Charles Blow "Don’t Call Herman a Monster": Blow's Double Standard

Let's get two things straight from the git-go:

1. Herman Cain, like Donald Trump before him, is not a serious candidate for president.

2. An accusation of sexual harassment by even one woman without a credible response should preclude his candidacy.

However, it is remarkable how pundits from the left are outraged by Cain's behavior, yet were prepared to excuse the manner in which Obama sat in silence over the course of twenty years, listening to the anti-American and racist rants of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Sure, upon becoming a presidential candidate, Obama gradually disassociated himself from Wright, but was that enough? Would it now be enough for Cain to declaim against sexual harassment in the workplace and elsewhere?

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Don’t Call Herman a Monster" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/opinion/blow-dont-call-herman-a-monster.html?_r=1&hp), Charles Blow decries Cain's fuzzy responses to allegations of sexual harassment:

"Cain’s answers to date simply haven’t satisfied. They’ve been as ham-handed as it gets. He’s flip-flopped like a fresh-caught-fish in the bottom of the boat. Even if he didn’t remember the allegations, surely he could have gotten and read through the settlements before submitting to interviews. Right? Right?!

Such a botched response would have spelled trouble for a candidate of another stripe and in another time. But this is Herman Cain: the unorthodox candidate with unprecedented ascendance in a Tea Party age.

. . . .

The fact that Cain obviously isn’t presidential timber holds little weight with those who view the current resident of the White House as, at best, unqualified and, at worst, illegitimate.

. . . .

They’re all looking beyond your faults, Mr. Cain. They all are."

Yes, Cain's "answers to date simply haven't satisfied," and indeed, "Cain obviously isn’t presidential timber." Moreover, it is disgraceful that there are those on the right who continue to support Cain without a convincing rejoinder to these allegations.

On the other hand, wasn't it Obama who couldn't remember Wright's hate-filled diatribes, and wasn't it the left that was "looking beyond" Obama's "faults"?

Worse still, Obama has demonstrated over the past three years that he "obviously isn't presidential timber," as evidenced by his failed economic and foreign policies.

How pitiful that the Republicans are incapable of fielding a respectable crop of candidates offering "Change we can believe in."

Paul Krugman, "Oligarchy, American Style": The Protesters Have It Basically Right?

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Oligarchy, American Style" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman warns of the consequences of allowing America's rich to become richer and declares that "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy."

Krugman also swipes at fellow New York Times columnist David Brooks, who several days ago wrote an op-ed entitled "The Wrong Inequality" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), which concluded that lack of higher education is the most important barrier to economic equality. Krugman writes in response:

"Whenever growing income disparities threaten to come into focus, a reliable set of defenders tries to bring back the blur. Think tanks put out reports claiming that inequality isn’t really rising, or that it doesn’t matter. Pundits try to put a more benign face on the phenomenon, claiming that it’s not really the wealthy few versus the rest, it’s the educated versus the less educated."

Raise taxes on Americans in the highest income percentile? I have no problem with that, although it won't make a dent in the budget deficit or national debt. On the other hand, I find it offensive in the extreme when Krugman seeks to justify the moral rectitude of Occupy Wall Street. Krugman would have us know:

"That is, the protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong."

OWS "has it basically right"? As reported by MSNBC regarding the OWS protests in Oakland (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941/ns/us_news-life/):

"Police in riot gear arrested more than 80 protesters in downtown Oakland, where bands of masked protesters took over a vacant building, erected roadblocks and threw chunks of concrete and firebombs. Five people and several officers were injured."

I agree with Krugman when he writes that "our political system is being warped by the influence of big money." Presumably, this includes fund raising activity undertaken by Jon Corzine on behalf of Obama and the J Street subterfuges of George Soros. However, I am nauseated when Krugman chooses to ignore the psychosis of Occupy Wall Street.

David Brooks, "Shale Gas Revolution": I Told You So

In June of this year, I wrote a blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/oil%20shale), explaining the benefits and blessing of oil shale:

"For example, if oil prices remain high, shale oil, of which there are world reserves exceeding 3 trillion barrels, will become commercially viable. And guess who owns most of it? More than 60% of world deposits are located in the U.S., primarily in the Green River Formation. Indeed, better answers will need to be found to extract the shale oil without damaging the environment, but what better way to create a vast new industry, offering both hi-tech and low-tech jobs?"

Today my optimism is echoed in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Shale Gas Revolution" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/brooks-the-shale-gas-revolution.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), in which David Brooks writes:

"This kind of balance is exactly what our political system doesn’t deliver. So far, the Obama administration has done a good job of trying to promote fracking while investigating the downsides. But the general public seems to be largely uninterested in the breakthrough (even though it could have a major impact on the 21st-century economy). The discussion is dominated by vested interests and the extremes. It’s becoming another weapon in the political wars, with Republicans swinging behind fracking and Democrats being pressured to come out against. Especially in the Northeast, the gas companies are demonized as Satan in corporate form.

A few weeks ago, I sat around with John Rowe, one of the most trusted people in the energy business, and listened to him talk enthusiastically about this windfall. He has no vested interest in this; indeed, his company might be hurt. But he knows how much shale gas could mean to America. It would be a crime if we squandered this blessing."

Yes, I believe oil shale could fuel economic recovery in the US, while also eliminating dependency upon Middle East oil and vastly improving America's trade imbalance.

And now another fact largely unknown to the public: Israel also has huge deposits of oil shale. As reported by Amiram Barkat in a Globes article appearing in
The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Business/Globes/Article.aspx?id=240173):

"‘Within a few years, Israel will become one the largest producers of oil and gas in the world,' according to Dr. Harold Vinegar, who until three years ago was chief scientist of energy giant Royal Dutch Shell.

Vinegar told Globes he estimates that exploration for gas will yield impressive results, but that Israel’s true future lies in oil.

He believes the chances of finding regular oil are not high, but that huge quantities of oil shale will make it possible to produce oil in quantities approaching the production of Saudi Arabia.

. . . .

'I have examined oil-shale deposits all over the world, and nowhere have I seen a reservoir to compare with what we have here in terms of the richness and thickness of the stratum,' Vinegar said. 'Just in IEI’s license area there is a potential for 40 billion barrels of oil. In Israel as a whole there are, in my estimation, 250 billion barrels of oil and perhaps more. The reserves of Saudi Arabia, for the sake of comparison, are estimated at 260 billion barrels.'"

Can you imagine tiny Israel becoming one of world's energy giants? It sounds insane, but it's not far away.

Gail Collins, "Day of the Armadillo": Collins Beats Readership with Frozen Tripe

In her New York Times op-ed, "Day of the Armadillo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/opinion/collins-day-of-the-armadillo.html?hp), Collins regales us with a story out of Texas: “Man Allegedly Beat Woman With Frozen Armadillo.” She then tells us that she has read Herman Cain's book, and he's not going to be president.

I didn't read Cain's book (nor will I ever), and I could have stated months ago that he had no shot at winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Perhaps Collins should do everyone a favor and extend her book writing absence from the op-ed page of the floundering Times.

The Economy: Obama Also Leading from Behind

The Federal Reserve has revised downward its expectations regarding joblessness and expects that unemployment will only decline to some 8.6 percent by the end of 2012 from its current 9.1 percent. This is not happy news for Obama, who faces reelection next year. Obama, who also leads from behind regarding the economy, must surely be disappointed by the decision of the Fed’s policymaking board not to take new action to spur growth.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is plainly not pleased by the level of cooperation he is receiving from others in Washington. As reported by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fed-sees-modest-economic-growth-wont-take-new-monetary-action/2011/11/02/gIQAlLtvfM_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Government policy more broadly appears to be on hold, with few prospects for a deeply divided Congress to take steps that would encourage job creation. Bernanke signaled his consternation with this inaction, saying, 'It would be helpful if we could get assistance from some other parts of the government to work with us to help create more jobs.'"

Is it only a "deeply divided Congress" which is unable "to take steps"? Or does the problem also entail a clueless president, now in campaign mode and busy playing the blame game?

Maureen Dowd, "Cain Not Able": I Prefer Southpark

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cain Not Able" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/opinion/dowd-cain-not-able.html?_r=1&hp), Maureen Dowd effectively writes Herman Cain's political obituary. Unfortunately for Maureen and fellow Times columnist Gail Collins, the Republican primaries will no longer prove a fertile source of anecdotal humor, unless they wish to continue regaling us with Romney's Seamus the dog story.

Personally, I am distraught by the candidates and would-be candidates fielded by the Republicans. When I want comedy, I watch Southpark. Moreover, I find Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman infinitely more witty and perspicacious than Herman, Newt, Donald and Sarah.

Thomas Friedman, "A Long List of Suckers": Or Opening the Floodgates of Hell

All who read this blog know that I have long opposed US ground involvement in Afghanistan, and I regarded Obama's decision to escalate American involvement in Afghanistan, i.e. Obama's attempt to mimic Bush's surge in Iraq, as a tragic mistake. As such, I welcomed Thomas Friedman's call in his latest New York Times op-ed, "A Long List of Suckers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/opinion/friedman-a-long-list-of-suckers.html?ref=opinion), to curtail the US military presence in Afghanistan.

However, in this op-ed, Friedman also endorses Obama's precipitous decision to yank American troops from Iraq, and here I would observe that Friedman is mistaken in a number of his assumptions. Moreover, this determination by Obama could well open a Pandora's box, whose ultimate repercussions cannot possibly be known.

I opposed the Second Gulf War, given that the toppling of Saddam Hussein was certain to destroy the equilibrium of power between Iraq and Iran. In addition, I believed that Iran was a greater threat to US interests than Saddam. Bush nevertheless waged this war, and unlike Friedman, I fear that sudden removal of American forces will indeed leave Iranian regional ambitions unchecked, particularly at a time when Tehran is threatening to send warships off America's East Coast (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10356471/iran-says-could-deploy-navy-near-u-s-coast-report/) and to sink US naval vessels in the Persian Gulf (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/07/ap-iran-to-target-us-carriers-if-attacked-070911/).

Although the Iranian threats are toothless, timing is all important, and Obama, who never learned to play the game, is currently sending the wrong obsequious message to Tehran.

Friedman is not afraid of Iranian designs in Iraq, believing that Arab/Persian enmity will trump Sunni/Shiite hatred:

"Iraqis are a proud people. Once our troops are gone, Iraqi Arabs will surely focus entirely on their own government’s performance and on any Iranian or other attempts to try to be the puppeteer of Iraqi politics. Any Iraqi leader seen as Tehran’s lackey will have problems.

I actually think the dominant flow of influence will be from Iraq toward Iran — if (and it is still a big if) — Iraq’s democracy holds. If it does, Iranians will have to look across the border every day at Iraqis, with their dozens of free newspapers and freedom to form any party and vote for any leader, and wonder why these 'inferior' Iraqi Arab Shiites enjoy such freedoms and “superior” Iranian Persian Shiites do not."

"Iraqis are a proud people"? Remarkably, Friedman does not once mention the semi-autonomous Kurdish minority in Iraq's north, comprising over 15% of Iraq's population. Other than Israel, the US has no better friend in the Middle East than Iraq's Kurds, who are now suddenly hedging their bets.

On Saturday, the president of Iraq's Kurdistan region, Massoud Barzani, arrived in Tehran in order to meet with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and Iranian president Ahmadinejad (see: http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2011/10/irankurd809.htm). Barzani declared:

"We will not forget the assistance of the Iranian people and government during the hard times passed by Iraq.

To preserve our victory, we need Iranian assistance and guidance in this sphere."

I view the Kurds as a weathervane in this area, and Barazani's meetings signal stormy weather ahead. Friedman questions whether Iraq's democracy will hold. Answer: Not a chance at this time.

The Kurds are not the only ones getting nervous about Obama's decision to precipitously evacuate American troops from Iraq. As reported by Yaakov Lappin of The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=243954):

"Over the past several days, Hebrew media reports have been engaged in intense speculation regarding a possible imminent Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites."

In short, Obama may have just opened the floodgates of hell in the Middle East.