MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Yes, He’s The Great Uniter, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #340 | @MDWorld

September 9, 2013 Mike Gold 8 Comments

Brainiac Art 340For the second time this summer, President Obama has united two disparate groups of Americans as people on the westbound side of the political left join with those on the eastbound side of the political right over the decision to engage Syria in war.

The first time was earlier this summer when these two sworn enemies united in their opposition to the NSA files, as revealed by Edward Snowden. Case in point: The National Rifle Association, which is rarely confused with Nancy Pelosi, has joined the American Civil Liberties Union, which is rarely confused with Rush Limbaugh, in the ACLU’s suit that takes on the entire NSA surveillance program.

This is amusing for several reasons. The Koch family, long loathed by the Left, is and has always been a major supporter of the ACLU. And like all political organizations, the National Rifle Association maintains massive data on Americans in its computers, whether they are members of the organization or not. If I were to confiscate all the guns – and we’ll have bespectacled talking dogs inventing time machines before anybody can figure out how to pull that one off – I’d start with that NRA list. But I digress.

So now Barack’s done it again, uniting the hardcore on both ends of the political spectrum. He wants us to invade Syria because their madman-in-chief has gassed his people. Asma Assad should not to be confused with the other global madmen who resort to the same or similar measures. Which is one of the problem points in this Presidential edict: Why this guy? And why at this time? Killing people in order to save lives is a crappy policy.

Here’s another point. I will stipulate that gassing people is bad. But so is shooting them. Or bombing them. Or torturing them. Or nuking them. Dead is dead, and, oh yeah, when the United States takes the moral high ground we drag our own shootings, our bombings, our torturing, and our nuking right up there onto the ethical Iwo Jima – along with our overworked men and women in uniform. You know, the Americans who actually get killed executing our government’s whims.

Does anybody think that our launching missiles into Syria likely will kill fewer people than Asma Assad did with his gas? And even if we killed only half as many people, do we call that a win? Will the Syrian people?

I use the word “invade” with purpose. Obama may think we’re doing a noble thing, but the Syrians – be they Asmaites or Al Qaeda or the Syrian Liberation Front or the Syrian Islamic Front, et al – are more likely to see a foreign nation launching missiles onto their turf as an act of war, as the opening salvos of an invasion. I have never seen a military action that started off with missiles not evolve into some sort of an invasion.

Why did the United Kingdom vote this action down, overruling their prime minister? Why is America alone on this one – except for the French and perhaps a handful of other nations. What’s the end-game? How do we get out of this one in such a way that we can say we did more good than harm?

President Obama is silent on all of this. He did say we’re not looking for regime change, but there is no way in heaven or hell that Barack is anywhere near that stupid or that naïve. Indeed, on this subject, Barack Obama is a liar.

I voted for Obama because he’s smart. The President should start acting like we are as well.

Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times and on-demand streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. George Haberberger
    September 9, 2013 - 11:11 am

    Humor me here Mike. This is a serious question. How do you know Obama is smart?
    Yeah, he went to Harvard, but Bush went the Yale. Obama had less than one term as a senator, He won that race because his original opponent dropped out when his embarrassing divorce records were somehow made public. Before that, he was a community organizer. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, but never published anything. And of course he has never released his grades, which I admit aren’t a measure of intelligence in the first place.

    I’m not saying he isn’t smart. It’s just that his intelligence seems to be a given for some reason that has never been in evidence.

  2. Whitney
    September 9, 2013 - 11:24 am

    Golden Boy –

    I am conflicted about Syria…

    Here’s a question that might make me hated forever:

    Should we change our national policy against state-sponsored or endorsed assassinations? Above board with even a bounty being promised, a la Glenn Ford or Mel Gibson in ‘Ransom’? The players who would be likely to retaliate against us or our President already have us on a hit list anyway. So rather than concern for an-eye-for-an-eye consequence, what is the moral support for NOT using lethal force?

    Wouldn’t it be a deterrent for despots to know that if they use weapons of mass destruction, they will personally be put in the international bullseye?

    If encountering Assad on a street as he was preparing to kill a kid, isn’t it my duty to stop him by any means necessary? Does long distance change the moral math?

  3. Rene
    September 9, 2013 - 1:51 pm

    I don’t know if Obama is actually smart. I don’t have any loyalty to him, unlike you with Bush. I do think he projects an aura of being an intellectual, but that has no necessary relation to smarts or actual intelligence. Bush actually projected anti-intellectualism, but I think that was more posture than reality. He knew that his base was generally anti-intellectual, so he went with it.

  4. Rene
    September 9, 2013 - 2:16 pm

    Whitney –

    That war is any more “acceptable” than assassination is probably the last remnants of the pre-1914 spirit that saw war in romanticized terms. ALL IS QUIET IN THE WESTERN FRONT killed most of that, but that idea still endures a little. IMO, War is an abomination, and there is nothing honorable, just, sacred, or manly about it.

    So, in purely moral terms, I don’t see assassination as any worse than war. But there are practical considerations. I suppose that you can say that a President that can mandate assassinations of foreign leaders could do the same with his own citizens, whereas the threat of open war against one’s own citizens isn’t as credible?

    I dunno. The objections to assassination seem naive and irrealistic to me. Yes, it’s against international law and whatever, as if an open war didn’t generate tons of war crimes and collateral damage.

  5. Rick Oliver
    September 9, 2013 - 9:00 pm

    Bush didn’t earn his way into Yale; he got in as a legacy because his father and grandfather went there. The editors of the Harvard Law Review do not typically write articles that appear in that publication. On paper at least, Obama’s credentials for being “smart” are somewhat more convincing than Bush’s.

    Regardless of what Obama does or McCain says (whatever Obama does will be too much or too little or too soon or too late) or who “wins” in Syria, sectarian violence will continue to rip apart the country for years, possibly decades. I blame the British and the French. They drew a bunch of arbitrary borders, dividing up the mideast.

    The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy hasn’t worked out too well for us in the past. It gave us the Soviet empire and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, among others. In Syria, it’s “the enemy of the friend of my enemy is my friend.” The Shia Muslims in Iran are backing the Alawite Shia Muslims against the Sunni Muslims, and so we’re backing the Sunni Muslims. This should not, of course, be confused with Iraq, where we overthrew a mostly Sunni regime and installed Shia Muslims. George W. Bush was blissfully unaware that there was any difference.

  6. R. Maheras
    September 9, 2013 - 11:14 pm

    President Obama was nowhere near ready for the presidency. Neither was Bush the Younger, or that matter. In both instances, their inexperience and bumbling led to serious — even disastrous – foreign policy misfires that never would happened had the person sitting in the oval office been more seasoned.

    As I’ve said before, President Obama knew in 2004 he wasn’t ready for such a lofty level of responsibility, and he publicly said so. Unfortunately, the ego strokers came out of the woodwork and convinced him to run in 2008 — even though he clearly was not experienced enough — and it suddenly became a case of “Beware of what you wish for, you just may get it.”

    He got the presidency — and the Nobel Peace Prize, for that matter — not for what he had actually accomplished, but for what people HOPED he would accomplish.

    But it’s similar to the kind of hope I have when I go to the race track and occasionally drop $2 on a huge longshot. I’ve only won one such bet in my lifetime of going to the track, yet even THAT was dumb luck. The only reason I bet on the horse was because its name was Rascally Russ and the odds were 50-1.

  7. Rick Oliver
    September 10, 2013 - 4:48 am

    Russ: The public has been convinced that anyone with any meaningful experience in Washington is an “insider” who can’t be trusted. Four of the last five presidents (before Obama) were governors from southern or western states. In at least two of those cases, being governor clearly was inadequate training for the White House.

  8. George Haberberger
    September 10, 2013 - 5:30 am

    My point wasn’t that Bush is smart because he went to Yale. It was that graduating from an Ivy League school is not a guarantee of intelligence. Bush got into Yale as a legacy candidate. Did Affirmative Action have anything to do with Obama getting into Harvard? Regardless of what the truth may be, no one believes Bush is smart because he went to Yale. Why does Obama’s Harvard education mean anything?

    I pretty much agree with Rene’s comment. I really don’t know if Obama is smart either. I know he presents that way. Bush did not, but again that was part of his “regular guy” image, something that Al Gore or John Kerry could not manage.

    Whitney, I know your concern about being “hated forever” is largely hyperbolic, but I would hope that any opinions or ideas expressed here would never result in hate.

  9. R. Maheras
    September 10, 2013 - 9:20 am

    Rick — Obama didn’t even have the luxury of being a governor for a few years. He had zero experience running any kind of large organization, yet his supporters viciously attacked anyone who questioned his lack of leadership experience, arguing that his “superior intelligence” compared to his predecessor trumped all of that “trivial” stuff. Ironically, many of these same supporters are now attacking Obama!

    Yet outside of the political arena, anyone objectively evaluating Obama’s resume as a, say, CEO or university president candidate — even for a small organization — would probably never have hired him. They MIGHT have hired him as a VP or somesuch to see how he’d do, but no board in their right mind — liberal or conservative — would risk the future of their organization on someone with so little executive experience.

  10. Mike Gold
    September 10, 2013 - 9:56 am

    Sorry for the posting delays. I was at the Baltimore Comic-Con, along with Martha and a crew of thousands. Great show; thanks for asking. I’ll be pecking through the above as time allows today, in chronological order.

    George, Bush got into Yale as a double-legacy and was a mediocre student in his best semester. Obama got into Harvard based upon transcript and tests and became president of the Harvard Law Review. He was also a graduate of Columbia University and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. These are three of the most prestigious schools in America.

    I followed that senator race closely — you know, just to see Seven of Nine — and it was hard to imagine a scenario where Jack Ryan would have beaten Obama even without his removal due to the sex scandal. Then the Republicans found a much bigger loser. Go know.

  11. Mike Gold
    September 10, 2013 - 11:08 am

    Whitney, the problem with having “standards” or “morals” when it comes to government sponsored killing is where do you draw the line? There are a lot of horrible, murderous people out there. Some are our allies; we don’t want to kill our friends even if they are killers. Of course, when they stop being useful — Noriega, Bin Ladin, etc — they tend to get into trouble with us.

    We’ve got to ask ourselves this question: do we have the right to be The Punisher?

  12. Rene
    September 10, 2013 - 1:41 pm

    Mike –

    My point is, why is it that “The Punisher” is worse than open war? Every war ever waged has resulted in atrocities, even “just” wars, like World War II, have had their Dresdens.

    I think it’s only because war has a long tradition, dating back to tribal warfare, of being a manly, honorable, just activity, while assassination is “cowardly”.

    Because, when we look at damage done to human beings, particularly civilians, I don’t see assassination being potentially as bad as a war, any war.

  13. R. Maheras
    September 10, 2013 - 2:12 pm

    Mike — Augghhh! You were at Baltimore Comicon? I went Sunday — although I didn’t know I was going until the last minute when a buddy from the DC area called me Friday night, said he was driving there Sunday, and invited me to tag along.

    I had a great visit with my old, old, old, old pal Don Rosa, stumbled into Bob Ingersoll, and finally met Steve Geppi for the first time.

    Sorry I missed you!

  14. Rick Oliver
    September 10, 2013 - 2:42 pm

    Russ:
    What makes you think running a business is a good qualification for running a country?

    But that aside, my point was that the voting public has been trained to shun Washington “insiders” when it comes to the presidency. Bush wasn’t really qualified to run the state of Texas, let alone the federal government, but because of the way the Texas state government is set up, he really didn’t have to do much, and nobody noticed. So let’s say Obama had put in his time and paid his dues. He would then have been branded an “insider” and therefore no longer a viable candidate. Obama is the first sitting member of Congress to be elected president since JFK.

  15. R. Maheras
    September 10, 2013 - 2:56 pm

    Rick — There you go arguing that stuff like experience with management and leadership is overrated and doesn’t matter.

    It DOES matter — especially for an organization so large. Over the years I’ve worked for scores of leaders, and I can’t ever remember even ONE inexperienced leader who didn’t suck. And the bigger the organization, the more the inexperienced leader will suck.

    And, my god, don’t even get me started on the horrors an organization goes through when an inexperienced and/or unqualified political appointee is put in a leadership position.

    And I don’t care what the voters “thought.” If they, indeed felt compelled to reject “insiders” whether they were qualified or not, and go with the fresh faces whether they were qualified or not, then I guess they only have themselves to blame when the wheels fall off.

  16. Mike Gold
    September 10, 2013 - 4:26 pm

    Rene, “why is it that “The Punisher” is worse than open war?” Accountability.

    Of course, defining accountability is dancing up the proverbial slippery slope. One can only be held accountable for that which is known. I totally favor a military that is responsible to the civilian government, but I don’t trust the civilian government to run the military. That’s a problem. The military can not be a force onto itself lest we start giving total power to advocates of “Purity of Essence.” And I know the military is total bureaucracy, and that is totally counterproductive to running a military force.

    It’s a conundrum… wrapped inside a torpedo shell.

  17. Mike Gold
    September 10, 2013 - 4:34 pm

    Russ — Yeah, I feel kinda stupid not asking you if you’d be in Baltimore. It would have been great to see you. And maybe even introduce you to MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman and Martha Thomases. Next year, go to the Harvey Awards dinner. It’s a great show, and they hand out the best swag bag in comics. It was good to see Steve there; he hadn’t been to the show in a while.

    As for Bob Ingersoll, keep your eye on that other site with which I’m involved. Until then, keep it to yourself…

    I’ll be at next month’s New York Comicon; if you (and everybody else reading this) the people at the ComicMix table might know where I am maybe. Or they can text me. Mr. Davis is supposed to show up, along with damn near the whole ComicMix staff.

  18. Rick Oliver
    September 11, 2013 - 1:28 pm

    Right, Russ. I said I didn’t think management experience and leadership were important. That’s clearly what I either said or implied. Oh wait, I didn’t. I said, and I quote, “What makes you think running a business is a good qualification for running a country?” Let’s put it another way: “What makes you think the experience and leadership skills you learn running a business are in any way similar to the experience and leadership skills you need to run a country. Calvin Coolidge ran a successful business. Bush Junior sort of ran a business. Great successes as president, right? Mitt Romney ran a successful business. I’m sure the skills he learned outsourcing jobs and shifting mountains of debt on to many of the companies he “fixed” would have terrific assets in the White House. Maybe we should have elected Ross Perot when we had the chance.

    You don’t need to build consensus to run a business. You don’t need to worry about public opinion or getting enough votes from your subordinates. You don’t have to worry about whether or not your employees will approve of you. Being able to work well with others may be an asset in business, but it’s definitely not a requirement and is often notably lacking in corporate CEOs.

    Name ONE former private business executive that has made a good president. If you can’t, then you just have an unsubstantiated opinion. And if you can only name one, you haven’t exactly established a pattern.

    And I don’t care what you don’t care about, since what you care about wasn’t my point. I wasn’t defending the voting public’s behavior; I was explaining it.

  19. Mike Gold
    September 11, 2013 - 1:43 pm

    Harry Truman was as good a president as he was a haberdasher. He held the latter position for a mere three years, closing the operation in 1922, heavily in debt. Tom Pendergast, the man who run one of the most corrupt political machines in American history, helped Harry out with his debts and ran him for judge that same year. Harry won. but the voters didn’t care for him despite his Pendergast connection. They voted him out two years later. Pendergast took that personally and ran Harry once again in 1926; this time he won. In 1934, Pendergast ran him for senate and Truman only copped the nomination by virtue of the Machine’s massive ballot stuffing, which was greater than all his opponents’ ballot stuffing. He held that job for ten years, when the Democratic Party dumped that commie Henry Wallace and stuffed the innocuous Truman into the vice presidency.

  20. Rene
    September 11, 2013 - 5:12 pm

    But Mike, what accountability is that? Was the US ever accountable for what they did in Hiroshima and Dresden? What about the buttload of civilian casualties in American adventures in the Middle East? Only a tiny fraction of them, the more malicious incidents, had soldiers punished.

    Yes, the German Nazi leadership was punished, but that is because they lost.

    If we take into account the number of innocent lives lost or damaged, even if the US committed hundreds of unjust assassinations per year, it wouldn’t come close to what happens in your usual war.

  21. R. Maheras
    September 11, 2013 - 8:19 pm

    Rick — I brought up Obama’s woeful lack of experience in management and leadership, and you’re the one who went off on the business tangent. My first comment mentioned Obama’s lack of experience as a governor — a position that is a microcosm of the federal government. I then went on to say that based on Obama’s 2008 resume, even if he had tried to get a job as a CEO or president of a small university, his zero level of experience would have disqualified him even from THAT.

    The fact is, he wasn’t qualified to lead anything that was anywhere NEAR as large of an organization the size of the executive branch of the US government. And it simply wasn’t fair for all of the hope-sters out there to cajole him into running in 2008, before he even had the chance to learn to be a good senator, let alone the leader of the executive branch of the most powerful nation on Earth.

  22. R. Maheras
    September 11, 2013 - 8:29 pm

    Mike — I’m going to try and go to the New York con because Topps is going to have a table there to promote the Mars Attacks Invasion set due out October 18, and I just finished and shipped off the 106 color sketch cards I drew for the series. If they have room for me, I may do something I NEVER have agreed to do in the 45 years I’ve been a comics artist: Draw con sketches. But I owe it to Topps and the Mars Attacks franchise, which helped kick-start my love of science fiction and comics way back in 1962, so how could I NOT do promotional con sketches if asked?

  23. R. Maheras
    September 12, 2013 - 7:44 pm

    Oops!

    Guess I won’t be going to the New York con after all — unless Topps has some extra passes, which is doubtful. I just checked and everything’s sold out except Thursday, and I’m not making the trip to NYC for one day.

    Oh, well.

    Who’d a thunk it 10 years ago that comic cons — even San Diego — would sell out months in advance?

  24. Rene
    September 13, 2013 - 9:28 am

    Russ – That’s the problem with a two-party system like in the US. Even if Obama were several degrees of magnitude worse than he actually is, he would still be preferable than a bunch of guys either totally blinded by or restrained by an ideology that fewer and fewer people have any illusions about.

    So voters had to choose between one guy that (in your opinion) was not a competent administrator and guys that (in your opinion) are competent administrators but hold beliefs like “the poor are moochers and parasites” (Romney) or “the system works” and “what we need is more free market”, when the system was collapsing (McCain).

    Though I remember from previous discussions that you mantained that the astute voter should ignore the more damning things Romney or McCain have said, because they were simply trying to appeal to their base. Just look at their records and forget their words. I disagree, because even those who pass for moderate in the Republican Party today suffer a lot of pressure from the more ideological Tea Party guys.

    Even Obama himself suffers pressure from these guys. Why should we assume Romney would be immune, when he probably agrees more with them than Obama?

  25. R. Maheras
    September 13, 2013 - 10:57 am

    Yeah. The older and crankier I get, the less I like our two-party system. Bring back the Bull Moose Party, I say!

Comments are closed.