why Obama might just be the man of the hour...

There aren't too many situations where somebody says "this is a job for the President". If it happens, it is usually a political guillotine or it is already a train wreck looking for somebody to take the blame.

One really can't blame the situation in the mideast on him. This has been brewing for many a year, (decade, century, yea even millennium?), and despite the lip service, nothing has been done to mitigate the hate and discontent in the region.

One can point an intellectually curious finger at quite a few reasons, all equally valid or ludicrous, as you see it on that day.

The United States and the Soviet Union have built for themselves a pretty solid reputation as well, owing to involvement in the region. The USSR built its reputation on military involvement, and is (was) well liked by those few that benefitted. The United States built its reputation by trying to be all things to all people at all times and stepping on too many toes, too many times. Its very visibility and size, (similar to the USSR) made it a convenient target for the frustrations of those who needed to stir up some camelshit soup in order to further their own agendas.

Today, we are seeing the last of those that used the USSR to take power come down, (or in a couple of cases, we are seeing the regimes come down, often driven by the sons of those that built them). It had to happen. And where is that omnipresent USA when all this is happening?

Home, minding the stock market.

And who is not stepping on the toes of the people running the rebellions?

Obama.

All the guy is doing is offering some moral support for the people and minding his business.

If this was the Reagan or GW Bush White House you can bet that the Sixth Fleet would be there, in close, with a few handpicked "advisers" on the ground to tell the rebels just how things need to turn out.

Of course, if sufficient heed was not paid to this advice, they would no longer be freedom fighters, they would be forever known as "terrorists".

The face of Obama in the mideast is something the natives have to get used to. It really changes nothing, the US is still committed to and would fight for Israel, (or the Saudi oilfields), in a second, but the lack of the shrill rhetoric and the willingness, (at least on the surface), to let the local population build their own destiny is not what they expect.

And they will respect us for that.

Too much of the time, we think of the mideast as Israel and Iran. Polar opposites and really grotesque theater at that.

I believe that most of that region wants to be camel herders and what have you, juust plain folks, doing what plain folks over there do. They just want to be those things without foreigners around dumping crap on the landscape and barking orders to the local governments.

And the face of Obama is not threatening, it leaves the rest of the world to assume the role of persecutor-in-chief, a role that might even look good on the other power broker in the region, the Ayatollah's of Qom....

just my thoughts on the notion of a silver lining.

politics

OK, there was a debate last night, in Iowa, and I didn't watch it. To be truthful and fair, I didn't watch The Big Bang Theory either. But as I was driving home this evening, dialing through the FM bands to see if it was merely crappy reception or a bad radio on one channel, (wouldn't have made a difference, it was a lousy station), I hit a talk radio program piped over from AM to a station that can't sell advertising with its former music format, (whatever happened to Lawrence Welk anyway....?) and it was the usual tirade, bitching about the liberals and how evil they are, you know, how they are intending to ruin the country.

What struck me as interesting here was the liberals as portrayed in this conversation were Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

If I had just dropped to earth from Mars or Venus, I would surely think that they were Obama's brothers, sorta like Chumley and Big Hoss on Pawn Stars....

Tomorrow is the straw poll.

I will be quite surprised if either of the Obama brothers wins. I really don't care, it's not like my vote equals much more than 1/10 of a fundraiser cent and there are plenty of those behind some of those guys, (and girls).

Just a thought...

There is a lot of talk about Constitutional amendments going around. Today, Mitt Romney signed a pledge to support an amendment that might well be called "lets make it easy and, indeed, a public responsibility, to mess with gays".

That is not what it is called of course, and, I don't believe that the founders even thought of such things or intended such issues to be considered by the government. But I suppose that back then, times were simpler and we did not need protection from the wanton hedonism that stalks us today.

I wish that I had lived back then. Imagine, to put in a days work, go home, sit under a tree or in front of a fire considering the day, then grab a slave and have ones way with them, be they male or female. (Its not the same when you own them you know....).

That is the America we need to restore.

But I digress friends.

Two separate polls released today show that over 80% of the American people think that Congress is not working out so well. (And they say our educational system is failing us...).

I say that they are a shit sandwich, and I would like to be on record as proposing my own amendment to the Constitution, (wording to be worked out), that requires the salaries of every member of the Congress to be published annually, and that the Congress be on the same federal pension system as every other federal employee, and pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems, (such as they are or will be). Any separate system will be phased out beginning one year following ratification, and be eliminated within five years.

All donations, gifts, contributions to members or their candidacies will be published at the same time. Failure to fully disclose these will be a felony and will result in expulsion from the Congress.

No person who has been convicted of a felony shall serve in the United States Congress or Judiciary. Persons convicted of felonies perpetrated while a member of the Congress or the Judiciary shall be subject to an additional penalty of twenty years incarceration in a federal prison plus a forfeiture of assets equal to that of the most severe penalty prescribed under federal law.

How's that?

I have another idea, probably equally unworkable, but I need a drink first...

OK, I'm back.

My other idea represents a thought that seems to be evolving and revolving at the same time. On the one hand, we live in a hands off world, owing in a great many respects to technology, which, at the same time, brings us much closer to a great many things, too close a lot of the time.

I don't know what to think of that. It is a fact of life, it is part and parcel of our lives, for better or worse, but it enables too much outside influence on us without giving us enough power over external things to help channel and balance that influence.

Anyway, before my distracted mind goes off on a tangent, I was thinking that the method of introducing, debating, and passing legislation be modified to be a bit more open and inclusive, this to be accomplished by a Constitutional amendment that would include the following points:

Require a national referendum to be held every other year, (probably at the same time that members of the House are elected), that would allow the introduction of bills into both chambers for a straight-up, roll call vote, without modification.

The vote could allow the passage, or repeal, of legislation under defined circumstances, perhaps subject to overturning by the same two-thirds majority that over-rides a veto by the President, (on a roll call vote, naturally).

Allow each Senator and Representative the right to introduce and bring to a floor, (roll call), vote, one or two bills per session, before being sent to committee for bastardization by lobbyists and other bottom feeders, as well as the privilege of forcing one vote per session. The prerogative needn't be exercised every year by every member, but it might give even the lowest ranked independent a little leverage to be heard and to get a bill to the floor.

(This of course would result in several versions of National Iowa Bullshit Week, but seeing who does what with their privilege has value too...).

I believe that the mandated ten days for the President to sign or veto a bill should be extended to thirty days, (given the size and complexity of some legislation, and the wide range of crap that is tacked on), and that some thought should be given to a line item veto on appropriations bills with an accompanying authority to override that line-item veto with a vote on that item only.

There are a few other things that might be included, but one wants to be more conceptual than detailed in dealing with the Constitution.

Eh? Thats my opinion for the day.

Go ahead, let me have it.

well, the immediate crisis is past, now what?

For the past two weeks, I have been reminded of a soap opera. When all else fails, yell and scream a lot, raise the threat of an illicit pregnancy or affair, and skulk around without doing a lot.

That is an apt description of both houses of the Congress.

The Vice-President was accused of referring to the tea partiers as terrorists. maybe he did, or maybe he didn't. Truth is, they are all removed from reality, every last man, woman & hobbit.

So, consider this friends: