Some clergy have come out to publicly condemn our "celebration" of Osama bin Laden's death.
Father Edward Beck, a Catholic priest in New York City, has stated, "I am uncomfortable with the killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Superbowl win." Last night, he went on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss his views. When O'Reilly asked him how the response to the death of bin Laden was any different than the response to the end of WWII on VE Day or VJ Day, Beck replied, "But when you watch these people celebrating how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?"
Beck's views of moral equivalence are echoed by George Pitcher, an Anglican priest in London. Writing in The Telegraph, Pitcher argues:
We have to be very careful about our response to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The West was appalled and deeply offended by the street celebrations in Tehran and elsewhere after 9/11, but how do rednecks in Washington DC chanting "USA! USA!" after the shooting of Osama and other members of his household compare with that?
Absolute rubbish.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States by telling Muslims it was their solemn duty to kill Americans be the military or civilian. Members of bin Laden's organization carried out his fatwa on September 11, 2001. The response to the death of bin Laden was in part to praise the bravery of our soldiers and in part to remind evildoers that they reap what they sow. Those in the Middle East who danced in the streets following the attacks of September 11, 2001 chanting "Death to America!"did so out of hatred of people they deemed to be infidels. They delighted in the deaths of men, women and children.
I cannot help but think of the celebrations which broke out in the streets of Rafah following the murder of the Fogel family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar back in March. If neither Beck nor Pitcher can discern between the death of Osama bin Laden and the death of a three month old baby who had her throat slit and was decapitated because she was Jewish then I am left with no choice but to declare that both men are unworthy of the cloth.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Dalai Lama Sheds No Tears Over bin Laden
It amuses me to no end that the Dalai Lama is shedding no tears over the death of Osama bin Laden.
During an appearance at USC yesterday, the Tibetan spiritual leader said, in response to a question about bin Laden's death, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. ... If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures."
I wonder if The Dalai Lama's response had anything to do with the Taliban's blowing up two Buddhist statues in Afghanistan back in March 2001. I'm sure he hasn't forgotten.
During an appearance at USC yesterday, the Tibetan spiritual leader said, in response to a question about bin Laden's death, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. ... If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures."
I wonder if The Dalai Lama's response had anything to do with the Taliban's blowing up two Buddhist statues in Afghanistan back in March 2001. I'm sure he hasn't forgotten.
Baseball & DUI
I was reading National Review Online's new sports blog, Right Field, when I learned that Cleveland Indians outfielder Shin-Soo Choo was arrested on Monday night for drunk driving.
Choo is the sixth MLB player to be arrested for a DUI offense since the beginning of this calendar year. Just last week, Atlanta Braves pitcher Derek Lowe was arrested and was actually racing other vehicles on the road. When Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera (who has a well documented problem with alcohol) was arrested for DUI last February, Cabrera is alleged to have said, "F#*k you. Do you know who I am?" Other MLB players to have been arrested this year for impaired driving include Oakland Athletics outfielder Coco Crisp, Seattle Mariners infielder Adam Kennedy as well as Choo's teammate Austin Kearns.
The obvious question is, "What are these guys are thinking?" The obvious answer is that they are drinking instead of thinking. If they were thinking, they might remember that St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock was killed in a traffic accident in 2007. Not only was Hancock impaired at the time of the accident but he was talking on his cell phone and had marijuana in his vehicle. If they were thinking, they might remember that Los Angeles Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and two of his friends were killed by a drunk driver in 2009. The driver had a previous conviction for DUI and was on probation at the time of the accident. Last December, he was sentenced to 51 years in prison.
MLB ought to suspend any player arrested for DUI. If they don't, sooner or later, one of these players is going to end up killing someone.
Choo is the sixth MLB player to be arrested for a DUI offense since the beginning of this calendar year. Just last week, Atlanta Braves pitcher Derek Lowe was arrested and was actually racing other vehicles on the road. When Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera (who has a well documented problem with alcohol) was arrested for DUI last February, Cabrera is alleged to have said, "F#*k you. Do you know who I am?" Other MLB players to have been arrested this year for impaired driving include Oakland Athletics outfielder Coco Crisp, Seattle Mariners infielder Adam Kennedy as well as Choo's teammate Austin Kearns.
The obvious question is, "What are these guys are thinking?" The obvious answer is that they are drinking instead of thinking. If they were thinking, they might remember that St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock was killed in a traffic accident in 2007. Not only was Hancock impaired at the time of the accident but he was talking on his cell phone and had marijuana in his vehicle. If they were thinking, they might remember that Los Angeles Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and two of his friends were killed by a drunk driver in 2009. The driver had a previous conviction for DUI and was on probation at the time of the accident. Last December, he was sentenced to 51 years in prison.
MLB ought to suspend any player arrested for DUI. If they don't, sooner or later, one of these players is going to end up killing someone.
Those "Inflammatory" bin Laden Photos
Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made the case that releasing photos of the deceased Osama bin Laden could be "inflammatory."
Carney's sentiments were echoed by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Rogers told George Stephanopoulos, "If you're a sergeant in a town in Ghazni, Afghanistan and you're trying to get some local elder to cooperate about what's happening in your village, are you going to do it if this inflames into some kind of trophy - we have a trophy of Osama bin Laden?"
But if the Obama Administration and Congressman Rogers are concerned about "inflaming the Muslim world" didn't they think the singular act of killing bin Laden would be sufficiently inflammatory? I'm afraid that train has already left the station.
For crying out loud, release the photos.
UPDATE: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced earlier this afternoon that President Obama has decided not to release the bin Laden photos. Carney quote Obama in an interview he did earlier today with Steve Kroft which will air this Sunday on 60 Minutes. Obama told Kroft, "We don't trot out this stuff as trophies. This is somebody deserving of the justice he received. But we don't need to spike the football."
So President Obama will instead take a knee.
Carney's sentiments were echoed by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Rogers told George Stephanopoulos, "If you're a sergeant in a town in Ghazni, Afghanistan and you're trying to get some local elder to cooperate about what's happening in your village, are you going to do it if this inflames into some kind of trophy - we have a trophy of Osama bin Laden?"
But if the Obama Administration and Congressman Rogers are concerned about "inflaming the Muslim world" didn't they think the singular act of killing bin Laden would be sufficiently inflammatory? I'm afraid that train has already left the station.
For crying out loud, release the photos.
UPDATE: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced earlier this afternoon that President Obama has decided not to release the bin Laden photos. Carney quote Obama in an interview he did earlier today with Steve Kroft which will air this Sunday on 60 Minutes. Obama told Kroft, "We don't trot out this stuff as trophies. This is somebody deserving of the justice he received. But we don't need to spike the football."
So President Obama will instead take a knee.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Liriano Tosses No-Hitter
Minnesota Twins pitcher Francisco Liriano no-hit the Chicago White Sox tonight en route to a 1-0 victory.
Liriano has pitched with the Twins since the end of the 2005 season. The no-hitter marked both Liriano's first big league complete game and shutout in his 95th career start.
Prior to this start, Liriano had been struggling with a 1-4 record and an astronomical 9.13 ERA and was on the verge of losing his spot in the starting rotation. Even tonight his control was not pinpoint as he walked six batters.
Nonetheless, Liriano's no-no gives the Twins something to cheer about. The Twins, who have won the AL Central Division six times in the past nine seasons, entered tonight's game with the worst record in Major League Baseball at 9-18. Well, no more. With tonight's triumph, the White Sox now have the worst record in MLB as they have lost 16 of their last 20 games.
It should be noted that the losing pitcher was Edwin Jackson. Last season, Jackson tossed a no-hitter when he was a member of the Arizona Diamondbacks against the Tampa Bay Rays. In that performance, Jackson walked eight batters.
Liriano has pitched with the Twins since the end of the 2005 season. The no-hitter marked both Liriano's first big league complete game and shutout in his 95th career start.
Prior to this start, Liriano had been struggling with a 1-4 record and an astronomical 9.13 ERA and was on the verge of losing his spot in the starting rotation. Even tonight his control was not pinpoint as he walked six batters.
Nonetheless, Liriano's no-no gives the Twins something to cheer about. The Twins, who have won the AL Central Division six times in the past nine seasons, entered tonight's game with the worst record in Major League Baseball at 9-18. Well, no more. With tonight's triumph, the White Sox now have the worst record in MLB as they have lost 16 of their last 20 games.
It should be noted that the losing pitcher was Edwin Jackson. Last season, Jackson tossed a no-hitter when he was a member of the Arizona Diamondbacks against the Tampa Bay Rays. In that performance, Jackson walked eight batters.
Canada's Conservatives Win Majority
Good news from Canada. The Conservative Party finally won a majority government last night under Stephen Harper. The NDP supplanted the Liberals as the official opposition while the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois was nearly decimated. Also, the Green Party won its first ever seat in the House of Commons. Here is the seat breakdown as of this writing:
Conservatives - 167
NDP - 102
Liberals - 34
Bloc Quebecois - 4
Green - 1
I plan to have a more extensive analysis of the election which hopefully be on the main site tomorrow. In particular, I will focus on the fall of the Liberals, an entity that was once regarded as "Canada's natural governing party."
Conservatives - 167
NDP - 102
Liberals - 34
Bloc Quebecois - 4
Green - 1
I plan to have a more extensive analysis of the election which hopefully be on the main site tomorrow. In particular, I will focus on the fall of the Liberals, an entity that was once regarded as "Canada's natural governing party."
Monday, May 2, 2011
Another Dumb Reaction to bin Laden's Death
Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg scolds David Sirota of Salon "for having the dumbest reaction to bin Laden's death so far." Sirota views bin Laden as the victor:
This is bin Laden's lamentable victory - he has changed America's psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he's helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history - the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed.
Well, allow me to nominate Neil Macdonald, Washington senior correspondent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) who echoes a remarkably similar sentiment arguing that bin Laden "in so many ways, Osama bin Laden died the victor." McDonald elaborates:
But when bin Laden directed those airplanes at civilians ten years ago, he stole a lot more from this nation than the lives of 3,000 of her citizens.
He taught this country the consequences of operating an open, free society. Literally, he showed Americans the price of their liberty, how many of their principles they'd be willing to cast aside, and how quickly they would do it.
In other words, bin Laden showed American exceptionalists how unexceptionally they behave when faced with horrors most older nations have endured.
Beginning the day after the attacks, the United States became a meaner, more paranoid, more impoverished place.
Before I go further, I should note that Macdonald is the older brother of comedian and former Saturday Night Live alumunus Norm Macdonald - only far less funny.
Macdonald then proceeds to bash the United States for Islamophobia, the Patriot Act and George W. Bush:
But bin Laden didn't just prod Americans into disregarding their own laws and principles when dealing with their real and supposed enemies; he goaded them into turning on each other.
Bush, on the night of the attacks, declared that there were only two choices: you were with America, meaning him, or with the terrorists. No middle ground.
Unfortunately, Macdonald doesn't let the facts get in the way of his argument. First, Bush didn't utter "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" on the night of September 11, 2001. He did so nine days later on September 20, 2001 before a joint session of Congress. Here is what President Bush actually said:
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
If Macdonald had bothered to exercise the most basic diligence he would know that Bush was directing his comments at nations which harbored terrorists, not Americans who didn't agree with his policies.
Macdonald has spent eight years in Washington but obviously knows precious little about this country.
This is bin Laden's lamentable victory - he has changed America's psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he's helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history - the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed.
Well, allow me to nominate Neil Macdonald, Washington senior correspondent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) who echoes a remarkably similar sentiment arguing that bin Laden "in so many ways, Osama bin Laden died the victor." McDonald elaborates:
But when bin Laden directed those airplanes at civilians ten years ago, he stole a lot more from this nation than the lives of 3,000 of her citizens.
He taught this country the consequences of operating an open, free society. Literally, he showed Americans the price of their liberty, how many of their principles they'd be willing to cast aside, and how quickly they would do it.
In other words, bin Laden showed American exceptionalists how unexceptionally they behave when faced with horrors most older nations have endured.
Beginning the day after the attacks, the United States became a meaner, more paranoid, more impoverished place.
Before I go further, I should note that Macdonald is the older brother of comedian and former Saturday Night Live alumunus Norm Macdonald - only far less funny.
Macdonald then proceeds to bash the United States for Islamophobia, the Patriot Act and George W. Bush:
But bin Laden didn't just prod Americans into disregarding their own laws and principles when dealing with their real and supposed enemies; he goaded them into turning on each other.
Bush, on the night of the attacks, declared that there were only two choices: you were with America, meaning him, or with the terrorists. No middle ground.
Unfortunately, Macdonald doesn't let the facts get in the way of his argument. First, Bush didn't utter "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" on the night of September 11, 2001. He did so nine days later on September 20, 2001 before a joint session of Congress. Here is what President Bush actually said:
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
If Macdonald had bothered to exercise the most basic diligence he would know that Bush was directing his comments at nations which harbored terrorists, not Americans who didn't agree with his policies.
Macdonald has spent eight years in Washington but obviously knows precious little about this country.
Will Canadians Vote for Taliban Jack?
Today, Canadians vote for a new Parliament.
As I have written previously, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is poised to make unprecedented gains and it is not implausible that NDP leader Jack Layton could end up as Canada's next Prime Minister.
As a former card carrying NDPer, I would like to put out a word of caution to those Canadians who are considering voting for the NDP for the very first time. Canada has been in the thick of the fight in Afghanistan from the outset and the NDP has opposed Canada's involvement every step of the way. It should not be forgotten that in September 2006 Layton advocated direct negotiations with the Taliban. It earned him the nickname "Taliban Jack."
In light of the killing of Osama bin Laden, let us remember it was the Taliban who provided him sanctuary in Afghanistan. Let us also remember that life comes cheap to the Taliban. It was only last summer they flogged and executed a pregnant woman for having sex out of wedlock. The Taliban do not care about gender parity.
The idea that Jack Layton thinks the Taliban are amenable reason should give Canadians pause when they go to the polls today.
As I have written previously, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is poised to make unprecedented gains and it is not implausible that NDP leader Jack Layton could end up as Canada's next Prime Minister.
As a former card carrying NDPer, I would like to put out a word of caution to those Canadians who are considering voting for the NDP for the very first time. Canada has been in the thick of the fight in Afghanistan from the outset and the NDP has opposed Canada's involvement every step of the way. It should not be forgotten that in September 2006 Layton advocated direct negotiations with the Taliban. It earned him the nickname "Taliban Jack."
In light of the killing of Osama bin Laden, let us remember it was the Taliban who provided him sanctuary in Afghanistan. Let us also remember that life comes cheap to the Taliban. It was only last summer they flogged and executed a pregnant woman for having sex out of wedlock. The Taliban do not care about gender parity.
The idea that Jack Layton thinks the Taliban are amenable reason should give Canadians pause when they go to the polls today.
Obama's Re-Election Prospects
With regard to the political implications of Osama bin Laden's killing, Jim Antle writes, "I don't think it guarantees President Obama a second term as it would have done for George W. Bush from 2001-04, but it has certainly strengthened his hand."
Jim is right to say this doesn't guarantee Obama's re-election. After all, the election is still 18 months away and anything could happen. But barring a catastrophe it becomes increasingly difficult to see how Obama can lose. And by catastrophe I am talking about an even bigger financial meltdown than the one experienced in 2008. If there was another terrorist attack in this country on the scale of 9/11 or greater in retaliation for bin Laden's killing I believe the nation would rally around Obama (unless he were to handle it abysmally.) The electorate is more likely to turn on Obama over our pocketbooks rather than over our security.
The magnitude of bin Laden's killing is such that it makes Donald Trump's efforts to question Obama's legitimacy look petty and stupid. The emotional outpouring that has come about as a result simply cannot be ignored. The spontaneous celebrations will, of course, soon pass. Nevertheless, people will invariably associate bin Laden's demise with President Obama. As long as that is the case the electorate will be strongly inclined to give Obama another four years in office.
Jim is right to say this doesn't guarantee Obama's re-election. After all, the election is still 18 months away and anything could happen. But barring a catastrophe it becomes increasingly difficult to see how Obama can lose. And by catastrophe I am talking about an even bigger financial meltdown than the one experienced in 2008. If there was another terrorist attack in this country on the scale of 9/11 or greater in retaliation for bin Laden's killing I believe the nation would rally around Obama (unless he were to handle it abysmally.) The electorate is more likely to turn on Obama over our pocketbooks rather than over our security.
The magnitude of bin Laden's killing is such that it makes Donald Trump's efforts to question Obama's legitimacy look petty and stupid. The emotional outpouring that has come about as a result simply cannot be ignored. The spontaneous celebrations will, of course, soon pass. Nevertheless, people will invariably associate bin Laden's demise with President Obama. As long as that is the case the electorate will be strongly inclined to give Obama another four years in office.
Hamas Condemns bin Laden Killing
Well, this is interesting. Ismail Haniyeh, the Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, has condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Praising bin Laden as "a Muslim and Arabic warrior", Haniyeh calling bin Laden's killing "the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs."
In light of Hamas rapprochement with Fatah last week, I wonder if Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas share Haniyeh's point of view. Assuming Hamas and Fatah do form a unity government does President Obama expect Israel to make peace with a Palestinian entity which views Osama bin Laden as "a Muslim and Arabic warrior"?
I wouldn't put it past him.
Praising bin Laden as "a Muslim and Arabic warrior", Haniyeh calling bin Laden's killing "the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs."
In light of Hamas rapprochement with Fatah last week, I wonder if Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas share Haniyeh's point of view. Assuming Hamas and Fatah do form a unity government does President Obama expect Israel to make peace with a Palestinian entity which views Osama bin Laden as "a Muslim and Arabic warrior"?
I wouldn't put it past him.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Thoughts on bin Laden's Death
I learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. forces while watching the Mets-Phillies game on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball. No sooner than Dan Shulman had made the announcement chants of "U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!!" could be heard throughout Citizens Bank Park. News really does travel fast. (UPDATE: Here's a first-hand account from Todd Zolecki of MLB.com.)
I told my roommate Christopher that Mets pinch hitter Daniel Murphy appeared bewildered at the chant. Shulman along with his colleagues Orel Hershiser and Bobby Valentine noted soon after that the players and coaching staff of both teams were probably the only people in the ballpark who hadn't heard the news.
This development is personally noteworthy because on Saturday, while I was in New York visiting with my father, we decided to take a cab down to Ground Zero. Although there is a lot of construction going around the area, the WTC site itself remains void as it has been for nearly a decade. Under the circumstances, bin Laden's death helps to fill that void and does bring some measure of comfort. However, I am also under no illusions that our fight against Islamic fundamentalism is over. Far from it.
With this in mind, I found little reassurance in President Obama's statement. Once again he insisted "the United States is not - and never will be - at war with Islam." Such a sentiment utterly misses the point because a not so insignificant segment of the Muslim world is at war with us and Obama does us a disservice to pretend otherwise. Indeed, bin Laden is now a martyr to his followers and they will have a greater resolve to see to it that bin Laden's 1998 fatwa declaring war against the United States is implemented. Under that fatwa it is the duty of all Muslims to kill Americans be they military personnel or civilians.
Obama's message was also contradictory. On one hand, Obama said that bin Laden's death "marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's efforts to defeat al Qaeda."
But then Obama went on to say that bin Laden "was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims." Well, if bin Laden wasn't a Muslim leader then what does that make Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs in Iran or Assad in Syria?
Moreover, there will be those who will question the timing of bin Laden's demise given that Obama made a point of stating, "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take immediate action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." There will be those who will wonder aloud if Obama authorized this operation the same day or following the release of his long form birth certificate although I will not be amongst them. President Obama gave our forces had a job to do and they did it.
So, in the grand scheme of things, John Guardiano is absolutely right when he states "the psychological effects of bin Laden's confirmed death cannot be overstated." The world is a better place without him.
I told my roommate Christopher that Mets pinch hitter Daniel Murphy appeared bewildered at the chant. Shulman along with his colleagues Orel Hershiser and Bobby Valentine noted soon after that the players and coaching staff of both teams were probably the only people in the ballpark who hadn't heard the news.
This development is personally noteworthy because on Saturday, while I was in New York visiting with my father, we decided to take a cab down to Ground Zero. Although there is a lot of construction going around the area, the WTC site itself remains void as it has been for nearly a decade. Under the circumstances, bin Laden's death helps to fill that void and does bring some measure of comfort. However, I am also under no illusions that our fight against Islamic fundamentalism is over. Far from it.
With this in mind, I found little reassurance in President Obama's statement. Once again he insisted "the United States is not - and never will be - at war with Islam." Such a sentiment utterly misses the point because a not so insignificant segment of the Muslim world is at war with us and Obama does us a disservice to pretend otherwise. Indeed, bin Laden is now a martyr to his followers and they will have a greater resolve to see to it that bin Laden's 1998 fatwa declaring war against the United States is implemented. Under that fatwa it is the duty of all Muslims to kill Americans be they military personnel or civilians.
Obama's message was also contradictory. On one hand, Obama said that bin Laden's death "marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's efforts to defeat al Qaeda."
But then Obama went on to say that bin Laden "was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims." Well, if bin Laden wasn't a Muslim leader then what does that make Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs in Iran or Assad in Syria?
Moreover, there will be those who will question the timing of bin Laden's demise given that Obama made a point of stating, "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take immediate action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." There will be those who will wonder aloud if Obama authorized this operation the same day or following the release of his long form birth certificate although I will not be amongst them. President Obama gave our forces had a job to do and they did it.
So, in the grand scheme of things, John Guardiano is absolutely right when he states "the psychological effects of bin Laden's confirmed death cannot be overstated." The world is a better place without him.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Trump Deploys F-Bombs
During a speech last night in Las Vegas, Donald Trump uttered the f-word on several occasions and in a variety of ways. I will not repeat them here.
Perhaps Trump's choice of words is an indication he isn't going to run after all. Then again that might be wishful thinking on my part. If Trump does run and persists to speak in this boorish manner it will only help President Obama.
Or let me put it to you another way. Could you imagine Ronald Reagan dropping an F-bomb at the Brandenburg Gate?
Perhaps Trump's choice of words is an indication he isn't going to run after all. Then again that might be wishful thinking on my part. If Trump does run and persists to speak in this boorish manner it will only help President Obama.
Or let me put it to you another way. Could you imagine Ronald Reagan dropping an F-bomb at the Brandenburg Gate?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thoughts on William & Kate
While I have no intention of waking up at 4 a.m. to watch the nupitals of Prince William and Kate Middleton I do wish them well.
At the risk of judging a book by its cover, Kate Middleton's smile is pricelessly radiant and could light up the darkest of nights. If she is anything like her smile then I would say William has married well. In which case it will probably be better than being King of England.
At the risk of judging a book by its cover, Kate Middleton's smile is pricelessly radiant and could light up the darkest of nights. If she is anything like her smile then I would say William has married well. In which case it will probably be better than being King of England.
Buckingham Palace Takes a Stand Against Syria
Today, British Foreign Secretary William Hague withdrew Syrian Ambassador Sami Khiyami's invitation to tomorrow's Royal Wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. In light of Syria's recent actions against unarmed civilians, Hague deemed Khiyami's presence at the festivities to be "unacceptable." For its part, Buckingham Palace concurs with Hague's decision stating "it is not considered appropriate for the Syrian ambassador to attend the wedding."
So there you have it. The British monarchy has taken a stronger stand against Syrian tyranny than has the Obama Administration.
So there you have it. The British monarchy has taken a stronger stand against Syrian tyranny than has the Obama Administration.
Oklahoma sends affirmative action ban to the ballot
From Tulsa World -
House Joint Resolution was presented by Rep. T.W. Shannon, R-Lawton (pictured to the right), in the absence of House author Leslie Osborn, R-Tuttle. Shannon, a man of African and Chickasaw heritage who is angling to become the state’s first black speaker of the House, said he believes that Affirmative Action has failed.
“I believe discrimination exists,” he said. “I don’t think Affirmative Action has been as successful as we like to believe.”
Read the rest of the article
I Guess This Means Superman Won't Be Voting in 2012
Well, the love of America no longer tugs at Superman's cape. In the 900th issue of Superman, The Man of Steel renounces his American citizenship.
Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long.
In December 2003, when Superman was re-released to comemorate its 25th anniversary, I attended a screening in Cambridge, Massachusetts. When Superman told Lois Lane he stood for "truth, justice and the American way" the theater broke out in laughter. It is worth remembering that in the 2006 film Superman Returns, The Caped Crusader stood only for truth and justice.
Then again it is probably just as well. Joe Shuster, the man who first drew Superman, was Canadian.
Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long.
In December 2003, when Superman was re-released to comemorate its 25th anniversary, I attended a screening in Cambridge, Massachusetts. When Superman told Lois Lane he stood for "truth, justice and the American way" the theater broke out in laughter. It is worth remembering that in the 2006 film Superman Returns, The Caped Crusader stood only for truth and justice.
Then again it is probably just as well. Joe Shuster, the man who first drew Superman, was Canadian.
Trump: Buffoon Yes, Racist No
The liberal media has apparently now decided that Donald Trump is a racist.
Bob Schieffer of CBS News accused Donald Trump of racial malice for calling for the release of President Obama's collegiate grades. The veteran CBS correspondent and host of Face the Nation said, "That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black. This is an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing. We can hope that kind of comes to an end too, but we'll have to see."
The New York Times has got in on the act as well with its latest editorial:
There was a price to the party for keeping the issue alive; inevitably, it was picked up by a cartoon candidate, Donald Trump, who rode birtherism directly to the prime-time promontories of cable TV. The Republican establishment began to wince as it became increasingly tied to Mr. Trump's flirtations with racial provocation, and Karl Rove told him to knock it off. Naturally, he did not.
Finally, his taunting and the questions of television correspondents obliging Mr. Trump got on the president's nerves. Mr. Obama was tactically smart to release the certificate and marginalize those who continue to keep the matter alive. It is tragic that American politics is fueled by such poisonous fire. Mr. Trump quickly moved on to a new fixation, questioning Mr. Obama's academic credentials. Mr. Boehner, and other party leaders, have a new reason to call a halt to the politics of paranoia and intolerance.
From the outset, I have been very critical of Trump on the birther question and have repeatedly called him a buffoon. Yet calling Trump a racial provocateur is a sure sign of intellectual laziness and descends the depths of disingenuousness. Trump has been a prominent public figure for decades. If he bore racial animus it would showed itself long ago. As misguided as Trump was to focus his attention on Obama's birth certificate, liberals are making the mistake of assuming that his criticism of President Obama is motivated solely by race.
With this in mind, how exactly is it "the politics of paranoia and intolerance" to ask President Obama to release his academic records? George W. Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry released their academic records. Why is it then unreasonable to demand the same of our current President?
Now there's no doubt that Trump is baiting Obama. But he isn't race-baiting. Trump isn't going after Obama because of the color of his skin but because of its thinness. After all, Trump now has Obama on the defensive. At this point, Trump would be a fool if he didn't demand that President Obama release his academic records.
Donald Trump can be called many things. A racist isn't one of them.
Bob Schieffer of CBS News accused Donald Trump of racial malice for calling for the release of President Obama's collegiate grades. The veteran CBS correspondent and host of Face the Nation said, "That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black. This is an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing. We can hope that kind of comes to an end too, but we'll have to see."
The New York Times has got in on the act as well with its latest editorial:
There was a price to the party for keeping the issue alive; inevitably, it was picked up by a cartoon candidate, Donald Trump, who rode birtherism directly to the prime-time promontories of cable TV. The Republican establishment began to wince as it became increasingly tied to Mr. Trump's flirtations with racial provocation, and Karl Rove told him to knock it off. Naturally, he did not.
Finally, his taunting and the questions of television correspondents obliging Mr. Trump got on the president's nerves. Mr. Obama was tactically smart to release the certificate and marginalize those who continue to keep the matter alive. It is tragic that American politics is fueled by such poisonous fire. Mr. Trump quickly moved on to a new fixation, questioning Mr. Obama's academic credentials. Mr. Boehner, and other party leaders, have a new reason to call a halt to the politics of paranoia and intolerance.
From the outset, I have been very critical of Trump on the birther question and have repeatedly called him a buffoon. Yet calling Trump a racial provocateur is a sure sign of intellectual laziness and descends the depths of disingenuousness. Trump has been a prominent public figure for decades. If he bore racial animus it would showed itself long ago. As misguided as Trump was to focus his attention on Obama's birth certificate, liberals are making the mistake of assuming that his criticism of President Obama is motivated solely by race.
With this in mind, how exactly is it "the politics of paranoia and intolerance" to ask President Obama to release his academic records? George W. Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry released their academic records. Why is it then unreasonable to demand the same of our current President?
Now there's no doubt that Trump is baiting Obama. But he isn't race-baiting. Trump isn't going after Obama because of the color of his skin but because of its thinness. After all, Trump now has Obama on the defensive. At this point, Trump would be a fool if he didn't demand that President Obama release his academic records.
Donald Trump can be called many things. A racist isn't one of them.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Stop the Presses!!! Obama Born in U.S.A.
The White House has released President Obama's long-form birth certificate.
I sincerely hope this matter will finally be put to rest. Yet I suspect that some people won't accept that Barack Obama was born in the United States regardless of the evidence supplied. C'est la vie.
As for Donald Trump, one could argue that he made something out of nothing. On the other hand, I suspect Trump will take full credit for this disclosure and say that if not for him the White House would have never made the documentation public. His potential candidacy for the White House could gather even more steam.
Well, perhaps now we will be able to address the small matter of our national debt.
I sincerely hope this matter will finally be put to rest. Yet I suspect that some people won't accept that Barack Obama was born in the United States regardless of the evidence supplied. C'est la vie.
As for Donald Trump, one could argue that he made something out of nothing. On the other hand, I suspect Trump will take full credit for this disclosure and say that if not for him the White House would have never made the documentation public. His potential candidacy for the White House could gather even more steam.
Well, perhaps now we will be able to address the small matter of our national debt.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
I Hope Jeffrey Lord is Right
I sincerely hope Jeffrey Lord is right when he says that President Obama will not be re-elected.
I don't discount the idea that the seeds have been sown for Obama's defeat. Yet it remains to be seen if those seeds will blossom. After all, the election is still more than 18 months away and it is simply too soon to write Obama's political obituary. I believe we lull ourselves into a false sense of security by adopting a mindset which cannot and will not consider the possibility Obama could win in 2012. Obama might not be competent at governing but he is more than competent when it comes to organizing people and money. Moreover, Obama will have most of the media in his corner once again. While we conservatives should plan for victory we should also plan for defeat. All possible outcomes must be considered including ones not to our liking. The worst thing you can do is to underestimate your opponent especially one that previously prevailed over you.
It is undoubtedly interesting to see both Lord and Eric Alterman compare President Obama to Jimmy Carter. But if Obama is going to be likened to the Man From Plains then I think one ought to ask where is Obama's Ted Kennedy? If a Democrat were to challenge Obama in the caucuses and primaries I would be far more inclined to agree with Lord's declaration. A formal challenge to Obama within the Democratic Party would reveal some very deep schisms over his agenda. While President Obama has been criticized from the Left on various matters I don't think the disenchantment is such that Democrats are prepared to ex-communicate The Anointed One. At least not yet.
After Carter was defeated by Reagan in November 1980, The New York Times concluded, "On Election Day, Mr. Carter was the issue." If Mr. Obama is the issue in November 2012 then Lord's prediction will come to fruition. But as we all know at lot can happen between now and then which could cast President Obama in a positive light. And even if that doesn't happen then his allies in the media will see to it that the light shines on him brightly regardless of our state of affairs.
I am not making the argument that President Obama can't be defeated. He most certainly could. But this is hardly the time to be running a victory lap when we have yet to reach the starting gates.
I don't discount the idea that the seeds have been sown for Obama's defeat. Yet it remains to be seen if those seeds will blossom. After all, the election is still more than 18 months away and it is simply too soon to write Obama's political obituary. I believe we lull ourselves into a false sense of security by adopting a mindset which cannot and will not consider the possibility Obama could win in 2012. Obama might not be competent at governing but he is more than competent when it comes to organizing people and money. Moreover, Obama will have most of the media in his corner once again. While we conservatives should plan for victory we should also plan for defeat. All possible outcomes must be considered including ones not to our liking. The worst thing you can do is to underestimate your opponent especially one that previously prevailed over you.
It is undoubtedly interesting to see both Lord and Eric Alterman compare President Obama to Jimmy Carter. But if Obama is going to be likened to the Man From Plains then I think one ought to ask where is Obama's Ted Kennedy? If a Democrat were to challenge Obama in the caucuses and primaries I would be far more inclined to agree with Lord's declaration. A formal challenge to Obama within the Democratic Party would reveal some very deep schisms over his agenda. While President Obama has been criticized from the Left on various matters I don't think the disenchantment is such that Democrats are prepared to ex-communicate The Anointed One. At least not yet.
After Carter was defeated by Reagan in November 1980, The New York Times concluded, "On Election Day, Mr. Carter was the issue." If Mr. Obama is the issue in November 2012 then Lord's prediction will come to fruition. But as we all know at lot can happen between now and then which could cast President Obama in a positive light. And even if that doesn't happen then his allies in the media will see to it that the light shines on him brightly regardless of our state of affairs.
I am not making the argument that President Obama can't be defeated. He most certainly could. But this is hardly the time to be running a victory lap when we have yet to reach the starting gates.
Thoughts on Katie Couric
Today, Katie Couric formally confirmed what we have known for weeks - she's leaving the anchor chair at CBS News. Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes is expected to be named her successor possibly as soon as next week.
Aside from being unable to lift CBS News out of the doldrums, Couric will be remembered for her Sarah Palin interview which Palin herself admits wasn't her finest hour.
Yet when I think of Couric's tenure at CBS News I think not of her interview with Palin but rather with the former Alaska Governor's Democratic vice-presidential rival Joe Biden. This was the interview in which Couric asked Biden if he had to be "uber careful" while on the campaign trial. Biden not only said that he didn't need to be careful but also told Couric that Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on television to talk to Americans about the 1929 stock market crash despite the fact FDR was neither President nor had TV been invented. And neither Ms. Couric nor the liberal media batted nary an eyelash. Of course, if Palin had made such a faux pas we would have never heard the end of it. Under those circumstances, Couric probably would have asked Palin to name FDR's Secretary of the Treasury. But in this case it's just Biden being Biden. So he gets no scrutiny. Nor do I think Couric would have made fun of Biden's children.
Of course, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who sits in the anchor chair at CBS News or for that matter at ABC or NBC. They along with CNN, MSNBC, PBS and NPR will close ranks in support of President Obama. So perhaps in 2012, Biden will tell Scott Pelley how Woodrow Wilson went on radio to address the nation following the sinking of the Titanic.
Aside from being unable to lift CBS News out of the doldrums, Couric will be remembered for her Sarah Palin interview which Palin herself admits wasn't her finest hour.
Yet when I think of Couric's tenure at CBS News I think not of her interview with Palin but rather with the former Alaska Governor's Democratic vice-presidential rival Joe Biden. This was the interview in which Couric asked Biden if he had to be "uber careful" while on the campaign trial. Biden not only said that he didn't need to be careful but also told Couric that Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on television to talk to Americans about the 1929 stock market crash despite the fact FDR was neither President nor had TV been invented. And neither Ms. Couric nor the liberal media batted nary an eyelash. Of course, if Palin had made such a faux pas we would have never heard the end of it. Under those circumstances, Couric probably would have asked Palin to name FDR's Secretary of the Treasury. But in this case it's just Biden being Biden. So he gets no scrutiny. Nor do I think Couric would have made fun of Biden's children.
Of course, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who sits in the anchor chair at CBS News or for that matter at ABC or NBC. They along with CNN, MSNBC, PBS and NPR will close ranks in support of President Obama. So perhaps in 2012, Biden will tell Scott Pelley how Woodrow Wilson went on radio to address the nation following the sinking of the Titanic.
Phoebe Snow, 1952-2011. R.I.P.
Singer and guitarist Phoebe Snow passed away today due to complications of a stroke she suffered last year. She was 58.
Snow had a monster hit in 1975 with a song she wrote called "Poetry Man". She also recorded a gospel inspired duet with Paul Simon called "Gone at Last." Snow seemed on her way to superstardom. However, later that year, she gave birth to a daughter named Valerie who was severely disabled and required round the clock care. Instead of institutionalizing her daughter, Snow opted to take care of her at home on her own which she did until her death in 2007. Although music took a back seat Snow did sporadically record music and perform. At the time of her brain hemorrage, Snow was recording an album and planning to go on tour.
Here's Snow performing "The Shoop Shoop Song (It's In His Kiss)" with Linda Ronstadt on a 1979 episode of Saturday Night Live.
Snow had a monster hit in 1975 with a song she wrote called "Poetry Man". She also recorded a gospel inspired duet with Paul Simon called "Gone at Last." Snow seemed on her way to superstardom. However, later that year, she gave birth to a daughter named Valerie who was severely disabled and required round the clock care. Instead of institutionalizing her daughter, Snow opted to take care of her at home on her own which she did until her death in 2007. Although music took a back seat Snow did sporadically record music and perform. At the time of her brain hemorrage, Snow was recording an album and planning to go on tour.
Here's Snow performing "The Shoop Shoop Song (It's In His Kiss)" with Linda Ronstadt on a 1979 episode of Saturday Night Live.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Could Canada End Up With a Socialist PM?
Canada's election is one week away and the story of the election campaign Jack Layton and his New Democratic Party (NDP). (And yes, I used to be a member of the NDP.)
At the beginning of the campaign, the NDP was an afterthought. However, after strong performances in both the English and French language debates, Layton and the NDP have surged in the polls bumping the Liberals out of second place. The NDP has done particularly well in Quebec where it has rarely won seats. This unexpected development has the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and even the governing Conservatives are now directing their attention towards the NDP.
Should the NDP finish with the second most seats in the House of Commons it would be the first time that has happened in its fifty year history. Becoming the official opposition would be precedent in its own right. But if Stephen Harper and the Tories once again fail to secure a majority of seats there is a chance that Layton could become Canada's first socialist Prime Minister. Of course, Stephen Harper and the Tories would get first crack at forming another minority government. However, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff today indicated he would be willing to work with Layton even if it means Layton gets the keys to 24 Sussex Drive (the Canadian equivalent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.) Ignatieff's willingness to work with the NDP hasn't prevented him from calling the NDP platform "science fiction" and "amateur." But I guess Ignatieff will accept the NDP's science fiction and amateur approach if it means he becomes Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Of course, a week in politics is a lifetime. It's more than enough time for Canadian voters to have second thoughts about handing over the reins to the NDP. Given that Ignatieff has now given Layton his blessing it gives Harper a chance to paint the NDP and the Liberals with the same brush.
Should Jack Layton and the NDP take the lead in Canada's next Parliament I think they will learn the hard way that governing isn't easy, that most of their prescriptions are impractical and they will soon be overwhelmed by the task before them. In short, Jack Layton would be the Canadian version of Barack Obama.
At the beginning of the campaign, the NDP was an afterthought. However, after strong performances in both the English and French language debates, Layton and the NDP have surged in the polls bumping the Liberals out of second place. The NDP has done particularly well in Quebec where it has rarely won seats. This unexpected development has the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and even the governing Conservatives are now directing their attention towards the NDP.
Should the NDP finish with the second most seats in the House of Commons it would be the first time that has happened in its fifty year history. Becoming the official opposition would be precedent in its own right. But if Stephen Harper and the Tories once again fail to secure a majority of seats there is a chance that Layton could become Canada's first socialist Prime Minister. Of course, Stephen Harper and the Tories would get first crack at forming another minority government. However, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff today indicated he would be willing to work with Layton even if it means Layton gets the keys to 24 Sussex Drive (the Canadian equivalent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.) Ignatieff's willingness to work with the NDP hasn't prevented him from calling the NDP platform "science fiction" and "amateur." But I guess Ignatieff will accept the NDP's science fiction and amateur approach if it means he becomes Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Of course, a week in politics is a lifetime. It's more than enough time for Canadian voters to have second thoughts about handing over the reins to the NDP. Given that Ignatieff has now given Layton his blessing it gives Harper a chance to paint the NDP and the Liberals with the same brush.
Should Jack Layton and the NDP take the lead in Canada's next Parliament I think they will learn the hard way that governing isn't easy, that most of their prescriptions are impractical and they will soon be overwhelmed by the task before them. In short, Jack Layton would be the Canadian version of Barack Obama.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thoughts on Marriage & Child Abuse
Joe Lawler draws our attention to an article written by W. Bradford Wilcox, Executive Director of The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, concerning the correlation between cohabitation and child abuse.
Wilcox argues that children who raised in homes by a mother and a boyfriend are more likely to suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse than children who are raised by married biological parents. He writes, "In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend - especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself."
To support his argument, Wilcox cites several studies including the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect which was submitted to Congress in January 2010 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Administration for Children & Families, Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation.
With all due respect to Wilcox he paints an incomplete picture. While it is true that the report concluded children were more suspectible to abuse in a household headed by a single parent with a cohabiting partner than with married biological parents it is far from the only factor contributing to child abuse. Indeed the HHS report also states that children are vulnerable to abuse if they live in households with low socioeconomic status, are in households with four or more children and if the perpetrator has trouble with alcohol/substance abuse as well as mental illness. Wilcox makes no mention of these and other factors. He leaves one with the impression that a child who lives with his mother and boyfriend is in imminent danger and can only be saved if his caregivers exchange vows.
So let's say you have a household where a child is living with his mother and her boyfriend and the boyfriend physically abuses the child especially after consuming large quantities of alcohol. Does anyone honestly think the abuse will disappear if the boyfriend were to marry the child's mother?
Those of you who are reading this post ought to understand from where I am coming. After I moved to Boston I took a job with the Child At-Risk Hotline which operates the after hours emergency service for the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families (then known as the Massachusetts Department of Social Services.) My job consisted mainly of taking reports of child abuse and neglect from both mandated and non-mandated reporters.
I probably wrote over a thousand of these reports during my time there. Some of the reports I took involved a mother and boyfriend while others involved married couples. Some of the reports I took involved poor families while some involved rich families. Some of the reports I took involved white families while some families were African-American, Hispanic or Asian or a combination thereof. While child abuse is more likely to occur in some families than in others one's marital status, economic status or race does not immunize families from the ugliness of child abuse.
The suggestion that unmarried parents are the cause of child abuse in this country at the exclusion of all other factors is excessively simplistic. It not only unfairly paints unmarried parents with a broad brush but also trivializes the serious matter of child abuse.
Wilcox argues that children who raised in homes by a mother and a boyfriend are more likely to suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse than children who are raised by married biological parents. He writes, "In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend - especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself."
To support his argument, Wilcox cites several studies including the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect which was submitted to Congress in January 2010 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Administration for Children & Families, Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation.
With all due respect to Wilcox he paints an incomplete picture. While it is true that the report concluded children were more suspectible to abuse in a household headed by a single parent with a cohabiting partner than with married biological parents it is far from the only factor contributing to child abuse. Indeed the HHS report also states that children are vulnerable to abuse if they live in households with low socioeconomic status, are in households with four or more children and if the perpetrator has trouble with alcohol/substance abuse as well as mental illness. Wilcox makes no mention of these and other factors. He leaves one with the impression that a child who lives with his mother and boyfriend is in imminent danger and can only be saved if his caregivers exchange vows.
So let's say you have a household where a child is living with his mother and her boyfriend and the boyfriend physically abuses the child especially after consuming large quantities of alcohol. Does anyone honestly think the abuse will disappear if the boyfriend were to marry the child's mother?
Those of you who are reading this post ought to understand from where I am coming. After I moved to Boston I took a job with the Child At-Risk Hotline which operates the after hours emergency service for the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families (then known as the Massachusetts Department of Social Services.) My job consisted mainly of taking reports of child abuse and neglect from both mandated and non-mandated reporters.
I probably wrote over a thousand of these reports during my time there. Some of the reports I took involved a mother and boyfriend while others involved married couples. Some of the reports I took involved poor families while some involved rich families. Some of the reports I took involved white families while some families were African-American, Hispanic or Asian or a combination thereof. While child abuse is more likely to occur in some families than in others one's marital status, economic status or race does not immunize families from the ugliness of child abuse.
The suggestion that unmarried parents are the cause of child abuse in this country at the exclusion of all other factors is excessively simplistic. It not only unfairly paints unmarried parents with a broad brush but also trivializes the serious matter of child abuse.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Obama & The Electoral Map
John Guardiano wonders if President Obama is poised to win re-election next year based on Larry Sabato's latest analysis of the electoral map.
What is most interesting to me with regard to the electoral map are the states that Obama won in 2008 that were won by Bush in 2004 (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida). Demographic trends notwithstanding, I am not sure anyone can operate on the assumption that Obama will retain all of those states. One cannot also operate on the assumption that Obama will retain states that have voted Democratic in recent elections namely Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and especially Wisconsin.
Unseating an incumbent President is never an easy task especially when no primary challenger has come forward. But it won't be an insurmountable one if the economy should regress or if another disaster (economic or otherwise) strikes and Obama isn't equal to the task. Should that be the case it will only be a question of the American electorate feeling comfortable enough with the Republican candidate. Then again if Trump opts to run as an independent and splits the anti-Obama vote then all bets are off.
Still just viewing it from the perspective of an electoral map I think it comes down to those thirteen states.
What is most interesting to me with regard to the electoral map are the states that Obama won in 2008 that were won by Bush in 2004 (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida). Demographic trends notwithstanding, I am not sure anyone can operate on the assumption that Obama will retain all of those states. One cannot also operate on the assumption that Obama will retain states that have voted Democratic in recent elections namely Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and especially Wisconsin.
Unseating an incumbent President is never an easy task especially when no primary challenger has come forward. But it won't be an insurmountable one if the economy should regress or if another disaster (economic or otherwise) strikes and Obama isn't equal to the task. Should that be the case it will only be a question of the American electorate feeling comfortable enough with the Republican candidate. Then again if Trump opts to run as an independent and splits the anti-Obama vote then all bets are off.
Still just viewing it from the perspective of an electoral map I think it comes down to those thirteen states.
Could This Be Why The Cubs Are Cursed?
Although the Chicago Cubs last won the World Series in 1908 they continued to field good teams winning seven National League pennants over the next four decades. It is believed that the Cubs misfortune began prior to the Game 4 of the 1945 Series against the Detroit Tigers in what has become known as "The Curse of the Billy Goat."
William "Billy Goat" Sianis, owner of the Billy Goat Tavern, brought his goat Murphy to Wrigley Field and was refused entry into the ballpark. Sianis was so enraged he proclaimed the Cubs would never win again until the goat was admitted. The Cubs lost that game and the Series have not been back to the Fall Classic since.
But now questions have been raised as to whether the 1918 Chicago Cubs threw the World Series against the Boston Red Sox. The Chicago History Museum recently came across a deposition from Eddie Cicotte, one of the eight members of the Chicago White Sox who were banished from Major League Baseball for throwing the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. Cicotte and the others would be forever known as the Black Sox.
In any case, according to the deposition given by Cicotte in 1920, the idea for throwing the World Series came because a member or members of the 1918 Cubs had been offered $10,000 to do so. If it's true then perhaps this is the reason the long suffering Cubs haven't won a World Series in over a century.
However, I think all of this is rather unlikely. Now I don't discount the possibility gambling interests approached a member or members the Cubs to throw the World Series but I don't think they went through with it. If the Cubs had thrown the 1918 World Series how could it have been kept secret for over 90 years? The undoing of the 1919 Black Sox was that those involved (whether they played or betted) couldn't keep their mouths shut.
There are many reasons the Cubs haven't won since Teddy Roosevelt was in the White House but I don't think this is one of them. There are other more compelling reasons such as their "college of coaches", trading Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio or Leon Durham's wickets. It hasn't stopped me from picking the Cubs to win it all this year.
William "Billy Goat" Sianis, owner of the Billy Goat Tavern, brought his goat Murphy to Wrigley Field and was refused entry into the ballpark. Sianis was so enraged he proclaimed the Cubs would never win again until the goat was admitted. The Cubs lost that game and the Series have not been back to the Fall Classic since.
But now questions have been raised as to whether the 1918 Chicago Cubs threw the World Series against the Boston Red Sox. The Chicago History Museum recently came across a deposition from Eddie Cicotte, one of the eight members of the Chicago White Sox who were banished from Major League Baseball for throwing the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. Cicotte and the others would be forever known as the Black Sox.
In any case, according to the deposition given by Cicotte in 1920, the idea for throwing the World Series came because a member or members of the 1918 Cubs had been offered $10,000 to do so. If it's true then perhaps this is the reason the long suffering Cubs haven't won a World Series in over a century.
However, I think all of this is rather unlikely. Now I don't discount the possibility gambling interests approached a member or members the Cubs to throw the World Series but I don't think they went through with it. If the Cubs had thrown the 1918 World Series how could it have been kept secret for over 90 years? The undoing of the 1919 Black Sox was that those involved (whether they played or betted) couldn't keep their mouths shut.
There are many reasons the Cubs haven't won since Teddy Roosevelt was in the White House but I don't think this is one of them. There are other more compelling reasons such as their "college of coaches", trading Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio or Leon Durham's wickets. It hasn't stopped me from picking the Cubs to win it all this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
