I have developed an annoying habit of answering other people’s rhetorical questions. It must be because I’ve spent too much time alone, but I’ve thought through many of those “why is the sky blue” questions until I’ve reached some answers that are at least plausible. But I’m stumped about a “what are they thinking?” question torn from the headlines. Our president playing host to the Dalai Lama is befuddling, given the consternation it causes in China, but a certain tone-deaf charm is what we’ve come to expect from our cowboy in the White House. Let’s hope the Chinese allow us to continue confusing them with the Japanese, who are polite to a fault and a relatively small country, so when they were investing heavily in American infrastructure, it never really hurt us. But beyond China (and the White House), why choose now to defend the 1915 Armenians, against the best friend we have in the morass that is Iraq? The Turks are offended not by the action so much as the timing. And it’s the Dems who are doing it, now of all times. Anybody have a clue why?
* * *
One of these four ideas will be developed into a column on Wednesday to be published in The Register-Guard on Friday. I’m asking you to help me choose between them. Between now and the end of Tuesday, leave comments here or send me an e-mail if you’d rather be more private. Or, at the very least, RATE the idea (and the others) so I know which one people like best. No promises, though. This ain’t American Idol. But I will post an entry on Wednesday to say which one I’m choosing (and probably why.) I plan to do this each week — often by Friday, but always by Monday, so visit often and tell me which idea intrigues you the most. Thanks!
Tags: 1 Comment
1 response so far ↓
Nancy Pelosi wants to sabotage “Bush’s War” in Iraq. Since she hasn’t gotten her way directly in Congress, she scores a “twofer”, by pandering to the Armenian vote and pissing off the Turks, by pushing this resolution at this time. Like all bureaucrats, her behavior, and that of her fellow travelers, can best be explained by looking at the “inside game” payoffs she acheives, rather than trying to rationally make sense of the foreign policy implications.