Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Because yesterday's column was a wee bit un-holiday-spirit-ish, I offer up my thanks today. I am thankful for the web. I am thankful that I can sit in front of a machine and have at my fingertips perhaps not the sum of human knowledge, but a pretty close approximation (the closest the race has ever seen since, perhaps, the library at Alexandria).
I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to address this subject, but an etymological battle in Washington seems to have just been stirred up further, meaning I just have to jump on top (so to speak) of the semantic debate.
I speak of whores. That's right, whores. Prostitutes. Hookers.
Because some in Washington have apparently latched onto these terms either as a favorite insult to hurl, or as a faux-controversy (while giving Oscar-worthy performances of having the Victorian vapors over hearing the words). Following close behind are charges of "sexism" and "insensitivity" and probably a few other "-isms" to boot.
To which I say: "Oh, Puh-LEEZE."
Certain Democrats in Congress, in advance of President Obama's announcement of his new Afghanistan strategy, have come up with a rather novel idea -- to actually pay for the wars we're fighting, by passing a "war tax." The idea is an interesting one, in several ways. At this point, it doesn't appear to have enough support to actually pass, but that could change quickly as Democrats make the case for it to the public.
The idea itself is a basic one -- pay for the costs of war now, instead of endlessly borrowing money in order to do so. A few weeks ago, the White House leaked an interesting factoid -- it costs one million dollars to put one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year. This is a nice round number, and gets people to think about the war in a new light -- how much it costs.
We've already spent over a trillion (that's with a "T") dollars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. None of it was paid for through new taxes -- the first time in American history we have gone to war without at least attempting to raise the money to pay for it. This is part of the reason why the federal government is running such a huge deficit right now.
President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are now, to use a poker term, "all in" on healthcare reform. Some may immediately respond to hearing this by saying: "Hey, Chris, you're just on an endless quest for fresh, new metaphors to describe the healthcare reform effort, after writing about it for months." I won't quibble the point. Having pretty much exhausted our sports metaphors for now (at least until the Winter Olympics and all that ultra-hip snowboarding lingo comes barrelling down the hill), we turn to the world of card games for today's installment. Which brings us to the poker hand we've been dealt on healthcare reform. But rather than focusing on the cards themselves, let's instead take a look at the betting action. Because Democrats have now officially gone from "pot committed" to "all in." The stakes, to be blunt, have been raised until they are as high as they can go. And losing this particular hand could have some major consequences for the party as a whole.
Our illustrious (cough, cough) White House press corps showed it could get to the bottom of a story with impressively journalistic and probative skills this week. The story that so obviously required multiple questions to President Obama on his trip to Asia? Whether he's eating enough, and whether he's losing weight. Oh, and his gray hair.
Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Somebody, obviously bored on the excruciatingly long plane ride, decided they'd float the rumor that Obama was skipping meals and getting dangerously thin. Because the reporters were all trapped in the same flying aluminum can, they all decided it was a big deal, patted themselves on the back for doing so, and then took lots of valuable interview time with the president to ask him about it. Over and over again (since they all wanted the "scoop"). Obama's response was that he was eating just fine, thank you, and he wasn't any skinnier than he's always been.
Whew! Good thing we have such an illustrious cadre of journalists, to reassure Americans that the president is not starving himself or anything! After all, it's not like there are any other issues to talk about, or ask the president about.
I haven't yet read Sarah Palin's (or, more accurately, Sarah Palin's ghostwriter's) new book, nor do I intend to. Just wanted to say that, right up front. But I have heard one piece of very disturbing information from her book, if Maureen Dowd can be trusted. Dowd, in her signature Extra-Snarky™ style, takes on Palin's book this week in her column. The relevant bit:
We both [Palin and Dowd] came from families that loved Ronald Reagan, drove Ramblers and watched "The Lawrence Welk Show" and "The Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday nights.
Palin's family owned a Rambler? Shoot, now I have to be nice to her, I guess [Full disclosure: I am a big Rambler fan]. Well, she'll never beat Mitt Romney for Rambler credentials by anyone's measure, seeing as how Mitt's dad George was the head of American Motors Corporation at the time the Rambler was introduced, and was duly called the "Father of the Rambler." But still, the thought of a young Palin rambling around certainly does give her a connection to American families everywhere (of a certain age).
This column is really a second installment to yesterday's ("How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants"), where I took a look at two of the criticism's against Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.
Attorney General Eric Holder has caused an uproar in some circles over his announcement that the self-confessed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in federal court in New York City, mere blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood. To be honest, I was surprised this was even controversial, for a number of reasons most people (on either side of the issue) have largely ignored. Today I will examine two of these, and tomorrow I will take on the biggest elephant everyone seems to be missing in this particular room.
The struggle for healthcare reform is not going to end this year. By saying that, I am not breaking any news about Harry Reid or the Senate, or even about the chances for passage of any particular bill or healthcare reform scheme before New Year's Eve -- rather, I am urging people to take a step back and view healthcare reform from a much bigger-picture point of view. Because whatever passes is not going to be the final word on the subject. As with almost any sweeping social legislation, it's going to take a few revisions before we get it right. Perfect bills almost never pass. The more normal course of events in Washington is that compromises pass, and then are strengthened later on. Healthcare reform should be viewed in the same way.
As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the fact that Republicans have been fighting to dismantle Social Security for over seventy years. Even if President Obama signs a healthcare bill next week, the larger healthcare reform battle will not be over by any stretch of the imagination. But there's another side to this coin, as well. Because while Republicans can be expected to keep coming back to the new legislation in an attempt to dismantle it, Democrats may also have the opportunity to revisit the issue in order to strengthen whatever initial legislation passes.
[Update: Well, it looks like Friday the 13th bit me on the hind end. I wrote the entire beginning to today's column without closely checking my facts. Therefore, it is totally and utterly wrong. Since this is the first time I've made an error of this monumental proportion, I will leave the text in this article as a warning to all bloggers to always check your facts -- especially names! Robert Bauer is the incoming White House Counsel, not the outgoing one, which completely destroys my premise. No wonder the media wasn't making such a big deal of it.... Anyway, mea maxima culpa everyone, and my thanks to the Huffington Post commenter who pointed this out so I could correct it so quickly.]
