Morning Coffee (150)

Most of the time, I feel as though I'm a salmon, desperately swimming upstream against a raging current of stupidity in order to find some semblance of truth. Sure, I know that if I make the trip, I will die from exhaustion, but I am compelled nevertheless.

You may be wondering why I haven't Brewed any Coffee in a while. As you all probably know, President Obama was inaugurated just eleven days ago. First, I was incredibly busy preparing for my day job, which unlike the Morning Coffee, actually pays the bills. Second, I simply wanted to put it all into perspective; to take in the zeitgeist. And sometimes the best way to do that is through time. I could have written the day of, or the day after, but it might have read like sour grapes. And frankly, I am of the opinion that it was a historic day; it was a rare historical instance of peaceful, non-death related, democratic transfer of leadership from one individual to another. And while the throngs of Obama supporters that packed the National Mall (amazing picture) might have felt it necessary to boo outgoing President George Bush, I felt that it was best to sit back and take pride in the day, even if I did not agree with much of what Obama said in his very well delivered speech. It was a good day, not because that particular person was sworn in, which is what his supporters might believe, but because a person was SWORN in.

And during that swearing in, while the Chief Justice's nerves were rattled and Obama himself was a bit over-eager to take the oath, and all throughout the subsequent speech, I kept wondering if I had become too cynical to acknowledge anything good the man might do. I wondered if the cult of personality I had seen grow in the previous weeks would sour my perspective of the man, and I wondered this almost as much as I feared that that cult would never subside.

But when the dust settled and the environmentally-friendly people left, Obama went to work. Cult or no, it is our duty as Americans to question our government. But we should do so with a fair eye, doling out criticism and praise when each are deserved. That's what it means to be bi-partisan. Too bad Americans, like CNN, would rather play "fan-boys" to these megalomaniacs. Let's "hope" that in the spirit of change, people actually change.

"No You Can't"...Sell My Face on a Plate:
You may ask, can we at the Morning Coffee talk any more about the cult of personality that is Obama? Well, to paraphrase a guy you might have heard of, "Yes We Can!" The White House, if a house can actually do such things, is looking to limit the commercial use of Obama's image. I will be the first to shout from the mountain that the image of the President, the Presidential Seal, and the White House likeness shouldn't be used to endorse any product (although you have to wonder how much national debt we could eliminate by letting businesses put well placed advertisements on the facade of the White House or behind the President during nationally televised addresses...). But I will also say, Obama and his campaign did little to discourage this sort of behavior during their dogged pursuit of power, er, of winning the election. I suppose that they now realize that it might be a bad thing for Obama's face to be everywhere. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal has already pointed this out, so maybe Obama's advisers read her article (her analysis of this particular situation is at the end of the article. The rest of it has other insightful analysis that we'll address in a moment). Run a search for "Obama Merchandise" in Google. Actually, I already did it for you. There are 14.6 million hits, including news articles and sites actually selling things. The Google ads yield significant results as well. Purple Slinky has a list of the "wackiest 35 Obama related items" that you can buy. Cracked.com also has a list. Wine, bottle openers, chap stick. All there for you, the Obama Lover. If you watch the news at all, you have seen the commemorative plates and coins. If you're a Chicago White Sox fan, you might get to buy Sox hats with the big "O" on them.

This new sentiment of restraining the use of Obama's image is confusing to me, especially when one considers that Obama himself has a site that offers all sorts of merchandise for sale, much of which features Obama's likeness, and mostly at highly inflated prices such as the Vera Wang shirt or Zack Posen's stupid looking design (prices vary from $45-70 for designer shirts). Of course, it might be that his handlers want to eliminate the competition; to drive consumers to the "official" Obama store. Not terribly free market, but what do you expect from a segment of society whose basic economic tenet is regulation?

"I won":
But let's move on, shall we? In the spirit of his being the change we seek (or something like that), Obama made a simple declaration when discussing his economic stimulus package with Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA): "I won." He followed up that declarative with a more conciliatory, bipartisan statement: "I will trump you on that." We sure did get change after all. I remember another politician making a similarly bipartisan statement, then about political capital, after a win in 2004. Yikes.

Too bad the proposal garnered not a single Republican vote. In fact, 11 Democrats voted against it, which is a fact you can access only by doing simple math, since most media outlets don't actually tell you that (277-188 - 177 Republicans...you get the idea). Toby Harnden of the Telegraph (UK) gives us a list of the 11 Democrats who didn't vote for the freak of nature stimulus package. Reading their comments about the package is perhaps more insightful than listening to a Republican make disparaging remarks about it, however true their remarks might be. See, they're almost obligated to put down a Democrat's plan, but Democrats who disagree with a fellow Democrat's plan, well, now that's where the burning truth most likely lies. Mankind is always most harsh to his Brothers (see one US Civil War).

Anyway, he's right. He won. He can trump anyone on that for sure. Wait...so that's what he and Pelosi mean when they say postpartisan...

Economic Stimulus for Dummies:
When it comes to economic issues, I, the Master Brewer, am a moron. But I know a thing or two. The most important thing I know is to ask people better than me to explain to me in idiot proof terms; break it down Barney style, as they say in the Marine Corps. Thus, in front of all the loyal MC readers, I plea to my good friend the Logician to Brew for us again. Now he cannot possibly refuse, since I called him out publicly. Or maybe that guy out Boston way...

The second thing I know, is that this stimulus is...what's a good word? Foolish? First we have the fact that Democrats offered no concessions to Republican lawmakers, alright they did remove the controversial funding for family planning services to low income families, but that was at the request of President Obama. Do they have to offer concessions? I suppose not. They are the majority after all. But don't come to me claiming you're postpartisan (whatever that means) if your modus operandi is to marginalize the other party.

Secondly, it appears to the feeble mind of this writer that the stimulus is merely packed full of pork. Peggy Noonan, in the article I previously mentioned, points out that analysis done by the Wall Street Journal suggests that "only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus." Noonan goes on to say, "When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol[itician]. It means you're a slob."

Possibly the strangest tenet of the bill is the so-called "Buy American" provision. I won't deny that buying American is patriotic sounding. But patriotic or not, it's not very logical. The provision requires that projects that are funded with stimulus dollars must use American made goods and equipment. This reminds me of the provisions the Chinese include on loans to African nations: will give you money to build your infrastructure, but you must guarantee that we get a large percentage of infrastructure contracts. Anyway, it's not very free market, and will only serve to alienate us from other countries, which doesn't sound all that Obama-like at all. The provision, if enacted, would also violate an agreement the US made on 15 November 2008, which stated that the US would "refrain from raising new barriers to investment or trade in goods and services."

If American companies want Americans to buy American, then those companies need to make a better, more affordable product. Forcing consumers to buy from one supplier is not, as they say, American at all, and will surely be detrimental to those consumers and world economic stability writ large.

That's all the economic talk this neophyte can muster.

Foreign Policy Expertise:
Speaking of neophytes, let's take a look at Obama's mastery of foreign policy. First we have his interview with al-Arabiya, a TV channel owned by Saudi Arabia but based in Dubai. This wasn't just his first interview with a foreign entity, but the first formal television interview of his Presidency (transcript HERE). It's nice that my President (which he is, despite disagreeing with him on many things) choose to give his first interview with an Arabic television station. I kid, actually it offends me. But the fact that he gave the interview itself doesn't offend me as much as does the content of that interview. I'll let Victor Davis Hanson's stellar insight illustrate to you how badly this should offend. In his article for Real Clear Politics, "Dancing Among Landmines - The Obama al-Arabiya Interview", Hanson says:

"When abroad it is not wise to criticize your own country and praise the antithetical world view of another - especially if yours is a democratic republic and the alternative is a theocratic monarchy that has a less than liberal record on human rights, treatment of women and homosexuals, and tolerance for religious plurality."

Hanson also points out, and you should really read the article, that while Obama says that there's no reason to not restore the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago," Obama made no mention of America's track record in helping Muslim nations or populations. Instead, Obama suggest that America has done little in the last 30 years, and prior to that, American-Muslim relations were stellar. Never mind the fact that thirty years ago, Iranian students seized a US embassy and held Americans hostage for 14 months, and in 1983 Muslim terrorists drove a suicide truck into the Marine Barracks in Beirut. How's that for good relations? But despite all that and the animosity Muslims all over the world have for America, Hanson states that the US has been involved in removing Saddam Hussein's military from Kuwait, attacking Christian Serbs to help Bosnian Muslims, helping Afghans fight the Soviets, investing $1 trillion to replace autocratic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq with democracy, and giving billions of dollars to fight disease in Africa. How friendly have the Chinese or Russians been? Hanson isn't the only author to point out this discrepancy in Obaman logic. Charles Krauthammer does this to great effect. Krauthammer's article is slightly more specific with its use of examples than Hanson's general condemnation of Obama's rhetoric at home and abroad.

Another interesting Hanson point:

"Beware of the dangerous two-step. For nearly two years the unspoken rule of the campaign (ask former Senator Bob Kerry or Hillary Clinton herself or talk-show host Bill Cunningham) was that mentioning Obama's Muslim ancestry was taboo. It was illiberal to evoke his Muslim-sounding name or his Indonesian ancestry, as if one were deliberately trying to suggest his multicultural fides made him less appealing to the square majority in America. But Obama apparently himself is immune to such prohibitions--at least abroad. If he appreciates the off-limits landscape at home, overseas it is suddenly to be showcased to reemphasize his global, multicultural and less parochial credentials. E.g., it comes off as something like: 'between you and me--typical Americans could not relate to you the way I can--even though back in America to even suggest that I am not typical is sometimes the greatest of sins--albeit in the manner I adjudicate.'"

What more can I add? A synthesis: Obama's heritage is off-limits to the people he leads because it might somehow suggest that he's different from us, but his heritage is good when dealing with others; it gives him insight into how they feel; it makes it easier for them to identify with him. This is a lot of tripe. I'd hate to suggest it, but maybe his multiculturalism makes it impossible for him to relate to us? Not that I actually believe that, but I think Obama's gesture to the Muslim world is disingenuous and is insulting to the United States.

Here's a quote from the Krauthammer article:

"Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized."

In another interesting foreign policy issue, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said of Obama's offer to talk to the Iranian government, "This means that Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed. Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change." He went on to demand an apology for American crimes against Iran. In fairness to Obama, it should be noted that he has not ruled out any options in dealing with Iran, which, to the dismay of supporters everywhere, means that military strikes against Iranian nuclear-related facilities is still a possibility. How'd that be for passive, Ahmadinejad?

Power Corrupts, and Apparently Makes you a Hypocrite:
In the Vice-Presidential Debates in 2008, then Senator Joe Biden lamented on the power accrued by Vice-President Dick Cheney. I largely agreed with his premise that Cheney had worked diligently to acquire additional power for the executive, and I thought that increase in power is a bad thing. And while Biden seemed to be most concerned with Cheney's encroachment into legislative (i.e. his) territory, he also seemed to imply disgust with Cheney's widely ranging role in the Bush administration.

Oh what difference does moving from the legislative to the executive branch make. Vice-President Biden seems interested in carrying on Cheney's tradition of being involved in everything. A "senior administration official" says, "Biden will be more transparent, accessible, bipartisan and focused on middle-class values than Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean he'll be less powerful." Great, more transparent, but still powerful. My question to Biden, was Cheney the "most dangerous Vice-President in history" because he was less transparent or because he had his fingers in every pie? Puzzling.

Word of the Day: Bemoan (verb): To moan about or weep for; mourn.

On This Day in History: Guy Fawkes is executed for his plot against Parliament and James I of England in the Gunpowder Plot (1606). The first venereal disease clinic opens at London Lock Hospital (1747). The United States orders all Native Americans into reservations (1876). Germany uses poison gas against Russia in World War I (1915). The Soviet Union (i.e. Stalin) exiles Leon Trotsky (1929). Eddie Slovik is executed for desertion, the first such execution since the Civil War (1945). President Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb (1950). President Clinton authorizes a $20 billion loan to Mexico to stabilize its economy.

"Obama raises hand, lifts a nation."

"Man raises hand, lifts a finger."

[Morning Coffee Ends Transmission]