A Good Barack Obama Story

Ken AshfordElection 20083 Comments

A small time writer for the Henry (Ga.) Daily Harold wrote this the other day:

Obama owes me an apology

I don’t care, I’m not changing my mind on this one.

Nope.

I don’t like Sen. Barack Obama.

He might make a good president some day, but he won’t get my vote. At least not until he apologizes.

Some might say I’m holding a petty grudge but let’s see you become the butt of joke in front of 1,000 people.

Two years ago I was a full-time newspaper reporter in Illinois covering Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.

I had the looks, I had the charm and I had my eye on this pretty young thing who was doing an internship for a competing paper.

It took me nearly two months of running into each other at various news events before I worked up the nerve to begin talking to her.

And then Obama shows up.

The senator made his way to SIUE one day to introduce some legislation that would increase grants for students. Prior to that, me and the girl became really cool as I let her in on a few tricks of the trade.

The day Obama came, there was a huge press conference at the university’s student center with about 100 people inside the conference room and hundreds more viewing the conference on a big screen in the lobby.

Obama did his thing, and at the end there was segment for questions by the media.

After about five questions from different television and newspaper reporters, I stood up to ask mine.

“Wait a minute son, this is for professional media only,” Obama said to me.

“What do you mean? I work for the local paper,” I said with a crackling nervous voice.

“Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were a college student. You have such a baby face,” he said with an unremorseful grin.

At that point everyone in the room turned to look at me and laugh. The 800 people in the lobby laughed as my face was projected on the big screen.

Remembered that girl who I was trying to get with, well she was sitting next to me and guess what she was doing?

Everyone was laughing except me.

The next time I saw that young lady was at another press conference, but this time she was acting as if she never knew me. I think I saw her maybe two more times and each time, it was the cold shoulder.

Thanks to everyone’s favorite new senator, I lost big time.

Obama owes me a public apology for making me look like a court jester and for blocking my shot.

Until that time, Hillary or Giuliani will get my vote.

Cute story.  But the punchline is this.  Obama called him and apologized (mp3 format).

Regifting

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

BoxgiftWow.  There’s an entire website devoted to the subject of regifting.  According to the site, half of the adults surveyed approve of it.

Is it proper etiquette?  I’ve never done it, and — as far as I know — never received a "regifted" gift.  I generally don’t like the practice.  I’ve always believed that gift-giving is not so much in the gift itself, but the process.  Or, as the common saying goes, "it’s the thought that counts".

So what kind of "thought" is expressed by re-gifting?  Apparently, it’s "This gift I’m giving you is somewhat perfunctory, and going out and actually getting something specifically for you really isn’t worth my time."

But let’s see what Emily Post says on the subject:

Is it okay for me to regift? Is it ethical? Am I breaking any serious taboo? Can I give the set of four wine glasses I received last year from my sister-in-law to a friend who just bought a house?

The answer is this: regifting should be done only rarely, and under specific criteria:

  • You are certain the gift is something the recipient would enjoy.
  • The gift is brand new (no cast-offs allowed) and comes with its original box and instructions.
  • The gift isn’t handmade, or one that the original giver took great care to select.

Simply put, you have to make sure you don’t hurt feelings—neither those of the original giver nor the recipient.

Sounds like they’re saying that it’s okay if you can get away with it.  That doesn’t seem very nice.

Personally, I think that if you must regift, you should be upfront about it (Peggy Post, Emily’s grandaughter agrees with me on that one — see below).  And I would give that gift in addition to a gift that you actually bought.

Anyway, here’s someone else’s dozen rules for regifters:

  • Don’t mention it, please. While Post believes that "the best approach is to be upfront" when regifting, I have to ask: Why spoil the moment? If you tell your sister-in-law, in so many words, "I have no use for this nasty vase, so I’m giving it to you," even a person in need of a vase will hate you. I say, keep your yap shut unless there’s a good reason not to.
  • Do update the wrapping. The next most common regifting faux pas, after leaving the previous gift card attached, is to regift in the original, now crinkled and possibly torn (hello!?) wrapping paper or box. If the phrase "Hey, it looks almost new" crosses your desperate holiday brain, remember that it’s the "almost" that’s a dead giveaway to the new giftee.
  • Don’t give hand-me-downs as regifts. Novice regifters (and those who are terminally tacky) often get these two categories confused. Don’t. A hand-me-down is an item you’ve already used that you’d like to pass along to someone who will enjoy it and use it more than you will. For example, a sweater you’ve removed the tags from and worn twice. You could wrap it up and give it as a "gift" only as long as another real gift is provided. A regift should be just that: a gift you’ve never used that you’re giving away as though it were a . . . real gift!
  • Do keep track of who gave it to you first. In her useful article on this topic, Joyce Moseley Pierce recommends creating a stash of regifting items you can always use in a pinch. I say, OK, but keep a small notebook of who gave you what. I had a harrowing experience that involved regifting a pair of earrings to a cousin — who had given them to me two years before. I forgot. She remembered. And she let me know about it.
  • Don’t EVER regift these items. Certain items are a total, dead, instant giveaway that you are not only regifting, but you’re too lame to put any effort into it: candles, soap, random books, mysterious CDs (unless your brother wants the hip-hop version of "Man of La Mancha"), obscure software, cheesy jewelry, scarves (do we not all own a scarf?), fruitcake, pens, cologne, boxed sets of extinct bath products (Jean Nate? No, no, no), videos or DVDs obviously acquired on a street corner, socks and any appliances or electronic gear the giftee would be puzzled to receive because they probably just got rid of it (including hot-air popcorn poppers and anything with a cassette deck in it).
  • Do have the courtesy to clean your regifts. I once got a rice cooker . . . with a couple of kernels of rice still clinging to it. Some hand-me-downs can be passed off as regifts if the packaging is intact, like the wine glasses you’ve belatedly decided to share with a loved one. Just wash the lipstick off the rim, ‘kay?
  • Don’t give partially used gift cards. As technology pushes the envelope of regifting possibilities, the chance of looking like a ninny only grows. Don’t give a $25 gift card to Barnes & Noble that only has $14.56 left on it. Would you give a pie with a slice taken out of it? We hope not.
  • Do remember that regifts can be funny. A friend of mine said that when he was younger, he and his sister would jokingly regift the same two board games back and forth to each other. If you think a friend would get a good laugh out of, say, a regifted self-help book, go for it — as long as you make the prank clear.
  • Don’t give something you’ve owned for a while. Not only is this in violation of the hand-me-down rule above, the giftee can and will recognize that picture frame from your living room shelf. (And while you’re at it, don’t regift picture frames, either.)
  • Do regift champagne. You know the joke about fruitcake: There are only two fruitcakes made each year, and we just keep foisting them off on each other. The same is true of the 11 bottles of champagne that circulate during the holidays. But there are never hard feelings from regifting a bottle of bubbly, unless it’s really cheap or given to a confirmed teetotaler. Eventually it will find a happy, champagne-guzzling home.
  • Don’t give products from defunct companies. Someone gave to my husband and me a lovely crystal decanter from a department store that no longer exists. The decanter is a classic. It was just a little depressing to think it had been in someone’s closet for that long.
  • Do sell your gifts on eBay. When someone first told me that rather than regift, they sell unwanted presents on eBay — and use the proceeds to buy real gifts, I was awed. Then I realized everyone is doing it. "My father gave my brother a boxed set of Kurosawa films, which my brother promptly sold for a pretty penny on eBay," one woman told me. So THAT’S where all that stuff comes from.

But if you were to ask me for my rules, I’d say don’t do it at all.

Whaddup With Kramer?

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

Was Michael Richards ("Kramer" from Seinfeld) really yelling racial slurs at the comedy club audience, or was it an Andy Kaufman-like gag?

For now, I’m going with the latter, but you can check out the grainy video from the weekend and decide for yourself.

If I Hadn’t Decided To Boycott O.J….

Ken AshfordCrime1 Comment

…I’d probably write something like this.

UPDATE (3:36 p.m.):  Fox is cancelling the O.J. interview.

UPDATE (a few minutes later):  Looks like the book deal is being axed as well.  (The publisher, News Corp., also owns Fox Network).

Unhinged perpetually-outraged Michelle Malkin writes:

Would have been better if they had listened to common sense in the first place before they launched this ill-considered project, but better late than never.

Michelle, that holds true for Iraq as well.

No Magic Bullet In Iraq

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Of late, there seems to be more willingness on the part of, well, everybody, to admit that the Iraq War is unwinnable, and indeed, it may already be lost.  Even Kissinger put his toe in that pool.  It strikes me that there is, too, that there is no way to "win" in Iraq  (in part because nobody has bothered to explain what victory in Iraq looks like).  But I think we have to accept some truisms, which Suzanne Nossel puts together nicely:

After a few posts about how progressives can build on their recent successes at the polls, readers have had frustration with my inadequate prescriptions for Iraq policy. Well, I fess up. I can’t promise to solve this any more than the Administration, the Congress, the military or the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group can. But for those who demand more, here’s what I can say on how I see the situation and what we do next:

1. The scenarios where maintaining current troop levels and adopting various political strategies pay off by producing greater stability seem wildly far-fetched – In short, its tough to imagine a regional conference, a new political bargain among Sunni and Shiite, the involvement of Syria and Iran, an oil trust, the partitioning of Iraq or any of the other steps talked about producing a sustainable agreement that will quell the Iraqi factions and militias. Not least of the problems is that with our credibility crisis and the Iraqi military’s wholesale failings, there’s no one obvious to police a ceasefire assuming one could be reached. In short, it doesn’t look like anything that could be tried at this stage stands a reasonable shot of "working."

2. Talk of a US pullout to put pressure on the Iraqis to "get their act together" simply wont work – Its become very popular to pledge efforts to force Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and others to take control of their country and wean themselves from over-dependence on US troops. This is the equivalent of deciding to close down the homeless shelter so that residents will finally just go out and find themselves jobs and apartments. The reasons are rooted in a tangle of political hurdles, legitimate fears, and probably some personal limitations among the Iraqi leadership, but bottom line is: the Iraqis can’t and won’t manage to stem the fighting on their own in the short term.

3. At least in the near-term, if US troops pull out, conditions on the ground in Iraq will probably get worse in terms of lives lost – There are conflicting figures about how many people are dying daily in Iraq, but whether there are 100 or 300 violent deaths a day, the numbers could go up and with the absence of any force capable of maintaining order, its reasonable to expect that they will. There are plenty of other risks associated with a pull-out, including the spillover of violence into regions of Iraq that are currently quiet, the encouragement of al-Qaeda to turn the country into a new stomping ground, and the emboldening of a potentially incorrigible Iran.

4. Putting in more US troops seems untenable at this point, and there’s no evidence it would help – Not much more to say on this. It’s untenable both for political reasons and because we don’t have the troops available (which ties back to the political reasons, but is also an independent constraint). When we infused Baghdad with more troops, conditions worsened. When he testified on before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, General Abizaid offered no hope that more troops was the answer.

5. The US needs to be seen to try everything to end the crisis and exit responsibly – From a moral perspective and in terms of our international legitimacy, no matter what we do the fate of Iraq will be on our hands in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world. While that doesn’t mandate an indefinite commitment to a strategy that’s manifestly failing, it does mean that reasonable suggestions – the regional conference, the involvement of Iran and Syria – must be pursued even if the chances of their working are remote. This does not mean that we need to sustain current troop levels until these avenues have been exhausted.

6. The US cannot confidently or credibly pick a winner among the Iraqi political factions – Some analysts suggest that in order to quell Iraq, the US should side with a faction – there are arguments favoring both Sadr, the Baathists, and other individual militant groups – and help them fight to the finish to defeat their opponents are assert stable rule. Unfortunately, our track record of picking foreign political horses in Vietnam, Latin America, Iraq (remember Chalabi?) and elsewhere is dismal. This strategy stands to potentially deepen Iraq’s crisis and – by attempting to impose a leader hand-picked in Washington – erode whatever remaining credibility we have built up as a result of Iraq’s lurch toward democracy.

7. Folding Iraq into a broader quest for Middle East peace won’t solve the crisis any quicker – There’s been talk that because the Iraqi insurgency may be fueled in part by frustrations over the plight of the Palestinians, resolution of the conflict ought to be enveloped in a broader strategy for peace in the region, including principally between Israel and the Palestinians. But wrapping Iraq’s fate around an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is hardly a sure path to swift resolution. On a political note, suggesting that Iraq’s fate is somehow inextricably linked to the broader Middle East peace process could become an excuse for the Administration to throw up their hands, averting blame for a regional standoff that no prior President has been able to resolve.

8. The effort to train Iraqi troops and police is failing – This is hard to face up to, but after years of effort and continued reports like this, its hard to deny. That’s not to say the training effort is a waste, or couldn’t be strengthened, but rather that the idea of withdrawing significant troop numbers and simultaneously beefing up the training effort will not significantly buttress Iraq’s ability to fend for itself.

9. If we don’t begin a planned exit, there’s a good chance we’ll find ourselves in an unplanned one – Its surprising that by now we haven’t experienced the Iraqi equivalent of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the dragging of a corps of an American soldier through the streets of Mogadishu a decade later. But it seems likely that that day will come.

With that in mind, Suzanne lays out the "exit strategy":

In short, develop a withdrawal scenario that includes whatever steps can reasonably be taken to minimize the chaos in our wake. A regional conference, talks with Syria and Iran, improved training and reconstruction efforts, political mediation and efforts to bolster the security of less violent regions should all be part of the package. To the extent we can engage Iraq’s neighbors as well as any other global powers who are willing to step up to the plate and help us and Iraq, we should. We should be honest with ourselves and with the Iraqis about what we are doing and why, acknowledging all of the above rather than pretending that we’re handing off a country that’s in better shape than it is. But we should commit to getting out of there regardless of how the diplomacy and mediation progress.

Our exit should be as responsible and forthright as our entrance was wanton and misleading. The best thing we can promise troops who are now being asked to put their lives at risk for an all-but-declared failure is that they are taking risks to enable the US to make the best out of a terrible situation, preserving what can be saved of both Iraqi stability (in geographic pockets) and of American credibility. Its by no means the mission they signed up for, but its an important one nonetheless.

Sounds right to me.

Today’s Groganisms

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Our favorite Renew America columnist, Kaye Grogan, has another column out today, and it’s full of her non-sensical metaphors and well, non-sensical everything.  Here’s a smattering:

Since Nancy Pelosi has promised the American people to head the most ethical congress in America’s history can we expect an invitation to gather around the Jordan River for a good old congressional baptism?

I’m not sure what this means, but I’m going to guess that Pelosi probably isn’t going to send out invitations for baptisms at the Jordan River.

The lineup Ms. Pelosi proudly endorsed for House leadership committees when the so-called new congress convenes on January 3, 2007 — should register as a 10 on the Richter scale for a big shake-up.

And Kaye registers a Category 5 on the Saffer-Simpson scale for blowhards.

Then, speaking of progressives like Pelosi, our dear Kaye writes:

The only trouble with all of this progressing — the progressing has taken on a whole new meaning.

As opposed to the old meaning of "progressing"?  Is that even a word?

If you see a lot of people walking around noseless don’t be too surprised as a lot of people bit their noses off to spite their faces, when they voted in the midterm elections.

Biting off your nose in spite of your face — Kaye’s favorite metaphor.  She’s used it two weeks in a row now.

While the Democrats (with the help of the liberal news media) bashed President Bush and the Iraqi conflict 24/7 — not one single Democrat has offered a viable solution for ending the conflict in Iraq beyond cut and run.

Lie.

Folks take a long look at the people you helped to secure either their incumbency or elected more of the same persuasion to lead you. Get used to holding on to them, as you stumble along to disaster. On second thought . . . chalk that up as a bad suggestion — you’re on your own.

Going somewhere, Kaye?

And now, our favorite Kaye Grogan strained metaphor ("Groganism") of the week:

If you thought the road was rocky with the Republicans — you’re going to feel like you’re riding down Mount Everest on an old junkyard bus without brakes — with the Democratic majority.

‘Nuff said.  She could have gone with an ice cream metaphor ("rocky road"), but we like the Mount Everest/junkyard bus imagery.

Then Kaye focuses on pork spending:

If you want to know why the Democrats are fudging the direct question — especially Rep. Charles Rangel when they are asked if the tax idolizing party is going to raise taxes — just go to http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/pork_projects.html to see the biggest pork-barrel spending activity imaginable just waiting to be appropriated in 2007. We should all have a similar wish-list.

Of course, Kaye blatently ignores the fact that the items listed there are appropriations from the Republican-controlled Congress.  Oops.

It’s impossible to fund these on-going humongous projects without raising taxes.

Well, while these projects may or may not be worthwhile, the funding for all of them combined is still far less than the cost of one day of the Iraq War.

Did you know that one million is going toward Mormon Cricket & Grasshopper activity studies in Utah and $300,000 for the same project in Nevada? Good grief! …are they trying to figure out what makes these insects hop?

For goodness sakes! …they have bent flexible legs and it didn’t cost you one red cent to be told this little tidbit.

Wow, Kaye.  Rather than just assuming you know what the spending is for, why don’t you learn to Google?  Mormon crickets and grasshoppers are pests which eat and destroy crops, hurting farmers, and ultimately causing higher prices for certain agricultural goods that you buy in the store.  (The bill, by the way, was sponsored by a Republican).

I have determined that the abuse of the peoples’ money by everyone in Congress — is unethical and proves that they definitely need to all be gathering at the Jordan River for "ethical" cleansing.

Yes . . . they all need to gather at the river.

Because if you baptize our Congress, they’ll allow agricultural pests to ravish our crops and drive up the cost of produce.

Which is a good thing.

Or something.

Vietnam Redux

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Vietnam then:

With these troops in place, U.S. officials instituted an “enclave” strategy under which U.S. forces would try to maintain only those areas of Vietnam already under Saigon’s control. General Westmoreland, opposing the enclave strategy, called for more and more U.S. forces and advocated “taking the battle to the enemy.” Indeed, in July 1965, Johnson sent 100,000 more troops and authorized another 100,000 to be dispatched in 1966.

Iraq now:

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations.

Mr Bush’s refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

IRONY WATCH:  Bush, after having avoided Vietnam as a young man, finally goes there.

Trying To Get Into The Mile High Club Is An Act Of Terrorism?

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/Torture1 Comment

Heard about Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell yet?

They were the young couple aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles earlier this week.  According to news reports, they were engaging in a bit of a romantic encounter (more on that in a moment), much to the consternation of the flight attendants and fellow passengers.

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and … with his face pressed against Sewell’s vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

They were subsequently arrested.  Fair enough.

But they were charged with violations of The Patriot Act.  Now what is that all about?

My thoughts are the same as these:

Let’s stipulate that the seats of a commercial airliner filled with other passengers is an inappropriate venue for sexual exploration. Can we nonetheless agree that this is not what the PATRIOT Act was aimed at?

Prof. Owen Kerr agrees:

This story doesn’t seem to add up. The relevant provision of the Patriot Act is 18 U.S.C. 1993(a)(5), which punishes whoever:

interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, driver, captain, or person while they are employed in dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation vehicle or ferry, with intent to endanger the safety of any passenger or employee of the mass transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life.

In addition, 18 U.S.C. 1993(a)(8) prohibits "threaten[ing]" to do an act in (a)(5).

However, nothing in the story suggests that Persing actually threatened to interfere with, disable, or incapacitate the flight attendant while he was doing his job with intent to endanger his safety. It sounds like Persing was actually quite occupied with other things. And it’s unclear what role Sewell had here, at least in a criminal sense.

Sweeney Todd: The Movie Musical

Ken AshfordPopular Culture1 Comment

Sweeney20toddJohnny Depp stars as Sweeney Todd.

Helena Bonham Carter stars as Mrs. Lovett.

Socha Cohen (now making a splash as "Borat") just signed on as (you could predict this) Signor Adolfo Pirelli.

Tim Burton ("Edward Scissorhands", "Ed Wood", "Charlie And The Chocolate Factory") directs.

Yes, this is the film version of the Sondheim classic.  Shooting to start sometime in 2007.

The Great Japanese Hope

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

I’m not one for off-season baseball news, but this caught my eye:

The market price for pitching talent is soaring so high that it’s come to this: The Boston Red Sox are ready to pay more than $50 million just for the right to negotiate with Daisuke Matsuzaka, who’s never thrown his "gyroball" – or any pitch, for that matter – in the major leagues.

The $51.1 million winning bid is only the start. Now the Red Sox have 30 days to finalize a contract with the Japanese ace.

Making a record-setting bid that easily blew away offers from the New York Yankees, Mets and others, the Red Sox won the auction Tuesday for the World Baseball Classic MVP.

UPDATE:  At Over the Monster, the Red Sox blog, they’re saying it’s all but a done deal.