Law of the Bad Premise

A Year of Radical Policy Proposals

The Obama administration's replacement for Guantanamo Bay. This will protect America

Special Report’s lead story Wednesday evening was the remarkable saga that is now called “Gitmo.” my nominee for the first annual “Non-Sequitur Policy of the Year” award (NSPY, pronounced “nespy”, rhyming with ESPN’s ESPY award). Not a very catchy title, perhaps, but appropriately utilitarian in form and function. This first annual award goes to the policy which most epitomizes the absurdity of left wing activist government. It was not an easy choice. continue at NewsReal…

"Law and Order": Where Propaganda Meets Parody

Dick Wolf has fallen from the heights as a writer on “Hill Street Blues,” a supervising producer of “Miami Vice” and the creator/producer of the once-excellent “Law and Order” trilogy.  The flagship of the “Law and Order” series is “Law and Order,” the two other shows being “SVU” (Special Victims Unit) and “CI”(Criminal Intent). Perhaps 20 years is too long for any series, but “Law and Order” has devolved into the cheapest form of left-wing paranoid delusion. It is so obvious, it gives left-wing propaganda a bad name. Maybe Karl Rove planted a mole.  I now watch it for its comedic satirical value, as one would watch “Saturday Night Live.”

Dick Wolf

The last episode was “Fed.” It’s a story about an ACORN-like community organizing group called “Rights Alliance.” The founder of the Rights Alliance has a conservative infiltrator murdered to “cover up a cover-up.” The cover up is an affair the founder was having with one of its members. The “cover up of the cover-up” was the money being paid by the founder to his mistress’s husband to keep the affair quiet. The right-wing infiltrator was murdered because he had been secretly video taping a sting he was arranging unrelated to the affair–clearly meant to be reminiscent of the O’Keefe/Giles real life ACORN investigation. The founder feared this tape would open the organization up to scrutiny, thus exposing his affair and the subsequent monetary extortion to his girlfriend’s husband. We are not supposed to be shedding too many tears for our murder victim, given he was “tricking a few dumb kids in an ambush video.” (more at Big Hollywood…) 

Prisoners, Body Snatchers and ClimateGate

AMC’s The Prisoner was awful. The headache inducing flashbacks, incomprehensible sudden and rapid scene changes, incessant and interminable runs through the desert to find the sea, the ever present morose gay son, “11-12,” of “2,” and the lack of any plot tension made the show almost unwatchable. But watch it I did, because I wanted to know both 2’s reasons and the technology that helped create “the Village.” The answer was preposterous. I should have read a “spoiler” review instead.

I never watched the original 1960’s television show, so had no particular expectations. The Prisoner is about a technology company, “Summaker,” which identifies people it presumes need help. It kidnaps them and places them in an induced hallucinogenic state. The hallucination is the “Village,” which looks like a human-sized toy town. The kidnapped live out their lives in a dreary hallucinogenic sameness with identical small pink houses, ambition free jobs, and some sense that all is ok. Villagers are unaware, mostly, they live in a hallucination, although many have odd “dreams” about their past. Dreamers are hunted down and sent down bottomless holes that appear in the ground. We are led to believe they are gone and dead. (Do they go back to the real world?). (more at Big Hollywood…)

Oz with a Gun: Climate Thugs Get Medieval

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue. You were sayin' something about "best intentions"? What's the matter? Oh, y-you were finished? Oh, well, allow me to retort!

Think Quentin Tarantino instead of Frank Baum. When the curtain is pulled back, Oz has a gun. In an imaginary Tarantino version of the “Wizard of Oz,” Dorothy and her pals are in mortal danger for exposing the fraud which was the Wizard. But deception in our times does not lead to reflection and redemption, as it did in the Wizard of Oz. Instead, we witness a ruthless doubling down on the deception.

Within a week of the “hide the decline” revelations from the Wizards of Anglia, the climate warming ideologues and plutocrats went to DEF CON 1. In the ”fake but accurate” world of climate science, their Oz-like actions may have been unethical, unscientific, fraudulent, and non-replicable, but they are still the gospel truth, “so help us Richard Dawkins.” read more at NewsReal…

Tiger's Latest Gambit

Of all the Griefs that harrass the Distrest, Sure the most bitter is scornful Jest
(Samuel Johnson-1738)

Tiger's world has spun out of control. His latest "gambit" of indefinitely quitting golf is the only way to go. One might say, to twist a phrase borrowed from the above quoted Samuel Johnson, "family values are the last refuge of the adulterer". But I won't say that. For the purpose of this essay, I don't attribute to him any more cynicism or, conversely, morality, than I would any normal human being. Here is my view of this whole thing, from his perspective, as of today that is.

A guy who serially cheats on his wife without guilt does not suddenly develop guilt when caught. He suffers regret. His regret is that his perfect world has been significantly disturbed. The nature of this perfect world had been the entire "Tigerness"  we all saw; endorsements, fame, admiration, the satisfaction of the hunt for golf immortality, wife and kids (without the restrictions of actually having to live with them all the time); plus the Tigerness we did not see; all the sex he could ever want. It is the "Tigerness" we saw, the once in a lifetime mega-competitor, (call him "Super Ego Tiger" versus the Tiger we did not see, "Id Tiger"), that got him his endorsements and the global admiration. He has lost a big chunk of that admiration and is on the precipice of losing all his endorsements. In a "marked to market world", his endorsements have lost much value. No one is showing Tiger ads.

Tiger's self imposed indefinite suspension from golf is all about getting popular opinion back on his side. America is the land of forgiveness. Michael Vick gets more attention than any 3rd string QB in football history because he is on a forgiveness tour. This happens all the time with celebrity. Tiger (let's call him "Ego Tiger") is basically saying something like the following to the world.

"The "Tigerness" you saw (Tiger without the serial adultery) is the way one ("I") ought to be, even though I was not him. You, the public, were right to admire that person. But I failed you and, more importantly, my family. I may never fully become that person you thought you saw, but I will try. We all know the most important thing in life is family. Before I can accomplish anything that matters---including golf---my family first must be restored---or at least I must try everything to make that happen. If I can't, then I alone will suffer the consequences. Only when that effort has been made, can I then return to the important, but secondary, work of being the greatest golfer ever".

Men who watch ESPN or Sports Center to get their Tiger News miss one vital cultural component to the "meaning of Tiger". The opinion of women will impact his rehabilitation. They may never trust him again, but he needs them to stop loathing him. Women find his actions disturbing and threatening. "If he can do it, so can my husband/boyfriend". They liked Tiger, but not anymore, for now at least.

Mens' opinion of Tiger may be more complex than that of women. Men who live like him (re: serial sex, etc.) are just glad its not them who got caught. Men who don't cheat are disappointed they lost such a great fellow chaste "teammate". It does not matter what the great atheists of the 19th and early 20th century thought (e.g., Freud and Nietzsche) about such matters of Christian guilt and morals. Tiger lives in the "wheelhouse" of so called "common" morality, which is America.

He is desperate to put the metaphorical cracked bowl of his life back together piece by piece. Why? Because Tiger wants the admiration, the glory and the money. Now he is a laughingstock. But he does not want to be John Daley. He want to be "Tiger Woods". We cannot know if this is a cynical ploy, a sincere move, or a vain attempt at unnatural self suppression.  I happen to believe it is easier to accomplish his objective as a true believer. Then he does not have to remember all the lies he tells himself or others. Admittedly, it could become a holding pattern too. That is, he can go through the strenuous motions of trying to make his marriage work and then when it fails people will have at least believed he tried. But maybe he really wants to stay married. I certainly don't know. But the bottom line is he wants his old life back--the Super Ego version. He will give up "Id Tiger" if he needs to, at least until some new relationship between he and the public develops.

If we have heard the worst of it (for example, we don't want to hear about bi-sexual orgies) then this may succeed. But he must be seen to be doing penance. Our fallen heroes, to be forgiven, must suffer righteous penance. Just think Roman Catholic catechism, confession, and penance. One thing is for certain. Sports fans will flock back to Tiger. He just needs to show his fans he cares enough to suffer.

Not for them. But for their wives (and children).

Tiger: As Cold As Ice

In an essay on Rush Limbaugh I stated,

“I like my coffee black and my NFL football straight.”

This was a send up on Joe Namath’s quip “I like my women blond and my Johnny Walker Red.” I almost never care or want to know anything about an athlete’s personal life, political opinions, peccadilloes, or anything beyond their contribution to winning the contest. It simply gets in the way of enjoying the sport. Athletes compete to win. Fans enjoy competition and gravitate toward those who win. This is why we watch sports. So I try to tune this other stuff out.

Sometimes you cannot. An extreme example is Michael Vick. In his “personal life,” he liked to kill dogs. Vick was one of the 3 most popular players in the NFL prior to being caught as the kingpin of dog fighting. I cannot watch Vick. He can apologize from now until doomsday but I will not watch him (accept, perhaps, to see him lose.) Interestingly, athletes have not received much attention from the sports press for extramarital affairs. It does not show up on the radar screen like steroid use, gambling, off field violence etc. Athletes are different than politicians in that sense. Super Bowl QB, Ben Rothlisberger, was even accused of sexual assault this summer, and it was a background story at best.

So why is the Tiger Woods story generating such heat?  He may be the greatest athlete relative to his own sport in history. He is also a cultural figure, not merely a sports figure. His relationship with his father, in particular, has shaped our image of Woods as a strong “family values” person. I think if the story had been only what the National Enquirer had written, he might have skated by. But Elin Woods was not going quiet into the good night. Most people heard about the car accident before they knew of the Enquire article. Everything about the car accident story was bizarre in its own right. The combination was deadly.

All Tiger fans feel deflated, even me. We loved everything about the guy. As my wife –who is not a sports fan at all — said, “I am so disappointed.” Obviously, he is a different person than we thought. It is kind of a bummer. A few people even have tried to create a “personal is the political” gender story out of this. Hanna Rosin threw down the gauntlet with a self contradictory piece about gender-neutral domestic violence laws.

Others talk about how poorly Tiger has “handled” the story. What’s there to handle? He got caught cheating on his wife in front of the whole world. Both he and Elin feel humiliated, for different reasons of course. The last thing I want to see is some Mark Sanford style public apology. ..........read more here Tiger: As Cold As Ice‎

East Anglia Revelations Have Not Changed My Mind---Part 2

 

Perhaps not the most trustworthy advocate?

Editor’s Note: Please read part 1 here which explains some of the scientific reasons which the author does not agree with the global warming theory. In this second part he explains the heuristic reasons for not embracing the idea.

The term “heuristic” is used here as an intuitive judgment based on experiences. It’s the kind of thinking that says “when I see x, y typically follows.” When a policy message and the messenger have a self interested and/or anti-free market, anti-capitalism, and anti-American underpinning, I immediately become a skeptic. Here are several reasons why I “heuristically” disagree with the global warming hypothesis.

The left warned against global cooling in the 60’s and 70’s using the same “apocalypse soon” rhetoric we have today. Paul Ehrlich was the James Hansen of his day. When one reads the (increasingly left wing) Wikipedia entry on Ehrlich, we see revisionist interpretations. You see, his position was never “really” considered scientifically sound. He famously bet free-markets philosopher Julian Simon that commodity prices would be higher in 20 years than in 1980. He believed mankind was pillaging the earth and we were “running out” of resources. He was famously wrong. He now believes in global warming. read more… 

East Anglia Revelations Have Not Changed My Mind---Part 1

Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

On Fox’s Special Report Monday evening, Brit Hume made the central argument against the politics and science of global warming: its proponents have not yet made accurate predictions. Nor have they gotten the concept straight. Is “global warming” or “climate change” the problem?

I began writing about this issue years ago and always have been an extreme skeptic (Climate Change Fraud – Hollywood’s Silent Spring.) The data appeared doctored and the conclusions seemed preposterous. But my assumption had been it was due to extreme researcher bias, not explicit fraud, as we now know is also true. Modern climate science has become a political game of wealth transference. Future generations will view AGW as we now view alchemy, a “science” which Isaac Newton believed during his lifetime. I cannot transfer my certainty to you, but I can explain why I think this way. In part 1, I will discuss scientific reasons; and, in part 2, my heuristic reasons for this skepticism. read more…

Winfrey/Palin No Frost/Nixon

Everything about Sarah Palin is magnified, as the current book tour demonstrates. The book was number one the day it appeared for sale on Amazon. All public figures have a larger than life appearance, but it is far more pronounced with Palin. She is an almost unprecedented media phenomenon. Yet few present her as a truly serious person. Democrats attempt mockery and Republicans damn with faint praise. Those who themselves praise her strongly are cast in a similar light. The great paradox is, on the one hand, the media is driven to her like a moth to flame, yet, on the other hand, they treat her as if she were not worthy of all the attention.

This attitude comes from the same media which takes or has taken Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, and Joe Biden seriously. Admittedly, these are low hurdle comparisons, but that is exactly the point. Yet, to anyone who looks beyond the superficial coverage, it is obvious that Palin knows exactly what image she wishes to portray. Sarah Palin may or may not be a legitimate presidential candidate, (she is, in my opinion); her tactics on this book tour may or may not be helpful regarding future political ambitions (remains to be seen); but she is completely and naturally in command of herself. Yet this seemingly goes unobserved and flies in direct contradiction to the dominant narrative.

(please see more on my first Big Government essay…)

Everything about Sarah Palin is magnified, as the current book tour demonstrates. The book was number one the day it appeared for sale on Amazon. All public figures have a larger than life appearance, but it is far more pronounced with Palin. She is an almost unprecedented media phenomenon. Yet few present her as a truly serious person. Democrats attempt mockery and Republicans damn with faint praise. Those who themselves praise her strongly are cast in a similar light. The great paradox is, on the one hand, the media is driven to her like a moth to flame, yet, on the other hand, they treat her as if she were not worthy of all the attention.

This attitude comes from the same media which takes or has taken Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, and Joe Biden seriously. Admittedly, these are low hurdle comparisons, but that is exactly the point. Yet, to anyone who looks beyond the superficial coverage, it is obvious that Palin knows exactly what image she wishes to portray. Sarah Palin may or may not be a legitimate presidential candidate, (she is, in my opinion); her tactics on this book tour may or may not be helpful regarding future political ambitions (remains to be seen); but she is completely and naturally in command of herself. Yet this seemingly goes unobserved and flies in direct contradiction to the dominant narrative.

(please see more on my first Big Government essay…)

NBC's "Law and Order": Shills for ObamaCare

NBC’s “Law and Order” is in its 20th season. The economy is weak, so they have devolved to converting White House talking points into weekly shows. Last week, “Doped” was a farcical equivalent of “Damien Thorn meets Karen Silkwood.” Pharmaceutical companies and Doctors are worse than drug cartels. The killers in the previous week’s episode on such cartels were more sympathetic than the health professionals. 

In the opening scene, a woman with 4 children is driving the wrong way down the West Side Highway (like the Diane Schuler Taconic Parkway horror this summer). Speaking on her cell phone erratically (no “hands free!”), the kids get concerned. She decides it is time to use nasal spray for her allergies, which had been spiked without her knowledge. Flash forward and viewers see two mangled vehicles resulting in seven deaths. 

please continue at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood

A Show Trial Bigger Than OJ's

Political hacks are dullards whose primary utility is obeying any order with gusto. Eric Holder is the quintessential political hack.

In the last days of the Clintons’ empire of sleaze, then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder proactively assisted Clinton in getting Marc Rich his “cash for pardon” deal done. Even Democrats feigned outrage. We are supposed to believe Holder is “acting on his own” when he decided to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court. Admittedly, Obama is so self-obsessed it is believable he is not involved. But that’s why Rahm Emanuel exists. A hack like Holder does not make decisions of this magnitude on his own.

Fox Special Report panelist and Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes believes this trial inevitably will reopen the entire “water boarding as torture” discussions. read more at David Horowitz' NewsReal Blog…

Journalists' Mindless Mind Games on Ft. Hood

Please read in entirety at David Horowitz' NewsReal Blog

Watching several days of commentary on Nidal Hasan’s (no, I will not call him “Major Hasan”) Fort Hood massacre was painful. Evan Thomas of Newsweek turned it into something about “right wingers.” Sally Quinn, widow of Ben Bradley who writes a “Faith Column” for the Washington Post, wasn’t sure what she thought, but was pretty sure we should not “jump to conclusions.” Fox News actually congratulated itself, through Bill O’Reilly, because the “Fox All-Stars” on Special Report were not negative on Obama’s eulogy. Chief of Staff for the Army, George Casey says,

“As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

I don’t know how the Ottoman or Roman Empires started to go south, but when a nation’s intelligentsia become so lost in  mindless constructs, it can’t be a good sign. When quantum physicists attempt to translate their measurements and mathematical deductions into everyday language, they produce what appears to be an irreducible paradox which can say of an object– “it is both here and not here”– at the same time. Physicists had a choice to make. They could spend all their time philosophizing about this seeming impossibility, or simply use a probably imperfect model to make predictions. They of course chose observable measurements over hypothetical ruminations and as such we have microchips and Hubble space craft..............................

'Mad Men': Bringing It All Back Home

Please read entire essay at Big Hollywood

Warning: Spoiler alert!  

The “Mad Men” finale was a satisfying, although a bit too tidy, end to its 3rd season. When I was 8, my teenage sister introduced me to a card game called “52 Pick-Up.” When I handed her the deck, she tossed cards across the room. As I whined, she said, “What else did you think a card game called ‘52 Pick-Up’ was about?” When writers Weiner and Levy created chaos with all my familiar characters in the opening episode, I should have thought “52 Pick-Up.”

After all, they just had a merger for heaven’s sake. What else to expect? Relationships between and among characters changed as work and economic status changed, and they were reshuffled into new and less pleasing ones. But we became gradually more accustomed to the new “order,” although the dominant “feeling” was a cheerless dreariness. There were some memorable moments. When a drunk Lois amputated the erstwhile new Brit super star Guy MacKendrick’s foot with a John Deere tractor in the office, I laughed out loud for minutes. Taken one show at a time, they were good, but the cumulative gloom and doom became stifling. (more…)

Marxo-Sapiens to the Rescue--Parts 1, 2, and 3

Karl Marx was a moron. Like so many intellectuals, he thrived in the tree but was lost in the forest. His solution for mankind’s ills was to simply invent a new being. The Marxo-Sapien is a being that happily gives to the maximum of its abilities and takes only what it “needs.” Like Big Foot, this being has never been seen, but is assumed by many to exist. It is implicit in the newly passed Nancy Pelosi “health care” bill. We are all Marxo-Sapiens now.

This day may well have been baked into our national cake once employers introduced health insurance as a tax free benefit during WWII. Thus began the creation of the national illusion that one’s medical care could be had without opportunity costs. It appears “free” for many of those who have it. When we discover it is not free we think a grave injustice has been perpetrated. Therefore, many believe those who do not have it should also get it for “free.” Most people have their medical expenses paid on their behalf by their employer, tax free, and have no idea what medical care actually costs. There is hardly a single other product or service (think food, iPods, automobiles, Satellite TV, etc.) for which that statement can be made. (See What Next: “Universal Food Insurance”? )

..........see entire three part series at David Horowitz' NewsReal Blog

Equivocal Condemnations

It would be reassuring if Muslim organizations were more unequivocal in their condemnation of acts of violence done in the name of Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) includes in its statement condemning the killings at Fort Hood, the following warning:

“Unfortunately, based on past experience, we also urge American Muslims, and those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.”

This statement is designed to create and establish among Muslims the feeling they are victims within America. It also is meant to provide the basis for understanding why some lunatic who is Muslim might have reason to “snap.” This is not much different than the view, still held by a large minority of Americans (Reverend Wright anyone?) that 9/11 was simply America’s chickens coming home to roost.

....................continued at   David Horowitz' NewsReal Blog‎

  

"Eleven Guys in a Pizzeria"

District 23 in New York encompasses 11 counties is the most northern part of the state. Most of the district is further north than Toronto, Canada.  It’s geographically large, about the size of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined. Much of it overlaps the beautiful and enormous Adirondack Park, the largest State or Federal park in the lower 48 states.

District 23’s land mass is approximately 1/3rd of New York State’s. Its population is only 1/29th. In a state where Barack Obama outperformed John McCain by 28 points, District 23 elected Republican Congressman John McHugh, now Obama’s Secretary of the Army.  A Republican has represented the district since there was a Republican party. The last non-Republican elected to Congress was a member of the Whig Party. Of course, Obama’s choice of McHugh was not a cynical political choice made by Rahm Emmanuel, but one based on bipartisan merit alone. But cynical politics is not new. Losing this district was.

The Democratic victory was a disaster for the Republican Party. A small disaster — after all, it is only one district among 435 in the US– but a disaster never the less. It is also one where “lessons will be learned.” If those lessons are the wrong ones, then a small disaster will become a larger one. I already gave my pre-election opinion in Palin, the “Amiable Duncess”. I favored Hoffman. And while I still wish he won, I did not know what a bad candidate he was. That is not an excuse, just a statement of fact. The late Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, famously quipped that “all politics was local”. In fact, that was told to him by his father when he lost his very first election. He lost it because he spent all his campaigning in precincts other than his own. Had he won his own precinct he would have won the election. He learned then, that first and foremost, a politician must be attuned to the issues most close to his constituency. From there, a foundation can be built.

.........continued at David Horowitz' Newsreal blog‎

The Evils of Capitalism Unveiled

CSI: Miami---Coincidence, or a purposeful attack on Whole Foods CEO John Mackey? Either way, this was surely an adolescent and silly attack on capitalism. Please see my essay on Big Hollywood  ‘CSI: Miami’ Attacks ObamaCare Apostate

Palin, the "Amiable Duncess", Continues to Enrage GOP Establishment

As I have said many times before in this blog, the Republican Party and the majority of Republican commentators wish that Sarah Palin would just go away. They don't like her, period. They share the same sensibility about her as do their Democratic opponents. They think she is unprepared, an intellectual lightweight, a prima donna, and unable to do anything but get 35% of the vote. They view her as a disaster for the party.

So, when Palin endorsed New York State Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, some of the usual suspects came out against her action. I think they had their feelings hurt when she stated that "and best of all, Hoffman is not a member of a political machine"--an obvious dig at the Republican Party. Doesn't anyone remember anything? Palin herself was not a member of a political machine. She won Alaska by beating the corrupt self dealing Republican political machine. Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman is in a close race in New York District 23 in the Adirondocks region (where coincidently I am writing this from in  Lake Placid, New York, on a long weekend vacation) against liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava and Democrat Bill Owens.

(continued at NewsReal Blog....Sarah Palin, the “Amiable Duncess,” Continues to Enrage the GOP Establishment 

 

Triumph of the Will

Please see my latest entry on David Horowitz' NewsReal blog....When is a Nazi Comparison not Out of Bounds?

Rush to Judgment

Please see my post on David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog..............Why Does the Left Have to Politicize Football?

Linguistic Lunacies in Health Care

My Latest Post at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog discusses how proponents and opponents of health care change just can't seem to get it right.

It is difficult watching the various discussions on “health care reform.” With health care back in the spotlight as the top story, so too comes the insane language the Left needs to use in order to push through this scheme.

Almost everything one hears about health care is a lie.

First, Medicare will be made smaller no matter what happens. Therefore, when Republicans defend Medicare in the service of (correctly) opposing the Democrats’ plan, it is dishonest. Any government program which gives consumers more of something than it costs to create will, naturally, be very popular. But Medicare is unsustainable at its current growth rate. Since senior citizens are the most passionately opposed to the Democratic plan, we won’t hear anything negative about Medicare from Republicans any time soon.

Second, the various news people should just stop using the phrase health care “reform.” Reform implies improvement. These proposals are true monstrosities. Even those who oppose the Democratic plans speak unwittingly on their behalf when they call these proposals “reforms.”

...............(continued at NewsReal Blog)

Obama Deserving of Nobel Prize

Alfred Nobel was the inventor who famously created the explosive device he named "dynamite". It takes a large ego and a lot of confidence to bequeath one's wealth "in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind". His life was devoted to experimentation and the annual prize was originally divided into 5 categories (before the Nobel Committee added a 6th (in Economics) in 1968); physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and "peace". It is instructive that of the five categories in his will, the most words were required to describe the peace prize's purpose. It was to be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Barack Obama is the 20th American to win the Nobel peace prize. Teddy Roosevelt was the first  American to win the prize. The Nobel Committee awarded it to "TR" in the beginning of his second term in 1906. Roosevelt was the first political leader to use the Court of Arbitration at the Hague to settle an international dispute. The 2nd American to win the peace prize was Elihu Root, in 1912. Root was a Washington DC power broker, Senator, and defense lawyer who once defended Tammany Hall's William "Boss" Tweed against corruption charges. He won his prize as the first president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an organization "dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States". Later, Root supported Woodrow Wilson's attempt to establish the Covenant of the League of Nations, which the American Congress refused to ratify after WW I. Despite Wilson's efforts, the US never joined the League of Nations.

The stress of this "stunning defeat", according to the Nobel Committee, contributed to Woodrow Wilson's cerebral hemorrhage during the 7th year of his presidency. Wilson, the 3rd American to receive the peace prize, oddly won the 1916 presidential  election partly on the slogan; "He kept us out of war". The US entered the war almost immediately upon his inauguration. The 5th American to win the award was Frank Kellogg, of "Kellogg-Briand" fame, in 1929.  Kellogg was a wealthy lawyer whom Teddy Roosevelt appointed as special prosecutor to assist him in his "trust-busting" quest. French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand and Frank Kellogg created the Pact of Paris in 1928 which "renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy". 64 nations signed it.

Columbia University president Nicholas Butler won the prize 3 years later (with co-winner, American sociologist Jane Adams, the first American woman to receive the prize). Butler was another TR protegee to win the prize. Butler, a philosopher by training, was an early admirer and supporter of Mussolini. He also helped "forge links" between the US and Nazi Germany during the early 1930s. In 1933, Butler invited Nazi Hans Luther to speak at Columbia in support of Hitler. Butler's prize was like  a "life time achievement" award. Butler was close with Kellogg and Root and, according to the Nobel committee, "sought to unite the world of education and that of politics in a struggle to achieve world peace through international cooperation". Linus Pauling (12th American) won the peace prize for his book "No More War" in 1962. And so on.

A large percentage of Nobel peace prize winners have been devoted to international "peace" processes designed to transcend national sovereignty. An overwhelming percent were also supporters of the empty moral notion of "peace". Many have commented on the irony of Alfred Nobel's wealth having been derived from dynamite, providing amateur psychologists a rationale for his inclusion of the peace prize in his will. The Nobel website ridiculously stresses the use of dynamite in construction, as if Nobel never sold any of it for purposes of war. Nobel may have been trying to purchase indulgences. His "will" reads like a "moral theory of everything".

Why is there war? It is because nations' interest's collide over something of great strategic importance to them. Why don't we just negotiate with al-Qaeda and the Taliban now and simply end the war in Afghanistan? Peace advocates act as if these differences are meaningless and minimal, like children arguing over which television show to watch. In a world of no right and wrong, but merely differences of opinion, peace advocates believe if one just sits down and discusses things reasonably, wars can be avoided.

But this is absurd. Why didn't the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1929 prevent WW II? Neville Chamberlain's half-brother, Austen Chamberlain, won the prize in 1925 for his role in the Treaty of Locarno. The treaty effectively withdrew British and French support from Poland and Czechoslovakia. This purposely gave Germany "cover" to act later on its territorial claims over the Sudetenland and other parts of Eastern Europe. His half brother, Neville, cemented the deal in 1938 with the Treaty of Munich. Neville, strangely, did not win the prize. Why don't these sentiments prevent wars? It is because ideological beliefs combined with strong material interests can and do create irreconcilable differences. Totalitarianism and democracies cannot co-exist peacefully, without one acquiescing to the other.

"Peace in our time"

The Nobel Peace Committee pretends to be idealistic, when it is merely stupid. When is peace not justified? When it is viewed as an end in itself. Peace is a means, not an end. Patrick Henry once said, "give me liberty or give me death". He did not say "give me peace in our time". Barack Obama is the perfect recipient of the peace prize. He led an adolescent committee at the UN denouncing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Soon after, Iran's nuclear program is revealed to have been larger than previously thought.  As French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, stated; "President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite....What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?.....{just} more uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

Khatami and Ahmadinejad

Sarkozy was simply pointing at the elephant in the room. Poland and the Czechs are also, once again, left standing out in the cold by Obama's withdrawal of missile defense plans. The peace prize has largely been given to proponents of international organizations over nations, "peace in our time" appeasers, and clueless "idealist" peace activists. It does not even matter whether the individual acted on his stated "idealistic" convictions. Witness Woodrow Wilson's entrance into WW I. It only matters that they express such thoughts.

Why wouldn't such a person, when also the president of the United States, make a perfect candidate for the prize? The Norwegians chose well.

Alfred Nobel was the inventor who famously created the explosive device he named "dynamite". It takes a large ego and a lot of confidence to bequeath one's wealth "in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind". His life was devoted to experimentation and the annual prize was originally divided into 5 categories (before the Nobel Committee added a 6th (in Economics) in 1968); physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and "peace". It is instructive that of the five categories in his will, the most words were required to describe the peace prize's purpose. It was to be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Barack Obama is the 20th American to win the Nobel peace prize. Teddy Roosevelt was the first  American to win the prize. The Nobel Committee awarded it to "TR" in the beginning of his second term in 1906. Roosevelt was the first political leader to use the Court of Arbitration at the Hague to settle an international dispute. The 2nd American to win the peace prize was Elihu Root, in 1912. Root was a Washington DC power broker, Senator, and defense lawyer who once defended Tammany Hall's William "Boss" Tweed against corruption charges. He won his prize as the first president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an organization "dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States". Later, Root supported Woodrow Wilson's attempt to establish the Covenant of the League of Nations, which the American Congress refused to ratify after WW I. Despite Wilson's efforts, the US never joined the League of Nations.

The stress of this "stunning defeat", according to the Nobel Committee, contributed to Woodrow Wilson's cerebral hemorrhage during the 7th year of his presidency. Wilson, the 3rd American to receive the peace prize, oddly won the 1916 presidential  election partly on the slogan; "He kept us out of war". The US entered the war almost immediately upon his inauguration. The 5th American to win the award was Frank Kellogg, of "Kellogg-Briand" fame, in 1929.  Kellogg was a wealthy lawyer whom Teddy Roosevelt appointed as special prosecutor to assist him in his "trust-busting" quest. French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand and Frank Kellogg created the Pact of Paris in 1928 which "renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy". 64 nations signed it.

Columbia University president Nicholas Butler won the prize 3 years later (with co-winner, American sociologist Jane Adams, the first American woman to receive the prize). Butler was another TR protegee to win the prize. Butler, a philosopher by training, was an early admirer and supporter of Mussolini. He also helped "forge links" between the US and Nazi Germany during the early 1930s. In 1933, Butler invited Nazi Hans Luther to speak at Columbia in support of Hitler. Butler's prize was like  a "life time achievement" award. Butler was close with Kellogg and Root and, according to the Nobel committee, "sought to unite the world of education and that of politics in a struggle to achieve world peace through international cooperation". Linus Pauling (12th American) won the peace prize for his book "No More War" in 1962. And so on.

A large percentage of Nobel peace prize winners have been devoted to international "peace" processes designed to transcend national sovereignty. An overwhelming percent were also supporters of the empty moral notion of "peace". Many have commented on the irony of Alfred Nobel's wealth having been derived from dynamite, providing amateur psychologists a rationale for his inclusion of the peace prize in his will. The Nobel website ridiculously stresses the use of dynamite in construction, as if Nobel never sold any of it for purposes of war. Nobel may have been trying to purchase indulgences. His "will" reads like a "moral theory of everything".

Why is there war? It is because nations' interest's collide over something of great strategic importance to them. Why don't we just negotiate with al-Qaeda and the Taliban now and simply end the war in Afghanistan? Peace advocates act as if these differences are meaningless and minimal, like children arguing over which television show to watch. In a world of no right and wrong, but merely differences of opinion, peace advocates believe if one just sits down and discusses things reasonably, wars can be avoided.

But this is absurd. Why didn't the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1929 prevent WW II? Neville Chamberlain's half-brother, Austen Chamberlain, won the prize in 1925 for his role in the Treaty of Locarno. The treaty effectively withdrew British and French support from Poland and Czechoslovakia. This purposely gave Germany "cover" to act later on its territorial claims over the Sudetenland and other parts of Eastern Europe. His half brother, Neville, cemented the deal in 1938 with the Treaty of Munich. Neville, strangely, did not win the prize. Why don't these sentiments prevent wars? It is because ideological beliefs combined with strong material interests can and do create irreconcilable differences. Totalitarianism and democracies cannot co-exist peacefully, without one acquiescing to the other.

"Peace in our time"

The Nobel Peace Committee pretends to be idealistic, when it is merely stupid. When is peace not justified? When it is viewed as an end in itself. Peace is a means, not an end. Patrick Henry once said, "give me liberty or give me death". He did not say "give me peace in our time". Barack Obama is the perfect recipient of the peace prize. He led an adolescent committee at the UN denouncing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Soon after, Iran's nuclear program is revealed to have been larger than previously thought.  As French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, stated; "President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite....What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?.....{just} more uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

Khatami and Ahmadinejad

Sarkozy was simply pointing at the elephant in the room. Poland and the Czechs are also, once again, left standing out in the cold by Obama's withdrawal of missile defense plans. The peace prize has largely been given to proponents of international organizations over nations, "peace in our time" appeasers, and clueless "idealist" peace activists. It does not even matter whether the individual acted on his stated "idealistic" convictions. Witness Woodrow Wilson's entrance into WW I. It only matters that they express such thoughts.

Why wouldn't such a person, when also the president of the United States, make a perfect candidate for the prize? The Norwegians chose well.

Jazzman Fails to Sanctify

"When a Jazzman's testifying, a faithless man believes, he can sing you into paradise or bring you to his knees. It's a gospel kind of feelin', a touch of Georgia slide, a song of pure revival and a style that's sanctified".(Carole King - Jazzman, 1978)
 
The Copenhagen trip by the president and first lady is something we are not supposed to be too negative about. It is perceived as unseemly to rag on the president for simply trying to bring the Olympics to America. It was only 18 hours on Air Force One, and certainly work on other matters would be accomplished. Also, in the grand scheme of things, we have so much to worry about like healthcare, Afghanistan, Iran and climate change, it seems petty to harp on such an issue. Plus its yesterday's news, so we should just move on. Yet the trip was such a clarifying moment that it is too important to ignore. We have downplayed its relevance, not overplayed it. 

I found it perplexing when the president announced the trip, as it reversed what he said 2 weeks prior. As a sports fan, the Olympics have always been at the lower rung of my interest ladder, even as they can inspire from time to time. The International Olympic Committee has been linked to scandals and has always had a sleazy reputation. The Olympics have always been more spectacle than sports, like halftime at the Super Bowl. Politics also has a dominant presence. The worst example, of course, were the Munich 1972 games when Arafat thugs kidnapped and murdered Israeli athletes. Before that, there were the Black Power salutes in the Mexico City 1968 games. We also remember the Berlin games of 1936--think of that for a second, the IOC chose Nazi Germany--with Hitler holding court as Jesse Owens defeated the self-defined "Aryan" race. We also had the 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics as protest, ironically, for Russia fighting the war in Afghanistan. Then there are those tedious articles about whether Americans are too jingoistic because we root for other Americans. My worst nightmare is the NFL getting involved in partisan politics like the IOC. NBC's Sunday Night Football is already on the borderline, as Keith Olbermann does double duty with his pre-game host position. Sports is supposed to be a Safe-Zone from politics.

From a monetary perspective, the Olympics would have been bad for Chicago and US taxpayers and a boon for Chicago insiders. London is supposedly already in the hole for $20 billion as the host for the 2012 Olympics. But that simply means a set of interest groups are on the receiving end of $20 billion. One reason China and Brazil were so hot to trot on getting the games is it represents to them (again, political thinking) recognition--like a national booster campaign. As a giant "advertisement", the games are not expected to "make money", but improve national "brand image". Finally, when I think US Olympics, I think Peter Ueberroth, not Ronald Reagan. So it wasn't that the president had better things to do which bothered me, as much as wondering why he would even think he should do this at all.
 
Off course, the answer is that he was lobbied hard by the city of Chicago (where the word "jazz" was first applied to music in 1915) to do this. Obviously somebody thought they could make money. This was all about the big dollars. We now know that Chicago had committed the most amount of money to the event, according to the IOC. So Obama was providing political payback for his Chicago backers. The national media intelligentsia simply assumed that the "fix was in". Implicit in their thinking, I believe, was much of what is written above. Basically the thought process was, "who cares about the Olympics?". Therefore, in order for a president to go make a silly sales pitch, he must know his appearance was required to seal the deal. Otherwise, it made no sense. This is why it was so shocking to both the left and the right when the IOC seemed to go the extra yard in mocking the US with its first round knockout. It is inconceivable to me Obama thought this was possible. There is no good way to spin this. He was playing a game in which he was in way over his head. It is like the joke about the sucker in a poker game. If you don't know who it is, it means its you. Where else in the world is America the "sucker"?

 
Count me in as one who believes Obama thinks he is a "Jazzman". There is nothing more illuminating than the famous "creepy cult of personality" Charlie Rose interview with Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham of Newsweek, conducted the day after the 2008 election Charlie Rose - A conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas. Newsweek's Thomas was "embedded" in the Obama campaign as Newsweek has done with both parties since 1984. The first 10 minutes of the interview are even more remarkable in hindsight. Meacham and Thomas emphasized how "self-contained" Obama was at all times. In meetings, he would require all to participate. While Obama "was always in charge", one "never could tell what his view" was. They viewed Obama as "someone who can get people to do what he wants" while being "elusive" in expressing his own opinions. They discuss that Obama first decided to enter politics when he ran for head of the Harvard Law Review. That was when he realized "{he} had a gift", and "that people want to help him". They recall Obama's view that he is "a screen upon which people project their hopes". The Newsweek boys believed that he "projected brilliantly and was always in control". Ultimately, he "knows the power of his own ability". If this were written today, it could almost be seen as an attack. In November 2008, it was a paean. In other words, Newsweek viewed his "elusiveness" as a sign of withheld wisdom.
 
Looking back at the Newsweek perspective, how should we now view his trip to Copehagen? Or his views on healthcare, stimulus, climate change,  Iran or Afghanistan?
 
Jazzman, take my blues away.

Beatles Trivia Game

Posted on Big Hollywood. Trivia Time: Can You Tell the Difference Between Lennon and McCartney?

"You Must Try Some of My Purple Berries"

Perhaps the greatest moral equivalence song of all time was written on David Crosby's sail boat off the coast of Florida in 1968. The song is Wooden Ships and its authors were Crosby (music), Steven Stills and Paul Kantner of the Jefferson Airplane (lyrics). The title above is a line from the Jefferson Airplane version. The CSN version is "Say, can I have some of your purple berries". Both versions are great, but I always liked the Jefferson Airplane recording better. Their decidedly less mellow sound fits better the post apocalyptic setting of the song. Here are two links if you wish to compare Jefferson Airplane - Wooden Ships; Crosby, Stills and Nash - Wooden Ships 

Putting aside Wikipedia's claim that Stills says the song is about the WWII Holocaust, the song recounts the chance meeting of two individuals each "from the other side" after some kind of nuclear war. It is a "pox on both your houses" world view combined with the fantasy of withdrawing from the problems of the world.  "Horror grips us as we watch you die, all we can do is echo your anguished cry, and stare as all your human feelings die, we are leaving, you don't need us". They then "sail away where the wind blows sweet and young birds fly". It is a little bit like Ron Paul meets Barack Obama.

So what gets me thinking about Wooden Ships? I saw this youtube clip by Thaddeus McCotter, Republican Chair of the Policy Committee in the House of Representatives, after the president unilaterally agreed with Russia and withdrew support for long range missile defense in Poland. It does not matter that defense secretary Gates says our ability to defend has not been compromised. If that is the case, why was Russia so adamant on its removal? Further, what did the US get in return? Nothing.

Worse than Obama's speech at the UN was the spectacle of him chairing the UN's Security Council meeting on nuclear disarmament. He is the first president to have ever chaired a council meeting. I find it fitting. The "Talkin' Dude" who is our president is perfectly suited to lead such meaningless meetings. When he finally leaves his post as president, he will make more money on speaking tours than any single individual ever.

The Obama led committee approved a resolution expressing "grave concern about the nuclear proliferation threat and urg[ed] action to prevent it". As a fan of dark comedies (like Tarantino flicks, Elmore Leonard novels and shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad) I promise I laughed out loud writing that sentence.To add to my humorous day, the world discovered, just one day after that ludicrous UN council resolution, that Iran has a second Nuke plant. What a hassle. Can't we all just "sail away where we might laugh again"? How can a US president lower himself to such demeaning and useless activities? Is Ahmadinejhad going to change his world view? Will Putin change? When push came to shove, Obama has already sided with both these tyrants against freedom. Yet he speaks as if he is leading a new global moral movement.

 

Barack Obama is all talk and no action. Or, as they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle". Sometimes this is good for America. Rather than really working with his own party in Congress to pass health care legislation, he prefers what he imagines to be a direct appeal to the American people. The more he talks, the more people do not change their mind, thus decreasing the odds of legislation passing. Other times it is a mix of good and bad. His ludicrous crowing at the UN about closing Guantanamo is an example. He thinks signing some sheet of paper is the same as it actually happening. So this is good for America because we still engage in rendition and have not closed the base. But it is bad in that he shows the world our president hasn't a clue.

Other times it is unambiguously bad. The left used to brag that Obama was not against all wars, only "dumb" wars (to match the "dumb" G.W.Bush). Obama, of course, has always been for "smart wars", like Afghanistan. As he said in March, “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future". Unless of course it requires more troops. His response to Letterman on this question was priceless: "I am going to be asking some tough questions". I am laughing again.

But as McCotter says, Obama is presiding over the "firesale of American Security" and it is no laughing matter.