Congress should have accepted veto; lawsuits won’t bring back loved ones

Honestly, the biggest surprise about the fact that Congress voted Wednesday to override a veto by President Barack Obama is that it took them so long to do so.
 

OBAMA: Congress should have listened

Obama is in the final year of his presidency and has encountered for most of his two terms a Congress controlled by Republican interests that has made it clear they see their purpose as political obstructionism.

YET IT IS only now that Congress could get its act together to put together the 60 percent majority needed for an override – by which it will get its way on an issue despite presidential objections.

It’s a shame because this particular issue is one time that Obama may have got it right, and the members of Congress will wind up giving in to the base sentiments of people whose own perspective might not be entirely calm and rational.

In this case, the issue at hand relates to the ability of people in this country to file lawsuits against foreign interests in our courts as they relate to alleged terrorist activity.

There are those who’d like to file lawsuits against Saudi Arabia interests whom they want to believe are involved with the actions of Sept. 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon.

THEY HAVE FANTASIES of a court issuing a financial judgment against somebody that they believe will provide vengeance that makes up for the loved ones they had who were killed in the violence of that day.

I don’t doubt they hurt. I’m just not sure what the point is of such lawsuits, since I can’t envision any Saudi interests or any other nation is going to care in the least what a U.S. court thinks, or rules!

Just as people here would be more than willing to disregard any foreign court that tried issuing a ruling against people here.

Which means that these court rulings wouldn’t really mean a thing – other than letting the people who file such lawsuits vent a little of their anger. A clogged court system isn’t worth it, even if it makes some people feel a little better about themselves.

THAT WAS THE basis of Obama issuing his veto of the bill that Congress previously passed. That, and the official reason given by diplomatic experts that all such a law would do is encourage people in other countries to file lawsuits in their countries’ home courts against U.S. citizens and business interests.

Which would mean a global collection of legal morass. Letting the lawyers loose to wreck havoc on each other. Just what the world really needs!

Because Congress – first the Senate, then the House of Representatives – want to go along with the people who dream it is possible to ever fully make up for the bad that happened some 15 years ago.

It was an overwhelming pair of votes that occurred Wednesday – to the point where it can be called a bipartisan measure to override Obama, Which is the reason there aren’t more overrides against this president – Republicans on their own aren’t large enough to blatantly reject everything presidential; no matter how much they fantasize about doing so,

THE PROBLEM WITH going along with this measure is that it encourages the vengeance mentality. Which, if you’re honest about it, doesn’t work. For people to recover from their pain, they need to let go of their hate.

It’s kind of like the death penalty, where you can put someone to death yet there will be family members of the “victim” who will persist in being angry. It may be the one aspect of the Catholic church teachings that makes the most sense; its opposition to capital punishment because of its opposition to vengeance.

The people who wind up filing these lawsuits that will now be permitted will wind up with nothing more than a hollow court ruling. It certainly won’t do a thing to bring back their loved ones.

Or ease their pain; which is supposed to be the whole point to begin with.

  -30-

Trump thinks the whole wide world will pay for his isolationist vision for U.S.

Likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was down in Atlanta on Wednesday, spewing his usual isolationist nonsense but with a slight twist.

 

TRUMP: Talkin' trash in Dixie!

Trump has his vision of imposing his will on the world. But he also seems to think the world will eagerly pick up the tab to pay the expense of maintaining the United States as the equivalent of a private country club for the world’s elite.

ACTUALLY, THE REASON this nation has been so successful is that we have been willing to take on the tired, the poor, the hungry masses yearning to be free. Because they’re the ones most willing to work hard and bust their behinds to achieve success.

But what caught my attention about Trump’s Georgia trash talk was the part where he talked of “safe zones” in Syria; places where those Middle Eastern people who now think of coming to the United States to seek a better life can go to instead of coming here.

Which strikes me as being the international affairs equivalent of the old “separate, but equal” doctrine.

But as Trump put it, the cost of building these zones “over there” would be paid for by those very countries. “We have to get them to pay for it,” said Trump.

IN SHORT, HE thinks we can penalize foreign nations financially to ensure that they maintain a modern-day segregationist vision for this nation.

I say “fat chance,” largely because no one else is going to cough up a dime just to help maintain our vision.

Just as Trump comes across as the ultimate fool if he really thinks the government of Mexico will assume the cost of erecting a barricade along the 1,900-mile border it shares with the United States.

He claims he can get them to do it by cutting off the ability of people already in this country to wire money back to their relatives in Mexico – which quite frankly is questionable, and probably so blatantly illegal.

JUST LIKE THE idea of Syrians, or any one else in the Middle East, paying the price for Trump to fulfill his vision of what this country ought to be like – one that doesn’t include themselves.

Now I don’t doubt that some people will want to hear xenophobic rants and dream of isolationist visions for themselves. Although I also note the polls that show Trump’s support went up in the days following his ridiculous rants about the weekend violence of Orlando, Fla.

According to a study published by the Reuters wire service, Trump went from lagging 13 percent behind likely Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton to only being 11 percent behind.

But the Bloomberg news service shows her with a 13 point lead over him, and an ABC News/Washington Post survey shows 70 percent of the nation views Trump unfavorably.

WHICH MEANS THAT in spewing rhetoric such as he did on Wednesday, Trump clearly has a vision in which his 30 percent turns out to vote while the rest of the nation gets apathetic and stays home. Perhaps he'll dream up a poll tax to ensure such a thing happens.

It clearly fits the vision of a person who thinks only certain individuals truly matter in our society. Which ought to be all the more reason why we ought to get off our behinds and cast ballots come Nov. 8. I’m realistic enough to know that anything can happen on an Election Day. There’s no such thing as a shoo-in winner.

Which is why I honestly think if Trump were to prevail, it would be our own fault for allowing it to happen. What Trump calls for is unrealistic because it fails to realize the fact that if the United States truly is to have a dominant influence over the world, we’re going to have to be prepared to pick up the tab.

For as I see it, Trump’s biggest flaw is that he’s a deadbeat who wants the rest of the world to pay for his twisted vision.

  -30-

Obama does Cuba; does it make much of a difference in our relations?

I’m sure there are some people to whom the only part of President Barack Obama’s three-day sojourn to Cuba that matters is the ballgame being played Tuesday between the Tampa Bay Rays and Cuba’s famed national baseball team.

Will there be lasting benefits?

Others, I’m sure, are going to downplay even that factor – it is, after all, just a pre-season exhibition (although the Cuban squad is filled with players who have been active in a winter season for several months, they’re going to ‘give game’ and play to win).

BUT WHAT REALLY is the significance of the fact that Obama felt compelled to arrive in Havana on Sunday, and spend the day at several sites around Havana of cultural importance? And also include a couple-hours session meeting with the brother of Fidel Castro?

I have long been a supporter of the idea of closer relations between the United States and is neighbor nation in the Caribbean. I have always thought the trade embargo our nation imposes on Cuba to be a failure – primarily because it has not achieved its goal of breaking the Cuban economy.

Granted, Cuba’s economy is in the gutter. But the powers-that-be there have managed to use it as propaganda material to inspire distaste for the United States. We play right into the stereotype of the “Ugly American,” and our business interests lose out on the chance to gain from Cuba’s assets.

Which is why I found it interesting to read the news accounts of Obama’s arrival on Sunday, to find crowds chanting and cheering “U-S-A, U-S-A” as enthusiastically as any sports crowd watching a United States team beating up on some batch of foreigners!

COULD WE BE on the verge of a significant thaw in the ice that has developed between the two nations? Or will the partisanship motivated by too many generations of ideologues be enough to keep things a mess for years to come?

The Tuesday highlight to end this particular presidential sojourn

Will the laying of a wreath at the monument to 19^th Century Cuban patriot Jose Marti (who actually lived a large chunk of his life in exile in New York City) be seen as a magnanimous gesture? Or as some sort of social surrender by a U.S. president?

I can already envision the rants that will come from some political people – those determined to see that nothing changes; likely because their own livelihoods depend on continued hostilities and keeping the image of Fidel Castro alive and thriving to frighten our masses.

Not much has changed since Ryan met Castro

Just think of how little has changed since that day in 1999 when then-Gov. George Ryan led a delegation to Cuba in hopes of putting Illinois at the head of the pack when the day came that the trade embargo was lifted.

THAT EMBARGO STILL remains, even though Obama has taken actions to ease relations between the two nations – such as restoring the U.S. Embassy in Havana and permitting an exhibition such as the Tampa Bay ball club getting a spring training sojourn to Cuba.

Although a part of me still thinks it would have been more interesting if it had been the Chicago White Sox and Cuban star Jose Abreu doing Havana to play the Cuban national team!

But back to our relations, which remain unsettled because of those people determined to undo anything Obama has done during the past seven years, One of those people is Republican presidential dreamer Ted Cruz – who is one of those eager to keep alive the image of Fidel as a tyrant threatening world freedom; instead of the third-rate, penny-ante, sorry excuse of a dictator he always has been.

U.S. foreign policy has done much (even more than those Soviet Union subsidies) to keep alive the Castro regime in Cuba, and it likely is a step (or several) in the Obama direction for us to truly give Cuba the boost in the direction toward the freedom we’d like to see them have. A significant part of that is gestures such as the one where Google will set up improved Internet access on the Caribbean island nation -- which will go a long way toward making the people desire a U.S.-influenced lifestyle.

OR AT LEAST something not so openly hostile to our nation’s interests as what currently exists.

Because I do realize what our nation’s primary interest will be is in creating economic opportunity for U.S. businesses in Cuba. Whether the Cuban people gain a less-oppressive government isn’t something we really care about.

It’s nice if it happens, but we’ve been willing to do business with tyrants in the past. Let’s not be hypocritical about that point. We’ll have to see if Obama’s presence in Havana these past few days will do anything to make a difference, and perhaps push Cuba in the right direction.

Lincoln's memory still revered in Havana -- even if his brand of cigars is a thing of the past

It makes me wonder if, a century from now, Obama’s legacy in Cuba will be remembered somewhere close to the way Cubans actually revere the memory of Abraham Lincoln – a thought I’m sure infuriates the ideologues of U.S. of today.

  -30-

French don’t think much of non-touristy areas. Do Chicagoans think any higher?

Mayor Rahm Emanuel joined the ranks of those people who want to tell the French government to “stuff it” with their objections to large swaths of our wonderful home city.


Oh, be quiet!

Yet a part of me can’t help but think there are people amongst us who ought to stifle themselves with their own objections. Because the French official stance toward Chicago isn’t really any different than what is often expressed by our own residents.

THE WHOLE MATTER became public when the Washington Post reported about the guidelines the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues to French citizens who travel abroad.

When it comes to Chicago, it advises French tourists that they should avoid everything about the West Side, or anything south of 59^th Street on the South Side.

If you must know the truth, the only part of that assessment that surprises me is that the French didn’t advise their citizens to avoid everything south of Roosevelt Road!

The French ministry didn’t give specific reasons for avoiding those areas. Although I’d suspect the overabundance of African-American people who live in those neighborhoods to the west and to the south make them think there just isn’t much for tourists to see.

BECAUSE THE PLACES in Chicago that promote themselves as attractions people from around the world ought to go to tend to be congregated along the northern stretch of the city’s Lake Michigan border.

It can be very easy to think that nothing of interest exists to the south or west (even if the reality is that those are the oldest neighborhoods of Chicago, they’re where the heart of the city lies).

It certainly is an attitude that gets expressed all too often by people promoting our own city. And if you think I’m exaggerating, just check out some of the Internet commentary on this issue where countless numbers of people (anonymous, of course) are saying they agree with the French.

EMANUEL: Weak defense against French attack

They’re the same types who point out that the United States has its own travel guidelines advising – amongst other things – that people don’t travel to Ciudad Juarez along the U.S./Mexico border while MISINTERPRETING it to mean that they shouldn’t travel to anywhere in Mexico!

BE HONEST. THERE are those north lakefront neighborhoods filled with younger people who came to Chicago so they could claim to be “urban” who never venture outside of their particular neighborhoods – and who then insist on moving OUT of Chicago once their kids hit the age of 5 (because they don’t want to be involved with the Chicago Public Schools).

Personally, I’m by birth from the land where the eastern boundary isn’t Lake Michigan, but State Line Road. Down in the 10^th Ward, the locals are used to having the rest of Chicago forget we exist.

Or perhaps we’re just buried under all those mounds of petcoke that are accumulating along the Calumet River – and having their dust blown about to make mess of the environment.

Regardless, we’re talking about some areas that have done little to tout their perks and bits of interest that ought to attract the curious from amongst us around the world. And not just the sights in the South Chicago neighborhood that served as background scenes (the 95^th Street Bridge, anybody?) in “The Blues Brothers” film.

HOW MANY TIMES can we check out the Water Tower? Or venture to the top of the Willis Tower – and claim we saw the whole of the South and West sides from that glass ledge that allows one to look straight down from more than 100 stories in the sky?

A cinematic moment 1/3 century ago

So listening to Emanuel say, “Don’t get me started on what I think of the French,” it comes out as outrage reeking from a touch of phoniness. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of the people who voted for him two years ago are the same people who never venture to the South or West within Chicago.

And as for the French, I’d tell them to stuff it! Because they won’t have a clue about Chicago if they merely go to Wrigley Field and don’t check out the one-time Pullman Rail Car Co. remains – the site that Emanuel himself touted.

After they check it out, they can venture over to the South Deering neighborhood for a lunch at Hienie’s – which has one of the most intriguing hot sauces for its fried food that one will ever experience.

  -30-

 

U.S. attacking Syria? Of course, no matter what action Congress takes

There’s one thing I’m pretty sure of – President Barack Obama will be giving the order eventually that approves a U.S. military involvement in Syria.

OBAMA: He's going to do what he's going to do

The president has dreams that Congress will unite behind him and actually approve a military action on the grounds that officials in Syria are being inhumane in their use of chemical weapons in their own conflicts.

WHICH MAKES ME wonder if Obama has secretly become a Chicago Cubs fan. His delusions about Congress are as intense as those of Cubs fans who actually expect their favorite ball club to accomplish anything of significance on the playing field.

I fully expect our Congress, in all its inaction, to do a whole lot of nothing with this issue. Which means Obama will have to proceed on his own if he wants to have the U.S. military act in Syria.

I really believe there will be a mental conflict among certain members of Congress – those who usually are knee-jerk in favor of the military will want to vote “yes” will feel a need to vote “no” because this is an Obama initiative.

For partisan reasons, they always vote “no” on anything that the president wants. I suspect that viewpoint will prevail. If only they could get a guarantee that the military effort would fail AND Obama would get all the blame.

THEN, THEY’D BE more than willing to support it! Which is why I question their motives whenever they cite “patriotism” and “love of country.” It comes across as a lot of hooey!

But back to Syria. I’m sure Obama will wind up approving a military act so as to avoid the rhetoric that would inevitably come that he was “weak” and “ineffectual.”

Personally, I have to admit to being swayed (sort of) by an argument made by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, who argued against involvement in Syria in part because he’s not swayed by the chemical weapons argument.

For those who don't even know where Syria is!

The theory being that such weapons are so inhumane and torturous that people who use them deserve our contempt and scorn – in addition to the military might of the United States put to use against them.

AS MEARSHEIMER PUT it during an appearance this week on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program, some 40,000 people were killed in the fighting in Syria without chemical weapons. Yet we’re suddenly offended because some 1,400 people died from chemical weapons.

I’m sure the ones who were merely shot to death are just as dead as those who inhaled deadly chemicals. I’m also sure some of those who were shot died painful deaths as well.

Nonetheless, I realize that a large part of the reason why the rest of the world takes the U.S. claims of moral superiority seriously is that we’re willing to take the lead on issues – particularly if force is involved.

At times, it makes U.S. the equivalent of the schoolyard bully, and we’re liked just about as much.

THE POINT BEING that in trying to make up our minds whether our particular members of Congress are justified in voting against Obama, we ought to ditch the idea that there is a morally superior viewpoint.

When this military effort does get underway, it’s going to be ugly. Even under the best of circumstances, there will be a taint remaining for the United States. That’s war, after all!

Although our members of Congress seem to want to keep quiet. The Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday that unofficial tallies of the Illinois congressional delegation (of which Obama himself was once a member) showed a majority being opposed to the president. While the Chicago Sun-Times had only one House member (Adam Kinzinger) definitely for, and one (John Shimkus) opposed -- with everybody else at differing levels of indecision.

Although the Tribune reported that among people who were willing to state a definitive position, it seems that three members were for Obama, three were against, and the other 12 representatives are refusing to commit. Officially, the Senate Foreign Relations cast a vote Wednesday, which put Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the record as being in favor of Obama on this issue.

THIS AT A time when the House of Representatives’ leadership (John Boehner for the Republicans and Nancy Pelosi for da Dems) is publicly in support of Obama – a rare convergence of opinions.

Not that all this uncertainty really means much. The outcome is certain.

Obama will do this. Let’s only hope for all of our sakes that the military initiative doesn’t totally screw up against us.

  -30-

EXTRA: Gov. Quinn's Mexico venture

Roughly one of every six Chicago residents is of Mexican ethnic origin.

QUINN: Busy for the week

So perhaps it shouldn’t be the least bit surprising that Gov. Pat Quinn will leave Wednesday for a four-day journey to Mexico. It will be the fifth trade mission – the others were to Brazil and Canada, along with China and Japan – taken by the Mighty Quinn since the day he succeeded the now-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

IF ANYTHING, IT might be worth saying, “It’s about time,” since an Illinois governor hasn’t gone to Mexico since 2000 – although I remember both George Ryan and Jim Edgar before him making the trip.

Admittedly, this will be a ritual whose purpose is to give Illinois-based companies a chance to make more contacts so that they can do more business with Mexican-based business interests.

If it works properly, it can bolster our local economy. Such as when Quinn meets with officials of Bimbo bakeries, whose U.S. subsidiary, Grupo Bimbo USA owns such product brands found often in our supermarkets such as Entenmann’s donuts and cakes and may well wind up buying a portion of the Hostess product names (even if they didn’t get the “Twinkie” brand).

Illinois exports to Mexico totaled $6.4 million in 2012 – making it the second-largest largest trading partner for our home state.

IF IT DOESN’T, then Quinn will get to say he escaped the 30-degree-type temperatures we’re going to face this week. Since the weather is expected to warm up to more spring-like temperatures by Saturday (the day he’s scheduled to return).

Of course, Quinn will try to make his trip seem like more of a cultural event. Hence, there will be the rituals paying tribute to one-time Mexico President Benito Juarez, along with his political contemporary Abraham Lincoln.

Both men are amongst the most honored leaders of their respective countries – even if height-wise, they were about as far apart as one could envision.

MONARCHS: Regular visitors to Mexico

Reading through the material released by Quinn’s staff, I also couldn’t help but notice an event meant to promote Monarch butterflies, which migrate between the Midwestern U.S. and Michoacãn in Mexico.

THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY is, of course, the official insect of Illinois. Although I’m now wondering if we’ll get some nitwit ideologues who will call for the butterfly’s deportation and removal from such an honor because of its Mexican ties.

But as already stated, the purpose of this trip is meant to be to promote joint business efforts – which is why a lot of CEOs will be accompanying the governor.

Although in looking over the list of corporations making the trip, I couldn’t help but be amused by the inclusion of Geno’s East on the list.

Maybe it is in everybody’s interests to promote the idea of a decent pan pizza in Mexico. I’m just wondering how much of an outburst will we hear from officials with Lou Malnati’s – ranting and raging that they were dissed even though they offer up a superior pizza pie!

  -30-

Let’s hope Quinn doesn’t get any ideas

I have been amused in recent days as I see the daily updates from the staff of Gov. Pat Quinn – informing us all of how the Mighty Quinn is in Brazil to do good things on behalf of the people of Illinois.

Will one of these Brazilian ladies soon be a student at an Illinois-based university?



It seems that the “State of Illinois Trade Mission” running from Sept. 22 through Friday even has its own official logo – almost like it were a rock concert. Will there soon be “Quinn does Brasilia” t-shirts available.

EXCUSE ME FOR wondering if this particular trip is just an excuse for Quinn to get away from the beginning of the autumn chill by going to a land where it is the beginning of spring.

Or maybe he just doesn’t want to be around this week while the Chicago White Sox seem incapable of putting away a division title, and appears to desire a long, drawn-out battle to the very end of the regular season.

Actually, that latter point is one that would make me want to be somewhere other than Chicago these days. But the biggest thing is that it amazes me the way in which the Quinn compadres seem determined to play this trip out to be one of the most significant actions of his time as governor.

Then again, in a place like Brazil, it would seem that Quinn gets the respect that a public official is supposed to receive due to his title. As opposed to Illinois, where way too many state legislators think he’s an unreliable and untrustworthy guy and too many city officials think he meddles in matters that are none of his concern.

WHICH IS HOW they probably do view the idea of casino expansion – which has fizzled because of Quinn’s opposition.

But it seems to make Quinn want to engage in a lot of overhyped statements, such as the one that was issued Tuesday. It seems there will be a new program meant to encourage Brazilian students wishing to attend a university in the United States to consider a Chicago- or Illinois-based school.

A Brazilian jolt to Fire futbol?

Perhaps there will someday be thousands of Brazilian teens doing their best Joel Goodson (Tom Cruise’s character in “Risky Business”) impersonation of, “Looks like University of Illinois.”

That would be good for bolstering Illinois’ image and recognition level.

BUT IT DOESN’T quite leap up at us as a major event worthy of the ‘front page’ of old. It reads more like a dinky brief in a corner of page A15 – filler material.

Which has me wondering what Quinn is really accomplishing with his trip south of the equator?

It’s not like he can attend Carnaval – which doesn’t take place until February (the 8^th through the 12^th of 2013, for those of you who care). Then again, it would seem appropriate for the Quinn administration to be just a bit off in its timing.

Perhaps he has soccer in mind, and would like to see some quality play – rather than the middling level we get to see with Major League Soccer and the Chicago Fire.

GOING TO THE land that dominates the World Cup (and gave us Pele – the one soccer player most people have heard of, even if they don’t comprehend exactly who he is) would be the place to go. Perhaps he could engage in some sort of deal that could help bolster the Fire with some young Brazilian talent. Quinn could play an instrumental role (sort of) in bringing another sporting championship to Chicago.

Or perhaps Quinn just wants to check out the famed Brazilian beaches packed with the young (and some not-quite-so-young) ladies wearing butt-bearing bathing suits.

Let’s only hope that the governor doesn’t get himself any ideas about joining in.

Because I don’t care how many “Brazilian butt-lift” exercises Quinn were to do – I just can’t envision the resulting sight would be a pleasant one for anyone to have to view.

  -30-

EXTRA: China trip another Daley “last”

DALEY: His final mayoral sojourn

Richard M. Daley has managed to work in potentially his last foreign trip as Chicago mayor. He’s headed for China.

Daley will be leading a delegation to Beijing to try to promote stronger business ties between the two cities, which actually strengthens business ties between the two countries as well.

THIS TRIP WILL be Daley’s fifth to China during his 21-plus years as Chicago mayor. It also brings a sense of payback, since China President Hu Jintao included our city in his own visit earlier this year to the United States.

Which keeps alive the idea that we’re going to be giving much attention in coming weeks to all the “lasts” that will take place during the Daley administration – which runs through early May, at which time Rahm Emanuel officially becomes our city’s mayor.

Daley did his last St. Patrick’s Day parade as mayor last Saturday (five days before the actual holiday), then announced his last foreign trip on Thursday.

Now I’m really wondering what Daley’s last baseball Opening Day will be like, and trying to figure whether he will stick with the Sox on April 7, or take advantage of the Cubs’ season opener on April Fool’s Day.

  -30-

Obama/Palin political ‘tiff’ lays out nation’s partisan split all too perfectly

We have got a new political “controversy,” courtesy of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who wants us to think that President Barack Obama said something extremely controversial when he spoke recently about our nation’s foreign policy obligations.

She’d like for us to think that Obama said something so incredibly radical that it ought to perfectly illustrate why he was never fit to be a government official of any sort, let alone president.

ALL SHE REALLY did, however, was illustrate the difference between the factions that too many of us fall into when it comes to partisan politics these days.

For the record, Obama made his “controversial” comment at a press conference that brought the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington to a close. He took a question from a reporter-type from Bloomberg Business News who wanted to know if Obama thought he had gained any political “capital” that would give his thoughts more influence in international affairs.

Part of his answer was: “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because, whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower. When conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them.”

That has Palin ticked off, and she used a weekend Washington “appearance” (as in the Illinois town of just over 10,000 people who think of Peoria as the nearest significant city – and which could wind up being the closest that Palin will ever come to setting foot in Chicago) to denounce him. She particularly hates the portion of his line that referred to “whether we like it or not.”

ACCORDING TO THE Associated Press, Palin said, “I don’t understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that ‘America’ is powerful.”

A part of me wants to say she misinterpreted him. But I also have been around enough political types to know that most of them usually do know what a political opponent truly meant – they just don’t care. Palin’s intent was to ratchet up a political point, and she succeeded.

That AP blurb got picked up in newspapers across the country. Which means it turned up on the websites of all those newspapers. Which means it is now all over the Internet. Which means that every nitwit with a desire to comment (including myself) is now making an issue of this.

But when I look at what Obama stated and what Palin retorted, I can’t help but think that this moment illustrates the partisan split that has afflicted our society.

OBAMA WAS TALKING about the U.S. obligation related to our role in the world, while Palin was talking about the U.S. perk related to that same role.

Obama gave a response making it clear that he views the U.S. foreign policy as being a responsibility that our nation must live up to. For if we fail in our obligations, the potential is great for small problems in other parts of the globe to become big problems, and ones that are reaching enough that we get dragged in anyway.

It is a view that says there are consequences to the actions of the United States government. We can cause problems beyond our borders. Which means we need to express a certain caution when we act. We can’t act recklessly, without regard for others.

Now such a thought process definitely offends the isolationists of the world. Because they’d like to think we can cut ourselves off from the interests of other countries. I’m sure they hate the suggestion that we have a responsibility to other parts of the globe – which is the price we pay if we want our nation to have the moral high ground when dealing with international affairs.

YET PALIN’S CRITICISM comes from another perspective.

She likes the idea of the United States having that influence because she likes the idea of being on the side that gets to tell people what they must do. Those isolationists usually are the conservative types who would be inclined to prefer someone ideologically aligned like Palin.

She is appealing to them by trying to say that our nation’s foreign policy is about being in charge when we see it in our interests. But the idea of an “obligation” being thrown into the mix bothers her (and them) because it means there will be occasions when they will be forced to confront issues they aren’t comfortable with.

Heck, it means there will be times the United States will have to throw its weight behind people whom they would prefer to ignore.

EXCUSE ME FOR thinking that this kind of thought makes Palin and her followers the equivalent of the old schoolyard bully, who wants to be able to do what he wants and when (while also having the ability to ignore whatever things are too troublesome).

Which makes me wonder if we ought to truly think of the Obama opposition these days as being those old bullies merely being miffed that life has passed them by, and they’re desperately trying to grasp onto the days when they could “muscle” people into doing what they were told – regardless of how stupid the order was?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Barack Obama talks about our nation’s obligation to the rest of the world (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-conference-president-nuclear-security-summit), while Sarah Palin enjoys the thought of being able to give out orders when it suits her whims (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guZZTwSW93FMmLEsFeBHJDLZoGtQD9F583601) or desires.

Politics and partisanship have been financially rewarding during the past year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7601668/Barack-Obama-and-Sarah-Palin-are-enriched-by-cosy-political-media-complex.html) to both Obama and Palin.

EXTRA: Haiti, then Mexico, for Michelle

First Lady Michelle Obama gets more out of her first solo foreign trip than was originally admitted to.

Her flight wound up making a stop in Haiti, where the first lady made an appearance in Port-au-Prince, to reinforce the idea that the United States has not forgotten the Caribbean island nation’s plight following a 7.0 Richter Scale earthquake and aftershocks that left hundreds of thousands dead.

SHE EVEN GOT a meeting with Haiti’s first lady, Elisabeth Delatour Preval – telling her that the devastation (even three months after the fact) is “definitely powerful.”

Also along for the trip, according to the Washington Post, was Jill Biden , the spouse of Vice President Joe. The two got a helicopter tour of the Haiti capital city to see the wreckage from a larger perspective, before leaving for the remainder of their scheduled trip to Mexico.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Officials say they kept Michelle Obama’s trip to Haiti a secret until it happened, in part because (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/michelle-obama-arrives-in-hait.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics) they were concerned about crowd control – a mob of earthquake-hit Haitians eager to see the first lady?

Michelle Obama’s Mexico trip is turning into fodder for political partisan rants

First Lady Michelle Obama this week will be in Mexico, making an official trip on behalf of the United States of America to offer up a more gentile persona for this nation than was offered when her husband ventured to Mexico last year.

Such trips for a first lady are routine. She may have no official duties, but a first lady can make herself useful to U.S. policy abroad – if she is so inclined. The first ladies of the United States and Mexico met previously in Washington. But Michelle Obama's trip this week to Mexico City is causing more than its share of ridiculous politically-partisan rants. Photograph provided by federal government of Mexico.

THAT TRIP, FOR which she leaves the U.S. on Tuesday, is being anticipated greatly in some circles. The U.S. ambassador in Mexico City says he anticipates Michelle will “wow” the Mexican people with her persona.

We’re even getting comparisons between this trip and the one that then-First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy made to Mexico in 1962, which really caught the attention of people when we figured out that Jackie’s education included conversational Spanish.

She was able to say enough to be understood by Mexicans when she made some public comments. At the very least, there were no “ich bin ein Berliner” moments that cause modern-day JFK opponents to make jokes about the president wanting a jelly doughnut.

But perhaps it is more evidence of how much our political environment has changed in the past two decades – ever since the first “baby boomer” to be elected president happened to be someone from the “left” end of the political spectrum.

MICHELLE OBAMA IS getting her share of criticism for making what some people want to believe is a frivolous trip that wastes federal funds. Others just want to engage in Mexico-bashing, while some others are just looking for an excuse for yet another Obama “dig.” His wife will fill in perfectly for the president himself, when it comes to a reason to insult.

For the record, Michelle will have some meetings with Mexico’s first lady, Margarita Zavala de Calderòn, and will also engage in the social settings that are meant to ensure that relations between the two nations remain civil.

In those one-on-one sessions, the two are expected to discuss a pet issue of Zavala’s – obesity, particularly among children. Guess what, that is something our two nations have in common. Too many U.S. and Mexico citizens are overweight.

For Mexico, the statistics are 4.5 million children and 6 million teenagers who are either overweight or obese. Considering that Mexico’s total population is 110 million, that makes up nearly 10 percent of the total overweight just because of the kids.

SIMILAR CONDITIONS EXIST in the United States, and we are making efforts to try to pass along more information about nutrition and proper food. Perhaps that could be a lesson that gets passed along to our neighboring nation.

But then again, too many of the people who are looking for any excuse for Obama-bashing will probably dismiss this as frivolous, if not some dangerous interference on the part of the federal government into the lives of our chidren.

As though the “American Way” means we should let people become dangerously overweight and do nothing.

So what level are the insults at these days?

READING AROUND THE Internet (always a good way to find stupid, and anonymous wisecracks from people who seem determined to exercise their “constitutional right” to be ridiculous if they so choose), I have seen references to the fact that Michelle Obama is no longer a licensed attorney (trying to imply – without evidence – that she renounced her law license to avoid being disbarred), wisecracks that she will be able to buy a lot of cheap drugs (not the medicinal types), implications that she is miserable to the White House staff of servants, and even one wisecrack about Michelle having a big behind.

That is all on top of the people who want to think that the only topic of discussion between a United States and a Mexico official ought to be the scheduling of a departure time for all Latinos from the United States. Others question why we should want good relations with our neighboring nation.

As one nitwit put it on the website of the Chicago Sun-Times, “if she wants to build up relationships with Mexican citizens, just come to Chicago. We have hundreds of thousands of them here illegally.”

It’s true that about one of every six Chicago residents is of Mexican ethnic background (think about that next time people talk about the Irish or Polish character of Chicago), but you are deluded if you don’t realize that many are from families that have been here from generations – and may have been in this country longer than your family has.

INTELLECTUALLY, I CAN laugh all of this off as the rants of sore losers. But on a gut level, it bothers me that our society is still stuck in much of this partisan muck – which is truly what keeps us from advancing toward solutions on many of the problems that confront us.

The bottom-line statistic insofar as Michelle Obama’s travel schedule as first lady is that, while this is her first solo trip, she made nine trips to other countries during the past year accompanying her husband.

That puts her at a rate comparable to the past two first ladies – Laura Bush made 72 trips in her eight years as the presidential spouse, while Hillary R. Clinton made 80. So those of us who want to think that Michelle is some sort of shopping freak looking for any excuse to make a foreign trip really don’t have their view backed up with facts.

Perhaps the real problem is that some people have their own racial and ethnic hangups to work through. It’s just too bad that they’re so willing to put their ignorance on broad displaywhen they rant about Michelle doing Mexico City.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The sight of Michelle Obama representing the United States abroad (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/sc-nw-michelle-obama-0412-20100410,0,1914219.story) is going to become (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/2151180,CST-NWS-sweet11.article?plckCurrentPage=1&sid=sitelife.suntimes.com) a more common sight in coming years. So the partisan rants (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-diet_12int.ART.State.Edition2.4c56ac4.html) are likely to rise as well.

Will we get to hear Michelle Obama speak some Spanish? Former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy showed herself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWnsJmBsvHU) on several occasions to be competent (http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=36) with the language.

It’s all a stunt on so many levels

I’m sure in a certain sense, the government of North Korea believes it has dumped all over the United States and achieved a significant political victory in the eyes of the world by being willing to grant the release of two U.S. news broadcasters to former President Bill Clinton.

Perhaps they think that they are tweaking the mentality of the segment of our society that is most outraged by the very existence of Kim Jong Il – which in many cases is the same segment of society that also has its hang-ups about the existence of Clinton himself.

THEY GAVE CLINTON a victory on the international diplomacy stage, which will bother those people who would prefer that Clinton and his wife just wither away from the public eye – rather than remaining as an ex-president and incumbent secretary of state.

So it will be curious to see just how this gets spun by those elements of our society that will be pleased to have the two broadcasters of U.S. citizenship (but Asian ethnic background) returned home.

Will it get as absurd as the people who want to believe that the timing of the release of hostages in Iran in early 1981 was done because of fear of Ronald Reagan? I don’t doubt that they were held in captivity for as long as they were because of a desire to embarrass then-President Jimmy Carter.

But to listen to those people who want to praise the very memory of Reagan, it was all his doing (even though I’m convinced his existence had nothing to do with that issue).

NOW I REALIZE there aren’t direct parallels between the release of those hundreds of Embassy workers and other U.S. citizens who spent about a year-and-a-half in the captivity of Islamic extremists, and the current situation involving two ladies who were arrested for their work and spent the past month with a Korean criminal conviction (and prison sentence at hard labor) dangling over their heads.

I have enough sense to realize that the real reason for their arrest was a Korean regime in the northern part of the nation that didn’t particularly want the outside world looking at the way things go in that country.

So after having the two ladies locked up in a Korean prison and ignoring the overtures of the U.S. government to let them free (including a plea from Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton), it took an outside effort by the former president to get something done.

Now as some observers will note, there probably was some sort of outside understanding before the project was undertaken. I doubt Bill Clinton would have made a long-distance flight from the United States to North Korea if he didn’t have a pretty darned good chance of succeeding.

AS FOR THOSE of you who want to create jokes about Clinton making a long-distance flight just to hook up with a couple of chicks, keep them to yourself.

Anyway, it took less than one full day from the time Clinton arrived in Pyongyang to the time his airplane took off for Los Angeles, with Laura Ling and Euna Lee in tow.

The two worked for Current TV, a cable news outlet that supposedly is a more balanced alternative to the reporting that at times borders on propaganda from outlets such as Fox News. Coincidentally enough, Current TV is an entity being overseen by one-time Nashville newspaperman (and Vice President) Al Gore.

Which adds yet to the factor that giving in to Clinton creates the potential for embarrassment.

GORE, CLINTON (AS in Hillary), even President Barack Obama, all were unable to get action on the issue of letting the two broadcasters go free.

Yet retiree Bill Clinton gets action in one day.

I suppose it’s similar to all the times when the Rev. Jesse Jackson has gone into nations that are hostile toward the United States and manages to achieve some results on a particular issue.

Does this make Bill Clinton the 21st Century equivalent of Jesse Jackson? It could.

BUT IN THE end, I don’t think it matters all that much.

Because the bottom line is that Ling and Lee are free, no longer having to face the possibility of actually having to serve a 12-year prison sentence for trying to sneak into the country so they could get an unhindered view of what is truly happening in the nation that all too many of us think of as merely being part of the punch line from old M*A*S*H television show reruns.

And now we can put the two in the same category as Roxana Saberi, the freelance writer and broadcaster who endured her own ordeal in an Iranian jail earlier this year before being set free. In short, it’s going to mean a lot of book deals, and hopefully some accurate accounts of life in those two countries within the next couple of years.

At the very least, it would be nice to see something reported that indicated the level of nonsense being spewed by the North Korean government when their official statements said the release of Lee and Ling was evidence of “humanitarian and peace-loving policies.”

-30-

Obama saw the sights of Europe, Middle East, but will he get the U.S. votes?

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama appears to have made it through a foreign tour of the Middle East and Europe without doing or saying anything so blatantly stupid that he would forevermore have been mocked (remember Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank?)

So the perception of how Obama did during his visits to hot spots in Iran and Afghanistan, along with the touristy spots in France and Germany, depends largely on how one viewed Obama before he went.

PEOPLE WHO ARE inclined to support Obama are going to talk up how he gained first-hand experience in the ways of the world, and now has a better understanding of international affairs that will make him a better president.

Those individuals who are ABO backers (Anybody But Obama) are going to trash the trip as a trivial excuse to take a mid-campaign vacation. Many of those who are inclined to back a Republican for president are of an ideological leaning that makes them distrust other nations’ governments, and some people have spouted out talk that they wish Obama would focus his attention on the U.S., rather than other countries.

The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.

The simple fact is that if a candidate seeks the political position known informally as Leader of the Free World, he had better have some interest in the happenings of the world. One can make a legitimate argument that George W. Bush’s shortcomings as president were due to a lack of interest in anything related to the job – except when the little kids came to the White House to play t-ball games on the presidential lawn.

I PERSONALLY DON’T think Obama got to see the true circumstances involved in Iran or Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. He got the guided tour with minders who made sure to take him to specific sites and see only certain things.

But it put him in a position where he had to immerse himself in foreign affairs, almost like he was cramming for an exam (as if four years as president could be compared to taking a test). I’m sure the Ivy League student in Obama (or the University of Chicago academic) felt completely comfortable under such circumstances.

It also gave him a chance to appear as though he was internationally oriented to those few people in this country who truly have not yet made up their minds about who to support come the Nov. 4 elections.

If anything, the Middle East portion of the trip was most important for Obama. Yet the public will likely remember the European segments much more.

FROM WATCHING THE man who got model/actress Carla Bruni to say “yes” to his marriage proposal suddenly fawn all over Obama when the junior senator from Illinois met with the president of France, to seeing the hundreds of thousands of German citizens cram the streets of Berlin to hear Barack speak, it gave the impression of increased respect for our country – if only Obama is able to win the general election.

Such respect has definitely been lacking in this decade, as all too many see the Bush years as those of an international bully running amok. Even though McCain is not George Bush by any definition, too many people around the world see him as tainted by the incumbent president.

It should be no surprise that Gallup Organization surveys released earlier this week showed at least 60 percent of European people of English, French and German nationalities all felt their country’s interests would gain if Obama defeats Republican John McCain.

Of course, some will argue that such sentiment is outweighed by the percentage of U.S. citizens who will distrust Obama because the “foreigners” like him. Others will note that the “foreigners” do not vote in U.S. elections, so we should not care what they think.

BUT THERE IS some evidence that what little bit of support Obama will lose because of his foreign interest will be outweighed by those who see it positively.

On Friday, Gallup officials came out with their latest tracking poll, showing Obama with a 6-percent lead over McCain. At 47 percent support for Barack compared to 41 percent for McCain, it is significantly larger than the 3- or 2-percent leads that Obama usually has over McCain.

Did the sight of Obama, with allusions to Ronald Reagan’s address at the Brandenburg Gate, suddenly sway a number of undecideds into the Obama camp?

The trick will be to see the polls of early next week to figure out how much of that increase he holds onto. The simple fact is that tracking polls show how we the potential electorate have a sheep-like mentality. We will follow the whim of the day.

WHEN THE REPUBLICANS have their nominating convention in St. Paul, Minn., McCain’s name is going to be in the news so often that he will gain the support of people who figure he must be worth voting for, if he’s getting covered. He may very well tie Obama in the polls.

Likewise, when Obama gives that speech at Invesco Field in Denver accepting the Democratic presidential nomination, his rhetoric likely will push his favorable ratings so high that the polls with have him with such a huge lead that people will wonder how McCain could ever have been delusional enough to think he could defeat Barack.

In short, winning an election is about hanging on to the support of the few people in our country who sincerely are willing to give both candidates a chance. One Gallup poll from earlier this week showed that only about one of every 16 voters seriously is willing to consider Obama or McCain – the others have either already made up their minds for one, the other, or feel disgust for both.

If Obama can keep the positive aura going that he has helped generate this week, then he has gone a long way toward becoming this nation’s first biracial president.

BUT THE TRIP was successful in one other way. It reduced the McCain campaign to the status of Second Story in the news cycle for over a week.

John McCain was reduced to trying to feed off the Obama attention by staging trivial stunts such as eating wienerschnitzel in Columbus, Ohio, and airing negative Obama radio ads in various rural U.S. towns that happen to be named Berlin.

His public comments during the week came off as petty rants, jealous that everybody was paying attention to the opponent and not him. It reinforced the notion that the Obama campaign is setting the agenda of the 2008 presidential election and that McCain is merely a follower.

Unless Obama literally tumbles down the steps of his airplane when arriving Sunday in Chicago (a la Chevy Chase’s impersonations of former President Gerald R. Ford) to speak to the UNITY convention of minority news media officials, John McCain is going to have to come up with something drastic to make up for the public perception ground he lost this week.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have hurt his campaign by visiting the Middle East (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Gallup-Daily-Obama-There-Europe-Effect.aspx) and Europe, where locals (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109018/Britons-French-Germans-Solidly-Back-Obama.aspx) are in love with his persona. What do U.S. voters think?

Combining French glamour with tough talk on Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072501970.html?hpid=topnews), Obama is trying to appear like a knowledgable man of the world in speaking against the concept of Iran having access to nuclear weapons.