Michelle's "Cougar" Moment

This time, my favorite first lady of all time, has taken a wrong turn.

At a Toys-for-Tots event, a marine corpsman asked Michelle Obama to be his date at Marine Corp ball. She said, I'd love to..." (For a first lady who prides herself on serving up healthy dishes to America's youth, the serving up of herself to an anxious young corpsman is taking that bit a bit too far.)

With today's nouveau coupling of "cougars" (forty-something women) with twenty-something men, (and the rash of high school teachers who seduce their male charges), the first lady's flirtation with the young soldier further blurs the line.

It is one thing when female corpsman asks Justin Timberlake on a date, or a male corpsman asks some "hot" female rock star the same. It is quite another when our first lady includes herself in this awkward tribute to America's troops.

(Mrs. Obama, you are the most respectable woman in America. Act like it.)

Bob Schieffer, the aged CBS News anchor who brought us the story, thought it cute, and called the twenty-year-old marine a "courageous young man." We have different word for such shenanigans where I come from.

"Cute" and "courageous" is when a timid ten-year-old asks the first lady to his fifth-grade marshmallow roast. It becomes something else when a soldier "full of beans" asks the same.

Calling it "innocent" won't do, either. There is something about young men that, when it comes to a beautiful woman, there is no such thing as "innocent." This is why the line must be drawn with a steadfast marker.

If the date comes off, I'm sure the corpsman will be a gentleman and, of course, Michelle will be a lady. But the optics are all wrong: Picture the first lady, dressed to the nines, on the arm of a man who looks much like Barack - same complexion, same body type, but half Barack's age. Nothing is to be got from that but the appearance of impropriety.

It turns out that Michelle told the young man, "I'd love to...but you will have to ask my husband." No, Michelle, he does not have to ask Barack anything. No man should ever ask another man, "Can I take your wife out?" Any woman worth her salt can answer that question herself.

Marine corpsman Leeks did not show courage when he asked the first lady out. He showed disrespect to her, to her husband, and to the institution of marriage.

The first lady should have recognized this as a teachable moment, and been instructive. Instead, she succumbed to some odd vanity.

'Nuff said. Next time, just say "no."

The Height of Nuclear Hypocrisy

On Tuesday, the 22nd of November, "experts" at the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. waxed eloquently upon why Iran must no be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Thy did not convince.

Iran faces an existential threat from the west; in particular, from the U.S., Israel, and the European Union. These nations are willing - even poised - to bomb Iran simply for wanted that which each of them has.

Iran is in a fix: It lies in the middle of the toughest neighborhood on Earth. No other nation is more beset by nuclear powers. There, in southwest Asia, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, and India have "the bomb". add to that, a nuclear-armed U.S. on Iran's western border (in Iraq), and on its eastern border (in Afghanistan). America's Fifth Fleet patrols the Persian Gulf, bottling up Iran's south. It is the equivalent of the U.S. - instead of having Canada and Mexico on its norther and southern borders - having Russia and China.

Enter oil into the equation. Iran has oil reserves as plentiful as any nation on Earth, (besides Saudi Arabia). When a nation possesses such treasure, it is its leadership's first responsibility to protect it. What better way to safeguard a nation's resources than with the ultimate watchdog - a nuclear deterrent?

Nothing secures America's treasures like its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. has a 650 billion dollar annual defense budget, more than the next 15 countries combined. Yet, for all of our conventional weapons - stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, high-tech drones - take away our nuclear capability, and Russia could defeat us in thirty minutes.

Consider this: North Korea has three or four nuclear weapons - that's all. And that is all the deterrent they need. Ever notice how there is never talk of the U.S. attacking North Korea? On the other hand, when Saddam Hussein's "supposed" nuclear program stalled, we attacked. Libya shelved its nuclear program; we attacked. Iran currently has no nuclear weapons. We talk of attack.

The first phase has already begun, with an attack on their economy. Trade is the lifeline of all nations. Even under the best of circumstances - where nations trade freely - most struggle today. In the midst of this global recession, the U.S. and its allies have imposed severe sanctions of Iran, in effect, telling other nations, "You cannot trade with them." Think bout what it would do to the American economy if someone convinced the nations of the world to not trade with us. The suffering would be enormous. Yet, we impose these conditions on the Iranian people to purposely create suffering. We want them to suffer because they do not follow our rules. Those rules sound like this: Our friends can have nuclear weapons, our enemies cannot.

Israel, our number one friend, has over 100 nuclear warheads - warheads American like to pretend does not exist. India, too, has an unauthorized nuclear arsenal. That is fine with us - so find that despite their having broken our nuclear rules, America has decided to help India advance their nuclear cause even further. But, Iran, who actually signed the same Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Israel and India refused to sign, cannot think of having "the bomb". They very thought is hateful to us, and - we are made to believe - is hateful to the world.

Israel poses a conundrum: They spurned the international community and refused to sign the NPT so that they could become a nuclear power. Now, they want that same community to "get up in arms" over Iran for wanting to do the same.

Today, Iran sees the NPT for what it is - a farce, not worth the paper it is written on. So, they have decided (allegedly) that they will have a bomb, too. Suddenly, America screams "bloody murder", and calls for crippling sanctions. Some in America call for war.

Are we serious? Have we lost our minds? What amazes me most is how the rest of the world can line up behind such blatant hypocrisy.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious matter. It must be addressed by serious (i.e., fair-minded) people - people who recognized that unfair is dishonest, and dishonest is indefensible.

Iran has as much right (and reason) to have a nuclear weapon as any nation on Earth. (Nuclear weapons are not illegal). When one nation - the U.S., which as over 5,000 nukes - can say who can and who cannot have one, then that nation has achieved the height of hypocrisy, which is a low road that leads to nowhere.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Pipeline!

Beware of the much-ballyhooed Keystone Pipeline, brainchild of the TransCanada Corp. It is a seven-billion dollar project that would stretch the guts of the oil industry clear across the US, from Canada to oil refineries in Houston, Texas. Don't let it happen.

Better to take that seven billion and turn it into refinery capacity on the U.S.-Canadian border. A northern refinery could process North Dakota's crude, as well as the billions of barrels in the oil sands of Canada. The alternative is an ugly mass of steel snaking through the heart of the nation, despoiling rivers, aquifers, delicate ecosystems, and some of the the most scenic vistas on Earth.

Look at the Alaskan pipeline. I has become an eyesore - a rusting, leaking hulk. Want another one straddling the middle of America? Pipelines are not progress. They are relics waiting to happen - so yesterday, (and so unfriendly.) There is no pipeline anywhere that improves the environment it passes through, nor pleases the people it passes by. Only the oil companies - the corporate giants who have no romance in them except it be hard currency - see beauty in such a coiling mass of regressive engineering.

The oil executive will throw dollars to the locals whose lives they despoil - dollars that will dissipate in the once clean air that now carries the stench of oil across a thousand miles. These are dollars their children and grandchildren will never see, vanished like the vistas they will only see in pictures.

Mr. Obama, reject the Keystone Pipeline; save America that unnecessary destruction. Then, build a refinery on North Dakota's far northern border. Let the only pipeline be the one that runs across Canada, and only a few miles across America to its newest refinery.

That Quintessential Soul

African-Americans are often confused by President Obama. Perhaps it is because unlike the great majority of us, he is not a descendant of slaves.

That is what we need to keep in mind: Barack married Michelle. He put two black children in the White House who are descendants of slaves, along with a wife and mother-in-law who are like us. He did not have to marry Michelle. He could have chosen a woman of any other race. He did not. He is a black man who chose the African-American community.

There are some things about Barack that was not his choice. In many ways, he is a dispassionate - not by choice. I am sure, but simply by nature. This is perhaps out biggest concern - that he lacks the roiling emotions that are a hallmark of the black experience. We used to call it "soul". That word is dated now. You rarely hear "soul brother" or "soul sister" anymore, except in regard to someone out of the sixties and the seventies.

If we want, we could call Michelle a "soul sister", but we are hesitant to call Barack a "soul brother" because we do not quite believe it. He is more "soul cousin" then "brother", but still family.

The truth be known, a lot of would-be "soul brothers and sisters" are not all that anymore. We began to lose it in the eighties and the nineties. By the 00's, it was nearly all gone, except for the holdovers (like me) - old-timers, many of whom fought in America's second civil war, the one we simply call "The Struggle."

Today, we who are left, sift through the detritus of those heady times, when we linked arms and marked against the racial winds. We were a sight to behold.

So, do not blame Barack. Not only was he born a "cousin," but he is a product of a time that is ever hard-pressed to produced that quintessential soul.

No Referendums Allowed

Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, is out. He tried to give the citizens of Greece a voice in their future. His cohorts - the Germans, the French, the Americans, et al, were having none of that. They spoke in singular voice: "No." Papandreou stepped down; so did democracy.

It is not that Papandreou's name is synonymous with democracy, but like a flailing Samson reaching with his last breath to do the right thing, he tried to return to the Greeks what which was born in Greece. It did not work. (I suppose the Germans are not sentimental.)

Now, the new Greek prime minister, Lucas Papademos, has his marching orders: No referendum allowed.

A referendum is a simply mechanism in democracies by which citizens of a state can vote for or against proposed legislation that affect their lives. In the present cast, the European Union - in particular, the Germans - offered a bailout package to the sinking Greek economy, one that called for severe austerity measures to be imposed upon the Greek people.

In all fairness, the bailout package appears to be the lesser of two evils. The alternative is a Greek debt default and a likely tumbling-over-a-cliff of the Greek nation, perhaps pulling other nations behind. From all indications, the Greek people were poised to vote the package down, anyway. No chance. The referendum was scuttled, as was Papandreou.

With that, Greece has become a second tier democracy, little better than regimes like Iran that we rail against. Such regimes, too, allow their people to vote, but only so long as those votes do not interfere with the power of the state.

Today, democracy, itself, is under siege by those who claim to hold it dear. At a time when we herald the Arab Spring - the casting off of autocratic regimes for the sake of citizens' rights, in Europe (and the sake of financial autocrats who feign to know what is best for everyone - no referendum allowed.

Greco-American Style "Belt-Tightening"

The Europeans (i.e., The Germans) are trying to bail out the Greeks. It won't work. The Greeks will not meet their European partners halfway.

For this bailout to work, the Greeks must begin to practice that which innately they cannot stomach - the very utterance of the word to them is hateful. I will spell it: A-U-S-T-E-R-I-T-Y. It simply means, tighten your belt, fool.

The problem with these descendants of Aristotle is they thing they know it all. Americans are not much better. We, too, cringe at the mention of "belt-tightening." We figure there must be an easier way.

Not long ago, Whirlpool, the iconic American appliance-maker, pulled up stakes in Evansville, Indiana and moved their operations to Mexico. Over a thousand people in Evansville lost their jobs. The upside: Because Whirlpool can now build their product at a lower cost, they can sell it at a lower price. Add to that: Money saved on production now goes to research and development. Whirlpool refrigerators are not only less expensive, but according to customers, they are now better.

Zenith, too, has moved to Mexico. One customer said of the new Zenith televisions, "Now, I can buy two."

The lesson is simple: Jobs leave America because Americans want more money than their labor is actually worth.

Doesn't it seem obvious that if you will accept less salary, the product you make will cost less, which ultimately means your product will be more competitive on the global market?

People complain about China taking America jobs. Yet, those same people do not complain when they go into a store and find a pair of jeans for $35 that ten years ago $75.

The free enterprise system works. Americans seem to think that because it no longer works for them, it must be broken. It is not broken; we are. Our work ethic broken. We want more for less.

Many people excoriated NAFTA - that free-trade agreement signed in 1993 during the Clinton administration. Said it would cost American jobs. And so it did. But it also afforded Americans access to lower priced goods.

Americans could still be making those products. They simply do not want to. They do not believe it is worth their while to make televisions ans shoes and paper plates. But what is the alternative - stand around with your hands out (like the Greeks) and expect to be paid simply because you are better than everyone else? See how close that gets you to the American dream.

The Hand of Greatness

Fate decides the greatness of presidents by the moments it thrusts upon them. In that way, Barack Obama has a chance to be mentioned among America's greats. He has already been blessed (or cursed) with the main ingredient: Mayhem on the existential level. Now all he must do is handle it.

Of the presidents considered among America's greatest, three stand out: Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. It was during Lincoln's presidency that we faced our greatest threat from within. Washington's greatness lies not within the parameters of his presidency, but in that he led the great struggle - the American Revolution - that led to the first presidency. His greatest contribution to the nation during his presidency, besides putting down the "Whiskey Rebellion" was that he helped define what a "president" would be.

Other presidents have come and gone, and we barely think of them - not because they were bland, but because their moments in history were bland. They could have been the smartest men on Earth; they could have been the most courageous. It doesn't matter. It they were not dealt "existential mayhem," they could never be called "great". (Oh, and they could not start mayhem.)

George W. Bush's finest moment came when he stood atop the pile of rubble that was "Ground Zero" and shouted, "We're Comin'!" Outside of that, his presidency, as Shakespeare would say, was "bound in shallows."

Obama has been dealt an extraordinary hand. He does not have a war, he has wars. He has a 14 trillion dollar debt (that may explode). He faces a resurgent China, a resurgent Iran, and a resurgent Putin. And he gazes across an abyss at the "Arab Spring" - not the implosion of one critical nation, but the likely implosion of an entire region wherein lies most of the "mother's milk" that powers the world. Add to that, a rancor in American politics not seen since the days of Lincoln.

Besides, Obama has come along at the outset of a technological revolution, and it becomes him. He grasps it. He did not create it. He simply happened at the time it happened. Now he navigates it with a deftness that is unparalleled on the world stage.

He is the envy of foes both foreign and domestic. He is at once imposing, then reserve. When he imposes himself, they call him a braggart. When he is reserved, they complain that he is weak and unbecoming an American president who must always be out front. It is okay. That is the breadth of the office. Apparently, he has a similar breadth.

In the face of great times, to speak of great men is droll commentary. Yet, in the end, we always speak of great men and women. They are what we imagine of ourselves if only we were dealt the "winning" hand.