Do you think

that secrectly Obama is thanking McChrystal for blabing his mouth off to Rolling Stone and for one news cycle getting his (Obama's) handling of the gulf crisis off the front page?

Thank God I lived long enough to see this day

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100617/people_nm/us_bluesbrothers

Vatican endorses "The Blues Brothers"

"On the 30th anniversary of the film's release, "L'Osservatore Romano," the Vatican's official newspaper, called the film a "Catholic classic" and said it should be recommended viewing for Catholics everywhere."

Now, if we can get a little dispensation from the Holy Father to add Caddy Shack & Animal House to the list, the celluloid holy trinity will be complete.

Today, our local paper had an opinion piece by Susan Estrich titled “Political experience can't be discounted”

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100614/OPINION06/6110344/1039/OPINION02/Susan-Estrich--Political-experience-can-t-be-discounted

In the piece, Ms. Estrich references an earlier column by Willian Safire:

“Some years ago, the late New York Times and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist William Safire wrote a great column comparing politicians to plumbers. It was during one of those periods when (like now) experience had become a dirty word in politics and incumbency was a veritable curse.

There was nothing worse you could say about someone than to call him a "career politician" — just what California Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman called her rival for the office only yesterday.

Safire's point was a simple one: Would you hire a plumber who'd never done any plumbing to fix your pipes?

Why is politics different? If the plumber messes up, your toilet might flood or, worse, your pipes might burst. If the governor gets it wrong...”

Now, I’m no William Safire, but I may know a thing or two about the differences between plumbing and politics, and I’ve got a few bones to pick with this analogy and Ms. Estrich.

Ms. Estrich goes on develop her theme that politics and governing are hard and that we should let experienced individuals handle the job. She illustrates her position with a few gaffes that Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman have made during their campaigns this spring, saying that “unprecedented number of newbies … have never faced the sort of intense scrutiny that a general election campaign brings”.

Before we get back to our poor friends the plumbers (who, I think, maybe a little angry with us for comparing them to politicians), I’m would like to point out that Carly Fiorina & Meg Whitman have / had more real life executive experience than our current POTUS did before / while he was running for office. If she considers them to be under-experienced newbies, why didn’t she consider his lack of experience as sufficient to preclude him from the highest office in the land? If running a Fortune 500 company doesn’t adequately prepare you to be a governor or a senator, how does being a senator for one term qualify you to be the POTUS?

If we only allowed experienced individuals to apply for particular jobs (plumbing, politics, governing), then how would anyone gain any practical experience in those fields? I believe that there are a number of highly intelligent individuals with real world leadership and managerial experience that are more than capable of running state and federal governments. Look at Michael Bloomberg for example. Who would you rather having running NYC, Michael Bloomberg or President Obama?

Also, if verbal gaffes were an indication of an individual’s incompetence for higher office, just what exactly is Joe Biden doing as VP?

I respect commentators who’s internal logic is consistent throughout an article and can be applied easily to the world around us. If you’re going to write an opinion piece that cannot be held up to even the simplest analysis (by “gasp” us unqualified gen pop), then maybe you’re the one not qualified for what you’re doing.

I’m not a plumber, but I’ve been able to fix a number of plumbing related issues in our house. Sometimes, politics, like plumbing, really isn’t that hard.

So who did Bohemian Rhapsody better?

Wayne's world or Glee?

Sure, this doesn't rank up there with some of the weightier issues Jack raises, but hey, inquiring minds want to know.

FGC v Nipple piercings – Which is right and which is wrong?

On Friday, May 14th, Science Friday had the following as one of the topics:

Is it Right to Nick?

This month, the American Academy of Pediatrics proposed that consideration be given to allowing U.S. doctors to perform a 'ritual nick' on the genitals of female infants, in the hopes that allowing such a practice might dissuade parents from subjecting the girls to traditional genital cutting procedures. The proposal is extremely controversial, and the recommendation proposed by the group would be prohibited under current law.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters," the group said in a statement. We'll talk about the proposal, and the challenges faced when medicine mix with morality

During the show, there as a caller that said (I’m paraphrasing) “All forms of FGC are wrong, including “nicking”, and should be banned, regardless of cultural or religious reasons”.

Now, I’m not defending FGC at all. But what I started to think about is all the pictures I see these days (care of Google Reader), where women have all manner of body parts pierced and tattooed.

Is it hypocritical for us as a society to say that the practice of FGC, where practiced (possibly) against the wishes of the woman (or girl), is wrong, but it’s perfectly acceptable if that same woman (or girl) wishes to pierce, tattoo or in some way modify, their genitalia, or their own accord? And if we tell those societies and cultures that FGC is wrong and should be stopped, do they have the same moral authority to say to us that we shouldn’t allow our women to tattoo and pierce their genitalia?

Let’s guess which story fits best with the template of what the media likes to report:

Which story is going to get the most headlines? Here’s a tip – it’s not necessarily the one where the most amount of people died:

a) Over 170 people killed in a tropical storm that strikes South America

b) Over 30 people killed in the slums of Jamaica when the police hunt down a drug kingpin

c) 9 people killed on ships trying to run an Israeli blockade

Hmmm, which story is going to generate more international outrage, cries for investigations and condemnation?

For fun, let’s follow up with an essay question. Here’s the situation. You’re on a ship that is “supposedly” carrying aid to the starving terrorists on the Gaza strip. You know that Israel has imposed this blockade and search every single ship before it allows it to dock at the Gaza strip. Now, for fun, the organizers decide to rebuff the Israeli requests to turn around and ignore their threats to board your ship. Now, It’s the middle of the night and all of a sudden, people dressed in black with guns rope down from helicopters.

In 500 words or less, please explain why it’s a good idea, in this situation, to attack the guys with the guns. And not expect them to fight back.