bahia de Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay.
President Obama, for all his current troubles, would do well to look at Cuba and the normalization as a legacy issue. Recently, all his policies have been thwarted, either by the Congress or the misdeeds of members of his administration. He needs something good to which he can latch on.
Guantanamo, and Cuba, could just do it for him. It's worth the try; there is nothing to lose here.
And the legacy of Guantanamo continues.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Perjury and Impeachment
So many subjects, what to write about! Today, it was reported that Eric Holder, our esteemed and beleaguered Attorney General, said he was filled with remorse over what he did to Fox News and James Rosen. He never really meant to investigate and prosecute him. And now, the media and his liberal Democratic friends in the Congress are lining up against him.
Good!
It seems that Mr Holder has other things to worry about, more than losing friends in the media. It seems that in his testimony on May 15 to the Congress, he was pretty emphatic that he didn't recall and had no knowledge of signing a subpoena to investigate anyone in the media, without giving the defendant the opportunity to challenge his actions. Oops! Looks like a perjury charge in his future.
Mr Holder has shown himself to be an arrogant, difficult demagogue, who thinks he is above the law he has sworn to uphold. He thinks that since he is a "friend" of President Obama, he is able to do things that others would have already been removed from office.
"Fast and Furious", the gunrunning operation, caused the death of a border patrol officer, Brian Terry. Mr Holder used the power of his office to delay and ultimately, avoid providing emails and other subpoenaed documents to the Congress. For that, he was held in contempt of Congress. He used his friendship with the President to have this information covered by executive privilege.
Mr Holder also wants to bring the Gitmo prisoners to the United States, over the objections of the Congress. He hasn't had the American citizen, who made the you tube video that was supposed to incite the Arab world which was blamed for the disaster at Benghazi, released from jail. He is also involved with the suspension of questioning of Boston bomber, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, 16 hours into the interview.
Other Attorneys General have done questionable acts which forced them to resign, eg, Alberto Gonzalez and Edwin Meese. John Mitchell went to jail for his part in the Watergate fiasco. The power of this office can be blinding to even an honorable person.
Mr Holder is not.
It is time for Mr Obama to be a leader and ask Mr Holder to resign. The ongoing Congressional and media attention is diverting Mr Obama's attention from any part of his second term agenda. And as I have written previously in Tap, Tap, Tap... and It's Not the Deed, It's the Lie... time is growing short for him to get his agenda through. He is coming closer and closer to lame duck status, and soon he will be irrelevant. He needs to do this to save his presidency.
Mr Obama also knows that if Mr Holder is impeached for committing perjury under Congressional oath, that by itself could bring down his administration. And if he is convicted by the Senate, who knows what could happen next.
Mr Obama is a smart politician who has his legacy on the line. Is he willing to risk it to save Mr Holder? I don't think so. But vanity and conceit have a way of clouding good judgement.
Will Mr Obama's good judgement fail him? We shall see.
Good!
It seems that Mr Holder has other things to worry about, more than losing friends in the media. It seems that in his testimony on May 15 to the Congress, he was pretty emphatic that he didn't recall and had no knowledge of signing a subpoena to investigate anyone in the media, without giving the defendant the opportunity to challenge his actions. Oops! Looks like a perjury charge in his future.
Mr Holder has shown himself to be an arrogant, difficult demagogue, who thinks he is above the law he has sworn to uphold. He thinks that since he is a "friend" of President Obama, he is able to do things that others would have already been removed from office.
"Fast and Furious", the gunrunning operation, caused the death of a border patrol officer, Brian Terry. Mr Holder used the power of his office to delay and ultimately, avoid providing emails and other subpoenaed documents to the Congress. For that, he was held in contempt of Congress. He used his friendship with the President to have this information covered by executive privilege.
Mr Holder also wants to bring the Gitmo prisoners to the United States, over the objections of the Congress. He hasn't had the American citizen, who made the you tube video that was supposed to incite the Arab world which was blamed for the disaster at Benghazi, released from jail. He is also involved with the suspension of questioning of Boston bomber, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, 16 hours into the interview.
Other Attorneys General have done questionable acts which forced them to resign, eg, Alberto Gonzalez and Edwin Meese. John Mitchell went to jail for his part in the Watergate fiasco. The power of this office can be blinding to even an honorable person.
Mr Holder is not.
It is time for Mr Obama to be a leader and ask Mr Holder to resign. The ongoing Congressional and media attention is diverting Mr Obama's attention from any part of his second term agenda. And as I have written previously in Tap, Tap, Tap... and It's Not the Deed, It's the Lie... time is growing short for him to get his agenda through. He is coming closer and closer to lame duck status, and soon he will be irrelevant. He needs to do this to save his presidency.
Mr Obama also knows that if Mr Holder is impeached for committing perjury under Congressional oath, that by itself could bring down his administration. And if he is convicted by the Senate, who knows what could happen next.
Mr Obama is a smart politician who has his legacy on the line. Is he willing to risk it to save Mr Holder? I don't think so. But vanity and conceit have a way of clouding good judgement.
Will Mr Obama's good judgement fail him? We shall see.
The Grandma Scam
Recently, I heard a report about a scam whereby a scammer calls random phone numbers and makes conversation with an elderly person to elicit information about a family member. Generally, the conversation goes something like this:
Hello?
Hi,Grandma.
Is that you, Susie?
With that the scammer has enough information to begin the scam. Many things can then happen, for example, a request is made for money to be wired via Western Union, or other money transfer service, to the scammer's account or other pick up point.
When I was in banking, I saw a lot of this type of activity. Generally, there was the old money in the envelope trick, where two scammers would get an elderly third person take the envelope to the bank, and trick him to deposit the unknown counterfeit money and transfer good funds to one of the scammers' "accounts", luring the senior with some false reward. Trust me, there were many others.
Another scam generally is the Nigerian fax connection, where you or your loved one receives a fax or a check in the mail, payable to her, with instructions to take the check go the bank, deposit or cash it, and wire funds to a location to win a trip or other falsity.
The point I am making here is for all of us to protect our parents and grandparents from this type of activity. If you become aware of this type if scam, be sure to contact law enforcement immediately. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, if probably is.
Hello?
Hi,Grandma.
Is that you, Susie?
With that the scammer has enough information to begin the scam. Many things can then happen, for example, a request is made for money to be wired via Western Union, or other money transfer service, to the scammer's account or other pick up point.
When I was in banking, I saw a lot of this type of activity. Generally, there was the old money in the envelope trick, where two scammers would get an elderly third person take the envelope to the bank, and trick him to deposit the unknown counterfeit money and transfer good funds to one of the scammers' "accounts", luring the senior with some false reward. Trust me, there were many others.
Another scam generally is the Nigerian fax connection, where you or your loved one receives a fax or a check in the mail, payable to her, with instructions to take the check go the bank, deposit or cash it, and wire funds to a location to win a trip or other falsity.
The point I am making here is for all of us to protect our parents and grandparents from this type of activity. If you become aware of this type if scam, be sure to contact law enforcement immediately. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, if probably is.
Monday, May 27, 2013
The Student Loan BOOM
Over the last few weeks, college students have attended commencement exercises to celebrate their graduation. Four years of hard work, term papers, late-night cramming for midterms and finals, all finally coming to an end, with a great job on the horizon.
Not this year.
For the last several years, going back to 2006, prospects for the great job, commensurate with the student's education, has been elusive at best. So many of our kids have found disappointment on the employment line and have taken anything at all just so they don't sit around vegging out on their parents' couches, wasting their life in front of a TV.
I have seen, as I am sure you have, young adults working at Home Depot, Lowes, the grocery store checkout, Mickey D's and other places in order to earn money to begin paying back the enormous debt they accrued either in undergraduate or graduate levels of study. I know a young lady who graduated last year who studied to be an elementary school teacher, was an honor student and took a job as a teacher's assistant just to have a job in her field of study. And she is not alone.
Even Senator Marco Rubio reported recently that after 20 years, he finally made his last payment on his student loans. He is 42 years old, folks, so that is what our kids have to look forward to.
Many students have contacted Sallie Mae, the banks, the credit unions, and whoever else is in the loop as a guarantor or lender to renegotiate the outstanding balance of their loans. Unfortunately, the answer most given is a big fat "NO!"
As a retired banker, I can tell you from my own experience that my bank sold our student loans to the now defunct Wachovia Bank and kept the servicing rights. This means that while the student still paid us, we forwarded the principle and some of the interest to Wachovia and kept the remaining interest as a fee for servicing the loan. In return, Wachovia took on the risk in the event of default by the student.
A good gimmick, right? The same thing was done in the housing market and we all know what happened there.
So now, nobody wants to renegotiate the monthly payment, the interest or any part else of the student loan. And the student can't afford it because the salary, if any, isn't enough to make even the minimum. I know a young lady who must pay $2,500 a month on her teller's salary. That's a mortgage payment for most of us. And she will probably default if she gets too far behind.
So, what's my point?
Since 2003, tuitions have exploded, even for community colleges and trade schools. That's a fact and we can't reverse that. Schools are not in business to lose money and the outlay of expenses for salaries, benefits and other costs has gone up for colleges as it has done in other areas of the economy.
This is also true for banks and other lenders or guarantors. But there is a difference. Banks will get their money back, either from the guarantor or from the student. It behooves the banks to renegotiate the loans for their customers. That's right. These students are also customers. And if they act in a sensible way toward these young people, loyalty to the financial institution generally is the long-term payback. The problem is that banks have become beholden to the stockholders and have forgotten their roots in customer service.
If banks and guarantors continue to hold a rigid line and refuse to work with the student-debtor, with the amount of outstanding student loan debt over $1 trillion, the resulting default that is coming will be far worse than what happened in the housing market just over five years ago. The economy will never recover from such a disaster. The reason? The debtors will NEVER get the job they were educated to do. And the lenders will never get paid back. Even Sallie Mae won't be able to cover the guarantees made over the years. Remember, Sallie Mae is a government agency, which relies on taxpayers for its existence.
What to do?
We all need to contact our Senators and Representatives in the Congress to advise them of this problem, that up until now, has meandered along just under the surface. We need to insist that they advise the banks that as part of their receipt of TARP money several years ago, they need work with this large group of debtors so that the potential for a disaster doesn't cripple the American economy far worse than anything that has occurred in the past.
Otherwise, the boom that's coming won't be the creation of jobs, but rather the crash of our economy.
Not this year.
For the last several years, going back to 2006, prospects for the great job, commensurate with the student's education, has been elusive at best. So many of our kids have found disappointment on the employment line and have taken anything at all just so they don't sit around vegging out on their parents' couches, wasting their life in front of a TV.
I have seen, as I am sure you have, young adults working at Home Depot, Lowes, the grocery store checkout, Mickey D's and other places in order to earn money to begin paying back the enormous debt they accrued either in undergraduate or graduate levels of study. I know a young lady who graduated last year who studied to be an elementary school teacher, was an honor student and took a job as a teacher's assistant just to have a job in her field of study. And she is not alone.
Even Senator Marco Rubio reported recently that after 20 years, he finally made his last payment on his student loans. He is 42 years old, folks, so that is what our kids have to look forward to.
Many students have contacted Sallie Mae, the banks, the credit unions, and whoever else is in the loop as a guarantor or lender to renegotiate the outstanding balance of their loans. Unfortunately, the answer most given is a big fat "NO!"
As a retired banker, I can tell you from my own experience that my bank sold our student loans to the now defunct Wachovia Bank and kept the servicing rights. This means that while the student still paid us, we forwarded the principle and some of the interest to Wachovia and kept the remaining interest as a fee for servicing the loan. In return, Wachovia took on the risk in the event of default by the student.
A good gimmick, right? The same thing was done in the housing market and we all know what happened there.
So now, nobody wants to renegotiate the monthly payment, the interest or any part else of the student loan. And the student can't afford it because the salary, if any, isn't enough to make even the minimum. I know a young lady who must pay $2,500 a month on her teller's salary. That's a mortgage payment for most of us. And she will probably default if she gets too far behind.
So, what's my point?
Since 2003, tuitions have exploded, even for community colleges and trade schools. That's a fact and we can't reverse that. Schools are not in business to lose money and the outlay of expenses for salaries, benefits and other costs has gone up for colleges as it has done in other areas of the economy.
This is also true for banks and other lenders or guarantors. But there is a difference. Banks will get their money back, either from the guarantor or from the student. It behooves the banks to renegotiate the loans for their customers. That's right. These students are also customers. And if they act in a sensible way toward these young people, loyalty to the financial institution generally is the long-term payback. The problem is that banks have become beholden to the stockholders and have forgotten their roots in customer service.
If banks and guarantors continue to hold a rigid line and refuse to work with the student-debtor, with the amount of outstanding student loan debt over $1 trillion, the resulting default that is coming will be far worse than what happened in the housing market just over five years ago. The economy will never recover from such a disaster. The reason? The debtors will NEVER get the job they were educated to do. And the lenders will never get paid back. Even Sallie Mae won't be able to cover the guarantees made over the years. Remember, Sallie Mae is a government agency, which relies on taxpayers for its existence.
What to do?
We all need to contact our Senators and Representatives in the Congress to advise them of this problem, that up until now, has meandered along just under the surface. We need to insist that they advise the banks that as part of their receipt of TARP money several years ago, they need work with this large group of debtors so that the potential for a disaster doesn't cripple the American economy far worse than anything that has occurred in the past.
Otherwise, the boom that's coming won't be the creation of jobs, but rather the crash of our economy.
Friday, May 24, 2013
The Meaning of Memorial Day
It's Memorial Day weekend and many of us will be at BBQs, at the beach, in the mountains or visiting with friends and relatives. It is the "unofficial" start of summer, where leisure time is treasured and the warmer weather makes us feel so alive. As Americans, we live mostly in temperate climates, although Alaskans will say "where?", Floridians will have something to say about the humidity, and Hawaiians will say they are in weather paradise.
However, it seems we have lost some of the meaning of Memorial Day. Sure, we know it is one of our federal holidays, like Labor Day, Columbus Day and Presidents' Day. But do we understand the history and significance of this special day?
Initially, it was created after the American Civil War to honor those soldiers who died, whether Union or Confederate, as they were all Americans. The holiday was called Decoration Day, because it was felt, that friends and families would go to the gravesites of the deceased and adorn the grave with flowers, plants, ribbons or other appropriate decoration. By the early 20th century, the holiday evolved not only to honor Civil War dead, but any member of the Armed Forces who died in battle. The name was changed, as well, to Memorial Day and moved to May 31 throughout the country in order to be consistent.
This holiday's purpose should not be confused with Veterans Day, initially called Armistice Day to celebrate the end of WWI, which honors all veterans, living and now deceased. These honorees did not have to die in battle to be so honored, only that they served.
In 1970, Memorial Day was moved to the last Monday in May. This was done so that we would have several three-day weekends to make our workweeks somewhat more efficient for business. Other holidays which fall on Mondays for this purpose are MLK Day, Presidents' Day, Labor Day and Columbus Day.
The remaining holidays stayed on their calendar date. These are New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Initially, Veterans Day was moved to the last Monday in October, but veterans' groups complained, so the Congress moved the holiday back to November 11th.
So, while you are in your backyard, the park or other site enjoying your Memorial Day party, take a moment to close your eyes, say a prayer, and thank all the deceased military who gave their lives protecting our freedom, preserving our liberty and allowing us to live in the most democratic country the world has ever seen.
It is the least we can do as Americans. Our Founding Fathers would expect as much.
However, it seems we have lost some of the meaning of Memorial Day. Sure, we know it is one of our federal holidays, like Labor Day, Columbus Day and Presidents' Day. But do we understand the history and significance of this special day?
Initially, it was created after the American Civil War to honor those soldiers who died, whether Union or Confederate, as they were all Americans. The holiday was called Decoration Day, because it was felt, that friends and families would go to the gravesites of the deceased and adorn the grave with flowers, plants, ribbons or other appropriate decoration. By the early 20th century, the holiday evolved not only to honor Civil War dead, but any member of the Armed Forces who died in battle. The name was changed, as well, to Memorial Day and moved to May 31 throughout the country in order to be consistent.
This holiday's purpose should not be confused with Veterans Day, initially called Armistice Day to celebrate the end of WWI, which honors all veterans, living and now deceased. These honorees did not have to die in battle to be so honored, only that they served.
In 1970, Memorial Day was moved to the last Monday in May. This was done so that we would have several three-day weekends to make our workweeks somewhat more efficient for business. Other holidays which fall on Mondays for this purpose are MLK Day, Presidents' Day, Labor Day and Columbus Day.
The remaining holidays stayed on their calendar date. These are New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Initially, Veterans Day was moved to the last Monday in October, but veterans' groups complained, so the Congress moved the holiday back to November 11th.
So, while you are in your backyard, the park or other site enjoying your Memorial Day party, take a moment to close your eyes, say a prayer, and thank all the deceased military who gave their lives protecting our freedom, preserving our liberty and allowing us to live in the most democratic country the world has ever seen.
It is the least we can do as Americans. Our Founding Fathers would expect as much.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Bad News, Better News
This has been an absolutely dreadful week in the news: IRS shenanigans, reporters being bugged, more lies on Benghazi and to top it off, a tornado in Oklahoma, where parents and children died and a whole town was wiped away in 45 minutes.
Right away, the crazies were out blaming global warming, climate change or whatever the politically correct term is to be used this week. Instead of trying to advance an agenda, we should all be concerned about helping the unfortunate people who lost their family members, their pets and their homes.
Right now, they could care less what caused the tornados. They are looking for help to figure out what has to be done to get their lives back in order. Quickly.
Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island wants to blame republicans for the tornado. That is just preposterous. The republicans are no more at fault for this than democrats are responsible for earthquakes. So let's get off that horse because it's not going to ride.
What are we as Americans going to do to help? Well, the people of Moore, OK have been helping their neighbors by digging through the rubble for anything that can be salvaged. The Red Cross once again has set up a number that you can text to in order to donate money. The President has declared the affected areas disaster areas and has sent in FEMA to analyze, assist and recommend what the needs are. The Governor is utilizing state resources to get this city back on its feet as quickly as possible.
The stories are so sad but the people are resilient. Instead of complaining and delving into self-pity, the townspeople are looking to a better day, a brighter future for themselves and their loved ones. We should all take a page from the Moore play book.
If there is one lesson here that can be the takeaway, it is this: whatever your lot is in this life, there are people worse off than you, who know how to take this dreadful negative and make it a positive. All in all, things are never as bad as they first appear, because as Annie said, "The sun will come out tomorrow."
And we don't need to beat a drum to use another's misfortune to advance our agenda. It's just not the American way.
Right away, the crazies were out blaming global warming, climate change or whatever the politically correct term is to be used this week. Instead of trying to advance an agenda, we should all be concerned about helping the unfortunate people who lost their family members, their pets and their homes.
Right now, they could care less what caused the tornados. They are looking for help to figure out what has to be done to get their lives back in order. Quickly.
Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island wants to blame republicans for the tornado. That is just preposterous. The republicans are no more at fault for this than democrats are responsible for earthquakes. So let's get off that horse because it's not going to ride.
What are we as Americans going to do to help? Well, the people of Moore, OK have been helping their neighbors by digging through the rubble for anything that can be salvaged. The Red Cross once again has set up a number that you can text to in order to donate money. The President has declared the affected areas disaster areas and has sent in FEMA to analyze, assist and recommend what the needs are. The Governor is utilizing state resources to get this city back on its feet as quickly as possible.
The stories are so sad but the people are resilient. Instead of complaining and delving into self-pity, the townspeople are looking to a better day, a brighter future for themselves and their loved ones. We should all take a page from the Moore play book.
If there is one lesson here that can be the takeaway, it is this: whatever your lot is in this life, there are people worse off than you, who know how to take this dreadful negative and make it a positive. All in all, things are never as bad as they first appear, because as Annie said, "The sun will come out tomorrow."
And we don't need to beat a drum to use another's misfortune to advance our agenda. It's just not the American way.
Rehabilitation, Forgiveness and Redemption
Early this morning, Anthony Weiner of weinergate fame, announced via a You Tube video that he is running for Mayor of New York City. If he wins, he will inherit the office held by great mayors like Fiorello LaGuardia and Ed Koch, near greats like Rudy Guiliani, Robert Wagner and John Lindsay, and the not so greats like David Dinkins and Abe Beame.
Even without the events surrounding weinergate, the sexting of pictures of himself to several female Twitter followers, the circus surrounding the exposure of this information and his ultimate resignation from the Congress, his political sojourn to the nomination and possible election will be an uphill battle as his major opposition is Christine Quinn, the current Speaker of the New York City Council, the second most powerful position in the City after the Mayor. Other democratic candidates include Bill DeBlasio, Bill Thompson, Sal Albanese and John Liu.
In any case, this would be an uphill battle for Mr Weiner because of the political baggage he carries with him. As a Congressman from Queens and Brooklyn, he was a contentious person, often at odds with his colleagues, even with those who agreed with him. His angry, shrill and argumentative conduct in the House often pushed those who backed his positions away, as not to appear to agree with his demeanor. Even his most powerful supporter, Senator Charles Schumer, offered no comment during and after Mr Weiner's troubles that he brought on himself.
Since his resignation in June, 2011, he has maintained a low profile, instead becoming a house-husband to his wife, Huma Abedin, a senior aide to former SecState Hillary Clinton and a stay at home dad to their son, Jordan. He has made a few public appearances in an effort to rehabilitate his image, more so that his intransgression be treated as a
mistake in judgement, rather than a deep-seated personality trait.
Recently, another politician, Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina, who fell from grace due to an affair he had with a woman from Argentina while he was still married, was elected to the House to fill the seat left vacant when Tim Scott was appointed Senator to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Jim DeMint. Certainly, this appears to be forgiveness by the voters to Mr Sanford. Mr Weiner is an astute politician who knows whether he, too, can be forgiven by the voters.
The road to rehabilitation, forgiveness and redemption is long and hard for most people who are not in the public eye who live nondescript lives. This road is even tougher for public figures and politicians who rely on the favor of voters to keep their jobs. Anthony Weiner is just the latest politician looking to be redeemed and be forgiven. He thinks his banishment for the last two years has rehabilitated him.
The primary is in September. He has four months to prove it to the most critical judges of all, the voters of New York City. If he wins the primary, chances are he will win the election. Will he do it? Has he proven it? What is his fate?
It is really up to him. He has to show that he has learned humility over this time. If he doesn't, then he has learned nothing.
Let's give him the chance to show it. We would expect nothing less for ourselves.
Even without the events surrounding weinergate, the sexting of pictures of himself to several female Twitter followers, the circus surrounding the exposure of this information and his ultimate resignation from the Congress, his political sojourn to the nomination and possible election will be an uphill battle as his major opposition is Christine Quinn, the current Speaker of the New York City Council, the second most powerful position in the City after the Mayor. Other democratic candidates include Bill DeBlasio, Bill Thompson, Sal Albanese and John Liu.
In any case, this would be an uphill battle for Mr Weiner because of the political baggage he carries with him. As a Congressman from Queens and Brooklyn, he was a contentious person, often at odds with his colleagues, even with those who agreed with him. His angry, shrill and argumentative conduct in the House often pushed those who backed his positions away, as not to appear to agree with his demeanor. Even his most powerful supporter, Senator Charles Schumer, offered no comment during and after Mr Weiner's troubles that he brought on himself.
Since his resignation in June, 2011, he has maintained a low profile, instead becoming a house-husband to his wife, Huma Abedin, a senior aide to former SecState Hillary Clinton and a stay at home dad to their son, Jordan. He has made a few public appearances in an effort to rehabilitate his image, more so that his intransgression be treated as a
mistake in judgement, rather than a deep-seated personality trait.
Recently, another politician, Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina, who fell from grace due to an affair he had with a woman from Argentina while he was still married, was elected to the House to fill the seat left vacant when Tim Scott was appointed Senator to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Jim DeMint. Certainly, this appears to be forgiveness by the voters to Mr Sanford. Mr Weiner is an astute politician who knows whether he, too, can be forgiven by the voters.
The road to rehabilitation, forgiveness and redemption is long and hard for most people who are not in the public eye who live nondescript lives. This road is even tougher for public figures and politicians who rely on the favor of voters to keep their jobs. Anthony Weiner is just the latest politician looking to be redeemed and be forgiven. He thinks his banishment for the last two years has rehabilitated him.
The primary is in September. He has four months to prove it to the most critical judges of all, the voters of New York City. If he wins the primary, chances are he will win the election. Will he do it? Has he proven it? What is his fate?
It is really up to him. He has to show that he has learned humility over this time. If he doesn't, then he has learned nothing.
Let's give him the chance to show it. We would expect nothing less for ourselves.
The Legacy of 37
On August 8,1974, I, along with many other Americans, sat in front of my TV and listened as Richard Nixon said "therefore, I shall resign the presidency at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in at that time." Of all the words spoken by President Nixon in his 5 1/2 years as president, those were the most difficult to hear, as I am sure, the most difficult for him to say.
It doesn't matter whether you were a fan of Mr Nixon or hated him (as many on the left did, and still do); we all need to recognize that he accomplished many things that are still part of our personal lives and our political practices.
Yes, I know he presided over probably the most heinous scandal in American history to this point (the jury is still out on the current potential scandals). Yes, he abused power, but all presidents do at one level or another. They become drunk on the enormous power the office affords mere mortals. It doesn't make it right, but it explains how the office changes the man.
But the accomplishments are many that President Nixon achieved.
First, and foremost, he opened the bamboo curtain that was locked so tight that since 1949, China, who was our ally during WWII, had been our adversary since then. We fought proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam with China. And Mr Nixon was a deeply committed anti-communist.
In the words of Captain Spock said to Captain Kirk in Star Trek VI, "there's an old Vulcan proverb, 'only Nixon could go to China'." And he did in February, 1972. With that visit, he opened the doors to an important participant in geo-political transactions.
In May, 1972, he was the first president since FDR in 1945 to travel to the USSR, and did so to help reduce tensions between the two countries. That resulted in a "detente" that in one form or another has existed to this day.
He ended the Vietnam War, fulfilling a promise he made in 1968 when he campaigned for president. By April of 1973, almost all military and all known POWs were home.
Domestically, he virtually ended the draft and put in place the seeds for an all-volunteer military that exists today. He also created the EPA, which was established to protect our air, water and natural resources.
The last major piece of legislation that was proposed and passed when he was president, and signed into law by President Ford, was the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which created the IRA, SEP, 403b and 401k plans we enjoy today to help us save for our retirements.
So, when you think about Richard Nixon, while you will immediately think "Watergate" and all the negatives that word implies, think also about all the good things we enjoy because of his vision for a better America. In the end, history will look favorably on President Nixon's time in office.
As Monica Crowley and Bill Krystol said today, Barack Obama is no Richard Nixon. They are right.
It doesn't matter whether you were a fan of Mr Nixon or hated him (as many on the left did, and still do); we all need to recognize that he accomplished many things that are still part of our personal lives and our political practices.
Yes, I know he presided over probably the most heinous scandal in American history to this point (the jury is still out on the current potential scandals). Yes, he abused power, but all presidents do at one level or another. They become drunk on the enormous power the office affords mere mortals. It doesn't make it right, but it explains how the office changes the man.
But the accomplishments are many that President Nixon achieved.
First, and foremost, he opened the bamboo curtain that was locked so tight that since 1949, China, who was our ally during WWII, had been our adversary since then. We fought proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam with China. And Mr Nixon was a deeply committed anti-communist.
In the words of Captain Spock said to Captain Kirk in Star Trek VI, "there's an old Vulcan proverb, 'only Nixon could go to China'." And he did in February, 1972. With that visit, he opened the doors to an important participant in geo-political transactions.
In May, 1972, he was the first president since FDR in 1945 to travel to the USSR, and did so to help reduce tensions between the two countries. That resulted in a "detente" that in one form or another has existed to this day.
He ended the Vietnam War, fulfilling a promise he made in 1968 when he campaigned for president. By April of 1973, almost all military and all known POWs were home.
Domestically, he virtually ended the draft and put in place the seeds for an all-volunteer military that exists today. He also created the EPA, which was established to protect our air, water and natural resources.
The last major piece of legislation that was proposed and passed when he was president, and signed into law by President Ford, was the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which created the IRA, SEP, 403b and 401k plans we enjoy today to help us save for our retirements.
So, when you think about Richard Nixon, while you will immediately think "Watergate" and all the negatives that word implies, think also about all the good things we enjoy because of his vision for a better America. In the end, history will look favorably on President Nixon's time in office.
As Monica Crowley and Bill Krystol said today, Barack Obama is no Richard Nixon. They are right.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
I Don't Know
In the mid-1850s, there arose a nativist movement in the USA which discriminated against foreigners, Catholics and others who did not fit the mold of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) born here. They established a political party called the "Know-Nothing Party" and even nominated former President Millard Fillmore as its party's nominee for President in 1856.
This commentary, however, is not about immigration. Instead, it is about the current members of the Obama administration, including President Obama, whose favorite response is "I Don't Know".
When asked about "Fast and Furious", the administration's gun-running operation by the ATF, it's ultimate supervisor, Attorney-General Eric Holder said he knew nothing about it. When he was asked last week about the DoJ bugging of the APs phone lines, he said again that he knows nothing of it and recused himself from the process.
When the Acting Director of the IRS, Steven Miller, was asked how certain groups could be targeted by the IRS, his reply was the he didn't know, would have to find out, and would have to get the names.
When White House counsel, Kathryn Rummler was asked when she knew about the IRS issue, she forgot to tell the President about it until last week.
When Dan Pfeiffer was asked where the President was during the Benghazi attack, he said he didn't know which room he was in, and that besides, it was irrelevant where the president was.
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by the Congress what went wrong at Benghazi, before, during and after the attack, she said she didn't know, and besides, "at this point what difference does it make".
And finally, when President Obama was asked about all if this, his answer was that he didn't know about it, that he would find out, would get to the bottom of it, and those responsible would be held accountable and would be punished for their transgressions.
Really?
It is sad to think we have a group of people in the most senior positions of government, who are more inept than Sergeant Schultz, of "Hogan's Heroes" fame, whose most favorite line when asked a question was "I Know Nothing". It's frightening how sometimes life can imitate art, isn't it?
We certainly would not accept "I don't know" as an acceptable answer when we question our children, our spouses, our employees or employers about issues that concern us. Why would our government officials think we would accept that answer from them? I know I wouldn't.
And perhaps the appointment of a Special Prosecutor is now necessary to get to the bottom of all these issues. After all, nothing like being subpoenaed to appear before a Special Prosecutor helps jog memories of forgetful officials more.
It worked in 1973 and it might work now. Am I sure it will? I Don't Know, but it might.
This commentary, however, is not about immigration. Instead, it is about the current members of the Obama administration, including President Obama, whose favorite response is "I Don't Know".
When asked about "Fast and Furious", the administration's gun-running operation by the ATF, it's ultimate supervisor, Attorney-General Eric Holder said he knew nothing about it. When he was asked last week about the DoJ bugging of the APs phone lines, he said again that he knows nothing of it and recused himself from the process.
When the Acting Director of the IRS, Steven Miller, was asked how certain groups could be targeted by the IRS, his reply was the he didn't know, would have to find out, and would have to get the names.
When White House counsel, Kathryn Rummler was asked when she knew about the IRS issue, she forgot to tell the President about it until last week.
When Dan Pfeiffer was asked where the President was during the Benghazi attack, he said he didn't know which room he was in, and that besides, it was irrelevant where the president was.
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by the Congress what went wrong at Benghazi, before, during and after the attack, she said she didn't know, and besides, "at this point what difference does it make".
And finally, when President Obama was asked about all if this, his answer was that he didn't know about it, that he would find out, would get to the bottom of it, and those responsible would be held accountable and would be punished for their transgressions.
Really?
It is sad to think we have a group of people in the most senior positions of government, who are more inept than Sergeant Schultz, of "Hogan's Heroes" fame, whose most favorite line when asked a question was "I Know Nothing". It's frightening how sometimes life can imitate art, isn't it?
We certainly would not accept "I don't know" as an acceptable answer when we question our children, our spouses, our employees or employers about issues that concern us. Why would our government officials think we would accept that answer from them? I know I wouldn't.
And perhaps the appointment of a Special Prosecutor is now necessary to get to the bottom of all these issues. After all, nothing like being subpoenaed to appear before a Special Prosecutor helps jog memories of forgetful officials more.
It worked in 1973 and it might work now. Am I sure it will? I Don't Know, but it might.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The Freedom of the Press and Us
On Sunday, I was sitting at the lab waiting for my petscan and I was reading some of the comments made by Dan Pfeiffer on the Sunday shows. I came to the conclusion that he is either a liar or an idiot to think the people will accept his answers to very serious questions.
But then, I realized that he is only following his leader's example of placing blame on the person asking the question, making the statement or pressing for answers. Certainly, it seems to mirror the Nixonian attitude of hunkering down and stonewalling. And deceiving the American people under the guise of "national security".
Why doesn't the liberal press pursue this manipulation of it by the Obama administration. Could it be that the press is afraid of what it might find out? That the president reporters idolize and adore, might be the emperor without his clothes? That would be disconcerting and contrary to the message the press loves to deliver.
When Susan Rice told the story of the video and Benghazi that fateful Sunday in September, it seemed so fantastic that not only Fox and conservative media doggedly followed up on her claims, but serious liberal journalists like Kirsten Powers and even Carl Bernstein found it so unbelievable for the President to stand by it. Two hours after the President and Hillary Clinton stood in the Rose Garden to review the events of Benghazi, Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes interviewed him and tried to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened.
Today, Mr Pfeiffer is the new Susan Rice, trying to spin the IRS story and the AP debacle. It seemed the more he spoke, the deeper he dug the hole for the President to jump into. None of what he said makes sense to any fair-minded person. It now is apparent that the press needs to investigate all these stories and hold the President and the involved members of his administration accountable, as was done in the Watergate era.
The American people are watching their TVs, listening to their radios and reading their papers, either print or electronic, to see what transpires next in their government's actions and how the media will cover it. Americans reward fairness, even when the news is painful, because we are inherently a just people. Will the media step up to that challenge?
This just might be the week we either give kudos for honest reporting or lose faith in our press forever. The first amendment is waiting.
But then, I realized that he is only following his leader's example of placing blame on the person asking the question, making the statement or pressing for answers. Certainly, it seems to mirror the Nixonian attitude of hunkering down and stonewalling. And deceiving the American people under the guise of "national security".
Why doesn't the liberal press pursue this manipulation of it by the Obama administration. Could it be that the press is afraid of what it might find out? That the president reporters idolize and adore, might be the emperor without his clothes? That would be disconcerting and contrary to the message the press loves to deliver.
When Susan Rice told the story of the video and Benghazi that fateful Sunday in September, it seemed so fantastic that not only Fox and conservative media doggedly followed up on her claims, but serious liberal journalists like Kirsten Powers and even Carl Bernstein found it so unbelievable for the President to stand by it. Two hours after the President and Hillary Clinton stood in the Rose Garden to review the events of Benghazi, Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes interviewed him and tried to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened.
Today, Mr Pfeiffer is the new Susan Rice, trying to spin the IRS story and the AP debacle. It seemed the more he spoke, the deeper he dug the hole for the President to jump into. None of what he said makes sense to any fair-minded person. It now is apparent that the press needs to investigate all these stories and hold the President and the involved members of his administration accountable, as was done in the Watergate era.
The American people are watching their TVs, listening to their radios and reading their papers, either print or electronic, to see what transpires next in their government's actions and how the media will cover it. Americans reward fairness, even when the news is painful, because we are inherently a just people. Will the media step up to that challenge?
This just might be the week we either give kudos for honest reporting or lose faith in our press forever. The first amendment is waiting.
Friday, May 17, 2013
The IRS and Obamacare
Steven Miller, soon-to-be former Acting Commissioner of the IRS, sounded a lot like a mafia caporegime so far today, when his answers to Ways and Means committee members' questions were "I don't know", "I don't remember", "I have to find out", "I don't have the names".
He tried to shift and dodge like Muhammad Ali in the boxing ring at the end of his career, and looked just as bad. He kept trying to give non-answers to very serious questions, in order to waste a representative's time in parliamentary parlance. He looked like a taxpayer facing a serious audit by an aggressive agent.
Instead of taking blame for systemic problems within a bloated bureaucracy, he tried to blame agents for their eager to please unsupervised probes of applications for tax-exempt status by conservative organizations. He tried to act appalled by the inference that this action was politically motivated, but instead, came across as annoyed and smug that Members of Congress would dare to impugn his integrity.
This hearing today reveals several serious issues concerning the IRS, and the reason most people have a fear of it. In 1956, there was an episode of the TV show, The Honeymooners, where Ralph Kramden received a letter to come down to the local office to see an agent about a matter concerning his tax return. The whole episode revolved around his fear of some mistake that would be serious enough to warrant his appearance, all done in a humorous way. In the end, he was summoned because he didn't sign the return. And that is the fear the agency holds over the American people that is worse now than it was in the 50s.
Fast forward 57 years. This is the agency our health care will be subject to review and compliance. Perhaps, the Congress should rethink this piece of the PPACA (Obamacare) and delay implementation until the current problems surrounding the IRS are resolved.
Surely, when the law was written, no one in the Congress envisioned such a problematic concern for the compliance by such a bureaucracy. Or maybe, it was dumped there until something better was developed. In any case, it is apparent that this is now a bad idea.
Once the IRS controls our health care, there will be no turning back.
He tried to shift and dodge like Muhammad Ali in the boxing ring at the end of his career, and looked just as bad. He kept trying to give non-answers to very serious questions, in order to waste a representative's time in parliamentary parlance. He looked like a taxpayer facing a serious audit by an aggressive agent.
Instead of taking blame for systemic problems within a bloated bureaucracy, he tried to blame agents for their eager to please unsupervised probes of applications for tax-exempt status by conservative organizations. He tried to act appalled by the inference that this action was politically motivated, but instead, came across as annoyed and smug that Members of Congress would dare to impugn his integrity.
This hearing today reveals several serious issues concerning the IRS, and the reason most people have a fear of it. In 1956, there was an episode of the TV show, The Honeymooners, where Ralph Kramden received a letter to come down to the local office to see an agent about a matter concerning his tax return. The whole episode revolved around his fear of some mistake that would be serious enough to warrant his appearance, all done in a humorous way. In the end, he was summoned because he didn't sign the return. And that is the fear the agency holds over the American people that is worse now than it was in the 50s.
Fast forward 57 years. This is the agency our health care will be subject to review and compliance. Perhaps, the Congress should rethink this piece of the PPACA (Obamacare) and delay implementation until the current problems surrounding the IRS are resolved.
Surely, when the law was written, no one in the Congress envisioned such a problematic concern for the compliance by such a bureaucracy. Or maybe, it was dumped there until something better was developed. In any case, it is apparent that this is now a bad idea.
Once the IRS controls our health care, there will be no turning back.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Is It Really Happening AGAIN?
This has been a busy week in the United States, so busy that I am writing yet a fourth commentary of the goings on in Obamaland. Bloggers and would-be journalists, and yes, even real media types are falling over themselves and each other to comment on the new show on television, "As the White House Turns".
But just a reminder: this show was on TV back in the early 70s, and was cancelled on August 9, 1974, when in a fit of anger and melancholy, the star resigned suddenly because of a "disagreement" in style and substance with the producers and audience, AKA, the American people. His fans deserted him, to the point where the producers' representatives started to provide a list of grievances the producers had with the star and called it Articles of Impeachment.
So now, suddenly, White House Productions has decided 40 years later to try this show out to a new audience. Many of the same roles have been reprised and others have been combined to keep the cast smaller than in the original.
Unlike the original, which was a totally domestic production, the star and executive producer, Barry Obama, thought a foreign setting might add more drama to the show. So, the opening scene takes place at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, rather than at the Watergate Complex in Washington DC.
Barry plays the part of Richard Nixon, a petulant, arrogant, nasty individual who thinks the republicans are out to get him, unlike Nixon, who thought democrats were hounding him. Nixon also had a media who disdained him, whereas, Obama had an adoring press corps. In order to get the media to treat him like it treated Nixon, he had Eric Holder, playing the part of Attorney General John Mitchell, bug the offices of the Associated Press.
The White House lawyer role of John Dean was changed slightly to CIA Director David Petreaus. Mr Petreaus also played the role of military chief of forces in Afghanistan in the previews, but the fans loved him, so he was recast when the show came to DC for the new version. And whereas Dean was allegedly a happily married man to his wife, Maureen, when he resigned at the end of winter in '73, it was decided, that right after Election Day in 2012, Petreaus' character should resign because he had an affair with an assistant, giving this production the sexual tension and drama missing in the original.
Hillary Clinton is playing Spiro Agnew, Joe Biden is playing Gerry Ford and John Kerry is playing Henry Kissinger. The role of Haldeman is played by Rahm Emmanuel, Erlichman will be performed by David Plouffe or David Axelrod. Obama Productions is still casting that role.
And of course, the part of Ron Zeigler as Press Secretary, has been given to Jay Carney, who has auditioned for this role and has out-Zeiglered Zeigler in his recent interpretations.
We will see the emergence of the IRS as a player, as it was in the original. Talk radio and Fox News together will vie for the role of the Washington Post. Perhaps one of them will be offered the part of The New York Times. It depends on the production company's budget. Again, this is an opposite production of the original.
The FBI and CIA will have major roles in the emails and talking points, and will be misused by the Obama administration, similar to the misuse of these agencies outlined in the original Watergate tapes and transcripts.
We are awaiting the associate producer, the Speaker of the House to cast the role of the Senate Select Committee in his chamber. And John Roberts will play Warren Burger, should the show last that long.
Right now, this show is a spring and summer replacement. Let's hope it doesn't last as long as the original. That was painful to watch, as this is as well. Let's hope Mr Obama does not drag it out to save his own skin like Mr Nixon did.
We really don't want history to repeat itself, at least not like this.
But just a reminder: this show was on TV back in the early 70s, and was cancelled on August 9, 1974, when in a fit of anger and melancholy, the star resigned suddenly because of a "disagreement" in style and substance with the producers and audience, AKA, the American people. His fans deserted him, to the point where the producers' representatives started to provide a list of grievances the producers had with the star and called it Articles of Impeachment.
So now, suddenly, White House Productions has decided 40 years later to try this show out to a new audience. Many of the same roles have been reprised and others have been combined to keep the cast smaller than in the original.
Unlike the original, which was a totally domestic production, the star and executive producer, Barry Obama, thought a foreign setting might add more drama to the show. So, the opening scene takes place at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, rather than at the Watergate Complex in Washington DC.
Barry plays the part of Richard Nixon, a petulant, arrogant, nasty individual who thinks the republicans are out to get him, unlike Nixon, who thought democrats were hounding him. Nixon also had a media who disdained him, whereas, Obama had an adoring press corps. In order to get the media to treat him like it treated Nixon, he had Eric Holder, playing the part of Attorney General John Mitchell, bug the offices of the Associated Press.
The White House lawyer role of John Dean was changed slightly to CIA Director David Petreaus. Mr Petreaus also played the role of military chief of forces in Afghanistan in the previews, but the fans loved him, so he was recast when the show came to DC for the new version. And whereas Dean was allegedly a happily married man to his wife, Maureen, when he resigned at the end of winter in '73, it was decided, that right after Election Day in 2012, Petreaus' character should resign because he had an affair with an assistant, giving this production the sexual tension and drama missing in the original.
Hillary Clinton is playing Spiro Agnew, Joe Biden is playing Gerry Ford and John Kerry is playing Henry Kissinger. The role of Haldeman is played by Rahm Emmanuel, Erlichman will be performed by David Plouffe or David Axelrod. Obama Productions is still casting that role.
And of course, the part of Ron Zeigler as Press Secretary, has been given to Jay Carney, who has auditioned for this role and has out-Zeiglered Zeigler in his recent interpretations.
We will see the emergence of the IRS as a player, as it was in the original. Talk radio and Fox News together will vie for the role of the Washington Post. Perhaps one of them will be offered the part of The New York Times. It depends on the production company's budget. Again, this is an opposite production of the original.
The FBI and CIA will have major roles in the emails and talking points, and will be misused by the Obama administration, similar to the misuse of these agencies outlined in the original Watergate tapes and transcripts.
We are awaiting the associate producer, the Speaker of the House to cast the role of the Senate Select Committee in his chamber. And John Roberts will play Warren Burger, should the show last that long.
Right now, this show is a spring and summer replacement. Let's hope it doesn't last as long as the original. That was painful to watch, as this is as well. Let's hope Mr Obama does not drag it out to save his own skin like Mr Nixon did.
We really don't want history to repeat itself, at least not like this.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
It's Not The Deed, It's the Lie...
Teapot Dome, packing the court, Tonkin Gulf, Watergate, Iran Contra, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky. These were all scandals in the 20th century that defined some of the presidencies during that era.
In the case of Teapot Dome, President Harding died before the full weight of the scandal hit. FDR realized his error and abandoned his goal of packing the Supreme Court with people more similar to his ideological beliefs. President Johnson deceived the Congress in granting him virtually absolute power to fight in Vietnam.
Watergate was a word that not only revealed that President Nixon covered up a third rate burglary, but exposed all the nefarious activity members of his administration committed, certainly with his knowledge but also, in many circumstances, with his consent. And because he seriously broke the trust of the American people, he was forced to resign his office.
The purpose of Iran Contra was to trade arms for seven American prisoners. While the trading of arms was prohibited by the Congress, speculation that President Reagan knew all the details has been disputed. In November, 1986, he took to the airwaves, assumed responsibility for his senior administration officials' zeal and stupidity, and asked for forgiveness. We did and he was able to successfully complete his term. He passed into history as one of the top Presidents this country had.
A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate President Clinton's involvement with an Arkansas savings and loan's joint venture activity with the purchase and development of the area around the Whitewater region of that state. While the investigation revealed that neither the President nor Hillary Clinton did anything wrong, other questionable, personal problems did arise.
Mr Clinton initially claimed that he had not done anything improper with an intern and said so to a grand jury anc inca statement to the American people, he took stock of what he had done to his presidency and decided to tell the truth. But by the time he did, the House of Representatives drew up articles of impeachment due to his commission of perjury. This matter went to the Senate, which via an overwhelming bipartisan vote, found him not guilty. He too, was able to successfully complete his term of office. He is held in higher regard now by members of both parties, than he ever was as president.
Which brings us to President Obama. Presently, he is embroiled in several issues, any one of which could topple his Presidency, or at a minimum, make his remaining years a failure. He is a prideful man, who has issues admitting wrongdoing or apologizing, and prefers to blame others for his mistakes.
But as Reagan and Clinton have shown, if you apologize, the people may be annoyed with you, but will forgive you. To his detriment, Nixon did not, and was forced in the end to resign.
Which option will Mr Obama choose? In the end, it is his choice to make and the decision he makes will determine the outcome of his presidency. If he wants to have a successful legacy, he must realize his time remaining to apologize is growing short. Does he think by not apologizing, his fate will be different than Nixon's?
Only his pride knows for sure.
In the case of Teapot Dome, President Harding died before the full weight of the scandal hit. FDR realized his error and abandoned his goal of packing the Supreme Court with people more similar to his ideological beliefs. President Johnson deceived the Congress in granting him virtually absolute power to fight in Vietnam.
Watergate was a word that not only revealed that President Nixon covered up a third rate burglary, but exposed all the nefarious activity members of his administration committed, certainly with his knowledge but also, in many circumstances, with his consent. And because he seriously broke the trust of the American people, he was forced to resign his office.
The purpose of Iran Contra was to trade arms for seven American prisoners. While the trading of arms was prohibited by the Congress, speculation that President Reagan knew all the details has been disputed. In November, 1986, he took to the airwaves, assumed responsibility for his senior administration officials' zeal and stupidity, and asked for forgiveness. We did and he was able to successfully complete his term. He passed into history as one of the top Presidents this country had.
A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate President Clinton's involvement with an Arkansas savings and loan's joint venture activity with the purchase and development of the area around the Whitewater region of that state. While the investigation revealed that neither the President nor Hillary Clinton did anything wrong, other questionable, personal problems did arise.
Mr Clinton initially claimed that he had not done anything improper with an intern and said so to a grand jury anc inca statement to the American people, he took stock of what he had done to his presidency and decided to tell the truth. But by the time he did, the House of Representatives drew up articles of impeachment due to his commission of perjury. This matter went to the Senate, which via an overwhelming bipartisan vote, found him not guilty. He too, was able to successfully complete his term of office. He is held in higher regard now by members of both parties, than he ever was as president.
Which brings us to President Obama. Presently, he is embroiled in several issues, any one of which could topple his Presidency, or at a minimum, make his remaining years a failure. He is a prideful man, who has issues admitting wrongdoing or apologizing, and prefers to blame others for his mistakes.
But as Reagan and Clinton have shown, if you apologize, the people may be annoyed with you, but will forgive you. To his detriment, Nixon did not, and was forced in the end to resign.
Which option will Mr Obama choose? In the end, it is his choice to make and the decision he makes will determine the outcome of his presidency. If he wants to have a successful legacy, he must realize his time remaining to apologize is growing short. Does he think by not apologizing, his fate will be different than Nixon's?
Only his pride knows for sure.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Quick Justice and Good Riddance
Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias. Two names that have become synonymous with the most horrible elements of human nature. One is accused of kidnapping, imprisoning and raping three young, innocent women for the last decade. The other was found guilty of a brutal murder of her so-called boyfriend a half decade ago.
Presently, both are in jail awaiting the next phase of their criminal proceedings; Castro for his trial, Arias for her sentencing. Neither will be released for any reason at this or at any other time.
Looking at the coverage today, it looked like both are filled with remorse and shame for their actions. Or is it self-pity for being caught in their dastardly deeds? After all, Jodi says in an interview that she won't appeal the death penalty and Ariel tried to hide his face in the front of his windbreaker.
No matter, their crimes will come down to life without parole or death. As I have discussed in earlier columns, "Death... Or Revenge" and "What Is A Life Worth", I am not a believer of the state enforcing the death penalty. I firmly believe that life without parole is a more severe penalty, since the guilty party gets to live with the burden of his crime into old age.
It has come to light that both individuals are on suicide watch. It is the state's responsibility to make every effort that no harm come to its charge, whether by another or, him or herself. Hence, the suicide watches.
It was reported today that Arias' sentencing phase will be delayed until next Wednesday and the prosecutor has promised a swift investigation and trial for Castro. Good! We really don't want to prolong either of these miscreants to have longer media coverage than necessary.
So, how long now will the media continue to cover these narcissistic fools? My hope is that it will not be as long as it covered Casey Anthony, or either of the Peterson murderers.
I am tired of the incessant coverage of the worst in human nature. Aren't you?
Presently, both are in jail awaiting the next phase of their criminal proceedings; Castro for his trial, Arias for her sentencing. Neither will be released for any reason at this or at any other time.
Looking at the coverage today, it looked like both are filled with remorse and shame for their actions. Or is it self-pity for being caught in their dastardly deeds? After all, Jodi says in an interview that she won't appeal the death penalty and Ariel tried to hide his face in the front of his windbreaker.
No matter, their crimes will come down to life without parole or death. As I have discussed in earlier columns, "Death... Or Revenge" and "What Is A Life Worth", I am not a believer of the state enforcing the death penalty. I firmly believe that life without parole is a more severe penalty, since the guilty party gets to live with the burden of his crime into old age.
It has come to light that both individuals are on suicide watch. It is the state's responsibility to make every effort that no harm come to its charge, whether by another or, him or herself. Hence, the suicide watches.
It was reported today that Arias' sentencing phase will be delayed until next Wednesday and the prosecutor has promised a swift investigation and trial for Castro. Good! We really don't want to prolong either of these miscreants to have longer media coverage than necessary.
So, how long now will the media continue to cover these narcissistic fools? My hope is that it will not be as long as it covered Casey Anthony, or either of the Peterson murderers.
I am tired of the incessant coverage of the worst in human nature. Aren't you?
Thursday, May 9, 2013
What Is a Life Worth?
There are days when one news story dominates the day, and then there are days when one news story trumps the other important stories, which by themselves, would dominate an otherwise quiet news day. Wednesday was such a day.
First, there was the ongoing Benghazi Hearings in the Congress. Three witnesses came forward to contradict the Obama Administration's narrative of the events of September 11, 2012. To be sure, this will not be the last hearing on this matter. And chances are, senior administration officials, both past and present, will be subpoenaed to "clarify" statements made previously during the various investigations.
Next, the Cleveland kidnapping of three girls found on Monday after 10 years would be a dominating story. The fact that the prosecutor announced that only one of the brothers will be accused and indicted was news by itself. But this story, too, will wait for another day.
Then, the Gosnell abortion case, which has dominated the news of late, would be a case we would follow since the jury is deliberating the evidence. But, alas, the jury was sent home around 4pm for the day since no verdict was reached. Tomorrow, of course, will be here soon enough.
Finally, the jury deliberating the Jodi Arias case, came to a verdict at around 445pm ET, and found Ms Arias guilty of first degree murder. The penalty phase will begin tomorrow, and the choices are life without parole or death.
Vengeance is a human emotion that lies deep within our DNA, and because of our different nature from other animals and primates, we alone as a species can feel the need to obtain our revenge when we decide an injustice has been perpetrated.
Immediately, our barbaric instinct is to call for the death of the guilty one, since this satisfies our need for instant gratification. Since Ms Arias killed her boyfriend, some would feel that the punishment fits the crime. Perhaps.
But to me, the greater punishment would be life without parole in solitary confinement. As a social species, we yearn for, desire, insist upon intervention with others, as it brings joy and comfort to our souls. Being deprived of that human contact is more painful to our psyche than knowing we could be put to death.
The death penalty today is humane and physically painless, with injection rather than hanging or electrocution as the means of finality. Basically, you go to sleep and never wake up. And don't live a life of regret for your crime against another human being.
Jodi Arias was found guilty of a horrible crime, depriving Travis Alexander of his life and the love his family members felt from his presence in their lives. They will forever be living with a sense of loss and sadness, with varying degrees of remorse and sorrow. Her punishment should be as severe.
The jury should find for life without parole for Jodi Arias. Then she would know the pain and agony Travis' family feels today. Knowing that her life could be spent in a prison cell has to be as painful to her psyche as much as it is to Travis' family.
Let's hope so.
First, there was the ongoing Benghazi Hearings in the Congress. Three witnesses came forward to contradict the Obama Administration's narrative of the events of September 11, 2012. To be sure, this will not be the last hearing on this matter. And chances are, senior administration officials, both past and present, will be subpoenaed to "clarify" statements made previously during the various investigations.
Next, the Cleveland kidnapping of three girls found on Monday after 10 years would be a dominating story. The fact that the prosecutor announced that only one of the brothers will be accused and indicted was news by itself. But this story, too, will wait for another day.
Then, the Gosnell abortion case, which has dominated the news of late, would be a case we would follow since the jury is deliberating the evidence. But, alas, the jury was sent home around 4pm for the day since no verdict was reached. Tomorrow, of course, will be here soon enough.
Finally, the jury deliberating the Jodi Arias case, came to a verdict at around 445pm ET, and found Ms Arias guilty of first degree murder. The penalty phase will begin tomorrow, and the choices are life without parole or death.
Vengeance is a human emotion that lies deep within our DNA, and because of our different nature from other animals and primates, we alone as a species can feel the need to obtain our revenge when we decide an injustice has been perpetrated.
Immediately, our barbaric instinct is to call for the death of the guilty one, since this satisfies our need for instant gratification. Since Ms Arias killed her boyfriend, some would feel that the punishment fits the crime. Perhaps.
But to me, the greater punishment would be life without parole in solitary confinement. As a social species, we yearn for, desire, insist upon intervention with others, as it brings joy and comfort to our souls. Being deprived of that human contact is more painful to our psyche than knowing we could be put to death.
The death penalty today is humane and physically painless, with injection rather than hanging or electrocution as the means of finality. Basically, you go to sleep and never wake up. And don't live a life of regret for your crime against another human being.
Jodi Arias was found guilty of a horrible crime, depriving Travis Alexander of his life and the love his family members felt from his presence in their lives. They will forever be living with a sense of loss and sadness, with varying degrees of remorse and sorrow. Her punishment should be as severe.
The jury should find for life without parole for Jodi Arias. Then she would know the pain and agony Travis' family feels today. Knowing that her life could be spent in a prison cell has to be as painful to her psyche as much as it is to Travis' family.
Let's hope so.