Republican Primaries

Okay already, twenty, and counting, and they haven't completely destroyed each other, yet, so, let's keep going. We liked Caine, he's out, we liked the Texas governor, he's out, we liked the Sarah Palin clone, she's out, and so it goes. we are supposed to end up with the strongest candidate, but it seems like we are killing ourselves. The message and the direction of the discussions are wrong. It should not be what is wrong with each of these candidates, it ought to be a simple assault on this president. Each discussion should essentially ignore the other candidates on the podium, and focus on what is going wrong in this country, and why. Every question asked should be turned into an answer which addresses what has been done in the last three years to destroy America, and why, which ever candidate is asked how it will be changed. No more personal questions, no more answers to such nonsense. No more discussions that require some sort of rationalization of the candidates personal religious choices, or personal proclivities towards personal choices. These are all distractions from what we are all worried about. We have a president who did not build the keystone pipeline, who waited three months to react to the crisis in the gulf (oil spill),who is allowing Iran to achieve a nuclear capability, who has allowed a Arab Spring which will progress to an Arab Winter, who has essentially ignored the slaughter in Iran and Syria. Who is presiding over an inflation in the gas prices, unequalled. Who is happy with an economy which has shrunk and two million fewer jobs available to Americans, and has supported green companies which have been a way of him to launder money into his campaign war chest (they produced no green energy benefits, and they all have disintegrated). We have a medical health plan which essentially gives us less health for our dollar, and prevents doctors and patients from directly interacting, and essentially bankrupts every small business in the country. It is time for these candidates to start focusing on the problem, and each of their personal ideosyncracies are not the problem. Let the republicans chose the prettiest or the verbalest, or the smartest, but start focusing on our problem, the current president.

Trying Terrorists in Our Courts and Who the heck needs a Super Rail System

Are terrorists common criminals? Or are they something else? Do the Democrats understand the difference between planes flying into the World Trade Center and a robbery at a bodega or a bank? Do enemy combatants deserve the guarentees of our constitution? If they do, why? Does an enemy combatant have the right to remain silent? What responsibilities does our government have when it detains an enemy soldier? The democrats never acknowledged the war between radical Islamists and this country, they won the election, so did they have an obligation to protect it against enemy combatants that they did not recognize as such? When President Obama declared the war was over, that he was repatriating enemy combatants, that there was no war on terror, because he said so, was he required to protect this country against the attacks that came after his declaration? Clearly, he saw no purpose in doing that, which is why he hired an incompetent to run Homeland Security and to coordinate the war that he did not believe existed. Is he absolved of blame in the Fort Hood masacre? What adjustments were made following that? Are there still no soldiers on domestic armed forces bases not carrying weapons? Where are the domestic heads that should have rolled in the case of the failed Christmas Attack? Do they get another chance to fail? Does a plane have to fall out of the sky before this president gets it? What about President Obama's visit to the Republican Caucus? What is the meaning of that? Did he accept any blame for the failures of the passed year, or did he just blame his opponents again? Where is the policy that will make us energy independent in five years? What is building a national railway about? Isn't it just another policy which will lock us into a level of dependence on government, that none of us wants. Some years ago, I read a NY Times article about the Railway system of the USSR, and it spoke about a rural province which had recquistioned an engine for its local line in 1948, the article was written in 1968, because of the bureaucracy in the USSR at that time, the engine never came because some intervening bureaucrat somewhere between Moscow and the rural province, would always appropriate the engine. When I read that article, I knew, as Ronald Reagan knew, that the Soviet Union was going to implode due to its top heavy infrastructure. This is what Mr. Obama has planned for us. Why? It hasn't worked, we watched the experiment for 75 years, it didn't work in Russia, why should it work here? Our system has enabled us to have the most choices of any country. I don't want a super rail system run by our government, that is not the solution to our national debt, that is not how Americans will get back to work. Our country is where it is because no large group can stop it, the dispersal of our goods and services happen because of independent truckers who run on fuel. Develop alternate fuel sources, allow the truckers to keep on trucking, develop better trucks, do not replace them with trains. If our trains go on strike, when they have run the trucks out of business, we will begin to experience the sorts of shortages that we have heard about in places like Russia and France, where nationalized railways, mean unions or centralized bureaucrats which have a monopoly on how goods are delivered can decide on what is expedient for areas that they don't know much about. This centralization is a death knell for efficient delivery of goods, this sort of centralization will kill the entrepreneurial spirit that inhabits every truck driver's cab. If one train engineer does the work that fifty truck drivers do, is that better for our economy? Goods might be delivered less expensively, but maybe not, if the system gets centralized what happens when some terrorist sabotages the system? How much does it cost then, if the only system you have is somehow shut down? In France or England, Unions periodically shut the country down for their own ends, do we need that sort of management here? What makes this country incredibly resilient is our super highways and our super independent truckers. If some truckers go on strike, there are others who will work, if one truck breaks down, another will pick up the produce. This does not only mean food stuffs, this is everything that is produced in this country, including furniture, clothes, computers, and anything else you can think of. Do we really want a centralized system with some sort of bureaucratic control over it? Thank you Mr. Obama, that's another one of your liberal thoughts that I don't particularly think will work here.

Sarah Palin

I listened to Fox the other day, and I am afraid the right doesn't get it either. We elected Obama, who is a dismal failure because of his lack of experience. His first year in office has uncovered his glaring lapses in judgement, and his inability to meter the pulse of the people who elected him. In retrospect, looking back at President Bush, he was also pretty green. President Bush was given a briefing by President Clinton and was told, explicitly, about Bin Laden and the threat that man and his organization posed. Mr. Bush was oblivious, and 9/11 happened. Mr. Clinton was in no position to deal with it, because he could not keep his pants buttoned, and as a result no one in congress was ready to approve any rush to war, because they felt that war would be just a kind of diversion from Mr. Clinton's problems. So, Mr. Bush a relatively green president is faced with something akin to what Roosevelt faced in his third term, a massive attack against this country. Mr. Bush made several glaring errors, probably due to his inexperience and defference to certain people in his administration. He got rid of Ashcroft and Powell, the two guys with the most experience in war and politics. He trusted, instead, Chaney and Rumsfeld, neither of whom had any idea how to win the peace in Iraq, or Afghanistan. The result was the catastrophy which we are witnessing now. Obama is truly a catastrophy, he did not realize for at least his first year in office, that we were in a hot war. He appointed idealogues to our highest security posts without regard to our security because he did not believe Clinton or Clinton's wife concerning the dire threats presented to us. Which brings me to Palin. Palin is an idealogue of another stripe. She is the darling of the conservative movement in this country. They like to compare her to Ronald Reagan. The major problem is while she may say most of what Reagan said, she is not perceived by the general population as having as much experience as he had. Is that important? Can a person who says all the correct things, become president in spite of a perceived lack of experience? Well, Fox News is really going to great lengths to accomplish this task. They are giving her the type of exposure to accomplish this. Exactly to what end? Can she win? Or, will she expose the weaknesses of the Republican Party again? Let's see, Bush, inexperience, 9/11, Obama, inexperience Fort Hood, Christmas Bomber, and who knows what else. Will the American People take another shot on inexperience just because she says the correct things? In 2008, Obama said all the correct things and got elected. What we found out, was that due to his lack of experience, we were at greater risk than we had been since the beginning of the Bush administration, when we didn't know how much risk we were in. The question is how does Obama play this in 2012 if he is running against Sarah Palin? And how does she respond if she is his opponent? And how do we hear the interchange? First, it is clear that the democrats will portray her as an inexperienced idealogue. Why should we run a candidate with that sort of vulnerability? Why run a candidate who can only, with any certainty, deliver Alaska? Why is Fox touting her as something like the second coming of Ronald Reagan? What they are setting us up for, is another loss, when it is most inopportune. The democrats will certainly pound into us, that her experience is questionable, while her views coincide with what many conservatives and republicans want, that level of experience will gnaw at their concience. They will convince themselves that she is okay, because she will be able to surround herself with advisors who will be able to help her through confusing times. The problem is, that is what we have now. We have a president who needs three days on the average to make a decision on anything. He needs that kind of time to guage the people's views (through polls) and to guage the views of his advisors. Bush did something similar, he usually made speeches off the cuff, before his advisors told him what to say, so he often made gaffes, but his policy was always to defer to his advisors. We need a different sort of president. We need a guy or gal who is an obscessive compulsive, hands on person. Someone who doesn't sleep until things are accomplished, and answers every question because he is personally involved with every aspect of his or her government. The only two candidates who I see like that, are Guilliani and Romney. There are other Republican rising stars who can fill that, and I feel that Palin might someday have that patina, but she does not have it yet. I fear, that her inexperience will cost us many votes that we would somehow get if we ran a person more experienced with the sort of track record that demonstrates a consistent accomplishment over decades. Sarah has accomplished a great deal in the short time she rose from mayor to governor to vice presidential candidate, however, her debate with Biden was a debacle, she treated him like a grandfather, and lost the debate and the election because she did not press her advantage in that confrontation. Her advantage was that she was a young woman, and any direct attack on the positions of Obama or Biden would have resulted in some sort of demeaning remark by him, which would have resulted in women and men feeling antipathy towards him. Instead, he got a pass, because she never attacked him. If Republicans want to win 2012, they must run the best candidate, not just a very good candidate. They must run someone who has delivered on promises, not just to a small constituency, but to a large one. They must run someone who can deliver a major state, not just one with three electoral votes. On every way of looking at this, the person with the most experience ought to run, learning on the job is not an option.

Hollyweird

I have noticed a trend in our movies and television shows. It is a rewriting of history and as they do it, they expect those of us who have lived through it to believe their version. Steven Spielburg seems to be very into this genre of film. His first effort at this was Shindler's List, a movie about a Nazi, who heroically saves the slave labor he is using. Shindler is a fascist capitalist, and through the movie, we are led to believe that at a great risk to himself, he protected the Jews who were given to him to work at his factory. For this, he is redefined as a hero. But, let me see if I understand this correctly, he saved Jews who would have been put to death, and he would have been given other Jews to work as slaves in his factory. So, what happened to the other Jews who were no longer needed to replace his Jews? Were they just liquidated? So, he didn't want to continually retrained slave labor, for that we should be thankful? For that he should be redefined by us as some sort of hero. Recently, a movie was made about the attempt on Hitler's life, another self serving piece of drek. About a year before WWII ended some of the men in Hitler's inner circle placed a bomb under a meeting table, he was not killed, and several dozen were put to death because of their part in the conspiracy. We are told that these men, were heros, and their attempt was an instance of supreme bravery. Their part in the atrocities of the Third Reich, should be somehow mitigated because of their part in this conspiracy. The truth is these men were Hitler's inner circle, they had been for about ten years. As long as he was winning the war, they might have grumbled, but they never spoke up or questioned his leadership. By the time they were ready to act, how the war would end, was a foregone conclusion, their action was to put it mildly perfunctory. If they had succeeded, they would have tried to negotiate a peace, perhaps shortening the war. But the real question, is was this the act of heros? Or what seems a whole lot more likely, the action of rats trying to desert a sinking ship. Why is Hollywood rewriting the history? Mr. Spielburg produced a movie called Munich, which was about the murder of Israeli Athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. The story shows the horrific events, and then shows these Palestinians being hunted down by Israeli police, who appear as gestapo like characters, while the Palestinians are humanized throughout the movie. It is almost as if he is saying the terrorists became people, and the people seeking some sort of retribution for the crime, became terrorists. Well, my mind does not work like that, and I resent this blatant attempt to rewrite history so criminals somehow get transformed into heros. Nazis who used slave labor, were not heroes because they did not want to keep retraining their workers. Nazis in Hitler's inner circle were not heros because they got caught trying to murder him. And Palestinians do not become innocent victims after they murder unarmed Jewish Athletes. One has to wonder what the motivation is to write and film these sorts of stories. There were real heros during WWII, and there are stories to be told. When Eisenhower liberated one of the concentration camps, he had his photographers take pictures because he said that if they didn't take the photos, someday, someone would try to rewrite the history books, and say it never happened. Eisenhower was a hero. He documented the story. Spielburg is trying to rewrite the history, with his own documentation, however it is Hollywood, it is not real, and he ought to be asked why.

on reading liberal blogs on what happened in Massachuesettes

A funny thing happened the other day. The machine candidate lost, and the fingers began to point, and the general concensus of the liberals was that Coakley had a lock, was a lousey campaigner and based on that she lost. Absolutely nothing in these liberal blogs was made of the thought that perhaps her message was problem. The general gist of the talk is that Obama's ideas are still great, and we can still push our agenda, and we must continue. Well, Harry Reid finally got the message, and he suggested that perhaps they have to pare down their original expectations. Mr. Obama got the message, at least his teleprompter did, and his reading of the message was something along the lines that the reason the voters weren't buying into his thoughts was the lack of transparency, do you think? He has made more addresses than any president in the last 40 years, his message is as plain as the nose on his face. He had his chance, and he blew it, but the key thought is, that he attempted to sell this by calling it something that it was not. By not carrying through on any of his promises, he lost the left as well as the right. The center sways with the breeze so to speak, and now he is in trouble, his ratings will continue to free fall. The die hard liberals will continue to support him, but he is done. The liberal commentators still do not get it, they think that a president can allow terrorists to attack this country and it has no effect. They think that if in some miraculous way the double digit unemployment bottoms out, things will change, but they do not understand, the president's job is provide a cover of security, if the perception is that he doesn't know what he's doing, he's gone. This president has allowed his advisors to set up terrorist trials in civilian courts, he has multiplied the threats, he has unilaterally released terrorists, who are now attempting to kill us again. He didn't know what he was doing a year ago, and he still is floundering. The reason is because his closest advisors are clueless, they are political appointees who for six or eight years did not listen or see what Bush was dealing with, they also felt that Clinton's attempts at dealing with stuff in the midst of his congressional difficulties, was a case of Wagging the dog, they felt Clinton was going to war with an imaginary foe (Bin Laden) and they didn't support him either. So, now, as the mistakes pile up, we finally see who we elected, a clueless ideologue, who just can't walk and chew gum... Now that it is apparent, that there really are no ideas for energy independence, that there really aren't any ideas for fixing the economics that Bush left him, that there really aren't any ideas for dealing with Iran, that because of these glaring deficits, Israel will end up destroying Iran at the behest of this government, because just like Neville Chamberlain, this president has declared peace in his time, without achieving anything. The Nobel people not withstanding seem clueless also. Perhaps, they give their awards out on expectations, not actions.

Obama and Haiti

Is it my imagination, or did the war in the Middle East end this week because of the catastrophy which occurred in Haiti. Secretary of State Clinton, found time to visit Haiti, and she dutifully rescued several stranded Americans. Obviously, anything pressing like Iran's push to get nuclear weapons can be placed on hold, while we focus our attention and resources on Haiti's natural catastrophy. Wasn't it this president who basically said he could walk and chew gum, unlike the previous administration. This president ran on a platform which said he could fix the economy and make peace with Iran at the same time. Well, let's see, he certainly did that, and more, we have peace with Iran, no? Our economy is running like a well oiled machine, no? Almost 20% of the people in this country are out of work, great economy. We do not seem to be any closer to getting Osama Bin Laden, and it appears that Iran is perhaps a year or two away from having a nuclear bomb, and Iran is not North Korea. North Korea likes to make believe it is a world power, so it flexes its muscles for the benefit of its people and for some of its neighbors. Iran was Persia in another century. It believes that it is its birthright to have hegemony over all the land of the Middle East. It is actively promoting terrorists within all of its neighbors. Iran supports suicide bombers and jihad. The leaders of North Korea are somewhat deluded; the leaders of Iran will give nuclear bombs to the terrorists whom they sponser. What is Obama and Hillary doing about this? Sanctions? Where is Janet Neapalitano? Because we are helping Haiti, have we brought Janet up to speed concerning terrorism? Have we forgotten her gaffes? Have we allowed Mr. Obama off the hook concerning Ft. Hood and the underware bomber, because Haiti happened? Where is Fox News, CNN, CNBC? 24/7 Haiti coverage, what happened to the rest of the world? Has our economy improved because of Haiti? This president ran on a platform of multitasking, will we need another plane bombing attempt or some other terrorist attack to remind us that the world has multiple things going on at the same time. President Obama probably has thanked God for Haiti, it diverted everyone from all the other things that haven't gone so well. We airlifted supplies to Berlin, and other countries sticken by natural disasters, but Haiti is different, the logistics have to be drawn out, for maximum effect. We can't help them too quickly because we have to point out how difficult and backward they are, because we must divert Americans from all the other issues for as long as possible. Perhaps, Americans will forgive and forget the dismal directions this president has pointed us in.

Haiti

For the last few days, I have been watching the stuff coming out of Haiti, a monumental catastrophy, and fascinating at the same time. I have known Haitians, when I was living in NY, I met a pretty remarkable fellow named Jacque. He used moxie and grit to form a Judo team which ran itself out of Brooklyn and Queens. He had no money, and was always looking for ways to finance it. He always needed space to practice, he needed money for meals for his athletes, he needed money for a week at a rural summer camp in which his athletes could intensely focus on their sport. He made friends with much more affluent clubs, who all rallied around him. He got doctors, like me, to donate my time to provide medical services at the judo tournaments. The tournaments were very competitive, the different clubs vying for the wins for their clubs. But, along with the competition was an obvious communal sort of energy, used in helping young people focus on an activity which was an alternative to street violence and drugs. A couple of his athletes got to represent the United States in the Olympics. One of the most enjoyable experiences I have ever had was when he invited me to a Sunday Mass at his church. He invited me to recognise my contribution to his endeavor, my few hours of volunteering at a tourniment was a cause in his mind for recognition. If you ever get a chance to attend a Haitian Mass, go, it is incredibly enjoyable. They sing their hymns to Sousa march music, it is incredibly uplifting and fun. The energy of the singing, translates into a service which from start to finish is focused and a great tribute to God and fun. I don't speak French, and I am not Catholic, but fun is fun, and for about five minutes, this wonderful person, made me the center of attention in a church with about three thousand worshippers as he thanked me for my work with his kids. What is fascinating about the response to this catastrophy in Haiti, is that it is taking roughly the same amount of time of this president to respond as it took for Bush to respond to New Orleans. Perhaps, there are more diplomatic hurdles, however, the experience that Bush was dealing with was also novel, in that a major US city was destroyed in a few hours. Bush had to also deal with politicians with agendas, who did not consult him as quickly as perhaps they should have. In addition, Bush had an experience of national disasters in the US which were corrected by the individual states which experienced them, with belated help from the national government. All of these things resulted in a poor response. However, why did Mr. Obama take a day to figure this out? What are his excuses? His reaction, as was Bush's, is, we are doing everything we can. One wonders.