Obama Tells Iran to Return Trojan Horse

Iranian General points out tiny chipmunks

We could take this late night moment to talk about something important. Newt Gingrich, renaissance man of yesteryear, is challenging GOP leader Romney, taking him down to the undergarments in recent polls. And over there is our president, Mr. Obama, meeting with the leader of Iraq, while reinforcing a campaign promise kept (which was easier done than said given Bush's already set withdrawal timeline, but whatevs).

Instead we want to talk to you about drones. Nothing technical or deeply philosophical. According to news reports, a drone of ours, a kind of unmanned plane perfectly sized for chipmunk vacations, opted through magic, Iranian cunning, bad electronics or voodoo to land in Iran. Not crash land. Not shot out of sky into a million bits. But land, comfortable and apparently intact. 

The Iranians were glad to display this acquisition as it no doubt reinforced the truth that the Great Satan (that would be us, as in U.S.A) was not so satanically powerful after all. "We got your drone" they said via display, with further threats to take it apart, rebuild it with Iranian sauce, and wreak stealthic havoc back on us. 

President Obama eventually got around to requesting the plane back, though the general delay and all around casualness should make Iranians a bit skeptical about saying the inevitable "No, you can't have it back, Sons of Satan!"

"We have asked for it back," Obama said Monday at a news conference in Washington with Iraqi Prime MinisterNouri Maliki"We'll see how the Iranians respond." 

His comments marked the first public confirmation that the RQ-170 Sentinel drone now in Iranian hands is a U.S. aircraft, though U.S. officials privately acknowledged that in recent days. Iran has claimed it downed the stealthy surveillance drone, but U.S. officials say it malfunctioned.

(LA Times)

Now we don't want to be Obama fan boys and imply that this whole implausible situation is merely a diabolical plot concocted by the President and his administration to land a homing device inside of Iranian research facilities, because that would be mental hyperbole. It would be the same type of thought pattern that allows extreme conservatives to place Obama at the center of all and variable diabolical evils.

And yet,. the utter casualness in the official responses the past few days is almost comical, culminating in an almost ridiculous request to have the drone returned. Let's pretend the United States is Greece. Let's pretend Iran is Troy. Let's pretend horses can fly, like unicorns, and call them drones. Now let's pretend we land one or allow one to get captured. Now let's pretend certain components inside the flying horse are deeply locked and will take years to open and define. Now let's pretend Troy really gets on our nerves. And finally, let's pretend we turn the homing device on, and unload mega bombs on whatever high security research site is trying to backward engineer the horse.

Which is why if I were Iran, I would send it back and make a huge public relations gesture out of it.

While we strive to not get toasted and go conspiratorial here, hating the tendency in others, we nevertheless can't help but imagine what spy versus spy shenanigans might be going on between Iran and the United States. There is mystery in the belly of beast. 

Saveur Magazine Serves Up Holiday Wampum

One of my guilty pleasures is reading Saveur magazine. In my mind it is one of the best produced food magazines around, filled with lengthy centerpiece articles, beautiful photos and a fair amount of recipes. I don't actually cook all that much, so I don't get it for the recipes. I get it more for articles that usually drop you in the middle of some region or culture, highlighting the unique facets of their relationship with all things food.

And of course, I look forward to the holiday issues, even though the pantheon of holiday food is pretty set and there are only so many ways to cook a turkey or make mashed potatoes stand out. But I was not ready for my November and December issues, where Saveur editors opted to be decidedly agnostic as far as any sort of holiday fair. Not completely agnostic, but indifferent enough to the specifics of American Thanksgiving to render the issues a complete letdown.

The November issue does have "28 Great Holiday Sides" splashed across the front, but not much else to give the meat loving festive person a spark. The December issue gives us "Italian Christmas" with pasta on the cover; it's less a about Italians and Christmas than it is a retrospective of the influence of Italian cooking across the United States. The other main article "Puerto Rican Feast" sort of fits the bill, but the pictures lack any true festive appearance. No families round the dinner table, no tables, no Christmas lights, no Jesus, no religion at all.

Apparently the lead editor must have hit a severe patch of holiday blues and political expediency, deciding to forgo any traditional imagery or foods in both issues.  I don't really read Saveur to get my longings for standard American fare continually reaffirmed, but you do like to see a spot of the familiar mixed in with articles about how "other people do it" or, don't do it, during the holidays.

In place of my turkey or how to make a killer stuffing, and pictures of same, I get a vegetarian who has decided in this issue, MY ISSUE, that she will not even allow her guests to bring the turkey they usually offer to bring. Her ethics are her hero and my bane as she slips us wheat berry pilaf (in place of stuffing) and autumn vegetable patties (in place of meat).

I actually have no problem with that. It makes for interesting reading to see how other people eat and live and adapt a tradition to fit their own style. But when I am offered nothing else, and thus forced to dine on peas with orange and mint, sans turkey, ham, roast beef, or anything remotely familiar like baked mac and cheese, sweet potato pie or mashed potatoes, well, I get a bit peeved. You can't exclude the majority while including the minority as some project in equality or mind control.

It's disconcerting. I don't like all my holidays "disappeared" and replaced by meaningless otherness and commercial considerations. Thanksgiving itself is being sacrificed itself to corporate interests, with Black Friday dominating the news, while we are encouraged to give thanks to the Native Americans. There is so little now that is fun or authentically focused on the holiday's original intent.

I sat through the Thanksgiving Day parade in general annoyance and horror. The two hosts blabbed on and on, as the child who was watching the parade with me asked, "When is the news going off?". I told her "This is the parade, and those are the hosts."

There was more focus on those hosts and boring guests than on the parade itself.  Even the balloons were no treat, flying lower each year to avoid liability should a wind come and make things interesting. And at the very end, right before Santa, we had a Native American float called, "The True Spirit of Thanksgiving," because apparently for all these years we have all been getting it completely wrong.

Oh Saveur, how I know thee not, this holiday season. I don't want yuppie totalitarian vegetarians from comfortable Lawrenceville, New Jersey standing in for actual Thanksgiving. Take thy literary food wampom elsewhere, and given me something true.

Frankenstein Monster Candidates: Republicans Debate Bonus Wars

Robin (on left) with Batman

In case you were thinking that our military adventures (necessary and otherwise) are on the wane, with troops leaving Iraq, and Afghanistan looking more dubious by the hour after the death of Darth Bin Laden, rethink.

In  tonight's debate with the Republican presidential candidates, we are assured of one more war. Both the  front runner and the hind quarters of the political presidential race have come on in favor of attacking Iran IF they prove to be building nuclear stuff. And human nature being what it is, we can be pretty assured that Iran believes it has the right to build whatever we Americans gave ourselves the right to build. We don't mean to suggest any sort of equivalence between American and Iranian nuclear purposes, but then again, a bit of hypocrisy can be seen blowing from our end of the national possiblity pipe.

Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" to Iran to become a nuclear power. Gingrich agreed, saying that if "maximum covert operations" and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. 

Ron Paul strongly disagreed, stressing the need to go to Congress before military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran. "I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq," he said. 

(CBS News)

Sometimes Mr. Paul is the most sensible voice amongst the insensitive and unstable, although his sensibility tends to deteriorate the closer he gets to diagnosing a solution for economic problems. There are moments when you want to take components of each of the Republicans and yank out that one specific part, and meld it together with the other parts to make a more ideal Frankenstein monster candidate.

Eventual U.S. Reality Show Contestants

All these candidates have serious flaws that make them incomplete packages. Because of their inability to push forward with a cogent identity, they are reaching for anything that might push them forward and help them nail their own brand down in the public's mind. If necessary, bombing Iran is just the sort of positive pick me up that's needed to make it clear that they are in fact the man for the job.

But this sort of tough talk does nothing for solving issues and the underlying policy that assumes that no country should have what you have needs serious re-examination.  But it would take a truly bold candidate to try to redefine long assumed prerogatives.

Washington Post's Expert Misread of 2012 Election

The White House

The press is always behind the curve. When housing prices are rising, they are not writing articles warning you to back off from the frenzy. When things are at their worst, they are not encouraging you to be a buyer. When the sun is on the verge of rising, the press will usually be making the hard case for permanent inexplicable darkness. 

This applies no matter the subject. In this case we have the Washington Post warning that Obama may have a difficult and unlikely path to a second term. While that argument can seem plausible at various junctures of Republican stubbornness and confrontational stalling, we tend to be underwhelmed by the idea that Obama will actually lose in 2012. In fact, enough factors are piling up to suggest his win will be solid. 

The Post points out the "dark electorate mood," and the continued battered economy, quoting different political folks, including one representative of Romney who makes the false claim that Obama has worsened the economic situation (which is entirely plausible if we throw out measurable economic statistics and speak from our imagination). 

The truth of the matter is that the Republicans don't have a working candidate that can actually counter the truth of Obama's record. Perry, what with his job growth stories, can be compared to the man with a one person company, who hires a second person and brags of 100% job growth. Fast job growth can be particularly meaningless when your overall unemployment rate is high, or the jobs are meaningfully piddling in pay. 

Romney, the only Republican remotely capable of capturing a broad swathe of the voting public, cannot reliably counter the record of Obama. He can't critique the health care plan, and actually, as features of that plan kick in, it will not likely be the albatross the pundits imagine. The foreign policy can't be knocked, what with arms treaties, the death of dictators, the support of democracy (however selectively), and the killing of terrorist enemies. 

Romney is the numbers guy, but if you get into a real numbers debate on the economy, you lose. Job growth and GDP and corporate profits moved positive under Obama. You can even make an argument that the 10.1% unemployment peak was reduced due to Obama's stimulus package. That rate was already high when Obama walked into the office. If it drops another tenth of a point or two between now and 2012, Obama might even be able to argue that unemployment has not increased on his watch.

Which is why the Republicans have relentlessly focused on the debt issue. They know all too well that Obama has been quite successful in a number of areas, moving legislation and transforming parts of society while remaining solid in foreign policy execution. What better way to stop your opponent than to hang on him a problem created over many years, and a problem that defies instantaneous resolution. They know that. It was a brilliant pivot by the Republican strategists to get the masses (via the Tea Party structure) to focus on that which cannot be easily fixed, and blame it all on Obama for its mere existence. 

Thus when you are using your rare budget dollars to shore up the economy, you can be hit from the right by the accusation that you are spending frivolously, destroying the country and its future. 

That is the sole message that might resonate, red herring that it is, but unfortunately the Republicans lack a symbiotic relationship between their best candidates and their most activist voters. And by best candidates we mean Huntsman and Romney. They have a mountain of mistrust to overcome, and even then, the residue of distrust will spill over to the wider voter. The Mormon superstructure is not your average church, and its reach is vast. 

However benign and vague the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hopes to be, it nevertheless is even now working toward creating an environment conducive to a Romney win with its advertising campaign. (That campaign centers on a bunch of non-stereotypical Mormon types proclaiming that they are exactly like you and I, but Mormon, which rather defies any distinctions of Mormon faith, and especially if "you and I" happen to be fornicators, killers, or coffee drinkers). 

No, in the end this campaign will be a lot easier in 2012 than it appears today. The economy is already sending numerous signals of improvement and the numbers will be better heading into 2012. Barring some entirely normal Republican with an exceedingly well thought out economic plan, Obama will have no trouble sparring against Romney or the many lesser aspirants out there. 

Obama Calls Iraq Bluff, Republicans Want More Groveling

"Rock on left, Hard Place on Right"

The title of this article in the Miami Herald, "As U.S.-Iraqi troop talks faltered, Obama didn't pick up the phone" is one of those tricky bits of wording that means a bit more than it says. It haphazardly alludes back to the time when Hillary Clinton was running against Obama in the Democratic primary. Way back then (we were so much older then, we are younger than that now) she suggested that Obama might have trouble picking up the phone at 3 A.M. when something major was happening... you know, like whether to send special forces to take out a Bin Laden, or deciding whether to back a haphazard revolution in places like Libya, or even merely hunting down killers in Central Africa. The wording of the piece is an implication and an allusion wrapped up together in one myopic piece of reporting.

It goes on to point out the general distance that Obama and Vice President Biden kept from the negotiating table for the past year.

A listing of direct conversations provided by the embassy - drawn, the embassy said, from the White House website - indicates that Obama had no direct contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki between Feb. 13, when he telephoned the prime minister, until Friday, when he called al-Maliki to tell him U.S. troops would be withdrawn by Dec. 31. 

(Miami Herald)

Let's think this through. Obama was against the war from the start. He ran for president saying he would bring troops home. Bush did the work for him by agreeing to a deadline this year, but failed to work out immunity for any remaining forces. If you are Obama, do you expend political capital, during domestic and worldwide economic disaster, to argue with Iraqi politicians that they should 1) let troops stay and 2) give them immunity, and for a war you never believed should have been launched? Do you really dance that ridiculous dance?

That's the dance Republicans wanted Obama to engage in. To push to keep troops on the ground, working around the Iraqi parliament (which Obama preferred a deal with) to form an agreement with the arguably shady Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki . What possible good comes out of that effort?

And related, what possible point comes out of the Herald's title, with its allusions to dithering and uncertainty. Obama has managed to have the most solid foreign policy of any recent leader. While washing his hands of the war he didn't want and allowing the troops to come home and rest, he has actively engaged other areas of trouble. He killed the man who justified our attack on Afghanistan, and arguably, we can leave that situation as well, revenge exacted. He took it on the chin for not leading the Libya effort, well aware that the United States is big enough, and strong enough, to lead in multiple ways. Different tact, better result: short war, no American loss of life, greater respect for American restraint and diplomacy, less cash out the door, and a Middle East that is closer to democracy if they choose to accept the gift.

Obama is a smart man, and the last thing he wants to do it prolong a policy he feels was inappropriate.

We here always supported the invasion of Iraq, not for WMD, but for the type of potential democracy we now see spreading. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya somehow simultaneously reaffirm the invasion of Iraq, and renounce it, since sourcing the variables that lead people to courage is near impossible. Who gets credit for the emerging democracies? It's not clear.

What is clear is that Obama does not want to expend effort on something he does not believe in, and further something he was elected to end. If you had wanted troops in Iraq indefinitely, you would have voted for the guy who wanted troops in Iraq indefinitely.

For Conservatives, Cain More Able Than Romney

It's a pretty much a forgone conclusion that we here will be voting for Obama come November 2012. He has done far too much, and with dignity, to let his efforts go for naught. Whether it's supporting Bush's saving of the American banking system, trying to find a reasonable approach to improving health care coverage, to beginning the process of bringing troops home from Iraq while handling international terrorists, the man has been firing on all cylinders. His detractors detract, because either they (the right) are caught believing or making lies about the man due to various versions of hate or they (the left) were never, and are not, clear on who he is.  He is his own man.

If Romney becomes the Republican candidate, and if he runs a clean campaign, we will not be overwhelmed in grief if he wins. He is capable. But we suspect he has his own burdens to overcome. Those most interested in Christianity are not easily swayed that Mormonism, with its additions, secrets, and collectivism, is that exact same thing that Christ laid out. Mormonism spirals in many directions, and no amount of commercials showing regular folks doing good will convince Christian conservatives that Joseph Smith didn't put a little something odd of himself into the theology. The unusual set of new Mormon commercials running now make people wonder about the scope and interconnected dealings between the Church of Latter Day Saints and those it supports. It's not a coincidence that the commercials are on now, laying the thought paths in 2011, so that they will be settled thought patterns later in 2012.

Ultimately Romney has to win the votes and we suspect it will be a tough battle, with activists of a conservative stripe leading the way. That's why someone like Herman Cain is having such a strong appeal at the moment. We  don't know if he can address all the issues that need to be addressed; Romney can. But Cain's his laser-like focus on economics in a year when economics is everything may prove hard to beat.

We actually like Herman Cain. We like the bigness of his economic plan which is wrapped in a seemingly simple package. "9-9-9" he reminds us over and over, referring to the tax rates for individuals and corporations, along with a tax on spending. We also think it's workable with a few tweaks. It may not be progressive, and it might force more people onto the tax rolls who currently can deduct their way out of taxes: that might be a good thing. I know people who actually don't marry to suppress reported income, seek help from the state and from federal tax credits, and thus live fairly well between the wife's paycheck, the "husband's" paycheck, and the additional government support.

It would be an oddball election if we ended up with Obama against Cain. It would be the only election where one race or another could be said to be voting based solely on race. That might be a good outcome, but don't hold your breath. You can only stir things up and raise cain so much, before forces sit you down.

Steve Jobs, the Rich Life, and Fresh & Easy

I was riding home when I got a brief announcement of His death via National Public Radio. I was on my way to Fresh & Easy for sausages and cranberry orange scones. "An icon. A modern day Edison," said the voice over the radio.

My mind drifted back. Back a few days. He was born on May 19th, 1964 and now he was dead. I remember the television being on late nights, flicking through channels,  and landing on the smiling, animated face of Don Lapre.  America produces great businessmen and entrepreneurs, and Lapre will not go down in history as one of them. He was a scam artist, preying on people's hopes of making outsized amounts of money with little effort. But oh his enthusiasm as he urged people that the road to great riches could be had by placing tiny little advertisements in newspapers.

Jump back to today. The reverent voice on the radio announced that Steve Jobs was dead. He was a man of unique vision who managed to transform the way society entertains itself and communicates. By all accounts he was a difficult person, but brilliance is often like that, lest some scully of a soul come along and mess up your vision. He created Apple Computer and Pixar Studios, among other endeavors, but will be known for his creativity.

In this great country we often have multiple paths we can choose. We are all gifted in certain ways, and we can use our gifts, our powers, toward transformation or destruction. Don Lapre was a man of talent, in that he could pitch a product enthusiastically, even though the products were junk. According to Wikipedia, he bilked over 200,000 people out of some $50 million plus dollars. He had an ability to make people--likely desperate or gullible or hopeful folks--perk up in the middle of the night and think that they too could live the good life. He could make people believe, but trashed their faith.

Steven Jobs literally gave us the good life. I've never had an Apple product and avoid them in part because of the trendy factor and not wanting to join "the cult." But my android touch screen is a derivative of his genius. And despite my fickle posturing, his products have rolled across society transforming how we listen to music, learn, read, watch video, talk, and process data. He lead in so many areas, leaving his competitors to follow in haphazard, not quite Apple, fashion. We are blessed by his focused vision, and by those who worked with him to carry out, refine, enhance, and build those ideas into physical products.

Lapre was indicted this year, and arrested in a gym in Tempe with wounds from suicide attempts. When he died earlier this week on October 2nd, it was from a suicide in police custody.  Steve Jobs died today, three days after Dupre, from pancreatic cancer. Lapre took himself out in a cowardly desperate act, avoiding responsibility. Circumstances beyond his control took Steve Jobs out, and away. But he leaves us with the example and products of his unique vision, and every area of life is left with his handprint.

Oddly I am saddened by both deaths. Between the two men is the spectrum of American life and achievement. We all have daily choices we can make where we can ask ourselves about the quality of our pursuit of happiness, and whether that pursuit is inclusive of those around us. Are we in it just to transform our own personal situation and get the rich life quick, or, are we in it because we believe in a vision that can bring a rich life to everyone else.

Life is so short. So short. Then we fade. "What are you doing?" I thought to myself again, as that thought pops into my head whenever someone dies. "Well, I am coming home from work, driving down a street in Phoenix, headed to Fresh & Easy for sausages and some cranberry and orange scones, and maybe some Coke Zero, and I don't know that I've touched anyone at all."

Would that we all bless someone while we have the time. Thank you Steve Jobs, and may heaven and grace exist for all.

No Gold or Silver Bullets for Anyone's Gun

Rock, Fiat Paper, Scissors, Gold

It's September and the first day of fall just happened, at least here in Arizona, and I assume that our seasons work normally in relationship to the rest of the country, unlike our clocks which neither spring forward or fall back. Arizona is heat, then no heat, and unlike other places, Arizonan's move life outdoors right about now, doing their book sales and block parties and fairs when the rest of the country has begun shopping for scarves and mittens and breathing a chilled air filled with fragrance: wood burning, sweets, precipitation, roasted nuts, hot fowl drifting from homes and restaurants.

There is little good news anywhere. 30 year home loans can be got for 4%, or rather, the pricing has fallen (thanks Fed Chair Bernanke with your magic twists), but there is no market for the product. The Fed is still imagining it can do something, but with rates as low as they are, and with our do-nothing Congress, there is nothing that the Federal Reserve can do from a money manipulation standpoint that could help our economy.

I would argue that what we now need is a major bailout for homeowners. Not that I think they deserve it, but it's the housing drag that will sink us, with people worried about having a place to lay their heads each night. You will not spend an extra unnecessary dime if you are struggling just to hit your mortgage payment. That fear, that burden, has to be reduced. Otherwise, the whole country, the irresponsible and responsible alike, will get dragged knee deep into the quicksand.

There are no silver bullets anymore. Even the run-up in gold prices seems suspect, with gold ETF GLD falling about 20 points in two weeks, and hitting it's first Thursday to Friday period in a long time with a move that was statistically major. If you can't earn money via interest from your bank, or protect your stash via gold or silver, then what? Where is the safety zone? Swiss currency perhaps? And where will the actual wealthy park their cash in order to preserve it, all things looking shaky? Hard cheap assets like real estate perhaps? (And didn't billionaire hedge funder John Paulson shift into buy cheap real assets mode, only to get burned when we didn't bounce right back to our feet?)

I am starting to see more "safety zone" type questioning, and that's bad. We've seen the almost comical protests down around Wall Street in New York, largely by people who don't really know what Wall Street firms do day to day, and while this is not a true uprising, I can envision a point when people morph from recreational protests to more focused and angry displays of disaffection.

The Fed has no power, having done all it can. President Obama has little power, boxed in or flummoxed by his political opponents. Congress has no power, even this weekend failing to agree on short term spending agreements to keep the government rolling through November.

We are very nearly at a point where people HAVE to work together to fix things, or we will roll over into a period of extended stagnation. Not disaster, but like Japan's long period of asset deflation and malaise. Except, without the savings and general stoic sensibleness of the Japanese people.

Shamefully, our economy would be on the verge of chugging along if Republicans had not taken such a genial delight in sabotaging people's respect and trust in federal institutions. They preach that government cannot be trusted, that it is the beast, the great inhibitor of freedom. This, when a unified and aggressive government confidence is necessary.

Ineffectual Black People: Dick Cheney Edition

Dick Hardens Toward Condi

Dick Cheney, who we used to respect for his competent toughness, has been out pushing his new book In My Time, and trashing Colin Powell and Condozleeza Rice along the way. Among other roles, they served as the 65th and 66th Secretaries of State under George Bush. The were often the voices of moderation in the (Bush) administration, pushing for broader, non-military engagement in places like Iraq. That set them at odds from people like Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who were relatively sure that all the correct answers to world difficulties were inside their own noggins. Today both Powell and Rice would be considered "RINO's", or Republican In Name Only, by the activists in Republican and conservative circles.

It is no surprise that they have come under attack at the precise moment when conservatives are attempting to lay blame for everything wrong at the feet of Obama. Republicans are scrambling for the control of the American mental narrative at a point in time where they don't have the power to force their own policy initiatives. The process is in part a retroactive one, where you calibrate history according to your own best light. Dick Cheney is doing this, with Powell and Rice being collateral damage.

Cheney has unkind words for both, as well as for President Obama, and we can only wonder what the defining thread between all three individuals is that makes each worthy of being undermined. In a Fox News interview he suggests that Obama's Secretary of State, the once hated-by-conservatives Hillary Clinton, would be able to work with Republicans and should consider a run in 2012.  But much of the attention has focused on his characterizations of Powell and Rice.

Meanwhile, Cheney defended his account of the Bush administration from his new memoir, "In My Time." Cheney criticized several Bush administration officials in his book, including former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- both of whom have taken umbrage at Cheney's account.  

Cheney, responding specifically to Powell's recent comment that Cheney just fired "cheap shots" at his former colleagues, said he takes nothing back. 

(Fox)

In addition to seeing everyone on the right playing by the same script in using every moment and event to question Obama's worthiness and leadership, we also see a willingness to degrade black authority and independence across the political spectrum. That is, a Condi or Colin is worthy of respect to the extent they are useful, and to the extent they are not coming into conflict with the nearest true authority. The  minute any independence of thought is exercised, then the smack down begins. Which is why the most respected black authorities whose achievements are well defined happen to be pretty much dead.

Obama is getting the hard slam because there are are components of what he is doing that would in a short time reshape the political landscape. What you can't have is the benefits of health care reform kicking in  at the same time that more Hispanics come into political arena, and at the same time that the economy is finally ready to revive, and at the same time the wars and adventures have come to an end. Obama's success in policy will bear fruit, so expediency dictates that you chop the tree down now, lest the Democratic Party does the harvesting down the road.

Chaz Bono Changes the Nature of Dancing On TV

I went to school with Chaz Bono. That was in Manhattan, at LaGuardia High School of Music and the Arts across from Lincoln Center. Back then she was Chastity. She she was chubby and schlubby, and not too far from my own chubby and shlubby appearance. She was also very unhappy looking. My fellow students whispered about her those first few days in the class we shared, commenting on the contrast between Chastity and her mom. They seemed disappointed. People would point in her general direction saying, "There, there she is" and the other person would be confused, saying, "Where? Where?", expecting a younger version of Cher. When someone has a flamboyant mom like Cher, you imagine the offspring to be well on their way to matching that spark in their own way. She was quiet, and looked miserable, friendless even. (But I never talked to her, so who knows what was really going on. In high school I liked to imagine that everyone was as socially inept as I was).

Now Chastity has retrofitted herself to a male personae in the form of Chaz. She will appear on "Dancing with the Stars," dancing with a female, and people have taken sides. If you are not in favor, and highly supportive, then you are invariably some variation of bigot. That's the going line. Even if you have religious reasons, and you are religious by virtue of really believing that God is alive and watches these things we do, you are still expected to chuck all aside and come to the conclusion that she is a he, and a brave he at that.

Kiri Blackeley in Forbes casually scolds the critics, asking them why they are critiquing Chaz's alterations of a supposed God's inspired natural order, when so many others have made basic changes to themselves without an outcry. She writes:

The typical argument is framed like this one, which was posted on the show’s board: “I choose not to endorse ABC’s decision to have Chaz Bono dancing on the show. We will no longer be watching ABC. For Chaz Bono to change her sex is her saying that God made a mistake by creating her female and God does NOT make mistakes.” Fair enough. 

But this reasoning leaves me wondering where the furor was when Pamela Anderson was on the show last year. Anderson, for instance, was not born blonde, nor was she born with size 38 double D breasts. The same could be said for former cast members and Playboy mansion habitués Holly Madison and Kendra Wilkinson.  

Jennifer Grey, who won the 2010 season, was by her own admission not born with the nose you see on her face. I do not recall any ruckus about her. In fact, she was an audience favorite.

(Forbes)

This is probably not the most convincing critique of the critics. Changing your body even in small ways is often frowned upon in Christian circles, the mass sheepish herd of people--religious or otherwise-getting tattoos notwithstanding. When Jesus talks of the body as a temple or house of God, we hardly imagine that it begins with knocking down the house, ripping up the moorings, and installing some marble counter tops and stainless steel appliances. The premise of Jesus, and Christianity, is not necessarily changing the physical, or governments, but changing hearts.

Then too, transgendering yourself goes way beyond merely getting some casual physical surgery, which is why doctors and psychologists prep you for your many transitions. Even after it's done, and you have your new better self, there is no assurance that you will function or feel better. It's an assumption backed by not a shred of deep, long term scientific study.

Kiri manages to frame the entire issue in the most idiotic manner, ignoring any number of important issues in an effort to be supportive. And while some liberals actively applaud these social changes, supporting them in film and the media, the other side actively dumps their energy and effort into the political process. The mechanics of how this works is that you end up with everything your liberal heart desires on the telly, while ruled from Washington by people much farther to the right of that little heart.

That's how you end up with the Palins and the Bachmanns garnering more support than reasonable people like Jon Huntsman.

The higher that the monkey can climb

The more he shows his tail

Call no man happy 'til he dies

There's no milk at the bottom of the pail

God builds a church

The devil builds a chapel

Like the thistles that are growing

'round the thrunk of a tree

All the good in the world

You can put inside a thimble

And still have room for you and me

If there's one thing you can say

About Mankind

There's nothing kind about man

You can drive out nature with a pitch fork

But it always comes roaring back again

(Tom Waits)