Maureen Dowd, "Michelle Schools Donald Trump": Sorry, but There's No Connectivity on Trump's Lonely Little Planet

Tweet

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Michelle Schools Donald Trump," Maureen Dowd concludes:

"Hillary is in an awkward spot on the subject of licentious behavior by men. But Michelle Obama stepped in as the avenging angel Anita Hill never had. On Thursday at a rally for Hillary Clinton, her voice trembling with disgust, the first lady explained why the 'cruel' and 'frightening' actions of Trump — whom she did not deign to name — could not be written off as 'locker-room talk' or 'a bad dream.'

. . . .

Of course, Michelle’s inspiring message is somewhat undercut by the fact that her husband is ushering the lecherous Bill Clinton back to the White House."

Michelle's message is "somewhat" undercut? Bill Clinton is merely "lecherous"? Please ...

But more to the point vis-à-vis the title of Dowd's opinion piece, no one can school Trump. He inhabits a lonely little planet on which there is no connectivity, and this is what's most frightening about this pitiful excuse for a man. Yes, folks, he's dangerous.

Choose Hillary or Donald? A pity there isn't a third option: None of the above.

Will Hillary shake Donald's hand before and after the next debate? She shouldn't. However, she still kisses Bill in public (she should have divorced Bill decades ago instead of persisting with her sham marriage), and she would probably exchange a hearty embrace with the devil to ensure entry into the White House.

David Brooks, "Goodbye, Organization Man": ISIS, Yes; Ebola, Not yet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Goodbye, Organization Man," David Brooks segues from the repetitive need to cobble together coalitions to fight "jihadism," to periodic unpreparedness to combat epidemics such as the current Ebola crisis, to "general institutional decay." Brooks describes what he perceives to be the root of this problem:

"Now nobody wants to be an Organization Man. We like start-ups, disrupters and rebels. Creativity is honored more than the administrative execution. Post-Internet, many people assume that big problems can be solved by swarms of small, loosely networked nonprofits and social entrepreneurs. Big hierarchical organizations are dinosaurs.

. . . .

When the boring tasks of governance are not performed, infrastructures don’t get built. Then, when epidemics strike, people die."

"Nobody wants to be an Organization Man"? Get real, David. Unemployment is still high in both the US and Europe, and many people would give their eye teeth to be employed by the World Health Organization, which employs more than 7,000 people, including "medical doctors, public health specialists, scientists and epidemiologists," as well as "people trained to manage administrative, financial, and information systems, as well as experts in the fields of health statistics, economics and emergency relief. "

Sure, in 2011 the WHO was forced to cut its annual budget by almost $1 billion, but this seems to have mainly affected administration and management staff at its Geneva headquarters, as well as travel and publications.

Sure, working at WHO does not confer rock star status upon its employees. On the other hand, there are very few rock stars in this world.

There are also those of us who are incapable of working with hundreds of other people in large organizations. (Given the pranks I played in the offices of a major financial institution many years ago, I'm amazed I wasn't found out and fired.)

But I think Brooks is missing the point. He wants action against Ebola? Well, if Obama was to raise funds from millionaires to combat this deadly disease, instead of seeking money to finance the Democratic Party, awareness could be raised. Or maybe Michelle might want to be the first to undergo the Ebola ice bucket challenge.

But that would demand leadership, which would take the president away from the links. Also, the latest polls don't demand this sort of action. ISIS, yes; Ebola, not yet.

Not to worry: Ebola's time will also come . . . and go.

Michelle Obama, "The Campaign for Junk Food": How About Prying the Kids Away From Their Computers?

Back more than 50 years ago, I remember how my mother added brewer's yeast to our orange juice and wheat germ to our oatmeal every morning. I liked the wheat germ; however, the orange juice with this additive was, well, viscous and repugnant. Vitamin pills? Of course.

Later in the day, I would watch with envy when other children produced Twinkies and Devil Dogs from their lunch bags. My midday meal? Usually organic peanut butter on whole wheat bread with no jelly, of course.

In the afternoon, there were the healthy ersatz candy bars, substituting carob for chocolate. They looked okay, and it was fun to remove them from their wrappers, but the taste was little better than noxious.

In the evening, there could be no dessert with sugar. We were allowed "sweets" only once a week.

Did I grow up fat? No way. On the other hand, remarkably, or perhaps not so remarkably, my classmates - who ate Twinkies and Devil Dogs - were also not overweight. You see, we were too busy riding bicycles without head protection.

In deference to my mother, I should observe that I did have fewer cavities than other children. My mother? Sadly, she died of lymphoma at the age of 67.

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Campaign for Junk Food" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/michelle-obama-on-attempts-to-roll-back-healthy-reforms.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), Michelle Obama begins:

"WHEN we began our Let’s Move! initiative four years ago, we set one simple but ambitious goal: to end the epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation so that kids born today will grow up healthy.

To achieve this goal, we have adhered to one clear standard: what works. The initiatives we undertake are evidence-based, and we rely on the most current science. Research indicated that kids needed less sugar, salt and fat in their diets, so we revamped school lunch menus accordingly. When data showed that the lack of nearby grocery stores negatively affected people’s eating habits, we worked to get more fresh-food retailers into underserved areas. Studies on habit formation in young children drove our efforts to get healthier food and more physical activity into child care centers.

Today, we are seeing glimmers of progress. Tens of millions of kids are getting better nutrition in school; families are thinking more carefully about food they eat, cook and buy; companies are rushing to create healthier products to meet the growing demand; and the obesity rate is finally beginning to fall from its peak among our youngest children."

My goodness, it almost sounds like Michelle is bringing about heaven on earth!

Her conclusion:

"The bottom line is very simple: As parents, we always put our children’s interests first. We wake up every morning and go to bed every night worrying about their well-being and their futures. And when we make decisions about our kids’ health, we rely on doctors and experts who can give us accurate information based on sound science. Our leaders in Washington should do the same."

Those darned Republicans who control the House and might soon become a majority in the Senate! Quick, they need to be stopped! Children's lives are at stake! The latest "bogus" VA scandal be damned!

Don't get me wrong. At age 60, I try to maintain a modest level of fitness, although I am currently suffering from a pulled hamstring after running after Arnold, our 150-pound Anatolian shepherd.

And although I look longingly at bottles of marshmallow fluff when visiting the grocery store, there is no way in hell that I could ever bring myself to buy this shit spread. Instead, my wife prepares for me organic "raw food" shakes. Yummy . . .

Food supplements? As noted in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/frank-bruni-diet-lures-and-diet-lies.html), I must admit that I take a few.

But has clean, healthy living made me happier on balance? I don't know the answer.

Reduce childhood obesity? I have a different answer: Pry the kids away from their computers and see what happens.

Maureen Dowd, "Woodrow Wilson, Stud Muffin": Does Presidential Power Couple With Lust?

I have always been perplexed by the sexual escapades of three American presidents who have occupied the Oval Office during my lifetime: Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy. I never quite understood why the most powerful men in the world would engage in conduct that could undermine that power and harm their historical legacy. Maybe it was because they felt they could do anything and get away with it. Maybe it was precisely that sense of power, impunity and entitlement, which led them to politics, a field of endeavor which never attracted me. Interact with the public? As we talk, I am busy excavating a moat around the house and populating it with crocodiles.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Woodrow Wilson, Stud Muffin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/woodrow-wilson-stud-muffin.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd begins with a teaser:

"ON Thursday night, we sat around, talking about the lawyer and constitutional expert in the White House, a leader both didactic and charming, peacenik and hawk; the Ivy League academic who improbably ascended to the Oval Office on brains, not beholden to anyone; the Democrat, eager to fight economic inequality and help the 99 percent, who would give a government bailout if he had to; the dapper man with large ears, elegant speeches he wrote himself, a love of golf."

Obama? Wrong. Dowd continues:

"We sat around talking about Woodrow Wilson.

And it turns out that the League of Nations was not the most intriguing thing about Wilson. The love of women was."

Ah, yes, it was just the other day that we were also sitting around the table and discussing Woodrow Wilson . . . not. Leonardo DiCaprio is interested in playing Wilson in a future movie? Good luck! (Leonardo, call me: I just finished an "action" screenplay that fits you to a tee . . .)

But I have been wondering of late, around the dinner table and elsewhere, how the abnegation of power by a certain president with big ears, who also likes golf, could degrade America's deterrent capabilities. Over the course of five years in office, Obama's unsubstantiated, wishy-washy "tough talk" has earned the contempt of Putin, Khamenei, Assad and other assorted tyrants around the globe.

Might Obama ever "break bad" and have an affair? Not in a million years. Michelle would whoop his ass.

Gail Collins, "Talk Of The Town": Rand Paul Drones On

Sure, you're a law abiding citizen, but let's suppose an SUV just ran a red light and smashed into the passenger side of your vehicle. Your car can still be driven, but your husband has been severely injured in the accident and is unconscious and losing blood. The nearest hospital is twenty minutes away. Do you wait for the police and an ambulance, or do you hit the gas and, en route to the hospital, exceed the local speed limit of 40 miles per hour? A no brainer, right?

But now let's look at the hypothetical situation I posed yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/maureen-dowd-repent-dick-cheney.html). Suppose terrorists have hidden a dirty bomb in Manhattan and are threatening to detonate the bomb unless the US releases all of its Guantanamo prisoners. The bomb is timed to go off in another two hours, and there is no time to evacuate the city. Millions are expected to die slow painful deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer unless the bomb is found and defused. Then suddenly, one of the al-Qaeda conspirators is captured, but he refuses to talk. Would you read him his rights and wait for his lawyer or waterboard him?

Again, I know what I would do.

There are emergencies that demand immediate action. On the other hand, there are also instances when life and death comes into play, but there is time for judicial oversight.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Talk Of The Town" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/opinion/collins-the-talk-of-the-town.html?_r=0), Gail Collins grudgingly acknowledges that Senator Rand Paul may have a point with regard to his filibuster of the confirmation of John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

"Paul had no particular problem with the nomination, which he acknowledged was going to pass once he stopped talking. But the debate over Brennan had brought up the question of drone strikes. The junior senator from Kentucky wanted President Obama to promise not to use drones to kill Americans on American soil. “At least we need to know what are the rules,” he said sometime during hour five.

Fair enough. The Obama administration had been unnecessarily dodgy on this point. The very fact that the president was ordering the death of American citizens anywhere without oversight was worrying. Shouldn’t there be a special court to sign off on these things?"

Collins concludes in irritatingly vapid fashion:

"Still, after years of faux filibusters, it was a nice change of pace. Exhausting yourself and irritating your colleagues for a cause is way better than stopping progress without taking the least bit of trouble."

I'm no Tea Partier or fan of Rand Paul, but his insistance on reviewing the guidelines involving the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists and inevitably innocent bystanders goes beyond "stopping progress," as Collins would have it. Apparently, people like Collins have no problem administering death sentences so long as Barry has his hand on the joy stick.

More information concerning the Benghazi attack, which is increasing pointing to the fact that the State Department should have seen it coming? Why would Collins want any such information, which could further discomfit Barry and jeopardize Hillary's chances in 2016?

Indeed, absolutely nothing should stand in the way of Obama as he continues to populate his cabinet with white guys comprising the worst and the dumbest.

The latest embarrassment for Obama: On Friday, Michelle Obama and John Kerry will award the Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award at a State Department ceremony. Among those who have come to Washington to receive the award is Samira Ibrahim, who tweeted on July 18 last year, "An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport in Bulgaria on the Black Sea. Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news." As further reported by The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-and-john-kerry-honor-anti-semite-and-911-fan_706547.html):

"As a mob was attacking the United States embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, pulling down the American flag and raising the flag of Al Qaeda, Ibrahim wrote on twitter: 'Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.' Possibly fearing the consequences of her tweet, she deleted it a couple of hours later, but not before a screen shot was saved by an Egyptian activist."

Can it get worse during Obama's second term?

Yes It Will!

David Brooks, "Our Second Adolescence": David's "Dream Obama"? Keep Dreaming!

Did you watch the Oscar ceremony? I didn't. I mostly read history, and it pains me to watch Hollywood-doctored portrayals of real events for consumption by the masses. I saw and detested Spielberg's sugar-coated "Lincoln," and I could not bring myself to watch "Argo." But heck, at least Michelle had her dream come true, presenting the award for Best Picture with white-gloved, gold-braided White House military social aides as props.

As long as we're talking about dreams, have a look at David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Our Second Adolescence" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/opinion/brooks-our-second-adolescence.html?_r=0), in which David describes his "dream Obama":

"My dream Obama would take advantage of the fact that only the president can fundamentally shift the terms.

. . . .

My dream Obama would abandon the big government versus small government argument. He’d point out that in a mature, aging society, government isn’t going anywhere.

. . . .

My dream Obama would nurture investment in three ways."

That strange noise that you just heard? That was me, trying to stifle a yawn.

In case you're interested, Brooks would have his dream Obama "nurture investment" by taking "spending that currently goes to the affluent elderly and redirect[ing] it to the young and the struggling," starting debate on a "consumption tax plan," and talking "obsessively about family structure and social repair."

Keep dreaming, David. Can you imagine Obama cutting Medicare, attempting to push a value-added tax through Congress, and single-handedly reducing the number of unwed mothers in America? I am beginning to wonder if this op-ed is an April Fools joke come early and if it was actually penned by Tom Friedman.

Another strange noise? Sorry, this time it wasn't a yawn.

My three-point plan for nurturing investment? Simple:

1. immediately take US ground forces out of Afghanistan;
2. declare war on Medicare fraud using algorithmic detection;
3. reinstate the Uptick Rule (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/paul-krugman-rubio-and-zombies.html).

Yes, you're right. I may not have a dream Obama, but I'm also a dreamer whose dreams, in this instance, have no chance of coming true.

Valerie Jarrett Managing Secret US Negotiations With Iran? This Is the End

I was horrified when the Obama administration allowed Catherine Ashton, an imbecile with a BSc degree in sociology and a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html), to manage the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

I was horrified when the Obama administration appointed Thomas Pickering, once listed as an "expert" by the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran, to "investigate" the Benghazi cover-up (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/thomas-pickering-is-heading-benghazi.html).

And now I am horrifed to learn that Valerie Jarrett was given the nod by Obama to conduct secret negotiations with Iran concerning its nuclear weapons development program (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4301368,00.html). Jarrett's qualifications? None, other than her intimate friendship with Barack and Michelle.

In the words of The Doors:

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again

McCain, Lieberman and Graham, "The risks of inaction in Syria": A Call for Heightened US Involvement

[Subsequent to the publication of this blog entry, it became known that Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab and his family defected last night to Jordan, and there was also a bomb explosion today at the state-operated TV building in Damascus. McLean, are you listening? It's well on its way to being over.]

Where is Bashar al-Assad hiding? Syria's president has disappeared since four members of his inner circle died in an explosion on July 18. Meanwhile, the rebels in Syria are tenaciously holding onto their positions in Aleppo, Syria's largest city, notwithstanding persistent shelling and fire from tanks, helicopters and fighter jets. Senior Syrian army officers continue to defect on an almost daily basis (Colonel Yarub Shara, head of the Political Security in Damascus, defected yesterday to Jordan), and notwithstanding claims by the Syrian government that Damascus is secure, rebels continue to engage in hit and run operations there.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The risks of inaction in Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mccain-lieberman-and-graham-the-risks-of-inaction-in-syria/2012/08/05/4a63585c-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html?hpid=z2), Senators John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey O. Graham call for heightened US support of the rebels:

"Unfortunately, while opposition fighters inside the country have grown more capable in recent months, Bashar al-Assad’s regime is far from finished and is now unleashing even more indiscriminate violence against civilians, using tanks and artillery, helicopter gunships, militias, snipers and, for the first time, fighter aircraft."

In fact, quite the contrary is true. Assad's disappearance and unrestrained use of his army against the rebels is evidence of his imminent collapse. Assad has lost any vestige of legitimacy, and the demise of his regime is only a matter of time.

Should the US more aggressively support the rebels? Is this indeed an opportunity to render a resounding blow to Iran's pursuit of Middle East hegemony and to undermine Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon? Acknowledging the complexity of the conflict and risks associated with greater support of the rebels, McCain, Lieberman and Graham nevertheless advocate a more proactive American role in the fighting:

"It is not too late for the United States to shift course. First, we can and should directly and openly provide robust assistance to the armed opposition, including weapons, intelligence and training. Whatever the risks of our doing so, they are far outweighed by the risks of continuing to sit on our hands, hoping for the best.

American help should go to those groups that reject extremism and sectarianism in both word and deed. As in Libya, the relationships we build with armed groups inside Syria now will be indispensable going forward."

However, the conflict in Syria, between the rebel Sunnis and a ruling Alawite minority, does not resemble the Libyan conflagration, which amounted to a tribal war. Moreover, it is not so easy to identify groups in Syria that "reject extremism and sectarianism." Ultimately, the Assad regime will be replaced by the anything but moderate Muslim Brotherhood.

The battle in Syria has become a proxy war between Iran, supporting the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, assisting the rebels. The conflict is further muddled by the aspirations of the Kurds, living in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, for autonomy, and recent fighting between the Turkish army and Kurdish separatists.

Whereas the outcome of this conflict is certain, Assad's departure can be hastened if air support for his army is eliminated. However, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are better positioned to provide this aid to the rebels.

Sure, the US has a strategic interest here in undermining Iran and Hezbollah, and it also needs to keep an eye on Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons. But the US also must avoid being sucked into a quagmire, where the involvement of an outside non-Muslim entity could provoke unforeseen consequences.

Issues of morality? Absolutely. Obama, at the onset of his presidency, made the tragic mistake of courting Assad by sending Senator John Kerry on repeated visits to this tyrant. Later, Obama and Hillary Clinton were tardy in condemning the horrific attempts by Assad to suppress the revolt against his regime. It's more than a little late for Obama to be condemning Assad's outrages, particularly when the rebels are also engaging in savage reprisals, but his voice must still be heard, even at the risk of upsetting Obama's cozy, one-way relationship with Russia's Putin.

My suggestion would be that in addition to vociferously demanding in all international forums that Assad immediately step down, the US should seek to help the thousands of Syrian refugees, who have crossed into Jordan and Turkey. Iran will have a hard time denigrating such a gesture of American goodwill.

Syria: Obama Likes to Watch

The violence in Syria is spilling over into Lebanon: Yesterday violent clashes erupted between the Sunni and Alawite communities Tripoli in Lebanon's north (see: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Feb-11/162878-syrian-massacres-jolt-north-lebanon.ashx#axzz1m36ZQ8dp). At the same time, Lebanon's Sunnis, leaving the mosques on Friday, initiated demonstrations against Syrian President Assad throughout the country (see: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Feb-10/162790-multiple-anti-assad-demos-expected-in-lebanon-friday.ashx#axzz1m36ZQ8dp).

In Syria itself, as the onslaught against Homs continued, twin suicide bombings targeting military intelligence and security force compounds in Allepo killed 28 people and wounded 235 (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16978803).

What is the Obama administration doing about this chaos? Nothing. As reported by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/bombings-strike-previously-calm-syrian-city-of-aleppo/2012/02/10/gIQAQyD63Q_story.html):

"The Obama administration and its allies see few, if any, viable options to end the carnage in Syria as President Bashar al-Assad’s forces continue their offensive against the opposition to his rule in what has become the uprising’s most violent month.

. . . .

'What frustrates . . . us is that there are no silver bullets here,' said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'There are no good options.'

. . . .

A second administration official, who was not authorized to discuss military matters on the record, said that the U.S. 'focus remains on applying diplomatic and economic pressure on the Syrian regime. Military planning occurs as a matter of course,' the official said. 'As you would expect, some ideas are on the table' for Syria, 'but nothing has been requested. It’s an academic exercise at this stage.'"

No good options? As Russia and Iran send weaponry, and, in the case of Iran, advisors to Assad, Obama is unwilling to provide arms to the rebels to allow them to repel murderous attacks upon civilians by Assad's forces.

Obama has the opportunity to tear Syria away from Iranian suzerainty and in the process cripple Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet he is incapable of seeing his way through to any "viable options."

Meanwhile, Putin is warning against outside interference in Syria (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-syria-russia-putin-idUSTRE8171UU20120208), as Russia continues to arm Assad to the hilt (see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/08/pol-cp-syria-russia-arms-protest.html?cmp=rss).

Is Obama capable of standing up to Putin? Not a chance. Moreover, it is an election year, and even in the best of times, Obama, like Chance the Gardener in "Being There," likes to watch.

Maureen Dowd, "Showtime at the Apollo": Opening a Can of Whoopass on the Obamas

Maureen Dowd has "remarkably" (see below) opened a can of whoopass on the Obamas.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Showtime at the Apollo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/dowd-showtime-at-the-apollo.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Dowd savages the president and his wife, leaving even me, a combat veteran, grimacing. Ms. Dowd informs her readership:

"The man who became famous with a speech declaring that we were one America, not opposing teams of red and blue states, presides over an America more riven by blue and red than ever.

The man who came to Washington on a wave of euphoria has had a presidency with all the joy of a root canal, dragged down by W.’s recklessness and his own inability to read America’s panic and its thirst for a strong leader.

. . . .

Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated.

We disappointed them."

Ouch!

I suppose this is one instance where I feel compelled to go to bat for the president. Like Obama, I don't go to many parties. Mix with journalists? Waterboard me instead. Invite Jimmy Carter or the Clintons to dinner? Go ahead and shoot me.

Dowd asks, "Who knew, in the exuberance of 2008, that America was electing an introvert?" Actually, if you were to rip away the glitzy Madison Avenue packaging, the narcissism was not far beneath the wrapping paper. Moreover, the arrogance and introversion would all be forgiven if the president had delivered, but hope has gone by the wayside.

Dowd concludes her opinion piece by inquiring:

"Could 2012, remarkably, be a race between two powerful victims yearning to be lonely at the top?"

"Remarkably"? Perhaps "abominably," "bitterly," "bleakly," "deplorably," "distressingly," "grievously," "lamentably," "pathetically," "ruefully," "woefully," or "wretchedly"; however, there would be nothing "remarkable" whatsoever about a contest between Obama and Gingrich.

Paul Krugman, "America’s Unlevel Field": A Marxist Diatribe

And you thought that Pravda, the official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party until 1991, was dead?

In his latest New York Times manifesto entitled "America’s Unlevel Field" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?ref=opinion), Paul Krugman declares that America is the advanced country where it matters most who your parents are, and that the US government has failed to create equal opportunity. Krugman contends:

"The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.

Once they reach college age, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to go to college — and vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school — than those luckier in their parentage.

. . . .

And if children from our society’s lower rungs do manage to make it into a good college, the lack of financial support makes them far more likely to drop out than the children of the affluent, even if they have as much or more native ability."

Goodness gracious, what a horrible country the US has become! How can we possibly begin to remedy this self-perpetuating socioeconomic tragedy engineered by nefarious Republican toads?

Poor nutrition and inadequate health care? Let's make certain that "low-income mothers and their children" are given multiple vitamin pills. If they are not swallowed, both mothers and children will either be whipped or subjected to a three-hour long upbraiding from Michelle Obama. Given the choice, I would opt for the whipping.

Let's also prevent MacDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Domino's Pizza, Cap'n Crunch and Coca Cola from advertising on television. Cigarette advertising is banned from the airwaves, so let's also do away with junk food commercials, and that means Kristy Kreme doughnuts, too.

If the children become too fat or too skinny, let's take them from their mothers and send them away to federally funded nutrition farms, where their weights will be carefully monitored, and they will only eat organic vegetables. Mothers, of course, can visit after a strip search for offending chocolates.

Private schools? Let's eliminate them, or at least require that their student bodies reflect US demographics within a percentile. If a child is half African American and half Jewish, his or her identity will also be divided equally for purposes of meeting this new quota.

Top tier universities? No more! I propose a draft system similar to that found in professional sports, whereby the best new professors will be send to the worst schools, thereby raising their academic standards to those of Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago. (Yes, Paul, you forced it out of me: I graduated from the University of Chicago, and I'm ready to be sent away to a gulag.)

Finally, given that talented college students from poor families are more likely to drop out than dumb children from affluent families, let's provide the poor families with a stipend in addition to that being received by their children.

And when these rich and poor students finally graduate with bachelor degrees in English literature and contemporary history, and they migrate to Zuccotti Park and mingle with others unable to find jobs, Paul Krugman will visit in order to proffer comfort as all rage in unison against the inequality of the system.

Andrew Rosenthal, "Nobody Likes to Talk About It, but It’s There": Disrespecting the Dimensions of Michelle Obama's Derriere

Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of The New York Times and son of former Times executive editor A.M. Rosenthal, recently undertook to write a blog for his newspaper captioned "The Loyal Opposition," beneath which we are informed that it emanates "FROM THE DESK OF ANDREW ROSENTHAL." Why from the "desk" and not from the "doorknob" or "coathanger" of Andrew Rosenthal? We will never know.

In a blog entry entitled "Nobody Likes to Talk About It, but It’s There" (http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/nobody-likes-to-talk-about-it-but-its-there/?ref=opinion), Rosenthal would have us believe that "There has been a racist undertone to many of the Republican attacks leveled against President Obama for the last three years, and in this dawning presidential campaign." His evidence:

"Rep. Joe Wilson shouting 'you lie' at one of Mr. Obama’s first appearances before Congress, and House Speaker John Boehner rejecting Mr. Obama’s request to speak to a joint session of Congress—the first such denial in the history of our republic.

More recently, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, in a conversation overheard at Reagan National Airport in Washington, said of Michelle Obama: 'She lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself.'"

I agree that Wilson's obnoxious squawk and perhaps even Boehner's request that Obama delay his speech before a joint session of Congress by one day were disrespectful; however, we live in an era of discourtesy. Unbeknownst to Rosenthal, discourtesy today does not translate into racism.

President Obama has also refused to respect Congress. Note, for example, Obama's failure to seek Congressional approval for the appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria. Note how Obama recently signed legislation imposing sanctions upon Iran's central bank, yet declared that these sanctions were "nonbinding" inasmuch as they could interfere with his "constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments.” Note also how Obama has appointed Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has filled three labor board vacancies without Senate approval.

As for Sensenbrenner's distasteful observations concerning the dimensions of Michelle Obama's derriere, I would observe that there was an episode of the television comedy series "Southpark" (http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s11e04-the-snuke) which portrayed Hillary Clinton with a grossly oversized posterior. Racist?

Moreover, when the name of hefty Chris Christie was being batted around as a potential Republican presidential candidate, he swiftly became the butt of David Letterman "fat" jokes (see: http://perezhilton.com/2011-09-28-david-letterman-top-ten-chris-christie-new-jersey-late-night-president-race). Inappropriate, but not racist.

Former President George Bush was regularly ridiculed by the op-ed pundits of The Times and nearly everyone else. Moreover, when Bush spoke before Congress concerning social security, The New York Times reported that "some Democrats hooted in derision" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/politics/03bush.html). "Racist?

If Andrew Rosenthal is truly concerned by racism, he should reread some of the vicious anti-Semitic online readers' comments that have been posted by New York Times "moderators" in response to his newspaper's op-eds and editorials, and also consider his editorial page's obsession with Israel (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-york-times-and-israel-bashing-yes.html). Although I complained to Rosenthal concerning Thomas Friedman's recent allegation that the standing ovation Netanyahu was given by Congress "was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-york-times-sanitizes-critical.html), I never received a response.

Truly a fatuous opinion piece. Keep up the good work, Andy.