Obama's political life hinges upon KSM trial? Pat thinks so

This, my friends, is how you write a column.

In a recent WorldNet Daily column, Pat Buchanan lays out the political ramifications of the Justice Department's decision to give a civilian trial to 9-11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Buchanan writes:

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

And then there's this:

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.

This is a mistake, in my opinion, with the potential to be a calamity for Obama. Honest to God, I don't know who is advising this man.

The claims 'are ridiculous': How the federal stimulus plan has done nothing for Michigan

Is it any wonder that an increasing number of Americans don't trust their government to run anything?

Remember the near $800 billion dollar stimulus package that was supposed to be the cure-all for the American economy? Well, it has been an abysmal failure. It has not jump-started the economy or created jobs -- the unemployment rate has only gotten higher.

Why? Because the money didn't go into job creation. It went somewhere else, though no one really knows where.

Look at Michigan and its worst-in-the-nation economy for proof that the stimulus was a total debacle.

Just this morning the Detroit Free Press published a story that said, in essence, that the stimulus practically created ZERO jobs for this state.

From FREEP:

WASHINGTON -- Seven months into the massive federal stimulus program, the vast majority of government grants, contracts and loans in Michigan so far have created or retained virtually no jobs, a Free Press analysis shows.

The analysis also revealed that others who have been promised or have received stimulus money have overstated -- in some cases greatly -- the number of jobs created or protected.

Obama administration and state officials say it's too early to draw conclusions about the overall impact of the $787-billion nationwide program to stimulate the economy and generate jobs. They promise that job growth will follow as more funding arrives.

"It looks to us like the program is unfolding much as we hoped in Michigan," said White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein.

Just as you hoped? That's the single most idiotic statement I've read all year. Come to Michigan Mr. Bernstein and revise your statement.

Are man-made carbon emissions off the hook? One scientist thinks so

If you're like me, you're probably somewhat tired of all the climate change/global warming misinformation coming out of the talking heads all over the world.

For me, it's not a very difficult issue to comprehend:

Has there been an increase in the temperature of the globe of late: Yes.

Have we seen marked, if still mostly subtle, changes in global climates: Yes.

Who's responsible for most of it: Not us.

Honestly, it's the height of human arrogance to suggest that we, the people of earth, are so significant that we could be responsible, in any substantial way, for global warming (or global coolng, for that matter).

Recently, a geologist in Australia made the case that the "recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other 'extra terrestrial' forces."

Imagine that, forces outside of our charge and (and even our planet) are responsible for a faux phenomenon that we've been trying to take the blame for all this time?

An economist would approach the issue this way: How much are we responsible for (i.e. what we can control)? Once we've established that, do the benefits of alleviating our miniscule role in global climate change outweigh the costs of the alleviation? The answer, most likely, will be a resounding no.

Some have suggested that, at minimum, 1.5 percent of global GDP should be reserved for reversing global warming. That's 1.5 percent of $61,000,000,000,000.00 folks. We'd be better off investing in giant plastic ice cubes.

Is it too late for diplomacy with Iran?

I spent 90 minutes this afternoon in downtown Detroit at a restaurant that's way too swanky for a guy like me. I was invited to be a part of a luncheon sponsored by the Jewish Community Council of Metro Detroit.

The council invited Hilary Krieger, the Washington Bureau Chief for the Jerusalem Post, to speak about the possibility of a peace deal being brokered in the region with the help of the new U.S. administration.

Afterwards, she opened up the floor for questions and I couldn't help but get in the mix.

Jared: What is the perception of the United Nations on the Israeli street? Does the U.N. have an credibility there with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Hilary: (and I'm paraphrasing) Absolutely not. The Israeli people think that the United Nations has been powerless to do anything of substance to rein in Iran. And she went on.

Of course, I pretty much knew what the answer would be before I asked. I was just struck that during the course of her entire 45-minute talk, she never mentioned the U.N. -- not once.

How impotent is this body? Iran has simply thumbed its nose as each and every U.N. resolution aimed at quelling their nuclear motivations.

Putting aside the U.N. as a somewhat benign variable, is time truly running short for diplomacy with Iran? I get the sense from Krieger that it is, and that the Israeli people are looking for a stronger stance on Iran from the American government.

It's scary to think that a military strike on Iran made be in the offing in mere months if nothing can be done diplomatically to solve the Iranian problem. It's the 500-pound gorilla in the room that most Americans, I believe, aren't paying a whole lot of attention to.

I'm afraid that it may be too late for diplomacy. I believe Israel may well be on the verge of taking military action against Iran. The Iranians cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, and Israel is the only country in the world willing to do what the western powers secretly know has to be done.

'O' No: My media man-crush went too far

My television viewing habits are pretty predictable. Every weeknight I record two shows: Hardball with Chris Matthews for my politics fix and The O'Reily Factor for news and entertainment -- oh, and few ask hard questions to people in power these days like Bill O.

Last night, Matthews, during a discussion of the recent massacre at Fort Hood, wondered allowed if it's a crime to contact Al Qaeda. If it isn't, it certainly should be. That was about the maturity level of the whole handwringing discussion. The only storyline with respect to the massacre is this: How on earth was Major Hasan still active in the United States military in spite of all the outward signs that he was a threat?

To make matters worse, Bill O'Reilly inexplicably used the massacre as the centerpiece for his goofy News Quiz segment. You know, the one in which he brings in friends from the network to compete against one another to see who is more hip to current event.

In any event, it was in extremely poor taste and I'm surprised no one at the network thought it was over the top.

BILL: It hasn't even been a week since 13 U.S. troops were gunned down on American soil, and you want to make this tragedy the centerpiece of a goofy trivia game?

Go with the 3-wood, save the world

In a recent study, scientists plumbed the depths of Loch Ness to uncover a near universal truth, unknown to many weekend warriors:

Go with the 3-wood, save the world.

From CNN:

Research teams at the Danish Golf Union have discovered it takes between 100 to 1,000 years for a golf ball to decompose naturally. A startling fact when it is also estimated 300 million balls are lost or discarded in the United States alone, every year. It seems the simple plastic golf ball is increasingly becoming a major litter problem.

This, of course, isn't an attack on my eco-conscience since I, unlike so many, hit the ball straight as an arrow (laugh).

It's no wonder that the degradation of golf balls is having a noxious affect on the environment; I mean, have you seen what they're making golf balls out of these days?

When I was a kid, I can still remember cutting into a golf ball and finding tightly wound rubber bands. I called them Balatas, because that's what Titleist decided to call theirs (though Titleist balls were too expensive for me). I didn't much care for them because they didn't travel very far. The new balls, the ones that got me the distance, were made of all sorts of stuff that I'd only heard about in science class -- stuff like this: surlyn, urethane, titanium and zinc.

And what about that number? 300,0000,000 golf balls are lost in the United States every year. Seriously, since most golfers are not very good (myself included), let's just be good citizens of the world and put away the driver.

Most people that I know can't hit the driver straight for love or money. Do the right thing, folks.

America could learn something about unemployment from Europe? That's rich

I read this today and, I must say, I agree. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the American economy could stand to learn from the example of Europe with respect to joblessness.

How, after all, did we attack unemployment in America? We employed misguided stimulus packages that were practically toothless, extended unemployment benefits over and over again and passed out checks to old folks that could scarcely get them through a month at Old Country Buffet.

Europe, on the other hand, did something a little more sensible (for once).

From The Economist:

Europe’s policymakers, in contrast, appear to have a more coherent strategy: one which uses government money to subsidise a shortened work week, cuts labour costs and, in a few cases, offers tax subsidies to support new jobs. The OECD says 22 out of 29 of its member countries have extended support for workers on furlough, and 16 have cut payroll taxes and other social contributions. The countries doing these sorts of things are disproportionately in continental Europe.

God help you if you can't get behind a shortened work week.

The one-party system: America's "Green Party"

Is anyone surprised that, in a recent sweep of the net worths of our elected national representatives, 237 are millionaires?

That's nearly half.

This speaks to the insulation of the powerful and how they are, in large measure, too ignorant and ill-equipped govern the common from the seats of the elite.

In America we have one party, in the strictest sense, full of elitists from the same class, directed by the unifying motivation of money and power.

From Politico:

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

Blame the system, not Obama

A lot has changed in my life since I last opined in TOKM. I left my job at the Flint Journal to take a new position as a reporter working for the Archdiocese of Detroit.

I live in downtown Detroit and, rather than roaming the streets at night, I thought I should get TOKM rolling again.

Now then:

Recently, I've witnessed a change in my friend Chris Matthews. I've been watching the host of Hardball on MSNBC for many years and I consider him to be the most knowledge political commentator in the game.

That being said, I've seen Matthews go through an unexpected metamorphosis in the last two years. First, he sacked his reputation as somewhat objective when he started shilling for then candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential election.

These days, the thrill is, apparently, gone.

As the American economy continues to trudge along (unemployment now over 10 percent), fans of Obama, like Matthews, appear heartsick. This week, Matthews said that Obama looks more like a Clinton-style Democrat -- a pretty typical politician who plays golf with the bourgeoisie and dances for money at Wall Street fundraisers.

A good friend of mine, Patrick Hayes, commented that Matthews shouldn't be so naive and he's right. Matthews is far too intelligent, and has been around too long, to have been caught up in the Obama hysteria.

Patty, an intelligent man in a field beset by morons, wrote:

The thing is, there were signs all along that Obama was a pretty typical Democrat. I don't expect people who voted for the first time because they were excited about a minority candidate to understand this. I do expect Chris Matthews to understand. Look at his endorsements -- Kerry, Kennedy, etc. Would they have endorsed a guy who wasn't playing ball with them/the party? Would the teachers union have endorsed him if they really believed he was going to be able to implement a merit-based pay system in public education rather than seniority-based? Matthews, as a political journalist, didn't do his job, plain and simple. Intelligent people who pay attention to politics understood all along that Obama was simply just a Democrat candidate who happened to be a brilliant campaigner.

And this from a guy who, like so many, gushed over the possibility that Obama might be different. He was never a true believer, I suppose. He just genuinely believed that a good man, with a common lineage, could break the mold. How many of us felt the same way? I know I did.

But, there's more.

That many on the left, the true believers, are disappointed in President Obama is, I contend, a commentary on American bureaucracy and not on the man himself.

Sure, he set himself up for failure with grandiose political rhetoric, but all aspiring politicians do that -- though few are as articulate.

President Obama simply failed to grasp the power of inertia in the arena of governance in this country. His was a misunderstanding not of a popular desire to change, as so many still want it, but of his ability (or the ability of one man, one administration), to effect it.

It's an indictment of the system.

Just this week, I watched Ed Norton's HBO documentary on the Obama presidential campaign and I'd watch it again were it not so depressing. The film was as much about the Obama himself as it was about the legions of volunteers who gave over many months of their lives to work for the man they knew, beyond doubt, was a transformational candidate. He was something new, different, incorruptible even.

It's distressing to think about the true believers and what they think now. Are they coming to Matthews' realization? I hope not. I hope the lesson they're learning is about the nature of bureaucracy and not the failures (or lack of substantive change) of one man.

It's Max Weber (the Iron Cage) 2009 style. Bureaucracy leads to oligarchy and makes minions out of good men like Barack Obama.

I defy you to watch Norton's raw portrayal of Obama and not come away thinking that this is a good and decent man -- a good husband, father and friend. Opponents are quick to point to his connections to people who have said and done some pretty bad things as evidence that he is none of what I say he is. Here again, we need to come to the realization that the system by which we fashion our leaders is, like our bureaucracy, hopelessly corrupt. We take our best and brightest, make them wallow in the mud, and then are scandalized by the stains.

How many people just knew in their hearts that electing an African-American president was a giant leap for race relations in this country? That the system, itself founded upon inequality, would somehow resolve itself into something entirely different -- a society where race didn't matter that much.

Hope didn't heal the divide, though.

When Matthews voiced his dismay about Obama fitting in, one of his panelists responded as you might expect: "No one likes it, but that's our system."

That's our system, indeed.