Healthcare 2010: From Death Panels to National Security

What do you do when you have no foreign policy credentials, and your aim is to take down a President who's won two wars and killed our most hated national enemy? Pull out the old standard bogeyman, of course!

Goes along quite well with a story in Politico about the complete lack of foreign policy in the debates -- due to the complete lack of experience among the current nominees. If they don't do something to neutralize this advantage for Obama, it could prove damaging down the line. Will they all stoop to such inane and pathetic tactics? Only time will tell.

But yeah, I mean, they probably will.

The Demon Licks Obama

One can't help but wonder about this
man's views on foreign policy

Gene Simmons, member of a band I'm told plays something similar to Rock 'n Roll, recently railed against Barack Obama - or, more specifically, Barack Obama's recent assertion that Israel and Palestine go back to the border agreed upon back in 1967.

Says Simmons...

For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, 'Go back to your '67 borders in Israel,' how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide?

...

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well," Simmons said. "I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no fucking idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there.

...

If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no fucking idea what it’s like on the moon.

For reference, here's where Simmons lives. Note the similarities to Israel. (SPOILER: There are none.)

(via Politico)

Osama's Dead. Now What?

On Sunday, the White House announced a sudden and mysterious late-night speech by the President. For about an hour, the subject of the speech went unstated - causing a feeding frenzy among the media.

I sat with some friends of mine, all enjoying some old-school thrills, switching off on Super Mario 64. I - ever the nerd - was browsing the internet while the others struggled to find all eight of Big Boo's red coins, when I noticed a Breaking News alert on HuffPo. It said something to the effect of, "President to give speech; subject withheld." I announced this to the room, and the speculation was on! What could he be announcing? Why so late at night, so sudden? Why the secrecy?

Then it was announced it was "national security related." Cue full freak-out mode. We were all, apparently, going to die. Finally, finally, someone read the news on Facebook. Osama bin Laden had been killed. And that was totally awesome. I clicked "like," cementing my approval for the ages.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We watched the President live on the White House web page. Obama swaggered to his podium, read the announcement, and footage started popping up of spontaneous mass patriotism outside the White House and in Times Square. Mario, long forgotten now, was fast asleep in Peach's courtyard. The rest of the evening was spent researching exactly how grisly Osama's death had been. (In the eye? Yikes. So much for kidney failure...)

The speech was brief, and as the President receded into the ominous Cross Hall, we all wondered aloud what this would mean for our country. Is this the end of the war in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? How did it all happen? Did we really have the body, or was this an elaborate ruse on the level of pretending to be an American citizen so you can run for President? How will this affect the election?

On the last point, some prognosticators have predicted that this news could bump up Obama's approval some 10 points or so, which might be sustained for up to six months. Seems sensible enough - even Republicans were having a hard time criticizing the President's handling of the operation.*

No, it's the liberals attacking the President this time. I had thought the execution of Osama bin Laden was a universal desire - he had masterminded at least one plot that resulted in thousands of deaths, possessed the ability to do so again, and stated his clear intention to do just that. I'm not the biggest fan of the death penalty, but goddamn if this isn't a worthy enough argument in favor. Osama's death wasn't just retribution, it wasn't murder, it was justice. More than that, it was the intelligent thing to do.

I understand some hesitation. We essentially committed an act of war in Pakistan. No matter how cool our equipment was, how smoothly the operation went, you can't change the fact that we flew troops into their country and rushed in, guns blazing. Hell, we blew up a helicopter on our way out - exactly the wrong sort of thing to do on the sovereign land of a nuclear power. Could this further anger the military of Pakistan?

IMPLICATIONS

Bin Laden was found not far from the Pakistani capitol, in a prominent, even affluent, military town. The "Pakistani West Point," Kakul Academy, is a stone's throw from where Navy Seal Team 6 exploded a cutting-edge stealth helicopter in Osama's walled-in compound. It's hard to imagine such a feat from the most wanted man in the world without some assistance, or at least a few turned heads, from the nation's powerful military. Will this lead American war-hawks to put more pressure on Pakistan? Could actual complicity come to light? And, if so, will our relations with the country, already frayed, prove irrevocably severed?

And, so long as we're asking questions, what does this mean for al-Qaeda? Without its founder and leader, can it remain the galvanizing, frightening organization it has been? Further, after this blow, and continued reports about what seem to be al-Qaeda's death throws, with the Taliban a distant memory in the national consciousness (hell, there's an entire generation now that doesn't even know who Osama bin Laden was), what purpose are American troops serving in Afghanistan? Isn't this grounds for immediate withdrawal?

All this ruminating, and no answers. Just question after question. The death of a madman is inarguably good news, and seems somehow to resolve so much. But it seems everyone seems stuck in the same loop as I, pondering mysteries that always seem to resolve themselves in the unshakeable refrain of, "Now what?"

_______________

*UPDATE 5/8: Not that it stopped them from trying.

Popeadope

THIS IS WHAT HE REALLY LOOKS LIKE

So the Pope -- perhaps the most evil looking person on earth (see photo) -- recently announced that he believes condoms are a good way to "reduce the risk of infections" from STDs such as AIDS. Every person I know with motor-sensory perception immediately remarked, upon hearing such wizened words, "Yup." You'd think that would be the end of the conversation, no?

No. Apparently, conservative Catholics don't take too kindly to their faith acquiescing to reality, and they've spent every waking moment since Benedict's admission (that latex can beat up God) trying to explain it away. Some called for a more official announcement. Some, ignoring the irony of such a position, blamed faulty translation. And still others plugged their ears with their fingers and hummed their favorite hymn.

A knee-jerk reaction from some Catholics was to say that the Pope's use of a male prostitute in his hypothetical wasn't a change in Vatican policy. It just applies to dudes, the logic seemed to run. But soon after, the Pope's official spokesperson reported that he had asked Benny if the specific words used in his original statement (specifically, regarding the sex of the condom user) were important. The Pope replied, "No." You'd think that would stop the denials and finger-pointing, but no. It's still going on at all levels within the church.

Surprisingly, I was surprised. Mr. XVI seemed to finally own-up to one of the most damnable positions any group has ever taken on any issue, had finally said that condom use was at least a step in the right direction, had finally taken that arrow from the non-believer's quiver, and the response of much (but not all) of the Catholic leadership was to simply deny it had ever happened. Truly miraculous.