Who I Want to See On the Obama Death Panel

My girl Sarah really has me thinking these days. When they create this Death Panel, who’s going to be on it? Who will we choose to pull the plug on grandma or Corky? So, I have compiled a list of who I think should boldly serve on Obama’s Death Panel.

1. Me—you’re god damned right me! It’s my list, and I want to have some power. Plus, I took some science classes in school, and am generally considered to be intelligent. You can trust me…..I promise ;)
2. Wilfred Brimley—this old bastard is on my television all of the time talking up the old people. I would trust that he would do the right thing. Who else would know better about pulling the plug on someone than a guy who has to make this decision on himself every week or so?
3. Alan Alda—he’s not a doctor, although he has played one on TV. I feel strongly that we need someone from the medical profession on this thing. He has all the credentials I need.
4. Sarah Palin—we need a “maverick” on this panel. Plus she could give us a personal opinion on how to handle the clinically insane.
5. Simon Cowell—he sounds smart because of that British accent, plus we can use someone with a no nonsense attitude that will tell it like it is.

I think this is one hell of a group, and perfectly capable of making the right decisions. I’m not saying we won’t pull the plug on the wrong people from time to time, I mean nobody is perfect. But it’s hard to put together the first ever death panel.

If any of you have better candidates or ideas, I’d like to hear them. Until then, I’m going to brush up on my Biology 101.

We're There

Short and sweet today.

One of my favorite comedic actors was Peter Sellers. Although I could talk for hours about his Pink Panther movies, one of his greatest movies in my opinions was "Being There". It was released in 1979, and tells the tale of Chance "the gardener" (or Chauncey Gardener as he is named later), a rather simple man whose sole source of knowledge seems to have been derived from television, and secondarily from his interactions with a rather limited number of humans. After being forced out on his own, a series of random events unfold that ultimately bring this well dressed and seemingly thoughtful man to the brink of the Presidency of the United States.

The movie is an adaptation of the book by Jerzy Kosinski. The film's title, "Being There", is a direct translation of the term Dasein used by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger to describe the essential nature of human beings. Chauncey invariably responds to people and phenomena as they present themselves at that moment in time, actually living and interacting "in the moment, or here and now". Of course, another more simplistic interpretation is that the pop culture of the moment is all that is needed to succeed in the American media driven culture.

That brings us to our current President, Barrack Obama. He, similar to Chauncey, has become the darling of the media. He has command of today's pop culture, and has used this knowledge to add to his mystique. Similar to Chauncey, there are lingering doubts about Obama's real intelligence when taken out of his comfort zone. Is he the next coming, or just a pretender?

I guess we'll know when he either walks on water, or drowns.

Its You...AND Me Forever.......Sarah!!!!

I love Sarah Palin. Not in the way some of you might. I don’t love her like all of the “Huckabees” out there love her; for being a maverick. I don’t love her like some of the “Rushublicans” love her; for artificially rejuvenating the GOP for 3 weeks last fall. Hell, I don’t even love her like a teenage boy loves her; for being the new “naughty librarian” on all of the magazines for awhile.
I love her; because she makes me laugh. I have never seen anyone step to a podium and talk for so long and say so little, and yet give one hell of a sound-bite. Okay, so maybe Dub-ya gave a few good ones, but he was around for so long, and said so many stupid things that I became numb to it. But Sarah…oh Sarah, she was new! We had no idea what we were getting with her. And I’m guessing neither did John McCain.

I thought that once she derailed McCain’s bid for president that would be “all she wrote” for Sarah. There would be no more chances to tell us that she reads every newspaper that is ever put in front of her or that she sleeps with one eye open keeping an eye on Russia for us. The ride was over for her and me. But no, she wouldn’t go away that easy, she had more to say. In fact she had a lot more to say.

When she resigned as governor of Alaska, her resignation letter was printed in about every newspaper this side of Juneau (I’m sure she read all of them too). It was long, and incoherent, and had lots of exclamation points in it, and capitalized words for some reason. It was better suited for Twitter, than political office. The final word tally of her letter stretched 2,549 words and included 18 exclamation points. Sorry, let me try that again. The final word tally OF her letter stretched 2,549 words AND included 18 exclamation points!!! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist). 2,549 words just to say, “I quit.” Hell, I could have done it in one word. I’ll just throw my hands up and yell, “Done”. End of story. But not Sarah, she needed 2,549 words to quit as governor of a state that has roughly the same population as the city of Memphis, TN. Let me put this in some sort of historical perspective for you:

Palin’s resignation= 2,549 words and 18 exclamation points.

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation= 719 words and not a single exclamation point.

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence= 1,322 words, and again nary a single exclamation point.

So, Lincoln freed the slaves, and Jefferson wrote the document that birthed our country with less words combined than Sarah used to quit her job.

I know it seems like I’m hard on Sarah, but really I do love her. I hope she runs for president in 2012. I want more of her on my television and homepages. And apparently so do most registered Rushublicans, because when polled almost 70% them stated they would vote for her in 2012. A friend of mine says often that “20% shall rule them all”, meaning that 80% of most people are shlubs just walking through life serving the ruling 20%. Upon hearing that 70% of these people would vote for her as President of The United States, it only makes me believe that proverb even more.

Obama v Bush, Different or Not?

We had Bush for a not so wonderful eight years, now we have seen Obama in action for the past six plus months. I think we can compare and contrast two of our more recent, interesting and polarizing Presidents.

While Bush did inherit a stumbling economy, the real crisis during his term occurred on September 11, 2001. ( an interesting aside is this is my anniversary date ) Bush seized the opportunity and was able to shepherd through Congress many items ( specifically the Patriot Act and all its onerous infringements on personal liberty), that would have never passed were it not for 9/11.

Obama inherited a deep recession, the actual depth of which we may not realize for some time. In a typically political reaction to any crisis, a stimulus package was rammed through which would never have even seen the light of day had the economy been even slightly better.

After 8 years in office, Bush was a known quantity and he held true to what we knew about him. Like them or not, he was comfortable with the decisions he made, even in the face of whithering fire from diverse critics including liberals, libertarians, much of the printed media and even those amongst his own party. Taken away from areas of expertise, Bush is somewhat capable, as his comfort level with his core values comes to the rescue and points the way through the maze of policy direction.

Obama, while not a fully known or vetted quantity seems to lean substantially left on domestic issues. His actions with respect to Cap and Trade, Health care, and union politics seem to be consistent with what speeches and history we have on Obama from his days of Chicago politics. Obama has a much clearer understanding of these types of issues and has demonstrated this by delivering powerful and convincing speeches capable of tipping many of the voting public in his direction. Without the crutch of these core beliefs, Obama has demonstrated his inexperience as a member of the executive branch giving fumbling and meandering answers.

Obama is clearly superior as a public relations tool, showing a polish and speaking presence not matched since Reagan.... if he has rehearsed. Bush was an adequate public speaker, but his strength (comfort with core belief structure) is his weakness here, as his delivery can easily be perceived as arrogance. Ironically, I personally believe that Obama is the more arrogant of the two, but this is splitting hairs, as ALL politicians at this level have that trait.

Of course Bush and Obama differ greatly in their leanings, but the liberal leaning Obama supports warrantless wiretaps and unmanned attacks in Pakistan, and the conservative leaning Bush supported the single largest expansion of Medicare and the federal bailout of the financial industry. So perhaps, the left/right thinking of most pundits is flawed and should be replaced with a deeper understanding of the actual President of the moment.

History will judge both Presidents. Current polls are notoriously fickle as the low approval numbers for Truman indicated upon his departure. Bush still polls poorly, and Obama polls well, but his numbers are sinking.

So in summary, how different are they? Both have deviated from the middle of the road political spectrum at times. Both have made decisions that I believe history will judge poorly. In my book they are just two sides of the same coin, namely the modern electable politician.

A dark time in American politics, my friend. Not so different after all.