When I woke up this morning, I was hoping to hear that President Obama really didn't say he was going to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. That it had just been a bad dream. Or that an old war speech of George W. Bush was somehow put on Obama's teleprompter by mistake. The Nobel Peace Prize committee was probably hoping the same thing.
Obama's address at West Point was the most compelling speech that I have ever disagreed with. It was like a brilliant summation by a trial lawyer defending a hopelessly guilty client. For a minute, I wanted to believe he was right, but then I came to my senses.
Even though it was well delivered, the speech didn't really sound like the Obama I voted for. It almost sounded like one of those forced propaganda videos that hostages have to deliver.
I agree with those who say the speech should have been given from the Oval Office. The only crowd noise you can expect there is if the cameraman sneezes. It's hard to sound upbeat as you're facing into a sea of grey uniforms. Military audiences are usually great(as comedians who have performed for them can attest to),but the cadets had been in their seats for four hours before the speech began. And they had probably been up since 5 am. And they were being told they were going to Afghanistan. Not a happy combination. No wonder there were only four applause breaks. I wonder whether the standing ovation at the end was because of what Obama said, or because they were just happy to get the chance to stand up.
President Obama deserves much credit for finally putting the focus on Afghanistan, after seven years of being virtually ignored by the Bush Administration. Had Bush and Cheney not diverted all their attention and most of our resources to the disastrously unnecessary war in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan would probably be under control today. A fact that the eternally delusional Dick Cheney refuses to accept. Instead of ever admitting to any mistakes, he prefers to verbally attack Obama for being weak because he bowed to the Japanese leader. He bowed because that's the polite, culturally acceptable thing to do. Of course, a man like Cheney isn't interested in respecting other cultures, he just likes invading them.
Although I'm against this troop surge, I'm proud that President Obama has made great strides in trying to engage the countries of the world through diplomacy. And I hope that there is a diplomatic surge in Afghanistan that goes hand in hand with the military one.
And so to all of my conservative friends who thought that I would support the troop surge from Obama that I didn't support from Bush, there you have it. I think the President is wrong on this one. But I am still thrilled that he is our President.
It's like the way you feel when a good friend lets you down. It hurts, you're disappointed, but you still stay friends. Because in friendship and in politics, we need to hold on to the things that bring us together, not pull us apart.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
In Defense of Turkeys
What did turkeys ever do to be compared with human beings who behave badly?
Being a city boy, I haven't met many turkeys over the years, but the ones I've encountered are pleasant birds who have a remarkably sunny disposition considering the fact that many of them won't live past Thanksgiving. It's funny to hear the sounds they make and to watch them spread their wings. I can't say the same about those people who are called turkeys. They're not fun to watch or listen to, and generally don't have pleasant dispositions even though they're very likely to be alive after November 26.
So I'm not going to call the politicians who I think behaved badly this year turkeys, because they don't deserve to be in the same company as our fine feathered friends.
Because turkeys would never put politics and their personal self-interest above the greater good, the way almost all Republicans did this year in the healthcare debate.
I know it's hard to tell, but I even think turkeys have the sense of humor sorely lacking in many of our leaders. While President Obama has a wonderful sense of humor and is spontaneously funny, I can't say the same for our Congressional leaders.
John Boehner is humorless, Mitch McConnell has never come close to cracking a smile, and Harry Reid acts like a well meaning undertaker. Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is always smiling. Even if she may not always get the joke.
Turkeys aren't hypocrites either. Like those sanctimonious politicians who preach family values and then get arrested in public restrooms, or abandon their state and their responsibilities to run off with a mistress in Argentina. These politicians are given a sacred trust by the people and promptly abuse that trust.
Turkeys seem to have a sense of the limited time they have on earth, and seem content to make the most of their wing flapping, cute noisemaking days.
So this Thanksgiving, let's show a little respect for turkeys, whether they bought the farm or are still on the farm. And the next time you see a human being behaving badly, don't call them a turkey. Turkeys deserve better than that.
Being a city boy, I haven't met many turkeys over the years, but the ones I've encountered are pleasant birds who have a remarkably sunny disposition considering the fact that many of them won't live past Thanksgiving. It's funny to hear the sounds they make and to watch them spread their wings. I can't say the same about those people who are called turkeys. They're not fun to watch or listen to, and generally don't have pleasant dispositions even though they're very likely to be alive after November 26.
So I'm not going to call the politicians who I think behaved badly this year turkeys, because they don't deserve to be in the same company as our fine feathered friends.
Because turkeys would never put politics and their personal self-interest above the greater good, the way almost all Republicans did this year in the healthcare debate.
I know it's hard to tell, but I even think turkeys have the sense of humor sorely lacking in many of our leaders. While President Obama has a wonderful sense of humor and is spontaneously funny, I can't say the same for our Congressional leaders.
John Boehner is humorless, Mitch McConnell has never come close to cracking a smile, and Harry Reid acts like a well meaning undertaker. Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is always smiling. Even if she may not always get the joke.
Turkeys aren't hypocrites either. Like those sanctimonious politicians who preach family values and then get arrested in public restrooms, or abandon their state and their responsibilities to run off with a mistress in Argentina. These politicians are given a sacred trust by the people and promptly abuse that trust.
Turkeys seem to have a sense of the limited time they have on earth, and seem content to make the most of their wing flapping, cute noisemaking days.
So this Thanksgiving, let's show a little respect for turkeys, whether they bought the farm or are still on the farm. And the next time you see a human being behaving badly, don't call them a turkey. Turkeys deserve better than that.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
New Poll Finds Little Faith in Polls
There aren't many things we can be certain of these days, but here are a few.
There is a poll out there that will support every conceivable opinion on any issue. Just pick the one you like, and pretend that it actually holds any significance whatsoever. For example, I love the poll that says 100% of the people writing this column agree with everything in it. And why are polls treated as a news story, when in all probability, they aren't even accurate? And even if by some fluke, the poll is on the money, why should anyone care? If people and politicians base their opinions on polls that are wrong most of the time, that could lead to having positions that are wrong for the country. That's not my opinion, I got it from some poll.
Republicans Will Be Against Everything Democrats Want.
I'm not a betting man, but I wish there was money to be made in guessing how Republicans will vote in Congress. In fact, you just have to bet that they'll say "No" to everything Democrats propose and leave it at that. They're even against things they're for, if a Democrat wants it too. If the Democrats proposed a bill called "The Republicans Are Great Act of 2009", Republicans would still oppose it. I heard that to make it easier on themselves, Republicans had the "Yes" button removed from their voting consoles.
Foreign News Is Foreign to American TV News
When the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was celebrated this week, you would think that would be a huge story here. World News with Charles Gibson ran the story last on its newscast the day of the anniversary. I guess the fall of Communism pales in comparison to a story about a dog who plays baseball. If it was a dog playing soccer they wouldn't cover it. Soccer is too foreign. Coverage like that is why Americans are so ignorant about other countries. The first time we've ever heard of some countries is when the U.S. goes to war with them. Maybe if the media and all of us followed world news a little more, the U.S. would do a better job of foreign policy. Instead of just being the most informed country about dogs playing baseball.
Not all dogs of course. Just 18%. Or 35%. Or none. Depending on which poll you read.
There is a poll out there that will support every conceivable opinion on any issue. Just pick the one you like, and pretend that it actually holds any significance whatsoever. For example, I love the poll that says 100% of the people writing this column agree with everything in it. And why are polls treated as a news story, when in all probability, they aren't even accurate? And even if by some fluke, the poll is on the money, why should anyone care? If people and politicians base their opinions on polls that are wrong most of the time, that could lead to having positions that are wrong for the country. That's not my opinion, I got it from some poll.
Republicans Will Be Against Everything Democrats Want.
I'm not a betting man, but I wish there was money to be made in guessing how Republicans will vote in Congress. In fact, you just have to bet that they'll say "No" to everything Democrats propose and leave it at that. They're even against things they're for, if a Democrat wants it too. If the Democrats proposed a bill called "The Republicans Are Great Act of 2009", Republicans would still oppose it. I heard that to make it easier on themselves, Republicans had the "Yes" button removed from their voting consoles.
Foreign News Is Foreign to American TV News
When the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was celebrated this week, you would think that would be a huge story here. World News with Charles Gibson ran the story last on its newscast the day of the anniversary. I guess the fall of Communism pales in comparison to a story about a dog who plays baseball. If it was a dog playing soccer they wouldn't cover it. Soccer is too foreign. Coverage like that is why Americans are so ignorant about other countries. The first time we've ever heard of some countries is when the U.S. goes to war with them. Maybe if the media and all of us followed world news a little more, the U.S. would do a better job of foreign policy. Instead of just being the most informed country about dogs playing baseball.
Not all dogs of course. Just 18%. Or 35%. Or none. Depending on which poll you read.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What If They Gave An Election and Nobody Came?
I don't understand why people are calling Tuesday an "off year election". Is 2009 not really a year? Is this Election Day not really an election? For a country that spends a lot of time promoting democracy around the world, our primary(and general election) concern should be about the voting process here in the U.S.
I did a show the other night for about 50 people and I told them there were more people in the audience than had voted in New York City's runoff election. Actually a whopping 8% of eligible voters bothered to exercise their democratic right last month. I was one of the select fee who voted. The bored election officials applauded when I entered the empty polling place.
I love voting. Sometimes I even wave when I leave the voting booth, just to confuse people. "Is that guy running for something?", they probably ask themselves.
In a recent primary in Virginia, the turnout was 3%. 3% is the margin of error in a poll. So it's actually possible no one voted.
I remember a few years ago when there were elections in Haiti, people voted as they were getting shot at. In New York, people don't vote when it's partly cloudy. They complain, "I have to put my coat on, walk two blocks. Do they deliver?"
The media doesn't help when they broadcast polls that tell us who would win if the election were held today. If the election were held today, nobody would vote, because it's not Election Day.
New York City Mayor Bloomberg is so rich he turned down living in the opulent Gracie Mansion. He probably thought, "I'd much rather live in my larger, more expensive home."
Bloomberg has spent more than $85 million in his reelection campaign so far and will probably top $100 million. That's more than the GNP of some developing countries. We would have been better off if Bloomberg just handed the money to us directly. His opponent Bill Thompson has only $6.6 million to spend. When $6.6 million is "only", there's a problem somewhere.
But that's no excuse not to vote. Not only do you have no right to complain if you don't bother to vote, but I propose that elected officials only listen to constituents who voted(for them or anyone else).
So on Tuesday go out there and vote. If past turnout is any indication, there won't be long lines. But it would be better for our country if there were.
I did a show the other night for about 50 people and I told them there were more people in the audience than had voted in New York City's runoff election. Actually a whopping 8% of eligible voters bothered to exercise their democratic right last month. I was one of the select fee who voted. The bored election officials applauded when I entered the empty polling place.
I love voting. Sometimes I even wave when I leave the voting booth, just to confuse people. "Is that guy running for something?", they probably ask themselves.
In a recent primary in Virginia, the turnout was 3%. 3% is the margin of error in a poll. So it's actually possible no one voted.
I remember a few years ago when there were elections in Haiti, people voted as they were getting shot at. In New York, people don't vote when it's partly cloudy. They complain, "I have to put my coat on, walk two blocks. Do they deliver?"
The media doesn't help when they broadcast polls that tell us who would win if the election were held today. If the election were held today, nobody would vote, because it's not Election Day.
New York City Mayor Bloomberg is so rich he turned down living in the opulent Gracie Mansion. He probably thought, "I'd much rather live in my larger, more expensive home."
Bloomberg has spent more than $85 million in his reelection campaign so far and will probably top $100 million. That's more than the GNP of some developing countries. We would have been better off if Bloomberg just handed the money to us directly. His opponent Bill Thompson has only $6.6 million to spend. When $6.6 million is "only", there's a problem somewhere.
But that's no excuse not to vote. Not only do you have no right to complain if you don't bother to vote, but I propose that elected officials only listen to constituents who voted(for them or anyone else).
So on Tuesday go out there and vote. If past turnout is any indication, there won't be long lines. But it would be better for our country if there were.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Does The White House Support Military Action Against Fox News?
A major priority of President Obama has been to engage in diplomacy with adversaries like Iran and North Korea, and to pursue a vigorous diplomatic strategy between the Israelis and Palestinians. The militaristic tone of the Bush administration has been replaced(and Nobel Peace prize rewarded)by one of engagement.
Which makes it all the more puzzling why the White House seems unwilling to talk to Fox News, and has accused it of not being a real news organization. The first salvo was fired by the White House Director of Communications, who apparently isn't very good at living up to her title. The Obama administration has reached out repeatedly to Republicans and conservative Democrats to achieve a consensus on healthcare reform and other issues. So why not talk to Fox News?
As a regular guest on The Strategy Room at foxnews.com, I have had the pleasure and privilege of engaging in spirited but respectful discourse with pundits from the left, right and center. Each show is hosted by a skilled reporter from Fox News, who I may sometimes vehemently disagree with, but always respect their journalistic integrity. To insinuate that these hard working journalists are not part of a real news organization is offensive and completely offbase.
As a liberal political comedian, I can find comedic fodder with some of the opinion/entertainment hosts at the channel, but they are clearly not part of the news gathering and reporting operation at Fox News.
And even if one accepts The White House assertion that Fox News coverage is unfair to the President, what better way to counter that than to have Obama and other White House officials appear on Fox News to get their message across in their own words? If the Obama administration can talk to Iran and North Korea, they can surely sit down with Chris Wallace or Bill O'Reilly, as Obama did during the campaign.
And when President Obama appeared on Fox News during the campaign, it could be argued that he gained some votes from the many independents who view the channel. Which flies in the face of the comments by Robert Gibbs and others that there is no point in trying to reach out to Fox viewers. As a comedian, I know the importance of knowing your audience. You would think that the politically savvy White House would take the time to know the Fox News audience, and not completely write them off.
President Obama and his entire White House team should stop beating on Fox News, and start being on Fox News.
Which makes it all the more puzzling why the White House seems unwilling to talk to Fox News, and has accused it of not being a real news organization. The first salvo was fired by the White House Director of Communications, who apparently isn't very good at living up to her title. The Obama administration has reached out repeatedly to Republicans and conservative Democrats to achieve a consensus on healthcare reform and other issues. So why not talk to Fox News?
As a regular guest on The Strategy Room at foxnews.com, I have had the pleasure and privilege of engaging in spirited but respectful discourse with pundits from the left, right and center. Each show is hosted by a skilled reporter from Fox News, who I may sometimes vehemently disagree with, but always respect their journalistic integrity. To insinuate that these hard working journalists are not part of a real news organization is offensive and completely offbase.
As a liberal political comedian, I can find comedic fodder with some of the opinion/entertainment hosts at the channel, but they are clearly not part of the news gathering and reporting operation at Fox News.
And even if one accepts The White House assertion that Fox News coverage is unfair to the President, what better way to counter that than to have Obama and other White House officials appear on Fox News to get their message across in their own words? If the Obama administration can talk to Iran and North Korea, they can surely sit down with Chris Wallace or Bill O'Reilly, as Obama did during the campaign.
And when President Obama appeared on Fox News during the campaign, it could be argued that he gained some votes from the many independents who view the channel. Which flies in the face of the comments by Robert Gibbs and others that there is no point in trying to reach out to Fox viewers. As a comedian, I know the importance of knowing your audience. You would think that the politically savvy White House would take the time to know the Fox News audience, and not completely write them off.
President Obama and his entire White House team should stop beating on Fox News, and start being on Fox News.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Public Option, Not Military Option
I think it's outrageous that there's more outrage about the public option in healthcare reform, than there is about the military option in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Especially because the public option is a smart, practical idea that will make it cheaper for us to buy health insurance. And the military option to bomb Iran is stupid, impractical and would ultimately be bad for everyone's health in the U.S., Israel and around the world. The public option would save lives, the military option would cause many deaths.
And although most polls show more than 60% of Americans support the public option, those who oppose it are convinced it would lead to death panels, forced euthanasia, and the bankruptcy of the entire health insurance industry. The first two fears are based on completely wrong information. The third is based on the belief that protecting the billions in profits of insurance companies is more important than providing affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans. A public option will ideally force insurance companies to lower their premiums, and might also lead to CEO's taking a pay cut to only about $10 million a year. I know it's tough to get by on such a paltry annual salary, but maybe they can make do by selling one of their five houses.
But I'm even more outraged by a poll that said 57% of American Jews support military action against Iran. As a Jewish American, I'm embarassed that my own people would believe in such a catastrophic and ridiculous notion. What's wrong with the US or Israel bombing Iran? How about everything? All of Iran's nuclear facilities are either hidden underground or near civilian population centers. So it would be highly unlikely to actually knock out their facilities, while it would be highly likely many innocent Iranians would be killed. And Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who, unlike me, is an expert in these matters, believes an attack on Iran would maybe set back their program one to three years at best. But it would certainly invite retaliation against Israel, the US and Western interests around the world through terrorist attacks. And it would shut down any diplomatic relations with Iran and completely put Middle East peace prospects on an indefinite hold.
Is it too much to ask for Americans to be smart for a change when it comes to the Middle East? You would think that the utter failure of the unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq would have taught us just a little about dealing with a country that may or may not have WMD's.
Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made stupid, offensive comments about the Holocaust. And he has spoken out against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people. But he knows that if Iran attacked Israel, there would be swift and massive retaliation. And since all he really cares about is staying in power, (as the recent fake election attests to), that is not something he would want to happen.
So let's drop all the Nazi analogies from the Iran debate, as well as from the healthcare debate too. Let's try, for a moment, to look at both options in a clear, non-emotional way.
Which sounds like a smart option to you? Lowering our healthcare costs with a public option, or raising the threat level with the military option against Iran?
The choice is yours.
Especially because the public option is a smart, practical idea that will make it cheaper for us to buy health insurance. And the military option to bomb Iran is stupid, impractical and would ultimately be bad for everyone's health in the U.S., Israel and around the world. The public option would save lives, the military option would cause many deaths.
And although most polls show more than 60% of Americans support the public option, those who oppose it are convinced it would lead to death panels, forced euthanasia, and the bankruptcy of the entire health insurance industry. The first two fears are based on completely wrong information. The third is based on the belief that protecting the billions in profits of insurance companies is more important than providing affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans. A public option will ideally force insurance companies to lower their premiums, and might also lead to CEO's taking a pay cut to only about $10 million a year. I know it's tough to get by on such a paltry annual salary, but maybe they can make do by selling one of their five houses.
But I'm even more outraged by a poll that said 57% of American Jews support military action against Iran. As a Jewish American, I'm embarassed that my own people would believe in such a catastrophic and ridiculous notion. What's wrong with the US or Israel bombing Iran? How about everything? All of Iran's nuclear facilities are either hidden underground or near civilian population centers. So it would be highly unlikely to actually knock out their facilities, while it would be highly likely many innocent Iranians would be killed. And Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who, unlike me, is an expert in these matters, believes an attack on Iran would maybe set back their program one to three years at best. But it would certainly invite retaliation against Israel, the US and Western interests around the world through terrorist attacks. And it would shut down any diplomatic relations with Iran and completely put Middle East peace prospects on an indefinite hold.
Is it too much to ask for Americans to be smart for a change when it comes to the Middle East? You would think that the utter failure of the unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq would have taught us just a little about dealing with a country that may or may not have WMD's.
Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made stupid, offensive comments about the Holocaust. And he has spoken out against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people. But he knows that if Iran attacked Israel, there would be swift and massive retaliation. And since all he really cares about is staying in power, (as the recent fake election attests to), that is not something he would want to happen.
So let's drop all the Nazi analogies from the Iran debate, as well as from the healthcare debate too. Let's try, for a moment, to look at both options in a clear, non-emotional way.
Which sounds like a smart option to you? Lowering our healthcare costs with a public option, or raising the threat level with the military option against Iran?
The choice is yours.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Democrats Still Not Aware They Actually Won The Election
Last November, Democrats took back the White House and the Congress with a huge mandate from the American people. Ever since then, Democrats in Congress have been acting as if they actually lost the election instead.
Their latest act of spinelessness came yesterday when the Senate voted 83-7 to deny ACORN any federal funds. Apparently, Democrats have never met a right wing smear campaign they didn't like.
The Senate's move means that ACORN, the most effective organization for helping low income people avoid foreclosures, will not be able to receive grants for counseling low-income people on how to get mortgages and for fair housing education and outreach. That would be like the Census Bureau refusing to work with ACORN to count how many low income and minority Americans live in America. Which is what the wimpy Census Bureau actually did do last week, when they said they won't work with ACORN on the census.
Who cares about minority representation in this country anyway? Apparently not Republicans and right wing pundits. Because their obsession with ACORN stems from the simple fact that the minority communities ACORN works with tend to vote Democratic. So what better way to keep down voter registration in those areas than by constantly harassing the people trying to register them? Yes there were a few instances of workers writing fake names on petitions. (Although I suppose it's possible for your name to really be Donald Duck. But not likely.) And those workers were promptly fired. As were the workers who were duped by a conservative activist filmmaker in the recent entrapment scheme caught on tape.
But what really makes this standup comedian's hair stand up, is the way the Democrats have meekly given in to almost every right wing smear. When Van Jones was unfairly attacked and forced to resign, no one from the White House said a thing. Couldn't someone have just said, "Hey, Van Jones is the foremost authority on green jobs. He didn't say or do anything to disqualify him for that job." But they just let him go.
Then there was the communications director for the NEA who lost his job for making a conference call. When a guy in charge of communications can't make a phone call, you would think someone might have the courage to say, "Hey, what's wrong with that?" Instead, they hung up on him too.
Republicans, on the other hand, stand by their man. Congressman Wilson(the "you lie" guy)has been assured that his party will support him. They've even made him a cult hero. Governor Sanford mysteriously disappears, resurfaces with a mistress in Argentina, and guess what? He's still Governor.
This standup comedian will always stand up for the right of every American to stand up for their beliefs. It's time for Democrats to stand up and catch us if we fall. If they do that, they might actually realize they won the last election.
Their latest act of spinelessness came yesterday when the Senate voted 83-7 to deny ACORN any federal funds. Apparently, Democrats have never met a right wing smear campaign they didn't like.
The Senate's move means that ACORN, the most effective organization for helping low income people avoid foreclosures, will not be able to receive grants for counseling low-income people on how to get mortgages and for fair housing education and outreach. That would be like the Census Bureau refusing to work with ACORN to count how many low income and minority Americans live in America. Which is what the wimpy Census Bureau actually did do last week, when they said they won't work with ACORN on the census.
Who cares about minority representation in this country anyway? Apparently not Republicans and right wing pundits. Because their obsession with ACORN stems from the simple fact that the minority communities ACORN works with tend to vote Democratic. So what better way to keep down voter registration in those areas than by constantly harassing the people trying to register them? Yes there were a few instances of workers writing fake names on petitions. (Although I suppose it's possible for your name to really be Donald Duck. But not likely.) And those workers were promptly fired. As were the workers who were duped by a conservative activist filmmaker in the recent entrapment scheme caught on tape.
But what really makes this standup comedian's hair stand up, is the way the Democrats have meekly given in to almost every right wing smear. When Van Jones was unfairly attacked and forced to resign, no one from the White House said a thing. Couldn't someone have just said, "Hey, Van Jones is the foremost authority on green jobs. He didn't say or do anything to disqualify him for that job." But they just let him go.
Then there was the communications director for the NEA who lost his job for making a conference call. When a guy in charge of communications can't make a phone call, you would think someone might have the courage to say, "Hey, what's wrong with that?" Instead, they hung up on him too.
Republicans, on the other hand, stand by their man. Congressman Wilson(the "you lie" guy)has been assured that his party will support him. They've even made him a cult hero. Governor Sanford mysteriously disappears, resurfaces with a mistress in Argentina, and guess what? He's still Governor.
This standup comedian will always stand up for the right of every American to stand up for their beliefs. It's time for Democrats to stand up and catch us if we fall. If they do that, they might actually realize they won the last election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
