Charles Blow, "Donald Trump: The Gateway Degenerate": Closer to Home, What About Linda Sarsour?

Tweet

Don't get me wrong - I believe that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. I don't hate the man. I "merely" believe that he suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder that interferes with his decision making. His fingers should be nowhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal.

Now back to business: In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump: The Gateway Degenerate," Charles Blow writes:

"This is all an outgrowth of Trump’s degradation of common decency. Trump was the gateway candidate. When Republicans allowed themselves to accept and support him in spite of his glaring flaws and his life lived in opposition to the values they once professed and insisted upon, they moved themselves into another moral realm in which literally nothing was beyond the pale.

It is a sort of by-any-means-necessary, no-sin-is-too-grave, all-facts-are-fungible space in the moral universe where the rules of basic human decency warp.

The moment that they allowed themselves to vote for a man who bragged on tape about assaulting women, appeared in at least two pornos, and once joked about dating his own daughter, they surrendered the mantle of morality."

Got it! The Republicans have a monopoly on immorality ... or is there more to the story?

On Friday, Linda Sarsour is to be the commencement speaker at the City University of New York School of Public Health. Despite heated protests, CUNY chancellor, James B. Milliken, is defending her appearance as a matter of free speech:

"The decision to invite Ms. Sarsour was made by the School of Public Health. The commencement speakers are selected at the college level. The School of Public Health made a decision to focus on women leaders for its commencement this year and invited Ms. Sarsour because of her involvement in public health issues in New York City and her position as a leader on women’s issues, including her role as co-chair of the recent Women’s March in Washington. Ms. Sarsour has been recognized by President Obama at the White House as a 'Champion of Change' and was recently named one of Time magazine’s 100 leaders and Fortune magazine’s 50 global leaders.

CUNY’s administration, its Board of Trustees and political leaders are being asked to overrule the college and cancel Ms. Sarsour’s speech because critics object to things she has reportedly said or written. While one might disagree with the School of Public Health’s decision to invite Ms. Sarsour to speak at commencement, that difference of opinion provides no basis for action now. Taking action because critics object to the content of speech would conflict with the First Amendment and the principles of academic freedom."

Fascinating! But perhaps you recall that Sarsour tweeted in 2011:

"Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Shes asking 4 an a$$ whippin. I wish I could take their vaginas away - they dont deserve to be women."

Yup, Sarsour, according to Obama, is a "Champion of Change" who would take away the vaginas of women who disagree with her (indeed, removing vaginas certainly results in "Change"). And a woman who would remove vaginas is now the commencement speaker at a school of public health. That makes perfect sense in today's world.

Sorry, it's not just the Republicans who have monopolized immorality. Rather, we live in an age of intolerance. Moreover, as regards the title of Blow's op-ed, I have a serious issue as to whether he should be labeling the jackass man who holds the highest office in the United States a "degenerate." A little respect for the office, Charles!

Charles Blow, "Web Sites and Grave Sites": The Technical Issue Isn't Likely to Have Legs?

"Just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it. I don’t remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads or threatening to shut down the company if they didn’t."

- President Obama, October 1, 2013

At the beginning of this month, President Obama compared Obamacare website "glitches" with a problematic Apple rollout. Well, we now know that the Obamacare website does not suffer from "glitches," but rather from systemic failure, and if initiation of the Affordable Care Act was tantamount to the inauguration of a corporation's flagship product, consumers would have long ago lost faith in that product, and the corporation would now be filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In a windy, hyperpartisan New York Times op-ed entitled "Web Sites and Grave Sites" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/opinion/blow-web-sites-and-grave-sites.html?_r=0), Charles Blow tells us that the "technical" issue involving the rollout of Obamacare "isn’t likely to have legs." Blow writes:

"In the long stretch of history, Obamacare will be judged on the merits of the policy, not the rollout of a Web site. That judgment will be sober and thorough. And along the way, as some things work and others don’t — as is the way with ambitious laws — things will be tweaked. But this is the law. It will be implemented, even over the wails of Republican resistance."

Blow couldn't be more wrong.

Consumer faith in the product, Obamacare, has been compromised. Consumers cannot be expected to place their faith in a botched system, whose susceptibility to hacking has yet to be determined. And if a sufficient number of young healthy individuals don't sign up and thereby offset the costs of older and sicker people, what will be the fate and ultimate cost of this failed enterprise?

The technical issue isn't likely to have legs? Don't kid yourself, Charles. First impressions are everything, and although I favor universal health care, Obamacare is dead in the water.

Charles Blow, "War-Weariness": Some Answers for Charles

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "War-Weariness" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opinion/blow-war-weariness.html?_r=0) Charles Blow concludes his opinion piece with a series of questions:

"The president is out on a most precarious limb on this issue. It is an unenviable position, where the right moral move could be the wrong political one, where the to-what-end question has a lack-of-clarity answer. Would a 'limited' bombing campaign be the military equivalent of slap on the wrist? How would it guarantee an end to the atrocities?

. . . .

The president said Friday that 'a lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it.' Does he want to? Or must he? And must we? Always?"

Allow me to provide Charles with some simple answers.

• "Would a 'limited' bombing campaign be the military equivalent of slap on the wrist?" Yes.
• "How would it guarantee an end to the atrocities?" It won't.
• Does Obama want to intervene? No, but he needs to save face after painting himself into a corner with his "red line."
• Must he intervene? No, Obama has already established himself as spineless throughout the world, and a few half-hearted Cruise missiles are not going to change anything. Quite the contrary.

And now we arrive at Blow's final questions:

• "And must we? Always?"

Allow me to answer with my own hypothetical question: Suppose, Charles, you are on the subway in Manhattan and a helpless old woman, whom you don't know, is being mugged. Do you look the other way?

I know what I would do.

Those more than 1,400 Syrian civilians who were slayed in a horrifying manner by the Assad regime were human beings like us, who thought, smiled, laughed, loved, and made plans for the next day, which never came.

Think about it, Charles, and let us know your answer.

Charles Blow, "50 Years Later": Compare with Kathleen Parker's "Obama’s Race Remarks Exacerbate Tensions"

My goodness gracious, it's time for yet another JG Caesarea Challenge Round!

Read Charles Blow's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "50 Years Later" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/blow-50-years-later.html?_r=0). As we near the 50th anniversary of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, marked by Dr. King's world-shaking "I have a dream" speech, Mr. Blow would have us know:

"I’m absolutely convinced that enormous steps have been made in race relations. That’s not debatable. Most laws that explicitly codified discrimination have been stricken from the books. Overt, articulated racial animus has become more socially unacceptable. And diversity has become a cause to be championed in many quarters, even if efforts to achieve it have taken some hits of late.

But my worry is that we have hit a ceiling of sorts. As we get closer to a society where explicit bias is virtually eradicated, we no longer have the stomach to deal with the more sinister issues of implicit biases and of structural and systematic racial inequality.

I worry that centuries of majority privilege and minority disenfranchisement are being overlooked in puddle-deep discussions about race and inequality, personal responsibility and societal inhibitors."

Okay, what's missing from this opinion piece?

First, there's not even a single mention of the fact that America today has a second-term African American president. Insignificant? I don't think so. This is huge.

But there's more . . .

Just over a month ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Whole System Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?_r=0), Mr. Blow wrote concerning the George Zimmerman acquittal:

"This case is not about an extraordinary death of an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, in America, people are lost to gun violence every day. Many of them look like Martin and have parents who presumably grieve for them. This case is about extraordinary inequality in the presumption of innocence and the application of justice: why was Martin deemed suspicious and why was his killer allowed to go home?"

Well, in the US there is a presumption of innocence, and "beyond reasonable doubt" remains the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. Zimmerman claimed that he was pinned on his back. His nose was broken, and the back of his head was lacerated. Was he acting out of fear, or, was he capable of the "intention" needed for conviction? Was there reasonable doubt?

Again, there is racism in America, and perhaps Zimmerman should never have stopped Martin, but did an "imperfect" American jury system reach the wrong verdict, or did the prosecution fail to meet its immensely difficult burden of proof? Did the prosecution "overreach" when deciding which charges to bring against Zimmerman?

Now have a look at Kathleen Parker's Washington Post opinion piece of today's date entitled "Obama’s race remarks exacerbate tensions" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obamas-race-remarks-exacerbate-tensions/2013/08/23/7491bb2e-0c1f-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html?hpid=z2). Ms. Parker writes:

"If I had a son, he would look like Christopher Lane, the 22-year-old Australian baseball player shot dead while jogging in Oklahoma.

If I had a father, he’d look like Delbert Belton, the 88-year-old World War II veteran beaten to death in Spokane, Wash.

. . . .

These are all true statements if we identify ourselves and each other only by the color of our skin, which increasingly seems to be the case. Even our president has done so.

Barack Obama helped lead the way when he identified himself with the parents of Trayvon Martin, shot by George Zimmerman in the neighborhood-watch catastrophe with which all are familiar. Stepping out from his usual duties of drawing meaningless red lines in the Syrian sand, the president splashed red paint across the American landscape:

'If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.'

In so saying, he essentially gave permission for all to identify themselves by race with the victim or the accused. How sad, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the march Martin Luther King Jr. led on Washington, that even the president resorts to judging not by the content of one’s character but by the color of his skin — the antithesis of the great dream King articulated."

Query: Where is there any reference to the deaths of Lane and Belton in Mr. Blow's op-ed? Answer: There is none.

"Puddle-deep discussions about race and inequality"? Mr. Blow's op-ed regrettably is little more than this.

Charles Blow, "The Whole System Failed": "Extraordinary Inequality in the Presumption of Innocence"?

Do you remember the scene in the 1997 science fiction action film "Men in Black" in which James Darrell Edwards III (Will Smith), a New York City police officer, is tested for a position in a secret agency responsible for extraterrestrial visitors on earth?

Of course, the details concerning the tragic death of Trayvon Martin are anything but amusing. However, in this short scene from "Men in Black," we learn of the potential disastrous consequences of racial profiling - in the case of MIB, intergalactic profiling - of which most of us are guilty.

Now, consider what Geraldo Rivera had to say concerning Trayvon Martin's dress on the night of the incident in a Huffington Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/geraldo-rivera-trayvon-martin-thug-wear_n_1530811.html):

"Geraldo Rivera came down on Trayvon Martin's clothing again on Friday, arguing that the teenager's 'thug wear' led George Zimmerman to suspect that he was a criminal.

Bill O'Reilly hosted Rivera to discuss new developments in the case, including the discovery of low levels of marijuana in Martin's autopsy. Rivera argued that the marijuana is 'less powerful' than the convenience store surveillance tape, which showed what Martin was wearing.

'I think what's far more significant is what Trayvon Martin looked like on that night, Bill,' he said. 'Aside from the fact that he's dressed in that thug wear — look at the size of him, he’s not a little kid.'

'If this young man was a stranger to George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin looks just like the people who had been burglarizing and victimizing that neighborhood for the last six months,' Rivera continued.

When O'Reilly said that Rivera was 'profiling' Martin, Rivera claimed that the assumption was 'based on a reasonable comparison.'

Rivera made similar comments about Martin's clothing in March, when he insisted that the slain teenager's hoodie was partially responsible for his death."

Were Zimmerman's actions indeed "based on a reasonable comparison"? Did Martin's clothing provide Zimmerman with a reasonable basis to stop Martin? Was this an instance of racial profiling? But bear in mind that Zimmerman was not charged with "racial profiling."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Whole System Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"This case is not about an extraordinary death of an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, in America, people are lost to gun violence every day. Many of them look like Martin and have parents who presumably grieve for them. This case is about extraordinary inequality in the presumption of innocence and the application of justice: why was Martin deemed suspicious and why was his killer allowed to go home?

. . . .

The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and in this case neighborhood watch — regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.

As a parent, particularly a parent of black teenage boys, I am left with the question, 'Now, what do I tell my boys?'"

Do racism and racial profiling exist in America? Absolutely, and regrettably I don't have answers for Blow's sons. Martin's death was an unspeakable tragedy. On the other hand, was the jury's decision incorrect? As stated by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial):

"The jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.

For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be 'of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.'

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he 'intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.'"

Remember that in the US there is a presumption of innocence, and that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. Zimmerman claims that he was pinned on his back. His nose was broken, and the back of his head was lacerated. Was he acting out of fear, or, was he capable of the "intention" needed for conviction? Was there reasonable doubt?

Again, there is racism in America, and perhaps Zimmerman should never have stopped Martin, but did an "imperfect" American jury system reach the wrong verdict, or did the prosecution fail to meet its immensely difficult burden of proof? Did the prosecution "overreach" when deciding which charges to bring against Zimmerman?

The agony of Martin's family is very real - I cannot begin to fathom the pain of losing a child.

But for Charles Blow to "trash" the American jury system for reaching this verdict? This system makes mistakes - I thought O.J. Simpson's 1995 acquittal was wrong - but where do you find a better system in an imperfect world? You don't.

Gail Collins, "Michele, Here’s the Bell": Red Herring

A definition of "red herring" from Merriam-Webster:

2. [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs]: something that distracts attention from the real issue.

What the heck is wrong with Minnesota? In ancient times, I used to like Walter Mondale, and going back to the stone age, I also cared for Hubert Humphrey. But that was then. Today, Minnesota has brought us the likes of Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum (who once compared Hamas rockets fired at Israel with "drive by shootings," see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/11/open-letter-to-congresswoman-betty.html) and Michele Bachmann to Congress.

Michele Bachmann of Tea Party fame will not be running for reelection in 2014. Do I care? No.

But Gail Collins cares, and so does Charles Blow.

Today, Collins, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Michele, Here’s the Bell" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/collins-michele-heres-the-bell.html?_r=0), and Charles Blow, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Bachmann Bows Out" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/blow-bachmann-bows-out.html), both get their knickers into a knot over Bachmann.

Sorry, but grumpy old man that I've become, I just don't give a damn. Why? Simple: There's still the Benghazi scandal, something which still demands answers, and whereas Obama is busy playing "What I don't know can't hurt me," and Hillary is in hiding deep underground until it all blows over, it just doesn't want to go away.

Yes, I know that I should not also be reading nefarious right-wing journals, but as Peter Wehner writes in The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-ll-always-love-obama_729022.html):

"Take the New York Times. On May 17, in a story about how President Obama is trying to move beyond his current problems, the Times declared, 'In the last few days, the administration appears to have stopped the bleeding. The release of internal e-mails on Benghazi largely confirmed the White House’s account.'

Except it did no such thing. The White House’s account was that neither it nor the State Department made any substantive changes to the talking points related to the Benghazi attacks. We have irrefutable evidence—actual documents—that they did. The White House’s account was that a YouTube video critical of Muhammad sparked a spontaneous assault on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. Except this is a fabrication. The White House’s account was that the administration had no idea Islamic terrorists were responsible for the attack until many days later. Except we have emails that prove high-ranking State Department officials knew Ansar al Sharia was involved within 24 hours of the attacks. The White House has not come clean on any of these matters."

And Colonel David Hunt writes in Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/29/Blame-the-President-for-Benghazi):

"When the American mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked on September 11th, 2012, only one person had the positional authority, legal mandate, and communications apparatus to give the order to defend our personnel on the ground: the President of the United States.

The President did not give that order, and four Americans died in Benghazi that day. All the rest of the nonsense to which we have been treated–from prepared talking points, congressional hearings, and finally to the outright lies–matter not when compared to the ignominious moments in which the President of the United States refused to do his job.

That same day, two other American embassies in the Middle East were also under attack in Sana, Yemen and Cairo, Egypt. As a result, our intelligence systems were on high alert. When the calls, satellite and drone feeds, faxes, and reports began bombarding every command center from Germany to the United States, our nation, already at war for eleven years, was again under siege. Staffs from Africa Command, European Command, the National Military Command Center, the CIA Operations Center, the State Department Operations Center, and the White House Situation Room were fully operational.

. . . .

The road to that indecision is littered with policy and leadership failures that culminated in an American mission and clandestine CIA base being attacked and the murder of our Ambassador and three dedicated Americans doing their jobs. However, the one person responsible for it all is the one man who could have, but refused to, even try to stop the carnage... the President of the United States.

All the President had to say within the first two hours while being briefed by the Secretary of Defense was, 'Send in a response force.' This command, followed by his signature on a paper called Cross Border Authority, would have ordered the Department of Defense to do everything and anything to save lives in Benghazi, Libya."

Interesting. Hunt is saying more or less what that nasty neocon, Maureen Dowd, also concluded in The New York Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/maureen-dowd-when-myths-collide-in.html).

Yup, I'm waiting to learn hear what Obama and Hillary discussed that evening at 10 p.m. when those men were being butchered (see: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/28/Krauthammer-Says-the-Obama-Clinton-10-00-PM-Phone-Call-May-Be-The-Biggest-Scandal-Of-All). Will we ever know? Not if Obama and friends, who once were committed to transparency in government, can help it.

The IRS and AP/Rosen scandals? Also frightening, but let's start with answers regarding Benghazi, where brave Americans were needlessly sacrificed so that Obama could be reelected without us ever knowing about the resurgence of al-Qaeda.

Obama's Hell Week: Observe the Difference Between The New York Times and The Washington Post

Note the difference this morning between the responses of the columnists of The New York Times and those of The Washington Post to the Benghazi assault, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, and the Department of Justice’s secret monitoring of Associated Press journalists.

At The Times, I'm led to wonder if Gail Collins and Charles Blow are on psychotropics. Without delving into any substance whatsoever, Collins makes light of it all and informs us "this too shall pass" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/gail-collins-on-plus-side-is-she-on.html). Blow, on the other hand, would characterize Obama's headaches as "procedural" and "perceptual" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/charles-blow-scandalous-vs-scandal-lust.html).

On the other hand, at WaPo, an entirely different picture emerges from both left, right and middle-of-the-road. E.J. Dionne Jr. would have us know (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-false-god-of-narrative/2013/05/15/2837314a-bd92-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"[W]hat spells trouble for our country is our apparent eagerness to avoid debate about discrete problems by sacrificing the particulars and the facts to the idol of political narrative. It’s a false god."

Dana Milbank tells us (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-eric-holders-abdication/2013/05/15/61a42d12-bdaf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"As the nation’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder is privy to all kinds of sensitive information. But he seems to be proud of how little he knows.

. . . .

But when the Justice Department undermines the Constitution, recusal is no excuse."

Michael Gerson says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-governments-heavy-hand-felt-in-irs-ap-scandals/2013/05/15/408446c8-bda3-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Now comes the added blow of scandal. In each recent case, government used power in ways that were insular, highly politicized and intimidating. And however individual responsibility is eventually assigned, these attributes are not aberrations in the Obama era. The administration tends to view its actions as above scrutiny and its opponents as beneath contempt."

David Ignatius states (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-irs-and-ap-scandals-a-dysfunctional-government/2013/05/15/137ba9de-bd92-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z3):

"The crippling problem in Washington these days isn’t any organized conspiracy against conservatives, journalists or anyone else. Rather, it’s a federal establishment that’s increasingly paralyzed because of poor management and political second-guessing.

What should frighten the public is not the federal government’s monstrous power but its impotence."

Tell me, is it remotely possible that the columnists of The Times and The Washington Post are writing about the same set of facts?

Charles Blow, "Scandalous vs. Scandal Lust": Welcome to Blow's Alternative Universe

The credibility of the Obama administration is crumbling as the result of three still emerging scandals, yet Charles Blow, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Scandalous vs. Scandal Lust" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/opinion/blow-scandalous-vs-scandal-lust.html?_r=0), takes the position that they are all "about flaws of procedures — some possibly illegal, all very disturbing — and problems of perception" and that "they are neither fatal nor unfixable." Blow claims "Americans appear to be tiring of all that chasing of smoke and little finding of fire," yet President Obama has now been forced to dismiss the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller. Procedural and perceptual problems? Smoke and little finding of fire? Yeah, right.

How do you argue with someone who is detached from reality? You don't.

Nevertheless, there is one claim made by Blow that deserves mention. Blow writes:

"Benghazi, the targeting of conservative groups by the I.R.S. and the Department of Justice’s monitoring of Associated Press journalists — appear to be completely unrelated, try as politicians and pundits may to connect them."

Blow is wrong. The three scandals are all marked by the absence of leadership, management and good judgment, characteristic of the Obama administration. Obama never even managed a neighborhood grocery store, and his appointees, rather than consisting of the best and the brightest, include some of the worst and the dumbest, e.g., Hagel, Holder and Kerry. Then, too, there are the young sycophants, who worship the ground on which he treads, and who are so well-versed in "spin," that they believe that the facts on the ground can be ignored, as best evidenced by the evolution and dissemination of the Benghazi talking points, when seeking to serve the anointed one.

Blow concludes:

"People can be punished, or fired or even jailed, if Speaker John Boehner has his way, but at this early stage signs are not pointing to any of those people being in the White House.

Even if I had hair, I wouldn’t be setting it on fire, not yet anyway."

Punished or jailed? Perhaps not. Fired? I know of several people in the West Wing who will need to resign.

Obama himself? He is a procrastinator who "likes to watch," and although a talented orator, he is a failed administrator.

He was primed for campaigning, but he was never prepared to take on the duties of the presidency.

A Tale of Two Cities: Sanitizing The New York Times

Go to the home page of the Washington Post. The lead story in the upper left-hand corner is "Benghazi e-mails show State Dept., CIA clashed." Directly below this story is a link to "Republican lawmakers seek review of IRS practices."

Now go to WaPo's "Opinions" page, which is headed by an editorial entitled "Playing politics with tax records" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-tax-records/2013/05/10/e36dfe5a-b9b7-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html). This editorial states:

"A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.

So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.

. . . .

The agency [IRS] said that it now has rules in place to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. How could such basic safeguards not have existed in the first place? And what are the new rules? In response to our questions, officials did not say.

Thankfully, it’s a safe bet that the decision on whether to answer such questions won’t rest solely with the agency for much longer."

Obama and Lew need to apologize to the American people? Hey, that's pretty powerful language coming from a liberal newspaper.

But now go to the home page of The New York Times. The lead story in the upper left-hand corner is "E-Mails About Benghazi Put White House on Defensive." This is already an improvement given desperate efforts over prior days to ignore this scandal (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-beyond-fence-new-jg.html). The horrifying mess involving the IRS? Well, if you look hard, tucked away at the bottom of "Other News," you will find in small letters "I.R.S. Apologizes for Overzealous Audits of Conservative Groups."

"The Opinion Pages" of The Times today? You can select in descending order from such enticing items as: "Pakistan’s Tyrannical Majority," "The Man at the Piano," "Europe’s Careless Dithering," "Missing: Jonathan Winters. Badly.," "Beyond Basketball and Bigotry," and "Pay People to Cook at Home." A problem at the IRS? Not a sign of it. Meaningful discussion of Benghazi? No way. We are informed, however, that "Charles M. Blow is off today. Gail Collins's column will appear in the Sunday Review." Yup, it's a good time for "progressive" columnists to take a break.

Kudos to my friend Andrew Rosenthal for keeping "The Opinion Pages" fresh and relevant.I suppose we should be grateful that there is not some new anti-Semitic opinion piece tarring Israel.

But it's not just Andy. The colossal entirety of The Times has its head buried in the sand.

Charles Blow, "The Mind of a Terror Suspect": Giving Radical Islam a Free Pass

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Mind of a Terror Suspect" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/opinion/blow-inside-the-mind-of-a-terror-suspect-in-the-boston-marathon-bombings.html?_r=0), Charles Blow tells us:

"It’s complicated.

. . . .

'A picture has begun to emerge of 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an aggressive, possibly radicalized immigrant who may have ensnared his younger brother Dzhokhar — described almost universally as a smart and sweet kid — into an act of terror,' The Boston Globe reported Friday.

. . . .

[Dzhokhar] was a proud Muslim who tweeted about going to mosque and enjoying talking — and even arguing — about religion with others. But he seemed to believe that different faiths were in competition with one another. On Nov. 29, he tweeted: 'I kind of like religious debates, just hearing what other people believe is interesting and then crushing their beliefs with facts is fun.'"

Blow then provides us with additional tweets from Dzhokhar, before concluding:

"The last tweet on the account reads: 'I’m a stress free kind of guy.' The whole of the Twitter feed would argue against that assessment."

That's all? A "sweet kid," a "proud Muslim," who was led astray by his brother? Maybe we should give him a lollipop instead of a prison sentence.

This opinion piece is intended to provide us with insights into the workings of Dzhokhar's mind?

Charles, you haven't even scratched the surface. Yes, it is "complicated," but perhaps not as complicated as you would have us believe.

The mainstream media continues to turn triple somersaults to avoid having to examine the underpinnings of radical Islam. It's written in black and white, and you can easily find it on the Internet if you have the courage to face facts.

I already explained on Tuesday that the travesty in Boston was the "work" of radical Muslims (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-cias-angry-birds-after.html), but there were those pundits who still hoped to pin the horror on America's crazy homegrown right.

Michael Moore is busy telling anyone who will listen that "both Tsarnaev brothers were registered voters and U.S. citizens" (see: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/04/19/Michael-moore-Boston-bombers), i.e. they're not from the right, but at least they're homegrown. Give us a break!

Or as Star-Kist Tuna used to tell us in the '70s, "Sorry, Charlie."
 

Is Obama the Most Dysfunctional President in Contemporary American History?

Why listen to Jeffrey? He's just another a neocon. Sure, he favors gay marriage, is pro-choice, opposed the Second Gulf War, opposes US ground involvement in Afghanistan, and deplores the ravenous conduct of avaricious US financial institutions, but he has also dared to question the One. Jeffrey is "bad" and will never set foot in the White House.

Actually, the state of the union is bad. In fact, it is terrible owing to the arrogance of a president, who never possessed the skill set to be president.

The sequester? I don't know how many jobs will be lost or exactly what further damage will be done to a reeling economy. As observed by Charles Blow in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Poison Pill Politics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/opinion/blow-the-sequester-poison-pill-politics.html?_r=0):

"The deadline has passed. The sequester is in effect. And Congress is not in session.

We now know that our political system is broken beyond anything even remotely resembling a functional government.

The ridiculous bill was designed as a poison pill, but Republicans popped it like a Pez. Now the body politic — weak with battle fatigue, jerked from crisis to crisis and struggling to recover from a recession — has to wait to see how severe the damage will be."

But unlike Bob Woodward, Blows lacks the courage to acknowledge that the sequester was Obama's idea.

What about Woodward? What are the full implications of this imbroglio? As noted by Kathleen Parker in her latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why the 'threat' on Bob Woodward matters" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-obama-white-house-threat-to-bob-woodward-matters/2013/03/01/f5d36d5e-82b3-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?hpid=z2):

"This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is deemed unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And, thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has."

Yes, the First Amendment is under attack.

Obama's new cabinet of thick-witted white guys? They are indeed the worst and the dumbest. We have John Kerry, who called Bashar al-Assad his "dear friend" and who is given to inventing new countries (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/vice-president-joe-biden-just-fire.html), as secretary of state. We have Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semitic imbecile, as secretary of defense. And Jack Lew, the former chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments, who doesn't "believe that deregulation was the proximate cause" of the 2008 American economic meltdown (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/obama-nominee-jacob-lew-f_n_732594.html?view=print&comm_ref=false), as secretary of the treasury.

Access to the president? An ambassadorship? All you need to do is pay money (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?pagewanted=all and http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/28/sources-obama-picks-for-ambassadorships-include-top-donors/?hpt=po_c2).

A rogue Iranian regime building nuclear weapons? The recent P5+1 talks in Kazakhstan brought no results, although the P5+1 is no longer demanding the closure of the underground Fordow facility. That Obama is one tough negotiator who knows how to bring those crazy mullahs to heel. Yeah, right.

Bottom line: I used to think that the cataclysm would come after my lifetime and that my children would be forced to deal with it. No more. Obama is literally bringing the house down.

Charles Blow, "The Real Obama": Chuck Hagel, "Let the Jews Pay for It"

"Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth."

- President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union Address

Over the course of his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the need to increase federal spending on education, infrastructure and green energy, and he claimed that this would not increase America's deficit "by a single dime." These are all noble objectives, but where in his speech did he explain how he intended to pay for all of this?

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, "The federal government ran up a $293 billion deficit in the first quarter of fiscal 2013." As such, the annual federal budget deficit is well on its way to topping $1 trillion for the fifth-straight year. If you believe that Obama's plans are not going to increase the deficit, you are surely also a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Real Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/blow-the-real-obama.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"Is this the real Barack Obama? I hope so. I like this one.

The president used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to detail a vision of America’s future, and his second term, in which the country is not in perpetual war, government plays an expansive role, Congressional obstruction is named and shamed and he is bold and unapologetically progressive.

This is how politicians who needn’t worry about re-election look: more like themselves."

Blow also doesn't trouble himself with the question of who is going to pay for Obama's "unapologetically progressive" program. The problem is that someone ultimately must pay for it.

Which brings us to Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. As reported by Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/the-saga-of-hagel-and-haifa/):

"Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

'He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,' said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational."

"Let the Jews pay for it"? Is this also indicative of what underlies the "real" Obama?

We have also learned from Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/arab-american-group-wont-release-hagel-tape/) that Republican senators are demanding additional disclosure of material from Hagel:

"Among the requested materials: the full text and details of several speeches Hagel failed to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that have since been uncovered.

Fox News Channel on Tuesday reported on two speeches Hagel failed to disclose as requested, including one given in 2008 to the annual conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is a controversial nonprofit whose conference last year featured speakers prominent in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The 2012 conference also featured an award presentation celebrating an author whose essays include one titled, 'Zionism is a form of racism.'

The ADC also has not disclosed the full video of Hagel’s 2008 speech, while refusing to release its tax records as required by federal law."

According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/hagel-omitted-two-speeches-on-middle-east-from-senate-disclosure-forms/):

"An Obama administration official who has worked with the senator during his confirmation process maintained that Hagel has gone 'above and beyond' the Senate’s requirements, by supplying to the Armed Services Committee whatever evidence he could find – prepared remarks, transcripts and the like – for both formal and 'informal' speeches.

Apprised by Fox News of the two speaking dates from 2008, however, the official appeared not to have heard about them. The aide later responded that Hagel did not disclose these two speaking events because neither were formal speeches. 'It’s simply not true to suggest there was any attempt to hide anything,' the aide told Fox News. 'One event was at an academic institute – Georgetown, a Jesuit university. The other was with an organization that combats discrimination.'"

An "organization that combats discrimination," yet honors a speaker who claims that Zionism is a form of racism? Yeah, right.

By all means, let's review Hagel's speech before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which purportedly is in an "archive" in Maryland and unavailable.

Another video which we are not being permitted to see? Does it remind you of something? It should. You will recall that The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release a video of Obama at a party honoring former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to pursue abortive talks with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program as long advocated by Hagel [the US "shouldn’t even be thinking about options of bombing Iran" (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/10/hagel-in-2008-video-us-shouldnt-even-think-about-bombing-iran-video/)], The Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-buying-spree-raises-concerns-about-major-expansion-of-nuclear-capacity/2013/02/13/2090805c-7537-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html?hpid=z1):

"Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability."

The "real" Obama? I think I prefer the "unreal" Obama. And yes, I have a sinking feeling that ultimately the Jews will "pay for it."

Charles Blow, "The Engagement Gap": Obama Leads Among Narcissists

How do Obama and Romney fare when narcissists are polled?

Although there are obviously no such statistics being kept, perhaps an indication is provided by Charles Blow's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Engagement Gap" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/opinion/blow-the-engagement-gap.html?_r=0). Attempting to divine who will emerge victorious in November, Blow observes:

"Obama also has twice the number of Twitter retweets and YouTube comments, likes or views as Romney, and nearly 80 percent more Facebook likes, according to the report."

Facebook and Twitter? If they were to disappear tomorrow from the face of this earth, I don't think it would make much of an impact upon most of us, with the possible exception of those who foolishly invested in Facebook's IPO.

If Blow wishes to engage in a more relevant statistical analysis having a direct bearing on the election, perhaps he would do better to examine the employment figures released by the US Department of Labor yesterday. As observed by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-96000-jobs-in-august-unemployment-rate-drops-to-81-percent/2012/09/07/30374bfa-f8e9-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html?hpid=z1):

"The unemployment rate declined in August to 8.1 percent, a drop that occurred largely because 368,000 people left the labor force. The Labor Department counts only those actively seeking a job as unemployed.

The percentage of people older than 16 in the workforce reached its lowest level since 1981, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 70 percent of men were working or looking for a job — the lowest percentage since the government began tracking the statistic in 1948."

I wonder how many of these unemployed persons and people who have left the labor force now spend their days tweeting.

Charles Blow, "Dark Road to the White House": Hypocrite!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Dark Road to the White House" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/opinion/blow-dark-road-to-the-white-house.html?_r=1), Charles Blow tells us that the "road map for a Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan win in November" consists of "Shady money, voter suppression, shifting positions, murky details and widespread apathy." Telling us of Paul Ryan's "letters to Obama’s secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program [Obama's stimulus package] be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups," Blow concludes:

"Paint a scarlet 'H' on that man’s chest for hypocrisy."

In fact, the real hypocrite here is Blow.

Blow begins his opinion piece by quoting at length from yesterday's sleazy New York Times editorial "In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/new-york-times-in-thrall-to-sheldon.html), which parroted language from the Obama campaign, and to which the Times's public editors office responded by declaring, "The Times's editorial page has a wide latitude to express its views" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/new-york-times-public-editors-office-re.html).

If I understand both Blow and the Times's editorial board correctly, Romney is forbidden to take money from Adelson, but Obama can take money from Soros (convicted of insider trading), Goldman Sachs and Hollywood. Obama can also cut a stinky real estate deal with Tony Rezko (today also a convicted felon). Hypocritical? You bet.

Ryan opposed Obama's stimulus plan, but after it was approved, Blow observes that Ryan sought part of the money for his constituents. But once the plan was passed, why shouldn't he have done this for his constituents, who would ultimately also have to pay its price?

Blows accuses Romney of "shifting positions" and "murky details," however, even The Washington Post is telling us today in an editorial entitled "A presidential campaign that’s not serving the country" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-presidential-campaign-thats-not-serving-the-country/2012/08/17/502fbbee-e314-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html?hpid=z3):

"For his part, President Obama has offered only the gauziest outlines of a second-term agenda. Instead, his argument for reelection is focused on the damage he argues Mr. Romney and fellow Republicans would do. This may be enough for Mr. Obama to cobble together the necessary electoral votes, but it hardly lays the groundwork for the difficult choices, particularly on the fiscal front, that will confront the next president — and that Mr. Obama ducked during his current term."

In that same editorial, the liberal Washington Post had the integrity to reference Vice President Biden's recent inflammatory remarks (Republicans will "put y'all back in chains") and obscene attempts by the Obama campaign to link Romney to the death from cancer of the wife of a steelworker. But does Blow attempt to strike this balance? No way.

There is a much I don't like about the positions, or absence of positions, of Romney, but Charles Blow has now also done his part to further sully a 2012 presidential election, which has found its way into the gutter owing to the demeaning level of the Obama campaign - to which Obama once pledged he would never descend.

A "dark road to the White House"? Indeed, it is route upon which Obama has cast "Hope" and "Change," if they ever existed, by the wayside.

Charles Blow, "Voter Suppression and Political Polls": Poll Respondents "Think That They Will Able [sic] to Vote for President Obama"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Voter Suppression and Political Polls" (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/voter-suppression-and-political-polls/), Charles Blow is encouraged by the results of a New York Times/CBS News/Quinnipiac poll which indicates that voters favor Obama in swing states:

"'Likely voters' were polled in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and President Obama led Mitt Romney in each state — by 6 points in Ohio and Florida and by 11 points in Pennsylvania. President Obama carried all three states in the last election and needs them in this one. Encouraging for him, right?"

However, Blow then vents his displeasure with new photo ID requirements in Pennsylvania and cuts in early voting periods in Ohio and Florida, which could skew the results of this and other polls:

"This year, we may have to take the polls with an even larger grain of salt than usual. The greatest margin of uncertainty may well be caused by poll respondents who think that they will able [sic] to vote for President Obama in November, but may not be allowed to do so.

And it’s all thanks to the Great Suppression of 2012."

However, as I observed in an earlier blog entry (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/washington-post-swing-state-poll-romney.html), Blow remarkably does not take into account that the new New York Times/CBS News/Quinnipiac poll surveyed more Democrats than Republicans. As reported by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/swing-state-poll-romney-still-struggling-to-convince-voters-he-cares/2012/08/01/gJQAjKoAPX_story.html?hpid=z2):

"A new poll by CBS News, the New York Times, and Quinnipiac University found that 54 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania, 55 percent in Ohio, and 49 percent in Florida said Romney did not care about their problems.

. . . .

President Obama fared better: In all three states, at least 55 percent said the president did understand their needs and problems."

However, the WAPO article then tells us:

"The polls must be taken with this caveat: In all three states, significantly more Democrats than Republicans were surveyed, which could affect the results."

Oh, really? If a poll surveys significantly more Democrats than Republicans, this could affect the results? Who would have ever guessed?

More to the point, who would have ever imagined that a poll conducted in part by The New York Times would survey more Democrats than Republicans? Will wonders never cease!

Charles Blow, "Where’s the Outrage?": Blow in Need of Anger Management

I just took a train from New York to Boston, and when purchasing my ticket, I was required to show government-issued photo identification. As stated by Amtrak (see: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1241267382692&pagename=am%2FLayout):

Amtrak has undertaken heightened security measures for the benefit of our customers.

Valid Photo Identification Required

Photo ID Required
Amtrak customers 18 years of age and older must produce valid photo identification when:

Obtaining, exchanging or refunding tickets

In order for the ID to be valid, Amtrak demands that the identification be "current and in-force." The identification can consist of "one piece of photo identification issued by a government authority, or two pieces of identification, at least one of which is issued by a government authority."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Where’s the Outrage?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/opinion/blow-wheres-the-outrage.html), Charles Blow decries state legislation that requires voters to produce photo identification:

"Millions of Americans don’t have these forms of ID, and many can’t easily obtain them, even when states say they’ll offer them free, because getting the documentation to obtain the 'free' ID takes time and money.

. . . .

Make no mistake about it, these requirements are not about the integrity of the vote but rather the disenfranchisement of voters. This is about tilting the table so that more of the marbles roll to the Republican corner."

Blow would further have us believe that state photo identification requirements for voting are aimed at preventing Obama from being reelected:

"Furthermore, most voter laws have emerged in the last two years. What is the difference between previous decades and today? The election of Barack Obama. It is no coincidence that some of the people least likely to have proper IDs to vote are the ones that generally vote Democratic and were strong supporters of Obama last election: young people, the poor and minorities."

I suppose Amtrak, by asking for photo IDs from it riders, is also seeking to prevent supporters of Obama, i.e. young people, the poor and minorities, from riding its trains. Indeed, where is the outrage?

No such thing as presidential election fraud? According to David Greenberg, in a Slate article entitled "Was Nixon Robbed?" concerning the 1960 election results in Illinois (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.single.html):

"On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that 'once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen.' What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case."

But more to the point, demands for photo identification at polling places are not going to determine the outcome of the 2012 election. As observed by Obama in August 2011 (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-20095106.html):

"'It frustrates people, understandably, when you've got an unemployment rate that is still too high, an economy that's not growing fast enough. And for me to argue, 'Look, we've actually made the right decisions, things would have been much worse has we not made those decisions,' that's not that satisfying if you don't have a job right now,' the president said. 'And I understand that, and I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better.'"

In short, Obama himself has acknowledged that the upcoming election will be determined by the health of the US economy and has asked that the American electorate decide in November 2012 on the basis of "whether or not things have continued to get better." Personally, I'm all in favor of Obama being granted this most reasonable wish.

Gail Collins, "Guns and the Slog": Yes, I Collect Weapons

Yes, I collect weapons.

Anyone entering our home cannot miss the antique weaponry on the walls and shelves interspersed with the paintings and prints of Ardyn Halter. There is a Union cavalry sword from the US Civil War (thanks, CQ), assorted Minié balls, a 150-year-old scimitar from Afghanistan, two 150-year-old Ottoman pistols crafted from olive wood, a 2,700-year-old bronze Luristani dagger, and arrow heads dating from the Stone Age.

Assault rifles? Over the course of several decades spent in the regular army and reserves, I have had to eat and sleep with my weapons. Sometimes, I've even had to bring them home while on leave, but was always careful to disassemble them and lock them away from my inquisitive children, separately hiding the firing pin.

Glocks and the like? I've also served in law enforcement, but don't want them anywhere near the house.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Guns and the Slog" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/guns-and-the-slog.html), Gail Collin has the integrity to observe New York Mayor Bloomberg's scalding criticism of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney "for limiting their post-Aurora remarks to expressions of sympathy for the victims."

On the other hand, in his New York Times op-ed "Mourning and Mulling" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/blow-mourning-and-mulling.html), Charles Blow fails to relate to the absence of a meaningful response from either US presidential candidate to yesterday's tragedy.

Bloomberg's reaction to the horror (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/michael-bloomberg-nyc-mayor-reacts-colorado-shooting_n_1689211.html):

"And everybody always says, 'Isn’t it tragic,' and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns?"

Bloomberg is right. No matter where you stand with respect to the Second Amendment, there is need for urgent discussion, particularly regarding the sale of assault rifles.

Will we hear from Obama or Romney with concrete proposals involving guns, or even the economy, anytime soon? Don't hold your breath. After all, honesty could cost them the election.

Charles Blow, "Obama, for the Win!": An Unmitigated Win for the Obama Adminstration?

In his New York Times op-ed, "Obama, for the Win!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/opinion/obama-for-the-win.html), Charles Blow masterfully plays with the numbers in order to demonstrate that the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare was "an unmitigated win for the Obama administration." According to Blow:

"A New York Times/CBS News poll released early this month found that 41 percent of Americans thought that the entire law should have been overturned, while 27 percent thought only the mandate should have been overturned and 24 percent thought the whole law should have been kept intact.

If you just took the numbers at face value, they would seem to support the Republican position. But let’s not. The same poll found that 37 percent of Americans believed the law went too far, while 27 percent said not far enough and 25 percent said about right.

When you cross-reference the numbers, just over two-thirds of the people who wanted the law struck down thought it went too far. That’s only 27 percent of those polled. Suddenly, the claim that a majority of the public wanted the court to strike it down for overreaching evaporates."

Thank you, Charles! A numbing fete of numerical legerdemain if ever there was one.

A fly in Blow's ointment? Of course. According to a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/29/new-poll-voters-dislike-supreme-court-s-obamacare-ruling.html), a majority of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court ruling:

"Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off."

Did you catch that last line, Charles? "Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off."

An "unmitigated win" for Obama? Why do I have my doubts?

Bottom line, Charles and I are in agreement. Charles Blow? No. Charles Krauthammer? Yes.

Charles Krauthammer writes in a WAPO opinion piece entitled "Why Roberts did it" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html) that it's now up to voters to make their voices heard. Krauthammer concludes:

"Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you."

In short, no need to wax ecstatic or fume over the Supreme Court's decision. In November, the American electorate will have the final say.

Charles Blow, "Lunar Colonies, Lunacy and Losses": Aren't You Forgetting Something?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Lunar Colonies, Lunacy and Losses" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/opinion/blow-lunar-colonies-lunacy-and-losses.html?ref=opinion#comments), Charles Blow sarcastically observes:

"To that point, Gingrich told a crowd on Florida’s so-called Space Coast on Wednesday that 'by the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the Moon. And it will be American.'”

I am no fan of Newt; however, observe what Obama glibly promised in 2008 (see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=8):

“As President, I will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program” that “not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research.”

Would someone care to explain the difference?

In case you were wondering, Obama's advisors informed the president in November 2009 :

"Especially in light of our new fiscal context, it is not possible to achieve the inspiring space program goals discussed during the campaign."

Like "Hope" and "Change," Obama's space program never got off the ground.

Charles Blow, "Friend With Benefits": Obama the Benevolent

Charles Blow concludes his most recent New York Times op-ed, "Friend With Benefits" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/opinion/blow-friend-with-benefits.html?hp), by declaring:

"The Obama administration is far from perfect, and government is not beyond becoming bloated and being abused, but right is right and truth is truth: government can play a very positive role in protecting the less-well-off from the interests of the more-well-off, and this administration’s view of government is much more benevolent than those of the people who are seeking to unseat it.

That’s worth remembering."

Or in other words, Obama may have screwed up, but he's been "benevolent" to those that he's ground into the dirt. Ah, yes, Obama the Benevolent. Sounds to me like some Roman emperor, who, having wrought ruin upon the cives, distributes bread from the warehouses to prevent them from starving.

However, there are others who think it's also "worth remembering" Obama's promises to the nation. As observed by Veronique de Rugy (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276695/unemployment-rates-promised-vs-actual-veronique-de-rugy):

"In 2009, President Obama promised that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would 'create or save' 3.5 million jobs over the next two years and that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8.5 percent. By the end of 2010, he promised, unemployment would have dropped to 7.25 percent."

In a nutshell, my response to Blow:

"Sine labore nihil!"

Translation from the Latin: "Nothing without work."