Thursday, August 28, 2008

On Not Knowing History

As I said, the travel this time wouldn't enable me to blog. Still, I've just found a few minutes and also something to comment on, so here goes.

In a few hours Obama will give his big speech in the big stadium. Since news people must produce news 24 hours a day, even when they have nothing to say, and patience is a characteristic that has been lost from the world, rather than wait a few hours and see if he pulls it off brilliantly or merely well, the web seems to be awash with pre-punditry: It'll be a disaster. No it'll be magical. No it'll be boring. No it'll be pure history in the making. Etc etc etc an nauseum.

Here's an unimportant item from the unimportant genre. What struck me about it was this:

Some Democrats insist the GOP approach will backfire. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the visuals of tens of thousands of people cheering for Obama can only help his campaign by evoking comparisons to former President Kennedy. "I think he's in that league," Markey said.

How many times does one need to remind people that while Kennedy may have been a fine orator, he was a mediocre president, with a fiasco (Bay of Pigs), a historical mistake (not responding to the erection of the Berlin Wall), one major success (Cuba missile crises), and lots of disappointments, such as not particularly supporting the Civil Rights movement, or allowing the war in Vietnam to escalate. At the time of his assassination, the polls were certainly not convinced he'd win a second term. Is this the big model of Obama's?


Anonymous said...


JFK was actually a good president. I say this because he was able to galvanize the American spirit. And, day-to-day people actually cared about him, and his family. Like FDR, he understood the medium.

LBJ did not understand the bully pulpit. Nor did Nixon. Whose first name could'a been "bully."

Bush has been a fiasco! Part of the problem deals with the American perception of "arab." And, arabs just seem like cheaters. Even where Americans can't tell "shi'a from Shunni. Americans really didn't like being ripped off. In what appears to be NOW, a civil war; between factions not strong enough to throw off the few troops we've put on the ground.

And, the arabs didn't benefit, either, from all the American taxpayer money OVER-SPENT on getting the Iraqis electricity and roads. And, trying to bring these tribal idiots up to speed.

Bush exits on a very low note.

But it does teach a lesson. Why are the arabs even at the table? Because of energy needs. This is what puts Putin at the table, too.

What will a "stabilized" Mideast look like? It will look awful. But if the "elements" can be contained within their own areas, instead of expanding outward ... then what?

Well the Saud's buy other armies to do their dirty work. Yes. They bought Bush through 9/11. But as I said, Bush turns out to be a bust.

Putin's army is also rag tag. A lot of machinery to move against civilians. But they haven't been in a fight, yet, when they have to prove themselves able to even do rudimentary strategy. They don't even depend on strategies! They depend on creating fear.

And, a few grow very rich at this endeavor.

When will the atmosphere clear? When the Saud's are handed their heads. Can this happen? Sure. Even the shrimp in Iran thinks he's onto a threat of consequence, by looking for nuclear options.

As to the Democrats, as a party. Well, well. Do you smell shades of the Labor Party, yet? You don't see shrinkage?

You don't see how Likud, in furous anger, has gone and attacked Israel's fabric? You can't elect anyone that Mazuz doesn't attack. With police who replaced the jury system. And, with each and every individual now out for him, or herself.

A very poor showing.

While Obama's chances of capturing the White House so far? Don't get excited. He hasn't proven he can get people, who go into private voting booths, to vote from their hearts. No matter what they say to pollsters.

Heck, I even believe this is true in Israel, where there are fewer choices these days. You think it's easy for a woman to win?

When America votes on 11/4, we may yet revisit this subject with the "what if." What if Hillary ran, instead?

Here, let me spoon feed ya.

If Obama loses, people within the democratic party; looking at losses the way Labor looks at losses, today ... May come to see if Hillary would have been the better candidate.

I say this because we live in a post-feminist society. Will live in a world where WOMEN DON'T VOTE FOR WOMEN! We live in a world hostile to anyone without charisma.

As if you could just earn it by snapping your fingers.

Of course, JFK had charisma! That's why a plot to kill him was hatched inside the government. And, it's more than just possible that Oswald was a stooge? Set up beforehand. As stooges usually are.

Anonymous said...


Political "name calling."

When JFK was assassinated, there were pictures, then, on TV, of people crying in the streets.

I even remember my mom say that when FDR died, people also just cried like babies.

Today? There are always a few who make their living taking digs at people in the past. Some even try to become historians. While most of the garbage just turns to dust.

Meanwhile, where Israel is small; and America is HUGE. You can see interesting elements playing out in political life.

Here, let me start at the very beginning. In America. Post the first 11 years. Which were a disaster. And, called forth the Founding Fathers. Who tried to come up with political solutions. And, who drew up the US Constitution. And, the US BILL OF RIGHTS.

Did you know that the Founding Fathers considered themselves an "aristocracy of sorts?" And, they were going to bounce the presidency among themselves. (Yes. In a similar way, things are about the same in Israel. When Ben Gurion harnessed a system, where he thought the Israelis would always be governed by "specialists." If not socialists!

But reality hits those ideas.

For America, the "first hit to this idea," occurred in the election of 1824. That's when "THE MAN OF THE PEOPLE" ... The man who was not educated, let alone educated at Harvard, or what was considered "the feeder school to America's "correct" establishment ... won. And, lost.

Here's the story. ANDREW JACKSON WON in 1824. But he lost in the House of Representatives. Where Henry Clay (Abraham Lincoln's mentor), made a deal, whereby John Quincy Adams, son of the 2d president; became Chief Executive. ANd, he "threw" the cabinet seat, the Secretary of War to Henry Clay.

Well, as masterful as that stroke was, it didn't sit well. 4 years later John Quincy Adams is TOSSED. And, Andrew Jackson, running again. WON by a better margin. Leaving no room for hanky panky t5o be played out in Congress.

Anyway, America, in 1860 has a great Civil War. Just in case you didn't think factions could "go for a war" ... if they didn't get what they wanted. And, for the South, that meant accepting slavery across the board.

In Israel?

Well, Arik Sharon was mighty upset when the Likud's Central Committee, tried shoving a fist up his ass, and turning him into a puppet executive. He had the charima to start Kadima.

Alas, he listened to his incompetent doctors. And, stroked.

While an odd thing happened, here. Olmert, without charisma, held onto 29 seats, that recounted, again, into 31. While all Bibi got was 12.

And, the Likud has been furious! Stopping at nothing to topple Olmert. Including using Mazuz, who "used" Morris Talansky. Creating nothing of substance. Because most people don't regard their business deductions as anything more than to obtain reimbursements. It was not really that big a deal!

Well, Katsav didn't rape any woman, either. But you sure can get the elite media to do destructive stuff!

As a matter of fact that's what so novel.

In Israel there's no Internet voice that connects with the world! Where, here, America cornered the markets. Left and right. And, Drudge has become the American newspaper; in that it offers all the headlines you could want. Plus all the links.

Israel's got nada.

So, Israel remains the one, and single country where all the crappy journalists around the world love to pick! Yup. You've got stinkers inside and out, who kick up dust like crazy. And, there's nothing much to ameliorate this toxic poison with. Because? People don't view Israelis as competent at running sites. The country is seen as wall-to-wall settlers. Instead of seeing the settlers as FURIOUS that they've been losing clout!

The world of journalism just produces bullshit all around this.

And, until something changes? What can ya do? It stays awful until the yoke comes off.

Meanwhile? It's Bush whose in the broom closet. About to exit the Executive Office with a reputation in tatters. (But not as bad as Carter's!) Where, whatever comes next, doesn't include much enthusiams.

Where have all the charismatics gone?

Well, ya know what? When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he was Rome's GENIUS! But in the act of soldiers crossing the Rubicon, what died was Rome's Republic.

ANd, then? Julius Caesar, the genius, was assassinated. And, 3 mediocre fellas all vied for the crown of laurels. Marc Antony shot his wad with Cleopatra, the 7th. And, Octavius, pulling the plum, changed his name to Augustus.

We can argue Roman history. It proceeded to conquer much by the sword. But it was a down hill trip through five centuries. At which time the lights in the West went off.

Currently? The lights are supplied by the Saud's. Which is not a happy marriage.

Is there a "happy marriage" in sight for Israel, ahead? Who knows? I'm not the Oracle at Delphi. But I still think it's a long and winding road, ahead.

Why is Olert so disliked? Could it be he "stepped in it" when he was Mayor of Jerusalem? And, he gave away the store to the religious racket? Don't ask me. This stuff just makes me shrug.