December 9, 2009

 

 

     Gay marriage is one of those issues that just won't go away.  This week it's playing in New Jersey, and some big games are involved.

 

     Governor Jon Corzine, a Democrat, is for it, saying it's a civil rights issue.  Not such a big name?  Okay Bruce Springsteen, The Boss, is for it, writing on his website that he has "always spoken out for the rights of same-sex couples."   The Boss and the Gov?  It's a lock, right?

 

     Well, no.  The Governor-elect, Republican Chris Christie, says he'll veto it if he gets a chance.  It passed a Senate committee by one vote on Monday.  The full Senate votes tomorrow.   Democrats are conceding, the wire stories say, that they may not have the twenty-one votes they need for passage.

 

     Some religions regulate marriages.  The Roman Catholic church opposes divorce and therefore remarriage. Some forms of Islam allow men to have more than one wife.  And so on.  But governments?  I don't see why they need to regulate it.  If Susie and Doris, or Fred and Chuck, want to get married, whose business is it but theirs?

 

    

---

Get gifts for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now.

December 7, 2009

            In 1987 David Halberstam's "The Making of a Quagmire" was published, an account of events in 1961 as the U.S. stumbled into a deadly war in Vietnam.   That war lasted for years and cost 58,000 American lives.  Now, someone may want to reuse the title.      The headline in today's New York Times is simple: "No Firm Plans for a U.S. Exit in Afghanistan."  Well, why should there be?  We've only been there eight years.  The quotes in the piece support the headline.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates on CBS:  "There isn't a deadline."  National Security Advisor General James Jones on CNN:  "We're going to be in the region for a long time."      I remember George McGovern, campaigning for president in 1972.  His speech always included the line, "Come home, America."  The voters rejected him, of course, and we didn't come home, but it wasn't a bad idea then and isn't now.      The original purpose in invading Afghanistan, as I remember, was to get Osama bin Laden. But that was eight years ago, and we haven't.  The reports I read say he doesn't live there, just visits from time to time.  Terrorists, anyway, tend to operate in small groups.  They can be attacked successfully by small groups--commandos, air strikes, and so on.  No need to try to occupy a whole country, especially one with a history of resisting occupiers.      Come home America?  Sounds like a plan to me.     
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

December 2, 2009

    

 

     Wilfred  Owen, a poet and soldier in World War I, wrote, "My friend, you would not tell with such high zest/ To children ardent for some desperate glory,/ The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est/ Pro patria mori."

 

    It means, of course, "It is sweet and right to die for your country."  Not always a lie, I think.  Most Americans were willing to die for their country in World War II.  In Vietnam, many were not;  President Johnson, in 1964, promised, "We seek no wider war."

 

     But the war grew and grew, went on and on.  58,000 Americans died in that war and many more thought the dying was not sweet and right.  I remember the demonstrations.  Now comes Afghanistan.  How do we feel about young Americans dying there?

 

     President Obama announced he is sending more troops, but added that he later plans to withdraw some.  "...the nation that I am most interested in building is our own."  I am no expert;  I was there only once briefly, years ago.  But we have learned some things.  Nation-building is very hard, as witness our efforts in Iraq. Nation-building in Vietnam has had some success, but of course that's a war we lost.

 

     Afghanistan is primitive, poor and full of problems.  Hamid Karzai, the president, is widely reported to be a crook.  So is the rest of his government.  We've been there eight years already.  How much of a nation have we built?  The Associated Press today quotes the U.S. commander there, General Stanley McChrystal, as saying we should offer the militants a way to quit "with dignity."  The same story quotes a villager, "What did you do for the last eight years against your enemies? You have killed Afghans and your enemies have killed Afghans."

 

     I'm sure that President Obama, a wise man, thinks it's possible.  I suppose Lyndon Johnson thought it was possible.  But as Alessandra Stanley notes in today's New York Times, "All president seek to improve on history.  But history has a way of getting the better of even the best intentions." 

         

---

Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive gift. Click here to download.

December 2, 2009

            Wilfred  Owen, a poet and soldier in World War I, wrote, "My friend, you would not tell with such high zest/ To children ardent for some desperate glory,/ The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est/ Pro patria mori."     It means, of course, "It is sweet and right to die for your country."  Not always a lie, I think.  Most Americans were willing to die for their country in World War II.  In Vietnam, many were not;  President Johnson, in 1964, promised, "We seek no wider war."      But the war grew and grew, went on and on.  58,000 Americans died in that war and many more thought the dying was not sweet and right.  I remember the demonstrations.  Now comes Afghanistan.  How do we feel about young Americans dying there?      President Obama announced he is sending more troops, but added that he later plans to withdraw some.  "...the nation that I am most interested in building is our own."  I am no expert;  I was there only once briefly, years ago.  But we have learned some things.  Nation-building is very hard, as witness our efforts in Iraq. Nation-building in Vietnam has had some success, but of course that's a war we lost.      Afghanistan is primitive, poor and full of problems.  Hamid Karzai, the president, is widely reported to be a crook.  So is the rest of his government.  We've been there eight years already.  How much of a nation have we built?  The Associated Press today quotes the U.S. commander there, General Stanley McChrystal, as saying we should offer the militants a way to quit "with dignity."  The same story quotes a villager, "What did you do for the last eight years against your enemies? You have killed Afghans and your enemies have killed Afghans."      I'm sure that President Obama, a wise man, thinks it's possible.  I suppose Lyndon Johnson thought it was possible.  But as Alessandra Stanley notes in today's New York Times, "All president seek to improve on history.  But history has a way of getting the better of even the best intentions." 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 29, 2009

          Aw, c'mon guys!  For a couple of days you were my heroes and now you've gone and messed it up.      I'm writing, of course, about Michaele and Tareq Salahi, who delighted many of us by successfully fooling the Secret Service, which is not easy, and crashing Barack Obama's  state dinner for the prime minister of India this past week.  It was a great coup.  They got to pose with the Prez;  they looked terrific and right at home.  Those screams you hear are from the Secret Service agents being flogged in the White House basement.      Has it ever been done before?  I don't think so.  Could be wrong, but I go back a few years and can't remember anything like it.  And they had no intent to harm, of course. It was just a terrific prank we could all enjoy.      But now they want to sell their story, news reports say, for several hundred thousand dollars.  Boo, hiss, guys!     Do they need the money?  Hard to know.  The New York Times reports that "For years, the Salahis have publicized their own flashy adventures in the social and sporting scenes of Washington and its outlying horse country, and left behind a record of lawsuits  and unpaid bills...."      Tell you what, Salahis--I'd be glad to listen to your story over a good meal somewhere--it's on me.  But six figures?  You've got to be kidding.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 25, 2009

        Is the President slipping?  Well, there are some signs.  He's down some in the polls from, say, last summer.  And the columnists are starting to criticize.      Roger Cohen, in the New York Times, quotes Henry Kissinger:  "He reminds me of a chess grandmaster who's played his opening in six simultaneous games.  But he hasn't completed a single game and I'd like to see him finish one."  Cohen himself adds, "...can this probing, intelligent president close anything?"   That's a good question;  one I can't answer.      Maureen Dowd, also in the Times, blasts him for firing White House counsel Greg Craig, an old Clinton pal who'd worked for Obama, not Hillary, in the campaign.  She says it "sent a chill through some Obama supporters" and notes that Elizabeth Drew in Politico called it "the shabbiest episode of his presidency."       I don't know what led to Craig's dismissal, but I do share the feeling that while President Obama is smart and thoughtful, he does seem to have trouble getting things done.  He doesn't have much experience managing things.  Neither, of course, did John Kennedy, whose brief presidency began with a disaster, the Bay of Pigs, but went on to a triumph, the Cuban missile crisis.      Maybe it's just too early for report cards.  Could we wait until the end of his second year?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 22, 2009

      The New York Times reminds us that on this day, forty-six years ago, John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, Texas.       If you are old enough, you of course remember where you were.  I was working in London that year.  Big Ben tolled, pealing, I think, once a minute, a ritual normally used only when the sovereign has died.  Cab drivers, hearing my American accent, wouldn't take my money.      I had interviewed Kennedy a few times while he was still in the Senate.  He seemed almost shy back then, soft-spoken.  By the time he died, of course, he was a rock star.  The world, or at least the non-Soviet part of it, went into mourning.  It was a measure of the affection in which he, and America, were held.      It didn't last, of course.  His successor, Lyndon Johnson, led the country into a bitter and divisive war in Vietnam, and America's bright image in the world began to fade.      It hasn't glowed that brightly since.  But the new president, Barack Obama, offers, I think, just a hope that it might.  Is he there yet?  Certainly not.  Might he get there?  It's a possibility.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 19, 2009

     Attorney General Eric Holder is, I think, absolutely right in his decision to try the 9/11 defendants in civil court, in New York where the attack took police.  Free, fair and open trials are part of what we're all about.  Military tribunals, secret or semi-secret, with restrictions on what can be reported or what evidence can be introduced, are not.

 

     I want a jury of regular Americans, like us, and I have no doubt they will arrive at a just verdict.  It will be more expensive than a military hearing--lots of security, and all that.  It will be worth it.

 

     Short column, huh?  But a true one, don't you think?

---

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.