Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

“This is now decided as a nation”

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I am curious what you think about the Supreme Court’s twin rulings yesterday that basically represents a sea change in the acceptance, both legally and socially, of same-sex marriage. I will allow the following typically pithy and eloquent quote by Rachel Maddow to summarize the importance of both rulings:

“Bottom line here: the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. California’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. There are 12 states in the country where this is now legal, and the political winds on this are blowing so hard in one direction that the idea that we will go back is almost unimaginable in any state in the country … This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won.”

I admit that my stance on same-sex marriage has evolved over the last fifteen years. I suppose you could say the same of many thousands, I dare say millions, of other people across the country. I would like to think that my initial oppostion to it was based largely on what I believe is a basic human instinct of not publicly supporting a lifestyle in which you yourself would not engage; in other words, I could not ever conceive of marrying another man, or having sexual relations with another man, which must mean that I am against other people doing either or both.

And besides, like I said to my wife yesterday, why should heterosexual married couples be the only ones miserable? Although my wife has been a long-time supporter of gay rights, and same-sex marriage, I get the feeling that this rationale did not resonate with her. Since I said this yesterday, she has not spoken to me. I am not understanding this, did I say something wrong?

The Red Ranger: Like you, I cannot conceive of marrying another man (unless of course Sean Hannity comes out).  I am generally against the gay lifestyle but if allowing gays to marry tones down their in your face attitude about their lifestyle then that would be a good thing in my mind.  In general I do not believe that this will have a significant impact on my life.  I just worry that we cater too much to the fringe, deviant element in society while ignoring those who lead an honest, hard working, moral life.

Also, extrapolating this ruling out, shouldn’t I be allowed to have as many spouses as I want (one wonderful wife is not enough).  I am sure that in twenty years they will be saying that people are born with the need for multiple spouses and that they do not have a choice in the matter.

This ruling is just another step in the inexorable march toward a society that lacks any moral compass and is just another move closer to the downfall of society which is happening slowly over time with each of these seemingly small events.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you for using one of my favorite words,”inexorable”. However I do not understand your extrapolation about marrying multiple spouses as it pertains to same-sex marriage. What is the connection? At least you don’t say, “Same sex marriage? Good God, what next? Allowing people to marry horses?? [harumph, harumph]”, like most Repubicans say when asked about same-sex marriage. Maybe you had that planned in your rebuttal, who knows.

By the way, I think that another complaint about same-sex marriage–that it “cheapens” the institution of marriage–is patently absurd on its face. Think about it: If gay couples can now get married, and now DO in fact get married, how does that cheapen your own marriage, or my marriage? (Or the perfect marriage of peanut butter and chocolate?) Do you think it would prevent a young heterosexual couple from getting married? “Oh, darling, if it were ten years ago, I’d get an engagement ring and ask for your hand in marriage, but since same-sex marriage is now allowed, gee… I just don’t know. Maybe we should be just friends.”

On my way home from work each day I walk right past the Fox News headquarters on Sixth Avenue. If you want, you can forward to me a mash note to Sean Hannity, and I can drop it off at the reception desk of Fox News. Hmmm… “Red Ranger-Hannity”. Has a nice ring to it.

The Red Ranger: It is not in regard to same sex marriage per se but the expanded definition of what marriage is.  I was taking the revision of the marriage definition to an extreme.

I agree that it does not cheapen the institution of marriage.

Perhaps I can connect with Sean on e-Harmony.

Nattering Naybob: Good for you for not buying into the standard “cheapening marriage” theory. Regarding e-Harmony, whatever floats your boat, Red Ranger.

Edward Snowden

The Red Ranger:  By now I am sure you have heard of the NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden who has spilled the beans about the elaborate government spying operation that has been transpiring over the last few years.  I give him credit for doing what he did although I am unsure what it really means.

I am torn since I want the government to do what it can to protect us but I also fear the inevitable over reach of the government’s tentacles into everyone’s life.  If the government truly just collects the data and then uses it once they get a lead from another source than that is probably OK but if the government is randomly or even systemically listening to every phone call made by a Muslim who immigrated to the US from another country that is probably not too cool.

I disagree with Dick Cheney who labeled him a traitor.  Even though this program may have allowed some insight into allegedly terrorist activities that still doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.  The government could stop all terrorist activities if they just totally controlled all aspects of everyone’s lives.  However, I am sure that even you would agree that is a less than enjoyable state of living.

If there was going to be one terrorist event every ten years but in the intervening years we were free from unnecessary government snooping that may not be a bad trade off.  Unless of course you were one of the victims of the terrorists activities.

Nattering Naybob: I too have mixed feelings about the whole thing, in part because the details are a little murky. The question of privacy vs. keeping people safe, will probably never be settled. If we lean towards the sanctity of privacy, and we God forbid are victims of a major terrorist plot, people will probably start saying the hell with privacy, we need to protect our citizens. If we put national security in the forefront and maybe “push the envelope” on privacy and surveillance protocols, then the privacy advocates and “Government stay out of my private life” advocates, are up in arms… until we have a terrorist attack.

What kind of agency or body could be trusted to monitor the checking of personal data and ensure a balance? No matter who or what is appointed to do this, people from both sides of the argument will claim that their interest (either privacy or security) is being short-changed.

I see where Sean Hannity has totally reversed the doctrine he espoused during the Bush administration — National security at all costs– and is now sounding like a card-carrying member of the ACLU by saying that Obama is violating the Constitution (of course Obama is violating the Constitution, that’s all he has done every single day of his Presidency, right Sean?) Well, I guess it’s a matter of Hannity being against the Fourth Amendment before he was for it.

The Red Ranger: I did not read the article you attached since I saw mediamatters in the URL so I knew it was a bogus story. If what you say about Hannity is true then shame on him.