10.13.2006

WHY PRESIDENTS SCREW UP



I have experienced the terms of thirteen different U.S. presidents – starting with FDR. Troubling observation: each new president spends a good deal of his term attempting to right what his predecessor did wrong. The remainder of his term is spent making his own mistakes. His successor inherits the mess, and the cycle repeats.

Among other things this suggests there are few if any presidents wise enough to actually know, in the broadest sense, what in hell they are doing. When viewed dispassionately, the primary reason becomes obvious. Presidents are figureheads, enslaved by their own ideology, or that of their own close advisers, donors, and fellow travelers; hacks elected and appointed.

If a president doesn’t even have enough sense to gather the best, or at least competent, people around him, he or she is doomed to fail – a victim of consequences which hacks and journeymen have no foresight to anticipate. If ideology and political debt, rather than intelligent foresight (or at least clever chessmanship) guide a president’s decisions, these decisions are bound to produce unforeseen and unintended consequences of the worst kind, ultimately leading to failure. Most of the thirteen presidents I have seen have failed in this regard.

Of course, there are few decisions in this life which won’t lead to at least some unforeseen and unintended consequences. It’s a matter of how dire the consequences. Even smart advisers, those not ideologically driven, may fail to foresee the long-term consequences of what, at the time, at least to them, seemed like prudent decisions.

Critical decisions. Truman’s WWII-ending tactic. On the plus side, it brought WWII in the Pacific Theater to a quick end. On the other hand, it ushered in the horrors and fears of the Atomic Age. JFK’s decision as to how to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis? Reagan’s strategy in ending The Cold War? Perhaps Nixon’s opening up of relations with China seemed like a great decision at the time – but today’s China makes me think Nixon opened up a Trojan Horse.

Presidents before my time have brought about some terrible consequences. Instead of heeding Churchill’s admonition to “Love the Hun and kill the Bolshevik,” Woodrow Wilson inadvertently helped the Marxist take-over of Russia, which in turn brought the Iron Curtain thudding down on the USSR. Communist ideology spread like wildfire across the grasslands of the world, causing the deaths of tens of millions. FDR brought us his own vision, or perhaps the vision of someone close to him, of socialism; a somewhat unique American brand of welfare. Expanded dramatically by Lyndon Johnson, it changed Americans’ culture of self-reliance from what it was to what it is now; a quasi-socialist state in which a majority of voters would prefer subsidization to self-reliance, and are okay with submission to their government’s whims in return for subsistence and empty promises.

Which explains why President Bill Clinton made the kinds of popular decisions he did. And why George W. Bush made those he did, and why Barack Obama is still making the kind of decisions he is making.

But now we have this very serious situation involving Iran and nukes, which calls for decisions dictated not by a president’s ideology but by his and his advisers’ ability to foresee the full consequences of his decisions. Of course there will be some, unintended for sure, no matter which decision he makes. But as suggested earlier, it’s a matter of how dire the consequences might be. Decision “A” may work short-term, but may result in far worse consequences down the road than if the president went with plan “B.” Or “C” or “D.” For if anyone in the thrall of caliphate dreams is soulless, with the steely nerve of Harry Truman, the world may wake up one terrible morning to more Hiroshimas. One consequence of our President’s stubborn, ideological decision to essentially “do nothing” by kicking the can further down the road, leaving an even more impossible situation for his successor, may be a mushroom cloud over an American city, and a swath of radioactive death spreading across our land. Maybe across the city you live in.

Have you ever faced a bully? Let me ask you this; did “do nothing” ever work in dealing with a bully? If you haven’t, the answer is no. Bullies beg for confrontation. If you don’t want to get your ass handed to you by the bully, you must hand his ass to him. With prejudice. That bully will think twice, next time. And one unforeseen consequence may be that you actually gain his, and others’ respect.

President Obama is not likely to stop listening to whomever is advising him. He is not likely to set aside his hackneyed ideology. He is not likely to confront any of our enemies, or any of the crime and rebelliousness erupting on our own inner-city streets. His nature is to dread rejection. Bad press in England and Germany. Scorn from France. Humiliation in the eyes of UN “elites.” Anger toward him and his decisions by the muslim world. But at this point, regardless of which way he decides, he will get it all anyway. So he might as well do what needs to be done. After all, what’s the worst the rest of “the world” is going to do? Shake its trembling fingers at the U.S.? But Obama won’t do what needs to be done. He is unable. He doesn’t know how, and doesn’t have advisers who will tell him. He is on the glide path to be judged by history among the worst of our presidents; his only claim to immortality his election as America’s first black president.

If all negotiations fail to stop this nuclear weaponization, our next president, whoever he or she may be, does have a powerful military-diplomatic tool at their disposal. Plausible deniability. A terrible “accident” in the nuclear facilities of a nation warned about its efforts to become a nuclear power. Catastrophic. Messy.

When the alignment of our antagonists see (to quote Condi Rice) this “regrettable accident,” when they see the advancing of the evil cloud caused by their own illicit experiments, when the bullies see other irradiated leaders with blistered faces and singed hair glowing in the dark, you can count on one thing... without any physical proof they will know who made it happen, and they will rethink their ways.

Undoubtedly there will be many unintended and unknowable consequences to such a decision, but they are likely to be far less harmful to America than Obama’s strategy of loudly and proudly doing nothing.

10.10.2006

Daffy Duck

~
Let's get away from politics for awhile, shall we?

I don't watch a lot of tv, I haven't for many years. But recently I have had cause to see a lot of cable tv shows - those endless, endless home improvement type shows, the girls' make-overs and that sort of vomitous pap some call entertainment. I am struck by a couple of things.

First, with regard to men, it seems these cheap cable shows are overrun by homosexuals. Okay, it's a whole new genre, a whole world of employment previously unheard of. Bob Vila and Norm from "This Old House" would probably not be real comfortable letting these guys anywhere near their tools.

Well, since men are hopeless anyway, let's just go to my personal favorite; girls. And by that I mean females. I can no longer call them women. Yes, there it is, that's just the point. They may be over 18, they may be fully grown and fully employed, maybe even wealthy. But somewhere along the way, the female gender underwent a strange, almost alien change.

I still remember the graceful women of yesteryear, with their slow moves and sultry voices. What we seem to have today is an entire generation of adult little girls. Their speaking voices have moved from their throats up into their sinuses. They all - and I mean all -sound like they went to the Daffy Duck Voice Coaching School. Add to this the bizarre "modern girl speaking style" where every sentence ends with a question mark - "I came in the front door?" - "The make-up I use?" - "The guys who installed my kitchen?" It's enough to make you scream? Add to this the almost-whisper, where the amount of air they push through their voice box is just barely enough to produce a sound, so it trails off at the end of a sentence with a sound that reminds me of a death rattle.

Since I was a kid, I've been in awe of gracious, intelligent, good-looking women. It's in my blood. But today's chicks!? Today, with all their discretional income, and all that's available in fashion, almost any woman can make herself more than attractive. Downright sexy. But they seem to think attractiveness ends with fashion. It doesn't. An elegantly dressed, beautifully coiff'd, exquisitely made-up woman may be a feast for the eyes, but when she opens her mouth and that nasal Bugs Bunny "aaaya" assaults your senses, it's enough to make a man's ears hurt and his testicles shrivel like California raisins.

And what's with the gargoyle Rosie O'Donnell types!? They dress in lesbo brown jackets with collared blouses, make themselves up like mortician cosmeticians, and everything they say and do is as ugly as their faces. No doubt it's their inner ugliness, the ugliness of the mind, oozing up through their endodermis and finding its expression in their faces. I see it in Hillary Clinton for example. Here was a really beautiful young woman, bright, ambitious - but her ambition, her twisted philosophy - her inner self - finally made its way up and out and now shows on her face like a twisted witch's mask. No, don't give me that baloney about women lose their looks when they get older. That's total bull. Many mature women never lose their attractiveness, because their inner beauty shines through and makes them glow. Only immature men can't see it.

If you are old enough to remember how women were in the 1940s and 1950s, you'll know what I mean. Oh sure, for every Arlene Dahl or Kate Hepburn or Julie London or Janet Leigh there was a ditzy Lucille Ball or a Marilyn Monroe (both of whom, by the way, were real "dolls" when they were younger). By and large the girls in those years were emulating the Hepburns and Sandra Dee types. Ever since Cindy Lauper made it fashionable with "Girls just wanna have fun," and Madonna taught the sleaze factor to grammar school girls twenty years ago, we have grown a generation of lacey-edged, midriff-baring tarts with annoying voices. I dare you, just listen to average schoolgirls today. Your neighbor's kids, the kids in any mall, kids on tv, scurrying up and down the supermarket aisles with cell phones. Those Bugs Bunny voices would be considered torture by the Islamoes down in Gitmo.

If you are a mother of a young girl, don't get upset with me, ma'm. Your energy will be better spent looking at who your daughter is emulating. Paris? Jessica? Is this all we have left in America for young girls? To want to grow up to be like THEM? Ma'm, your girls need to be sent to charm school. No wonder American boys are the way they are. They'd rather get themselves a mail order mate from Tailand or Manila, or even walk on the wild side with a guaranteed-to-have-sex gay boy, than to have to put up with these girls and their whiny, nasal demands.

I don't know... maybe you know... eh, what's up doc?
~

10.05.2006

Foley, Foley, Foley

~
Okay, what can I say?

What you are witnessing here is the complete meltdown of Congress.
Good. I for one am happy.

Representatives and Senators get away with murder, grand larceny, treason and no one makes a big deal about it. But some prancing fop gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar of a boy intern (who I am sure exhudes the same snow white innocence as Anna Nicole Smith) and the Democrats and their lap dog liberal media go off like a rocketful of Viagra. How boring these clock-work October surprises have become. Of course, being clueless as usual, the Republicans reel in horror - Oh my God, he's gay! I let him drink out of my mineral water bottle! - trying to distance themselves from Foley and the inconvenient facts. "I was too busy fixing the Katrina thing down in New Orleans." Yeh, and a nice job you did down there, too.

But keep this in mind. To know who is responsible for all this mess - or for that matter any political or financial machinations - look to who profits most from it. Aha.

But who among us is surprised? No one.
Who among us doesn't think Foley was "October Surprised?" No one.
Who among us doesn't think Foley deserves to have his well-greased butt handed to him? No one.
Who among us doesn't think this is the tip of a very very smarmy iceberg? No one.
Who among us thinks there are still "honest" and moral leaders in Washington DC? No one.
Who among us doesn't think Conress is the greediest bunch of corrupt self-infatuated shits this country has ever spawned? No one.
Who among us doesn't want them all to be tarred, feather and rode out on their fat pampered arses? No one.
Who among us doesn't want a third party to break up the monopoly this bunch of hypocrites has had on the system for as long as we can remember? Well?

If you vote for anyone in either of these two parties, you are perpetuating their game of three-card monty. The American voter is being played for a sap. If there is no alternative, then it doesn't matter which of them gets elected. They are reflections in a mirror - opposite but exactly the same. Two flavors of poison. Take your pick.

Somewhere in this big wonderful country there must a handful of good people who can lead us out of this mess. Where are you? Certainly not in politics! Please, come forward and let us see you. Your nation cries out for you. We can't take these dimwit high school class presidents and Marxist high school newspaper editors anymore. It's not funny anymore. They have gone amok and the country is plunging into a hell where government corruption is no longer measured in the tens of thousands, but in the tens of billions. Like, who will profit most from this 700-mile border fence that won't stop anybody? The fence builder? The fence material supplier. The manufacturer? Or the politician getting 15% of the cost funneled to him under the table?

It is time to clean house on both sides of the aisle.
~