Thomas Friedman, "The Man With Pink Hair": Nectarines and Baldness

Shuffling down Schifflaube Street on a mission to buy nectarines, Thomas Friedman, tells us how he encountered a cashier with neon pink hair. So begins Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Man With Pink Hair" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/friedman-the-man-with-pink-hair.html). Yup, this is almost as fascinating as what's atop Friedman's own pate.

Friedman goes on to tell us:

"Everyone is focusing on Obama’s unimpressive leadership in this crisis, but for my money the two main players who shaped the outcome — in ways that would not have been predicted but will have huge long-term implications — were Putin and the American people. Obama got blindsided by both."

That's right: Don't blame Obama for the degradation of American credibility and stature around the globe - Putin and the American populace are to blame.

But wait, Friedman also acknowledges that Obama had just a little something to do with this chaos:

"I also think the public picked up on Obama’s ambivalence — his Churchillian, this-must-not-stand rhetoric, clashed with his 'On second thought, I’m going to ask Congress’s permission before I make a stand, and I won’t call lawmakers back from vacation to do so.' The bombing was going to be bigger than a 'pinprick' but also 'unbelievably small.' It just did not add up."

It didn't "add up"? Oh really? Consider Peter Wehner's piece in Commentary entitled "The Obama Mythology Has Been Shattered" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/16/the-obama-mythology-has-been-shattered/#more-833252), which lists a "few" other contradictions which go missing from Friedman's op-ed:

"Taking in new information is fine; pursuing a policy characterized by head-snapping shifts, ambivalence, ineptness, and bipolarity is not.

Let’s see if we can help [White House press secretary Jay Carney] out by summarizing for him some (but hardly all) of his boss’s epic incompetence, starting with declaring that Bashar al-Assad must leave–and now taking steps that secure Assad’s grip on power. Then there’s the president warning the Syrian regime not to cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons–and doing nothing when it did (on several different occasions).

But there’s more, including President Obama promising to arm rebels attempting to overthrow Assad–and delaying doing so for many crucial months; indicating he’d by-pass Congress when it came to seeking a use-of-force resolution–and then shocking everyone, including his entire staff, by reversing direction; putting British Prime Minister Cameron in a position where he needed to go to Parliament for a vote in order to approve an imminent strike–and then pulling back from the strike, leaving Mr. Cameron hung out to dry; insisting that Assad must be militarily punished for using chemical weapons–and now pursuing a fruitless diplomatic strategy in which Assad will not be on the receiving end of a military strike. And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, who framed the conflict with Syria as (a) a 'Munich moment' before (b) assuring people that a strike against our modern-day Hitler would be 'incredibly small' followed by (c) engaging in negotiations destined to fail with the man he called 'thug' and 'murderer' who is guilty of committing a 'moral obscenity.'"

But heck, let's not hold the president accountable for this farce. After all, if we don't support the president's absurd pact with Putin, Friedman concludes that "Obama’s hair will not just be turned gray by the Middle East these next three years, he’ll go bald."

And so, a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary is born . . .

Maureen Dowd, "Losing the Room": Does Obama Suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Do you remember when Obama was running against Hillary in the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination? It seemed at the time that Maureen Dowd was head over heels in love with her "Barry," but some five years after the honeymoon, the wedding has soured. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Losing the Room" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/dowd-losing-the-room.html?_r=0), Dowd is finally confessing to irreconcilable differences with the president.

Puzzled by the manner in which Obama all but ignored the Navy Yard tragedy in Washington, Dowd writes:

"President Obama also gave a speech Monday, talking at the White House while the drama unfolded at the supposedly secure Navy Yard nearby. He could have posted his original remarks on the White House Web site and replaced them with a cri de coeur on gun control, or comfort for the shaken city. The 12 who died were, after all, under his aegis as workers in a federal building.

But, jarringly, the president went ahead with his political attack, briefly addressing the slaughter before moving on to jab Republicans over the corporate tax rate and resistance to Obamacare.

Just as with the address to the nation on Syria last week, the president went ahead with a speech overtaken by events. It was out of joint, given that the Senate was put into lockdown and the Washington Nationals delayed a night game against the Atlanta Braves, noting on its Web site, 'Postponed: Tragedy.'

The man who connected so electrically and facilely in 2008, causing Americans to overlook his thin résumé, cannot seem to connect anymore."

Obama's speech was "out of joint"? What a surprise! Or perhaps not . . .

Consider the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder listed by the Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms):

"Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

• Believing that you're better than others
• Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents
• Expecting constant praise and admiration
• Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
• Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
• Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
• Taking advantage of others
• Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
• Being jealous of others
• Believing that others are jealous of you
• Trouble keeping healthy relationships
• Setting unrealistic goals
• Being easily hurt and rejected
• Having a fragile self-esteem
• Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional"

Remind you of a certain someone?

The Obama presidency has indeed grown dysfunctional, and unfortunately the United States will need to wait another three and a half years before saying goodbye to this community organizer, who, as belatedly acknowledged by Dowd, never had the skills to be president.

Frank Bruni, "Hard Truths About Our Soft Bodies": Why Are You Fat? Because You Eat Too Much!

Did any of you pop green coffee bean extract pills after seeing the Dr. Oz Show (see: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/green-coffee-bean-project)? Did they help you lose weight?

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Hard Truths About Our Soft Bodies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/opinion/bruni-hard-truths-about-our-soft-bodies.html?_r=0), Frank Bruni confronts the issue of dieting. Bruni writes:

"And while the notion that we weigh too much because we buy, order and eat too much may be obvious, it’s increasingly obscured. Study after study and report upon report looks at more particular reasons for obesity and excess pounds, focusing on the edges and the aggravators of the problem instead of the flabby core. And the number and variety of these investigations, not to mention the prominent showcase we in the news media give them, create the impression that alchemy, not appetite, is our enemy, and that if we could just fine-tune our daily schedules, rejigger our protein-to-carbohydrate ratios or wallow sufficiently in fiber, all would be well.

. . . .

Yes, there are probably better and worse rhythms for daily eating; there are bad calories and good calories. The ones going into you may be sublime. Won’t matter, if you rack up enough of them."

Basically, I think Bruni is right. Your genes, of course, come into play, as do changes in metabolism that come with age, but bottom line, it all amounts to calories in, calories out.

Yes, I believe in the laws of physics, and sadly, green coffee bean extract is not going to do the work, i.e. exercise, for you.

Ruth Marcus, "Obama’s Style on Syria Needs Refashioning": Obama's "Scary" Presidential Conviction

The Obama presidency is fast coming apart at the seams when uber-liberal columnist Ruth Marcus terms Obama's thought processes "scary."

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s style on Syria needs refashioning" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-obamas-style-on-syria-needs-refashioning/2013/09/16/861b8bba-1efb-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html?hpid=z4), Marcus focuses on the president's claim that his Syria policy is being graded on "style" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html) and not on its outcome. Marcus writes:

"Style points? Seriously? Style points? That’s what President Obama thinks the criticism of his zigzag Syria policy amounts to?

As presidential spin, this is insulting. As presidential conviction — if this is what he really believes — it’s scary."

Well, no one better psychoanalyzes that "style" than Peter Wehner over at Commentary. In a piece entitled "The Obama Mythology Has Been Shattered" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/16/the-obama-mythology-has-been-shattered/#more-833252), Wehner observes:

"Taking in new information is fine; pursuing a policy characterized by head-snapping shifts, ambivalence, ineptness, and bipolarity is not.

Let’s see if we can help [White House press secretary Jay Carney] out by summarizing for him some (but hardly all) of his boss’s epic incompetence, starting with declaring that Bashar al-Assad must leave–and now taking steps that secure Assad’s grip on power. Then there’s the president warning the Syrian regime not to cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons–and doing nothing when it did (on several different occasions).

But there’s more, including President Obama promising to arm rebels attempting to overthrow Assad–and delaying doing so for many crucial months; indicating he’d by-pass Congress when it came to seeking a use-of-force resolution–and then shocking everyone, including his entire staff, by reversing direction; putting British Prime Minister Cameron in a position where he needed to go to Parliament for a vote in order to approve an imminent strike–and then pulling back from the strike, leaving Mr. Cameron hung out to dry; insisting that Assad must be militarily punished for using chemical weapons–and now pursuing a fruitless diplomatic strategy in which Assad will not be on the receiving end of a military strike. And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, who framed the conflict with Syria as (a) a 'Munich moment' before (b) assuring people that a strike against our modern-day Hitler would be 'incredibly small' followed by (c) engaging in negotiations destined to fail with the man he called 'thug' and 'murderer' who is guilty of committing a 'moral obscenity.'"

In my prior blog entry, I asked, regarding Obama's reference to "style" during his interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, whether the president was "delusional or just deceitful?" The answer to my own question is that I don't know.

But if Ruth Marcus is scared by Obama's behavior, how should the rest of us feel?

New York Times Editorial, "The Syrian Pact": Will Pradva Purchase the Morally Bankrupt New York Times?

Did you listen to Obama's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Friday (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/full-transcript-president-obamas-exclusive-interview-with-george-stephanopoulos/), during which Obama responded to claims of of confusion and incompetence surrounding his foreign policy? Note the president's stuttering interchange regarding Syria:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Senator Corker, Foreign Relations Committee, said– you’re not comfortable as Commander-In-Chief, it’s like watching a person who’s caged. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, “Words like ad-hoc, improvised, unsteady come to mind. This is probably the most undisciplined stretch of foreign policy in your presidency.” What do you make of that?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

Well– you know, I– I– I think that– folks here in Washington– like to grade on style. And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and– linear– they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy.

Well, Obama managed to roll out something that was lumpy, undisciplined and also disastrous, and after listening to his explanation, I found myself asking, is America's president delusional or just deceitful? Perhaps, as Obama's talk show host David Letterman recently observed (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/05/letterman_on_obamas_red_line_for_syria_the_guy_has_learned_how_to_bullshit.html):

"So, it's taken him five years, but finally the guy has learned how to bullshit."

How reassuring.

Today, after reading an editorial by The New York Times entitled "The Syrian Pact" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?_r=0), I find myself also asking, Is this newspaper's editorial board delusional or just deceitful? Or perhaps it can also be observed with respect to the Times, "It's taken them 162 years, but finally these guys and girls have also learned how to bullshit."

Let's have a look at this latest steaming horse apple cooked up by their editorial board:

"The United States-Russian agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal is remarkably ambitious and offers a better chance of deterring this threat than the limited military strikes that President Obama was considering.

Even so, the task of cataloging, securing and destroying President Bashar al-Assad’s poison gas cache — which Washington and Moscow have estimated at 1,000 tons — is daunting. It will require vigilance and commitment by the United Nations, with success ultimately dependent on the cooperation of Mr. Assad, whose forces are responsible for most of the 100,000 deaths in the brutal civil war, including what the United States says were more than 1,400 deaths in a chemical attack in August."

The agreement is "remarkably ambitious," and the task is "daunting"? Oh really? As was previously reported by the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all):

"'This situation has no precedent,' said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. 'They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.'"

Or stated otherwise, implementation of this "agreement" is not "doable." The Times editorial continues:

"The agreement avoids imminent American military action, but Mr. Assad will be responsible for providing security for United Nations inspectors, as well as access to sites and information. If he fails to dismantle his program, the Security Council resolution would authorize punitive measures. President Obama has said that American military action is still on the table."

Hmm, a mass murderer is now responsible for implementation of a "pact," which is counter to his own interests, but he can nevertheless be expected to abide by its terms. After all, if he doesn't comply, he is being faced with . . . ? Oh, that's right, he is not being faced with anything tangible or substantive.

The Times editorial states regarding Putin's diplomatic coup:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has undoubtedly elevated his stature in the Middle East with this diplomatic move. But he is now on the hook as he never was before to make sure that Mr. Assad does not use chemical weapons. Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims."

Putin is "on the hook"? Yeah, right. If Assad again uses chemical weapons, Putin will again pin the blame on the rebels. "It will be cynical and reprehensible if [Putin] continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms"? And I suppose this former KGB official is not already "cynical and reprehensible"?

As acknowledged by Jeffrey Goldberg in a Bloomberg article entitled "New Syria Agreement Is a Big Victory. For Assad." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-15/everyone-wins-with-new-syria-agreement-except-syrians-.html):

"By partnering with Russia and the West on the disarmament process, a process that is meant to last into 2014 (and most likely won’t be finished for years, even if it is carried out in good faith, which is a big 'if'), Assad has made himself indispensable. A post-Assad regime wouldn’t necessarily be party to this agreement, and might not even go through the motions. Syria, post-Assad, might very well be more fractured and chaotic than it is now, which is to say, even less of an environment in which United Nations weapons inspectors could safely go about their work. The U.S. now needs Assad in place for the duration. He’s the guy, after all, whose lieutenants know where the chemical weapons are.

This agreement represents a victory for Putin for fairly obvious reasons: He is the leader of a second-tier power who has nevertheless made himself into the new power player of the Middle East (he’s heading off to Iran now for discussions on its nuclear program). He has shown up an American president, and he will be considered, by the perpetually naive at least, to be something akin to a peacemaker, when, in fact, he’s a bloody-minded autocrat."

In case you didn't know, Goldberg is one of Obama's best media friends. Yup, this is all one big disaster.

Next we are told by the Times:
 

"President Obama deserves credit for putting a focus on upholding an international ban on chemical weapons and for setting aside military action at this time in favor of a diplomatic deal. The Syria crisis should demonstrate to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, that Mr. Obama, who has held out the possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, is serious about a negotiated solution. Mr. Obama’s disclosure that he had indirectly exchanged messages with Mr. Rouhani was encouraging."

Obama's wavering, amorphous policy vis-a-vis Assad, which will one day be written up in "Profiles in Cowardice," will encourage Iran to reach a peaceful negotiation regarding its nuclear weapons program? Cut the crap! Iran has learned that "As President of the United States, Obama does bluff" (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/).

The editorial concludes:

"There are many uncertainties ahead, including what the administration will do to support the Syrian opposition. Now that Russia and the United States have reached a deal, there’s reason to hope this cooperation will help advance an overall peace settlement for Syria."

Which brings us back to the title of this New York Times editorial: "The Syrian Pact." A "pact"? Like the "Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" or a pact with the devil? In any event, there is no reason whatsoever to hope that Assad, a mass murderer, will abide by its terms.

Make no mistake about it: The New York Times long ago lost its credibility, and for the sake of good order, it should now toss aside its ethical journalism handbook and proudly advertise itself as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration. The Times is morally bankrupt and failing financially, but maybe, after its publication of Putin's propaganda opinion piece (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/vladimir-putin-plea-for-caution-from.html), Pravda might be willing to buy a controlling interest and keep it afloat for a few more years.

Thomas Friedman, "When Complexity Is Free": As Told by a Simpleton

Anxious to tell us what he learned on a field trip to a General Electric research lab in Niskayuna, Thomas Friedman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When Complexity Is Free" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/friedman-when-complexity-is-free.html?pagewanted=all), begins by demeaning the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Friedman writes:

"IT’S easy to be depressed about America these days. We’ve got messes aplenty abroad and the Republican-dominated House of Representatives is totally paralyzed. Indeed, the G.O.P.-led House has become a small-minded, parochial place, where collaboration is considered treason, where science is considered a matter of opinion, where immigration is considered a threat, where every solution is a suboptimal compromise enacted at midnight and where every day we see proof of the theory that America is a country that was 'designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots.'"

Don't get me wrong: I'm not fond of Republicans. I'm not fond of Democrats. I'm not fond of politicians.

But heck, I don't know how Friedman can come down on the House today, after witnessing Obama, Kerry and Hagel's recent Keystone Cop routine involving Syria.

Today's "deal" with Russia, providing Obama with a ladder to climb down from his tree, has compromised America's credibility and power of deterrence for years to come. (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-us-and-russia-reach-deal.html). Meanwhile, Assad will continue to terrorize Syrian civilians with the threat of sarin gas.

But why should Friedman, a would-be Middle East expert, express an opinion on anything so banal?

At a time like this, I suppose it's better to focus on jet engine parts.

Maureen Dowd, "My So-Called C.I.A. Life": Hollywood, Langley and the Funeral Business All Involve Plots

We have slain a large dragon. But we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. And in many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of.

- R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence, 1993–1995

Not unlike "A Game of Thrones," the snakes remain, but the dragon is on its way back. Thank you, Barack and John. Thank you, Vladimir.

"Homeland"? I don't think I can bring myself to watch it.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "My So-Called C.I.A. Life" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/dowd-my-so-called-cia-life.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd describes a meeting between the actors and writers of "Homeland" and some "C.I.A. folk" at Langley:

"Alex Gansa, the co-creator and show runner of 'Homeland,' called the two-hour meeting at Langley with his stars, writers and executives and a flock of C.I.A. officers 'a frank and free exchange about the entertainment business and the intelligence business that revealed a lot of parallels.' He added dryly, 'We both build sets. We both play roles. And we both brainstorm, about operations on their side and storylines on ours.'"

A lot of parallels? I don't know anything about the CIA, and I know little about Hollywood. My one attempt at a screenplay some 15 years ago - involving a CIA effort to destroy a certain Middle East atomic weapons facility carved into a mountain - was ultimately rejected. Of course, both Langley and Hollywood involve plots, as does the funeral business.

But I wonder how many of the stars and writers of "Homeland" are suffering from PTSD as a result of their association with the show?

I wonder how many of the stars can truly imagine what it is for a field agent to be stressed beyond human limits, alone and without a director waiting to cry, "Let's call that a wrap!," thereby putting an end to his or her unbearable anxiety. The long-term effects of such anxiety? Obviously, it varies from one individual to the next.

I also wonder if anyone from "Homeland" is familiar, for example, with the circumstances surrounding the death of an American hero named William Francis Buckley in 1985, after his capture by Hezbollah in Lebanon?

Perhaps, if they wish to sleep nights, they're better off not knowing.