Can House Right-Wingers Be As Irrational As They Seem?

Why do Tea Partiers and other GOP right-wingers work so hard to alienate their less dense, less obtuse fellow citizens?

                Why do Tea Partiers and other GOP right-wingers fail to grasp that in a democracy the majority rules?

                And what makes Tea Partiers and their fellow travelers so stubborn, so dedicated to the perverse and counter-productive policy against raising taxes?

                They can be assured that the majority of U.S. citizens approve the plan the President has put forward for averting nasty problems raised by the so-called Fiscal Cliff.  It seems the citizenry backs him even though he has even modified his plan to suit republican preferences.

                Mr. Obama has tried to be fair. He has been upfront. He has been logical, consistent, and diplomatic. He knows that most of the nation does not want him to yield on the points he ran on in the election and that Americans don’t want the right-wingers to have their way.

                And yet the stubborn, selfish Johnny- one-notes in the GOP keep defying the President and the majority of Americans.

                Listen up right wingers.  America knows you are the bad guys.

                The President himself provided insight into why the rightists oppose him. He said:

                “I’m often reminded when I speak to the Republican leadership that the majority of their caucus membership comes from districts that I lost. And so sometimes they may not see an incentive in cooperating with me, in part because they’re more concerned about challenges from a tea party candidate, or challenges from the right, and cooperating with me may make them vulnerable. I recognize that.

                “But goodness….If there’s one thing we should have after this week [in which the slaughter of the innocent children in Connecticut took place] it should be a sense of perspective about what’s important…Right now what the country needs is for us to compromise, get a deficit reduction deal in place; make sure middle class taxes don’t go up….”

                Though Mr. Obama’s words have most fair-minded people nodding in agreement, the House no-compromise Republicans dismiss them.

                So on the first day of winter, a gray, wind-whipped day in our neighborhood, the House right-wingers have presented the nation with a bleak outlook. The President’s rational plan is still opposed by irrational Republicans.

 The President—we sincerely hope—will stand fast. Consequently the universal tax increase and drastic cuts in government programs will take effect at the turn of the New Year. Many of us will see thousands drained from their incomes.

The Republicans will have engineered exactly what they’ve been arguing against—a tax hike. They will have infuriated the nation and proved again there is such a thing as a tyranny of the minority. Obduracy and disregard for the common good will have prevailed.

It seems likely, though, that when the constituents of the hard-headed right-wingers feel the sting of new taxes they’ll howl.

But wait. You know no politicians would be dumb enough to outrage their constituents—do you think?

                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin

 

               

Move over Grover the Pres is in the driver’s seat

                After years, Grover Norquist, the chubby-faced GOP kingmaker with the pseudo beard, is watching his formidable clout weaken. In the face of a determined President, his loyalists are beginning to ignore their oath of fealty, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

What’s more, one or Mr. Norquist’s staunchest soldiers, Senator Jim DeMint, a Tea Party icon, has deserted. The South Carolina Senator announced on December 6 that he is abandoning his Senate seat to assume the presidency of the conservative Heritage Foundation, an assisted living facility for feeble GOP ideas.

Also ,South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chamblis, Arizona Senator John McCain, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and New York Rep. Peter King and Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell have inched away from Mr. Norquist’s no-tax-hike demand.

Plus, Lesley Stahl noted on 60 Minutes (Dec. 9, 2012) that several newly elected GOP Representatives have refused to take the Norquist pledge.

                These developments cheer many U.S. citizens who have deplored the stubborn. Counter -productive and corrosive power of Norquist and his Tea Party cohorts.

                The catalyst for change among the GOPers is the so-called Fiscal Cliff, the law that blends universal tax raises and spending cuts in an attempt to reduce the federal budget. The law takes effect on January 1 unless substitute legislation can be passed.

President Obama has been wonderfully stubborn in demanding that, to avoid the toxic mixture of tax raises and spending cuts, he wants a law that raises taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year. He would leave the tax rate as it is for those earning below that amount. He also says he is prepared to make significant cuts in spending. Many polls have indicated that a large majority of Americans like the President’s idea.

                But as the world knows, Republican House members who cherish Norquist’s no- tax-raise philosophy as an article of faith refuse to go along with the President’s plan. This despite the widespread belief that the President’s plan is workable and fair.

                Most Americans want the Republicans to yield. And if they do, their yielding may tip off a decline of the Republican Right wing’s passionately wrong-headed and unpatriotic no-compromise approach to legislation.

David Brooks, the New York Times’ famed conservative columnist, noted early this month (Dec. 4; Op Ed page) that the GOP Right is “stuck in a miserable position.”

Mr. Brooks points out that the majority of Americans have said they will blame Republicans if there is no deal to avoid the Fiscal Cliff. The business community desperately wants the issue to be resolved and is tending to blame the Republicans for failure to compromise. Mr. Brooks predicts, “The national security types and defense contractors who hate the prospect of sequestration—the tax hike, spending cut law—will turn against them.”

Mr. Brooks adds that the Republicans will have to give in on the tax-hike for the wealthy. Otherwise Republicans will be taxing the middle class to “serve the rich—shafting Sam’s Club to benefit the country club.”

In a December 6 article, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.  pointed out that “…elections are 2x4s and many conservatives seem to realize the need to understand what just hit them.”

What hit them is the fact many citizens long for Norquist and his no-tax henchmen and Tea Party acolytes to shut up and go away. There’s now hope that might happen

                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin

                    

 

An Odd Theft and an Odder Mystery

                The thieves stealthily trucked ladders, an electricity generator and circular power saw into the Sierra Nevada’s Volcanic Tableland and carved, battered, and stole precious images carved into the area’s rugged cliffs some 3,500 years ago.

The event occurred on Halloween.  The Los Angeles Times first reported the event on November 14, and television and eastern papers later carried spot accounts. 

The media told when, where, and how the heist took place. There may be little hope of finding who did the deed, and no one has yet asked why they might have done it.

 What was the motive for what archeologist Greg Haverstock of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management called, “the worst act of vandalism ever seen” on the Bureau’s 750,000-acre parkland?

 Pondering the answer is interesting.

                After all, the pillagers went to absurd lengths; this was hardly a Halloween prank.  Clearly this was vandalism. But the evidence indicates it was much more than that.

Videos of the site show the thieves made clean careful cuts in removing four petroglyphs that occupied a spot 15 feet above ground. The pillagers botched one of the images, fruitlessly slicing into three sides. They managed to extract a sixth carving then apparently broke it. They left it near the site’s visitors’ parking lot. A dozen other images were defaced perhaps out of frustration, spite, or just for fun.

The theft outraged BLM officials, and grieved Paiute-Shoshone tribe members who regard the images as sacred. They treat the rock-carving site as a sort of church and bring their young there to learn of and venerate the tribe’s past and its traditions. The pillaging was to them equivalent to defacing Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall or the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Bernadette Lovato, BLM Office Manager at the site, said informing tribal leaders of the theft “was the toughest telephone call I ever had to make.  Their culture and spiritual beliefs had been horribly violated.”

So why would the thieves go to such lengths? It’s estimated that the images might fetch between $500 and $1,000. That could be enough to temp down–and- out druggies or otherwise desperate people.  But would they market images?

The carved- out slabs of stone are bulky and hard to transport, They’re not likely to show well at the local art fair.  Importantly, reputable art dealers would probably know these images are stolen –bad news for the would-be seller.

Another possibility: the thieves were hired cop the images.

It’s well known that eccentric, greedy, and unscrupulous art connoisseurs will go to any lengths to obtain objects they covet.  Such art collectors are known to hoard art even though they can’t display or sell acquired works that are too famous or are being actively sought.  One example: In 1939 after the deaths of archeologist Howard Carter, precious bracelets and other objects stolen from King Tut’s tomb were found in his house. It was Carter who discovered the tomb.

Art crime is big time. It involves heists by mobsters, art dealers, small time hoods, and bungling amateurs. The FBI estimates that art-related crimes amount to some $6 billion a year. The agency has 14 special agents working to solve such crimes and operates the National Stolen Art File

It could take a while to find the culprits in the petroglyphs thefts.  It’s not even clear the thefts are being investigated. Neither the FBI nor the Bureau of Land Management has responded to requests for information about the status of the case,

Someday though, those images which were patiently, tediously, and lovingly carved with the most primitive tools might turn up. They could be tossed on the side of the road, or thrown  in a dump site, or  charmingly mounted in the home of deceased art lover .

It’s even possible that whoever arranged or did the theft will have a change of heart and leave the rock carvings at the spot where they were taken.

 I agree. That’s not likely.

                                                                                                                --Gus Gribbin

A Thanksgiving Wish

                “Wait, Glimpse, slow down. What’s the rush? Where you going?”

                “To the family Thanksgiving celebration.”

                “Good, huh?”

                “Wonderful!”

                “Wonderful?”

                “Yes, wonderful.

“And part of the wonder is that my family and so many others have so much to give thanks for while suffering multitudes have so little. I wish it were not so and that they could share our blessings.”

“I can agree to that, Glimpse. Still…”

“I know. And I wish you and everyone a HAPPY, HAPPY THANKSGIVING too.”

                                                                                                 -----Gus Gribbin 

               

About the "FIscal Cliff" and Fairness

                “Well hi, Glimpse. Where have you been? What have you been up to?”

                “Been around. Coping.”

                “Coping?”

                “Coping with Hurricane Sandy.  Coping with suspense about the election.  Coping with suspense about the so-called ‘Fiscal Cliff. You know. The impending barrage of tax hikes and Federal spending cuts that threaten to sabotage the economy.’”

                “! Since your man won the presidency and you get to watch the rest of us writhe in pain, I thought you’d be gloating,

                “No gloating.  Actually I feel sad—not for Mitt Romney, but for his followers. Some Republicans seem genuinely worried—convinced the nation under President Obama is skidding into perdition and political decline.”

                “Yeah.  Well those GOPers are pretty much right. You’ve got states approving gay marriage and medical marijuana. You’ve got a bunch running the government who think giving people food stamps is great, that creating more and more government dependents and destroying their incentive is good. I could go on and on. Whatever happened to the United States of America I loved?”

                “For one thing, the ‘nation you loved’ is likely a myth. Although we sometimes tend to agree, each of us has a peculiar notion of what the nation was, and is, and should be. The haunting question is how can our myths, ideas, visions, and conclusions be so utterly different.”

                “I’ve heard tell that’s because Liberals are descendants of a fallen race. Your morals became corrupted way back when.  Maybe that’s harsh. Anyway, I suppose you have some fuzzy sociological-psychological explanation for the differences.”

                “Right. And if the explanation seems fuzzy that means you’ve got to look harder.

“The ideas of psychologist Jonathan Haidt seem right to me.  He authored a remarkable book called “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.”  He argues that people don’t come to their moral conclusions and political positions so much through reasoning as through intuitive, emotional leanings. His fascinating experiments help demonstrate his points.”

                “Oh, for heaven’s sake!”

                “Listen a second. Haidt declares there are a six basic notions or concerns we share as humans: care, authority, sanctity, loyalty, fairness, and liberty. We care about other people, animals, plants etc. We see need for authority. We believe some things are special and sacred. We prize loyalty to family, friends, groups and the like. We want to be free. And we want fairness.

                “Because of the way we’re wired and our life experiences—or nurturing—left- leaning people and right-leaning people differ on the emotional stress they put on these various concerns. For example, Lefties feel deeply about care—the compassionate side of life. Lack of compassion and empathy shocks Liberals to their toes. Not so much for Righties. They care also, but feel deeply about being dutiful, say, or respecting authority, and respecting “sacred” things. Remember how President Obama stirred outrage for not wearing a flag pin in his button hole? And how about the fight over the ‘sanctity of marriage between a man and woman?’

                “But consider fairness. It’s big in conversations about avoiding the Fiscal Cliff.  Liberals equate fairness with equality. Everyone “deserves a fair share.”  That’s vital to Lefties.

“Conservatives think of fairness as ‘proportionality,’ meaning people should get what they deserve. They should reap what they sew. Everyone likes proportionality, but it’s a fundamental tenant of existence for many, if not most, Conservatives. That’s where the notion that taxes punish success comes from—a thought that makes some Liberals’ jaws drop.”

“What you don’t seem to understand Glimpse, is that my view—our view—of fairness is right. Can’t you see—equality —that fair share stuff—it’s like… it’s like socialism!”

“No. I can’t see that. What I can see is that Lefties and Righties have to try and appreciate the others’ overriding and basic emotional leanings. It’s not a matter of right versus wrong. Understanding leads to empathy. Empathy leads to compromise and change.

“In a TIME commentary (10/22/12), Dr. Haidt concluded:

‘So this is where we area as a nation…..We all agree that the other side is to blame and that tax policy can be used to restore basic fairness. We just can’t agree on what fairness means.’

“The fact is we must adjust our feelings and compromise. However  it’s like that old joke:

“How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One. But the light bulb has to want to change.

“What we hope is that fear of heading over the dreaded cliff is enough to cause majorities among the left and right in Congress to appreciate the other side’s core feelings and decide to change. And compromise.”

                                                                                                                       ---Gus Gribbin

 

Could Uninformed Undecideds Sway the Election?

“Where are you headed GLIMPSE?”

“Where you can’t find me.”

“Ha. Funny. You’ll have to run faster. Say, aren’t you going to tell what you think about the second presidential campaign debate? Aren’t you going to comment?

“Sure I am.  Like most democrats I know and have seen interviewed, I think Mr. Obama was most impressive.  I’m relieved that the intense, articulate, and spunky President I have learned to appreciate is back from his slump, and loved it when Candy Crowley corrected Mr. Romney—or ‘Mittens’ as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calls him.

“You remember. Mr. Romney challenged Mr. Obama’s truthfulness when the President said after the September 11 Libya embassy attack, that the following day he identified it as a terrorist operation.  Ms. Crowley told Mr. Romney the President was correct. People clapped, and Mitt looked stunned.  Her name probably won’t be listed among the ‘qualified’ in the would-be-president’s ‘binder full of women’ should he be elected.”

“Come on! You’ve got to admit Romney did okay. He was aggressive.”

“Aggressive is your word.  ’Bullying’ is mine.  However I’m certain you consider Mr. Romney the winner. ”

“You got that right.”

“A fascinating thing about the debate is that the Gallup organization found such apparently informed ‘undecideds.’ Undecided voters typically are perceived as “low information” voters.

Reuters news service reporter Daniel Trotter notes that undecideds, who make up 6 percent of the electorate, have been the subject of pundits’ scorn for their indecision.

“ He quotes comedian Bill Maher as saying, ‘This year at the debates we should skip that thing where the undecided dial in their reaction to every little moment and instead hook up the dial to their foreheads to see if there is an measurable brain activity.’

“Trotter bases his reportage on polls Reuters co-sponsored during the campaign. The information he came up with is enlightening.  

“Most of us have encountered people like a former colleague who was simply indecisive.   At a restaurant she would ask over and over what others were ordering then  bury herself in the menu and make humming sounds until  her friends made suggestions and coaxed her to order.

“Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster, told Trotter 56 percent of the undecided are women. He calls them “Walmart moms.”  The polls show the group is mostly made up of white females without a college education who earn less than $25,000 yearly.

“As you might suspect they struggle to get by and care little about the national budget.  On polls asking questions about the presidential candidates, national issues, and intention to vote the undecided commonly answered’ don’t know,’ or ‘refuse to answer.’ They were twice as likely as other voters to answer ‘unsure’ when queried about personal views on same-sex marriage, health care, immigration, and the national budget.

“Yet 75 percent of these voters who admit knowing little about national affairs believe the country is ‘on the wrong track.’ And when asked which candidate was more eloquent, likeable, or presidential they mostly answered ‘neither.’

“Mr. Trotter quoted Helen Krueger, 54, of Grants Pass, Oregon. The mother of seven voted for John McCain in 2008. She said she normally knows who she is goings to vote for but this time is different.  She said she needed to do ‘more research.’ She claimed the President has done a ‘lousy job’ and she indicated she thought Mr. Romney wants to tax the ‘medium class and low class’ and let the rich get away without paying taxes.”

“For once you’re right Glimpse. That is an enlightening portrait.”

“Yeah. And the scary thing is some predict that in a tight election the undecided may sway the election one way or the other. Let’s hope that prediction’s wrong.”

“Finally you’ve given an opinion I can agree with.”    

                                                                                      ---Gus Gribbin

               

Debate? How? There Was Just One Debater

      “Hey Glimpse!  I’ve got a question.”

                “And that is?”

                “Did you see that first Presidential Debate?”

                “Yeah. I saw it.”

                “Wow. Your guy might as well have stayed home. Old Romney came out swinging. Full of pep.  Full of facts and figures. He cut your guy down to size. But the President probably didn’t even feel it. Man, he was in a coma. Bet you’re worried now aren’t you? But hey, it’s a free country. You can switch sides and back Romney. I won’t tell another living soul.

“But really what did you think of the debate?”

                “No question, Mr. Romney dominated that affair.  My guy, as you call him, made me think he might not want a second term. If that were true, I can understand it. The country is almost as divided as it was during the Civil War, and it’s not likely to get easier for him if he wins.”

                “You’re really worried aren’t you?”

                “Sure. I want to see Mr. Obama reelected, and, at this point, it seems he might lose. I’m as sad as I am worried. He let his followers down.”

                “Well take heart, friend. If Romney’s elected, the country will be better off. By next year this time, you’ll see jobs coming back big time. Romney will get rid of Obamacare, he’ll stop throwing money at people who don’t want to work and take responsibility for their lives. He’ll bring the age of coddling freeloaders to an end. It’ll be like old times. We’ll show the world America still has some muscle and can’t be pushed around.”

                “If so, we’ll see the volume of pain and suffering in this country rise, the gap between rich and poor will increase, there will be fewer restraints on Big Business.  Our world won’t end, but it will be turned around if Romney wins.”

                “It’s about time!”

                “I know there’s absolutely no point of arguing about this. The truth is, though, that neither your vision of what will happen nor mine is accurate.  Would-be presidents can achieve just a fraction of the things they promise to do they’ll do if elected. And many of the things we blame or praise Presidents for are things they couldn’t do much about anyway. If for instance there were obvious solutions to the slow economy, Mideast peace, and the rest, it’s certain they would have been adopted.  Presidents don’t have as much control as we impute to them.”

                “Okay. If that’s so, what difference does it make who you vote for?”

                “For me it’s this. I think I have a fair idea where Obama stands. He’s not ideological. He’s a pragmatist—a centrist. True, his campaign has said some nasty things and bent the truth—what you’d call lying--but I trust him. Romney’s done the same truth bending.

                " I’m biased, so I think Romney’s dishonesty is worse. That aside,  I could never vote for him. I don’t know who he is. Months ago he was a “severe conservative.” Months ago, he was going to get rid of Obamacare on his first day in office. Now he sounds like a “moderate” and now he supports much of Obamacare. The contradictions go o and on. Who is he?

“In the debate Romney came on in a rush. He spouted facts and figures. He declared everything President Obama has done is wrong. To me, he seemed frenzied and acted like a man who will say whatever will grab him a few votes.

“I’d rather vote for a smart, dedicated politician who doesn’t really relish the presidency than for a politician who will say—and possibly do—anything to win the prize.  After all, a few of our greatest Presidents practically hated the job. George Washington is one. Abraham Lincoln another. And they did magnificently.”

“I’ve got to tell you Glimpse—you’re full of it.”

“That’s what you always say. But look—you indicated you want what’s best for the country. We both want that. Let’s just hope we get that wish.”

“Yeah. Okay. One more thing though Glimpse. I saw an Obama-Biden sign in your garage. Are you really going to put that on your lawn?”

“You betcha.  But I’ll tell you, if Romney wins, I’ll still lend you my hedge trimmer when you need it.”

“It’s a deal.”

                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin

What if Free Speech Sparks Subversion?

                “So what is it about the President’s free speech talk that you don’t understand, Glimpse?’

                “I understand what he said.  He said that Americans had the right to make even ‘a crude and disgusting video’ like the one that caused the recent outbreaks of violence in the Arab world. And I heard him say that, ‘As president of our country and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will defend their right to do so.’”

                “Well?”

“ I have trouble with the notion that under the guise of free speech Americans can deliberately make videos ,or cartoons,  or movies, or whatever that they know will set off riots in the Arab world.”

                “Oh! You’re opposed to free speech. Ever heard of the First Amendment, Jerk?”

                “Of course I have. I can even recite it for you:

“ ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’”

                “There you go, Glimpse. Impressive.“

                “Yeah. My problem is that I question whether it’s a good idea to allow people in America to issue smarmy insults of Islam if they know their actions will damage U.S. interests, possibly cause American deaths, and play into the hands of our self-proclaimed enemies.”

                “Come on. You’re comparing such material to aiding and abetting the enemy?  OMG what a huge stretch.”

                ‘”Not huge. Remember, free speech has never been absolute. You can’t legally say anything you want under all conditions.  You can’t tell harmful lies about people.   You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater for fun.

“And under the Espionage Act, it is a criminal offense “when the United States is at war” to “willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military…or to promote the success of its enemies….”

“The Espionage Act doesn’t apply.”

“But should it? We’re at war. At least that’s what the government calls that dreadful affair in Afghanistan. We’re said to be at war with al-Qaeda and other terrorists. And it seems that movies or writings that deliberately provoke the volatile masses in the Arab world may ”promotes the success of our enemies,” Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Jihadists. Among other things, such malicious images and writings arouse hatred, aid recruitment efforts of terrorist groups, and give legitimacy to our enemies’ anti-American activities. “

“Humpf. Fly that idea around and watch it molt.”

“Probably. But if the scurrilous, riot-generating, anti-Islam videos, movies, and publications continue and increase, I’ll bet their authors will see our counter intelligence folks rummaging for ways to stop them or at least prosecute them.”

“Glimpse, you’re on a limb. What has counter intelligence to do with this stuff? We’re talking about free speech.”

“Think about it. If this ‘stuff’ were arranged by Iranian agents, say, we well might call it subversion.”

“Now you're a conspiracy theorist?”

“Subversion can be defined as an effort to disrupt society and its power, authority, and hierarchical structures.  It aims to undermine the enemy’s government and loyalties in some way. It is a cheap, subtle, mostly risk-free warfare tool—Cool  it. stop fidgeting, and:

“Consider Egypt. The United States needs or wants revolutionary Egypt as an ally. Iran needs or wants Egypt to oppose us. If it appears, through flag burnings, protests, and riots, that Egypt’s citizens hate the U.S., the popular mood could make Egypt’s leaders leery of engaging with us. That works against our interest and in favor of Iran’s

“Given that, savvy Iranian intelligence officials might find it convenient to use its operatives in the United States to find and fund fringe types who would produce materials guaranteed to incite Egyptians to vent hatred of the United States.”

“Don’t know, Glimpse, if that’s even an interesting theory.”

“It interests me. And as Sherlock Homes reportedly said, what’s not impossible is worth considering.”

                                                                -----Gus Gribbin

 

 

 

Bibi Netanyahu Wants You to Know He's Miffed

                Uncle Sam’s good friend Ben—you know Benjamin Netanyahu?  Israel’s Prime Minister?

Well, he stopped by the other day via NBC and CNN. He seemed troubled. Frustrated.  A tad angry.  He can’t seem to get our President to man up and lay down the law to the leaders of Iran the way he prefers.

  Ben wants Barack to tell Ali and Mahmoud—Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei and its President Ahmadinejad—that the United States will smack them hard if they make “one [atomic] bomb’s worth of medium-enriched uranium” --meaning enough explosive material to make an A-bomb. Ben calls that drawing a “red line” that Iran must not cross.

Now Ben—we call him Ben, which is more dignified and less baby-like than his nickname, “Bibi”—has been saying this and saying this. He seems convinced that Mahmoud and his team aren’t kidding when they say they will rub Israel off the map. Ben thinks they will actually try it, if they can produce the bomb.  He fears the Iranians will give their equally fanatical and irresponsible allies bombs, causing a threat that will upend the world. At worst, Iran and friends could blackmail and dominate their neighbors. At least they would start another vast Cold War.

Of course, an A-bomb could go a long way toward devastating Israel.  Americas know that better than most. With a couple of A-bombs, America melted and practically erased two Japanese cities a few decades ago.

But in effect, Barack keeps saying cool it, Ben. We’re not going to let Iran get the bomb. We promise. Trust us. We’re working with you. We’re twisting Iran’s arm. Look, Iran’s in pain. Let’s see if its leaders give in and give up pursuing the bomb.

So Ben pops up on our national TV to explain to us why Barack’s wrong. And though he denies it, Ben may want his friend and former Boston Consulting Group colleague Mitt Romney to use the “red line” argument during his campaign for the presidency.

At any rate, Ben has inserted himself into our presidential campaign. He’s a smooth talker. He’s convincing when he describes the dangers of allowing the Iranian “fanatics” to get the bomb. However, he’s unlikely to sway Barack or those in the United States who have considered the stakes in this dangerous confrontation with Ali and his boys.

For one thing, Barak must know Americans are tired of war. And who wouldn’t like to see the money spent on fighting used instead to improve our economy?

 Why not wait and see if increased sanctions against Iran combined with sabotage, subversion, and cyber- attacks finally persuade Ali to settle for having A-power without having the A-bomb.

True, Ben may be right about Iran’s intentions. For political and religious reasons that are hard for us to understand, Iran probably won’t relent.

Yet we can afford to wait until we’re absolutely sure that’s so. After all, despite the pleas of other nations to wait and see, we hurried to brutalize Iraq because it supposedly was poised to use weapons of mass destruction. The world knows how that turned out.

If Israel attacks Iran, as Ben seems itching to do, Uncle Sam will be dragged into the fray. And we will suffer.  There will be casualties.  There will be attacks and firefights at U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and Afghanistan. Hamas and Hezbollah fighters will take to the streets to attack U.S. government and commercial interests. This Iran promises.  Plus the flow of oil from the Mideast will be impeded. Gasoline prices in the U.S. will soar and again we will be saddled with the debilitating costs of war.

The picture is bleak enough to make one ask, “Why not let Iran have the bomb?” Iran could not be dumb enough to use it. An atom attack on Israel would invite a quick and terrible response that would cripple Iran for generations.  Because if Israel didn’t respond with the A-bomb it is thought to own, the United States would counter with its hellish weapons.

Then too, since the end of the Cold War, the balance of terror has kept the A-bomb toting nations of the world—the U.S., United Kingdom, France,  China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—from  seriously threatening their use. India and Pakistan, you’ll recall, are fierce enemies and occasional combatants.

In his TV interview, Ben declared that people who say it might be okay to let Iran have the bomb are “stupid.”

That’s the wrong word. They’re smart to try and think of ways to avoid further bloodshed.

                                                                                                        ----Gus Gribbin

 

His Voting Advice Was Great; Following It Tricky

                They sat down for dinner. He reached for the vegetables and:

                “Dad!”

                “Yes?”

                “What am I?”

                “Whadda you mean?...You’re an eight…oops… nine- year -old who is supposed to be eating his supper.”

                “No. I mean—am I a Republican or a Democrat?”

                “You’re neither. When you get big, you’ll be able to choose one, or the other, or stay a neither.”

                “But when I grow up, which should I be? What are you?”

                “I’m a Democrat.”

                “Why?”

                “Aint you hungry?”

                “Tell me, dad.”

                “Lots of reasons. Let’s see.  At first I guess I became a democrat because our state, Maryland, is largely democratic. My friends were democrats. So….”

                “What should I be?”

                “Be what you want to be. But listen! And remember this! No matter which party you choose—even if you don’t join either—you’ve got to figure out who is the best for the job and vote for that person. The best for the job! Got that?”

                “Yessir.”

                “Okay. Eat your supper.”

                Many, many suppers—in fact, many, many years since his dad issued that advice, the “boy,” tries to figure out who is best for the President’s job in 2012. There are two incredibly smart, handsome, experienced, and patriotic men vying for the office.

                Like his father, the “boy” has a bias.  But he wants to be fair. Listen to the other side. Give the other candidate his due. Yet so many lies cling to the candidates or their parties. Real lies. Not just mistakes, but false statements intended to deceive.

Maybe he should choose the candidate whose side tells fewest lies. Read the reviews of independent fact checkers—not the so-called “fact checkers” each party employs”—and do basic arithmetic. Apply cool reason.

Do that and it appears the GOP team is winning the race to issue whoppers.

Among the tall tales are cheap fibs like the Veep Candidate’s extravagant claim he ran a marathon in “two hours, fifty something,” a blistering pace. It’s impressive that Rep.  Paul Ryan, the would-be Veep, can –or could—run a marathon. In fact though, it’s known that he completed the mentioned race in more than four hours. And though Mr. Ryan left the impression he was a regular marathoner, he actually ran just the one race.

And there are flagrant untruths like the Presidential contender’s claim that President Obama goes around “apologizing for America,” and that he “eliminated” the work requirement for welfare recipients. Also there is Mr. Ryan’s assertion that President Obama is responsible for the closing of a Janesville, Wisconsin, GM plant, when the plant closed five months before President Obama’s election and seven months before he took office. There is more.

Yet tallying the lies seems not to matter to political partisans. Partisans are “Predictably Irrational” –to borrow the title of the book by MIT professor Dan Ariely.  And as psychologist Jonathan Haidt points out, “We can believe anything that supports our team.”

  In his fascinating book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Dr. Haidt notes, “Political opinions function as ‘badges of social membership’. They’re like the array of bumper stickers people put on their cars showing [their] political causes.” He insists that gut feelings actually determine political choices and the mind merely comes up with reasons to support our emotionally dictated selections. Still, “Reasons sometimes do influence other people,” he writes.

Trusting that last thought, what reason would the biased “boy” use in choosing the best candidate for the job? Well there’s this and it’s big:

 The smart, handsome, GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, won the Massachusetts governorship as a moderate politician who declared among other things that he was pro-choice and that we should “sustain and support” Roe v. Wade, which he now says has “gone too far.”

Recently on Meet the Press Mr. Romney said he backed certain provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare,” although for months he has proclaimed that if elected he would begin working to eliminate the Act on his “first day in office.”

In short, the former moderate now says he is a “severe conservative.” Okay. That’s his prerogative.  But he owes us an explanation why he came to completely reverse his position on matters of concern to the electorate.

Absent that explanation, voters are left to believe he will say anything to gain the Presidency regardless of facts and regardless what he actually believes. Can one who would do that be trusted and be “best for the job?”

The “boy’s” father would say, “Absolutely not!”   And  as they say, “Father  knows best.”

                                                                                 ------------------ ------Gus Gribbin           

                (Note: In case you're interessted, Kenya’s Patrick Makau set the world marathon record 0f two hours and three seconds for the 26-mile-385-yard run in 2011.)