A Little Bit of Everything

Politics

Let’s get the heavy stuff out of the way first.

President Obama with Bob & Jani Bergdahl

Very recently the United States negotiated the release of a captured US Soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, the only American POW in Afghanistan. Not all the information is yet available, so it’s not really a good idea to jump to any conclusions about this entire episode, but I feel compelled to at least share my reaction.

Bergdahl was a captive of the Taliban, though reports exist that he originally deserted his post and at one time sought to renounce his US citizenship. The latter is his right, I suppose, should he so desire. The former, however, is a very bad thing. Especially considering that several other soldiers lost their lives searching for Bergdahl. It’s all very tragic.

So the opportunity arose for a deal to free Bowe Bergdahl. A total of five inmates from the Guantanamo Bay facility were traded to the Taliban for Bergdahl’s freedom. Bergdahl’s father, Bob, and mother, Jani, were invited to a Rose Garden press conference. The elder Bergdahl, reports state, began studying radical Islamic philosophy in an effort to understand his son’s captors. He refused to shave or trim his beard in the years after Bowe’s capture. He is reported to have become more liberal in his politics, especially campaigning against the use of drones and the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay. Bob Bergdahl’s recent tweets include “Democracy is a cult in the West” and “I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen!” (this last tweet was deleted).

Once President Obama introduced the Bergdahls, Bob Bergdahl (a native Idahoan) stepped up to the microphone and claimed that he was having a difficult time speaking English. The next words out of his mouth were “bism allah alrahman alraheem.” As far as I can work out, from what little research I can find through the magical power of Google, this phrase is recited at the beginning of each chapter of the Quran (except the ninth chapter) and is often translated as “in the name of god, the most gracious, the most merciful.”

Some talking heads are saying this amounts to an Islamic claim on the White House. I wouldn’t go that far at all, as it seems a bit over-reactive. That said, it doesn’t really sit right with me. Call it a gut instinct if you want to… Imagine the general reaction if an Iranian prisoner was released and the parents of that prisoner went before the Iranian Parliament and saying “We thank God the Father and His son Jesus Christ…” or if they said “Praise be to God, Shalom and Amen.” The reaction would likely be far different.

Again, I’m just sharing my initial reaction. I would really like to think the best of my fellow man, but the last few years have somewhat soured me on the ideal.

Senate Democrats and that Pesky Bill of Rights

Over forty Senate Democrats have joined forces in announcing a plan to craft an amendment that would limit the amount of money any single person, institution, or corporation can give to a political campaign. The problem is the language they are using is so broadly defined that it could eventually topple the First Amendment itself. The proposal is so vague that it could allow the federal government to actually ban all campaign spending period.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke out in favor of this proposal, saying that this is an opportunity for both sides to “work together to change the system, to get this shady money out of our democracy and restore the basic principles of one American, on vote.” That’s all well and good, until one remembers that we are not, nor have we ever been, a “democracy.” For a long time, the word “democracy” was frowned upon, because then it was seen for what it really is: mob rule. A true democracy, if you’ll pardon the cliché, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

In true Harry Reid fashion, the Nevada Democrat pointed the finger of blame at the Koch Brothers. 

Personally, I’m taking this one with a grain of salt, as Reid also listed the Koch Brothers as a primary cause of climate change. I rarely agree with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but he summed it up well in saying that Reid’s attack on the Koch Brothers was a diversion away from how truly awful this proposal is.

The wording of the proposal is deliberately vague, as all things political are in this day and age. The proposal would allow the federal government and the state governments to set limits on how much any one person or group could spend on a campaign. The press would not be restricted in any way by this bill. Of course, the press is largely liberal in their political leanings. It brings to question just who would qualify for exemption as a member of the press.

This proposal would give the government (read: federal) the power to tell an individual just how much they could spend on an issue they support. Now, I’m all for limiting campaign spending, as I hate the idea of a person spending millions of dollars for a job that will only pay them a few hundred thousand. But I don’t want the government telling me what I can and cannot spend. To me, that’s like telling someone they can support any issue they want, but they can only talk about it for five minutes. Once those five minutes are up, they can only support it at the ballot box. No more talking.

Chuck Schumer tells us how Thomas
Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights.

And yes, I believe this would become a strictly federal power. The Constitution has this wonderful clause in it, called the Supremacy Clause, which allows federal law to outrank state law. I can see this topic being brought up on the grounds of the Supremacy Clause and the federal government being able to overrule a state mandate.

New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer weighed in, saying “I think if Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Bill of Rights, were looking down on what's being proposed here, he'd agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” Nice one, Chuck. Oh, one other thing…Jefferson didn’t write the Bill of Rights. James Madison did.

Formula 1 in Canada

Okay, so the heavy lifting is over. Let’s talk about something fun… This weekend Formula 1 rolls into Montreal for the Grand Prix of Canada at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve. This in one of my absolute favorite tracks.

This is pretty much how the Canadian Grand Prix should end...

The Mercedes AMG Petronas factory team is simply dominant this year. No one can touch them. But Canada has a tendency to level the playing field. It’s one of the tightest circuits on the calendar, with little run-off area, meaning little room for error.

Red Bull Renault is in an interesting spot at this point in the season. Daniel Ricciardo, theoretically Driver #2 for the outfit, is basically out-performing his much more successful teammate, Sebastian Vettel, at every turn. But Red Bull is so far behind Mercedes that the RBR team is actually talking about billing Renault for damages. The 1.6-Liter turbocharged V6 engine that Renault manufactures for Red Bull has given the outfit problems, and because they are lagging so in their title defense, it could lead to “lost revenue.”

Anyway, here’s how I think Montreal plays out, in the form of a podium prediction:

First: Lewis Hamilton – Mercedes AMG Petronas
Second: Nico Rosberg – Mercedes AMG Petronas
Third: Daniel Ricciardo – Red Bull Renault