presidential greatness, the war on drugs, and Carl's Jr. chili dogs

I was reading an editorial by Thomas Friedman today. The gist of it being that every great president has overcome a large challenge. With the economic woes we are having, he asserts that Obama will have his shot at greatness. Of course, he can also be vilified I suppose.

Being a Taoist, I have to read such things and dismiss this as foolish. Allow me paraphrase and 'modernize' a parable that I've read. A prominent, physician, a cardiothoracic surgeon at a major teaching hospital, performed a pioneering procedure that saved the life of a critically ill patient. It was a marathon effort involing a large team of medical professionals and took the better part of a day. Soon thereafter, the governor of the state he lived in heard of his exploits. A special day was declared in the legislature. The lawmakers wished to send large amounts of money to continue his work. Finally an elaborate dinner ceremony with the good doctor as the guest of honor was arranged. The doctor not only declined the dinner ceremony, but asked that it be cancelled. He did ask to appear before the lawmakers to discuss what should happen with the money.

The day arrived for him to speak to the lawmakers. He explained that he was the youngest of three brothers. All of them were doctors. He explained how his middle brother was very good at diagnosing problems in patients while the problems were still small. He had prevented many people from becoming very sick. As such, he was only known as one the better physicians in his county. His oldest brother was able to diagnose problems before they even happened (i.e. preventative medicine) and had prevented an equal number of people from ever getting sick. As such, he wasn't recognized as being any good. The younger brother explained that he was not the greatest physician, rather it was his oldest brother. That is where the money should go towards. Preventing things before they happen. Where the most benefit can be realized for the least amount of money.

So what is my point? When we ask for the greatest presidents we hear Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt etc. Undeniably they presided over some of the darkest times in our country's history. My assertion is greatness is not necessarily found in overcoming mountains, but in stopping things and changing course while it is a molehill. The greatest President would therefore be one who presided over a calm, prosperous period devoid of strife, corruption, or international intrigue.

If Lincoln were "great" he would have been able to defuse Southern secession and put an end to slavery (as had the rest of the Western world at that time). If Lincoln were a "good" President he would have ended the war quickly to prevent the wholesale destruction of the South as well as a per capita casualty count that made all other wars this country has fought in look tame by comparison. Nope, Lincoln was a so-so President that gutted it out. I could make similar arguments against Washington and Roosevelt. The one major difference with Roosevelt being he inherited a huge damn economic mess from a Republican administration. Sound familiar? However, he should have started playing rough with the Fascists starting in '36 and '37. It's what a "great" president would have done.

I'm going to keep my comments about the war on drugs brief. Far all I know I might have discussed it earlier. Certain 'illegal' drugs need to be made legal or at least decriminalized. We as a nation need to have a rational examination about what drugs do and don't do. What is safe, what is not. What is safe to produce, distribute, etc. and what is not. What are the effects of long-term use? Casual use? Heavy use? And have it done by scientists that are armed with data. What we have is elected officials that still believe that only black jazz musicians smoke marijuana and that hippies are jumping off of cliffs, believing they can fly, after taking LSD. After they work themselves into a puritanical frenzy they go home and take some Xanax.

Ask yourself, what is more dangerous alcohol or marijuana? Before you answer, look up the LD50's on each.

People throughout history have always wanted to get high. Criminalizing it is new to the last 100 years or so. We have spent untold billions on the war on drugs. We've lost.

Finally, CJ's chili dogs. In a word........"DON"T".

Motivational Phrases

So I'm eating a can of Beefaroni this morning and reading yesterday's paper. On the cover of Parade is Liza Minelli. The combination of Beefaroni and Liza Minelli should have been enough to have me going for some more of the same promethazine I took last Friday (see previous blog). But since I am a glutton for punishment, I found the article and started reading. I got one sentence in and had had enough.

It started something to the effect, "If you got one foot in yesterday and one foot in tomorrow, you aren't living for today". Nice sentiment Liza. I suppose that gives validation to those of your ilk that are impulsive and do whatever they feel like doing today with no regard for tomorrow.......or the past. But I'm going to stick with you analogy Liza. If one of my legs is in yesterday and one is in tomorrow that leaves my 'third leg' in today. That's exactly how I should think. Of course with your picture staring back at me it's pretty much impossible.

There's a whole slew of motivational phrases out there, many of them contradictory or just plain stupid. There is a company called 'Despair' that has a line of products that spoofs just such phrases. I have had calendars from them for the past three years. Check out their website at despair.com and I think you'll agree.

Ms. Minelli's little acorn of wisdom notwithstanding, the phrase I most loathe is "It's better to aim for the stars and miss, than aim for the mud and hit it". There's one thing I find wrong and even offensive about this one. Those of us who have more realistic goals bristle at the notion that they are aiming for the mud. Perhaps we could have NASA retool this phrase. You have to have sub-orbital missions, then orbital, before you attempt the moon. Why, because it is highly unlikely you will make the moon in one shot and billions will be wasted and the lives of the crew will be sacrificed. Of course, people that adhere to the always shoot for the stars philosophy probably wouldn't understand what I just wrote. So keep aiming for the starts children!

As a reference back to the previous blog. Apparently the last part of "The Wrestler" features Mickey Rourke going up against his former arch-nemesis called "The Ayotollah". In the movie he was a guy named Bob who owned a car dealership in Arizona. The reason I dredged this up again, is because there are some Hollywood types visiting Iran this week. And the Iranian government used it as an opportunity to rail against the portrayal of Iranians in movies. They didn't like the stereotypes in "the Wrestler". I suppose someone hadn't explained professional wrestling to these morons. It is a passion play FOR morons. It is about nothing but sterotypes. And this Bob guy probably wasn't named Rafsanjani.

The Iranian government also objected to Persian portrayal in the movie '300'. The Greeks were pious family men, while the Persians were oversexed degenerates. (The few Greeks and Persians I know are all relatively pious family men and women. Including one of the single pharmacists I work with that should try a little sexual debauchery before he marries). Fair enough I suppose, except this happened over 2000 years ago. It would be like me objecting to the portrayal of the Swiss in 'Gladiator'. My Aunt Babetta, if she were still alive, would correctly point out that those filthy barbarians were either Germans or Austrians. Not Swiss.