I promised myself I wouldn’t succumb to the temptation to write about Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and his hysterical claims about racial profiling et al. He has never been considered by me as anything more than a predictable, politically correct Harvard hire. He’s lived his life as a walking and talking race baiter disguised as an academic.
The incident itself went according to script. The good professor returns home from a trip to China to discover he’s locked out of his fancy Victorian house on one of Cambridge’s more expensive streets. He goes around back to disable the alarm before asking his African-American driver to assist him in getting into the house. How many of us have climbed through a window or even broken one after locking ourselves out of our home? I know I have. If a cop showed up in my driveway at that point to ask me what I’m doing, I can assure you I would understand and even appreciate his or her efforts.
In Professor Grievance’s case, the police were there because a thoughtful and well meaning neighbor was concerned there could be a burglary in progress. It wasn’t as if the Cambridge cops were cruising around looking for middle-age black men to hassle. If you’ve ever spent time in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge, you would really understand that you have to get pretty jiggy before the gendarmes put the cuffs on you.
It was the announcement Monday that prompted me to write this little diatribe. The underlying assumption in this case has been that the woman who called police to report suspicious activity at the Gate’s residence specifically referenced the presence of two black men pushing in the front door. This poor woman has been in virtual seclusion all through this national hand-wringing, as one person after another has called her racist or worse.
The woman in question, Lucia Whalen, lives about 100 yards from the Gates residence and is of Portuguese descent, if anyone cares. Other than seeing the backs of two grown men attempting to push open the front door, Whelan said she was motivated by the fact there had been several break-ins in recent weeks in the neighborhood. So far, I’m not seeing any burning crosses or white pointy hoods.
Instead of calling Whalen and the responding police officers racists, Gates should have thanked them for their prompt response and calmly sorted it out on the porch as the cops requested. These types of incidents happen every day in America and don’t usually end with the homeowner in handcuffs.
In the case of Professor Grievance, the chip on his shoulder must have impeded the flow of oxygen to his brain. In spite of Professor Gate’s inflated opinion of his own celebrity, playing the “You don’t know who I am” card has never been a big hit with police. Referencing their “Mama” will also fast track most of us to the back of a squad car.
Now we all know President Obama really stepped in it when he elected to weigh in on Gates behalf. First of all, the President of the United States should have better things to do that react to a local beef. As an alleged constitutional authority, Obama should realize you don’t comment until you have all the facts. That he did says something about Obama’s real racial mindset and takes a bit of the sheen off his post-racial political identity.
Here’s how this sorry saga must end. The authorities in Cambridge must release the police tapes. My understanding is the tapes will totally vindicate the police and put the lie to Professor Grievance and his Al Sharpton imitation. Isn’t it interesting that Rev. Al didn’t hop that plane to Boston and get into the act? My guess is even he saw enough holes in Gate’s version, he didn’t want to look foolish again.(Can you say Tawana Brawley) The tapes will likely show a fairly routine “possible burglary in progress call” from a neighbor describing two men, followed by increasing radio chatter about a belligerent and disorderly person. Gates was eventually arrested for disorderly conduct and the charges later dropped.
As for Obama’s plan to have Gates and Sgt. Crowley to the White House for a beer, I find that pathetic and transparent. Gates and Obama are just trying to save face and the only victim in that room would be the cop. He was just doing his job and unfortunately so was Professor Grievance. Harvard should fire Gates but we all know they never will.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Make Cigarettes Illegal or Shut Up
In the interest of full disclosure I quit smoking almost three years ago. I actually calculated I had smoked approximately 300,000 cigarettes over nearly forty years. Think about it. A pack a day for forty years adds up to 291,200 cigarettes. Imagine someone telling you as a child that part of your life obligation was to smoke a few hundred thousand cigarettes. You’d be rightly horrified. In fact, I’m somewhat amazed I can even breathe when I think about it. I will also tell you the absence of cigarette smoke in my system has had a profound, positive impact on my health. My heart rate is lower as is my blood pressure. So you would think I’d be beating the drum for President Obama’s new Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act. Well, I’m not.
Here’s the problem with this and other anti-smoking legislation. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to regulate choice or personal behavior. The irony here is the anti-smoking fanatics are for the most part the same folks always screaming about choice. Their definition of choice is you agree with us or we’ll see to it you have no choice. This legislation is just another example of the nanny state and the liberal’s intention to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. It started with smoking and that insufferable, patronizing attitude is evidencing itself with efforts to regulate everything from fast food to soda pop.
But let’s go back to the legislation Obama signed into law Monday in a Rose Garden ceremony. The act empowers the Food and Drug administration to regulate nicotine for starters. Am I missing something but are cigarettes food or a drug? They’re a pleasurable bad habit like so many things in life. If a person wants to smoke like a chimney or eat 10 bacon double cheeseburgers a day, what possible business is that of the federal government? One of the many benefits of living in a free society is the right to do as we damn well please within the confines of the law. Unless smoking cigarettes is deemed an illegal act, the distribution and consumption of cigarettes should not be regulated.
I can already hear you out there fuming (a little cigarette humor). The first retort is smoking kills. Yes and no. It’s clearly not good for you but I am living proof smoking doesn’t kill. No question it contributes to lung and heart problems but smoking critics tend to blame cigarettes for almost every inevitable malady. Take second hand smoke as an example. You will never convince me that being in the same room with a smoker is going to cause me any harm. If it did my children and a number of dogs and cats would all be dead or impaired. Second hand smoke is utter nonsense and detracts from any serious discussion about smoking.
I realize this legislation is just another stop on the road to outlawing smoking. Why it has become a partisan, political issue is beyond me. Like most things in life, choosing to smoke should be a personal decision and if impacts someone negatively, so be it. But I don’t want Uncle Sam playing smoke or burger police.
Jim Langan can br reached at editorial@thehudsonvalleynews.com
Here’s the problem with this and other anti-smoking legislation. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to regulate choice or personal behavior. The irony here is the anti-smoking fanatics are for the most part the same folks always screaming about choice. Their definition of choice is you agree with us or we’ll see to it you have no choice. This legislation is just another example of the nanny state and the liberal’s intention to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. It started with smoking and that insufferable, patronizing attitude is evidencing itself with efforts to regulate everything from fast food to soda pop.
But let’s go back to the legislation Obama signed into law Monday in a Rose Garden ceremony. The act empowers the Food and Drug administration to regulate nicotine for starters. Am I missing something but are cigarettes food or a drug? They’re a pleasurable bad habit like so many things in life. If a person wants to smoke like a chimney or eat 10 bacon double cheeseburgers a day, what possible business is that of the federal government? One of the many benefits of living in a free society is the right to do as we damn well please within the confines of the law. Unless smoking cigarettes is deemed an illegal act, the distribution and consumption of cigarettes should not be regulated.
I can already hear you out there fuming (a little cigarette humor). The first retort is smoking kills. Yes and no. It’s clearly not good for you but I am living proof smoking doesn’t kill. No question it contributes to lung and heart problems but smoking critics tend to blame cigarettes for almost every inevitable malady. Take second hand smoke as an example. You will never convince me that being in the same room with a smoker is going to cause me any harm. If it did my children and a number of dogs and cats would all be dead or impaired. Second hand smoke is utter nonsense and detracts from any serious discussion about smoking.
I realize this legislation is just another stop on the road to outlawing smoking. Why it has become a partisan, political issue is beyond me. Like most things in life, choosing to smoke should be a personal decision and if impacts someone negatively, so be it. But I don’t want Uncle Sam playing smoke or burger police.
Jim Langan can br reached at editorial@thehudsonvalleynews.com
Does Cheating Matter Anymore?
Ross Perot was once asked about his policy of firing employees found to have cheated on their spouses. The question came up in the context of his criticism of then Governor Bill Clinton. Perot said simply “The way I look at it is if your wife can’t trust you, why should I.” It’s a good thing the Perot philosophy isn’t law or a lot of politicians would be out of work. Last week South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford blew up his family and career when it was discovered he’s slipped off to Argentina to rendezvous with a woman not his wife.
Sanford apparently told his staff he was going hiking on the Appalachian Trail when in fact he flew to Buenos Aries. As a friend of mine said “I didn’t realize the Appalachian trail went that far south.” Sanford’s behavior and lame explanation brought to mind Jay Leno’s famous question of actor Hugh Grant shortly after he was caught with a transvestite hooker in Los Angeles. “What were you thinking?”
You have to wonder what Sanford’s thought process was. Did he think no one would find it odd that the governor of a state simply vanished and nobody had any way of contacting him? It was especially ironic because the republican Sanford loved beating the family values drum and was highly critical of Bill Clinton’s womanizing. In fact, there was considerable speculation Sanford was going to run for president in 2012. He can kiss that baby good-bye.
The revelation that Sanford cheated on his wife put yet another brick in the wall of public cynicism about our so-called leaders. Fidelity and truthfulness have become an increasingly rare attribute in politicians. Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer are just a few high profile names associated with a sex scandal. Those are just some of the politicians we know fooled around. Like every thing else in life, we know those actually caught are likely just the tip of the extramarital iceberg.
The issue for voters, however, has always been, does it really matter if an elected official is a pig? I remember having a conversation with one of JFK’s sisters on that subject. Her response was “Jack may have screwed a lot of women but he never screwed the country.” Much the same was said of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton’s interpretation was “I was hired to do the nations business.” Then again, what else could he say although I maintain Bill Clinton would still be denying he had sex with “that woman” if Monica hadn’t produced the infamous blue dress.
For some bizarre reason philandering has taken on a decidedly partisan tone over the years. Democrats are far more inclined to dismiss infidelity as a personal matter while republicans attempt to take the high moral ground. Democrats probably have it right because when a high profile republican like Mark Sanford gets busted, republicans look foolish and hypocritical. The people who live in glass houses analogy comes to mind.
Voters seem to have a case by case reaction to sex scandals. Clearly they gave Bill Clinton a pass on his disgraceful womanizing probably because it didn’t come as a surprise and Hillary was seen as almost complicit in the affairs. John Edwards was the opposite. He was seen as an absolute hypocrite, cheating on his cancer stricken wife. He will spend the rest of his life in well deserved political exile.
Then there was Eliot Spitzer. He was busted at the Mayflower hotel in Washington with a high-priced call girl. Again, I doubt if Eliot Spitzer is the first politician to avail himself of the services of a hooker but it was his reputation as a crusader and scold that did him in. He had no problem telling people and corporations how to live their lives so when he got caught, there wasn’t a lot of sympathy for him. It appears we have gotten to the point where we almost assume our political leaders cheat and will lie about it if not caught red handed. Maybe for a lot of people, the Mark Sanford’s of the world hit a little too close to home. The divorce rate in this country tells you there’s a lot of cheating going on out there. That said, I still hear that Ross Perot quote in my head.
Sanford apparently told his staff he was going hiking on the Appalachian Trail when in fact he flew to Buenos Aries. As a friend of mine said “I didn’t realize the Appalachian trail went that far south.” Sanford’s behavior and lame explanation brought to mind Jay Leno’s famous question of actor Hugh Grant shortly after he was caught with a transvestite hooker in Los Angeles. “What were you thinking?”
You have to wonder what Sanford’s thought process was. Did he think no one would find it odd that the governor of a state simply vanished and nobody had any way of contacting him? It was especially ironic because the republican Sanford loved beating the family values drum and was highly critical of Bill Clinton’s womanizing. In fact, there was considerable speculation Sanford was going to run for president in 2012. He can kiss that baby good-bye.
The revelation that Sanford cheated on his wife put yet another brick in the wall of public cynicism about our so-called leaders. Fidelity and truthfulness have become an increasingly rare attribute in politicians. Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer are just a few high profile names associated with a sex scandal. Those are just some of the politicians we know fooled around. Like every thing else in life, we know those actually caught are likely just the tip of the extramarital iceberg.
The issue for voters, however, has always been, does it really matter if an elected official is a pig? I remember having a conversation with one of JFK’s sisters on that subject. Her response was “Jack may have screwed a lot of women but he never screwed the country.” Much the same was said of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton’s interpretation was “I was hired to do the nations business.” Then again, what else could he say although I maintain Bill Clinton would still be denying he had sex with “that woman” if Monica hadn’t produced the infamous blue dress.
For some bizarre reason philandering has taken on a decidedly partisan tone over the years. Democrats are far more inclined to dismiss infidelity as a personal matter while republicans attempt to take the high moral ground. Democrats probably have it right because when a high profile republican like Mark Sanford gets busted, republicans look foolish and hypocritical. The people who live in glass houses analogy comes to mind.
Voters seem to have a case by case reaction to sex scandals. Clearly they gave Bill Clinton a pass on his disgraceful womanizing probably because it didn’t come as a surprise and Hillary was seen as almost complicit in the affairs. John Edwards was the opposite. He was seen as an absolute hypocrite, cheating on his cancer stricken wife. He will spend the rest of his life in well deserved political exile.
Then there was Eliot Spitzer. He was busted at the Mayflower hotel in Washington with a high-priced call girl. Again, I doubt if Eliot Spitzer is the first politician to avail himself of the services of a hooker but it was his reputation as a crusader and scold that did him in. He had no problem telling people and corporations how to live their lives so when he got caught, there wasn’t a lot of sympathy for him. It appears we have gotten to the point where we almost assume our political leaders cheat and will lie about it if not caught red handed. Maybe for a lot of people, the Mark Sanford’s of the world hit a little too close to home. The divorce rate in this country tells you there’s a lot of cheating going on out there. That said, I still hear that Ross Perot quote in my head.
Why's Palin Bailin'?
Like almost everyone else, I’m having a difficult time reconciling Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s decision to resign as Governor. While her press conference wasn’t as weird as the one she gave last Thanksgiving, where a man stood in the background shoving turkeys into a decapitation device, as the Governor babbled on, it was pretty close. For anyone who hasn’t seen the video on you tube, it shows a chirpy Sarah Palin telling a reporter how much she enjoyed the Thanksgiving tradition and her recent run for the vice-presidency while a demented looking guy in blood soaked overalls kills turkeys. It is surreal given Palin was at the turkey farm to pardon the Thanksgiving bird.
Like the Thanksgiving video, last week’s announcement set off another round of “what a wack job” to “never underestimate Sarah Palin” depending on your political persuasion. The press conference was held in the back yard of her home in Wasilla. The only people in attendance other than press were her family and a couple of neighbors. She then launched into a “what is she talking about” ramble that had to have had even the biggest Sarah Palin fans scratching their heads. I kept waiting for the turkey guy to amble across the field behind her.
Even the timing of her Friday news conference was puzzling. Why would anyone want to compete with the wall to wall Michael Jackson coverage and the 4th of July? The only time a politician wants to announce anything in an environment like that is if it’s bad news. Well, I still can’t figure out what it is. Listening to Palin was like listening to Professor Irwin Corey. (You youngsters can google him up). You knew she was talking but you just weren’t sure what she was saying.
Not only is she quitting her job as Governor of Alaska, she’s resigning early. This leaves her vulnerable to the charge she’s a quitter. Americans don’t like quitters or whiners. She did a little of both the other day. As best I could interpret her remarks, she says she’s sick and tired of being criticized and lampooned.
Now I don’t disagree that the liberal media has been pathological and pathetic in its criticism but it goes with the territory these days. Palin should read up on my old boss, Richard Nixon. No one was more vilified by the liberal press than Nixon. The liberals hated him because he was right on communists in government and Alger Hiss in the late ‘40’s. He was written off time and again yet managed to be elected president in 1968. He knew he would never win over his critics so he focused on the so-called silent majority.
My instinct tells me Palin isn’t done yet although leaving a governor’s mansion early is a curious way of keeping your presidential aspirations afloat. But it’s important to remember she’s governor of Alaska. If you’ve never been there, it’s a hike. It’s a full day’s air travel and doesn’t lend itself to quick political appearances. Nor is the national media likely to spend much time or money keeping a correspondent or film crew in Anchorage. So is Palin wants to build on her celebrity, she can’t be tethered to Alaska. She needs to be closer to the big media markets like New York and Washington.
That leaves her two alternatives. She could run for Senator next year and hope a victory would bring her more Beltway exposure and an opportunity to grow her foreign policy chops a la Hillary Clinton prior to a presidential bid in 2012. Or she could land herself a chat show on cable but given the media animosity towards her, she’d probably have to settle for Fox News which would be tantamount to preaching to the converted. That’s exactly why former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has a show on Fox. It keeps him in the mix and provides a launching pad for 2012.
Then, of course, there’s the remote possibility she’s had enough or she’s getting off the stage before some sort of corruption scandal engulfs her. I doubt she’s had enough because it sure looked like she enjoyed the klieg lights last year. And like most politicians, she’s surrounded by acolytes telling her how fabulous she is. As for a scandal, resigning won’t get prosecutors off your back, so I don’t buy it.
My best guess is she simply wants a time out and she knows there’s plenty of time to get back in the game. Remember, this woman has had an incredible year on so many levels. Even a hockey Mom needs a little time on the bench.
Like the Thanksgiving video, last week’s announcement set off another round of “what a wack job” to “never underestimate Sarah Palin” depending on your political persuasion. The press conference was held in the back yard of her home in Wasilla. The only people in attendance other than press were her family and a couple of neighbors. She then launched into a “what is she talking about” ramble that had to have had even the biggest Sarah Palin fans scratching their heads. I kept waiting for the turkey guy to amble across the field behind her.
Even the timing of her Friday news conference was puzzling. Why would anyone want to compete with the wall to wall Michael Jackson coverage and the 4th of July? The only time a politician wants to announce anything in an environment like that is if it’s bad news. Well, I still can’t figure out what it is. Listening to Palin was like listening to Professor Irwin Corey. (You youngsters can google him up). You knew she was talking but you just weren’t sure what she was saying.
Not only is she quitting her job as Governor of Alaska, she’s resigning early. This leaves her vulnerable to the charge she’s a quitter. Americans don’t like quitters or whiners. She did a little of both the other day. As best I could interpret her remarks, she says she’s sick and tired of being criticized and lampooned.
Now I don’t disagree that the liberal media has been pathological and pathetic in its criticism but it goes with the territory these days. Palin should read up on my old boss, Richard Nixon. No one was more vilified by the liberal press than Nixon. The liberals hated him because he was right on communists in government and Alger Hiss in the late ‘40’s. He was written off time and again yet managed to be elected president in 1968. He knew he would never win over his critics so he focused on the so-called silent majority.
My instinct tells me Palin isn’t done yet although leaving a governor’s mansion early is a curious way of keeping your presidential aspirations afloat. But it’s important to remember she’s governor of Alaska. If you’ve never been there, it’s a hike. It’s a full day’s air travel and doesn’t lend itself to quick political appearances. Nor is the national media likely to spend much time or money keeping a correspondent or film crew in Anchorage. So is Palin wants to build on her celebrity, she can’t be tethered to Alaska. She needs to be closer to the big media markets like New York and Washington.
That leaves her two alternatives. She could run for Senator next year and hope a victory would bring her more Beltway exposure and an opportunity to grow her foreign policy chops a la Hillary Clinton prior to a presidential bid in 2012. Or she could land herself a chat show on cable but given the media animosity towards her, she’d probably have to settle for Fox News which would be tantamount to preaching to the converted. That’s exactly why former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has a show on Fox. It keeps him in the mix and provides a launching pad for 2012.
Then, of course, there’s the remote possibility she’s had enough or she’s getting off the stage before some sort of corruption scandal engulfs her. I doubt she’s had enough because it sure looked like she enjoyed the klieg lights last year. And like most politicians, she’s surrounded by acolytes telling her how fabulous she is. As for a scandal, resigning won’t get prosecutors off your back, so I don’t buy it.
My best guess is she simply wants a time out and she knows there’s plenty of time to get back in the game. Remember, this woman has had an incredible year on so many levels. Even a hockey Mom needs a little time on the bench.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
ALEIKUM SALAAM MY ASS
If you’ve been reading my column over the years, you know I was for Obama early and often. Like many Americans I thought it was time for a substantive change after eight frustrating years of George Bush and partisan gridlock. I was further convinced the United States didn’t need the Clintons back in the White House which only made the case for Obama more compelling. Sure, there were some misgivings. Jeremiah Wright and his racist, anti-American rants from the pulpit made me wonder how much of that the Obama’s bought into. Michelle Obama’s statement after a big primary win that it was the first time she had ever been proud to be an American was deeply troubling as was her general prickliness. But every time I began to waver, I thought about four years looking at Hillary Clinton and I was back in the Obama camp.
I remember writing that voters saw Barack Obama as a non-threatening black man of obvious intelligence and grace. If the missus had an attitude, so be it. She wasn’t going to be President of the United States. Furthermore, why would Barack Obama have a chip on his shoulder or harbor any anti-American sentiment? This guy has led a charmed life and his color actually worked to his advantage as he glided through life.
Sure, there were whispers and allegations that Obama was some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate whose true colors would surface after the election. Anyone espousing such views was dismissed as a right wing nut job or idiot, usually both. I kept telling myself this guy was Columbia and Harvard Law Review. He was whiter than I am and twice as smart. The only thing that worried me about him was his socialist leanings but that worries me about most democrats. In the end, Obama persuaded me and a majority of Americans he shared our core values.
Now I’m beginning to wonder. He got my buyer’s remorse going when he theatrically announced the closing of Gitmo and a no more torture policy but I attributed that to his need to keep the crazies at MoveOn.org calm The subsequent world apology tour got a little nauseating and the Obama’s Jack and Jackie routine began to wear a little thin before the first crocus appeared.
Then came the speech in Cairo last week. In the much ballyhooed address, President Obama told the Arab world what it wanted to hear. The word terrorism was never uttered. His speech completely sanitized Islam while embracing the “great accomplishments” of Muslims through the ages. As I listened to the speech, I wondered why I didn’t know Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were Muslims and that’s a Muslim crescent moon not an American flag on the moon. A more careful reading of the president’s remarks cites calligraphy as Muslim’s greatest accomplishment.
He went on to say, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Try telling that to the untold number of innocent civilians butchered by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan or those in mass graves in Iraq, all murdered in the name of Allah. To use the word tolerance and Muslim in the same sentence is an obscenity. This is a religion that still stones and beheads non-believers and treats women like chattel.
The central tenet of Obama’s speech was America is always the guilty party in our dealings with the Arab world and nowhere in the speech does the president allude to the relentless attacks on the West committed in the name of Islam over the years. The fact that the Obama administration has banned using the word terrorism shows tells me they don’t get or don’t want to. They’re also kidding themselves if they think kissing Arab derrieres is going to deter further acts of terrorism. It will simply make us look more foolish when it happens.
There are two ways to interpret President Obama’s view of Islam and the threats posed by the extremist groups within it. Either Obama has a more genuine sympathy for the grievances of those who want to kill us in the name of Islam or the president thinks this kind of flattering rhetoric will short circuit further attacks. Either interpretation scares me. The ideology that brought down the Twin Towers and killed thousands on 9-11 isn’t going to embrace America or democracy because one president extends an olive branch.
They’re never going to love us and we sure don’t have to love them. America should be more concerned with other nations fearing us than respecting us.
Finally, I’m fascinated by the initial polling on this speech. Much like the election results 60+% of Americans liked the speech. Does that mean most Americans are ashamed of our international profile and America’s history? Do they want America to devolve into some sort of international European Union, suppressing our core values in pursuit of some sort of global harmony? Or do they just not get it and are on still on the proverbial honeymoon? I’m still on board but I’m checking the exit ram
I remember writing that voters saw Barack Obama as a non-threatening black man of obvious intelligence and grace. If the missus had an attitude, so be it. She wasn’t going to be President of the United States. Furthermore, why would Barack Obama have a chip on his shoulder or harbor any anti-American sentiment? This guy has led a charmed life and his color actually worked to his advantage as he glided through life.
Sure, there were whispers and allegations that Obama was some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate whose true colors would surface after the election. Anyone espousing such views was dismissed as a right wing nut job or idiot, usually both. I kept telling myself this guy was Columbia and Harvard Law Review. He was whiter than I am and twice as smart. The only thing that worried me about him was his socialist leanings but that worries me about most democrats. In the end, Obama persuaded me and a majority of Americans he shared our core values.
Now I’m beginning to wonder. He got my buyer’s remorse going when he theatrically announced the closing of Gitmo and a no more torture policy but I attributed that to his need to keep the crazies at MoveOn.org calm The subsequent world apology tour got a little nauseating and the Obama’s Jack and Jackie routine began to wear a little thin before the first crocus appeared.
Then came the speech in Cairo last week. In the much ballyhooed address, President Obama told the Arab world what it wanted to hear. The word terrorism was never uttered. His speech completely sanitized Islam while embracing the “great accomplishments” of Muslims through the ages. As I listened to the speech, I wondered why I didn’t know Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were Muslims and that’s a Muslim crescent moon not an American flag on the moon. A more careful reading of the president’s remarks cites calligraphy as Muslim’s greatest accomplishment.
He went on to say, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Try telling that to the untold number of innocent civilians butchered by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan or those in mass graves in Iraq, all murdered in the name of Allah. To use the word tolerance and Muslim in the same sentence is an obscenity. This is a religion that still stones and beheads non-believers and treats women like chattel.
The central tenet of Obama’s speech was America is always the guilty party in our dealings with the Arab world and nowhere in the speech does the president allude to the relentless attacks on the West committed in the name of Islam over the years. The fact that the Obama administration has banned using the word terrorism shows tells me they don’t get or don’t want to. They’re also kidding themselves if they think kissing Arab derrieres is going to deter further acts of terrorism. It will simply make us look more foolish when it happens.
There are two ways to interpret President Obama’s view of Islam and the threats posed by the extremist groups within it. Either Obama has a more genuine sympathy for the grievances of those who want to kill us in the name of Islam or the president thinks this kind of flattering rhetoric will short circuit further attacks. Either interpretation scares me. The ideology that brought down the Twin Towers and killed thousands on 9-11 isn’t going to embrace America or democracy because one president extends an olive branch.
They’re never going to love us and we sure don’t have to love them. America should be more concerned with other nations fearing us than respecting us.
Finally, I’m fascinated by the initial polling on this speech. Much like the election results 60+% of Americans liked the speech. Does that mean most Americans are ashamed of our international profile and America’s history? Do they want America to devolve into some sort of international European Union, suppressing our core values in pursuit of some sort of global harmony? Or do they just not get it and are on still on the proverbial honeymoon? I’m still on board but I’m checking the exit ram
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
CONTRIVED INDIGNATION INDEED
Former vice-president Dick Cheney hit it out of the park last week in a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington last Thursday. At almost the same time President Obama was speaking about what he considers the “Bush-Cheney team setting aside American values and the rule of law” in dealing with terrorists, Cheney took Obama to the oratorical woodshed. Now Cheney’s dour demeanor and the endless pounding he has taken from the liberal media has made Dick Cheney a tough guy to like but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
Let’s start with terrorism itself and work towards 9-11 and the Bush-Cheney response. Prior to 9-11 there had been a series of well financed and coordinated attacks on American interests abroad as well as the first World Trade bombing. Partly because the Clinton administration chose to ignore or downplay the significance and scope of these attacks, most Americans paid very little attention to terrorism or their surroundings. That all changed on September 11th 2001. The beast had come out of the forest. Am I saying Bill Clinton encouraged terrorism? No. But he didn’t use the intelligence available to him to put the nation on a more vigilant course.
By the time George Bush took over much of the planning and training for 9-11 was well underway. 9-11 did indeed come out of the blue for most Americans, out of a beautiful blue sky on that awful morning. President Bush and Dick Cheney reacted swiftly, identifying the perpetrators and the source of their funding. While there was an element of beating up the guy who beat up your brother, America demanded we lash out at the terrorists in Afghanistan. Bombing Afghanistan and our subsequent war there hasn’t caught Bin-Laden but he’s not rubbing our nose in it poolside in Saudi Arabia like so many other nefarious characters. He’s either dead or receiving visitors by candlelight in a cave.
We may all be dead by the time historians sort through what happened under Bush- Cheney but one fact is clear. There was not one incidence of domestic terrorism on their watch. How many of you can remember the number of doomsday scenarios played out on television and living rooms around this country. They’re going to bomb the subways, Grand Central, more planes or they’re going to lace the Croton reservoir with some kind of killer bacteria. Nothing was off the table and Americans feared for their lives and those of their children. But nothing happened, did it? Can you say thank you to Bush and Cheney for making and keeping us safe. Some can but the left wing loonies wanted to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes, some still do. How nuts is that?
Now why do you suppose the same terrorist organizations responsible for 9-11 and bombing the Cole never appeared again domestically after 9-11? Because we either locked the enemy combatants we caught up or extracted the information necessary to prevent further loss of American life. Remember how everyone marveled at the dramatic reduction of crime in New York during the Giuliani years? What a genius, they said. Actually, all he did was lock up the criminals and keep them locked up. Pretty basic math-career criminal in jail, appreciably less crime.
But here’s where Cheney won the day in his critique of the Obama crowd’s reaction to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Incidentally, hats off to the wordsmith who came up with that ridiculous phrase. It’s right up there with liberals who now insist on being called “progressives.” Please, we know what both mean. It was Cheney’s use of the phrase “contrived indignation” to describe the left’s horrified reaction to water boarding that made me smile. Because that’s exactly what it is.
We water boarded three grown men in an attempt to get information on pending or planned attacks on U.S. soil. These weren’t 14 year-old boys looking at Al-Queda the way some urban kids look to gangs for structure. These were three men dedicated to killing as many Americans as they could. One masterminded 9-11 while another bragged about personally beheading journalist Danny Pearl. This wasn’t Lenny Briscoe sweating a murder suspect on Law and Order. I don’t care if we strapped these guys to a porpoise at Sea World and rode them around for a week. They had a proven evil intent and the information we gained saved untold lives.
And don’t tell me about American values and the rule of law. These were extraordinary times and required extraordinary measures. Would American values have prevented us in World War II from doing whatever was necessary to known Nazi commanders in order to save GI’s? So spare me the “contrived indignation” and accept it for what it was…a terrorism free 7 years.
Jim Langan can be reached at Jimlangan@thehudsonvalleynews.com
Let’s start with terrorism itself and work towards 9-11 and the Bush-Cheney response. Prior to 9-11 there had been a series of well financed and coordinated attacks on American interests abroad as well as the first World Trade bombing. Partly because the Clinton administration chose to ignore or downplay the significance and scope of these attacks, most Americans paid very little attention to terrorism or their surroundings. That all changed on September 11th 2001. The beast had come out of the forest. Am I saying Bill Clinton encouraged terrorism? No. But he didn’t use the intelligence available to him to put the nation on a more vigilant course.
By the time George Bush took over much of the planning and training for 9-11 was well underway. 9-11 did indeed come out of the blue for most Americans, out of a beautiful blue sky on that awful morning. President Bush and Dick Cheney reacted swiftly, identifying the perpetrators and the source of their funding. While there was an element of beating up the guy who beat up your brother, America demanded we lash out at the terrorists in Afghanistan. Bombing Afghanistan and our subsequent war there hasn’t caught Bin-Laden but he’s not rubbing our nose in it poolside in Saudi Arabia like so many other nefarious characters. He’s either dead or receiving visitors by candlelight in a cave.
We may all be dead by the time historians sort through what happened under Bush- Cheney but one fact is clear. There was not one incidence of domestic terrorism on their watch. How many of you can remember the number of doomsday scenarios played out on television and living rooms around this country. They’re going to bomb the subways, Grand Central, more planes or they’re going to lace the Croton reservoir with some kind of killer bacteria. Nothing was off the table and Americans feared for their lives and those of their children. But nothing happened, did it? Can you say thank you to Bush and Cheney for making and keeping us safe. Some can but the left wing loonies wanted to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes, some still do. How nuts is that?
Now why do you suppose the same terrorist organizations responsible for 9-11 and bombing the Cole never appeared again domestically after 9-11? Because we either locked the enemy combatants we caught up or extracted the information necessary to prevent further loss of American life. Remember how everyone marveled at the dramatic reduction of crime in New York during the Giuliani years? What a genius, they said. Actually, all he did was lock up the criminals and keep them locked up. Pretty basic math-career criminal in jail, appreciably less crime.
But here’s where Cheney won the day in his critique of the Obama crowd’s reaction to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Incidentally, hats off to the wordsmith who came up with that ridiculous phrase. It’s right up there with liberals who now insist on being called “progressives.” Please, we know what both mean. It was Cheney’s use of the phrase “contrived indignation” to describe the left’s horrified reaction to water boarding that made me smile. Because that’s exactly what it is.
We water boarded three grown men in an attempt to get information on pending or planned attacks on U.S. soil. These weren’t 14 year-old boys looking at Al-Queda the way some urban kids look to gangs for structure. These were three men dedicated to killing as many Americans as they could. One masterminded 9-11 while another bragged about personally beheading journalist Danny Pearl. This wasn’t Lenny Briscoe sweating a murder suspect on Law and Order. I don’t care if we strapped these guys to a porpoise at Sea World and rode them around for a week. They had a proven evil intent and the information we gained saved untold lives.
And don’t tell me about American values and the rule of law. These were extraordinary times and required extraordinary measures. Would American values have prevented us in World War II from doing whatever was necessary to known Nazi commanders in order to save GI’s? So spare me the “contrived indignation” and accept it for what it was…a terrorism free 7 years.
Jim Langan can be reached at Jimlangan@thehudsonvalleynews.com
Thursday, May 14, 2009
FYI
For those who don't know I have been remiss posting my column because I have srted a weekly newspaper in Dutchess County New York. I will resume posting columns here and advise you when The Hudson Valley News goes on line. The website will be thehudsonvalleynews.com and it should be up and running shortly.Thanks for your patience. Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
