What is the President's Problem?

I am starting to wonder about the President. I never pegged him as disciple of the "American Exceptionalism" school of thought. But the more I listen to the way he talks, acts and the way he is planning to act, and the more concerned I get.

Example 1: He bows. To most people, I am sure, bowing is something quaint and anachronistic. Something that you do mockingly or to assuage someone's feelings when you patronize them politely. It is not something that Americans do. Period. We are citizens. We are not subjects of any potentate, foreign or domestic. We have made this clear from the beginning. Ever notice how at the Olympics our flag does not dip? Its part of the point. We will show respect, but we do not bow.

However, President Obama does not seem to get this. In his first 100 days, he bowed not once but twice. President Obama's staff have tried to dance around this, but it is clear that he did in fact bow. One only bows to someone they acknowledge as being superior in some way. At best, on a good day, foreign monarchs (from whatever land), are equals to the President of the United States. To acknowledge them as superior is a symbol, one that we do not want to establish.

Example 2: Obama and Hugo Chavez. Let's not mince words about who Hugo Chavez is. Hugo Chavez is a convicted felon who somehow managed to ride a wave of populism to being elected president of Venezuela. He does not respect the political process unless it benefits him. His felony? That would have been an attempt at violently overthrowing the government while he was a soldier. Once in power, he has worked systematically to undermine democratic institutions, nationalizing the property of those who don't agree with his brand of socialism/marxism, and routinely blames everything on the United States as a way of deflecting his own authoratarian abuses.

Hugo Chavez's abuses of power are many. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have catalogued a number of abuses including attacks on human rights groups and freedom of expression. Other organizations have found that there have been extra-judicial killings (i.e. death squads) composed of members of Venezuelan security forces, election tampering, and neutralized the power of the courts to impartially ensure that justice is done.

So what does President Obama do with the first opportunity to be in the same room with Hugo Chavez? What would you expect someone who criticized the Bush Adminsitration so heavily for its decisions with regards to rights of terrorists or American citizens wanting to be free from arbitrary surveillance?



That's right, our President walked right up to Chavez and shook his hand and talked with him like they were compadres. Let's see, how have we treated other people who shook hands with authoritarians who trample on human rights? Well, how about...Donald Rumsfeld (who at the time was not the President of the United States or even the Secretary of Defense). Because there was never any outrage over that by human rights groups.

Simply put, it was wrong to shake Saddam Hussein's hand. It was wrong to shake Hugo Chavez's hand. Why should we be giving President Obama a pass on this?

Going beyond the real lack of outrage is the message that this sends. It says, violate human rights, work at destroying democratic institutions, and continue to erode at personal freedoms and there will be no response from the United States. It says that our president, the one whom we have elected, is comfortable treating those who perform acts which we as a nation say we abhor the same or better than our long-time allies who do their best to uphold the ideals of liberty.

Yeah, great job at remaking American diplomacy so far.

So what brought all this up? Apparently, Obama's staff has been talking to reporters about what is being bandied about as possibiities for his upcoming visit to Europe in June. Part of that is attending D-Day ceremonies in France. However, there is also word that President Obama is planning on visiting one of the concentration camps in Germany.

That would be fine. However, he also plans to make a visit to Dresden where President Obama, "will also acknowledge how Germany suffered during the Second World War." Acknowledge how Germany suffered?

Let's see. Germany started World War II. They engaged in a warfare with no limits when it came to respecting the distinction between civillians and combatants from the very beginning in Poland. They then went on to continue this policy by specifically targetting civilian populations of Poland in general and certain ethnic groups in particular. Forget the idea that it was just a few nasty apples at the top. These actions were supported, in many cases enthusiastically, by the general population (see Hitler's Willing Executioners by Goldfarb). Most German resistance to the war did not come until well after it was clear that they were losing the war. And what resistance there was came from the classes that stood to lose the most because of Hitler's actions, mainly mismanagement, not because they necessarily disagreed with the underlying purposes.

Apologizing to Germany for their losses in the Second World War would be akin to a rape victim having to apologize to a rapist for testifying at the trial that convicts them. If anything, we should make sure that the Germans never, ever forget what happens when they choose militaristic authoritarianism (something they had done more than once before their final defeat in 1945).

But it seems that President Obama is seeing if people are ready for him to apologize on behalf of the United States for actions we took during the war. In paritcular, it looks like he wants to apologize for Dresden. At the time it was decided to use all available means to bring the war to an end. That meant destroying everything that could support the war effort. Industry, railways, marshalling yards and the like. Dresden was one of the last communication centers supporting the German defense against the Soviet advance from the East.

Anyways, if this is what President Obama wants to do, then I seriously question what his motives are. If he wants to apologize for sins committed by this nation, then he should apologize for ones which we actually have committed. There have been more than a few in the last few administrations. But apologizing for something in the Second World War to the Germans, a war instigated by Germany, is stupid, senseless, and equates the sacrifices of the men who served the Allied cause with those who served the Axis forces.

That is just abhorrent.

So this brings me back to my original question. What is the President's problem? Is he what I call a "Little American", one who wants so badly to believe that this country is evil and sinful that he must hobble it all costs? That he has accepted the idea of moral equivalence, and simply does not believe that there is such a thing as evil or wrong? Does he believe that the key to serving the United States is to make us "popular" with the world, instead of making us an example?

If the answer is yes to these questions, this is very, very disturbing.

Dancing With The Stars Recap

Yes, I know, I haven't been blogging it like I used to. Been busy. That work thing.

First I have to apologize to all you who voted out there. Thank you for finally ditching the loser of the bunch! I can safely say I have never been so happy to see the backside of Julianne as when Chuck got voted off two weeks ago. Sanity and order returned to the universe.

Then there was this week. I am still a bit shocked. I know that intellectually, it might even make sense. I am sure that if you probably pulled the demographics, they will show that the audience is not necessarily inclined to vote for Lil Kim. But with the way she had been dancing, and I think, just as importantly, the way she had been behaving on the show, that should have merited a bit of consideration from the audience.

Seriously. What. Were. You. Thinking. Voting. Her. Off?



Don't get me wrong, I love watching Ty dance. The man has committed himself fully to this competition. He just is not good enough to be in the final four. The fact that Chelsea has gotten him this far is, in my opinion, a minor miracle. He has, to my knowledge, no foundation in dance in general or ballroomin particular. I would be willing to bet he probably has some injuries that make this difficult. He is clearly, and painfully, an introvert. Which makes it hard, and sometimes painful to watch.



And you know he did this just because his wife begged him to saying "C'mon honey, it'll be fun to do it together." At a certain point, you have to let this guy slink back to the shadows where he so wants to be, with his wife. I like him, but really, he needs to go back to audience seats and appreciate that he was the Cinderalla at this big dance.

Now about the state of things in general. The front runner is clearly Giles and Cheryl. However, they are not putting any real distance between themselves and the rest of the pack when it comes to showing that they deserve to be. Yes, they got good scores this past week. However, I was watching it, and felt completely underwhelemed. Are they pacing themselves, viewing this past week as a cruise week while they secretly build for what is to come, husbanding their strength and avoiding further injury?



I hope so. Otherwise, the semifinal and final are going to be a snoozers. Cheryl has won this twice. I think everyone has come to expect a certain level from her when it comes to choreography. Giles is apparently up to it. Let's see the front runers act like it.

At this point, second place and making a charge of it is Melissa and Tony. It was a nice bounce back from last week's injury. The question for her is really how much stress can those ribs take.



If they can't take it, Tony is not going to be able to put her through the more rigorous choreography he needs to use to avoid a repeat of Stacy Keibler.



And since it looks like it will be Cheryl in the final against Tony, I think he should remember how well that fared against her Save a Horse routine.

Then we have Shawn Johnson. When this started, I thought she was going to hang in close and then pull it out at the end. However, she seems to be fading more. The last few dances have just not worked for her. It is not that she lacks the ability. Its that she is unable to cut loose and enjoy herself, or at least appear to enjoy it. Whenever she is in a flirty/sultry latin dance, she becomes a bit hesitant, tenative. She does well in the jive and the smooth dances where she can be a lady. But it is clear that she is not comfortable with the sensaul side of herself. She needs to find that, or she is going to be watching the finals from the audience seats next to the stars of whatever show ABC wants to promo this week.

Macy Update (the Landlords From Hell, Not the Chain)

Doing my weekly sweep for news on what is happening with the Kip and Nicole Macy trial, I came across two articles from the SFWeekly. Apparently, all may not be well in the utopia that is the Macy marriage.

First, they're filing for bankruptcy. This is a bummer since it means that his tenants will almost certainly not be able to recover from the alleged hell they put them through. Then again, I suppose its good since all this has punished them to the point of bankruptcy. Still... I like it when the civil case tips them over. Yeah, I'm a ghoul in that regard. Deal with it.

Second, the Macy marriage itself is rumored to be on its last legs. People are pointing to the fact that every time the duo ends up in jail, that Kip bails himself out, but leaves his wife to sit in lockup. The criminal lawyer for Nicole is denying the rumors, but then again, he would have to deny it for a variety of reasons (say better negotiating leverage in a plea deal for his client comes to mind).

All in all, nothing has really changed. The trial is still coming up. No word on the decision from the motions that were filed

I Couldn't Resist

I love both Star Wars and Star Trek, both for different reasons, but this was too funny.

Interesting Cartoon

I actually remember seeing this on a local station growing up. Too bad its been lost on us.

Enough with the pillory routine already

Are we so gone, that we cannot accept another person's view point on something? I've tried to ignore the whole kerfluffle surrounding Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

I mean really, the more everyone tries to pillory this woman, the more she is going to shout out her beliefs. Like, say taping a commercial in against gay-marriage.

Its not like you are actually going to change her mind. She believes what she believes. Its not like she is advocating going back to the bad old days when if you weren't white, straight, and a protestant, then your value as a human being was worth less than those who were.

This nonsense about violating her contract, and stripping her of her title, because of some pictures she took when she was a 17 (and which from the ones I've seen look about par for the course for what you would see in some of Mrs. Angrybell's fashion magazines when she flies) is just petty and vindictive. (And by the way, someone should tell her that when she signs a contract that calls for disclosure, the worst thing you can do is freakin' lie to the other side. Over report. Saves time and legal fees.)

Here's a radical idea, how about people just try and act better themselves and ignore her views as regressive and antithetical to the the type of society we would like to live in. If everyone would just ignore this person, she could go back to doing whatever it is that Miss California's actually do when the media is not focusing the glare of the spotlight on them.

Like dating swimmers who smoke pot. (Alright, I couldn't resist that one little dig.)

What the hell is going on over in the U,K.?

As far as I can tell, there is no bright side to what is happening in the United Kingdom. With Sir John Mortimer dead, this cannot even serve as a straight line for the next Rumpole of the Bailey novel.

What am I talking about?

Apparently the current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has allowed his cabinet to go ahead with a new policy where they deny entry to people. Now, on the surface, this is not such a big deal. All countries have policies to deny entry to people. In the case of the United States, if you've committed a variety of crimes, the law states that it is perfectly acceptable to deny a foreigner a visa to enter the country.

However, that is not what is going on over the U.K. The United Kingdom has decided that its not enough for a person to have committed actual crimes to be denied entry into their country. It's enough that they have views which are not approved of by the government.

Not only that, but they have promulagated a list. According to the Times, the list includes:

• Abdullah Qadri al-Ahdal (Islamic mullah known for, apparently, preaching jihad against the uneblievers);
• Yunis al-Astal;
• Samir al-Quntar;
• Stephen Donald Black;
• Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim (apparently another militant mullah who preaches jihad);
• Erich Gliebe;
• Mike Guzovsky;
• Safwat Hijazi (apparently an Egyptian cleric known for issuing fatwas that permit violence against infidels);
• Nasr Javed;
• Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams);
• Fred Waldron Phelps Sr;
• Shirley Phelps-Roper;
• Artur Ryno;
• Amir Siddique;
• Pavel Skachevsky; and
• Michael Alan Weiner (aka Michael Savage)

Apparently, the list does not include Geert Wilders, even though the United Kingdom has recently denied him entry.

Now interestingly, on this list, the following people have actual convictions for crimes: Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky (both for attacks on foreigners as part of skinhead/racial superiority groups), Shirley Phelps-Roper (for encouraging a minor to trample an American flag as part of a protest, conviction currently on appeal), Samir Al Quntar (aka Samir Kuntar, the glorious hero of the terrorist for killing a little girl by bashing her head with a rifle), Fred Waldron Phelps (misdemeanor battery cases from the 1950s, a disorderly conduct charge in 1994 as well as a contempt of court citation), and Stephen Donald Black (convicted of violation of the Neutrality Act for attempting to overthrow the government of the Dominica Republic). However, that is not the reason that these, or the rest of the people on the list, were banned from entering the United Kingdom.

According to the press release,

The list covers people excluded from the United Kingdom for fostering extremism or hatred between October 2008 and March 2009.

It follows the Home Secretary’s introduction of new measures against such individuals last year, including creating a presumption in favour of exclusion in respect of all those who have engaged in spreading hate.

That's right. Not for their actions. For their beliefs. Apparently the U.K.'s Home Office is afraid that British society is to fragile to be exposed to those whose beliefs are at odds with the government's idea of what people should believe.

Don't get me wrong, I am not fan, nor do I endorse, the views of any of the people on the list. They are, with exceptions, people who advocate violence, who advocate intolerance, and who, quite frankly, advocate for my extirmination. The exceptions on that list preach intolerance that I cannot agree with. I wish they would just shut up.

However, Prime Minister Brown's government has decided that instead of allowing for free thought, free debate, free ideas to be exchanged, that it is better to issue badges of honor to these miscreants as being "too dangerous for the U.K.".

This from a country which gave us the basic blue print for our fundamental freedoms (check out the 1689 Bill of Rights and then go back and look at our Bill of Rights). Churchill must be rolling over in his grave. A nation which deposed kings, staved off invasion, and consistenly opposed authoritarian rulers for more than three centuries, is apparently too fragile to withstand the viewpoints of foreign, predominantly extremist, radicals.