Just Making a Comparison...

A friend of a friend posted this picture a few days ago -
The picture itself is fairly offensive - showing our current sitting President, elected by a majority of the voters, alongside a list of some of the worst dictators of the last century. In fact, the poster got called out on that, but defended herself with the claim that this was only showing leaders in the two categories. It wasn't meant to imply that Obama himself is a murderous megalomaniac...it just happens that his opinions and policies regarding personal weapons place him in the same group as all those horrible people.

Yeah, right. Just a coincidence. Okay, let's look at this a bit.

First, of course, is the obvious - these names and faces were not chosen at random. If we're looking at world leaders associated with gun control...where's Tony Blair, who got the 1997 Firearms Act passed in the UK? Ronald Reagan, who endorsed the Brady Act? Angela Merkel, who signed a measure in Germany that even bans Tasers? I'm guessing that they weren't considered scary enough - especially Reagan. Including him on the list would have confused the target audience severely, I suspect. It is fairly obvious that this list was designed to provide a group of absolute villains specifically for the purpose of ranking Obama alongside them. Showing that some reasonable people support certain gun control measures would have been counter-productive to this Orwellian hatefest.

Second, to be a fair comparison, Obama's policies have to actually qualify him as a leader looking to strip citizens of their right to own guns. Does he have that sort of record? I haven't seen much on that from him. Back in June, he apparently put out some executive orders that would result in computerizing background checks, increased enforcement of existing laws, and improving interstate cooperation. None of which sounds quite like prying guns out of peoples' hands - and I haven't even found confirmation that the orders were issued. Even the NRA says he hasn't done anything on the issue - though of course that only means it's a conspiracy to do more later. But before you go lumping our President in with a bunch of dictators...shouldn't you be able to point to something he's actually done?

Third, the others in the group really ought to belong there, too. Some of them, sure. Stalin, yep. He instituted gun control in the Soviet Union. Amin, Castro? Couldn't find anything on them. Though Uganda seems to me to have been a failed state under his rule, so I wonder just how effective any gun laws really were...and I suspect that it isn't all that relevant in Cuba, where most of the populace can't afford food, let alone a handgun. But Lenin? Gun control in the Soviet Union appears to have started under Stalin, not Lenin. And Hitler? It turns out the 1938 German Weapons Act completely DEregulated long guns and ammunition, as well as liberalizing the rules on licensing. (In fairness, it also made it illegal for Jews to own any guns at all - but considering all the other antisemitic legislation of the time, it hardly seems fair to characterize that as gun control.)

So tell me again - is this really a picture showing the category that Obama's actions have placed him in, alongside all these historical villains? Or is this yet another attempt to demonize the President with lies, half-truths, and innuendo?

Of course, if you wanted to do it right, you could leave the picture exactly the same, and merely change the captions - the pictures in the bottom row are all leaders who believed that they had the right to murder their own citizens purely on their own word. But the people who put out this sort of thing seem to be just fine with that.

Czar of Blame

I read today that President Bush is considering appointing a new “Assistant to the President” to oversee our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As is the current fashion, the press is calling the position “War Czar” – as good a term as any, I suppose.

At first I was confused by the idea. Don’t we already have somebody in charge? That’s the whole point of the military chain of command – SOMEBODY is in charge of everything we do. For the two wars, that would be the CENTCOM commander, ADM Fallon, though he’s certainly receiving guidance, advice, and direction from the Joint Chiefs, the SECDEF, and the President.

On further reading, though, I discovered that the problem is higher up. Yes, the military has somebody in charge, but the military isn’t running everything. The State Department has a big piece of it, and various other administrative agencies have their own fingers in the pie. As it stands now, the overall effort has suffered from infighting, as the separate agencies pull in different directions. Playing referee in the turf battles is apparently taking up too much of the President’s time, so he wants to put somebody in overall charge of the efforts, with power to issue taskings to these Cabinet-level agencies.

I see problems with that. First of all, it merely adds another layer to the potential for infighting – the War Czar will have the authority to issue orders to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, but only for issues regarding the wars. That leaves the agencies the “wiggle room” to refuse because obeying would “impact on other priorities,” or whatever. Instead of eliminating the petty arguments, it would simply add another voice to them. In addition, it gives the appearance of creating a “Super-Cabinet,” an additional layer between the President and his Constitutionally-mandated advisors.

Even worse, it attempts to solve the wrong problem. If these most senior advisors to the President, his own hand-picked Cabinet members, can’t work out issues through discussion and compromise in a spirit of cooperation, then why are they there? There shouldn’t be a need for someone to oversee those efforts and settle the fights, because we already have Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice to oversee the efforts – and they shouldn’t be wasting the time of their respective agencies in fighting each other. Bluntly, if they can’t settle things without a referee, then pick one of them and give her overall responsibility and authority. (I say “her,” because State is the senior Cabinet position – making Secretary Rice the easiest choice. But of course, the President could choose otherwise.) Or pick someone else already on the Cabinet to handle it – the position of Vice-President could certainly be given such authority without adding a new layer to the hierarchy. Or fire them both and get somebody in who CAN work and play well with others.

Of course, a cynic might see another motive to the whole exercise. By bringing in another person to take responsibility for the job, the President is adding another target for critics, redirecting the heat away from his Cabinet secretaries, his Vice-President, and himself. The position itself, much less the poor sucker…um, individual chosen to fill it, would be “expendable,” allowing the President to fire him for failing to properly implement Administration policy if (or when) it falls apart.

I note that at least three retired generals have turned down the job. All three were (obviously) long-term officers, successful leaders who retired after decades of honorable service in a field where “Duty to Country” and obedience to the Commander-in-Chief are nearly as ingrained as our habit of breathing. And yet all three said “no” when their President attempted to call them back to the service of their country – in fact, Gen. Sheehan’s comments sound more like “not just no, HELL, no!” I suspect that I’m not the only person to see that cynical side to the issue.

Subtlety

Whatever happened to subtlety and discretion in politics? President Bush’s administration seems to have completely lost the ability to camouflage the fact that their policies come straight from their personal prejudices, opinions, and whims. You can find three separate examples just by looking in this week’s papers.

First, of course, the war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan seems to me to be a clear and appropriate result of Al Qaida’s attack on our nation. There’s really no question that they received substantial support from Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that we haven’t caught Osama, but we’ve clearly damaged that source of support, and we certainly had sufficient cause to do so. The war in Iraq, though, has only the slimmest of theoretical connections to the “War on Terror.” There’s not a lot of solid proof that Saddam was directly supporting Al Qaida, and the whole issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction seems to have been an error. I do feel that we’ve accomplished a good thing over there, and I CERTAINLY believe that we have to finish what we started. But I can easily imagine the real beginnings in a conversation between President Bush and his advisors…”Dick, Don, Condi…Dad left something unfinished over there. It wasn’t his fault; our allies just couldn’t handle us taking that Iraqi nutcase all the way out. But I think we’ve got an opportunity to fix that, now. Get out there and find me the proof that he’s supporting terrorists and making chemical weapons, so we’ll have a reason to stop him. Oh, and Don, while we’re waiting, get your boys to work up some plans and options for us to go in.” And so we did. Not because Saddam was a real threat to us, but because his continued reign was an ongoing insult to the Bush Family.

More recently, the Judith Miller debacle is just beyond my understanding. She didn’t expose Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA agent to the public – that was Robert Novak. She didn’t publish anything about it. She apparently got into the whole Plame issue pretty late in the game. And yet she was bullied into revealing her source through a contempt of court citation. I’m neither a lawyer nor a judge, but that sure seems like a violation of the First Amendment to me. We already knew Karl Rove was one major source for the leak. Now that Ms. Miller has finally given in, we know that Vice-President Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby was the second major source. The Administration’s insistence on persecuting Ms. Miller very much seems to be an attempt to shift the blame away from the Administration officials who leaked the information in the first place!

And now, apparently, the Federal Government is trying to take away the right of the people and of the States to make their own decisions. Oregon’s voters have determined that Assisted Suicide should be legal. There are stringent requirements that must be met before the doctor can prescribe the fatal overdose of barbiturates, but if the patient is determined, the doctor will help him take his own life. Apparently, though, that offends the “pro-life” sensibilities of the President and his staff. Again, I can almost hear the conversation…”Gang, we’ve got to put a stop to this. We all know suicide is wrong, we’ve been taught that in Sunday School since we were kids. There’s got to be some way to override this law. Ashcroft, they’re using drugs to do it, so maybe you can come up with something.” And so he did – suicide is apparently not an approved medical use for barbiturates. That argument makes a superficial sort of sense, but is transparently an excuse to override the clearly expressed intent of the people of the State of Oregon in a situation that falls under the powers reserved for the States under the U. S. Constitution. (Those of you who don’t remember your Government classes…the Federal Government was given specific powers in the Constitution. Any power not specifically granted to the Feds was reserved for the States.) Whether you support Oregon’s law or not, I hope you can see the horrible precedent that could be set here.

I realize that it is only to be expected that a President’s personal values will affect his decisions. I just wish he could be subtle enough to let us pretend he’s an objective decision-maker, rather than an emotional hothead ready to do whatever it takes to make his dreams a reality.

If I Was The President

Sometimes, when I’ve nothing better to do, I daydream about what I would do in various unlikely situations. For example, how would I spend $150 million if I won the lottery? That would be a little more likely if I bought a ticket. Or how would I remodel my house on one of those remodeling shows? I suspect my landlord would not be happy with my plans, though, so maybe I should wait until I own my own house.

After re-reading Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders recently, then watching “Commander in Chief” this week, I started thinking about what I’d do as the President. I can’t really imagine a set of circumstances that would get me there, but sometimes realism isn’t that important in fantasy. Naturally, there’d be a lot I’d like to do politically, but I’ll save that for other blogs. I was thinking more about what I would do for fun in between crises.

For starters, I think I could make the media happy by skipping vacations altogether. After all, I haven’t had a real vacation apart from family visits and day-trips since I got married. When I was in Italy for three years, I didn’t even have family visits! I did spend a week in England, but that was as a Boy Scout Leader for summer camp – not all that relaxing. Of course, I also spent time in at least seven other countries on business trips, but it looks to me like the President gets to do that sort of thing, too. Most of our Presidents have spent a few weeks going “back home,” wherever that might be, such as Crawford, Texas for President Bush. After 18 years in the Army, though, I don’t really have a home I’m desperate to go back to. I figure a weekend at Camp David now and again would be plenty, and during my term of office, my family can come visit me! Maybe the Secret Service can show them around downtown…

There are some other recreation possibilities, though. Kennedy Center is basically the government’s private theatre. I think if the President mentioned he’d like to see a certain group, arrangements could be made. Maybe a Renaissance Faire Music Festival, featuring the Minstrels of Mayhem and the O’Danny Girls? I bet getting tickets isn’t a problem the President would have.

For that matter, it would be the perfect opportunity to meet people. How many of your favorite movie stars, TV stars, musicians, and authors do you think would turn down an invitation to dinner at the White House? I’d like to invite Geena Davis and Martin Sheen to discuss dramatic portrayals of the Presidency, after I’ve done the real thing for a few months. That might be a good excuse to invite Harrison Ford, too, even though Air Force One is not the real reason I’d want to meet him – I’d much rather meet Han Solo and Indiana Jones. The President can’t exactly go down to the pub on a whim, but I could invite Spider Robinson and bring Callahan’s Bar to the White House, metaphorically at least. In fact, I suspect that every living author on my Yahoo 360 Favorites list would get an invitation sooner or later. If only it had happened in time for me to meet Robert Heinlein…

The one meeting I’d most like to set up, though, is a working lunch with Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and the Administrator of NASA. I’m just certain that those two authors have a number of workable suggestions on improving the Space Program, and I’d very much like to hear the Administrator’s response to their ideas. In fact, his response might determine how long he’d stay Administrator…because I just bet Paul Allen would be interested in the job, even if he had to give up his stake in SpaceShipOne.

Yes, I can definitely see some opportunities for fun as the President. All in all, though, I can’t help thinking that it would be more fun to win the lottery.

Commander-in-Chief

Anybody watch the premiere of "Commander-in-Chief" last night? I did. If you taped it, then the rest of this entry may contain spoilers, so go watch your tape first.

I'm not sure I'm going to like the show. Of course, anything that has Geena Davis in it will keep my attention for at least a few episodes. And I enjoyed some of the moral, ethical, and political questions the first hour raised - if they keep that up, I'll keep watching.

For instance, if the President asks his Vice-President to resign rather than take over, does the Vice-President have a moral obligation to agree? After all, the President chose her for the job, he should be able to fire her. On reflection, though, I find I agree with the show's answer - the Vice-President has every right to maintain her office and ascend to the Presidency. The situation rather reminded me of one of my military pet peeves - people who join the military (to include the Reserves and National Guard) for the paycheck, or the college money, or whatever, then try to back out when they find out they've been picked to go to war. President Bridges picked Mrs. Allen to be the Vice-President as a stunt, sure. But if he didn't give at least some thought to the possibility of his own death in office, well, then his judgement isn't all that good, anyway!

Another moral question that came up - is it right for the President to use the threat of military force to save the life of a woman who is going to be stoned to death for adultery? Let's ask that another way. Is it proper for the President to threaten a friendly (or at least neutral) nation with an act of war to save the life of a criminal convicted of a capital crime under the due process of her own country? It's amazing how much the wording of the question changes the answer, isn't it? I think she was wrong, there. I don't believe we have the automatic right to use our superpower might to dictate all forms of justice in another country. There is a difference between genocide and execution of an individual. However mild we believe her crime was, the woman did know the penalty for her act before she committed it. Using our military force in such a way makes us little more than a bully.

On the other hand, I don't believe we have any obligation to maintain diplomatic or trade relations with countries that we feel are barbaric. We're a capitalist nation, and business is business. Just like any businessman or customer, we have every right to decide who we choose to do business WITH. Cutting off foreign aid and trade to a given country and to those who continue to support them might well do more damage in the long run than an extended bombing campaign, and certainly more than an invasion consisting of three helicopters. The moral and ethical principles involved, though, make that option the better choice, in my opinion.

A related question. If Nigeria was not only executing the woman, but the man as well, would that change the moral principle? Would President Allen still have wanted to go rescue her? Or should she rescue both of them, or neither? I tend to believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander...and if the same law applied to both genders, then we'd really have nothing to complain about.

There were some problems with the show, though. Worse than making the wrong decision about the Nigerian woman, I don't think President Allen thought through the consequences of that decision, and the show made no mention of them. As if we could do such a thing and not have a huge backlash against us in the international press, especially in the Muslim countries! That might be covered in later episodes, though, so I'll withhold judgement on that one.

The worst problem was the believability of the basic premise. I just can't conceive of any party politician choosing an Independent as his running mate. Surely there was a female member of his own party that would have sufficed! I understand the dramatic necessity here - they need the conflict between the party warhorse, Speaker Templeton, and the Independent President. But couldn't they have managed much the same with a hardline Conservative President selecting a moderate from his own party? She could even have made public statements that disagreed with the party platform. We could still have had the conflict between the late President's beliefs and those of his VP, and thus between the new President and the Speaker of the House, but it would have been mch more believable within the political structure we know.

My biggest concern, though, is one I got from my dad, that this will turn out to be an extended campaign ad for Hillary Clinton. As long as President Allen stays independent, doing things to outrage each party in turn, or even both at once, I can enjoy it. If it turns into a mouthpiece for either party, though, I'm done.