[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

-I.M. Windee

*****************************************************************************

An imperfect system of governing (and citizen mindset) doesn’t force the wisdom of Obama on us

*****************************************************************************

When it comes to the mindset of President Obama, everything revolves around government and government has all of the solutions, if we just have the good sense to let it address our problems. To our president, a society is judged, and problems solved, by its government and not its people. This despite whatever perfunctory remarks he may make on the campaign trail or elsewhere about individualism and the right of people to run their own lives. In fact, in a moment of candor, Mr. Obama likely would wonder why the pilgrims who came ashore in the early 1500s did not immediately establish a large entitlement state run by government. Surely that would have alleviated the high mortality rate they experienced in the first years here.

And anyone who disagrees with his government-centric view of the world is either malevolent (Conservatives/Republicans) or not evolved (the large groups of polled people who think government spending is out of control). So these people are to be ignored and the policy juggernaut of ever-growing government must proceed unabated. Eventually, when force-fed socialism a la Europe, people will fall into an msg-like acquiescence and accept, even if just in a daze, that government is the only answer. Orwell could not have scripted this reality better or more believably in a novel.

11th Century Hawaiian King Canute showed the limits of his power; President Obama believes his powers are limitless

_______________________________________________________

But the president’s critics gets it wrong when they suggest that Mr. Obama is not to be trusted as John Boehner and Republicans generally don’t believe Mr.  Obama.

The mindset of the president seems to be one of an infallible and absolute ruler, not necessarily that of someone intentionally duplicitous. In his view, it is the imperfection of our system that he is not allowed to impose his will and polices on this country without question. This is evidenced by his actions after the election in which he by no means won a convincing mandate but he and his Liberal wingmen acted as though they not only won a landslide of FDR or Nixon proportions but that the election also changed the constitution and vested in him absolute authority to impose his will. If the Republicans in the House did not go along, it was only because they were tone-deaf to this high-pitched whistle that only Liberals could somehow discern. Nonetheless, Liberals believe Republicans should rubber-stamp his agenda and how dare they if they don’t!

And where did he get such a belief that he should be completely deferred to? Predominantly by defeating the Clinton machine.

A mere 5 years ago, Mr. Obama was a long-shot taking on one of the best political machines known to history: the Clintons. Going into 2008, few people who followed politics really believed that the rookie senator from Illinois was any match for Arkansas’ national political version of Bonnie & Clyde. After so effectively dispatching their adversaries in the 1990s, Hillary (and Bill ["2 for the price of 1"]) would easily win the 2008 Democratic nomination. But with an effective grass-roots campaign as well as an electorate weary of insiders given the financial meltdown, Mr. Obama capitalized on his luck and the pupil taught the teacher (to this day, no one, including Republicans, is more amazed and flummoxed at Mr. Obama’s ascension than Bill and Hillary Clinton). Thus, in President Obama’s belief, he has earned the right by virtue of his Herculean electoral accomplishments to get what he wants, despite what pesky documents like the Constitution say.

As the never-ending sequester talks drag on, Speaker Boehner and Republicans would do well to realize that they are dealing with a take no prisoners politician in the president. He will only respond (and compromise in fact and not just word) when he is faced with political defeat or the threat thereof.

-I.M. Windee

*****************************************************************************

A super-size culture promotes excess from diet to weaponry to the internet to personal finance and beyond

*****************************************************************************

Yesterday,, a  New York Supreme Court judge halted Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to ban the  sale of super size sugary sodas from restaurants and most other  venues.

The mayor, in a never-ending attempt to promote the nanny state,  was set to implement a prohibition on restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban was set to begin today.

Combined with Mr. Bloomberg’s war on privately-held guns, it would be understandable for anyone with a libertarian streak to think the mayor’s role for government is a bit too intrusive in people’s lives.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Guns with the banana-clips like above can blast out over 60 rounds in seconds; the Big Gulp can give a potentially deadly blast of over 300 calories

_____________________________________________________________________________

But Hizzoner stumbles into a truth when he asks soda drinkers and gun-owners to find reasonable ground.

The fact is, we live in an age of excess. No longer is a shot-gun or 6-shooter adequate. For all too many, only a weapon that can discharge 60+ rounds in a matter of seconds will do. Gonna say something to the world? Do it on the internet where countless people can see it for time immemorial and, by all means, the more salacious the better. Buying a house or car? No amount of debt is unreasonable (party like it’s 1929!). And whether it’s liquor, soda or food, make sure you crawl away from the dinner table semi-comatose a la Caligula (this author can be rightfully accused of such gluttony).

While Mayor Mike may have stepped on people’s toes by questioning their constitutional right to destructive behavior, he has inadvertently performed a public service by pointing out that we can do much better when it comes to restraining ourselves.

-I.M. Windee

*****************************************************************************

Another ossified government agency proves it should be taken out of existence

*****************************************************************************

Recently, the  U.S. Postal Service announced that Saturday mail may soon be eliminated for  everything except packages to stem its financial losses in a world radically changed by the internet.

“Our  financial condition is urgent,” declared Postmaster General Patrick R.  Donahoe.

The Postal  Service, which suffered a $15.9 billion loss in the past budget year, said it  expected to save $2 billion annually with the Saturday cutback. The bulk of the reason for its financial woes is rich  wages and benefits that are in-congruent with what they charge and can charge, the  fruits of having unionized labor.

The plan accentuates one of the agency’s strong points: Package delivery has increased by 14 percent since 2010, officials say, while the delivery of letters and  other mail has plummeted. Email has decreased the mailing of paper letters, but online purchases have increased package shipping, forcing the Postal Service to adjust to customers’ new habits.

“Things change,” Donahoe said. Indeed they do.

Since this vehicle doesn’t make the post office money delivering mail, how about converting it into a mobile food truck? Taxi? Roving billboard?

_____________________________________________________________________

The main reason that the U.S. post office was established in the constitution was to connect a very fragmented nation with poor to non-existent infrastructure. That has clearly changed since the 1780s with the telephone and internet. Thus in the 20th century did the postal service became more of a patronage institution that gave constituents jobs which provided services that became less and less needed by the public. The various ideas to change the post office’s core mission from letter delivery to landlord or other unrelated activities underscores the fact that this is about jobs and not delivery of a vital service to the public.

And a failure to keep up with “a-changin’ times” is why revenues are decreasing, resulting from the service’s arcane business model and widespread lousy customer service.

The post office would have done itself well if it got more involved in electronic communications as opposed to assuming that the same technology to communicate in a non-face-to-face manner 200 years ago (letters) would be around forever.

As to customer service, 2 (of many) negative events stick out in this writer’s mind regarding the postal services’ legendary approach to customer service.

One occurred in the late 1980s while working a summer job in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey during college. Having been delegated to get more postage for the meter in the office, the bad decision was made to go there 15 minutes before the office closed. There was a bearded, professorial sage who worked the counter and had no qualms about holding up people on line to finish his highly unimportant and numerous soliloquies with customers he yapped with (probably also had the coffee mug that had “Ask me if I give a damn” like any government worker who is just taking space). Approaching the counter with the machine, he had an irritated look and manner and sternly said “never bring this machine in after 4:30.” This transaction was going to make him end his work day and walk out of the office a few minutes later than he thought he should, perhaps at the risk of his body parts falling off (a fear many salaried government workers have).

The other occurrences have been snow days. Despite the Norman Rockwell impressions that mail carriers will go the extra distance, most will not get out of their truck to place mail in mailboxes if there is snow by it that prevents them from pulling the truck up. This despite the fact that many are in sore need of some exercise.

With the customer-first approach of private delivery services, and the convenience of communicating over the internet, why should anyone consider the postal service.

Perhaps “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night” but definitely a well and hard negotiated union contract will prevent “the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

-I.M. Windee

*****************************************************************************

Nowadays, when you make a boo-boo, the world can know instantly; so why let it?

*****************************************************************************

The label of “hero” has been rightfully pointed out by amongst others, The Wall Street Journal editorial board, as a promiscuously applied moniker. Recently, it has also taken a hit with the stories of Lance Armstrong and Manti Te’o who have been revealed as flawed heroes: in other words, human‏.

Today, with the mass application of the title hero to and celebritization of those who would have had a Scarlett Letter  social standing 50 years ago (see: the Kardashians), this presents a problem as almost inevitably many ostensible heroes will show their weaknesses and thus be labeled as less than perfect and flawed. Perhaps the term “flawed hero” is itself a redundancy in terms.  Assuming “hero” will always be a title ascribed only to humans, and given that all humans are flawed, we must then accept that so too will all of our heroes be imperfect.

For many centuries, the town crier was one of the only forms of mass communication that could reach only people within his earshot. Now, social media can spread news, savory and otherwise, around the world in nano-seconds to a countless number of people. User beware!

__________________________________________

In Mr. Te’o’s story, the Notre Dame football player claimed to have a girlfriend who died, he did not as she did not exist  and someone tricked him into believing such, with his extraordinary gullible help.  Jason Gay of The Wall Street Journal observed that “it is easy to see in Te’o’s story the treacherous creep of melodrama into sports—the insistence that every good athletic accomplishment be supplemented by a heart-rending tale” (“The Truth About Te’o’s Truth”, January 25, 2013). Te’o’s embarrassment (to the extent such arcane phenomena still exists with people under 40) is the byproduct of our “bare-all” culture that a large portion of society has devolved into. The “rocket booster,” to borrow a term from Journal editorialist Dan Henninger, for this emotional glasnost is social media (Facebook, twitter). No matter how you’re feeling and regardless of the superficiality (or stupidity) of the thought, you share it with the world, immediately and unfiltered. For all too many, this is their 15 megabytes of fame, to play on Andy Warhol’s thought, even if few care let alone pay attention to such mind droppings (see: “Facebook: People’s 15 Megabytes of Fame”, The Daily Yap, August 7, 2011).

And athletes and entertainers as well as the rest of society buy into this which works well and therapeutically except until the revelation shows the foible(s) of human nature, as in Te’o’s case. Suddenly, what seemed like an inspirational story a la Lou Gehrig’s farewell address turns into an embarrassing admission of bad judgment which is all too common amongst all of us and better left private.

Maybe the pre-1960s generations were on to something by not gracing the world with every psychological or emotional flatulation they experienced.

-I.M. Windee

*****************************************************************************

As Mrs. Clinton does her Secretary of State farewell tour, we should ponder if we really want her as President in 2017

*****************************************************************************

Hillary Clinton is doing a farewell tour as she wraps up a stint as Secretary of State. As she is jockeying herself for a possible run at president in 2016, it is important to think about who she (and her husband) really are. While this page has listed some of their sins (“Clinton Nostalgia,” September 12, 2012), the most recent transgression and perhaps the one that sums up the thoroughly
political animals that both she and her husband are is the Benghazi fiasco in which 4 U.S. foreign service officers were murdered in large part because of inadequate security which Mrs. Clinton was ultimately responsible for.

At Senate hearings last week, Democrats praised her effusively and forgot why she was there: Benghazi. It was surreal how what was supposed to be a thoughtful inquiry into the avoidable murder of this country’s ambassador to Libya and 3 other foreign service officers degenerated into what Liberals characterized as the rough treatment of the delicate and dainty Hillary Clinton. Chris Matthews was even babbling on his MSNBC blather session how her Republican senatorial inquisitors were speaking to her in a degrading way because of her gender; never mind that there’s clear evidence (including her own admission) that she was negligent in protecting the consulate that was attacked and a full discussion of such could save lives in the future. Substance be damned; this is all about protecting a prospective presidential candidate in 2016 who is a Liberal darling. Sometimes you have to ignore a few murdered people to save a political career. And regarding her acceptance of responsibility, she and her media enablers will draw a line no later than 2015 that this subject is off-limits should she run for president. So much of an assumption of responsibility by her.

Just like Houdini, the Clintons are escape artists…from responsibility

_____________________________________________________

But perhaps a better question the senators could have asked is who would ever want to work in some foreign outpost wrought with danger if they know that their country and a President Hillary Clinton may not adequately protect them and then whitewash any such failure in the name of politics?

And it can’t be missed how the death of people associated with the Clintons means little if anything to them: from Bill Clinton’s smiling at his commerce secretary Ron Brown’s funeral to their political damage-control response to Vince Foster’s death to Ambassador Chris Stevens’ unnecessary murder, the Clinton’s are utterly unmoved by anything except their own political interests.

With friends like the Clintons, who needs mortal enemies? Better yet, shouldn’t this disqualify her from being president?

-I.M. Windee

*****************************************************************************

More than anyone, Liberals and their standard camel’s nose in the tent tactic are to blame for resistance to sensible gun-control

*****************************************************************************

Going on one month from the Newtown massacre, the push for sensible gun-control has lost steam. That’s too bad especially as no one has yet to present a coherent reason as to why anyone outside of the military would need a semi-automatic weapon of the kind used in Newtown. It’s especially also a shame as the vast bulk of National Rifle Association members likely don’t see a need for, let alone use, such weapons of mass destruction.

But the unspoken reason of why few people who are not part of the gun-control crowd are ambivalent to eliminating semi-automatic weapons rests with what most people see as Liberals’ true goal: the elimination of private ownership and possession of all guns, from hand-guns to rifles to semi-automatics.

Liberals use the camel’s nose in the tent tactic for their agenda

_________________________________________________

Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case before it which had at issue whether the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms applied to individual citizens. The usual Liberal suspects gave sympathy if not full-throated support to the position that it only pertained to the military. There is irony in this as the unenumerated right to privacy (which was used in Roe v. Wade) is clearly a constitutional right in Liberal minds, even though not in the text of the constitution, but the enumerated right to bear arms cannot be seen through the Liberal lens.

And the legislative track record of Liberals suggests that once the camel has its nose in the tent, the full body of the Liberal agenda will come in right behind it.

To wit, FDR’s well-intentioned program of social security and work programs has mutated into a panoply of social engineering that even Mr. Roosevelt would not recognize as a progeny of his Depression-era remedies, let alone fully agree with.

When it comes to fiscal matters, Liberals went from deficit scolds of the 1980s to borrow and spend profligates in the last several years. When the U.S. ran its first ever trillion dollar deficit in 2009, Liberals promised that it was a one-off resulting from the financial crisis. Four years later, trillion dollar deficits are the new norm and anyone who would try to pare such back is accused of suggesting painful austerity that threatens the middle-class if not humanity at large.

Even today in a press-conference that the president held, Mr. Obama said regarding more gun-control “if there is a step to saving even one child…..we should take that step.” Taken literally, one could interpret such to mean taking hand-guns and rifles out of the hands of citizens. Surely that would save one child, albeit it a great cost.

So while Liberals agonize over why the public is not rushing en masse to take unnecessary weapons like semi-automatics off the streets, they should look at themselves and their relentless agendas, along with an uncompromising posture as evidenced by their standard-bearer Barack Obama, as the reason for opposition to sensible gun laws.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Candidate Obama the dove is thankfully not President Obama the realist

*********************************************************************

It’s difficult to recall now but a mere 4 years ago the war on terror was an issue that the citizenry gave thought to, albeit well behind the financial and economic collapse. During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama was an unabashed dove and critic of virtually everything the Bush administration did regarding the war on terror.

That was then.

In the 4 years since Mr. Obama has occupied the oval office, he has been (rightfully) brutal in liquidating terrorists, predominantly through drone strikes. Last week was yet another example in which Pakistani militant Mullah Nazir was killed by a drone strike. Many other Taliban and Al Queda leaders and operatives have been cashiered in such manner from the Arabian peninsula to Pakistan thanks to Mr. Obama’s firm grasp of the reality that people sworn to the destruction of the west generally, and the U.S. in specific, are best ushered out of this world and into the next one, post haste. The crown jewel of Mr. Obama’s terror war has been the killing of Osama bin Laden, which he deserves full credit for taking the chance despite that the operation could have gone badly, especially as it was on Pakistan soil.

President Obama the hawk beats candidate Obama the dove

______________________________________________________

Good arguments can be made that a better course of action would be to apprehend terrorists whenever reasonably possible for the purpose of information-gathering and it’s not a stretch to think that, ironically, the liberal Mr. Obama is more comfortable with a dead terrorist than having to figure out where to imprison a live one, especially given Liberals’ dyspepsia over Guantanamo. But the next best thing to a live terrorist in our possession is a dead one.

And the President’s war strategy of neutralization does not stop on the battlefield.

Realizing and accepting that this is not your conventional war fought just with guns, the president signed a bill last week that renewed the 2008  amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that were due to expire at the end of 2012, with no substantive changes to a law that had Liberals howling was a slippery slope into George Orwell’s 1984. It preserves one of the country’s most important post-9/11 anti-terror tools: wiretapping

With all the wailing about broken government and a lack of bi-partisanship, it can’t be missed that the House passed the five-year extension that the White House desired, 301 to 118 and the Senate approved it 73-23 before Mr. Obama signed it with no fanfare at all.

Perhaps it’s easier to pass this kind of legislation when the public is ostensibly focused on economic issues (despite re-electing the president). But a better read is now that we are 4 years displaced from the anti-Bush fever swamps, politicians are beginning to look at this very serious matter and realize it requires the urgency and approach that the Bush administration gave it. No longer having Dick Cheney to carry the spear on this matter also puts the onus on congress to act like grown-ups.

For anyone who doubts Mr. Obama’s hawkish views, last week President Obama also signed a defense-policy bill into law, The National Defense Authorization Act, which amongst other things keeps Guantanamo Bay open. This caused a predictable response by human-rights advocates that he was breaking a promise to close the terrorist-detention system set up by his predecessor, George W. Bush. (Note to such advocates: find candidate Obama to convince as President Obama is a realist)

All of this shows that while Mr. Obama, not unlike presidential candidates of all stripes, will say whatever it takes on the campaign trail to win an election, he will do whatever necessary to protect the country even if he steps on Liberals’ toes.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

What if the whales don’t want to be saved nor the donations made?

*********************************************************************

Once again, a ritual that extends back to the beginning of  whales has occurred: one  beached itself  last week on the southern shore of Long Island.

The animal was emaciated; at  60 feet long, it should have weighed around 60 tons although it weighed only around 30 tons, said Robert DiGiovanni Jr., executive director of the Riverhead Foundation on Long Island, the officially designated marine-mammal rescue group for the region. “It was clearly sick for a very long time,” Mr. DiGiovanni said.

The possible causes of the whale’s death are many, said Allison McHale, a spokeswoman for the National Marine Fisheries Service. It could have contracted any number of viral or bacterial diseases, been struck by a ship, or the animal could have been mortally injured long enough ago that no injuries were visible. Though the whale, whose age and sex were not yet known, would be small for an adult finback, it was also possible that this whale was an adult and lived out its full lifespan – finbacks, the second-biggest whale after blue whales, can live to be 90 years old.

To solve these mysteries, Mr. DiGiovanni’s team will oversee an open-air necropsy in the coming days, in the dunes nearby.

___________________________________________________________

Picture by Todd Maisel/New YorkDaily News

Breezy Point volunteer firefighter Ed Manley tried to calm the whale. Was it struggling to stay alive or move on to that great Sea World in the sky?

___________________________________________________________

While whales are beautiful animals, along with every other animal on this planet, the extraordinary steps taken to save it and investigate its death seem…..well….extraordinary. And perhaps the term “unnecessary” also comes to mind, at least when it came to saving the whale.

All of the possibilities mentioned above, and no doubt many others not listed, suggest that this whale went through that integral and unavoidable segment of the life process that every other living entity that has ever existed since the beginning of time, from human being to animal to microbe, has also experienced: it ultimately experienced its mortality.

Why is the human reaction, at least in some quarters, always to intervene and pre-determine that it is not the time for the whale to die? What special information do these sages know that the rest of us don’t?

What if the whale was dying of old age or some terrible disease and it decided to go to a final resting place, a whale hospice of sorts, to live out its final time in this world? Did it deserve to have humans prodding and poking at it in its finals hours as it might have been reflecting on a long, rich life that included a big family (kids graduated from college and have their own pods) as well as all those delicious feasts on crustaceans, krill, squid and fish? Do whales now need a living will to die in peace?

In view of the fact that whales and other animals have been dying for time immemorial and that well over 99% of all species that ever existed were extinct long before humanity came onto the scene (can’t blame the demise of T-Rex on Union Carbide), there is a sense of hubris on those Good Samaritans who think they always know better than nature as to when animals should die.

*************************************************

One of the great ironies during this fiscal cliff debate, which is effectively centered on taxes and their impact on the economy, is how Liberals are schizophrenic on the subject.

In this debate, President Obama and congressional Democrats are adamant that taxes should not increase for people who have annual income of less than $250,000 per year but are completely untroubled by increasing taxes on people over such threshold who, in large part, hire such lower income taxpayers. Somehow, the poison is fatal to one group but not the other or the rich can afford the antidote or whatever. Good thing these Democrats are not in the medical profession although with Obamacare they effectively are.

This same inconsistency carries over into another Liberal precinct: public radio.

New York City’s public radio station has been hawking their end-of-year pledge drive by selling the idea that people can reduce their tax bills through a donation to them. This is rich stuff as while public radio goes to great lengths to maintain a veneer of non-ideological balance during these cash round-ups, they almost always say in the next breath that they are not part of the “shrill” and “bloviating” media out there; a clear swipe at conservative media in general and conservatives specifically.

And anyone who thinks that a survey of public radio’s staff would not reveal at least 80% of them to be ideologically left of Nancy Pelosi, which clearly must skew their work-product leftward, I’ve got some Greek bonds to sell to you at a premium.

But the dirty little not-so-secret is that no matter how many stories public radio does on corporate greed, the much-maligned “rich”, or those allegedly avaricious bankers (amongst other demons du jour), Liberals have been and always will be as tied to money as the rest of us are, even if they’re unwilling to admit it.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Suddenly Liberals find a right that people shouldn’t have

*********************************************************************

There are a great ironies regarding the apoplexy that Liberals are experiencing over Michigan’s latest decision to become a “right to work” state.

First, “right to work” adds to worker rights: specifically, the right of an individual to choose whether to be in a union or not. As Liberals are usually the first to bellow for an individual’s maximum rights (i.e. the right to privacy [abortion], the right to virtually all free speech, the right to relieve oneself in the town square, etc.), it is passing strange that they are against this increase in rights. Could they be saying that all individuals are better served when resources are kept with the few (i.e. member dues funneled to union leadership who can then represent the workers)? If so, then perhaps keeping wealth with what they characterize as the evil 1% is best so that all are better served as it is the wealthy who own businesses that hire.

Second, Liberals are bellyaching about non-unionized workers benefiting from union-negotiated bargaining. The term “sponging” has even been used. This is a far cry from them of just 2 months ago when they hung Mitt Romney in the court of public opinion for even suggesting that there are people who take and benefit from the system without giving back in full. Why can’t Liberals just think of the non-unionized workers to be part of the “Romney 47%” that, based upon last campaign’s rhetoric, are a protected class?

Perhaps the best way to interpret their inconsistencies is that they believe it’s ok to take from the 1% but not from union coffers.

-I.M. Windee