Take Donald Trump... Please!

Trump enthusiasts and apologists--as well as people who can't stand the man and are just trying to comprehend his rise--often explain his appeal by saying that he is "funny."  I suppose he is, in the same way that fart jokes are funny--they're amusing once in a while, but they do get tiresome and repetitive.  And an appreciation for fart jokes is not the kind of thing most people take pride in.  A recent instance of Trumpian "humor" features The Donald splashing his adoring audience with a water bottle and yelling, "It's Rubio!"--a reference to his rival's well-documented thirstiness during a response to a State of the Union Address.

I doubt Trump's acolytes realize the irony in celebrating their idol's "sense of humor," while demonizing President Obama--arguably the funniest man ever to occupy the Oval Office.  Love him or hate him, few would dispute that the guy has great comic timing.  But more importantly, we are selecting a president, right, not a comedian-in-chief.  And if we are electing a comedian, we can certainly do better than Trump, right?  Jon Stewart must be itching for a new gig by now, no?

In Which We Mourn the Internet

I think the internet must be broken.  President Obama visited a Baltimore mosque yesterday and spoke about the need for Americans to resist the Trumpian siren song of suspicion and hatred, and yet I have not noticed any examples of head-exploding xenophobia, no rabid triumphal shouts of "I durn well knew he were one o' them Ay-rabs all along!"  So. . . Not sure why I'm writing this, as it will obviously not reach anyone. . . .

Listen, it goes against my own personal religion to turn on Fox News, so could someone please at least reassure me that the crew at "Fox and Friends" has dissolved into a frothing hatepuddle?  I'll wait.  But if I don't hear from anyone, I'll assume that the internet is no more and that I can just use this space as I've really wanted to all along: as a place to post my Doctor Who fan poetry:

Thro' time and space the whirling Tardis spins
Spin, Gallifreyan phonebox, spin!. . . .

In Which We Wait to Hear a Reasonable Reply

So President Obama made an emotional speech about guns yesterday, and Republicans predictably lost their minds.  From what I can see, the president's proposals essentially amounted to making sure that current laws are properly enforced--which, by the way, is exactly what gun enthusiasts say should be done any time there is a suggestion that the country needs stronger gun regulation: "We don't need no more laws!  We just need to enforce the ones we've already got!"  I guess that sounds good until Obama says it, at which point it becomes an unconscionable power grab.  Of course, enforcing the laws also requires resources that Republicans in Congress are unwilling to provide, but let's not quibble.  Still, in response to yesterday's speech, the Republican presidential candidates are screaming about a "gun grab" and that Obama's a-comin' for your guns!

I live in hope of one day hearing a cogent, reasonable argument against ANY of the standard suggestions put forward by gun-control advocates,  For example, one of the most popular proposals put forward is to close the gun-show loophole, which allows people to purchase firearms at gun shows without going through the same background checks they would need to go through if they bought guns at a store.  The NRA and others would have you believe that this is some sort of insane left-wing proposal that must be resisted at all costs.  And I would truly like to understand why--why should anyone have a problem with this?

Before you reply, let me say that the following are not valid arguments:

"This is the first step down the road to tyranny!"  No, it's really not.  This is an example of a "slippery-slope" argument, a well-known logical fallacy: "If A happens, then it's only a matter of time before B happens."  This argument seems to rest on the premise that a crypto-fascist government will become so giddy at its success in passing modest gun legislation that it will quickly move to seize all weapons and throw us all into concentration camps.  Anyone who truly believes this (as opposed to just saying it to score political points with the likes of the Birdbath Liberation Army) is suffering from acute paranoia and/or delusions and should probably not be armed.  And at any rate, this response fails to address the merits of the proposal.

"Forcing people to go through background checks at gun shows wouldn't do anything to stop crime."  Again, not a valid argument, for the simple reason that there is no way to know this unless and until we try it.  I can acknowledge that those who make this argument may be right: It is possible that we could impose these new regulations and see no decline whatsoever in the numbers of people killed by guns.  But we won't know unless we try, right?

I'm seriously looking for a reasonable argument--I would really like to understand.  I suppose some would say that requiring background checks at gun shows places unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens, but I truly don't see that.  I mean, if I want to buy a gun, I could presumably do so with no trouble: I am a law-abiding citizen, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, etc.  If I went to a gun store, I am certain I would pass any background check, so the only inconvenience would be that I would need to wait a little while to complete my purchase and take home my shiny new gun.  I honestly have no idea how long a background check takes.  Let's say it takes a week, though--and I suspect it takes less time than that (and could, theoretically, be completed instantaneously with the proper technology)--well, so what?  If I buy a suit, I need to wait to take it home until alterations are done.  I can wait.  And minimal safeguards designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them are, frankly, worth a little inconvenience.  The only people who would truly be inconvenienced by requiring background checks at gun shows would be the people who would fail a background check outside of a gun show.  And guess what?  I don't care if those people are inconvenienced.  They should be!

So, to conclude: No one is coming to take away your guns.  And based on what President Obama suggested yesterday, largely nothing will change.  Now, can someone offer me a reasonable, logical answer as to why things shouldn't?

Just Letters, Just Sound

Amidst all the uproar over President Obama's utterance of "the N-word" on Marc Maron's podcast, one extremely salient point seems to be getting lost: As Gayle King pointed out on last night's "Nightly Show," the president did not use the n-word; he said it.  This is a more-than academic difference.  It's the difference, for example, between my calling someone a kike and pointing out that the word "kike" is an anti-Jewish slur, used by Nazis, skinheads, and other troglodytes.  Not only is my use of the word not meant to be offensive--it is not offensive.  Period.  It is a word offered to provide explanation, a word separated from its meaning, a signifier divorced from its signified.

Hearing the word--the k-word, the n-word--may certainly provide a jolt, but so would hearing a car backfire.  And the president's use of the word in that context was exactly as offensive as a backfiring car would be.  Which is to say, not at all.

Sony Avenged

Earlier this morning--so early, in fact, that you were no doubt sleeping--President Obama released the following statement:

"My fellow Americans, I recently vowed that the United States would 'respond proportionally' to the North Korean cyberattack against Sony.  This heinous attack deprived the American public its opportunity to see the Seth Rogen-James Frisco [sic] comedy 'The Interview.'

"This blatant cultural aggression will not stand.

"Some have called for a military response.  I have decided, however, that this would be disproportionate.  Besides, all our military assets are otherwise deployed around Iraq, Afghanistan, and Belgium.  (You'll be hearing about that at a press conference later this afternoon.)  And so I am mandating a gentler--yet no less devastating--response.

"I call upon all American filmmakers to include the assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in all movies from this point forward.  And not only that.  I have directed all major studios to go into their archives and, through the magic of digital technology, add the assassination of Kim Jong-un to all previously released films.

"The Nakatomi Tower hijackers in 'Die Hard'? They're North Korean now, led by Korean Alan Rickman as Kim Jong-un.

"Oz the Great and Powerful?  Try Kim the Squat and Infantile--and, yes, he dies now.

"All the raptors in 'Jurassic Park' will soon be computer-generated mini-Kim Jong-uns.  It's actually really cool.

"So in conclusion, my fellow Americans, I encourage you to go out this holiday season and take in a movie or two.  Enjoy some popcorn and a cornucopia of cinematic assassinations of North Korea's premier. Just don't go see the new 'Annie'--it's terrible.

"Thank you. And God bless America."

Here's to Your Health: So Much for Bipartisanship

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Act.  I'm sure the fact the Supremes agreed to hear this case a mere three days after an election that will return the Senate to Republican control is the purest of coincidence.  The fact that this time, if the justices rule against the ACA, there will be not the slightest shred of a chance that Congress will agree to tweak the legislation to conform to any judicial ruling has, I'm sure, nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to hear the case.  That would indicate crass political calculation, well below the dignity of such an august body of judges.

Bastards.

In case you're interested, at issue as far as I can tell are the semantics of the word "state."  A group of highly indignant folks has taken umbrage with the federal government for providing subsidies to people who cannot afford insurance, when those people live in states that have refused to set up state-run health insurance exchanges.  The dispute revolves around language in the ACA that restricts federal subsidies to those participating in "an exchange established by the state."  The IRS has issued regulations codifying the idea that people may receive subsidies for participating in a health insurance exchange whether that exchange is run by a state or by the federal government, which is running its own exchanges--for the admittedly nefarious purpose of providing health insurance to those whose state governors are only trying to protect them from. . . having health insurance.

One group of federal appeals judges have declared the language in the original legislation ambiguous, and have consequently ruled that the IRS made a reasonable interpretation in establishing its regulations.  Another appeals court has "reluctantly" determined that the law as written does, in fact, forbid the federal government from providing subsidies.  As a liberal, I want to agree with the former, but as a writer, I fear that the second court might actually be correct--or at least is not clearly wrong.  And the larger point is that, while the ambiguity of the phrasing does, in fact, probably give the IRS the right to do what it did, I fear that this same ambiguity will provide the conservative majority on the Supreme Court the political cover it will need to achieve its presumed desire of destroying the Affordable Care Act.  Not that the Court takes into account such crass political calculations.

What everyone should bear in mind is that this law has so far provided millions of people the ability to receive healthcare to which they previously had no access.  Presumably, people are alive today--or at any rate healthier today--because of this legislation.  And for all the talk of gloom and doom and apocalyptic rises in the cost of coverage, nobody seems to be suffering much as a result of the ACA.  Make no mistake, this lawsuit is nothing but the latest mean-spirited attempt to gut a piece of legislation that has as its goal nothing more than to help people, largely out of spite and continued irrational hatred of the man who championed the legislation in the first place.  I just hope the millions of people who lose their coverage if/when the Supreme Court and their Republican enablers have their way will remember this in the next election.

Of course, the GOP will find a way to blame Obama for that, too.

Supreme Court Round-Up

OK, OK. . . Elena Kagan's been on my ass for the last three hours, desperate to hear the Solipsist's take on the latest round of Supreme Court rulings.  OK, Associate Justice Kagan, here we go.

First, the case the Court got unambiguously right: Riley v. California.  In this and an associated case, United States v. Wurie, the Court held that law enforcement authorities needed to obtain a warrant before searching through someone's cell phone.  Police often looked through cell phones after arresting someone, searching for evidence of criminal activity--which, given today's smartphone technology, could include not only call histories but also photographs, internet searches, journal entries--even, dare we say it, blog posts.  Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the pervasiveness of cell phones (and, by extension, in all likelihood, tablets, personal computers, etc.) made them subject to the same protections against "general warrants" enshrined in the Constitution.  In other words, police may no more freely rummage through one's personal data contained on an iPhone than they could barge into one's bedroom and rifle through the underwear drawer, unless they first obtain a warrant.

More interesting than the verdict, however, was the acknowledgment by the Court that changing technological standards merited changing interpretations of constitutional actions.  Law enforcement officials, for example, equated searching a cellphone with other, more permissible searches of things like wallets or purses.  "That," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, "is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon."  In other words, as technology changes we must revisit the actions of the Founding Fathers, who codified civic norms in a time vastly different from our own.  Just as a cell phone is vastly different from a wallet or an appointment book--and so calls for a different understanding of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches--so, too, is an AK-47 vastly different from a flintlock--and calls for a similar reassessment of the right to keep and bear arms.

Two other unanimous decisions were also decided correctly.  I say this begrudgingly, as I am totally sympathetic to the "losing" side in both cases.  First, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Court basically said that President Obama had no right to make recess appointments to Executive Branch positions while the US Senate was "in session"--even though these "sessions" were merely pro forma meetings where no business was conducted--and, indeed, whose only purpose was to ensure that President Obama could not make recess appointments.  While I abhor the obstructionist tactics of Congressional Republicans, I recognize that a certain amount of political gamesmanship is a fact of American life.  And while I generally support President Obama--at least as far as his political appointments go--I am not keen to see any congressional tactic hurriedly eliminated, lest it be useful in the future when, say, someone like Ted Cruz occupies the Oval Office.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

(And lest you accuse me of hypocrisy, I had similar qualms when the Democratic Senate leadership effectively eliminated the use of filibusters last year.)

The other correct if unsatisfying decision concerned the ability of legislatures to establish "buffer zones" around abortion clinics.  The aim is laudable: to protect women who seek abortions (or, indeed, any services from clinics such as those run by Planned Parenthood) from harassment by pro-life protesters, legislators have declared that protesters must maintain certain minimum distances from entrances to such facilities.  In its decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the Court declared unconstitutional a Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.  The law, the justices found, infringed on First Amendment rights to free speech.  And while I sympathize with the desire of women not to be accosted by right-wing zealots as they seek to exercise their right to control their own bodies, I think that placing arbitrary (35 feet?  Why not 30?  Why not 40?  Why not 6.5?) restrictions on speech is not the solution.  As the Court pointed out, existing laws that prevent harassment and other antisocial behavior can effectively serve the same purpose as the disputed law.

Finally, the case that I just don't understand: ABC v. Aereo.  The Court declared that what Aereo was doing was bad and wrong and must be stopped.  Now, I had never heard of Aereo before yesterday.  Apparently, it's a service that allows people to "pick up" the broadcast signals of the major television networks through a series of antennas.  The networks were upset that Aereo was allowing people to do this.  But unless I'm mistaken, this is how television always used to work!  You turned on the TV, you fiddled with your antennas as needed, and you were able to watch "The Incredible Hulk" at grandma's house.  When did this become illegal?

Anyway, Justice Kagan, there you have it.  On the whole, you guys did a good--if somewhat unsatisfying--job.  Now, if you'll excuse me, "Judge Judy" is on, and I need to fiddle with the ol' rabbit ears. . . .

Irony and Hypocrisy

Last week, in one of his typically insightful rants, Jon Stewart excoriated the Republicans for--brace yourself!--their hypocrisy in attempting to shift the blame for the continuing governmental shutdown onto President Obama, claiming that it is his unwillingness to negotiate that is unnecessarily prolonging the stalemate. 

 

Essentially, he points out that if Republicans want to claim that they are standing on principle and protecting Americans from what they sincerely believe to be catastrophically misguided legislation (the Affordable Care Act), then that's fine...but they have to "own it"--and willingly accept whatever consequences they suffer in the court of public opinion.  And while I always revel in an explication of GOP hypocrisy, I was struck yesterday by the irony of the Republicans' situation.

Because if the Cruz-controlled GOP hadn't shut down the government over Obamacare, they could right now be making tremendous political hay over the utter SNAFU that has thus far characterized the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.  An article in yesterday's Times catalogued the ongoing technical problems that have plagued the online portal where people could go to get information and ultimately to sign up for the insurance exchanges that are the centerpiece of the ACA.  While administration officials are hopeful that the glitches will be fixed soon, Republicans have cost themselves an opportunity for a "told-you-so" to end all "told-you-so's."  Because even if they could find people in the general public--i.e., those who haven't drunk the Tea-Party brewed Kool Aid--to listen to another one of their strident denunciations of this "existential threat to the nation," all President Obama would have to do is turn around and say that, yes, there are technical problems with the ACA website, but these problems could be fixed a lot faster if, y'know, THE REPUBLICANS HADN'T SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

The modern Republican Party: Hoist on their own petard since 2009!

Not Shaken, Not Stirred

Mr. Rouhani, who had mounted an aggressive charm offensive in the weeks before arriving in New York, also declined a chance to shake hands with Mr. Obama — avoiding a much-anticipated encounter that would have bridged more than three decades of estrangement between the leaders of Iran and the United States.
--"Obama Defends U.S. Engagement in the Middle East"

Despite what that quote might lead you to believe, President Obama himself was ambivalent at best about the opportunity to "grip and grin" with the Iranian president.  Indeed, senior White House advisers were so concerned about the political repercussions of such a handshake that they drew up extensive contingency plans to avoid just such an eventuality.

The following memo was drawn up at the highest echelons of the Obama administration, outlining plans to avoid a handshake between Presidents Obama and Rouhani.  (By the way, I fully expect to be extremely renditioned for sharing this information.  I can only hope my legion of fan will rally to my support--and prove more effective than the supporters of Chelsea "Don't Call Me Bradley" Manning.)

FROM:  REDACTED
TO: REDACTED
RE: DACTED

Working with a select team of kinesiologists, etiquette experts, and modern-dance choreographers, we have devised a set of options for allowing President Obama to avoid shaking hands with President Rouhani of Iran.  We have taken pains to ensure that the President maintains dignity and an air of statesmanship at all times.

OPTION ONE: THE MULTI-TASKER
The simplest option for avoiding President Rouhani's presumably outstretched hand calls for President Obama to be surrounded at all times by a "moving shield" of people.  For the sake of diplomacy, the President must appear extremely busy at all times, so these people should appear to be mid-level members of the presidential staff.  We recommend they frequently thrust pens and papers at President Obama, requesting his signature, demanding decisions, etc.  The drawback, of course, is that this level of frenzied supplication is generally associated with true national security emergencies, and the Iranians may well become suspicious when they find out that no such emergency has arisen.  Perhaps a small fire can be lit at the Air and Space Museum Gift Shop?

OPTION TWO: THE FRESHMAN
Should the moving shield be impractical, we could simply load President Obama's arms with briefing papers, portfolios, binders, etc., thus leaving his arms too full to extend a hand in Rouhani's direction.  Should a handshake be offered, the President can simply smile, shrug, and point his chin at the unwieldy load with which he is, unfortunately, weighted down.  (Concern: Too implausible that Leader of Free World would not have someone to carry his books for him?  Or at least a luggage cart?)

OPTION THREE: THE SENIOR
In this scenario, President Obama confidently walks up to Rouhani, extending his hand, smiling broadly.  Then, at the last second, just before Rouhani clasps the outstretched hand, President Obama whips his hand up and "smooths" his hair--perhaps throwing in a "Psych!" for good measure.  (NOTE: The Israelis are particularly fond of this option.)

OPTION FOUR: NO HARAM, NO FOUL
As we all know, pigs are considered "Unclean" in the Islamic faith.  We therefore suggest that President Obama be issued a presidential pot-bellied big to carry around the United Nations.  President Rouhani will obviously be dissuaded from shaking a hand that has touched a pig.  Added bonus: Malia's birthday is just around the corner, and the pig can be repurposed as an early b-day gift.)

OPTION FIVE: THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Seal Team Six breaks all of President Rouhani's fingers.  (NOTE: This option, too, is an Israeli favorite.)

Agreeing with Idiots

If you ask me whether I think the United States should bomb Syria in sympathetic retaliation for the Assad regime's alleged gassing of its own civilians (not that the gassing is alleged--just that we can't be 100% sure that the Syrian government was behind it), I would have to say, "No."  Sure the world would probably be a much better place without Bashar al-Assad in it, but I can't see that the U.S. has a legitimate stake in this conflict: Assad directly attacked neither the United States nor any of its allies--he seems, frankly, too smart to do any such thing.  And unless and until the entire international community decides to take action, I see no reason for America to take upon itself yet another Middle Eastern firefight.

That being said, I was troubled by an article in today's Times that described the attitudes of the residents of Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, the overwhelmingly majority of whom share my distaste for military action.  Some people, of course, rightly point out that the conflict in Syria is properly understood as a civil war, and the U.S. has no pressing national security interest in its outcome--or at least no clear understanding of what a desirable outcome would be from a domestic security standpoint.  Others, though, expressed opinions like this:

“[Obama's] having trouble keeping his popularity up; this war on guns has made him unpopular. And this is his way of getting back up.”  (Jennifer Taylor, bartender)

Um. . . Well, except that his liberal supporters LIKE his "war on guns" (such as it is), and they DON'T like the thought of bombing Syria--and even most conservatives (at least of the Tea Party stripe) have never cottoned to the idea of international entanglements.  So who is Obama appealing to with this.  No, you see--

"[Taylor's] customer, Mr. Tripp, suggested that the use of chemical weapons was actually a plot by Al Qaeda to lure the United States into toppling the Syrian government, and that Mr. Obama was falling for it. Terrorists will rush into the vacuum once Mr. Assad is gone, he warned."

Well, I mean, OK, Al Qaeda is certainly not above such devious tactics.  It does seem a rather roundabout way of accomplishing its objectives.  Besides, if Al Qaeda got its hands on sarin gas warheads, I would suspect they'd be more likely to launch them at Israel or Washington.  Still, interesting points.  Now, if we could just focus on--

"'It’s going to be a "Red Dawn" situation,' Ms. [Malinda] Dulaney said, referring to a film about a Russian takeover of the United States. 'You see that movie? They’re going to come over here, on boats, on planes, and take over. Who’s going to defend us? We’re sending them all overseas.'"

Riiiight.  Because when we launch missiles at Syria, we'll be so distracted. . .watching the missiles. . . that a group of. . . uh. . . .Islamic militiamen will be able to sneak over and storm the . . . beaches? . . .of Washington, DC?  And. . . And I guess this time around, we won't even have Patrick Swayze to protect us. . . .

Guys, I'm seriously trying to be on your side.  You're not making it easy.

Wolverines!

Punting

Overall, you've got to figure that President Obama made the right choice: deferring any military action against Syria unless and until he receives congressional approval.  Of course, people will howl that he has damaged America's credibility by refusing to order the immediate cratering of Bashar al-Assad's presidential palace or something equally punitive in retaliation for the Syrian military's apparent gas attack on helpless civilians.  Then again, these would probably be many of the same people who would have howled that Emperor Obama was disdaining the Constitution had he gone ahead with a military strike without seeking Congress' blessing.  So we all might be wise to ignore most of the howling.

Personally, I'm torn about the whole situation.  If Assad actually ordered a poison-gas attack that killed scores of civilians, including numerous children, then he certainly deserves a special place in Hell.  I can't help but wonder, though, why it always seems to fall to the United States to administer such punishments.  True, the US possesses the world's strongest military, and this country has, at least in its rhetoric, always expressed a commitment to universal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  But there are other countries with powerful militaries (at any rate, militaries that are more than capable of dealing damage to a regime like Syria's), and plenty of other nations that have expressed equal or greater outrage at the sight of dead Syrian children.  Why is everyone sitting around waiting for America to act?

This sort of situation, of course, is exactly what the United Nations was created for.  That organization, though, is hamstrung by the fact that Russia continues to support the Syrian government and also holds veto power over any proposed interventions.  So if Assad is to be punished, it will have to fall to other countries.

At any rate, Obama made the right move.  If Congress authorizes force, the President can order military strikes without, at least, worrying about domestic charges of unconstitutional overreach.  If Congress denies him such authorization, then the United States can at least for the moment avoid yet another military entanglement in the Middle East.

And maybe in the long run a slight loss of American credibility might not be such a bad thing: If the rest of the world--especially other liberal democracies with a strong commitment to human rights--realizes that America won't always take matters into its own hands, then maybe there can be a greater sharing of humanity's burdens.

Plan B for Plan B

The Obama administration has decided to drop its legal appeals in a case involving the "morning after pill."  A few months ago, the FDA released an advisory report, in which it recommended that so-called one-step emergency contraceptives (i.e., those involving a single pill) be sold over-the-counter, without a prescription.  In an unusual move, the Obama administration, in the person of health and human services secretary Kathleen Sebelius decided to ignore the advisory, which led to lawsuits from reproductive-rights advocates.

This is the right decision on the administration's part--right up there with their earlier decision to stop defending the homophobic "Defense of Marriage" Act.  Let's face it, right now Obama has enough on his plate without looking for battles he doesn't NEED to fight.  I was struck, however, by the following tidbit from the news article:

"The Justice Department said it would not remove restrictions from two-pill emergency contraceptives because it is concerned that young girls might not be able to adequately understand how to take two separate doses."

Now, I know girls are bad at math, but I was always under the impression that--at least once they reached child-bearing age--they possessed the ability to count to TWO!

(Yeah, yeah, same to you!)

My Fellow Americans

Over the last few weeks, you've heard of several activities about which I am less than pleased--I am less than pleased, that is, with the fact that you have heard about these activities: The targeting of conservative groups by certain rogue elements of the IRS; eavesdropping on members of news gathering organizations; collection of data from cellphone and internet providers.  Frankly, it's gotten to the point where I can't turn on the television or open a newspaper without discovering something else about which I supposedly had no idea.  I'm tired of it, and I suspect you are all tired of it as well.  So, I would like to take this opportunity to reveal all of the secrets my administration is currently concealing before you read about them in the New York Times.

First, let me be clear, I had NO KNOWLEDGE that employees at the Cincinnati IRS offices were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny.  That being said, I confess to snickering for exactly three minutes when I heard the news.  There is a possibility that a memo about the incident addressed to my attention might surface,  on which a handwritten note--"How you like me now, Motherf****rs?"--might appear.  I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a memo.

All right, so, as for the additional secrets and covert operations underway:

--The United States is, in fact, behind the following recent uprisings: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Turkey.  We do not, however, have anything to do with what is going on in Syria: Those people are just plain nuts.

--I have had orders drawn up authorizing drone strikes against the headquarters of Fox News, the Texas office of Senator Ted Cruz, and Mr. John Travolta.(I'm sorry. I just have hated everything he has done since "Pulp Fiction.")  Let me be clear: I have not signed these orders, and I have, in fact, signed a signing statement signifying that I intend never TO sign them.  Seriously. Drawing up the orders was done at the suggestion of my therapist, who felt it would be cathartic, and, I have to say, she was right.

--Yes, I am seeing a therapist.  In fact, I have been in treatment and taking a cocktail of psychotropic medications for the last seventeen years.  You don't think this Spock-like demeanor just happens, do you?

--A plan is in place to balance the budget, involving a sizable wager on the Houston Astros winning this year's World Series.  A Bahamian bookmaking outfit locked in our odds at 2,000-1.  To that end, I have also ordered St. Louis Cardinals management to trade the entire team to Houston.

--I personally convinced Columbia Pictures to hire M. Night Shyamalan to direct "After Earth." I take responsibility for that one.  I still believe he has another "Unbreakable" in him.  I'm beginning to think I was wrong.

I think that's everything.  Well, except for the secret recording of everyone's keystrokes on Google that has been going on since August 2009.  But I assume you all knew about that.

Good night, and God Bless America.

Here's to Your Health, Again

The other day, I posted about the latest Republican attempts to thwart implementation of Obamacare.  A friend of mine, who has made no secret of her disdain for this particular piece of legislation, reiterated her opposition to it.  Fair enough, although that did not address the basic point of my piece, which was the insane level of obstructionism of various GOP politicians: In this case, going so far as to block provisions of the Affordable Care Act (the law of the land, mind you, duly passed by legitimately elected representatives) that would make it easier for the desperately poor to gain access to health care and that would literally cost them and their states ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the first three years.

What occurred to me today, as I pondered once again this friend's ongoing dislike of Obamacare, is the fact that--for all the opposition's sound and fury and gnashing of teeth and cries of "Tyranny!"--the law hasn't even gone into effect yet!  And if early reports from states like California are any indication, many of the dreaded repercussions feared by Obamacare opponents--such as higher insurance premiums--will not come to pass.  So, here's my modest suggestion: Why don't people just relax and wait and see what actually happens with the ACA, instead of prophesying the imminent fall of the Republic if and when it is enacted?

Of course, that's not going to happen.  The GOP will continue to scream and wail and convene nonsensical votes to repeal Obamacare--a repeal they all know is never, ever going to happen--because what else have they got?  They certainly have shown no interest in proposing better legislation--or worse legislation--or any legislation.  And the more they scream, the more a sensible observer must recognize how benign--if not downright helpful--Obamacare will turn out to be. 

If the GOP truly thinks the law is a disaster--really believes the vast majority of the country would be harmed by it--then the smartest thing they could do, from a political perspective, is to shut up, sit back, and wait for the law to take effect.  If people truly end up hurt by the law--well, then, the Republicans will solidify a Congressional majority for many years to come.  Lest anyone think otherwise, let's be perfectly clear: Republicans are not afraid of the potential harm the Affordable Care Act might cause; they are, however, completely terrified at the thought that it will work.

Here's to Your Health

A provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sought to extend insurance coverage to the uninsured through an expansion of the Medicaid program, the generally successful program that, for over forty years, has ensured that the poorest of the poor have some access to healthcare.  Seemed like a good idea at the time.  The Supreme Court, however, ruled that, since Medicaid is administered at the state level, individual states had the right to choose whether or not to allow such Medicaid expansion.  Now, as the ACA nears implementation, a number of states are balking at an extension of Medicaid, which means that, ironically, a number of uninsured people will find themselves too poor to receive financial assistance to pay for healthcare.

Now, the fact that the states planning to reject Medicaid expansion are all under Republican leadership should in no way suggest that the rejection is a political ploy to make Obamacare look bad.  This is purely about fiscal rectitude!  After all, the states reasonably point out that their own budgets are stretched already.  How can they afford to take on an unfunded mandate like Medicaid expansion?

Well, OK, it's not completely unfunded: For the first three years, in fact, the federal government will pick up 100% of the new costs.  But, still, what about when those three years are up?  Then--THEN--the states will find themselves stuck with all the costs for all those people who have become accustomed to not going bankrupt when they need to see a doctor!

Well, OK, they won't be stuck for all the costs, but the federal contribution to the state's coffers will shrink dramatically from 100%--all the way down to 90%!!!

OK, yeah, it's a political ploy to make Obamacare look bad.  Why do I even bother to be indignant?

Benghazi, By Golly

Perhaps I'm missing something--it's been known to happen--but I don't understand all this ongoing congressional drama over Benghazi.  Yes, what happened was horrible, tragic: Four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, were killed last September 11 when terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi.  In the heat of the moment, when events were still unfolding, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning news shows and said the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video.  Subsequently, the official story changed, and the incident was classified as a planned terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda offshoot.  This has since become the accepted version of events.

Now, Congress can--and should--investigate any intelligence failures that led up to the attack.  They should demand to know whether the attacks could have been prevented, as well as whether the responses to the attacks were as effective as they could have been.  The US should do everything possible to ensure the safety of its citizens, particularly its diplomatic corps and particularly in hostile territory.  But such reasonable concerns don't seem to be the focus of the seemingly endless congressional investigations that have been going on for the last eight months.  Rather, the Congressmen--well, let's call a spade an idiot, the Republican Congressmen--seem fixated on the fact that the Obama administration initially declared the assault a spontaneous demonstration of popular unrest rather than a coordinated terrorist attack.  Why is this so scandalous?

Let's take the worst-case political scenario for the Obama administration: Let's say President Obama and his inner circle knew immediately that the attack was the work of an Al Qaeda splinter group, but they didn't want to admit this in the heat of an election campaign, as it would undermine President Obama's major accomplishment in the war on terror, namely, the elimination of Osama bin Laden.  So Obama ordered his staff to put out the word out that the source of the attack was unknown, but that, in the initial moments, they thought it was just a street protest that got out of hand.  Let's say that these Congressional investigations somehow lead to the revelation of this fact.  Well. . . so?

I mean, yes, the revelation of such naked politicking in the aftermath of such senseless violence would be offensive to say the least.  It would certainly create (or, for some, reinforce) the image of Barack Obama as nothing more than a venal politician, willing to go to great lengths to gain political advantage.  But would it really rise to the level--as some GOP inquisitors have claimed--of Watergate-plus?  Hardly.  Because when all is said and done, all that these hearings are investigating is what happened in the wake of an attack--not whether the President or his subordinates allowed an attack to happen.  I mean, it's not as if there exists some memo stating in plain English something to the effect of "Al Qaeda determined to attack in Benghazi."

Just sayin'.

Hail Mary or Hail Barack?

Though it has apparently--and to my mind inexplicably--been removed, for a brief while this morning, a petition appeared on the White House's "We the People" site, imploring President Obama to order the Jacksonville Jaguars to sign quarterback Tim Tebow, recently released by the New York Jets.  As a college player, Tebow starred for the University of Florida, and he remains an idolized figure in the area, despite what can charitably be referred to as a mediocre professional career.  A couple of thoughts:

Tim Tebow's tremendous popularity is due not only--or even primarily--to his gridiron success, which peaked around 2006 anyway.  Rather, he is beloved of a certain highly vocal subset of the American populace, to wit, evangelical Christians.  Indeed, during the heyday of Tebowmania, fans across the nation made a fad of "Tebowing"--a prayerful attitude involving kneeling and  bowing one's head in one's fist.  I'd be, therefore, that the organizers of the petition, as well as many of the signatories, are members of the Christian Right--the same people, in other words, who often accuse President Obama of being a godless socialist, to say nothing of a despot in sheep's clothing who is only biding his time until he can implement his plans for world domination.  I'm glad to see, therefore, that these folks can set aside their fears of President Obama seizing control of private industry when it comes to asking him to interfere with this particular private business decision.  (Of course, the owner of the Jaguars is one Shad Khan, so he probably doesn't much appreciate good Christian values either.)

Also, if Tim Tebow is in such good graces with the Almighty, why does he need President Obama to get involved?  Couldn't God Himself just get Khan to bring Tebow to Jacksonville?  Is Obama more powerful than God?  Be careful, Tebow fans: We non-believers are likely to take the wrong message from your passionate appeals to worldly authority. 

Presents Perfect

Mitt Romney has caught substantial flak lately for comments made on a conference call to supporters.  During this chat, he blamed his recent electoral drubbing in part on "gifts" that President Obama had offered to such traditional Democratic supporters as African-Americans, Hispanics, and younger voters.  These comments were greeted with the predictable howls of outrage.

(DIGRESSION: Unbeknownst to Romney, a New York Times reporter had been invited by one of the conference-call participants to listen in on the conversation.  You would think Mittens would have learned by now never to say anything controversial during "supporters-only" affairs.  Indeed, for all our sakes, maybe he could just stop saying anything.  Ever.  EOD)

Lost amidst all the indignation is an important point: Romney is absolutely right.  President Obama DID win re-election largely because he shamelessly bestowed "gifts" upon the aforementioned constituencies.  What kind of gifts?  Well, a reliable liberal such as myself would say these "gifts" were such things as forgiveness of college loans, ensured access to contraception, and, of course, healthcare reform.  But of course, these are just liberal talking points; I'm sure Romney was referring to more obvious pandering on the part of the President.  So let's see what he meant by "gifts":

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said.

Hm.  OK.  Go on.

“Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people."

Sigh.  OK, I get the point.  I-- What's that?

"You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge.”

Yeah, I mean, dangle shiny healthcare in front of a bunch of poor folks--how could Mitt have competed with that?!?  In retrospect, his counter-offer--REVOCATION of said healthcare--may not have been the game-changer he had been counting on.  Look, Mitt, it's one thing to get mad at President Obama for playing Santa Claus, but nobody told you that you had to play the Grinch!

So, what Mitt Romney considers "gifts" are things that most people--apparently including Mitt Romney--would consider policy initiatives, initiatives that any politician would pursue to satisfy his constituents.  Only a churl would point out that Romney intended to bestow similar gifts--tax breaks, deregulation--upon HIS supporters if HE had won. 

In other words, in making these comments, Mitt Romney is guilty of nothing more sinister than a firm grasp of of electoral politics.  If only he had a better grasp of math.  He might then realize that the sheer number of people who appreciate Obama's gifts is substantially larger than that of the gazillionaires who would have appreciated Romney's.

In Case You Missed It. . .

While President Obama has received effusive praise from New Jersey governor Chris Christie for the administration's prompt response to the devastation wrought by Hurrican Sandy, former Arkansas governor and current talk-show agitator Mike Huckabee has warned Christians that they will go to Hell if they vote for Obama on November 6th.  Huckabee, of course, once sought the Republican presidential nomination.  He also once weighed close to 300 pounds.  I'm thinking he's just jealous of Christie's stature as the great round hope of the GOP.  So while the Jersey governor earns plaudits for putting the needs of his state above the dictates of petty party politics, Huckabee wants to stay relevant in whatever way he can, even if--especially if?--that means engaging in the basest form of mudslinging.

ADvantage Obama

Given how much money candidates spend on advertising, one would imagine that ads have some impact.  I guess for a truly undecided voter, an informative advertisement has value--assuming there are informative advertisements.  I doubt such an animal exists.

I say this in a completely non-partisan spirit: Democratic ads are just as pointless as Republican ones (if less offensive to every tenet of basic human decency--but I digress).  After all, an ad placed by a candidate will highlight either the good things done by that candidate or the bad things done by his or her opponent; such ads can hardly satisfy a voter's need for objective information.  Sure, advertising does serve a purpose in generating name recognition, but anyone unfamiliar with the names "Obama" or "Romney" at this point in the game probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

Here's an interesting tidbit about this season's political advertising binge: With all that we've been hearing about super PACs' baleful influence on the political process, it seems that the President--ostensibly less-favored by the big money interests--has held his own quite nicely.  In fact, according to an article in today's Times, ads favoring President Obama have outpaced ads favoring Mitt Romney, approximately 160,000 to 140,000--despite the fact that Republicans have outspent Democrats, roughly $500 million to $400 million.  In other words, despite spending approximately 25% more on advertising, Republicans have placed about 12.5% FEWER ads.

And just remember, the standard-bearer of the Republican Party bases his claim to the presidency on his business acumen.