What you can do for your country

Imus and Cosby

I have been traveling for the last few days.  In every airport, on those CNN TVs, they seem to be covering Imus.  Every politician seems to be jumping on the fire Imus bandwagon.  There has been perhaps 200+ hours of coverage and god knows how much print on how bad Imus is for making a racial Slur against the young women basketball players.

I have heard what he said.  I am not sure what he meant by his words.  I understand the word whore, but the rest doesn't even make sense to me.  I guess I am out of it.  I listened to Imus when I grew up.  He was pretty clean then.  Overtime of course the term "Shock Jock" has transformed.  It seems there is a lot of media that uses the same word Imus uttered.  I don't like them when ever they are uttered.  That is why I don't listen to that media.

I am troubled by the focus on Imus.  I worked with a black man in a company in the Midwest.  We built a good friendship over time, enough that we were comfortable talking about racism.  He said he grew up in Mississippi during the 50's and 60's, which led me to ask him what he felt about all the racism he experienced.  He said the Racism he saw in Mississippi was nothing compared to the quiet racism he has seen in the North East and Midwest.  He said the term "Nigger" just has a different meaning in Mississippi vs. other places.  He would rather be called a Nigger in Mississippi than one in New York,  and he would rather someone use the word Nigger, than let some quiet racism hide in the undercurrent.  I don't like words like these, but they are used and they have different meaning and intent.

The press, politicians, and politically correct seem more outraged at Imus's words, as if Imus were really a bigot.  Or as if the use of the word propagated racism.  I have know idea what Imus thinks, he is a comedian.  I don't listen to his diatribe.  I would not look to him as guide post to my ethics.

But, the Imus issue and the use of the word is using up 100s of hours of media time.  Should it?

I have heard Bill Cosby talk about his feelings about the challenges facing the African American community.  In what little I have been able to see, he has impressed me as a thoughtfully leader.  I am not sure he is right, he just has impressed me as thoughtful.  Having seen his shows, and the integrity of values transmitted in his work, I am interested in hearing more about his thoughts on how we all can work together to further eliminate barriers caused by racism.

But, Bill Cosby is not getting Imus's air time.  Not anywhere close.  The political correct crowd professes is horror and shame over Imus, but they take no action to hear more from Bill Cosby.

Are we better off listening to Imus replays or Cosby's insights?  In the end is it about erasing the word Nigger and Whore, or is it about changing minds.  We control what we want to hear, not Imus.

Barack Obama the Professor

Senator Obama made some mention that as a "Constitutional Professor", he thought that Bush did xyz wrong.  I can't recall all the related details.  I thought the point was irrelevant to begin with.  But, someone in the RNC or the press has tracked down that Senator Obama is listed as a Senior Lecture at the university mentioned.

Clearly there is a difference between a Professor (tenured research expert) and a Senior Lecture (teaches a syllabus).  But really, should anyone be criticizing the Senator for this discrepancy.  He was making a point that he has a foundation in constitutional law, so therefore can express some level of expertise.  It seems to me he has that ability simply being a senator and a lawyer.

The press and the RNC should find better things to do.  If we are going to parse every point this much, we are never going to make through this election cycle without destroying every single candidate and their ability to lead.

Pelosi - Only good things

I have run in to too many people that think they are smarter than those that have come before them.  People in the Middle East have been angry at each other over differences for more than 1000 years.  It is hard to think, with that much time being angry at each other, that anything is going to be solved through some "Conversation".  A bunch of people have gotten the Noble prize for their peace efforts in the Middle East, but none of it seems to stick.  So, maybe the problem is a bit more complex than talking.

So, I have several problems with Pelosi's trip to Syria.

1. Assad is a murder and a thug.  He supports a bunch of terrorists that want to kill Israel rather than negotiate.
2. In most of the middle east, sodomy is punishable by death.  Members of Pelosi gay constituency, who she honorably represents, would have their human rights abused without limit if they lived in the middle east.
3. The President of the United States was elected to have sole operational control over foreign policy.  He did not want her or anyone to meet with Assad.
4. She mis-represented the Israeli's.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Israeli's even worked to let her make such an amateur mistake - "I have a message from the prime Minister".  I can't believe Syrai and Israel were honestly sitting there waiting for someone to come over and practice shuttle diplomacy.  Its not like she had some brilliant untried insight.
5. We hired the democrats to take needed steps in congress.  I don't think we thought our vote included congress becoming Secretary of State.  We may have voted for a change in war policy, but only in as much as congress has traditionally led change.  I don't think we voted for a virtual impeachment of the President or the elimination of executive power.

But here is the biggest irony.  Pelosi said her message was the President's message.  So, does that mean she agrees with the president's policy or disagree?

The problems in the middle east are long and deep.  Experts, who have taken the time to read the history of the region, spend their time dedicated toward progress.  I don't think they have left any stones un-turned.  One of Bush's key advisers is Bernard Lewis, who many recognize as a leading academic on the history of the middle east.  I won't claim that the US has the strategy correct.  I just believe that the folks in the White House and the State Department are working very thoughtfully on the problem.  To think one trip by the speaker of the house is going to drive some great diplomatic breakthrough is nuts.

The Hunter

So Romney makes the comment that he has hunted all his life, not big game stuff, but little things like shooting varmints.  Now it seems the press needs him to explain the discrepancy in his hunting tally.  See, his campaign said he had only been hunting a couple of times.  Romney says it has been often.

My impression from the news is that news directors throughout the country have sent their folks out to every state game warden or associated division to get the total number of hunting licenses that Romney has gotten, so that they can verify the truth.

Is this for real?  Is it really that important how many times he has or has not hunted?  Is it really important to the gun lobby?  Maybe he is lying!  Thats the ticket. He is lying because how many times he has hunted is a true measure of the man, and he doesn't want to be caught as an unbeliever.

Does anyone really care about this detail?  Should we care?  What I care about is if he a good decision maker.  Does he have resolve to lead as an executive.  Based on his resume I am impressed:

• Successful venture capitalist
• Savior of the Olympics
• Successful Republican Governor in a Democratic leaning state
• Dropped everything to save an employees daughter when she was kidnapped, quarterbacked the effort to find her, and in fact did find her in a few short days
• Committed to his family
• A willingness to change his mind on major issues

Romney seems like a decent guy.  Why can't the press focus on his ideas rather than some dumb discrepancy over his past hunting.  I think in the end we will find its just a bunch of miscommunication between staffers.  If someone can really go to the hunting license bureau in every state and track down his past licenses of the last 20+ years, maybe we should put that system into the airports to catch terrorists.

CO2 - We Got Bush

In a near split vote, the supreme court ruled that the EPA needs to address CO2 as environmental threat (or something to that effect).  Last night on the news, I saw a lot of talking heads who across the board basically said, "We finally got Bush, now he has to address CO2".  That will show him!

I think the president said something along the lines of "The supreme court has ruled".  That to me is, the administration thought it was not an emission for EPA to monitor, but the Supreme court ruled otherwise, so now it is.  And, the administration will now take some sort of action to address the issue, reluctantly.

No where on any news program, or anywhere in the news that I saw, did anyone say "And now, this is what might happen next...." or "This is what should happen next"

The practical reality is now what?  So, CO2 should be controlled at some level.  Does that mean shut down all the Coal plants?  Does that mean turn out everyone's lights?  Because, it is of course the Utility companies who are really at fault for the energy we use and the related CO2 output.  Its not us.  How many of the people worried about CO2 emissions have changed all their light bulbs to CFL?  How many have looked at new burners for their furnace?  What are the practical next steps?

We have a lot of work ahead of us to reduce CO2.  Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.