Everything In Its Place.

Nancy Pelosi is ticked off at Republicans again. This time, it's because they're so very sexist.

After Pelosi suggested Monday that the public was wary of sending more troops to Afghanistan -- and that McChrystal's recommendation to President Obama for more troops "should go up the line of command" rather than be aired in "press conferences" -- the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a mocking press release titled "General Pelosi Knows Better, Slams McChrystal."

"If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place," concluded the release, setting off a barrage of criticism from Democrats and liberal blogs that the GOP was employing sexist rhetoric.

Pelosi herself weighed in Thursday at her weekly press briefing.

"It's really sad they really don't understand how inappropriate that is," Pelosi said. "I'm in my place -- I'm the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language is something I haven't heard in decades."

Nancy Pelosi took the NRCC's statement to mean she needed to be put in her place as a woman. But that's obviously not what the NRCC meant.

Stanley McChrystal is a general in the U.S. Army. He thinks we should put more troops in Afghanistan.

Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She thinks he's wrong.

When the NRCC says that McChrystal should put Pelosi "in her place," they're saying they want McChrystal to remind Pelosi that, as a military official, he knows a thing or two about military policy. And to make that point crystal clear, the NRCC encapsulated it in the press release's title: "General Pelosi knows better, slams McChrystal."

The issue isn't whether a woman can be speaker of the house. It's whether the speaker of the house should pretend to be a general.

Pelosi is smart enough to know this. But phony outrage over non-existent sexism is much more fun than real debate.

Olympics Part Deux.

The International Olympic Committee gave Chicago a stunning slap in the face last Friday. If Chicago had gone toe-to-toe with Rio in the final round of voting and lost, no one would have been shocked.

But the combined power of Oprah and Obama couldn't even carry the second city past the first round.

Ouch.

Make no mistake -- this wasn't about Obama. There was never a compelling reason to bring the Olympics to Chicago. Rio De Janeirro deserved to win. Chicago didn't.

But at the same time, Obama's Olympic disappointment is a microcosm of his flawed understanding of foreign policy.

Critics enjoyed roasting Bush over his "arrogant" approach to world affairs. He was a gunslinging Texan with a messiah complex -- embarrassing at best, dangerous at worst.

And more often than not, Bush was guilty as charged. He thought we could swoop into the Middle East and transform it into a democratic paradise. Bush envisioned America as the savior of the world -- a nice thought, but an unrealistic one. Now, Obama is left to pick up the pieces of Bush's failures.

But arrogance comes in different guises.

Obama's employs a kinder, gentler arrogance. It's an arrogance that says that the world will bend to our wishes if we butter it up with smiles and heartfelt mea culpas. On a more personal level, it's an arrogance that says the magnetism of one man can reverse decades of anti-Americanism around the world.

There's nothing wrong with being nice to other countries. It's certainly better than being an international jerk. But it's not going to win any major concessions from the international community.

And the fact that Obama is an international celebrity doesn't mean the world will hand him what he wants on a silver platter.

Obama showed up in Copenhagen assuming that the IOC delegates loved him. They probably did. But it wasn't enough to change their minds.

People in Europe may swoon over Obama, but we're not seeing our NATO allies rush to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Why? Because nations are selfish, and they don't want to make that kind of sacrifice. Their personal affinity for Obama isn't worth a dime when it's time to make policy.

The utility of warm-fuzziness is limited.

In the end, an American president needs to have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of what other countries say. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a bad one -- but it would have been just as bad if every member of the UN had backed it.

"Going it alone" isn't an ideal strategy when it comes to dealing with the world's problems. But sometimes, if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.

A Thought.

If Roman Polanski were a plumber from Hoboken, who would be petitioning for his release?

Justice is supposed to be blind. Being a creative genius isn't grounds for clemency. Neither is being a holocaust survivor.

Some situations are complicated; this one isn't. Polanski committed a terrible crime, and admitted his guilt. He should be punished. Justice delayed is better than no justice at all.

An Olympic Blunder?

President Obama is dealing with a sophmore slump in his freshmen year.

Iran is testing missiles and developing nukes. Afghanistan is a quagmire. Solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are incapable of passing healthcare legislation. Nobody knows what to do with all the scary people in Gitmo.

And in the midst of it all, Obama's once-soaring poll numbers are starting to fall to the earth. If Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, it looks like he's getting his wish.

Obama needs to score a feel-good win to prevent his presidency from looking like an epic fail.

This Friday, he plans on doing just that. In a historically unprecedented move, Obama will personally lobby the Internatioal Olympic Comittee to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

If Obama succeeds, his position as the darling of the world will be solidified, and Americans will have a little piece of positive news to cling to.

But what if he fails?

Fair or not, there's no doubt that Obama will be skewered if Chicago fails to bring home the athletic bacon. Obama sold himself as a guy who could magically make the world give America a big hug. If the Olympic committee gives Chi-town the cold shoulder, his international star power will look a bit faded.

And Chicago definitely has problems. Its famous public transit system is falling apart, high profile acts of violence are rocking its troubled neighborhoods, and The Honorable Rod Blagojevich is now a national symbol of Chicago corruption.

To top it all off, Rio De Janeiro has long been the assumed frontrunner in the Olympic race. Will the Olympic overlords really refuse to give up-and-coming Brazil its first shot at hosting the games?

Something tells me that Obama wouldn't be jetting out to Copenhagen unless he had assurance of success. Then again, he may just be audaciously hoping to melt the hearts of the IOC members.

For America's sake, here's hoping the president doesn't fall flat on his face. In these times of general woe, our country could use a few scraps of superficial prestige.

Racists With Racist Charges Of Racism.

Is it racist to call Obama a racist? According to lots of liberal commentators, the answer is yes. Ever since Glen Beck proclaimed that Obama harbors a "deep-seated hatred for white people," the statement has been used as exhibit A in the ongoing effort to portray conservatives as racists.

But this raises a few questions. Is it ever appropriate for a white guy to accuse a non-white guy of racism? What if the non-white guy is actually racist? And is there really anything inherently racist in a charge of racism?

Obama was raised by white folks. Most of his closest advisors are white. The idea that Obama hates white people is laughable. But lots of people are stupidly accused of racism. When Bob Herbert, a black columnist, accuses white conservatives of being driven by racism, I think he's wrong. But I don't think he's racist.

Isn't it possible that Glen Beck's stupid and incoherent statement was just a stupid and incoherent statement?

Suspicious Minds.

Barack Obama is black. Barack Obama is also a liberal Democrat.

If you ask conservatives why they don't like Obama, they'll probably point to characteristic no. 2. But liberal commentators can see through this charade.

Those conservative hicks don't care about "the constitution," "limited government," or some stuff that Thomas Jefferson wrote. When they say "socialist," they really mean "scary black person."

The proof? Why, it's all around us --
The nutty conspiracy theories.
The heated rhetoric.
The sheer disrespect they show for The Office of The President. (*gasp!*)

Political differences could never stir up this kind of deep-seated hatred. It's a bonafide Presidential lynching -- angry whites rising up to destroy an uppity colored man.

After all, remember how nice conservatives were to Bill Clinton -- a white, moderate Democrat from Arkansas?

I sure don't.

You want conspiracy theories? Forget that whole birther deal -- fringe conservatives accused Clinton of being personally responsible for several murders. And when Clinton proposed his health care plan, it was opposed (and eventually defeated) with just as much fervor by conservatives in Congress. Talk-radio, the fount from which so much of this racial animosity is supposedly flowing, rose to prominence as the center of opposition to the Clinton administration.

Maybe some of Obama's critics are racists. And maybe some of Obama's supporters are racists. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what goes on deep inside the minds of everyone in America. But the fact that a group of people loudly -- even rudely -- opposes someone with different political views can be understood without pathetically playing the race card.

Sadly, even when it comes to something as universally tragic as the 9/11 attacks, some liberals just can't resist making everything about race. Kate Clinton (of no relation to Bill), a writer for the Huffington Post, had this to say about the Republican reaction Barack Obama:

"Republicans treat President Obama as if he were a substitute and they are just waiting for the real deal to come back in the room. That would be a white Republican male. Their desperate efforts to delegitimize an elected president (not to be confused with their efforts to legitimate a selected president) remind me of their panicked response to the terror attacks on September eleventh, eight years ago. For many of them, it was their first experience being attacked. Unlike women, poor people, and people of color who know being attacked as a pre-existing condition, the white guys freaked. Their world order was rocked. They panicked, put the country in lockdown and retaliated against the wrong country."

Yes, you read that correctly: September 11th was only frightening for white males. And those dumb ol' white men only attacked Iraq 'cause they were so scared. Seriously.

But moving on from that breath-taking piece of ignorant nonsense, Clinton's first point was partially valid. Republicans probably do consider Obama as a place-holder until they can get someone from their own party in office. Just as Democrats thought of Bush as some idiot they had to put up with until the coming of their messiah. In the political system, you're always looking towards the next election cycle -- and hoping to win. That's life.

It has nothing to do with race. Sure, Republicans would love to replace Obama with a white male Republican. They'd also love to replace him with a white female Republican. Or a black male Republican. Or an black female Republican.

Throughout his political career, Obama has called on conservatives and liberals to stop questioning each other's motives. And while Obama hasn't always lived up to this standard, it's a good bit of advice.

It's easy to believe that someone who disagrees with you is motivated by some dark force in the recesses of their soul. But in the end, all you get is a debate poisoned by imaginary issues.

The Visible Hand Strikes Again.

Once again, The Economist hits the nail on the head with a write-up of the now infamous "cash for clunkers" program:

Rebate schemes like this tend to encourage buyers to advance purchases that they would have made anyway, thus cannibalising future sales. The termination of a car-scrappage scheme in France in the 1990s led to sales plunging by 20%. Nor is it certain that the scheme provides a more general boost to the economy, as buyers may have been put off other purchases in order to afford a new vehicle.
...
The green benefits are also hotly contested. The scheme should help to make America’s car fleet slightly less fuel inefficient, but there are significant environmental costs in scrapping perfectly good cars and building new ones.

The American economy is an incredibly complicated machine. When the government decides to stick its greasy hands inside and fiddle around with the parts, bad things tend to happen. This isn't to say that government policy can't have positive effects -- but in almost every case, it comes at a price. Short-sighted policies that promise too-good-to-be-true benefits lose their shine when the consequences come a-knockin' on the public's door.

Right now, members of congress are considering a piece of legislation that would transform America's massive healthcare industry. The benefits are obvious: everyone gets healthcare coverage. But before trigger-happy reformers vote aye, they might want to dwell on the unintended consequences of their pet project. Yes, just about every modern country provides universal healthcare coverage. But a lot of those countries have to deal with huge doses of taxation, high levels of sustained unemployment, and a stagnant work force.

After considering the pros and cons, a lot of people may still support the legislation. The good of universal coverage may outweigh the associated evils.

But there are some things that no one can foresee. Our economy is based on billions of unpredictable transactions between individuals. If seemingly harmless programs like "cash for clunkers" can create unintended ripples in this economic ocean, what could happen when the government gives one of our largest industries an extreme makeover?

I'm really not sure. But you can bet it won't be all unicorns and rainbows.