A Nobel Gesture

I heard the news at 4:00 AM. I often awake early, and turn on the radio to help me drift back to sleep for another couple of hours. But I was wide awake this morning, and this news clinched it for me that I would not be returning to Dreamland.

I am a hopeful supporter of our President. I believe he's the right man at the right time. I am counting on him to pull us back from the precipice. At the very least, his election has stanched the hemorrhaging of our civil liberties and our national honor. I am relieved he's in charge. But when I heard that he’d won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was puzzled. Really? Now? Why?

I had no doubt that in the future, Mr. Obama will have earned the honor without any question. And I did think that thus far in his nascent presidency, he has managed to put a whole new spin on the course of our planet. But on the heels of Saturday Night Live's opening sketch last weekend ("Look at what I've accomplished with majorities in the House and Senate... jack squat"), I wondered: what was the Nobel committee thinking? Obama has not brokered any ground-breaking handshakes. He hasn't torn down any walls, caught any Nazis, or granted any micro-loans. He has not even assembled an Oscar-winning Power Point presentation.

What has he done?

As the day wore on, I took breaks from work to listen to the radio, and to visit Google, and I found my perspective on Mr. Obama’s resume evolving. He has actually accomplished a few things in his 47 years:

1. Instead of seeking a job with a cushy law firm (his resume certainly would have opened doors for him), he sought out the opportunity to be a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. That changed a few lives for the better.
2. He stood up to the entrenched power structure by questioning the "war" in Iraq, the violation of civil liberties, and the eroding of America's respectability in the world community that was happening under President Bush. That "call to arms," starting with his campaign for the Illinois state senate, is pretty much what got him elected President.
3. He has returned the US Presidency to its role as an active participant in efforts to reverse global climate change and end nuclear proliferation.
4. He enacted a financial bail out which - all other criticisms aside - has kept the world's financial system from total collapse. For now.
5. He has called for, and is trying to referee, the reform of our health insurance system.
6. He has reversed some of Bush’s more disastrous environmental policies.

Not bad for a rookie. By this time, his predecessor had already managed to lose the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and some real estate in rural Pennsylvania. But I also had to ask myself: What has he not done?

1. He has not closed Gitmo.
2. He has not stopped renditions.
3. He has not reversed the PATRIOT Act.
4. He has not yet fully awakened to the reality of the morass in Afghanistan.
5. He has not issued an order to stop "don't ask, don't tell," to halt the expulsion of gay military personnel.
6. Oh, and that Olympics thing.

These are not criticisms. OK, some of them are. But he's been in office only a few months, so to expect him to have accomplished much more would be a bit unfair. And as I have noted, he certainly could have done worse. But it takes more than not being Bush to get the attention of the Nobel committee. So I dug deeper, and by the end of the day, I had a different perspective on his accomplishments. He’s done a bit more with his time in office than hold a "Beer Summit."

Most impressive to me was that in his short tenure as the leader of the free world, he appears to have steered us away from a collision with nuclear holocaust. Last month, he chaired a United Nations Security Council summit meeting, at which a resolution was passed calling for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s a sure bet that his predecessor would not have offered support to any discussion of nuclear disarmament, especially if it was tied to a UN resolution. And to be the first US President to chair a UN summit meeting, let alone one on this particular issue - former UN ambassador John Bolton must be having the vapors. In fact, there are those on the right who saw Obama’s participation in the UN proceedings as a violation of the Constitution, and an abdication of US sovereignty. The Nobel committee, however, apparently sees it as a sign of hope that we as a species may live long enough to see the world population more threatened by climate change than by nuclear disaster (a good news/bad news proposition if ever there was one).

But if he stopped right there, he will have fallen short of expectations, even those held by his supporters before this morning’s announcement. I hope that this honor gives a boost to Obama's "political capital," so that he can fulfill that promise. I hope it makes him more Presidential, and perhaps a bit less Senatorial. And ok, I have to add: I hope it gives Misters Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck severe heartburn. Maybe this will at least dampen some of the "foreign-born socialist fascist Nazi Death Panel Dictator" rhetoric we've had to endure lately. Unfortunately, not even the RNC can manage to be grown-ups about this. Instead, the committee issued a petulant press release saying "It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." Perversely, they just cannot pass up an opportunity to find fault with our President, even for being the recipient of an award he did not seek, and that he himself has said he does not feel he deserves. One would hope that at least a few of them might take their cue from Sen. John McCain, who graciously put "Country First" in saying that "as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."

I am indeed proud.

I do wonder if the Nobel Committee has given Obama more of a burden than an honor by laying on him this mantle. The President did not seek it, and it should not reflect ill on him because he's the recipient of an honor. He is perhaps muttering under his breath "Thanks a heap, guys!" Still, if nothing else, the Nobel folks have set the bar pretty high, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Split Personality

A while ago I created my first blog. I billed it as "Rants and reflections from Way Out West." I have now come to the decision that the rants and the reflections each deserve their own playground.

So I will be in the process of transferring my Rants to PolySigh101 - a play on the classic freshman college course "Political Science 101," but with a deliberate misspelling that means "many sighs."

OK, you get the point.

So I have formally recognized my split Gemini nature in communicating with the world in two blogs. This one is the "Rants." The posts that follow are ones of a political bent, which have been imported from my blog "Kingston Kay." For the "Reflections," my poetic side (although rarely an actual poem), please visit my original blog http://kingstonkay.blogspot.com/.

Heeeere we go...

Bye-Bye to the Myth of "Bipartisan"

No, I have not been kidnapped, in a coma, or otherwise put out of your misery. But my "day job" seems to be recession-driven. I have, however, had it with the current noodle-spined majority leadership. I have the following questions for the Democrats:

How can anything be "bipartisan," when one of the partisans insists that it’s all or nothing?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has defined a "bipartisan" health care bill to mean "no public option." Hmmmm - no public option, which certainly also rules out "single payer." That equals..... WHAT WE HAVE NOW! So Sen. Grassley is saying "We, the minority party, get everything that we want, or we won’t even consider it." Not only is that not bipartisan, it’s not "reform." (And from their behavior during the stimulus bill debate, we’ve learned that even if they DO get what they want, they still won’t vote for it.)

The "bi" in "bipartisan" means "having two parts." The GOP’s insistence that any health care bill lack a public option takes the "bi" out of "bipartisan." The GOP does, however, have a handle on the concept of "bi" as in "bipolar." Their argument against the public option has a split personality: 1) The public option will be awful because the government can’t run anything right. 2) The public option will be so good, it will drive private insurance out of business. I won’t even get into all the things the GOP thinks the government does right (the military, and reading our private email, for starters), or the completely anti-free-market premise they are endorsing in wanting to protect the private insurance companies. The contradictory nature of these two talking points alone is enough to give you whiplash (treatment of which will cost you a $20 co-pay).

There is nothing bipartisan in the minority’s demands that they will get what they want, or they will take their toys and go home, but it is sooooo very GOP. Today, Sarah Palin resigned as Alaskan governor, because she could not put up with being a lame duck. Well, there’s public service for you! There’s bipartisanship! There’s maturity! That is, if you consider "maturity" to be one step above holding your breath until you get your way.

So grow a spine, Harry. Break some heads, Nancy. You were not put in the majority to assure that we continue steering toward the same cliff the GOP leaders have had their eyes on for the past eight years. Do what the American people put you there to do. And don’t do such a "bipartisan" job of it, that it ends up being ineffective and maybe even harmful. Just do it, and do it right! Yes, you run the risk of going down in flames. But the "bipartisan" course you are currently plotting all but guarantees that same self-immolation.

Farewell to George W. Narcissus

Last week, George W. Bush waved his official Bye Bye to all of us UnDeciders. What strikes me most about Bush’s farewell address is that it seems to be a plea to the American people to like him, even just a little bit. Because, as we've all been told time and again over the past eight years, it is all about the W.

He’s had a grand old time in office. Oh, yes, there was that 9/11 thing, but "This has been a joyous experience being the President.” When I heard that, it sounded to me like a kid saying that it was a lot of fun riding in the fire truck and ringing the bell. I got to be a fireman! I got to be President! Yippee!!

Oh, it's not all been fun. Oh, well, mostly it has. When asked in 2006 whether he was frustrated about the course of events in Iraq, he answered “Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy,” followed by, ah, “but war is not a time of joy.” No, not for most of us. Some high-profile media outlets edited out the happy talk from that sound bite. (CBS, NBC, I’m looking at you...)

And Bush has spoken of how grateful he is for the families of fallen soldiers. Because they make him feel better. How very sweet.

So in his farewell address, Bush’s vision remained firmly affixed on the reflection in the pool. “While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack.” Really? What world do you live in, W? If you measure “gravest threat” by those things that loom largest for most of us - things Bush has never personally had to worry about - we are not safer. The gravest threat to most of us is more likely food poisoning from an ineffective USDA, or the side effects of a new drug fast-tracked by a bought-and-paid-for FDA, than a terrorist attack. How about the loss of a job, or health care, or both? Half a million Americans will die in a single year from cancer, far more than have ever died from terrorism. That's pretty grave. What do you suppose the National Cancer Institute could do with the War on Terror’s annual budget of $370 billion? But for Bush, never mind any of that. He’s the Decider. So terrorism is not just a threat. It’s not even just a grave threat. It is “the gravest threat,” because that’s the only way he’ll have any kind of legacy worthy of a Presidential Library.

Bush further reflected that “Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks.” “I have experienced setbacks.” Not “we as a nation,” or even just “we.” “I.” That message has always been clear: “This is my Administration, not yours. You just sit back and think about your next shopping trip.”

But mostly he wanted us to know that his intentions were - well - intentional. “You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.” He wants us to appreciate that he was willing... to... do... what? What does “willing to make the tough decisions” mean? What the Hell does being President mean, if not a willingness to make the tough decisions? Isn’t that an entry level requirement for the job? So he’s saying “I hope you can agree that I was willing to be President.” Yes, George, I have to agree with you on that. And I’m willing to drive the fire truck and ring the bell, but that does not make me a fireman.

Finally, W wrapped up his self-congratulatory monolog with a touch of plagiarism (thank you, Ronald Reagan): “And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other - citizen of the United States of America.”

And we will be honored to let you return to that status. Not to mention quite relieved.

While the fat cats play, the mice will pay

GM CEO Rick Wagoner gets a salary increase, to make up to $2.2 million (plus stock options), while his company is losing money, so much so that we now need to bail them out.* (OK, it’s a LOAN, but it’s government assistance nonetheless.) As part of this deal, Wagoner does not have to give up his millions, but the workers have to promise not to strike, and to take a pay cut. Chrysler has a similar no-strike provision in its loan agreement. Ironically, it is the workers, in the form of taxpayers, who are giving the loan to Mr. Wagoner and Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli. Yes, those "greedy workers," who are finally getting what's coming to them for asking their company to honor the contract to which the company agreed. If the auto companies have to continue honoring their contracts with the workers, how are Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Nardelli supposed to feed their koi?

In truth, even if the CEOs do work for the much trumpeted single dollar, the money saved would not rescue GM and Chrysler. But if nothing else, the pressure on the UAW to bear the brunt of this bailout, while allowing Wagoner and Nardelli to keep their jobs - even for a dollar - just looks bad. Maybe it’s a done deal, but if there is anything that can be changed before this agreement goes into effect, then it should be changed. And if it can’t be changed, then there should be hearings on how this came about, so it won’t happen again. Otherwise, the conservatives will get exactly what they want: an end to the UAW, and the beginning of the end for unions in general, all courtesy of the US taxpayer, who are being asked to foot the bill for their own financial demise. This is taxation without representation, which, if I recall, was the basis of a revolution some years ago. In the name of enlightened self-interest, Congress and the millionaire Detroit CEOs might want to ponder that point.

* See:

Detroit News: "Strikes would imperil bailout funding"
Raw Story: "Bush Admin. to bar autoworkers from striking against GM"