In a recent AP article by David Espo, President-elect Barack Obama skillfully deflected questions on several topics. When asked whether he had quit smoking, he responded that, “I have done a terrific job . . . of making myself healthier . . . I think you will not see any violations of those rules in the White House.” We’ll never be in the White House, so we won’t know. Nor did he address the status of his smoking habit while in other places. A simple yes or no would have been sufficient.
2. Asked about how quickly he would act to bring our troops home from Iraq, Obama said that he expected military commanders to devise a plan “for a responsible drawdown.” Presumably, we can ignore his prior, well-known Iraq election promises. What Obama will be implementing is none other than the Status of Forces agreement just negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
3. On foreign policy, Obama provided no direct response when asked whether India has a right to pursue targets in Pakistan, where water-borne terrorist attacks on the Indian port city of Mumbai originated. Recall that in one of his pre-election claims, Obama threatened to pursue bin Laden in Pakistan. He never hesitated then to question our own right to act militarily in that country.
The difference between campaigning and governing is very stark. But some of Obama’s responses to pre-election topics now seem to be cloudy.
Showing posts with label National Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Same ‘Ole, Same ‘Ole
Please indulge me if I use a quotation from the Psalms, because in many ways not much has changed in more than 2000 years. The unbridled personal and structural self-indulgence which led to the current worldwide economic meltdown reminds me that the exploitation of men by other men is as rife now as it was then:
“Defend me, O God, and plead my cause
against a godless nation.
From deceitful and cunning men
rescue me, O God”
Throughout remote history, helpless people pleaded to God for relief from those who took advantage of them. By 2008, mankind should have made quantum leaps toward the Golden Rule, don’t you think? Here we are centuries later; whom are we to trust? To whom among us do we plead?
“Defend me, O God, and plead my cause
against a godless nation.
From deceitful and cunning men
rescue me, O God”
Throughout remote history, helpless people pleaded to God for relief from those who took advantage of them. By 2008, mankind should have made quantum leaps toward the Golden Rule, don’t you think? Here we are centuries later; whom are we to trust? To whom among us do we plead?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Palin’s Popularity
The reaction to Palin since she was chosen as McCain’s running mate has been at polar extremes, much of it virulently negative. I don’t know why. To listen to some people, you’d think that Alaska is a third-world country.
Antagonists either stigmatize her or treat her as though she has no grey matter between the ears. Even Kathleen Parker, a prominent conservative columnist, has come down hard on Palin. The piling on continues. Let me share with you what I think:
Sarah Palin is intelligent. That’s right, intelligent. Without smarts, you don’t get to be a governor and to survive and thrive in the political battles which she won in Alaska. Her detractors would like to label her as the brunette version of a dumb blonde – both sexist insults, but political correctness restrains them from saying what they think. She is tough. After getting bushwhacked several times in a couple of unprepared TV interviews, she jumped right back into the fight, seemingly stronger than before, a quick learner.
She is even-tempered. Not once have I seen her lose her cool under relentless campaign pressure. She evokes jealously: Palin has had the guts to have succeeded in a man’s world while simultaneously achieving what women do splendidly – being a loving wife and mother. That has got to stick in the craw of the dying breed of 1960’s-style feminists. She can be self-deprecating; that was evident in her appearance on Saturday Night Live.
She has a magnetic personality and is the best- looking woman on the campaign circuit: Is she supposed to apologize for that? Is she supposed to put a bag on her head? The woman has charisma and is using it almost effortlessly to her advantage. And why not? Others only wish.
OK! OK! She doesn’t have any international exposure and foreign policy experience. She hasn’t hobnobbed with the Washington, D.C. cocktail party crowd. She isn’t a national economics whiz. She doesn’t come from an ivy-league school. She doesn’t charm the New York Times. She doesn’t have the sophistication of Northeast intellectuals and the approval of Hollywood narcissists.
Nor has she taken bribes; or slept around like so many of our prominent Washington officials; or become addicted to drugs, drinking and drunk driving, like a few D.C. Senators and Representatives from prominent families; or aborted a Down Syndrome baby; or taken to abandoning a practicing faith; or rejected her daughter for getting pregnant; or gone along to get along with her own Republican party caught up in scandal and bribery in Alaska.
Whatever else may be said, the woman has integrity.
Antagonists either stigmatize her or treat her as though she has no grey matter between the ears. Even Kathleen Parker, a prominent conservative columnist, has come down hard on Palin. The piling on continues. Let me share with you what I think:
Sarah Palin is intelligent. That’s right, intelligent. Without smarts, you don’t get to be a governor and to survive and thrive in the political battles which she won in Alaska. Her detractors would like to label her as the brunette version of a dumb blonde – both sexist insults, but political correctness restrains them from saying what they think. She is tough. After getting bushwhacked several times in a couple of unprepared TV interviews, she jumped right back into the fight, seemingly stronger than before, a quick learner.
She is even-tempered. Not once have I seen her lose her cool under relentless campaign pressure. She evokes jealously: Palin has had the guts to have succeeded in a man’s world while simultaneously achieving what women do splendidly – being a loving wife and mother. That has got to stick in the craw of the dying breed of 1960’s-style feminists. She can be self-deprecating; that was evident in her appearance on Saturday Night Live.
She has a magnetic personality and is the best- looking woman on the campaign circuit: Is she supposed to apologize for that? Is she supposed to put a bag on her head? The woman has charisma and is using it almost effortlessly to her advantage. And why not? Others only wish.
OK! OK! She doesn’t have any international exposure and foreign policy experience. She hasn’t hobnobbed with the Washington, D.C. cocktail party crowd. She isn’t a national economics whiz. She doesn’t come from an ivy-league school. She doesn’t charm the New York Times. She doesn’t have the sophistication of Northeast intellectuals and the approval of Hollywood narcissists.
Nor has she taken bribes; or slept around like so many of our prominent Washington officials; or become addicted to drugs, drinking and drunk driving, like a few D.C. Senators and Representatives from prominent families; or aborted a Down Syndrome baby; or taken to abandoning a practicing faith; or rejected her daughter for getting pregnant; or gone along to get along with her own Republican party caught up in scandal and bribery in Alaska.
Whatever else may be said, the woman has integrity.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Finally, Action!
It’s hard to believe what Congress was about to do in the midst of the financial crisis engulfing the nation. A week from today, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives were scheduled to go home for three months without lifting a finger to stem the financial markets meltdown. They will not return until after January 1st, 2009.
That may not sound plausible, but just read this excerpt of what Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee had to say in a TV interview just two days ago when asked what Congress would do: “It is inconceivable to do anything before the election” . . . we need “to do this in a rational and measured way.” The Bay State representative went on to say, “It is conceivable that after the election, you could get some kind of consensus . . . it is by no means certain.”
That was on Wednesday. A day later the entire picture, as well as the attitude of this do-nothing Congress made a 180° turn.
We don’t know what words were used by Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben Bernanke in a closed door meeting of key legislators yesterday. Whatever both men said, it was enough to light a fire under economically timid and reluctant Republican and Democrat lawmakers. The word is that they have accepted an Administration proposal to unravel the chaos.
If no one throws a monkey wrench in the works, the nation should have a comprehensive law to fix things before these bozos go on vacation. (According to an August 27, Rasmussen report, “just 9% of likely voters give congress positive ratings.”)
That may not sound plausible, but just read this excerpt of what Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee had to say in a TV interview just two days ago when asked what Congress would do: “It is inconceivable to do anything before the election” . . . we need “to do this in a rational and measured way.” The Bay State representative went on to say, “It is conceivable that after the election, you could get some kind of consensus . . . it is by no means certain.”
That was on Wednesday. A day later the entire picture, as well as the attitude of this do-nothing Congress made a 180° turn.
We don’t know what words were used by Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben Bernanke in a closed door meeting of key legislators yesterday. Whatever both men said, it was enough to light a fire under economically timid and reluctant Republican and Democrat lawmakers. The word is that they have accepted an Administration proposal to unravel the chaos.
If no one throws a monkey wrench in the works, the nation should have a comprehensive law to fix things before these bozos go on vacation. (According to an August 27, Rasmussen report, “just 9% of likely voters give congress positive ratings.”)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Political Chicanery
If there’s one thing that gets my dander up, it’s some dolt tapping the keys of a PC, writing some missive about which he knows nothing, not having done any fact-checking. When the result is the savaging of the integrity of a genuine U.S. war hero, it gets my dander up even more.
A recent TV ad by the Obama campaign claims that McCain is out of touch with reality because he can’t send an e-mail and doesn’t know how to use a PC. I’d like to know: Since when did the ability to use these tools automatically impart intelligence, discernment and wisdom to a person? That’s the first argument.
The second is that the impulsive staffers who work for David Plouffe, Obama’s chief strategist, got the basis for their claim disgustingly wrong. Here’s an excerpt from a Boston Globe profile of McCain which appeared on March 4, 2000:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan -- Ted Williams is his hero -- but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
Enough said. Thanks for reading, and take care of yourselves out there; it can be a vicious world at times.
Note: Regardless of your political persuasion, it never hurts to be informed. If you’d like to read the source for this post and see the Obama campaign video, you can view them at, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/obama-ad-email.html. Also, it you have the inclination to read the Boston Globe’s profile on McCain published in March, 2000, it can be found at, http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml . The story begins with McCain’s response to a political thrust against the gay major of Tempe Arizona.
A recent TV ad by the Obama campaign claims that McCain is out of touch with reality because he can’t send an e-mail and doesn’t know how to use a PC. I’d like to know: Since when did the ability to use these tools automatically impart intelligence, discernment and wisdom to a person? That’s the first argument.
The second is that the impulsive staffers who work for David Plouffe, Obama’s chief strategist, got the basis for their claim disgustingly wrong. Here’s an excerpt from a Boston Globe profile of McCain which appeared on March 4, 2000:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan -- Ted Williams is his hero -- but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball."
Enough said. Thanks for reading, and take care of yourselves out there; it can be a vicious world at times.
Note: Regardless of your political persuasion, it never hurts to be informed. If you’d like to read the source for this post and see the Obama campaign video, you can view them at, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/obama-ad-email.html. Also, it you have the inclination to read the Boston Globe’s profile on McCain published in March, 2000, it can be found at, http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml . The story begins with McCain’s response to a political thrust against the gay major of Tempe Arizona.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Bear is Back
If anyone ever thought that the breakup of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 would result in a declawed, friendlier Russian bear wholly unable to assert itself on the international scene, recent events in The Republic of Georgia have reminded the world community that the Russian bear will be a very potent influence in the 21st century.
Vladimir Putin – a former KGB agent and judo devotee – is still smarting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which he labeled, “The greatest political catastrophe of the last century.” Now buoyed by the economic stimulus provided from Russian oil fields, he seeks to reassert Russian influence over some of its strategically-positioned, former client states.
In June, 2001, when Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin first met in Slovenia, they both seemed to hit it off well personally. At least President Bush thought so, because he voiced his opinion that, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Well! Well! I don’t know about you, but I have enough challenges just trying to get a good sense of my own soul, let alone anyone else’s. I prefer to leave that relationship up to the Almighty.
If George Bush was about to dance with this particular Russian bear, he would have been much better off to forget about trying to peer into Putin’s soul; and, instead, to keep very alert for the condition of that bear’s claws – that, it seems to me, would have been a much more accurate indicator of the state of Putin’s soul.
Vladimir Putin – a former KGB agent and judo devotee – is still smarting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which he labeled, “The greatest political catastrophe of the last century.” Now buoyed by the economic stimulus provided from Russian oil fields, he seeks to reassert Russian influence over some of its strategically-positioned, former client states.
In June, 2001, when Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin first met in Slovenia, they both seemed to hit it off well personally. At least President Bush thought so, because he voiced his opinion that, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Well! Well! I don’t know about you, but I have enough challenges just trying to get a good sense of my own soul, let alone anyone else’s. I prefer to leave that relationship up to the Almighty.
If George Bush was about to dance with this particular Russian bear, he would have been much better off to forget about trying to peer into Putin’s soul; and, instead, to keep very alert for the condition of that bear’s claws – that, it seems to me, would have been a much more accurate indicator of the state of Putin’s soul.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Bridgewater’s Michael Hsing
Bridgewater Councilman, Michael Hsing, recently announced that he would run as an independent for the U.S. Congressional seat in the 7th District. That seat will be vacant as a result of Rep. Mike Ferguson’s decision not to run for re-election.
As a Republican who was initially in the GOP primary, but subsequently decided to pursue the seat without party affiliation, Mr. Hsing is reported to be a conservative on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
He will be running against two big guns: Democrat Linda Stender of Union County, who is currently serving her fourth term in the New Jersey General Assembly; and Republican Leonard Lance of Hunterdon County, who was elected to the General Assembly in 1991, and who is currently serving as a New Jersey State Senator.
Stender came close to unseating Rep. Mike Ferguson two years ago. Consequently, some prognosticators have written that Mr. Hsing could draw heavily upon the district’s Chinese-American community and, should he garner enough total votes, be a spoiler to Lance’s winning the 7th District seat.
Nonetheless, I doubt that Michael Hsing is running for any purpose other than to win – he’s too smart to do otherwise. If he doesn’t make it, he gets to live for another day, although he will have some fences to mend. His hurdle is that of an untried state entity attempting to push aside two very well-known politicians who enter this contest with high name recognition.
For example, whether we liked them or not, who can forget those interminable TV ads branding her as “Stender the Spender?” Over time, things change. What once might have been considered a very negative ad may have solidified Stender’s name in the public imagination.
As for myself, I’m looking forward to a vigorous campaign by all three candidates and, especially, to see how sincere or phony their promises prove to be.
Note: The candidates’ web sites may be found at, http://www.lindastenderforcongress.com/, http://www.hsingforcongress.com/home.asp, http://www.leonardlance.com/
As a Republican who was initially in the GOP primary, but subsequently decided to pursue the seat without party affiliation, Mr. Hsing is reported to be a conservative on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
He will be running against two big guns: Democrat Linda Stender of Union County, who is currently serving her fourth term in the New Jersey General Assembly; and Republican Leonard Lance of Hunterdon County, who was elected to the General Assembly in 1991, and who is currently serving as a New Jersey State Senator.
Stender came close to unseating Rep. Mike Ferguson two years ago. Consequently, some prognosticators have written that Mr. Hsing could draw heavily upon the district’s Chinese-American community and, should he garner enough total votes, be a spoiler to Lance’s winning the 7th District seat.
Nonetheless, I doubt that Michael Hsing is running for any purpose other than to win – he’s too smart to do otherwise. If he doesn’t make it, he gets to live for another day, although he will have some fences to mend. His hurdle is that of an untried state entity attempting to push aside two very well-known politicians who enter this contest with high name recognition.
For example, whether we liked them or not, who can forget those interminable TV ads branding her as “Stender the Spender?” Over time, things change. What once might have been considered a very negative ad may have solidified Stender’s name in the public imagination.
As for myself, I’m looking forward to a vigorous campaign by all three candidates and, especially, to see how sincere or phony their promises prove to be.
Note: The candidates’ web sites may be found at, http://www.lindastenderforcongress.com/, http://www.hsingforcongress.com/home.asp, http://www.leonardlance.com/
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Bush and Obama’s Common Trait
What could George W. Bush and Barack Obama possibly share in common? The first seems to be as conservative as one can be (at least on paper!), while the other seems to be tilting as far to the liberal side as he can be (at least on paper!).
But if you put on your memory thinking cap, you may remember that way back when Bush was running for his first term, he declared that the U.S. should not get involved with nation-building: It would not be his administration’s business to get involved in the internal matters of other countries, he would go on to claim. Years later, the events of 9/11 changed all that, and the U.S. Military is now deeply involved precisely in what Bush once said he wouldn’t do: nation-building.
That brings me to Barack Obama. During his entire presidential run, when he was not yet the presumptive Democratic nominee for President and, at a time when he was heavily engaged in a campaign struggle with Senator Hillary Clinton, he emphatically and proudly underscored his premier campaign clarion call: He did not vote for the Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, he emphasized over and over and, should he be elected President, he vowed to bring all the troops home within 16 months.
Now we hear Obama claiming that, after his trip to Iraq where he will meet with General Petraeus and other U.S. Military commanders, he will, if necessary, “refine” his strategy. Well, you should have heard all of the brouhaha generated in the media and political circles about that remark! It caused Senator Obama to quickly re-appear before the mikes and cameras in an apparent effort to recant.
However, should Obama win the general election in November, there will be a transition team put in place to advise the President-elect of all classified information concerning national security. That’s when the President-to-be discovers the dirt about what’s really going on.
This isn’t what surprises me, though. What does is that Obama has declared himself so soon about a potential policy reversal regarding troop withdrawal. The man has a large, well-paid cadre of advisors on his team. Yet, for reasons known only to him, Obama decided to test the acceptance of a potential future change in his troop withdrawal strategy with the use of the word, “refine.” In Washington, in a statement about Iraq, that’s a fighting word!
A long time ago, Bush decided to go into the nation-building business, something he said he would never do. When the dust settles after November, Obama could very well find himself following the same policy of nation-building.
When Bush was first running for President he proudly considered himself a Washington outsider, as Obama now does – a trait which each man shares in common. But, the real question is not whether a presidential candidate is a Washington outsider: It is what that person does once he gets on the inside.
But if you put on your memory thinking cap, you may remember that way back when Bush was running for his first term, he declared that the U.S. should not get involved with nation-building: It would not be his administration’s business to get involved in the internal matters of other countries, he would go on to claim. Years later, the events of 9/11 changed all that, and the U.S. Military is now deeply involved precisely in what Bush once said he wouldn’t do: nation-building.
That brings me to Barack Obama. During his entire presidential run, when he was not yet the presumptive Democratic nominee for President and, at a time when he was heavily engaged in a campaign struggle with Senator Hillary Clinton, he emphatically and proudly underscored his premier campaign clarion call: He did not vote for the Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, he emphasized over and over and, should he be elected President, he vowed to bring all the troops home within 16 months.
Now we hear Obama claiming that, after his trip to Iraq where he will meet with General Petraeus and other U.S. Military commanders, he will, if necessary, “refine” his strategy. Well, you should have heard all of the brouhaha generated in the media and political circles about that remark! It caused Senator Obama to quickly re-appear before the mikes and cameras in an apparent effort to recant.
However, should Obama win the general election in November, there will be a transition team put in place to advise the President-elect of all classified information concerning national security. That’s when the President-to-be discovers the dirt about what’s really going on.
This isn’t what surprises me, though. What does is that Obama has declared himself so soon about a potential policy reversal regarding troop withdrawal. The man has a large, well-paid cadre of advisors on his team. Yet, for reasons known only to him, Obama decided to test the acceptance of a potential future change in his troop withdrawal strategy with the use of the word, “refine.” In Washington, in a statement about Iraq, that’s a fighting word!
A long time ago, Bush decided to go into the nation-building business, something he said he would never do. When the dust settles after November, Obama could very well find himself following the same policy of nation-building.
When Bush was first running for President he proudly considered himself a Washington outsider, as Obama now does – a trait which each man shares in common. But, the real question is not whether a presidential candidate is a Washington outsider: It is what that person does once he gets on the inside.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
A Whackadoodle or an Astute Person?
It would be easy to dismiss the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, longtime pastor and friend of presidential candidate Barack Obama, as a whackadoodle. Some in the media, especially on talk radio, would have us believe just that. To do so not only would be inaccurate, but it would let the pastor off the hook all too easily.
Just the opposite is true. Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a bright, learned, passionate, and articulate person. He is capable of delivering these qualities wrapped in very cunning logic. But many of his messages are filled with a virulent hatred for America and for a large contingent of its population.
In three recent, serial public appearances: on the Bill Moyers TV show; before the NAACP; and before the National Press Club, Wright expressed a series of views about America and about his relationship between him and Senator Obama which, yesterday, the Senator felt it necessary to completely and totally reject. Good for Obama. It was a long time in coming.
Way back in the first century, there was man who roamed the hills and pathways of Palestine preaching a message of hope and change, while striving to be true to his own faith and beliefs. I wonder how He would rate the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Note: The word “whackadoodle” may be found in the contemporary online dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/
Just the opposite is true. Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a bright, learned, passionate, and articulate person. He is capable of delivering these qualities wrapped in very cunning logic. But many of his messages are filled with a virulent hatred for America and for a large contingent of its population.
In three recent, serial public appearances: on the Bill Moyers TV show; before the NAACP; and before the National Press Club, Wright expressed a series of views about America and about his relationship between him and Senator Obama which, yesterday, the Senator felt it necessary to completely and totally reject. Good for Obama. It was a long time in coming.
Way back in the first century, there was man who roamed the hills and pathways of Palestine preaching a message of hope and change, while striving to be true to his own faith and beliefs. I wonder how He would rate the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Note: The word “whackadoodle” may be found in the contemporary online dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Saudi Arabia: A U.S. Friend?
While catching a break from my backyard chores today, I caught a TV glimpse of Bernie Sanders (I), Senator from Vermont, excoriating the Saudis for capping the production of oil from their fields in the Middle East. The man from Vermont has a point.
Sanders wants the U.S. Senate to prevent a pending arms deal with Saudi Arabia from going through, until the desert monarchy decides to pump significantly more oil in order to throttle down the speculative activity in this commodity. I think Sanders is onto something fundamental.
Yesterday, the price for crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) was $118.30 per barrel. A year ago, on April 02, 2007, it was just above $65 a barrel. The year before that, it was significantly lower. The issue is complex, and there are many reasons why oil prices are skyrocketing. But Sanders has hit on a point which I have advocated for many years: Break up the OPEC oil cartel.
If any consortium of U.S. producers were to conspire to control the output and, thereby, the price of a basic commodity by meeting regularly to set production targets (as OPEC does), the whole lot of them would be set upon by the U.S. Justice Department like a Peregrine falcon hurtling from the sky toward its prey.
Somehow, our erstwhile friends from the Middle East (15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were Saudi citizens) continue to demand more U.S. oil dollars, blithely ungrateful that U.S. forces saved their collective rear ends in the first Gulf War.
They seem to have an institutionally short memory of the time when New Jersey native, General Norman Schwarzkopf, led a U.S. expeditionary force which prevented Saddam Hussein from annexing Kuwait and from threatening the security of Saudi Arabia.
Good friends remember. They return favors. Just how good are the Saudis as friends of America?
Sanders wants the U.S. Senate to prevent a pending arms deal with Saudi Arabia from going through, until the desert monarchy decides to pump significantly more oil in order to throttle down the speculative activity in this commodity. I think Sanders is onto something fundamental.
Yesterday, the price for crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) was $118.30 per barrel. A year ago, on April 02, 2007, it was just above $65 a barrel. The year before that, it was significantly lower. The issue is complex, and there are many reasons why oil prices are skyrocketing. But Sanders has hit on a point which I have advocated for many years: Break up the OPEC oil cartel.
If any consortium of U.S. producers were to conspire to control the output and, thereby, the price of a basic commodity by meeting regularly to set production targets (as OPEC does), the whole lot of them would be set upon by the U.S. Justice Department like a Peregrine falcon hurtling from the sky toward its prey.
Somehow, our erstwhile friends from the Middle East (15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were Saudi citizens) continue to demand more U.S. oil dollars, blithely ungrateful that U.S. forces saved their collective rear ends in the first Gulf War.
They seem to have an institutionally short memory of the time when New Jersey native, General Norman Schwarzkopf, led a U.S. expeditionary force which prevented Saddam Hussein from annexing Kuwait and from threatening the security of Saudi Arabia.
Good friends remember. They return favors. Just how good are the Saudis as friends of America?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Still the Best Baseball Rivalry!
Baseball or Politics? Did a construction worker-Red Sox fan really bury a Sox T-shirt in the poured concrete of the new Yankee Stadium? What a sacrilege! No matter, though. Unless you are hopelessly superstitious, it won’t have any impact on the outcome of what I still consider to be the best matchup in baseball.
Tonight at 8 o’clock, if you are a baseball fan, you’ll be watching these two teams slug it out inthe rubber-match conclusion of a three-game series at Fenway Park. And, if you are not such a fan … well, you might as well watch it anyway. Otherwise, one of your only other TV alternatives is to click to CNN and suffer along with two presidential candidates, as they slug it out in a two-hour program billed, Faith and Politics, The Compassion Forum.
If you choose the latter option, you’ll get a lot of politics and a lot of posturing about faith, but I honestly doubt that much of it will be accurate or meaningful. I hope I’m proven wrong about that. Nonetheless, best to put the CNN slugfest on the VCR for subsequent viewing.
Friday night’s 4-1 Yankees’ win over the Sox featured stellar pitching by Chien-Ming Wang, the go-to guy for jump-starting this rivalry in unfriendly territory. Saturday afternoon, though, Jonathan Papelbon, Boston’s super-focused star reliever, returned the favor by striking out A-Rod and putting away the rest of the line-up in the top of the ninth inning, after a dramatic, lightning-punctured 2-hour-11-minute rain delay. Manny Ramirez and Kevin Youkilis took care of producing RBIs for the Sox, garnering a 4-3 win.
I’m a Red Sox fan, but I don’t hate the Yankees – I stopped that nonsense awhile ago. I’ve since come to respect the power of the Bronx Bombers, while rooting for the Sox. It’s better that way.
Tuesday’s School Elections: A critical Bridgewater-Raritan schools election is scheduled for this Tuesday, April 15th. Three incumbents, Evan Lerner, Dr. Arvind Mathur, and Al Smith (Raritan’s representative) are running unopposed this year. Ho hum! Nonetheless, there is a monster budget on the ballot for your approval or disapproval. That last one is anything but a trivial matter. So go ahead and get out there with your vote. It really does matter. The polls will be open from 7 AM to 9 PM.
Tonight at 8 o’clock, if you are a baseball fan, you’ll be watching these two teams slug it out inthe rubber-match conclusion of a three-game series at Fenway Park. And, if you are not such a fan … well, you might as well watch it anyway. Otherwise, one of your only other TV alternatives is to click to CNN and suffer along with two presidential candidates, as they slug it out in a two-hour program billed, Faith and Politics, The Compassion Forum.
If you choose the latter option, you’ll get a lot of politics and a lot of posturing about faith, but I honestly doubt that much of it will be accurate or meaningful. I hope I’m proven wrong about that. Nonetheless, best to put the CNN slugfest on the VCR for subsequent viewing.
Friday night’s 4-1 Yankees’ win over the Sox featured stellar pitching by Chien-Ming Wang, the go-to guy for jump-starting this rivalry in unfriendly territory. Saturday afternoon, though, Jonathan Papelbon, Boston’s super-focused star reliever, returned the favor by striking out A-Rod and putting away the rest of the line-up in the top of the ninth inning, after a dramatic, lightning-punctured 2-hour-11-minute rain delay. Manny Ramirez and Kevin Youkilis took care of producing RBIs for the Sox, garnering a 4-3 win.
I’m a Red Sox fan, but I don’t hate the Yankees – I stopped that nonsense awhile ago. I’ve since come to respect the power of the Bronx Bombers, while rooting for the Sox. It’s better that way.
Tuesday’s School Elections: A critical Bridgewater-Raritan schools election is scheduled for this Tuesday, April 15th. Three incumbents, Evan Lerner, Dr. Arvind Mathur, and Al Smith (Raritan’s representative) are running unopposed this year. Ho hum! Nonetheless, there is a monster budget on the ballot for your approval or disapproval. That last one is anything but a trivial matter. So go ahead and get out there with your vote. It really does matter. The polls will be open from 7 AM to 9 PM.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Too Old to Serve?
Robert Andrews, Congressman from New Jersey, has announced that he will be running in the Democratic primary against incumbent Senator, Frank Lautenberg. So far, so good. Anyone has the right to challenge Lautenberg for the Senate seat.
But what, exactly, does Andrews bring to the table, and just what is his beef with Lautenberg? Well, it seems that the Senator, at 84, is too old. As reported in the Star-Ledger, Newark power broker Steve Adubato declared, “I can’t support him because of his age.” Andrews claimed that, “The people of the state want a choice and they want a change.”
I agree that if a person is in deteriorating health – at any age – that condition could, of and by itself, affect the quality of her/his ability to represent us in Washington. But look all around us here in New Jersey. Have you noticed that Trenton, and even some of our county and local offices are saturated with young bucks below the age of 60? And what else have you observed? Are we better off simply because of their youth? Or is the state drowning in a pit of serial bad management, fiscal irresponsibility and over-taxation?
At least Frank Lautenberg seems to have passed the integrity test. There have been no reports of scandal on his watch, and we are not reading that he has been romping around Washington, D.C., chasing any person who looks great in a skirt and a tight blouse. Think about it for goodness sake! The man is clean. He is impeccable. He has character. He has wisdom. He has governmental and business experience.
I don’t think that he should be knocked off his seat just because he is 84. What is fair for Lautenberg and to the rest of us is for him to make a full disclosure of his physical condition, so that voters can make a reasonably informed judgment about whether his health, not his age, will get in the way of his representing New Jersey in the U.S. Senate.
Note: For the full text of the article referred to, see http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/120720091911340.xml&coll=1
But what, exactly, does Andrews bring to the table, and just what is his beef with Lautenberg? Well, it seems that the Senator, at 84, is too old. As reported in the Star-Ledger, Newark power broker Steve Adubato declared, “I can’t support him because of his age.” Andrews claimed that, “The people of the state want a choice and they want a change.”
I agree that if a person is in deteriorating health – at any age – that condition could, of and by itself, affect the quality of her/his ability to represent us in Washington. But look all around us here in New Jersey. Have you noticed that Trenton, and even some of our county and local offices are saturated with young bucks below the age of 60? And what else have you observed? Are we better off simply because of their youth? Or is the state drowning in a pit of serial bad management, fiscal irresponsibility and over-taxation?
At least Frank Lautenberg seems to have passed the integrity test. There have been no reports of scandal on his watch, and we are not reading that he has been romping around Washington, D.C., chasing any person who looks great in a skirt and a tight blouse. Think about it for goodness sake! The man is clean. He is impeccable. He has character. He has wisdom. He has governmental and business experience.
I don’t think that he should be knocked off his seat just because he is 84. What is fair for Lautenberg and to the rest of us is for him to make a full disclosure of his physical condition, so that voters can make a reasonably informed judgment about whether his health, not his age, will get in the way of his representing New Jersey in the U.S. Senate.
Note: For the full text of the article referred to, see http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/120720091911340.xml&coll=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)