Neil Armstrong and other thoughts on America

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, I’m sure you heard that Neil Armstrong died over the weekend from complications resulting from a coronary bypass operation. Like most others from our generation, I have fond memories of the ca. late 60’s / early 70’s Apollo missions. At the time of the Apollo 11 moon landing, as a 7-year old, I did not fully realize the hazards of landing the lunar module– which had the same computing power as a modern laptop– on the surface of the moon. I did not realize how close the lunar module came to running out of fuel as Armstrong deftly navigated it over boulders and un-landable terrain, into the aptly-named Sea of Tranquility. Hearing the recorded communications between Armstrong (and his co-pilot, Buzz Aldrin) and Houston Control, I never realized until I got older how it embodied the culture of quiet courage and grace under pressure that typified the post-JFK NASA engineers and astronauts. Just this simple, now-iconic exchange as the lunar module landed safely, never fails to inspire me:

Armstrong: Tranquility Base here… the Eagle has landed.
Houston Control: Apollo 11, we copy you on the ground, you got a bunch of guys here about to turn blue, we’re breathing again… thanks a lot.
Armstrong: Thank you.

That was it. Simple, modest, laconic, exchange on the occasion of perhaps the twentieth century’s greatest accomplishment. As the comedian Robert Klein once commented, think of all the money Armstrong could have made by simply shouting out the words “Coca-Cola!!!” immediately after setting foot on the surface of the moon. But Armstrong obviously never did that, nor did he ever capitalize to any great commercial extent from his accomplishment.

Thinking about the accomplishments of Armstrong (and of Aldrin, and Michael Collins, the third member of the Apollo 11 crew), I started compiling a quick short list of my own nominations for the three greatest American achievements of the 20th century. Here they are, in no particular order:

-The aforementioned Apollo 11 moon landing
-The D-Day liberation of France as perhaps the central watershed moment of World War II
-The (mostly) successful outcome of the Civil Rights struggles of the late 1950’s and 1960’s

These three historical events seem to me to most fully embody the courage, commitment, know-how, and vision that the American spirit is capable of. In this modern age of political partisanship, bureaucratic bungling, absence of quiet dignity, and unwillingness to sacrifice and plan for a result that may or may not be realized while you are still on this Earth, I appreciate these achievements even more. I fear that for all of modern America’s technological know-how, there is just something lacking that may prevent us from reaching these heights again. Red Ranger, I am interested in your thoughts on this entire topic, and what you think of my list.

Red Ranger: I found out about the passing of Neil Armstrong while spending the weekend in Maine with the family. While watching a brief retrospective on Neil Armstrong my wife and I both agreed that the lunar landing was the greatest accomplishment in our lifetime. Several years ago we had the opportunity to visit the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and while her and I were both keenly interested in viewing all of the significant pieces of NASA history our boys were equally unimpressed. It is too bad that they do not have that one defining event in their life that makes them proud to be American. Hopefully, Romney can give them that event.

I think Armstrong could have made more money if upon his return to the earth he was asked, “Neil Armstrong you just returned from walking on the moon, what are you going to do now”. Armstrong – “I’m going to Disneyland” (remember Disney World was not yet built in 1969.)

While I do not disagree with the items on your list I would maybe tie at number 3 with the development of the Internet given how profoundly it has changed every aspect of our lives. I believe that the Internet was developed by Americans either at Stanford or CalTech but certainly the Internet is not uniquely American at this point. Still it is a great accomplishment.

I too doubt we will ever achieve such greatness again. Part of this is due to the death of “American Exceptionalism”. I occasionally watch shows on the Military Channel and am amazed at the hardships that our soldiers had to endure. While I in no way want to take anything away from the soldiers who are currently fighting our wars I think they are too quick to fall back upon post-traumatic stress syndrome when things don’t go their way when they return to civilian society. Again not taking anything away from their efforts I have to believe that soldiers of prior wars faced much harsher conditions and saw things that were much worse. Given the instantaneous dissemination of information we now know whenever a single American soldier is killed in combat whereas years ago the battles were much more person to person and hundreds or thousands would die in a single action.

I am glad that this Armstrong was able to keep his name untainted throughout his lifetime unlike another Armstrong (Lance) who like so many others before him have gone from a hero to a zero.

Nattering Naybob: Just wanted to close with a highly-recommended YouTube of an actual live broadcast of the launch of Apollo 11, I believe from CBS’s coverage. It is well worth the 10-minute investment to watch the whole video to re-live the sense of suspense and wonder that the Moon program inspired in the late Sixties. I love it when the NASA launch announcer says at around T-minus 25 seconds, “Astronauts report ‘It feels good'”. Great stuff.

“The name is an anagram”

Nattering Naybob: The recent anointing of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate, reminded me of one of my favorite movies, “Rosemary’s Baby”. Let me explain.

“Rosemary’s Baby” tells the story of Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow), who, unknowingly, is carrying a baby that was spawned by the Devil himself. This unhappy situation was facilitated by Rosemary’s own husband (John Cassavetes) and next-door neighbors (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon). In a pivotal scene in the film, one of Rosemary’s friends (“Hutch”, played by Maurice Evans), thinks he knows what’s going on and wants to meet Rosemary for lunch to give her a book about Upper West Side witches, which he believes implicates her neighbor, Roman Castevet. But Hutch “conveniently” falls into a coma and dies. Hutch’s housekeeper hands the book to Rosemary at the funeral, telling her only that Hutch had said “the name is an anagram” just prior to slipping into his coma. At first Rosemary thinks she means the name of the book, “All of Them Witches”. She goes home and uses some Scrabble cubes to try and piece together the anagram referenced by Hutch. At first, she is unsuccessful.

Then she notices by chance a reference in the book to a teenager, “Steven Marcato” who is the son of one of the suspected “witches” living in turn-of-the century New York. She then re-arranges the Scrabble pieces again, this time converting “Steven Marcato” into “Roman Castevet”. When she realizes the connection, she is convinced that something is seriously wrong (I always get goose bumps when I see this scene.)

Red Ranger, as you know, the author Ayn Rand (“The Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged”) is the Modern Republicans’ writer of choice. Paul Ryan claims her as his intellectual inspiration (despite Rand’s outspoken support for a woman’s right to choose, and her distrust of religion). So imagine my own fascination when I realized that the words “and Ryan”– as in “Romney and Ryan“– is an anagram of (drumroll)….. Ayn Rand.

To take this to its next logical level, is it not safe to assume that the American people, once they learn more about Paul Ryan’s extremist, anarchist, right-wing agenda, will recoil in the same kind of horror that Rosemary herself showed during the film’s climactic scene, when she saw her offspring’s demon-like appearance for the first time. I recall her chilling, tearful question to the coven of witches responsible for the demonic conception: “What have you done to its eyes !?”

To quote your current Commander-in-Chief, “Let me be clear”: I am not implying that Paul Ryan, or Mitt Romney, should be compared to the Devil, or to the little demon spawn that Rosemary laid eyes on in the cradle. If fact, Romney reminds me more of Roman Castevet, the officious neighbor who helped betray Rosemary.

But I’m just sayin’. “Ayn Rand”…. “and Ryan”…. if you don’t believe me, pull out your Scrabble set and try it yourself, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: Very interesting concept on your part. I pulled out my Scrabble game but just kept getting Q’s, X’s and Z’s.

It is interesting how you insinuate that Ryan shouldn’t have Ayn Rand as his inspiration since she supported women’s rights and was not religious. I feel the same way when I see supposed Catholics supporting the Democratic party. How can someone of the Catholic faith support any Democratic candidate when the party is so staunchly pro-abortion and gay rights. Right or wrong the Catholic church is clearly anti-abortion and gay rights. If you are Catholic (which I am not) are you allowed to only follow the beliefs of the church that happen to fit in with your own.

As far as Ryan goes it is interesting to see his budget attacked while the Dems in Washington have brazenly broken the laws of the land by not passing a budget since Obama has been in office. How this is allowed to happen is mind boggling to me. While everyone doesn’t need to agree with what Ryan’s budget proposal is at least he has one. If you have not created one of your own you shouldn’t be criticizing his. One of the highlights of Obama’s first and only term has to be seeing his budget proposal voted down by something like 450-0. The only positive coming out of that was that it was the first time that Congress agreed on something in a long time.

Nattering Naybob: You speak of the Constitution. Fine. Have you ever been to the Jefferson Memorial? I visited it this past May with my lovely wife. We had a very nice couple of days walking around DC. It was the Friday prior to Memorial Day and the place was already hopping in anticipation of the Holiday festivities.

The inside walls of the Jefferson Memorial are inscribed with quotes from Jefferson., one of which regards the Constitution and reads to wit: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made , new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance and also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat that fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”. In other words, Jefferson is admitting that the Constitution is a living document. If he and the other Founding Fathers ever saw the modern Congress in action, they would probably exempt any modern President from complying with any Constitutional law that depended on Congressional approval of any kind.

The Red Ranger: Glad you enjoyed your trip to DC. I am sure that you didn’t run into Obama since it was a long holiday weekend he probably left town to play golf on Thursday. Michelle and the girls were probably off on a shopping trip somewhere.

I know that you would like to excuse Obama from following any rules since you like the rest of the extreme, radical, socialist, left-wingers are brain washed into thinking that anything he wants to do is acceptable. All I can say is that we have these rules in place so we can stop people like him from ruining the country entirely.

Nattering Naybob: You sometimes give me a headache, Red Ranger.

The Gift of Giving

The Red Ranger: A recent study has shown that people in states that voted for John McCain contribute more to charities than those that voted for Obama. No surprise here, conservative Republicans have always shown themselves to be more caring about their fellow humans than those that call themselves liberal Democrats. It amazes me that conservative Republicans allow themselves to be portrayed in the media as the evil ogre ready to eat their own young. I chalk this up to the fact that they are comfortable with their own efforts to help their fellow man and rely on their own personal satisfaction as opposed to having to have someone constantly stroke their egos telling them how wonderful they are like the liberal Democrats require.

14 of the top 20 giving states were red states with Utah leading the way. What is the predominant religion in Utah? Mormon. What is presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s religion? Mormon. Instead of the media vilifying the Mormon religion they should try to understand why they seem to be the most supportive of their fellow humans. I guess to the media it is acceptable to have your minister shouting, “God Damn America” during a sermon a la Obama’s minister of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright but it is not acceptable to belong to the most giving religious organization in the country.

Not only does this phenomenon hold true in terms of $ but it is also true for donated time and donating blood. Can you imagine the horror to a liberal realizing that the blood transfusion that just saved their life had a high probability of coming from a conservative.

Nattering Naybob: First, I applaud any Republican who gives to charity and does something noble. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Second, I don’t know why you say people are vilifying the Mormon religion. Do you really think that has been going on? I’m sure there are always ignorant, mis-informed people who criticize other people based on their religion. Are you claiming that has been coming from the Obama campaign? I have not hard or read so much as a whisper of this coming from Obama or his campaign spokespeople. I would denounce anyone who criticized Romney for being a Mormon. On the other hand, I do not think that too many Republicans would likewise denounce anyone who criticized the Muslim religion.

Thirdly, Jeremiah Wright is not “my” minister, nor has he ever been. He has been rightly dismissed by most reasonable individuals. This can be filed under “Old irrelevant issues, continually brought up by Conservatives”.

The Red Ranger: I am not saying Wright is your minister, I am saying that he was Obama’s minister for an extended period of time and Obama did not stand up to his anti-American rhetoric.

Nattering Naybob: To paraphrase Bill Clinton (again), I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “yours”… is. I accept your apology, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: “I guess to the media it is acceptable to have your minister shouting, “God Damn America” during a sermon a la Obama’s minister of 20 years.” That is what I wrote, no apology is required as my thoughts were clearly stated, however, your feeble liberal mind is having trouble comprehending them.

London Olympics: Closing blog-emonies

The Red Ranger: Well the Olympics are over and I would have to give them a solid “A” rating.  I think NBC did a good job overall and I am not just saying that because the Nattering Naybob is a big fan of NBC.  Of course, there were some highs and lows but I rarely ever felt like I could not watch them any longer.  Unless of course gymnastics were involved, then the TV was programmed to automatically switch to the Emergency Broadcast System.  Although gymnastics did give us one of the best moments with McKalya Maroney, I was still not impressed.

Being a track & field fan I wish the US could have provided a stronger contingent in the 400m.  The 100m and 200m were a foregone conclusion that Bolt would win.  I was surprised to see some US contenders in some of the longer races.

One big question I have is what happened to boxing.  I can remember when I was younger that this was a high point of the Olympics.  Who could forget the Spinks brothers or Sugar Ray Leonard?  I don’t remember seeing any boxing coverage.  Not that I am a big boxing fan but is was always interesting to see an American fighting a Russia in the finals of the 165 lb. weight division.  I guess this just shows how far boxing has fallen.

I think that the US women overall were far more impressive than the men.  I chalk this up to Title IX passed in 1972 where women were given greater access to funding for athletics at the expense of the men.  This Olympics had the first generation of female athletes raised with the benefits of Title IX.

Nattering Naybob: I believe boxing was featured exclusively on CNBC, of all places. In between rounds, the analysts probably checked the status of their distressed equities bonds. My sense is that boxing is not as widely popular as it once was, it now reaches more of a niche audience. I used to be a big boxing fan in the 70’s and early 80’s. One of my most distinct boxing memories was when Jimmy Young almost beat Muhammed Ali in 1976, the general consensus after the fight was that Young was robbed. I remember by the 15th round, the crowd was chanting loudly “Jimmy Young, Jimmy Young!!”. Now when I watch boxing I get queasy. Even though the amateur boxers are well-protected about the head area, they are still trying to inflict physical harm on each other, and this is the sole purpose of the sport. I do not condemn anyone for watching, I just don’t understand how they can watch it.

But back to the Olympics. I did not see as much as I would have liked. I did not even get to see the Marathon, which is my favorite event, since it involves the same brand of endurance required to withstand the withering attacks of The Red Ranger in these blog postings. I recently saw a YouTube of Frank Shorter giving an address a couple years back in Chicago, his main theme was the prevalence of performance enhancing drugs in the Olympics. He claims now what he felt would be sour grapes back when it happened–that Waldemar Cierpinski of East Germany’s victory over Shorter in the 1976 Marathon in Montreal, was aided by performance enhancing drugs that were widespread among the East Germany athletes by that time. Cierpniski went on to win the 1980 Olympic Marathon as well, becoming the first (and most recent) man to win the Olympics Marathon back-to-back since the immortal Abebe Bikila did it in 1960 (barefoot) and 1964 (only a few weeks after an appendectomy). Ironically, Shorter would have held that distinction instead of Cierpinski, had the “running field” been level.

I am glad to see that you recognize the value of women getting equal access to participating in competitive sports, via Title IX. I guess government “intrusion” for the purpose of providing equal opportunity to traditionally under-served and overlooked groups who would ordinarily not have any means to obtain this equal opportunity, is not always a bad thing, is it Red Ranger?

I have linked to a YouTube video that features perhaps my all-time favorite Olympic memory. Enjoy.

Estate Tax Lunacy

The Red Ranger: Since the Nattering Naybob is an artist I thought this might be an interesting topic.

A wealthy art dealer died in NY leaving their art collection valued at close to 1 billion dollars to her heirs.  Of course this triggered a massive tax bill of which about $471 million has been paid.  Strangely there is one piece of art which contained a bald eagle that the IRS valued at $69M triggering a tax due of $29M.  However, the heirs cannot sell the item since it is illegal to sell/possess a bald eagle.  Christie’s has placed a value of zero on the item.  After paying $471 million in taxes you would think that the IRS could cut them some slack on this item.

Aside from the crazy insistence of the IRS to try to continue to collect the tax on this item, the mere existence of the estate tax seems unfair.  I believe currently the first $5M of an estate is exempt from taxation but then the estate is subject to taxes up to 35% at the federal level with additional taxes being possible at the state level.  In 2013, the federal amounts are schedule to change to only a $1M exemption and top tax rates of 55%.

What is the rationale for forcing a family to dismantle something that has been accumulated over time with dollars that have already been taxed just because a person dies?  This is just another means to force the 1% to pay for the 50% who do not pay any federal income tax.  I would love to know how that $471M that the estate has paid already in taxes was spent.  Was some of it used to pay for Obama’s vacations on Martha’s Vineyard?

Here is the link to the full story.

Nattering Naybob: To answer your last point first, yes, I guess a case can be made that indirectly any tax revenue that comes into the US Treasury, may potentially be used to subsidize the expenses connected with President Obama’s vacations… the same way that taxpayer money has been used to subsidize the vacations of all Presidents prior to Barack Obama, most recently and perhaps most notably one George W. Bush, who spent approximately 32% of his 8 years as President, on vacation according to some sources (since Presidents are always “on call” and sometimes entertain other leaders or hold meetings while on “vacation”, the number of days a President really spends on vacation is always open to interpretation.)

Now onto your polemic about Estate Taxes, am I to understand that an actual live bald eagle was considered a “work of art” in the first place, and furthermore worth $69 million? Anyone crazy enough to consider a live bald eagle to be a work of art deserves to get taxed to the greatest extent of the law, and then some.

I find it odd that Republicans such as yourself are always saying that each individual must make his or her own way in the world, yet you have no qualms about wealth that is churned over and over within families, often times to latter-day heirs that conceivably bring no value to society whatsoever. Likewise, I do not buy into another traditional Republican talking point that says entrepreneurs will not unleash their full creative or industrial firepower because they are afraid that most of their subsequent earnings will be seized by the IRS. Reminds me of when Victoria Jackson (former squeaky-voiced ca. 1995 cast member of Saturday Night Live) once said on Fox News that the reason you have not seen her performing much anymore is that she does not want to do the hard work required to perform if “Obama” is going to turn around and take most of her money in taxes. No, Victoria, the reason you are not performing is that nobody thinks you’re funny anymore, if they even did in the first place.

How we wound up on Victoria Jackson from a bald eagle that is considered art, I have no explanation for, expect for the fact that both concepts are equally absurd.

The Red Ranger:  While not officially on vacation I am sure that if you include all the rounds of golf and fund raisers that Obama attends he puts his “out of office” reply on more than Bush did.  I can just imagine his out of office reply, “Thank you for your message.  I am currently playing golf/attending a fund raiser.  If this message is of an emergency nature please contact Joe Biden at 1-800-NO-OBAMA.”

I do not think that the bald eagle was actually alive.  I think is was a stuffed bald eagle that was worked into the piece of art.

I find it odd that Democrats such as yourself would criticize the passing of wealth onto heirs who you would view as contributing no value to society when your basic premise is to redistribute wealth to those who contribute no value to society whatsoever.

As far as Victoria Jackson goes, I believe that the basic thought is that while an entrepreneur will work to get to a certain station in life the cost of achieving more in a high tax environment is greater than the benefit received thereby making the effort counterproductive.

Nattering Naybob:  I don’t think you can classify the effort required by entrepreneurs to be “counter-productive”. The Estate tax is not a complete negation of the profits that can be achieved by someone who brings to market a product that the public wants or needs (or of which the public can be convinced they want or need). For example, do you think that the genius of the Beatles, or their creative output, was stymied, or that they did not try as hard, because the tax rate in Great Britain was extremely high back in the 1960s? I think the theory that high tax rates or less-than-ideal economic conditions thwarts ingenuity, is largely a red herring. While not directly related to taxes per se’, remember that the iPhone and iPad was developed and rolled out to market, primarily during the darkest days of the economic collapse of 2008. Those economic conditions certainly did not discourage Steve Jobs, nor did the fluctuation of the tax rates over the years.

The Red Ranger:  The effort to the economy as a whole may not be counter productive but it is to the individual.

Work began on the iPhone in 2005 and it was rolled out in 2007.  Work on the iPad actually started before the iPhone but was shelved for a while as it was identified that the iPhone would do a lot of things that the iPad could.  So to your point these great technological advancements were accomplished during the period of reduced taxes under Bush.  Let’s see what happens in the next few years under Obama’s ever-present tax raising cloud. Next topic.

BREAKING NEWS: Romney anoints Ryan

Based on our deep-cover investigative reporting, thorough analysis, and seeing it in all the news websites, Second Grade Minds is prepared to report exclusively to our readers that Mitt Romney has selected Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential running mate. So the drawing of the battle lines is almost complete. It should be an interesting campaign. The Red Ranger and Nattering Naybob look forward to bringing you our unique take on all things Campaign 2012 in the coming weeks.

Aurora, Part 3: Wash, Rinse, and Repeat

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, back in July we exchanged some thoughts about the Aurora shootings. In the intervening period we have seen yet another mass shooting in Ohio upon a Sikh Temple; the intended victims were chosen (apparently) because of the headwear worn by this peaceful sect. As a nation, indeed virtually as a society, we have become numb to these events to the point where their aftermath(s) have evolved into a well-rehearsed ritual, complete with the same tired rhetoric, talking points, and imagery.

While sensitive to the “healing” qualities that these rituals represent, these symbols have supplanted the search for solutions. I wonder if it is time to move past these symbolic gestures and try to somehow come up with ways to prevent these events from taking place. Below are some of the most prevalent symbols and dialogue that we now see by default in the aftermath of these mass shootings:

1. “Police are still trying to determine a motive for the shootings” Is there ever a cogent motive in these killings other than someone who had some type of serious mental or social problem, wanting to mow down innocent people as twisted retribution for some perceived slight imposed upon them by society?

2. “Now is not the time to talk about gun control; now is the time to mourn the victims and allow the community to heal” This has grown into a convenient way to defer this difficult but necessary conversation, by implying people who want to raise the issue of how these gunmen acquire mass quantities of weaponry and ammunition–whether legally or not–are being insensitive to the victims. Then once the “recovery / healing” periods passes, the initial outrage over guns has passed, and people move on to something else. I maintain that this gambit is employed mostly–but not solely–by Republicans, and I (begrudgingly) admit it makes perfect “tactical” sense for them to do so.

3. “The media should not be giving publicity to the gunman, instead they should be celebrating the lives of the victims.” Wrong. It is not the media’s role to shine a light on how much the victims loved to take long walks on the beach, what they planned to study when they went to college next year, whether they emigrated to the United States twelve years ago and just finished their first tour of duty in Afghanistan. The focus should be on the crime itself, and the perpetrator of that crime. Again, the aftermath of the shootings has itself become the story, rather than the crime itself, and what led up to it. If the media has any desire to provide a public service as part of their coverage–and I’m not sure they should–they should be shining on a light on the background and habits of the shooter, as well as publicizing which members of Congress accept contributions from the gun lobby, and the amounts of these contributiions.

4. (Typically said by liberal Democrats who are anxious to display their “seeing both sides of the issue” chops): “Hey, I’m a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, I own a gun, and there’s nothing better I like than going deer hunting or bird hunting whenever I return to my home district. In fact, I’m teaching my grandson to shoot squirrel next weekend”. This kind of statement is so irrelevant and offensive that no further comment of mine can serve any purpose.

5. Imagery of people attending candlelight vigils for the victims (Wash, rinse, and repeat.)

6. Imagery of people embracing and hugging (Wash, rinse, and repeat.)

7. Somber, tinkling, piano music accompanying the soft-fade in and soft-fade out to and from the two above sets of imagery, during commercial breaks by news networks (Wash, rinse, and repeat)

Red Ranger, I know I am being cynical here, hopefully not to the point of insensitivity, but in response to these all-too-frequent shootings, we need to find new solutions, not rely on old (and tired) rituals. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: While we started this blog to have some back and forth banter about interesting topics (including the “occasional” opposing viewpoints), on this one I have to say I pretty much agree with you.

1. The motive behind these shootings is pretty much irrelevant since as you say they boil down to simply someone wanting to extract revenge on those who they perceive to have slighted them.

2. What better time to talk about gun control than right after one of these events.  Have the discussions while everyone is still riled and wanting to act.  It is always easier to do nothing than to actually take some action.

3. Not to sound callous about the victims but they are all always portrayed as almost God-like.  Only the good people seem to be killed in these shootings.  That is why I am not worried about ever being a victim of one of these shootings since I am an evil, vile Republican and no one will ever say anything good about me.  And why do people only seem to get shot the day before their birthday or the week before they are getting married.

4. Candlelight vigils have lost their meaning and impact at this point.  There is one for every event (not just mass shootings).

5. Like you I do not want to sound insensitive but let’s take some action to minimize the chances of these events happening again rather than honing slick productions of what transpired during and after the events.

Nattering Naybob: I guess we are at heart just a couple of cynical old coots, each channeling our inner H.L. Mencken. In conclusion (to quote Bill Clinton at the 1988 Democratic Convention), I also never understand the disproportianate amount of attention that gets paid to shootings involving multiple people, as opposed to the garden-variety senseless shootings of individual, equally innocent victims throughout the country, that take place every single day.

“The Thrilla in Wasilla”: Cheney vs. Palin

Nattering Naybob: What do you think of the tiff between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin? In case you missed it, Red Ranger  (I know you spend most of your free time in a monogrammed silk bathrobe and matching ascot, reading the stock ticker), Dick Cheney was interviewed the other day and he stated quite unequivocally that he thought John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, was a “mistake”. Cheney then agreed with the interviewer’s suggestion that Palin was “not ready” for the role. Choosing whose side I am on in this face-off reminds me of when I used to watch “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein” on Channel 11 on Sunday mornings, 11:30 thru 1:00 (with a little luck, there could be a Yankee doubleheader on immediately afterwards… this in the day that MLB actually scheduled single-admission doubleheaders). Anyway, I always thought to myself, who should I root for near the end of the movie, when there was basically an intra-monster battle among the Wolfman, Frankenstein, and Dracula, when they pushed the gurney back and forth that had the strapped-down Costello? I never could decide, but it was a fun intellectual exercise.

My choice between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin, however, while featuring one less monster, is almost as difficult. But after serious soul-searching, I am coming down, with nose firmly pinched shut, on the side of Dick Cheney. My reasoning is simple. Cheney, for all his latter-day evils, has at least had a productive, fairly distinguished career (prior to his shape-shifting into a reincarnation of Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life”), highlighted chiefly by his tenure as Chief of Staff to President Ford, and then most notably, Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf War… the war against Saddam Hussein that was actually warranted (I am not including his 8 years as Vice-President as among his “distinguishments”, because I am trying to make believe it never happened). Sarah Palin, on the other hand, could not even hack fulfilling a complete term as Governor. I could go on about her numerous other shortcomings, but there will be many, many other Second Grade Minds posts down the road to fill this important need. Thoughts on the Cheney-Palin conflict, Red Ranger?

The Red Ranger: Your and the Left’s pre-occupation with Sarah Palin is mind-boggling. She currently does not hold an elected position nor is she running for one, but she is constantly brought up in discussions by the Left. She must really strike fear into them; how else can you possibly explain this fixation with her?

I do not know that calling it a “mistake” is the right term. It was more of a calculated risk taken by McCain. He needed to do something to energize the Republican party since the Dems were all awestruck by the “Messiah”, while McCain himself was not the most exciting campaigner. Palin did what was expected of her by bringing some life and excitement back into the Republican campaign.

However, what McCain and his team underestimated (and how they did so is baffling) was the degree to which the MSM would go to portray Palin as a bumbling, backwoods bumpkin who knew nothing other than how to catch salmon. If they would have brought this same vigor into vetting Obama we probably wouldn’t be stuck in this death spiral we are in now.

I do not know how you can say she couldn’t hack a full term as Governor. She left the job out of respect for the people of Alaska realizing that being governor and running for Vice-President were mutually exclusive. Continuing to draw the Governor’s salary from the taxpayers of Alaska was not fair. Palin realized this and did the honorable thing. Unlike Obama, who basically abandoned his job as senator to become a full-time campaigner, all the time showing no remorse about drawing a salary from the US taxpayer. I know that you will bring up that McCain did the same thing but at least he started campaigning later than Obama and served in the Congress much longer than Obama.

Was Obama ready to be President? If you think yes, based upon what criteria, being able to read a TelePrompter?

Nattering Naybob: Ah, Red Ranger. To quote the title of one of my earlier SGM topics, “Where do I begin”?

First, Palin did not resign while she was running for Vice-President. She resigned well after the 2008 Election. She claimed she could no longer withstand the scrutiny that came with being Governor of Alaska, the least populous state in the Union. Whereas just a few months earlier she had been campaigning for a position that was, to use a cliché’ “one heartbeat away” from being leader of the Free World, and the total isolation and anonymity that comes with it.

Second, stop blaming the “Lame-Stream Media” (one of Palin’s many Tiger Beat-level verbal stylings) for her utter lack of knowledge and intellectual curiosity. Your implying that Sarah Palin was intellectually equipped to actually be President of the United States, demonstrates once again that Modern Republicans place blind, partisan ideology above all else. I wish I had a dollar for all the Republican voters I saw interviewed during the 2008 campaign, who said “Oh, I want Sarah Palin to be President one day, because she’s just like I am!” Really?! Ignorant, uninformed voters supporting an ignorant, uninformed candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Perfect symmetry.

Third, is the Modern Republicans’ inexplicable obsession with TelePrompters. Every President since Lyndon Johnson has used a TelePrompter, but, of course, only Barack Obama is criticized for it. Why? Again, to borrow a rhetorical question you posed about Louis Farrakhan in an earlier blog, “is it because he’s black?” What difference does it make whether Obama reads his remarks from a sheaf of papers, from a TelePrompter, or off his own hand, as Dame Palin did a few years ago at some bogus Right-Wing confab. Or do you really believe that a President, or Presidential candidate, should be expected to deliver speeches (typically a half-hour or more in length) extemporaneously?

Just admit it. The Red Ranger has been check-mated by Cheney’s (correct) assertion that Palin’s Vice-Presidential candidacy, was a “mistake”. I suggest you cut your losses and move on to your next topic, perhaps an analysis that wistfully bemoans the fact that America never got a chance to see the real Herman Cain.

The Red Ranger: First, my apologies for the erroneous time line on Palin’s exit from being governor of Alaska (like your crack research team, mine had the day off). Prior to being chosen as McCain’s running mate her approval ratings as governor in Alaska ranged anywhere from a low of 80% to a high of 93%, and this was when all the people in Alaska had to judge her on was her performance. As a point of reference, her predecessor had an approval rating of 19%. However, once the MSM began their vicious assaults on her, her approval ratings declined up until the point that she resigned when she realized that the attacks would never stop and that the course of least damage to her state would be to resign. Funny thing is that her approvals ratings (despite the constant attacks by the MSM) were still better than Obama’s even though he has the MSM fawning all over him and never presenting him in a negative image to the public. Just imagine where Obama would be if he faced the same level of scrutiny that Palin faced. Palin faced this scrutiny while doing an outstanding job according to her constituents. Obama is facing no scrutiny while doing a poor job.

I will stop blaming the Lame-Stream Media when you stop believing them when they say how brilliant Obama is just because he went to an Ivy league school. One of my favorite YouTube videos is of Elizabeth Hasselbeck schooling Joy Behar. Behar makes a statement that Obama is very intelligent because he went to an Ivy league school and Hasselbeck shoots back, “Then Bush must be very intelligent also”. Behar was speechless. It was great to see another dumb liberal put in their place. At least Bush released his college records, I believe. Here is the link to the video just in case you would like to view it yourself and witness one of your ilk being thoroughly embarrassed.

I am assuming that you are joking when you talk about Republicans placing blind, partisan ideology above all else. That is the very definition of the Democratic party. Ignorant, uninformed voters supporting an ignorant, uninformed candidate for the highest office in the land is what got Obama elected. How else do you explain 99% of a race voting for a candidate? If 99% of white women voted for McCain because Palin was a woman like them imagine the uproar that would have created. My guess is that if you matched up SAT scores with voting districts you would find that the voting districts with the higher SAT scores tended toward voting Republican. Granted, high school seniors do not make up a large percentage of the voting population but their scores would represent the relative intelligence of their district as a whole.

I have no problem with him reading off a TelePrompter since as you note making a 30 minute speech without it is difficult. However, what is interesting is that whatever he doesn’t have the TelePrompter guiding him he always seems to go off message and make a gaffe which displays his true intentions.

I wish I had a dollar for all the Obama supporters I saw interviewed who had no idea what his policies were or when given a policy that was actually McCain’s pledged their whole-hearted support for it.

Ready for your typical weak rebuttal.

Nattering Naybob: When exactly does Obama “make gaffes”, either while reading off a TelePrompter or making spontaneous remarks? Any supporter of Mitt Romney should not be accusing President Obama of making gaffes. And the reason that most African-American voters chose Obama, and almost half of Caucasian voters also chose Obama, was Obama’s message of hope appealed more (and still does) to a wider swath of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, than the narrow, fear-mongering, John Birch-tinged message presented by Modern Republicans, who are well-known for their general disdain for minorities, and people they consider beneath the arc of the Bell Curve. Let’s see… what else. Do you really find that a lot of people proclaim their support of President Obama, based on his attendance at an Ivy League school? I rarely hear that. Where do you hear it? Oh yes, Fox News. I forgot.

I still think you would have been better off taking my earlier advice and bowing out of this posting, gracefully. You need to recall your research team back from their vacation at the Cape, and quickly.

London Olympiad: Opening Blog-emonies

Red Ranger: By the way, I have to say the Olympics have been pretty watchable so far this year.  Other than gymnastics, which I cannot stand, I have actually enjoyed the events.  I have really tried not to hear results before watching the events.  Can’t wait for track and field to start.  I hope the weather is good for the track events.

Nattering Naybob: I have not seen much of the Olympics so far. I hope to see more as they progress. I think NBC (which as you know, I am a big fan of), has done a remarkable job of covering them (my only complaint is that the coverage has cut into some of MSNBC’s progressive programming). Still, I have to admit I prefer the old-school ABC coverage, when there was just one channel and no more than 8 hours a day of coverage. The era of Dave Wottle and Jim Ryun and Erich Segal yelling that the guy who ran into the stadium is not Frank Shorter but an imposter and get him off the track. More on this soon…

Eat-Mor-Demorats

Red Ranger: So now our great elected officials, Menino (Boston) and Emmanuel (Chicago) have taken it upon themselves to deny the Chick-Fil-A franchise the right to open stores in their cities because of the president of Chick-Fil-A’s views on gay marriage which, by the way, were Obama’s view up until a few weeks ago.  The fact that these two buffoons are not being run out of town by their constituents is just another example of how the few have taken control over the many.  I believe that most studies have shown the gay population in the US to be about 9% max, however, they have developed an out-sized ability to control the national debate on topics with anyone who dares to disagree them being labeled a homophobe.  While I do not support gay marriage that does not automatically make me a homophobe.  In fact gay marriage has been defeated every time it has been put to a vote.

Menino’s statement about why he wanted to ban Chick-Fil-A was probably one of the most comical statements ever, and one that Yogi Berra would have been proud of.  In short, he basically said Boston is an inclusive city that is why we are excluding Chick-Fil-A from the city.  The sheer lunacy of his statement would probably have drawn more scrutiny if it had come from someone other than Menino who is well known for his public flubs.

Emmanuel on the other hand invites Louis Farrakhan and his band of thugs to help patrol the city to try to quell the rampant violence that is occurring in Chicago lately.  While I am sure that any help to stop the crime in Chicago is warranted does Emmanuel not realize that Farrakhan also believes that gay marriage is wrong.  Why is it OK for him not to be punished for his view while Chick-Fil-A is.  Is it because he is black?

In short Chick-Fil-A which as far as I know has not been convicted of any discrimination should be able to open stores where they deem appropriate and then it would be up to the citizens of that city to decided whether they want to patronize them.

 

Nattering Naybob: I do not patronize Chick-Fil-A since I am a vegetarian. Red Ranger, I know you know this because you always kindly provide vegetarian-friendly options for my wife and I when we are privileged to pay a visit to your home. Even when I did eat meat, I was not a fan of fried chicken. So maybe I should recuse myself from this debate and instead comment on two specific ideas referenced in your opening salvo.

First, I have no idea why Rahm Emanuel or anyone else would enlist Louis Farrakhan to help with anything they are trying to accomplish. Louis Farrakhan fashions himself as the latter-day Malcolm X, but Farrakhan is not entitled to shine Malcolm X’s shoes (pardon the unfortunate metaphor) either morally or intellectually.

Second, you mention that gay marriage has been defeated every time it has come to a vote. Since gay marriage is an issue of equal rights, it should not even be put to a vote. The public should not be deciding whether or not gay marriage is approved any more than voters of the 1950’s and 1960’s should have voted on whether African-Americans should be admitted to historically all-white schools, or whether they should be granted equal voting rights. If those two issues had been put on the ballot during that era, it is doubtful that more than a handful of states would have voted in the affirmative. People like Chris Christie cower behind the cover of “the people don’t want it” excuse whenever the subject of gay rights comes up, and it annoys me to no end

Red Ranger: I do not believe that marriage is a right.  Rather it is a vehicle established by the government hence the reason that you need to get a marriage license to get married.  Therefore, it seems fair to allow the public to vote on it.  Can you please expand upon what you feel the public should be allowed to vote on or are you just willing to let elected officials or appointed judges make your decisions for you.

Nattering Naybob: Your tortured logic confounds me, Red Ranger. I thought Republicans are against Government intruding on people’s personal lives. Why all of a sudden do you put any stock in what the Government wants people to do, or allows people to do?  You have just demonstrated one of the key dysfunctionalities of the Modern Republican Party: you rail against Government involvement in all things, except when you want Government involvement to prevent, or intervene in, something that you don’t like.

Red Ranger: I thought that allowing people to vote on issues is anti-government intervention as I had been espousing.

Nattering Naybob: Go lay down somewhere and rest. Next topic….