Obama evil or simply incompetent?

Just read a blog that was forwarded to me. The blog is apparently from the New Yorker magazine, written by a guy named Borowitz or Boroski or something like that. I want to think the whole thing is satire -- but it's really good satire.

The headline for the blog goes something like: "Obama says attack on Syria has no objective whatsoever."

Just like a little story on Fox yesterday reported that Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under "Can't Keep It Zipped" Bill Clinton, gave the go-ahead to attack the island of Grenada only after she'd been assured that the USA had no interests there.

The British have refused to join us in attacking Syria. Apparently only the French remain somewhat interested, but they've never been entirely reliable. However, do believe it was the French who first received and then publicized that video of dozens of dead bodies in Syria -- the result of Syrian dictator Assad gassing them indiscriminately. So maybe the French remain sympathetic to visiting some sort of punishment on Assad for his willy-nilly and illegal use of chemical weapons.

I don't think we should get involved. I've said it several times, we don't have a dog in this fight. Assad is a vicious psychopath determined to continue to rule his people with an iron hand, even if he has to kill all of them. (Apparently he doesn't see the irony in that.) The opposing "rebel" forces don't look a whole lot better since they include recruits from Al-Qaeda groups and maybe even Hamas -- not sure I read that report right, it was in teeny-tiny print.

There's no one I personally care to defend in Syria, really. Should we help to topple Assad only to help create the jihadist caliphate? Should we arm the rebels so that they can launch attacks on us a few more years down the road?

Military analyst Ralph Peters noted that both sides are our enemies and they're killing each other. So why should we interfere? I tend to agree.

But Obama said the US would not get involved unless Assad used chemical weapons. So now to assuage his own ego, he wants to entangle the US in yet another endless, pointless war in the Middle East.

Of course, engaging in Syria does assure that the US military will be kept overseas, and the conflict will continue to bleed US resources while achieving absolutely no useful purpose. The Comrade has promised to remove all US troops from Afghanistan, so perhaps he needs to find another black hole to throw them into.

Draining the US of its resources and crippling the military seem to be among of Obama's chief aims as president.

So is the Comrade only monumentally ignorant and incompetent? Or is he truly vile, relentless in seeking out and implementing ways to destroy the USA?

Don't listen to what he says. Watch what he does.

PC as a political weapon

Haven't been blogging lately. The nation's going to hell in a hand basket, what more can I say?

However, came across something on Michelle Malkin's Twitchy site surrounding a video that apparently was posted by Russell Simmons, who's a black media mogul -- involved in all kinds of entrepreneurial communications things, including the music and cell phones industries. He's also a very likable guy.

Anyway, apparently he posted something called "Harriet Tubman's Sex Tapes" on YouTube. All about Harriet Tubman, forced by her master to have sex, turning around the situation and using it to compel her master to let her run the underground railroad. Russell Simmons said he thought it was funny.

A lot of other people were not amused. Though I never saw the video -- Simmons took it down by popular demand -- I think the concept is kind of disgusting. Rape was a very real thing in the days of slavery, and some black women slaves did use it to extract favors from ol' massa. The Garden District in New Orleans was well known as the area where white plantation owners housed their black concubines -- and the concubines's mixed race kids, as well. Or a woman field hand might regard sex with the massa as a way to get lighter duty inside the house. A sad and sorry way to improve your situation.

Anyway you look at this, it's pretty hard to put a positive spin on it.

At any rate, Simmons apologized for his insensitivity and took the video down. That wasn't good enough for some folks. One "Twit" posted something about how "the damage is already done."

That made me wonder, what damage? Has Harriet Tubman's reputation been ruined? Did the video prompt some extremely impressionable black woman to sell herself into slavery so that she, too, could try to manipulate her master?

What damage is done by harsh or insensitive or even insulting words?

When I was a kid and other kids called me names -- an apparently inevitable episode in every kid's life -- my mother told me to bear in mind: "Sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me." I somehow associated that with the idea of being strong and self-motivated, and trusting my own judgment of myself rather than letting others define me.

Maybe naïve? It seems the democrats have seized upon some pretty convoluted "spin" to -- poof! -- magically turn shocking negatives into at least palatable neutrals. And some people buy it.

I'm a writer. I understand the power of words. You define an issue by the terms you choose to describe it and by the fact that you choose to address it all, and this lends to the issue your own point of view. There's no escaping that. That's why "objective journalism" is, for me, an oxymoron. The only way to be fair is to present the issues from all sides, from a range of perspectives.

And just because you attach one or another label to something doesn't change the nature of what the thing is. I could call tomatoes "feathers," but they'd still be tomatoes.

And I don't think Harriet Tubman's reputation has been tarnished by Russell Simmons' video. In fact, the whole thing blew back on him, didn't it? Judging by the outrage he inspired, I'd guess that he, not Harriet, has lost a few fans over this matter.

Anyway, just a thought. It's the difference between "Death panels" and "bureaucrats defining who gets health care and who doesn't." Oops. Not a good example. Or Hillary Clinton as "Our next 'historic' president" as opposed to "The Secretary of State who abandoned US representatives under terrorist attack."

Sorry. I guess my bias is showing.