Pelosi misses a point

Taking Speaker Pelosi at her word, that success in Basra is the result of cooperation from the Iranians, the question comes up, "Does this mean our policy of strength vis a vis Iran has succeeded?

Do you suppose that knowing that the US will stay in Iraq until the job is done has brought Iran to the point that they have decided they should "cooperate"?

Is Speaker Pelosi telling us that letting Iran know that force will be met by force has encouraged them to become less hostile?

Can we, now that Speaker Pelosi has endorsed it, be comfortable with our current approach to Iran?

Can we now believe that President Obama's approach to Iran will be to continue the successful approach of his Presidential predecessor?

Who can argue with someone as insightful and perceptive as Speaker Pelosi?

What ever happened to "gravitas"?

Doesn't seem to me like it was that long ago that "gravitas" was a high order criterion for evaluating a Presidential candidate.

We never hear about it much anymore.

Maybe it's because the front runner and media darling has all the gravitas of a fruit fly.

How else can you describe a candidate who flits around without substance but lands on "change" and "hope" and "I didn't know they were saying that" long enough to get some media attention.

I can envision four years of bread and circuses. Your taxes and my taxes will pay for the bread. The circuses will feature a ringmaster spouting "hope" and "change."

Real Debates vs. Carnivals of Questions

I've been thinking a lot about the upcoming Presidential debates. I know we will have them. It seems, however, that the last round during the primaries has been somewhere between misleading and unhelpful.

Here is a proposal:

Instead of moderators who ask questions (usually loaded to reflect their biases and agendas), let's have one "facilitator/referee".

Let's give each candidate a prescribed amount of time within the debate to discuss important problems. For example, let's say the debate is one hour long. It would be divided into three minute segments alternated between candidates, with four segments being devoted to a subject area. The full hour would have five 12-minute subject periods.

At the beginning of each subject segment, the facilitator would introduce the general subject, not phrased as a question but objectively. Such as "Immigration policy", "Energy policy", "Economic policy" "the Middle East", "Military policy" "Homeland Security", etc.

Each candidate would be allowed up to three minutes to tell us what they think the problem is and how they would solve it. Who is first up would be decided by flipping a coin. The second candidate would get three minutes to expound on his or her ideas. which could include a rebuttal of the comments by the preceding speaker on that subject.

To keep it civil, candidates who exceed their three minute allotment would have the length of their overage deducted from their next three-minute segment. No exceptions. If one runs three seconds long, instead of being allowed three minute next time up, that candidate would be allowed two minutes and 57 seconds.

The other rule enforced by the facilitator would be a penalty in time equal any time one candidate spends encroaching on the time of the other candidate by talking over him or her.

The result would be to give each candidate three uninterrupted minutes (twice) to discuss each subject.

We would learn how the candidates think on their feet, without being caught in "gotcha" questions designed for 15-second sound bite answers.

We would learn what they really think about the subject, not what a moderator forces them to think.

Obviously, there are other considerations, such as how to keep a candidate on topic. Again, the public will know when a candidate has skipped or skirted a subject, and can use their judgment to reward or punish such behavior.

In the end, the audience - which is smart enough to figure out who is substantial and who is blowing smoke on any subject - would be armed with real intelligence and understanding of where each candidate stands.

Weird Gas Attitudes

Today's newspaper had two front page articles that appeared to contradict each other, or at least, paint an interesting dichotomy about life in America.

On the one hand, an entire article was devoted to whingers about why they will not be able to take their traditional Memorial Weekend getaway to DisneyWorld because of the cost of gas. Some simple calculations suggest that the increase in cost is somewhere between $20 and $50. Less than taking the family to lunch at one of those B-grade Magic Kingdom restaurants. Still, plenty enough to complain about, especially when baited by the media.

On the same page was an article about BurgerKing consenting to pay an additional 1.5 cents to tomato growers who employ migrant labor in Immokalee, Florida. Good for them. I have nothing against paying pickers more. The workers were happy too. So happy that observers at the signing of the agreement in Washington DC, "including vanloads of workers who drove all night from Immokalee (FL) many with their families" applauded.

Yes, you read that right. Vanloads of workers drove from Immokalee to Washington. I've seen the conditions of the vans that carry migrant workers. I don't believe they are paragons of fuel efficiency. Plus, if they are filled with family members, it must affect fuel consumption to get to Washington and, one presumes, back to Immokalee.

So people who have enough to take holidays are complaining because gas costs too much. And people who need a penny a pound more to survive will drive hundreds of miles to witness an event that had no bearing on the final outcome of their cause.

America is becoming bi-polar. Half-selfish and half-silly.

Losing and the Hail Mary

Clinton watchers believe there is no such thing as an accident with them. Everything is calculated. This is not to say that they don't make mistakes. But they seldom take mis-steps.

It is highly likely that Hillary's most recent "gaffe" was not a "gaffe" all. Rather it may have been a considered attempt to raise a point about Obama's electability without mentioning the "R" word.

So Hillary is chastised for what she can write off as a insensitive comment, referring to RFK's assassination as a reason for her to defer her concession.

The subliminal idea, however, is that Barack Obama may be at risk. Why would that be, and she would not be at similar risk? Could it be because Barack is black? So, in case you had forgotten, this comment reminds you - without actually saying it.

It is a lot easier to say (with a tear in one's eye and quiver on the lip) that you were only reflecting on that very sad moment in American history, than it is to explain a blatant reference to race.

At a certain point in the game, the defensive end decides it is better to be penalized for pass interference than to allow a touchdown, especially when there is a chance you will get away with it if you are adept enough.

My Favorite Law

Just behind the Law of Gravity, which keeps me from floating out to space, my favorite law is the Law of Unintended Consequences.

It gets applied every day.

For example, the decision not to drill for oil in ANWAR, in order to protect the planet and the caribou that trod it, may end up with a growing herd of antler methane producers. Similarly, protecting the polar bear, a species that now has a population estimated at 25,000, can lead to the growth in that population that will generate enough bear-farts to pollute the Arctic and cause the melting of the ice cap - needed to support the polar bear.

Another example, attempts to solve the shortage of petroleum products by replacing drilled oil products with ethanol ends up diverting food to fuel vehicles, with the result being food shortages and starving populations throughout the world.

Another example, not yet happening but in the cards, Florida's opposition to drilling in the Gulf, based on a desire to preserve its beach-dependent tourism business, may end up with gas prices rising so high that hundreds of thousands of people who might once have come to the state now unable to afford the drive to Florida to enjoy the beaches.

When we mess with nature and the natural market, create problems instead of solving them.

Lost in Cyberspace

This blog replaces one with a similar title that, for reasons unimportant, slipped away into the ether. In the spirit of modern technology, this new blog as been cloned.

Stay tuned