Maureen Dowd, "Thunder Road": Or "Working on the Highway"?

Do you like New Jersey-born Bruce Springsteen? I do. Notwithstanding my aversion to crowds, I even went to see him in Amsterdam a few years ago, and over the course of a three-hour, sweat drenched, nonstop performance, he gave me my money's worth. I wish the same could be said for politicians.

As I already noted in several earlier blog entries, Chris Christie (also a Springsteen fan who dances at his concerts) is Republican roadkill, given Americans' love of the open highway. He will never walk through the door of the Oval Office, and he is too obese to climb up a ladder and squeeze through one of its windows in the dead of night. Regardless of what he knew about his underlings' "Working on the Highway" in Fort Lee, Christie should take responsibility and resign.

But he won't.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Thunder Road" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-thunder-road.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), Maureen Dowd aptly concludes with regard to America's latest scandal:

"A cascade of subsequent outraged denials about transgressive behavior delivered with bravado and finger wagging, from Gary Hart to Bill Clinton to John Edwards to Anthony Weiner, has persuaded me that politicians — who are narcissists and, in essence, actors stuck in the same role — can persuasively tell the big lie if they believe their futures are on the line.

The Christie saga is still unraveling. Maybe he was a dupe in the dark. Maybe the man in the fleece jacket is fleecing us. Let’s just say, I’m not yet permitting him in my circle of trust."

A "dupe in the dark" or "Dancing in the Dark"? Regardless, Dowd is correct: It's all about narcissism, the plague of the 21st Century. In fact, it has become so prevalent that there are those who would no longer list it as a personality disorder (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/views/30mind.html).

But whereas Dowd points her finger at Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Anthony Weiner, where is the reference to Narcissist-in Chief, Barack Obama? By now, perhaps you've forgotten how Obama proclaimed to anyone prepared to listen (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-ill-put-my-record-up-against-any-president/1):

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history."

Well, Obamacare has proven a disaster, and even Washington Post Obama cheerleader David Ignatius yesterday wondered whether the president's "broken" foreign policy could be "put back together" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/david-ignatius-only-obama-can-fix-his.html).

Dowd would have us know that Christie threw his chief of staff "off the bridge;" however, Obama paved the way for Christie by throwing both his grandmother and his pastor "under the bus."

Christie would have us believe that he didn't know about this orchestrated gridlock. Obama similarly didn't know about the IRS scandal, which, like the rest of us, he read about in a newspaper.

America was once in search of a messiah, and Obama got away with it. Christie won't. The fat woman - not Springsteen - is singing.

[For more on narcissism, see: http://www.voicelessness.com/ (absolutely no relationship whatsoever between that smiling psychologist with the same last name whom I vaguely resemble and me)]

David Brooks, "The Power of the Particular": Bruce Springsteen Rocks!

Many years ago, my youngest child underwent a hearing exam before he could even speak. He sat on my lap, and two puppets on either side of the room issued sounds at different frequencies. He turned his head from side to side as the puppets alternatively emitted a preprogrammed range of noises. To my surprise, I discovered that I could barely hear some of the noises to which he was responding; others I could not hear at all.

Yes, I am partially hearing impaired. The cause? Most likely almost 20 years spent in an artillery reconnaissance unit -- I didn't always manage to get my fingers in my ears when the big guns fired. The damage? I remember when some reporters visiting an artillery battery parked their vehicle too close to a 155mm howitzer lobbing shells back at Hezbollah. The car windows were shattered by the single blast of a shell.

Then, too, my addiction to rock and roll over the years cannot have helped. When I drive alone, I often turn the stereo system up to full volume.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Power of the Particular" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/opinion/brooks-the-power-of-the-particular.html), David Brooks marvels at how during a Bruce Springsteen concert in Madrid, tens of thousands of Spaniards responded ecstatically to the Boss's uniquely American themes:

"The oddest moment came midconcert when I looked across the football stadium and saw 56,000 enraptured Spaniards, pumping their fists in the air in fervent unison and bellowing at the top of their lungs, 'I was born in the U.S.A.! I was born in the U.S.A.!'"

Brooks attributes their frenzy to paracosms, i.e. "structured mental communities that help us understand the wider world." Me? I don't know anything about paracosms, but I did attend a Springsteen concert in Amsterdam in 2008 and was overwhelmed by a performance that rocked my socks off.

Did you ever read David Hume's views on aesthetic theory? Hume suggested that if artistic work survives over time, this evidences its aesthetic value. Springsteen, over the course of a career spanning many decades, has met this test many times over and simply represents the best that rock has to offer.

My hearing impairment? There's always the silver lining: "Sorry, dear, what's that you said? The dirty fishes? Those darned dirty fishes! What's that you said? Not the dirty fishes? Ah, the dirty dishes. Sure, I'll get around to those dirty dishes. Seriously, I didn't hear you. You know how it is."

Obama Sues for Peace in Afghanistan

I have always opposed U.S. ground involvement in Afghanistan, and now, almost two years into his presidency, Obama is acknowledging his mistake and seeking a graceful exit from the war. Obama's solution, which will allow him to honor his pledge to withdraw troops in 2011, essentially involves surrender to the Taliban. In a Washington Post article entitled "Taliban in high-level talks with Karzai government, sources say" written by Karen DeYoung, Peter Finn and Craig Whitlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100506249.html), we are told of "secret" talks between Karzai and the Taliban:

"Taliban representatives and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai have begun secret, high-level talks over a negotiated end to the war, according to Afghan and Arab sources."

Secret talks? I suppose that's why they are being disclosed by The Washington Post to millions of people around the globe. Moreover, as reported by Reuters today (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/10/06/world/international-us-afghanistan-usa.html?hp), Karzai "has formed a 70-member peace council in recent weeks to work toward negotiations." This is of course in keeping with the rule of thumb that anytime you want to keep peace negotiations secret, you never appoint more than 70 persons to hammer out the terms of such an agreement.

Of course, according to The Washington Post article, there are those saying that the Taliban is suing for peace:

"'They are very, very serious about finding a way out,' one source close to the talks said of the Taliban.

. . . .

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, told reporters last week that high-level Taliban leaders had 'sought to reach out' to the top level of the Karzai government. 'This is how you end these kinds of insurgencies,' he said."

Taliban leaders are "reaching out"? Perhaps Petraeus is referring to Taliban attacks this week on tankers carrying fuel from Pakistan to NATO forces (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07pstan.html?hp).

Actually, as observed in The Washington Post article, it is the Obama administration that is sending out different signals:

"Reports of the talks come amid what Afghan, Arab and European sources said they see as a distinct change of heart by the Obama administration toward full backing of negotiations. Although President Obama and his national security team have long said the war would not be won by military means alone, sources said the administration only recently appeared open to talks rather than resisting them.

. . . .

The Europeans said the American shift began in the summer, as combat intensified with smaller-than-expected NATO gains despite the arrival of the full complement of new U.S. troops, amid rising U.S. public opposition to the war.

. . . .

Last month, Obama pressed his national security team to be more specific about what it meant by a political solution, and 'reinforced' the need to be working simultaneously on the military and political sides of the equation, the official said.

The administration is under pressure to show progress in resolving the war before the deadline Obama has set of beginning a troop withdrawal next summer."

Yes, by hook or crook, Obama will withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2011, and thus seek to obviate any presidential primary challenge by Hillary. The only question remaining is, in the words of Bruce Springsteen:

Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break,
Who'll be the last to die for a mistake?