Through Sunday, only seven different countries have won the FIFA World Cup (what we Americans would call the world championship of soccer, even though it's technically called "association football") in its 18 competitions. Four are from Europe (Italy, 4 times; Germany, 3; England, 1; France, 1), and three are from South America (Brazil, 5; Uruguay, 2; Argentina, 2). More interestingly, no European team has ever won outside of Europe (in 8 such Cups), and only one non-European team has ever won in Europe (Brazil, 1958 in Sweden, in 10 such Cups).
That will all change Sunday, July 11, when two European non-winners (the Netherlands and Spain) face off for this year's Cup in South Africa.
This isn't the place for me to discuss how I bleed orange (OK, not really, but the Dutch will know what I mean). Instead, I want to discuss whether the shift of worldwide power away from Europe has stopped.
FIFA has been consistently reducing the number of European sides in the Cup, supposedly in recognition of the growing strength of non-European nations. This year, only 6 European sides survived the first round and made the final 16, which was supposed to be a sign of parity. More problematic for the Europeans was that all of those teams faced other European teams in the round of 16, meaning that no more than 3 European clubs could make the final 8. But all three of those clubs then made the final 4, and two of them made the final 2, and they knocked off every one of the former South American winners along the way (Netherlands took out Brazil and Uruguay; Germany took out Argentina). Four years before, in Germany, when European teams took every spot in the final 4, most of us thought it was a fluke tied to the continent hosting the tournament. But two straight Cups of European success argues for more than a fluke -- it augurs a power shift.
We'll see just how far the power in soccer has shifted in 2014, when Brazil hosts the Cup for the first time since 1950. Meanwhile, we can say conclusively that Africa clearly didn't deserve its six spots in the Cup, and also that the U.S. team really shot itself in the foot by losing to Ghana, the only African team to (marginally) survive the first round.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Tour de France
We're now four days into the Tour de France, and the bike race has resembled demolition derby over the last three of them. Day 1 was a short prologue, unsurprisingly won by Fabian Cancellara, a Swiss time trial specialist and reigning Olympic and world champion in the time trial nicknamed "Spartacus" for his strength. More interestingly, Lance Armstrong managed to finish fourth, just slightly ahead of Alberto Contador and Levi Leipheimer, both of whom defeated him decisively in last year's final time trial.
One of the interesting things about the Tour this year is that there are four American-based teams competing in it. Last year there were two American teams, Garmin and HTC-Columbia, although the Kazakhstani team Astana, which included Armstrong and Leipheimer and was managed by former US Postal Service/Discovery Channel manager Johann Bruyneel, was a de facto American team at the time.
This year, Garmin and HTC-Columbia are back. Eight of the nine riders from Astana last year, with the lone exception of Contador, moved to the new American team RadioShack. The fourth American team is BMC Racing Team, which is owned by the legendary (in the U.S., at least) Jim Ochowitz, the former cyclist who led the legendary 7-Eleven Cycling Team, which became the first U.S. team in the Tour de France in 1986 and once featured a young Lance Armstrong.
However, the abundance of American teams hasn't created a surge in American riders. There are only eight Americans among the 36 riders on these teams, and one of the teams, HTC-Columbia, doesn't include any Americans. Garmin has three (Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie, Tyler Farrar), two of whom used to ride for USPS; RadioShack also has three (Armstrong, Leipheimer, Chris Horner), two of whom also used to ride for USPS; BMC has two (George Hincapie, Brent Bookwalter), one of whom also used to ride for USPS. In other words, of the eight Americans in the Tour, five of them date back to the USPS team, which was replaced by Discovery Channel at the end of 2004. That doesn't say much for young American cycling talent.
RadioShack is also a fascinating team talent-wise. There are five riders on the team who are potential team leaders -- Armstrong, Leipheimer, Janez Brajkovic (Slovenia), Andreas Kloeden (Germany) and Horner -- and only four "true" domesticques -- Yaroslav Popovych (Ukraine), Gregory Rast (Switzerland), Sergio Paulinho (Portugal) and Dmitriy Muravyev (Kazakhstan). In part, that may have accounted for the team's chaos on the cobbles today, as Popovych had to help Armstrong after he flatted, and the team's other contenders were on their own (including with their own flat problems).
But the fact that Saxo Bank was able to establish a break and time gap when Frank Schleck of that team broke his collarbone is a sort of good news-bad news scenario for the team. This is very early in the race for Andy Schleck to lose his brother, the champion of the Tour of Switzerland and a strong contender in his own right. Last year, the big break of the race came when Andy and Frank broke away with Astana teammates Contador and Kloeden ... and then Contador foolishly dropped Kloeden to knock him off the podium. There won't be a repeat of that this year.
And Thomas Frei's revelations about EPO microdosing probably mean that this year's Tour will be the cleanest yet in terms of doping. Frei also revealed something that I've assumed was obvious, although the Wall Street Journal, for one, hasn't caught on, with its gullible and foolish parroting of Floyd Landis claiming that Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel organized team-wide doping: the riders dope on their own, without their teams knowing.
That's why there is such a wall of silence -- a doping rider who tells the truth about doping is just hurting other riders (generally ones who helped him learn how to dope), not the team that dropped him. It's exactly the same as it was during the past decade in baseball and track.
But inevitably, this raises the question: did Lance Armstrong do something not permitted by the rules during his string of Tour victories? Well, obviously, he did. Why else would he have been involved with the EPO/blood transfusing Dr. Ferrari? He may have used EPO in 1999, and he may have received blood transfusions through 2004, when he broke off relations with Dr. Ferrari. But I doubt that we'll ever know for sure. One thing that I do know is that Landis' story about a fake bus breakdown id obviously false. Why? Because the bus driver would have sold the story to L'Equipe for a fortune long before now. It's not possible for a "conspiracy of silence" to extend to these non-riders, because their reward for telling is so disproportionate to the risk.
Basically, any stories that involve people other than Armstrong and perhaps Hincapie participating in Armstrong's doping program seem inherently phony. You'd think a business publication would recognize that.
One of the interesting things about the Tour this year is that there are four American-based teams competing in it. Last year there were two American teams, Garmin and HTC-Columbia, although the Kazakhstani team Astana, which included Armstrong and Leipheimer and was managed by former US Postal Service/Discovery Channel manager Johann Bruyneel, was a de facto American team at the time.
This year, Garmin and HTC-Columbia are back. Eight of the nine riders from Astana last year, with the lone exception of Contador, moved to the new American team RadioShack. The fourth American team is BMC Racing Team, which is owned by the legendary (in the U.S., at least) Jim Ochowitz, the former cyclist who led the legendary 7-Eleven Cycling Team, which became the first U.S. team in the Tour de France in 1986 and once featured a young Lance Armstrong.
However, the abundance of American teams hasn't created a surge in American riders. There are only eight Americans among the 36 riders on these teams, and one of the teams, HTC-Columbia, doesn't include any Americans. Garmin has three (Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie, Tyler Farrar), two of whom used to ride for USPS; RadioShack also has three (Armstrong, Leipheimer, Chris Horner), two of whom also used to ride for USPS; BMC has two (George Hincapie, Brent Bookwalter), one of whom also used to ride for USPS. In other words, of the eight Americans in the Tour, five of them date back to the USPS team, which was replaced by Discovery Channel at the end of 2004. That doesn't say much for young American cycling talent.
RadioShack is also a fascinating team talent-wise. There are five riders on the team who are potential team leaders -- Armstrong, Leipheimer, Janez Brajkovic (Slovenia), Andreas Kloeden (Germany) and Horner -- and only four "true" domesticques -- Yaroslav Popovych (Ukraine), Gregory Rast (Switzerland), Sergio Paulinho (Portugal) and Dmitriy Muravyev (Kazakhstan). In part, that may have accounted for the team's chaos on the cobbles today, as Popovych had to help Armstrong after he flatted, and the team's other contenders were on their own (including with their own flat problems).
But the fact that Saxo Bank was able to establish a break and time gap when Frank Schleck of that team broke his collarbone is a sort of good news-bad news scenario for the team. This is very early in the race for Andy Schleck to lose his brother, the champion of the Tour of Switzerland and a strong contender in his own right. Last year, the big break of the race came when Andy and Frank broke away with Astana teammates Contador and Kloeden ... and then Contador foolishly dropped Kloeden to knock him off the podium. There won't be a repeat of that this year.
And Thomas Frei's revelations about EPO microdosing probably mean that this year's Tour will be the cleanest yet in terms of doping. Frei also revealed something that I've assumed was obvious, although the Wall Street Journal, for one, hasn't caught on, with its gullible and foolish parroting of Floyd Landis claiming that Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel organized team-wide doping: the riders dope on their own, without their teams knowing.
That's why there is such a wall of silence -- a doping rider who tells the truth about doping is just hurting other riders (generally ones who helped him learn how to dope), not the team that dropped him. It's exactly the same as it was during the past decade in baseball and track.
But inevitably, this raises the question: did Lance Armstrong do something not permitted by the rules during his string of Tour victories? Well, obviously, he did. Why else would he have been involved with the EPO/blood transfusing Dr. Ferrari? He may have used EPO in 1999, and he may have received blood transfusions through 2004, when he broke off relations with Dr. Ferrari. But I doubt that we'll ever know for sure. One thing that I do know is that Landis' story about a fake bus breakdown id obviously false. Why? Because the bus driver would have sold the story to L'Equipe for a fortune long before now. It's not possible for a "conspiracy of silence" to extend to these non-riders, because their reward for telling is so disproportionate to the risk.
Basically, any stories that involve people other than Armstrong and perhaps Hincapie participating in Armstrong's doping program seem inherently phony. You'd think a business publication would recognize that.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Oil spill
I'll have to talk about the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico at some point. For now, it just seems like the Iranian hostage crisis, in that it drags on for day after day, and there's always some excuse for not doing anything.
Mel Gibson -- who cares?
Is there anyone in the world (other than Mel Gibson, his ex-wife, his ex-girlfriend, his children, and all of their lawyers) who actually cares what Mel Gibson has to say? Haven't we already established that he's nuts?
We could ask the question that if you get involved with someone that the whole world knows is nuts, are you entitled to whine about how awful he was to you afterward, or should you just have to suck it up because you took an open and obvious risk?
But I don't even care enough to ask that question. Go away, celebrity gossip.
We could ask the question that if you get involved with someone that the whole world knows is nuts, are you entitled to whine about how awful he was to you afterward, or should you just have to suck it up because you took an open and obvious risk?
But I don't even care enough to ask that question. Go away, celebrity gossip.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Death of Robert Byrd
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) died. Byrd was probably the last card-carrying Klansman to ever serve in the Senate, although that little inconvenient truth has been buried in the articles, probably because the liberal media loves him so much for rolling in on his wheelchair to vote for ObamaCare during the winter.
I do love the headline of the AP article on his death: "Bird to lie in Senate chamber where he served"
Makes sense. Now that he's dead, there's no reason for him to stop lying.
Former TV commentator Alan Colmes, who wrote this stupidity about the late Senator:
Fascinating assertion. The way I read it, Colmes has asserted that the fact that Byrd bacame a left-winer should absolve him of his "youthful" racism, while the fact that Thurmond became a right-winger should cause him to remain tainted. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I doubt it.
Perhaps I'm alone in finding that the posthumous revelation of Thurmond's half-black daughter, whom he fathered in 1925, revealed his racism to be more a matter of political opportunism than personal belief. Probably like Colmes, I think Thurmond was an opportunist and a bozo. But I see no reason not to tar Byrd with the same brush.
And the assertion that Byrd somehow uniquely understood the rules of the Senate is nothing more than gibberish. Ever since Korea, Americans have been arguing about fighting wars without a declaration of war (which have been dubbed by both Democratic and Republican administrations as "police actions" to avoid the necessity of a vote for war). In this case, Colmes conveniently forgets (assuming he has enough brainpower to even remember) to point out the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which both Republicans and Democrats of the time felt gave G.W. Bush sufficient authority to act in Iraq. In fact, Byrd's attempts to limit the grant of authority were voted down by bipartisan margins, with the majority of Democrats voting with the Republicans against his proposed limitations.
But let the Byrd hagiography roll on among the far left. He was, after all, their champion (when he wasn't busy grabbing pork for West Virginia, that is).
I do love the headline of the AP article on his death: "Bird to lie in Senate chamber where he served"
Makes sense. Now that he's dead, there's no reason for him to stop lying.
Former TV commentator Alan Colmes, who wrote this stupidity about the late Senator:
Byrd, unlike Thurmond ..., changed his views over time. By the late 1970s, Byrd was speaking in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. Eventually, he regarded his vote in favor of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that led to the Vietnam War a sin. In fact, Byrd became a liberal lion who stood up to the Bush administration, invoking the rules of the Senate he knew like no one else to point out that it is illegal to fight without a declaration of war.
http://www.aolnews.com/article/opinion-robert-byrd-evolved-unlike-many-of-his-critics/19534279
Fascinating assertion. The way I read it, Colmes has asserted that the fact that Byrd bacame a left-winer should absolve him of his "youthful" racism, while the fact that Thurmond became a right-winger should cause him to remain tainted. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I doubt it.
Perhaps I'm alone in finding that the posthumous revelation of Thurmond's half-black daughter, whom he fathered in 1925, revealed his racism to be more a matter of political opportunism than personal belief. Probably like Colmes, I think Thurmond was an opportunist and a bozo. But I see no reason not to tar Byrd with the same brush.
And the assertion that Byrd somehow uniquely understood the rules of the Senate is nothing more than gibberish. Ever since Korea, Americans have been arguing about fighting wars without a declaration of war (which have been dubbed by both Democratic and Republican administrations as "police actions" to avoid the necessity of a vote for war). In this case, Colmes conveniently forgets (assuming he has enough brainpower to even remember) to point out the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which both Republicans and Democrats of the time felt gave G.W. Bush sufficient authority to act in Iraq. In fact, Byrd's attempts to limit the grant of authority were voted down by bipartisan margins, with the majority of Democrats voting with the Republicans against his proposed limitations.
But let the Byrd hagiography roll on among the far left. He was, after all, their champion (when he wasn't busy grabbing pork for West Virginia, that is).
Hello again?
Why do I only intermittently feel like blogging? Perhaps because this year has been a total trade-off of good news and bad news? The good news of the Scott Brown election being tempered by the bad news of the bloated health care bill being passed with only Democratic support using the reconciliation gambit? Or the mixed news of the death of the estate tax (a stupid, if temporary and perhaps still to be rescinded, loss of revenue) and the continuing stall of the tax extenders bill? And the continuing stalemates on the "doc fix" and the so-called "financial reform" bill? And the foolishness on carried interest? Why don't I want to blog about this nonsense?
Perhaps I have caught Obama's pernicious indifference to what happens to America. Anyway, even if that's the cause, maybe I can find a cure.
Perhaps I have caught Obama's pernicious indifference to what happens to America. Anyway, even if that's the cause, maybe I can find a cure.
Monday, January 11, 2010
41st Vote
If Scott Brown wins the race for Massachusetts Senate, he can thank Al Franken.
For as much as I like Brown, he's been pretty much a nonentity in the State Senate ... not for any lack of vision or intelligent positions, but because the Republicans don't even have enough votes to uphold a veto. Massachusetts is a classic one-party state, even despite the widespread corruption among the Democrats here. As a result, Brown has largely been speaking to an audience of party sympathizers that isn't large enough to fill a classroom.
But when Franken won the U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota in 2008, he gave the Democrats in Congress exactly 60 votes, which is a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, because it takes 41 votes to uphold a filibuster and the Republicans only have 40. That's what "inspired" the Democrats to pass a health-care plan without any popular support. But, the entire fate of this plan rests on the Democrats retaining this Massachusetts Senate seat, since Brown's vote by itself would be enough to permit a filibuster to stop the plan.
Having been the minority leader of a one-party Senate, Brown has skillfully played his role as the potential swing vote to the hilt. Never mind the fact that he is a far, far better candidate than the deceitful Martha Coakley -- his appeal is his role as the potential "budget-buster killer." None of that would have been possible if he were the 39th or 42nd vote for the Republicans in the Senate.
For as much as I like Brown, he's been pretty much a nonentity in the State Senate ... not for any lack of vision or intelligent positions, but because the Republicans don't even have enough votes to uphold a veto. Massachusetts is a classic one-party state, even despite the widespread corruption among the Democrats here. As a result, Brown has largely been speaking to an audience of party sympathizers that isn't large enough to fill a classroom.
But when Franken won the U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota in 2008, he gave the Democrats in Congress exactly 60 votes, which is a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, because it takes 41 votes to uphold a filibuster and the Republicans only have 40. That's what "inspired" the Democrats to pass a health-care plan without any popular support. But, the entire fate of this plan rests on the Democrats retaining this Massachusetts Senate seat, since Brown's vote by itself would be enough to permit a filibuster to stop the plan.
Having been the minority leader of a one-party Senate, Brown has skillfully played his role as the potential swing vote to the hilt. Never mind the fact that he is a far, far better candidate than the deceitful Martha Coakley -- his appeal is his role as the potential "budget-buster killer." None of that would have been possible if he were the 39th or 42nd vote for the Republicans in the Senate.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Cold weather
The bitter-cold weather that the U.S. has been experiencing says nothing about the reality of global warming, let alone the possibility of man-made global warming. But I have to admit to finding myself stunned when a Washington Post weather column cited a left-wing advocacy group in discussing it:
So what, then, should the press be doing differently today? In my view, journalists should make an effort to include the broader climate context whenever it is scientifically justified. That means that it might be unnecessary to mention climate change in a story about a short-term cold snap, but could be integral to a story on heavy snowfall.
For perspective on how this might be done, I turned to Joe Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, who has been pushing for more coverage of the links between extreme weather and climate events and global climate change.
I have to admit, I love people who refuse to let logic or scientific integrity stand in the way of a good story. In this case, discuss global warming theory when it's consistent with the weather event and ignore it when it's inconsistent.
Science has survived worse blunders, of course -- although most of those, like the current rush toward man-made global warming theory, were both politically and religiously motivated. The only good point that the global warmists make, and one which cannot be denied, is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has to have an impact. No one can deny that. We can dispute whether it would produce global warming (I happen to doubt it), but it has to have an impact, just like any other chamical shift would. This is why we should be trying to reduce our CO2 output, not the overblown panic bleats from Luddites whose real objective is to return us to a secular version of the 19th Century.
More nukes!
So what, then, should the press be doing differently today? In my view, journalists should make an effort to include the broader climate context whenever it is scientifically justified. That means that it might be unnecessary to mention climate change in a story about a short-term cold snap, but could be integral to a story on heavy snowfall.
For perspective on how this might be done, I turned to Joe Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, who has been pushing for more coverage of the links between extreme weather and climate events and global climate change.
I have to admit, I love people who refuse to let logic or scientific integrity stand in the way of a good story. In this case, discuss global warming theory when it's consistent with the weather event and ignore it when it's inconsistent.
Science has survived worse blunders, of course -- although most of those, like the current rush toward man-made global warming theory, were both politically and religiously motivated. The only good point that the global warmists make, and one which cannot be denied, is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has to have an impact. No one can deny that. We can dispute whether it would produce global warming (I happen to doubt it), but it has to have an impact, just like any other chamical shift would. This is why we should be trying to reduce our CO2 output, not the overblown panic bleats from Luddites whose real objective is to return us to a secular version of the 19th Century.
More nukes!
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Patriots in the playoffs
You know, end-of-the-year football games were cold enough back when the season ended in early January. Ask Dan Fouts about playing in the Freeze Bowl in Cincinnati. Or Don Meredith about the Ice Bowl in Green Bay. But now that the NFL season goes on until February, we all but guarantee awful weather for the playoffs.
All that is a polite way of saying that the New England Patriots and the Baltimore Ravens are going to freeze their butts off this Sunday in the wild card game in Foxborough.
Health care bill
I don't have the heart to complain about the piece of crap that is being foisted on America in the health care bill. Democrats have to take the lion's share of the blame, because they're trying to pass a bill on a straight party-line vote instead of negotiating a bill that fixes the fundamental issues in U.S. health care. But Republicans come in for some blame too, although their weakness in the Senate (only 40 votes) means that they really can't do anything about the Democrats' desire for a party-line bill.
Maybe Republican Scott Brown will upset Democrat Martha Coakley for the open Massachusetts Senate seat that used to be held as a personal fiefdom by the Kennedy family. That one vote change would make all the difference, as it would require that a bill actually be negotiated between the parties instead of being imposed as a test of party discipline.
All I know is that I'm contributing to Brown, and I intend to vote for him. Not only is he the leader of the tiny Republican contingent in Massachusetts, but his daughter Ayla was on American Idol. It's about time for us to elect someone who actually understands reality TV instead of railing about its evils.
Friday, October 30, 2009
McDonald's = Losers?
The story of the four teenagers rapping their order at McDonald's would be dumb except for the outcome.
Were the kids being jerks? Unquestionably. Watch the original YouTube video and it's obvious that this is just stupid behavior. But arresting them is the type of thing that only a stupid company would do (with the help of complicit fools in the local police department), because it's such an inappropriate overreaction. Four kids behaving like jerks suddenly look like heroes of free speech.
Clearly Conny Kramer or someone else at McDonald's needed to take a Valium. OR MAYBE AN ANTIPSYCHOTIC.
You deserve a break today. Stay clear of McDonald's and you'll get one. Anyone for Burger King?
Were the kids being jerks? Unquestionably. Watch the original YouTube video and it's obvious that this is just stupid behavior. But arresting them is the type of thing that only a stupid company would do (with the help of complicit fools in the local police department), because it's such an inappropriate overreaction. Four kids behaving like jerks suddenly look like heroes of free speech.
Clearly Conny Kramer or someone else at McDonald's needed to take a Valium. OR MAYBE AN ANTIPSYCHOTIC.
You deserve a break today. Stay clear of McDonald's and you'll get one. Anyone for Burger King?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Another baseball fraud
When Tim McClelland, supposedly the best umpire in baseball, supposedly just "blunders" -- on a play that was this obvious -- it's clear that the fix is in this postseason. I don't know whether gamblers have taken baseball over, as in 1919, or whether the league is dishonest in general, but it's just not possible that the best umpire in baseball coincidentally makes the "worst call of all time."
I'm not so paranoid that I don't believe in coincidences. But this is asking the viewing audience to believe in the impossible.
New York, start celebrating the World Series championship. You got it the old-fashioned way: somebody paid for it.
I'm not so paranoid that I don't believe in coincidences. But this is asking the viewing audience to believe in the impossible.
New York, start celebrating the World Series championship. You got it the old-fashioned way: somebody paid for it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
59-0?
That's what the New England Patriots (4-2) beat the Tennessee Titans (0-6) by on Sunday. In a snowstorm. In Foxborough, MA. On October 18.
Wait, a snowstorm in suburban Boston on October 18? It's easy to understand why Tennessee gave up, the way they did in the game. Being from Al Gore's home area, they probably believed in global warming and were saddened by the realization that he was going to get mocked some more for his outlandish predictions about the "hockey stick" ride in temperature. No wonder they played like they had fleas.
Wait, a snowstorm in suburban Boston on October 18? It's easy to understand why Tennessee gave up, the way they did in the game. Being from Al Gore's home area, they probably believed in global warming and were saddened by the realization that he was going to get mocked some more for his outlandish predictions about the "hockey stick" ride in temperature. No wonder they played like they had fleas.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Great Appeaser
I have to admit, I have a hard time writing a reasonably periodic blog. During this last gap, the Norwegians slipped in a surprise when they awarded Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. If this wasn't so tragic for much of the world, it would be sickening.
Let me make one point clear. I'm not one of the Obama-haters out there. I love the fact that he's the second president from Harvard Law School (Rutherford B. Hayes was the first). I don't think he's the death of America. His election doesn't fill me with desire to move out of the country, as , say, the election of Mike Huckabee would have done. But this is such a pathetic award that it's become a worldwide laughing stock, and nobody deserves being laughed at more than Obama, who seems only to desire to replace Neville Chamberlain as "the Great Appeaser."
One of the pre-election comments about Obama was that he was weak in foreign affairs. Instead of asking advice from South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, who seems to be an expert (ask that Argentinean woman that he claims to be his "soul mate"), Obama claimed that his help would come from Joe Biden, whose best-known international venture was to plagiarize Neil Kinnock, the former leader of the British Labor Party. Between them, Obama and Biden are proving to be the Gang that Couldn't Think Straight.
Latest news: Obama can't make it to Berlin for the 20th anniversary of tearing down the Berlin Wall. Of course not; he's too busy trying to suck up to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to celebrate the most important event with regard to world peace to happen in my lifetime: the fall of Communist Eastern Europe.
In fact, Obama scrapped the plans of the Bush administration to put land-based missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians didn't like two of the three East Bloc countries that revolted against Russian hegemony having such missiles, even if they were turned toward Iran. So Obama killed them and intimated that, as a result, the Russians would help with Iran. Only ... when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Russia to get a joint statement, the Russians told her to pound sand. Typical Obama: appease the unappeasable. Isn't that exactly what Chamberlain did?
If Obama's ceaseless blundering leads us to war instead of peace, could we force Norwegians to man the front lines?
Let me make one point clear. I'm not one of the Obama-haters out there. I love the fact that he's the second president from Harvard Law School (Rutherford B. Hayes was the first). I don't think he's the death of America. His election doesn't fill me with desire to move out of the country, as , say, the election of Mike Huckabee would have done. But this is such a pathetic award that it's become a worldwide laughing stock, and nobody deserves being laughed at more than Obama, who seems only to desire to replace Neville Chamberlain as "the Great Appeaser."
One of the pre-election comments about Obama was that he was weak in foreign affairs. Instead of asking advice from South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, who seems to be an expert (ask that Argentinean woman that he claims to be his "soul mate"), Obama claimed that his help would come from Joe Biden, whose best-known international venture was to plagiarize Neil Kinnock, the former leader of the British Labor Party. Between them, Obama and Biden are proving to be the Gang that Couldn't Think Straight.
Latest news: Obama can't make it to Berlin for the 20th anniversary of tearing down the Berlin Wall. Of course not; he's too busy trying to suck up to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to celebrate the most important event with regard to world peace to happen in my lifetime: the fall of Communist Eastern Europe.
In fact, Obama scrapped the plans of the Bush administration to put land-based missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians didn't like two of the three East Bloc countries that revolted against Russian hegemony having such missiles, even if they were turned toward Iran. So Obama killed them and intimated that, as a result, the Russians would help with Iran. Only ... when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Russia to get a joint statement, the Russians told her to pound sand. Typical Obama: appease the unappeasable. Isn't that exactly what Chamberlain did?
If Obama's ceaseless blundering leads us to war instead of peace, could we force Norwegians to man the front lines?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)