Perhaps the greatest moral equivalence song of all time was written on David Crosby's sail boat off the coast of Florida in 1968. The song is Wooden Ships and its authors were Crosby (music), Steven Stills and Paul Kantner of the Jefferson Airplane (lyrics). The title above is a line from the Jefferson Airplane version. The CSN version is "Say, can I have some of your purple berries". Both versions are great, but I always liked the Jefferson Airplane recording better. Their decidedly less mellow sound fits better the post apocalyptic setting of the song. Here are two links if you wish to compare Jefferson Airplane - Wooden Ships; Crosby, Stills and Nash - Wooden Ships
Putting aside Wikipedia's claim that Stills says the song is about the WWII Holocaust, the song recounts the chance meeting of two individuals each "from the other side" after some kind of nuclear war. It is a "pox on both your houses" world view combined with the fantasy of withdrawing from the problems of the world. "Horror grips us as we watch you die, all we can do is echo your anguished cry, and stare as all your human feelings die, we are leaving, you don't need us". They then "sail away where the wind blows sweet and young birds fly". It is a little bit like Ron Paul meets Barack Obama.
So what gets me thinking about Wooden Ships? I saw this youtube clip by Thaddeus McCotter, Republican Chair of the Policy Committee in the House of Representatives, after the president unilaterally agreed with Russia and withdrew support for long range missile defense in Poland. It does not matter that defense secretary Gates says our ability to defend has not been compromised. If that is the case, why was Russia so adamant on its removal? Further, what did the US get in return? Nothing.
Worse than Obama's speech at the UN was the spectacle of him chairing the UN's Security Council meeting on nuclear disarmament. He is the first president to have ever chaired a council meeting. I find it fitting. The "Talkin' Dude" who is our president is perfectly suited to lead such meaningless meetings. When he finally leaves his post as president, he will make more money on speaking tours than any single individual ever.
The Obama led committee approved a resolution expressing "grave concern about the nuclear proliferation threat and urg[ed] action to prevent it". As a fan of dark comedies (like Tarantino flicks, Elmore Leonard novels and shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad) I promise I laughed out loud writing that sentence.To add to my humorous day, the world discovered, just one day after that ludicrous UN council resolution, that Iran has a second Nuke plant. What a hassle. Can't we all just "sail away where we might laugh again"? How can a US president lower himself to such demeaning and useless activities? Is Ahmadinejhad going to change his world view? Will Putin change? When push came to shove, Obama has already sided with both these tyrants against freedom. Yet he speaks as if he is leading a new global moral movement.
Barack Obama is all talk and no action. Or, as they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle". Sometimes this is good for America. Rather than really working with his own party in Congress to pass health care legislation, he prefers what he imagines to be a direct appeal to the American people. The more he talks, the more people do not change their mind, thus decreasing the odds of legislation passing. Other times it is a mix of good and bad. His ludicrous crowing at the UN about closing Guantanamo is an example. He thinks signing some sheet of paper is the same as it actually happening. So this is good for America because we still engage in rendition and have not closed the base. But it is bad in that he shows the world our president hasn't a clue.
Other times it is unambiguously bad. The left used to brag that Obama was not against all wars, only "dumb" wars (to match the "dumb" G.W.Bush). Obama, of course, has always been for "smart wars", like Afghanistan. As he said in March, “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future". Unless of course it requires more troops. His response to Letterman on this question was priceless: "I am going to be asking some tough questions". I am laughing again.
But as McCotter says, Obama is presiding over the "firesale of American Security" and it is no laughing matter.