Hasan in the dock

Having had the misfortune of surviving his suicide rampage at Fort Hood, Major Hasan now faces a criminal trial. The pundits are already predicting the impossibility of his finding a fair trial. Here is an idea.

I had originally thought the best thing would be to patch up his wounds and send him back to his unit, turning briefly a blind eye to whatever transpired. But in the interests of providing him a jury of peers, due to him as a citizen of this country, the prosecution and defense should agree to pack his jury with twelve American born Muslim men. Then let us see whether the "religion of peace" can produce anything like justice, or if the vision of Muslim America is anything more than a pipe dream (or a smoke screen).

The Problem with Fairness

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have kept pursuing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine that mandated holders of radio station licenses air opposing views. In their view there are a larger number of conservative voices on the air, and it is difficult for liberal ideas to find adequate voice. Regardless of the accuracy of this view, how could anyone oppose the idea that both sides of an issue should be heard? Indeed, if it is such a good idea for broadcast transmission, then what about cable, or the internet?

 

The problem is trying to apply modernist binary logic to complex postmodern issues and arguments. The day of right-left, black-white, good-evil analysis has passed. Genuine good and perfect evil still exist, of course, on at least a cosmic level. But here in the daily world things are more mixed. Evil terrorist groups are funding schools. Good social organizations are driven by self-interest and self-promotion. Corporations, the latest bogey men set up for all to mock, are funding tremendous public programs through their foundations.

 

As regards the Fairness Doctrine, any particular issue of public interest has many facets, not merely two, pro or con. Take California water wars as an example. Is the issue one of environment versus the farm? What about urban versus rural? Is water a resource of financial value to be marketed? To whom does it belong, the Federal government, the State, The people, the land owners over which it flows, the land owners under which it seeps?

 

This is one issue. How can a government board possibly sort out whether fairness has been achieved? What of ideas that come along late in the course of debate? These are often the best and most salient points to be made as dialog continues to mature on an issue. But how can fairness be achieved without giving discussion over totally to the latest arguments. And what could possibly be fair about that?

 

The Fairness Doctrine is doomed by its very aims to be reductionistic, to reduce public discourse to the crudest of arguments and to impoverish the debate it seeks to enrich.

 

Unless, of course, you have a different perspective...

 

 

Another Modest Proposal

There is a flaw in the logic of health care reform leading to cost savings. Improving health can never lower costs. Extending life only leads to increased (albeit deferred) health care costs. In the end everybody still dies. The more advanced the age, the more complex and expensive the health care issues become.

If we really want to lower health care costs in the long run, may I propose increasing risk-based, preferably lethal, activities including:

• Promoting fast food abuse, especially the super size program.
• Encouraging smoking, particularly those forms involving inhaling.
• Televise the 'Darwin Awards.' Some are not aware of their available options.
• Start more wars.
• Advance access to extreme sports. Eliminate helmet laws.
• Lower the age of retirement to fifty. The most lethal year of a man's life is the twelve months immediately following retirement.
• Lower the driving age to ten.
• Give away motorized wheel chairs to finish-off the obese. If they start walking everywhere we will never be rid of them.

Attention to these and other more disasterously productive measures would lead to real savings in health care, unlike the frankly wrong-headed approach currently working its way through Washington. Thank you dear reader, and be careful out there.


PS - Dear reader, if your neighbor rudely reading over your shoulder at the Internet cafe finds this post offensive, please refer him to Jonathan Swift.

Wuzzatigan?

Let me get this straight. Back in December under the last administration GM came to Washington for a hand out. GM was, it was said, too big to let fail.

 

Then later, under the current administration, more bailout was added to that, the taxpayers took property interest in the company, the UAW took more interest (talk about a conflict of interest).

 

And now that it is even bigger, GM is going through what?

 

Bankruptcy!

 

What was all that about?

Jim Grasley

 

 

Out of the Frying Pan...

President Obama today talked about transferring the remaining Gitmo detainees to other countries. I hear there are about 48 prisoners remaining. He wants to send them to countries like Saudi Arabia...

 

And he thinks Guantanamo was abusive? Once the detainees enter a Saudi prison, no one will ever see or hear of them again.

 

Or perhaps they will come to a maximum security facility in the US. Two things are going to happen there. Either they are going to get shivved on the yard, or they are going to open a radical training center in C-block.

 

Now as to security. Jihadists who may have wanted to spring their buddies from Gitmo had to get by either Castro or the Marines. But if the detainees come to, say, San Quentin? It is a relatively minor problem to walk up to the gates and make trouble. And I don't even want to think about visiting day.

 

Every President makes a few gaffs in the first year. And there is no "good" solution to Gitmo. If they weren't jihadists and radicals when they went in, they are now, after years of detainment. But we need to think clearly about how bad they really have it at Guantanamo, and whether our compassionate solutions are not many times worse for them, and more to the point, for all of us.

 

The Triumph of Style over Substance

The media on both right and left fall into a fit whenever the President meets a new world leader. Did he shake hands? Did he bow? How low was the bow? Did it involve a cheek buss?

 

Granted, it is a measure more important than the First Lady's wardrobe choices, but still in the realm of style and symbolism.

 

When are we going to focus on what is actually said to these leaders? And if we knew, would it then be a matter of substantive policy bulwarks, or merely the latest daily verbal stylings, full of sound and fury, but in the end signifying nothing?