Meanderthal

Priority and Punishment

Here is my latest column in the CityView magazine.  The link is to the published version and the text is what I submitted.  I haven't actually noticed any differences.

CAFKIA

http://cityviewmag.com/departments/dupree/327-dupree--punishment-vs-perspective.html

In my early years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, I was somewhat of a screw up.  It didn't really start there but that was where it manifested and became obvious to anyone who cared to look.  It wasn't anything intentional I was doing to screw up my job.  No, it was more of a problem of self-confidence.  On my communications watch section in Rota, Spain, we had approximately 27 sailors.  I think there were six of us who did not have college degrees and at least a couple of the six had at least gone to college.  Only about four of us had never gone past high school.  As a matter of fact, there were more sailors with advanced degrees than there were with no college at all on my watch section.  It was the tail end of Vietnam and there were still a lot of guys on active duty who had joined the Navy rather than depend on their luck with the draft lottery.  As one of the "uneducated" I had rather severe feelings of inadequacy that were to all appearances, not completely undeserved.  My primary means of dealing with these feelings was to do individualized scientific research into the capacity of a given human body to metabolize increasing amounts of barley derived alcohol.  I can't remember what the results were.

The thing was, in my mind, I had equated education with intelligence, a mistake that someone as smart as I should not have made.  From a strict intelligence standpoint, I had all the potential in the world and there were certainly plenty of people who either were or had been in my life that had told me that very thing.  Of course, I thought I was doing all I could and whatever potential they were seeing was an illusion I had created.

So anyway, I screwed up.  I have no memory what the specific thing was that I did or didn't do that particular time but, it earned me a trip to the Master Chief's office.  In the USN, Master Chief is the highest of the enlisted ranks (E-9).  It is a position that few, if any, achieve by accident, subterfuge, or favoritism.  It requires that one be proficient in one's job field as well as a proven leader and manager.  They also have typically been in the Navy 18+ years.  They may not know every trick in the book but bullshitting them was not an easy thing to do.  The use of profanity in the Navy is legendary as evidenced by the common phrase "cuss like a sailor".  The average Master Chief was above average in their ability to spew sustained bursts of incredibly creative invective.  So I knew what was coming when I was sent to see the Master Chief.  I knew that I had screwed up and I knew that I was in for a royal ass chewing.  Really, it would be somewhat cathartic, he would yell, cuss, insult and exhort me to never again be brave enough to screwup while he was in charge.  I would be a little humiliated and maybe even get some looks and/or words of sympathy from other sailors but, that would be the end of it.  That would be my punishment.  So I walked into the Master Chief's office "knowing" what was about to happen and yea, sure I was dreading it but, I was looking forward to being done with it.  It turns out, he was using a completely different playbook.

I walked in and stood at attention and he said in a quiet voice "Have a seat Steve".  He paused as if collecting his thoughts and then quietly continued "Steve, you have really disappointed me."  He went on in that vein for perhaps ten or fifteen minutes.  He never raised his voice and no profanity was used inside that office.  He told me why he was so disappointed and that he knew I was capable of better.  By the time I left his office, I was practically crying.  I had been blindsided, caught unawares.  I didn't see it then but, that was a turning point for me.  For some reason I never understood, CTOCM Norm Champagne's expression of knowledge that I could do better, that I was smart enough to do anything, "took" when similar expressions from relatives, teachers, and other supervisors had left no real impression.  I got much better at my job.  By the time I left the Navy several years later, many expressed the opinion that I was the best in the job at E-5 and below. (at E-6 you really move more into a management thing)

At that time, I didn't really think about what he had done or how but, I have been thinking about it a lot lately.  Apparently, he didn't think it was important that I be punished.  He had a mission to support.  What was important to him was that I function in the capacity that was designated.  So rather than focus his energy on punishing me, he focused on changing my behavior and/or attitude.  He didn't worry about his reputation or image as a Master Chief, he wanted his crew to work and he wanted to make sure that the taxpayer money spent training me, and the experience I already had, were not wasted.

It is not news to anyone that reads me or knows me that I am no fan of the previous White House administration.  I have loudly and vehemently expressed my opinion that Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Libby, and others were guilty of criminal behavior and should be severely punished. My memories of the transformative experience described above will not change that opinion but, I no longer think it is especially important.  It is not where I think the lion's share of the nation's energy needs to be expended.  We do need to learn from the mistakes.  We need to make sure that the national experience is not for naught. We need to act on the idea that ensuring the health of the nation is more important than punishing those I perceive as having injured it.

I'm not ready to say we should just move on but, I think I understand why the current executive is not making issuing punishment a priority for his administration.

A Modest Proposal re:Stem Cells

How about we have a liberal/progressive NGO, setup and maintain a server that holds the sworn statements of all those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research that they reject and refuse all medical treatments derived in whole or in part from embryonic stem cell research. True believers could then cement their status as such by submitting their names and affidavits to the NGO for inclusion on the server.

So what say those in opposition? Would you be willing right now to forswear any and all medical treatments so derived, in perpetuity? If not, why should I not consider that position hypocritical? What would be the reason for not making such a sworn statement for you and your families?

Would this not be the way to let the market decide? If enough people signed up to refuse those treatments, they would be obviously not profitable and would be abandoned. Or, could it be that there is a reason not to trust market forces?

If it is set up as I describe in my opening paragraph, then there is no cost to the tax system and no cost to the (mythical) honest conservative who believes strongly enough to back their words with their body, their breath.  No one would be forced but the list would of necessity be publicly accessible.  No persecution, no coercion, no punishment for declining, only the public knowledge of who is and isn't of sufficient character to add substance to their rhetoric.

Any takers?

CAFKIA

A Question of Intent

August 2009 CityView opinion piece

I wrote the piece quoted below for CityView before the nation's economy went completely to crap. (Or at least before we realized that it had.)  Looking back on it, I am even more of a mind to doubt the completely incidental nature of the downturn.  However, as an amateur student of Complexity, I also doubt that anyone anticipated the current situation.  I am increasingly of the opinion that what we did to the Soviets was done to us.  I think that whatever entity or entities responsible were successful exponentially beyond their wildest dreams.  I have no proof, but I also have very little faith in coincidence at this level.  If by some chance this really was all an accident, then we still need to be prepared for some ill-intentioned individual as smart as I am to exploit the potential.

CAFKIA

Let us briefly revisit the good ol' days of the Cold War.  Specifically, let's discuss the end of the Cold War.  Republicans are sure that St Archangel Ronnie of Raygun was the architect and contractor of the fall of the Berlin wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union through his policy of talking tough and checking his horoscope with his wife.  Intelligent people know that the fall and breakup were the cause of a complex set of happenings that crossed several executive administrations over decades.  However, the process may be arguably distilled to the idea that through our national and allied policies, we, the USA, induced the Soviet Union and her allies, to spend in preparation for war in such a fashion that their economies could not support.  Rather obviously, there was a significant sociological component to that as well but, it was the economic aspect of it that we notice mostly.  Ever more complex and expensive weapons systems and monitoring equipment along with the requisite training to operate them were at the core of the upheaval.

Even though Americans refuse to learn from our own history, others appear to not be so constrained.

I really am not a numbers guy.  I suppose that if I really tried I could find a fair approximation of the costs of the things I'm about to mention but, in truth, if the approximations don't do it for you, I very much doubt that the actual numbers will.  Imagine the costs to set up and operate a totally new cabinet level bureaucracy.  How many tens or hundreds of billions has the Office of Homeland Security cost us so far?  I'm only speaking initially about the start-up costs, stationary, offices, furniture, computers, folders, vehicles etc.  Then we have to consider the additional salaries, equipment maintenance, bldg maintenance, utilities, fuel, lawyers and Gawd only knows what.  Homeland Security Department was an undertaking that only a government could afford from the very beginning.  Imagine then, other places that money might be useful were it not tied up in a brand new bureaucracy.

Then you have to look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The vehicle costs alone represent the GNP of a moderate sized nation.  Estimates range as high as $1.5 trillion + (1,500,000,000,000.00 plus) as the cost so far.  The costs in human lives simply can't be quantified as the only way to know the real potential of a given human is to wait and see what they do.  We do know that the wars have cost several nations an unacceptable number of their "best and brightest".  Not just by killing them but, also by removing the motivation and or ability for huge numbers of citizens to fully participate in their societies. 

There are other costs of course.  The straining of civility between political parties, the strain on existing treaties and agreements, and the strain on scientific and industrial working agreements.  A hack like me has no chance of even coming up with a number but, that doesn't mean there isn't a monetary hit associated with those things.  I rather suspect that the number would be a surprisingly large (would Daimler and Chrysler still be together if German citizens had faith in the intentions of the U.S. and if we could get past the lack of verbal and material support for our ill-considered venture in Iraq) number.  There has certainly been a diminishment of faith in the objectiveness of the Dept. of Justice.  The opinions concerning torture alone that were written by politically motivated lawyers are a major source of bad faith in that department and the nation at large by our own citizens of a different political persuasion and by citizens of other nations as well.  Our very image of ourselves as the good guys, the white hats, is clearly at risk.

So, let's say you are a small, minimally-funded concern who is in opposition to a large well funded concern.  What if you had a strategy which was basically to level the fiscal playing field by forcing your opponent to spend huge amounts of their funds.  What might the reality of your strategy look like?  It would look like the current United States of America.  From overtime pay for run of the mill local cops, to additional equipment and training for swat teams and explosive ordinance disposal teams, to Transportation Security Officers, to additional responsibilities on state Bureau's of Investigation, increased incidents requiring reaction from the FBI, to all of the costs I noted above, every time a possible or suspected terrorist does anything, it costs us money.  How long can we keep it up?  Who knows?  I for one, would not be completely surprised if these expenditures weren't the goal from the very beginning.  You see, "Make them spend all their money." isn't a particularly complicated or original plan or concept and, it doesn't take a mastermind to come up with it.

It does help to have a large crew of complicit idiots in the target concern to make the plan work really well

At A Loss

First, let me just say that in the whole scheme of things, this just aint the most important issue of the day.  Second, even if it is the screw up that I and many others think it is, it will not cause me to withdraw my support.

All of that not withstanding, I am at a complete loss to comprehend or explain what was going through Barack Obama's mind when he chose a hate monger to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.  I sincerely hope that he did not intend the incredible insult he delivered to the LGBT "community" who were huge supporters of his.

I have tried to rationalize the choice of Rick Warren to myself.  I understand that BO wants to reach out to the evangelical community.  I understand that he is playing a political longview game.  It is just that there were/are many routes that he could have chosen that would not have directly and completely offended a group that supported him early and actively.  While his victory was unambiguous, his political structure is not developed enough that it can withstand the removal of an integral and significant part of the foundation. 

Barack Obama has shown that he has truly impressive political instincts.  Perhaps there is something here that I just do not see but for right now. I'm at a loss to understand this.

CAFKIA

Team Obama

The possible strategy behind the picks.

Finally, we have unity between conservatives and progressives.  Unfortunately it is a unity based either in stupidity or deceitfulness.

Both sides are tripping all over themselves to criticize Obama's picks for his cabinet and advisers.  Progressives in particular seem to be livid that moderates figure so prominently and conservatives, who want change less than they want a salt filled straw in the eye, are falling all over themselves pointing out that Obama's picks seem to be at odds with his campaign mantra of "change".  One side is being incredibly shortsighted and the other is being blatantly disingenuous.  Both are being patently ridiculous.

Barack Obama will face challenges upon taking the oath like no president in recent times has seen and possibly, no president ever.  I certainly have no contact with or special insight to the Obama mindset but, it is obvious what he is doing.  Given the current economic crisis and the wars that have so far been idiotically prosecuted, team Obama will have to hit the ground running.  Among the things he wants to avoid are contentious and drawn out confirmation hearings.  He also simply does not have the time to wait for an entire crew of fresh minded Washington outsiders to learn the whos, whys, and hows of the Washington system.  It is almost an impossibility that many of today's picks will not start to need to spend more time with their families in two years or whenever things start to get better.  I fully expect them to be replaced with those who would be considered outsiders today.  They will be working for current picks and/or will have been apprised of their position on the list and will have been given study materials plus, they will not all start at once.  It would be irresponsible, even if it were possible, to institute al the desired change at once.  It must be instituted over time.

However, all of that is pretty much secondary.  There is an old saying that "the fish stinks from the head".  The Clinton appointees will not do as they did under Bill Clinton.  They will have the knowledge and experience but they will have a leader with a a different agenda.  What seems to be forgotten is that Bush did not hire stupid people to work for him.  He hired smart people(of perhaps questionable moral character) and he led them to do stupid things.  The fish stinks from the head.  Anyone who doubts that Barack Obama could take the exact same crew who helped bush screw the nation and achieve significantly different and positive results is simply not paying attention.

So what say we give Obama a chance to lead.  What say we withhold judgment until we have some evidence.  It may be that he can't fix this but then, it may be that no one or group can fix this.  For sure his chances will not be improved by building his team entirely out of rookies.

CAFKIA

You Deserve This

I absolutely deplore commercials for consumer products or services that begin with "You deserve...".  It is pandering.  It is of dubius veracity.  And quite frequently, I have no use, need, or want for the products or services they claim "I deserve"  Very annoying.

CAFKIA

High Class Relief

Today, many in the nation breathe easier.  For many of us, we believe that the end of the incredibly inane and mismanaged war-like action in Iraq is at hand.  Others may have reason for hope that the age of universal health care is possible.  Still others may hope for a new era of environmental responsibility.  Racism might be seriously diminished.  The days of systemic disenfranchisement of immigrants and minorities might get shorter.

Yes, there is something in the Obama victory for nearly everyone that is honest with themselves.  However, one person in the nation is more relieved than all the rest.  It is my considered opinion that Cindy McCain had significantly less than no interest at all in being First Lady.  She wanted that scrutiny like a heroin addict wants an aquarium.  Having grown up in gated neighborhoods where any access to her was on her terms, I find it extremely unlikely that she was looking forward to several years of considering what people whose opinions she cared nothing about might think of what she did prior to doing it.

I'll just bet that whenever John isn't looking, she giggles to herself in relief. (Although she may feel a little guilty about voting for Obama.)  I suspect she will have some shopping brought to her.

CAFKIA

Veteran For Obama

Allow me to make this statement as unambiguous as I can.  I am a ten year veteran of the U.S. Navy.  I joined voluntarily at the tail end of the Vietnam war (June 1973).  I am not a fan of John McCain.  I do NOT appreciate his votes on veterans issues.  I will not, NOT vote for John McCain.  I am in touch with an number of other veterans of various periods online and in person.  The overwhelming majority of those veterans are opposed to the idea of John McCain as POTUS. 

Towards the end of the 9/26/08 debate McCain said:

The veterans know me and love me, and I love them. I'll take care of them.

That statement reaches well beyond the bounds of truth and is itself, indicative of just how much John McCain doesn't know.

TWO OPTIONS

I suppose there is an actual chance that John McCain and his rogues gallery of campaign advisors really did not have any thoughts of race or racism in their minds with the Paris Hilton/Brittney Spears reference.  That happenstance would be more upsetting than if they did.  If they truly got a room full of allegedly intelligent people together and came up with and/or approved that ad with no one, NO ONE able to see how it might be taken as having racial intent by a significant percentage of people, it does not bode well for his ability to analyze complex situations nor does it speak well of their ability to effectively advise Mr. McBush.  Were they afraid to tell him truths that he didn't want to hear? Did they discuss it but, decided that the concerns of Blacks and Liberals were of no consequense?

Well Senator McSame, which will it be, are you cluelessly racist or maliciously racist?

Comical Ignorance

Except it isn't funny.  Pitiful perhaps, dangerous maybe but, funny it aint.  "It" is the response of the reich-wing bloviators I half heard on CNN late at night responding to General Wesley Clark's well considered denunciation of the idea of flying and/or crashing a fighter plane as qualifying one for the job of POTUS.  I suppose it will come as a shock to no thinking person that General Clark is waaaaaayyy more likely to be right when it comes to military issues than the chickenhawk guild.  However, there are a couple of points worth expanding.

In the USN, unless you are the CO or XO of a squadron, a pilot is in command of nothing.  (S)He does not lead men and flying is not generally considered a command path.  Even the term/job "plane captain" does not refer to the pilot but instead, to the enlisted (wo)man who has the responsibility for just damn near everything on the bird except when it is actually in flight.  Yes, pilots are officers but, few of them turn out to be leaders.  Their training focuses on what they can do to avoid costing the U.S. and USN a shitload of money by giving gravity primary control of an airborne plane.(Such training apparently did not take with McSame as evidenced by his time as a POW.)  They also receive some training on delivering death, destruction and mayhem on command.  As a general rule, with acknowledged exceptions, O3 and below flyboys know less about leadership and command than your average E6 and up.  Yea, sure the E6 will have to salute the O3 but that is more tradition and general orders than it is respect.

"Line" officers are the command path officers.  They learn to drive boats and head up divisions on a ship and they cross train in a lot of different shit.  In running a division, they will be the leader of the enlisted men who make up that division (if the Chief lets them) and they can dream of their own command.  Interestingly enough, John Kerry was a line officer with command experience.  When he was being unfairly dissed and outright lied about by veteran and chickenhawk alike, such experience wasn't especially valuable to the GOP.  Even to the point of the rank and file rethugs making graphic fun of Purple Heart earners at the national convention. 

In short Barack Obama has just as much command experience as John McSame.  Both have "commanded" political campaigns.  It is comical ignorance indeed to believe that all military service is the same or that all military jobs are command prep.  But, these comically misinformed  individuals have huge misinformed audiences.  Even worse, none of them seem to even want to know the truth.  The relevant truth here is that Clark is right.  Flying and/or crashing airplanes is in no way, shape, form, or fashion, suitable or significant preparation for the job of POTUS.  Serving as a POW does not give one special insight into how to prosecute a war or, how to lead the nation in times of peace.  Physical suffering for one's nation does not entitle one to high political office.  It just doesn't.

I interacted with a lot of officers during my time in the military and, like just damn near any other enlisted puke, I learned to size them up pretty quickly.  If I was being recalled into the military tomorrow and I had to choose one of the two presidential candidates to be the officer I reported to, the nation would be in trouble because with my life on the line, I would pick the intelligent, analytical, clear-headed, quick thinking one of the two.  I'd pick Obama.

CAFKIA

cross posted to the American Patriot Institute

Debate, Discuss, Disagree

When Bush the smarter was running against Bill Clinton I made some observations I find interesting and relevant in the current presidential campaign.  During the GOP convention, every time a reporter would interview anyone, they appeared to be being really careful to stick with the party line.  The party planks were gospel and they agreed with anything Bush said.  Then came the Dem convention and it seemed as if every person interviewed made a point of telling what they disagreed with BC on and how they thought that he was the best choice anyway. 

The GOP attitude made me really nervous and I was much relieved when BC was announced the winner of the election.  I very much like the idea of a prez whose advisors are not afraid to give an honest opinion and/or disagree with their leader's assessment of a given situation.  I want there to be open and honest debate and discussion in the Whitehouse.  Yes, a leader has to know when to make a decision and sometimes, said leader must decide in opposition to advice (s)he has gotten.  But the leader must have as complete a picture as possible if they are to make good decisions.

I disagree with Barack Obama on some issues.  I have since I started paying attention to him.  I actually find some comfort in that.  Were I to completely agree with him I would doubt my own objectivity.  It would make it uncomfortable in the least and, most likely impossible to share my opinion.  I don't want Prez Obama to have an Amen Chorus and if he does, I have neither desire nor intent to be a part of it.  Such opinions as I proffer will be honest ones.  So, even though I disagree with him on certain things, I am comfortable with the idea of him as the leader of the free world. (assuming we can regain that status after the idiocy of the Dim Son)  I certainly am more comfortable with the idea of BO as leader of the free world than I am with any of the rethugs and more than a couple of the Dems. 

I hope to disagree with him for the next 8 years or so.

CAFKIA

Why Are They Mad at Hillary?

I have taken part in a number of conversations over the past few days, online and in person, where Hillary was being excoriated or, where some one wanted to know what all the anger at Hillary was about.  Some are asking why Obama supporters can't just be happy "he won" and go celebrate.  Why must they (I say they because I never viewed myself as a Hillary hater.  I was/am an Obama preferer.)  I posted the quote below in a comment on the knoxviews discussion blog and the more I look at it, the more I like it and the more I think I may have something there.

Wining the primary was not/is not the goal. It was probably a requirement if the goal is to be reached but winning the primary and winning the White House are not the goals. Winning is a republican goal. It is one of the reasons they are good at it. Nothing matters to them but the winning and anything they do that results in winning is therefore justified. Liberals are supposed to be different. Winning and losing take a backseat to moving the nation forward. They are nothing compared to individual rights, respect for the Constitution, and ensuring that children don't die simply for choosing stupid parents. I'm no mind reader but, I think perhaps the rancor against Hillary is rooted in that it appeared that she took a very republican approach to winning, a scorched earth policy that does not serve to move us any closer to respectable, deserving Liberal ideals.

We haven't won shit.

CAFKIA

Above All Else, Irony

Mike Huckabee did it as a joke.  An unfunny, ill-advised, sick, racist joke but still, he claims it was a joke.  Hillary Clinton says she was using it as a time line statement to justify her staying in a race she has already lost.  The references to assassination should not have come from any politician regarded as astute yet, within a day or two of each other, two of our candidates for president of the nation have made just such a reference. 

Republicanism isn't funny.  Sure it is frustrating, annoying, deceptive, and several other unflattering adjectives but, funny just isn't one of them.  A reference to the possible lynching of a black presidential candidate made to a gathering of paranoid, xenophobic racists is particularly not funny.

Unfortunately, all to frequently the path democraticism takes to funny goes right through irony.  In my experience of direct conversations as well as what I have overheard and read, Hillary is hated and feared by the Reich-wing above all else.  I don't know why and efforts to explain it to me haven't clarified shit but, it is so.  Given the attitude of that wing of American politics toward her, it seems incredibly unlikely that any plan to eliminate Obama by assassination would be timed so as to help Hillary Clinton an any way.  And there indeed is the irony.  As long as Hillary is his presumed replacement, Obama is likely safe from any organized attack.  (One can never discount possible actions from individual psychos.) 

Irony is tough.

CAFKIA

Answering Bartcop

I could probably find the original question but I don't feel it is worth the effort.  In essence, the author of the Bartcop, militant liberal humor website, asked why black Americans so readily deserted the Clintons and ran to the camp of a relative unknown, political newby.  I think the question is flawed  but, I will try to address it anyway.

In a lot of ways, Bill Clinton was one of us.  His two major advantages of birth were being born white and really freakin' smart,  His disadvantages, single mother, poor, small town, Arkansas, were easily enough to offset the advantages.  For whatever reason, and I sure do not know how he acquired the skill, Bill Clinton appeared to be able to comfortably be the only white guy in a room full of of blacks.  Somehow, he doesn't even stick out in such a situation, it appears to be the most natural thing in the world.  A lot of black people learn this skill early (well, the reverse).  We learn it through constant repetition, or at least I did, as well as by having some natural "talent" for it. 

I do not doubt for one second, Hillary's bonifides as a liberal.  I believe that she is and has been concerned about the "less fortunate".  I don't doubt her sincerity or, believe that she is anything other than as presented. 

She isn't one of us and she never will be.  That is not meant as an insult or slight or as a pejorative at all.  It is simply an observation and acknowledgment of reality.  I do NOT know Hillary Clinton, I'm not psychic, I'm not privy to any insider information, this is my opinion formed from observation, reading, and essentially living through the last couple of decades and paying a relatively high level of attention.  I doubt that Hillary would be comfortable in that black crowd.  I don't see how she could avoid sticking out or, that it would appear to be a natural situation.  In short, Hillary isn't Bill.  It is an obvious statement but apparently one that needs to be said.  That doesn't mean anything that isn't said.  I'm relatively sure that one-on-one, HRC is comfortable interacting with a wide variety of ethnic groups, cultures, and nationalities.

In my opinion, "we" did not desert the Clintons.  We deserted Hillary.  We were behind Hillary, those of us who were, because of our fond memories of Bill, our disgust of republican policies, her position as the presumptive front runner, and the relative lack of another candidate we felt had the organization and support necessary to win in the general.  (ideologically, I supported Kucinich, pragmatically, I was behind Edwards)  Barack Obama was a name that some had heard but, it was news to me that he had a national following.  As he started showing stronger and stronger, it became increasingly difficult to justify not supporting him.  His political positions were certainly at least as close to mine as Hillary's were.  I obviously do not speak for all blacks but I imagine that many of us had discussions with ourselves asking why would we ask a white to make things right for us and our nation when we had an apparently competent and intelligent black who actually had a chance to win.  Why would we out ourselves to ourselves as an Uncle Tom?

If Obama had arrived in time to run for Bill's 2nd term, I doubt he would have gotten a majority of the black vote.  Hillary was never the president.  Our allegiance was simply not to her.  As we became informed about options open to us, a lot of us decided that for us and what we want for our nation, Obama was a better fit.  I read and hear about these Obamanics who have some ill-defined grudge and want to banish the Clintons.  I have never had one of them out themselves to me.  All of the Obama supporters I have spoken to in this primary season have only admitted to being FOR Obama. 

Insulting Bill and/or Hillary Clinton does not appear to be the primary goal of any of the blacks who have made their views on this election known to me whether by private conversation, blog, radio, editorial or what.  I'm on the verge of believing that I'm being insulted, that it is being said that I could not have higher motivations and/or that if I did, I could not satisfy them with a black person. 

Yea, that's insulting.

CAFKIA

Incompetents Giving Advice

Really, think about just who you might go to for advice.  Even within a specific subject group, we do not take advice from just anyone, we look for the successful, the accomplished, the knowledgeable.  One would have to be crazy to blindly take advice on one's health from a physician who had patients routinely and inexplicably die.  If a bum on the streets gives you financial advice, no one will think you are silly for ignoring it.  Guys with white canes, dark glasses and, dogs are not the goto folk for advice on how to run a particular NASCAR track. 

So why in the name of all that's holy and most that aint would anyone take advice from George W. Bush on how to effectively deal with terrorists, would be or actual?  Can you even think of anyone who is a more spectacular failure from a national security standpoint?  His methods, attitudes and, actions lead to the success for the worst act of terror on American soil in the last century or so.  He has failed to capture the primary planner and face of al Quaeda.  By the assessment of independent agencies, we are at best no safer and at worst, significantly less protected from attack now that Bush has had 7+ years to institute his policies.

Bush's comments to the Knesset were, in my opinion, inappropriate but even worse, they cannot help but lead thinking people to the observation that he is singularly unqualified to give the world advice on dealing with terrorists.  That he would presume to do so is a national embarrassment of unprecedented scope.

CAFKIA