The Fed's HR Department » Obama

Position Wanted, Have Nuke, Not Willing to Travel

Shannon Rodgers — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 03:36:46 +0000

About the time I graduated from high school, I met a very likable girl. A friend of mine had a crush on her but I did not know her that well. Most everyone liked her. She was interested in others and they appreciated that. She rarely talked about herself, but could find something to say to most anyone. I admired that and believed that she could be a negotiator and bring people together who would not come together on their own. Later, when I was in Blacksburg, my friend still had a crush on her, and I got to see first hand what she was really like. A couple of friends of hers had a relatively small disagreement and she was on both sides. She would not say anything that she thought would be less than positive, nor would she recuse herself. It seemed that she would rather be liked than helpful. She was not able to bring them together, even thought they did not seem that far apart. In the end, neither of her friends had any respect for her and she lost them both. I lost my respect for her as well, because she had no principle of her own, she simply told people they were right because she like being agreeable. Conversation with her was shallow and unfulfilling. Although this was not a deal breaker for my friend, I quickly lost interest. Until recently, I had not given her a second thought. I am surprised that I remember her at all.

But it occurred to me that I have noticed a series of events recently which made me remember her. I take some consolation for the friendships that ended over the years, in that each person who is no longer a friend, at least learned to recognize those traits they would not be able to tolerate in their next relationship, just as she served this purpose for me. We learn that the Jeep CJ-5 with the V-8, big tires and rag top is a lot more trouble than it is worth. We learn over the years to respect substance and view rosy promises with suspicion. We learn this not because we have been wronged, but because we better defined the difference between what we think will make us happy, and what does so over the long run.

President Obama recently promised the world that America will not use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks against us. My suspicion was aroused immediately and the really important points about this assertion are in the stated, and implied, and effective exceptions to this promise.

First, you may remember me saying that limits placed on the town council by the town council are meaningless. If the council has the authority to place a limit on itself, it has the authority to release that limit. For the President to promise not to use nukes in response to an attack on America is at least arrogant, at most naive. For such a promise to have any meaning, one would have to assume that an attack on America would be so benign that our sovereignty would not be at risk. Could anyone really believe that they could attack us with the intent of occupying this country and ANY defense would be off the table? So this promise can only have meaning to those people who would attack us, in the belief they could prevail, but were deterred from doing so for fear of nuclear retaliation, but would now reconsider. We would gain no benefit in so limiting ourselves much less stating so publicly. Would we not prefer that they postpone their attack for such a fear?

So, if this promise is not for the benefit of our reluctant but nearly emboldened enemy, then who? The theories abound as there seems to be no immediate explanation. One such theory is that this is for Iran’s benefit. The theory is that Iran would not want to be on the naughty list of countries who are not protected against US nuclear attack since they have not agreed to non-proliferation. Come over to the light side of the force and we will agree to settle our differences with conventional weapons? Again, I am skeptical. Does anyone believe that this will result in an Iran who prefers a cozy relationship with the Great Satan over their stated religious imperative of destroying it?

Again, our enemies will not be impressed. Those we hope to pressure do not view this as a carrot and it certainly cannot be interpreted as a stick. Our allies, who we are sworn to protect, certainly cannot say that the US should not use ANY method to protect them from annihilation from non-nuclear attack when conventional weapons cannot prevail. Who is left? Who is he talking to? Well, this is where the cynic in me comes out.

This leaves our reluctant allies. This leaves those who tolerate us as long as there is a mutually agreeable arrangement. Greece, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, in short, mostly middle eastern countries who do not like us being in their back yard much less the threat of nuclear attacks in their part of the world. We want to tell them that we will not attack anyone in their back yard since we can handle any skirmish in that part of the world without having to flex our muscles that hard.

The bottom line is this: we will not stop at any limit to defend ourselves. No country would expect any different and few would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if available, to defend themselves, even if they would wait until it was the last resort. Indeed, the countries that spend most of their money on social programs and also have nuclear weapons, have little options prior to nuclear escalation if the US military does not fill in the gap. The President cannot take nukes off the table because he can just as easily put them back on, without prior notice, and potential aggressors know that. The explanation that stands out to me, mostly because I recognize it from my past, is that the President wants to be liked. The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that the President is trying to say that which will be well received by someone.

The President is most certainly assuring our non-nuclear allies that we will still do anything to protect them, including nuking the bad guys, and most certainly aware that our enemies who might attack us still know that we will do anything to protect ourselves, including nuking the bad guys. So the only ones who this could be directed at are those he has enough contempt for to tell them what they want to hear and enough confidence that they will believe him.

The promises seem shallow and meaningless and I expect him to lose friends just as my friend’s crush lost hers. The world is a suspicious place, where the US is concerned in particular. Very few places have populations gullible enough to believe promises of restraint prior to an uneven or unfair fight. Protected and secure people are often the most gullible and I suspect that the President is accustomed to talking to and hearing from such people in this country. I fear that the rest of the world will react in much the same way they have to the rest of the President’s speeches suggesting that the US should be a softer presence in the world. I fear that they will applaud his words, and continue with the same principled foreign policy they had before such proclamations. I fear that the shallow promise, not based on any clear principle, will stand out in contrast to the principled foreign policies of these countries and of America past. I fear that only those who have temporarily suspended disbelief will believe our President, and that only those who would attack us or our allies will consider acting on it. I fear that advertising some arbitrary limit to our defense has only rhetorical gain, but considerable potential loss.

Fire the Coach and rebuild the program!

Shannon Rodgers — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:06:09 +0000

If you have not heard, Harry Reid is catching heat from the right about a comment he made during the last Presidential election race. I know, I just heard the collective scrunching of noses and loss of interest. FOCUS! Stay with me!

Specifically, he said then candidate Obama stood a good chance of winning because he was, “light skinned” and spoke with, “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” I say, cut him some slack. Why? Mostly, because I am on the right but not a Republican. I can forgive him for letting his colors show, so to speak, but don’t feel the need to attack him because he is a Democrat.

The flack he is catching from the right is over the hypocrisy of how the left, and Democrats in particular, react to such comments from their own, verses someone from the right and Republicans in particular. Why, they say were George Allen, Jimmy the Greek, Al Campanis, James Watt, and others treated so harshly for words that were more insensitive than racist? Why does Biden get a pass for characterizing convenience store clerk jobs as requiring an Indian accent et. al.?

The public’s concern is lost in all the rhetoric. This is representative of a larger issue in American politics which I suggest is at the heart of why we are tired of American politics. I have in my head the caricature of our elected officials playing a football game. Imagine the flapping neckties and soft bodied tackle attempts and whinny insults from the bench, the breathless attempts at power-walk like blitzes and the squeak squeak squeak of plastic surgery parts stretching under the exertions. Imagine the hair; imagine errant comb overs, a muddy postiche near the Gatorade cooler, that crackling sound when hairspray teased poof scrapes Astroturf, and the hair stylist/team managers clamoring on the field when the whistle blows to attempt to save a $400 hair do. I think they are all ridiculous when they shake their fists shakily at the camera, two fingers taped together, and claim to fight for us. Where are the real athletes? But the issue that screams at me has more to do with why would people who appear to be so inept at the game on TV, choose to play the game, and how do they so passionately choose to play for one team or another? And why are we so angry at both teams?

Is the answer in Harry’s words? Let’s see, is Obama light skinned? I guess you could say so, or not. Does he have any particular dialect? I don’t think so. Could he fake one? If Hillary can get away with what she contrived as a southern draw, I am certain he can pull something out of his hat. How about the words of Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond at Strom’s 100th birthday party? “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” Is that racist? Not on the surface. The answer depends on whether you believe he was referring to Strom’s strong support of state’s rights, or his support for racial segregation. Care to guess which the Republicans chose? We can’t know a man’s heart, but the way we react to such statements shows our own.

The difference is seen in who each group tolerates in their midst. In general, conservatives agree on more conservative principles than we disagree on. I like to think this is because the truths we hold are self evident, that the conclusions we reach suffer reason. We tolerate people who do not hold one or more of these beliefs, but once you do not hold several as true, it is more likely that you will side with the liberals anyway. For instance, a conservative might agree with limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and personal liberty, but believe that a woman should be allowed to abort a pregnancy for reasons entirely her own. Liberals and Conservatives alike would label such a person a Conservative. Liberals on the other hand, tolerate almost anyone who agrees to vote for their cause. Liberals tend to be ardent liberals with only one or two issues they are passionate about, and willing to feign passion for all the others. Each group saw themselves in candidate Obama and are puzzled when theirs was not his first priority once elected. I have a good friend, for instance who hates the Iraq War and wants to legalize marijuana, (both would be better served by Conservative policies, but another day for that) but he is rather conservative in every other way, but would never openly support a Republican program even if they were offering legislation he would otherwise support. There is considerable hypocrisy on the left and so they are rather tolerant of it as long as it does not hinder their pet agenda. Case in point; they want the government to “stay out of my womb” but insist that regulating every other health issue for everyone is OK. They believe that the government should not be able to limit the use of “medical marijuana” but should definitely criminalize incandescent light bulbs or trans-fats.

How does this relate to the racism label being thrown around differently for conservatives than for liberals? It has to do with political correctness and critical mass. When someone says or does something, like cheat on his wife, a conservative is willing to give that person time to redeem themselves. Shame on you, take a break, talk to me about it again in a year or so and convince me that you have come to your senses. The liberal does not care unless the infidel is playing for the other team. If a politician lies on his taxes, conservatives expect him to step down, if that politician is a conservative, liberals agree, if that person is also a Republican, the Democrats agree and some where along the way critical mass is reached and he is forced out. If a liberal Democrat cheats on his taxes, conservatives expect him to step down, the liberal points to this as a smear tactic and claims that he has a good heart and should be pardoned, so long as the tax cheat supports the agenda, and the Democrat will defend him because on April 15th, a Democrat cheat beats a Republican of any shade every time. Alas, no critical mass. If you think I am talking about Tim Geithner, do a Google search for “democrat tax evasion –democrats.com, and poke around a little in the 1.4 million hits, many not Geithner. Don’t think for a minute that this is somehow an endorsement for Republican tax virtue, replace the word Democrat with Republican and peruse the 324,000 hits you get. Again, I imagine the shaky little fists and Barney Frank’s lispy claims of fighting for me.

Harry Reid, a strict PC public figure “used an unfortunate phrasing” and just as importantly, President Obama immediately forgives him and hopes the whole thing will just go away, so it is misspeak, not a view into his character. George Allen makes up what he thinks is an Indian sounding name, and it is an obvious Freudian slip, indicates the deep seated white supremacy hatred he has for people not like him. Worse than that, he did it in public with a complete disdain for political correctness. What an amateur, using a fake word without focus grouping it first. He is obviously not first string material.

Give Harry a break, he has been elected to the level of his incompetence and cannot possibly be expected to get it right on light bulbs and supporting Obama for President and knowing what phrase to use when labeling African American dialects. We are, after all, just human.

The real call for his removal should come from his Nevada constituents and the non-Black community.

Oops, I heard the screeching tires and the resounding crash. Did I change gears too fast? What can I possibly be talking about? Well, in Harry Reid’s private comments he revealed that he didn’t necessarily respect Obama for his charisma or his intellect or for his commitment to principle, or ability to perform the duties, but for his electability, his packaging. He viewed Obama as a well presented candidate who would bring the Black vote along, without offending too many white people as would one with darker skin and a Black dialect. Obama voted the right way, and was minority enough, but not too minority so as to scare the White people. In one careless and revealing phrase, Harry Reid insulted Blacks by predicting they would vote for race, insulted whites by predicting that they wanted to, and insulted most moderate voters as being gullible enough to be so manipulated. President Obama was looked at as a ringer brought in from out of town to play in the Church league, and the opposition would never see it coming. Harry Reid doesn’t think Whites are better than Blacks, he is just a political hack. No shock, one has to be to become majority leader. I agree with the liberals we should give him a break on the racism front.

The truth is much more sinister than a racial bias. Harry Reid, thinks that his political allies are better than EVERYONE else. His People automatically know that everyone supporting Strom Thurmond is racist, and they KNOW that they make better decisions about YOUR personal life than you could ever make if left to your own devices. This is why we are tired of American politics. Not because Harry recognized a racial political fact, or was careless enough to let the world see that Democrats can actually see race. Not because Trent Lott should have carefully prepared a PC preface to every compliment he made to an old man at his birthday party. We have tired of hearing how hard the last game was or how hard they are training now. Both parties are campaigning for first string, which we select like we choose homecoming queen. We end up with professional campaigners but the football games look like an exhibition game with Congress and the White House officials on one side and paid, private sector lobbyist professional ball teams on the other. Guess which side has skin in the game. From the bleachers it looks ridiculous, even entertaining, you can see small groups of drunks humming the Harlem Globe Trotters theme, except that we are getting our butts handed to us by the pro’s. Any given day, the first string blames the second string and visa versa, and the opposing team takes home the spoils. The home team is getting our butts kicked and the post game talk is full of complaints about towel fights and locker room welts and who refuses to shower.

It has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with different standards for first and second string. It has everything to do with professionalism. We are running out of money for tickets and we are tired of loosing every season.

Welcome!

Kelly Shaw — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:40:17 +0000

We are just a small group of similarly minded friends who are concerned about the direction that our country has taken. We want to take President Obama up on his offer for more transparency in the Federal Government. We also see the need for our representatives in DC to take two “refresher” high school classes. One in plain old American Civics, and the other in basic Economics. Heck, why not ask all of our representatives to take a basic civics quiz? I’m willing to bet that close to 80% of them would fail. This is bad news for us and our children.