There has always been debate as to whether or not NASCAR race drivers are or are not athletes. I have no opinion on the subject, and don’t really care, but am not swayed by many of the arguments I hear from proponents of either point of view.
Pete Pistone at Motor Racing Network, who probably cannot be accused of being impartial on the subject, points to the return of Denny Hamlin to the Darlington 500 last night, six weeks after having surgery for stress fractures on several vertebrae in his lower back. “Anyone that doubts NASCAR drivers are athletes need only to look at Hamlin’s effort to see how wrong they are on the subject,” he says.
That’s one way to look at it, I guess. Another point of view might be that driving a stock car is so physically undemanding that it can be done even with a broken back. I’m not taking that position, you understand, I’m just saying that sometimes what you think is proof…
Danica Patrick Watch: She started 40th and finished 28th, gaining 12 positions because 11 cars ahead of her wrecked. She was 5 laps down to the leader, needing to be only 27 laps into the race this week to lose her first lap, which I think is a new record for her.
Question for Fox Sports: How many people would watch a football game if the television only showed one player at a time? Right, then why do you think that people watching an auto race only want to see one car at a time?
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
My Benghazi Question
I think that all this Benghazi nonsense is just that; nonsense, political posturing and hot air. The exhibition discredits Congress more than it does the Obama administration.
That being said, to some degree Obama’s people walked into this mess by being politicians and using more words in their “talking points” than were needed. Instead of saying “we have no indication that it was a terrorist attack,” which sounded like and was interpreted as a denial, simply say, “we don’t know the cause and are investigating.”
If a reporter goads you by asking, “Was it a terrorist attack?,” merely repeat your original statement that “we do not presently know the cause.”
There is a certain arrogance in trying to avoid saying that one does not know an answer, and that leads politicians into talking around the answer rather than simply giving the answer. Almost never does that really turn out well, and this is a case of that arrogance backfiring rather badly. You spend all that time carefully tailoring “talking points” to assure that you are going to sound good, and the result is this.
In my opinion, this "Benghazi-gate" affair is about nothing more than the typical political habit of talking with a greater concern for sounding good than for being informative.
The one point in all of this that bothers me, and that no one else seems to be paying any attention to, is the interaction between the State Department and the CIA in the Benghazi mission. It appears that the only person stationed in that mission who was not a member of the CIA, or a private contractor working for the CIA, was Ambassador Stevens, and I for one would like to know what he was doing there. Why was he with the CIA and why he was assigned to what appears to have been a CIA operation?
That being said, to some degree Obama’s people walked into this mess by being politicians and using more words in their “talking points” than were needed. Instead of saying “we have no indication that it was a terrorist attack,” which sounded like and was interpreted as a denial, simply say, “we don’t know the cause and are investigating.”
If a reporter goads you by asking, “Was it a terrorist attack?,” merely repeat your original statement that “we do not presently know the cause.”
There is a certain arrogance in trying to avoid saying that one does not know an answer, and that leads politicians into talking around the answer rather than simply giving the answer. Almost never does that really turn out well, and this is a case of that arrogance backfiring rather badly. You spend all that time carefully tailoring “talking points” to assure that you are going to sound good, and the result is this.
In my opinion, this "Benghazi-gate" affair is about nothing more than the typical political habit of talking with a greater concern for sounding good than for being informative.
The one point in all of this that bothers me, and that no one else seems to be paying any attention to, is the interaction between the State Department and the CIA in the Benghazi mission. It appears that the only person stationed in that mission who was not a member of the CIA, or a private contractor working for the CIA, was Ambassador Stevens, and I for one would like to know what he was doing there. Why was he with the CIA and why he was assigned to what appears to have been a CIA operation?
Friday, May 10, 2013
Definitions
I was reading an article last night that referred to our modern military as a "professional military caste of mercenaries." A bit harsh, perhaps, but more accurate than an "all volunteer military." Volunteering is not a career, and volunteers do not work for salary, benefits and a retirement plan.
Perceptions Count?
President Obama is still talking big on Syria, even though John Kerry is in Russia agreeing with Putin that we will join Russia in hosting peace talks between Assad and the rebels. Obama is still pounding the pulpit and saying that “Assad must go,” so there seems to be the usual lack of communication within the Obama Administration. Perhaps they need to learn how to use email.
Obama was asked about his “red line” statement during a press conference with the president of South Korea and told the questioner not to worry, that he was definitely going to bring Assad to justice. I'm not quoting there, because what he actually said was, “in the end, whether it's bin Laden or Qaddafi, if we say we're taking a position, I would think at this point the international community has a pretty good sense that we typically follow through on our commitments,” which is a clear implication that he is merely waiting for a convenient opportunity to assassinate Assad.
Well, given the shaky grammar and convoluted sentence structure, it's not really a clear indication of anything. If you make your sentences long enough and complicated enough no one can figure out what the hell you are talking about, but you'll sound intelligent and they'll think it's their failure.
He also got rather Clintonesque with another the “red line” questioner, saying that, “The operative word there, I guess, Stephen, is ‘perceived.’” Apparently everyone else is convinced on the chemical weapons thing, but he is not and, “I don't make decisions based on “perceived.’” Indeed. And it depends on “what ‘is’ is,” too.
Not to mention that the decision as to whether or not to go to war in Syria is for him to make, not Congress. Screw the constitution.
The international community may have “a pretty good sense that we typically follow through on our commitments,” but the domestic community is somewhat less sure according to recent polls which show that only 49% believe that he is “able to get things done.” They didn’t ask about whether or not he even wants to get things done.
As to his claim about “typically following through on our commitments,” I guess that doesn’t apply to closing prison gulags on Caribbean islands, or keeping campaign promises not to raise taxes on middle class. The latter might be back to the “operative word perceived,” however, as when Republicans let tax cuts expire it counts as a tax increase but when a Democrat lets the payroll tax cut expire it doesn't count as a tax increase. It’s all in how you “perceive” it, you see.
Obama was asked about his “red line” statement during a press conference with the president of South Korea and told the questioner not to worry, that he was definitely going to bring Assad to justice. I'm not quoting there, because what he actually said was, “in the end, whether it's bin Laden or Qaddafi, if we say we're taking a position, I would think at this point the international community has a pretty good sense that we typically follow through on our commitments,” which is a clear implication that he is merely waiting for a convenient opportunity to assassinate Assad.
Well, given the shaky grammar and convoluted sentence structure, it's not really a clear indication of anything. If you make your sentences long enough and complicated enough no one can figure out what the hell you are talking about, but you'll sound intelligent and they'll think it's their failure.
He also got rather Clintonesque with another the “red line” questioner, saying that, “The operative word there, I guess, Stephen, is ‘perceived.’” Apparently everyone else is convinced on the chemical weapons thing, but he is not and, “I don't make decisions based on “perceived.’” Indeed. And it depends on “what ‘is’ is,” too.
Not to mention that the decision as to whether or not to go to war in Syria is for him to make, not Congress. Screw the constitution.
The international community may have “a pretty good sense that we typically follow through on our commitments,” but the domestic community is somewhat less sure according to recent polls which show that only 49% believe that he is “able to get things done.” They didn’t ask about whether or not he even wants to get things done.
As to his claim about “typically following through on our commitments,” I guess that doesn’t apply to closing prison gulags on Caribbean islands, or keeping campaign promises not to raise taxes on middle class. The latter might be back to the “operative word perceived,” however, as when Republicans let tax cuts expire it counts as a tax increase but when a Democrat lets the payroll tax cut expire it doesn't count as a tax increase. It’s all in how you “perceive” it, you see.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Policy Redefined
I have certainly not been alone in being baffled by Obama’s incoherent and inconsistent positions on foreign policy. Why, for instance, make didactic statements about how “Assad must go,” when we have neither the means or the influence to make that happen? Why the list of fifteen reasons why we are in Afghanistan, none of which make any sense whatever? The list of questions is almost endless.
Then a blog commenter made a remark which lit the lightbulb. He said that Obama regards foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy. That made very little sense to me until his amplification revealed that by “policy” he meant “the means by which Obama pursues his own political success.” Ah, yes. That’s when the light dawned.
That’s what “policy” has come to mean in today’s political arena. It is no longer a set of principles which guide governance, it is a series of actions by which individual politicians advance their own political success. This is by no means limited to Obama, but as the Chief Executive of our nation, his practice of it is the most damaging.
As the commenter pointed out, “Obama's trip to Israel, for example, accomplished nothing internationally. However, it did quiet the daily attacks by the Israel Firsters in the US.” Which is exactly what it was intended to accomplish and is the point being made by the commenter.
Guantanamo is another case in point. So long as it was not damaging him politically, Obama did not care that it remained open and served as a severe blot on our national escutcheon. He did not care that, in his words, “it is not who we are.” He did not care that it was serving as a rally cry for the recruiting of soldiers in the “holy war” against us. But when the hunger strike called attention to the gulag which he had promised more than four years ago to close, he suddenly became overwhelmed with a passion to close it. What changed? The risk of it damaging his political success changed.
Republicans are “serious about cutting spending,” until it becomes politically risky to do so. They are opposed to Obama’s proposal to reduce the Social Security COLA, for instance. They oppose defense spending cuts that “will make America weaker,” which strikes me as silly, but is supported by many who are terrified of… You get my point.
We are no longer governed in the best interest of the nation as a whole, and certainly not in the interest of the common man. We are governed in the interest of assuring the political success of the people who are governing us, which is a form of government that is hard to define. It most certainly is not democracy.
Then a blog commenter made a remark which lit the lightbulb. He said that Obama regards foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy. That made very little sense to me until his amplification revealed that by “policy” he meant “the means by which Obama pursues his own political success.” Ah, yes. That’s when the light dawned.
That’s what “policy” has come to mean in today’s political arena. It is no longer a set of principles which guide governance, it is a series of actions by which individual politicians advance their own political success. This is by no means limited to Obama, but as the Chief Executive of our nation, his practice of it is the most damaging.
As the commenter pointed out, “Obama's trip to Israel, for example, accomplished nothing internationally. However, it did quiet the daily attacks by the Israel Firsters in the US.” Which is exactly what it was intended to accomplish and is the point being made by the commenter.
Guantanamo is another case in point. So long as it was not damaging him politically, Obama did not care that it remained open and served as a severe blot on our national escutcheon. He did not care that, in his words, “it is not who we are.” He did not care that it was serving as a rally cry for the recruiting of soldiers in the “holy war” against us. But when the hunger strike called attention to the gulag which he had promised more than four years ago to close, he suddenly became overwhelmed with a passion to close it. What changed? The risk of it damaging his political success changed.
Republicans are “serious about cutting spending,” until it becomes politically risky to do so. They are opposed to Obama’s proposal to reduce the Social Security COLA, for instance. They oppose defense spending cuts that “will make America weaker,” which strikes me as silly, but is supported by many who are terrified of… You get my point.
We are no longer governed in the best interest of the nation as a whole, and certainly not in the interest of the common man. We are governed in the interest of assuring the political success of the people who are governing us, which is a form of government that is hard to define. It most certainly is not democracy.
Bogus Award
Trust me, this cat does not do "brave." Seriously, does that look like a brave cat to you? It's just getting your teeth cleaned, Molly. As of today she's still barely speaking to us.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
The More Things Change...
I haven’t written in a while because I am finding the whole thing just too depressing. The stock market is over 14,000 again, home prices are rising 10% and more per year, with buyers bidding against each other and condo builders holding lotteries, consumer confidence is soaring and pundits are crowing about recovery. We’ve been here before, remember? It was in 2007 and we were on top of the world.
It’s all different this time, we are told. The fundamentals of the stock market are different and the housing market is not a bubble this time. Right, exactly how is it different?
The only difference I can see is that fewer people are supporting this garish display of greed and excess, given that the lowest percentage of our population is employed since 1980, and more of those who are employed are working in jobs that produce nothing. The bulk of our employment today is retail, entertainment and financial services; jobs supporting and catering to a lifestyle of consumption.
Government no longer even pretends to be anything but utterly corrupt; openly displays that it is controlled by corporate and special interest money, and nobody cares enough to vote them out of office.
We are still at war or threatening war against several nations who are no threat to us, and practicing assassination as an instrument of foreign policy; killing others in the name of preventing the possibility of a smaller number of American casualties. And nobody cares enough to even hold up a sign asking for it to stop.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. We don’t care what the oligarchy does or what happens to the rest of the world, so long as we have our “bread and circuses.” Hail Caesar.
It’s all different this time, we are told. The fundamentals of the stock market are different and the housing market is not a bubble this time. Right, exactly how is it different?
The only difference I can see is that fewer people are supporting this garish display of greed and excess, given that the lowest percentage of our population is employed since 1980, and more of those who are employed are working in jobs that produce nothing. The bulk of our employment today is retail, entertainment and financial services; jobs supporting and catering to a lifestyle of consumption.
Government no longer even pretends to be anything but utterly corrupt; openly displays that it is controlled by corporate and special interest money, and nobody cares enough to vote them out of office.
We are still at war or threatening war against several nations who are no threat to us, and practicing assassination as an instrument of foreign policy; killing others in the name of preventing the possibility of a smaller number of American casualties. And nobody cares enough to even hold up a sign asking for it to stop.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. We don’t care what the oligarchy does or what happens to the rest of the world, so long as we have our “bread and circuses.” Hail Caesar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)