The Snarky Files - Euripides' Views on the Week (April 1)

The Statue of Liberty. Will it be the next on the list of things Obama sends back?

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

No Thanks
You probably heard the news of how President Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordan Brown a set of 25 movies on DVD as a welcome present. And, as a further insult, the DVDs were viewable only in the US. Brown, even if he had wanted to watch a bunch of movies on DVD, couldn't view them at all on his player in England. That faux pas is tacky by anyone's standards. For the president of the US to offer such a gift is downright insulting. Yet, to add insult to injury, Obama decided to send back to England a loaned bust of Winston Churchill. When British officials suggested he could keep it for four more years he replied, "Thanks, but no thanks." What a masterful example of foreign diplomacy! What's next, Mr. President? Will you give the Statue of Liberty back to the French because it no longer represents US ideals? Thanks, but no thanks.

Promoting the General Welfare
Obama announced some while ago that he would close Gitmo and release the "detainees" (doublespeak for "terrorists"). Of course, we must pose the obvious question: What will the US would do with the terrorists, once released? Well, I suppose that an administration that doesn't see a downside to illegal aliens in the US and blames the drug cartel wars at the Mexican border on a lack of gun control laws in the US, such an administration could actually come up with the idea of releasing terrorists into the US and giving them welfare to help them reintigrate back into society. Keep in mind that Obama's is also an administration that doesn't "torture" the prisoners (like the evil Bushites did) but rather has "enhanced interrogation techniques." Ah, yes. Of course. "Enhanced interrogation techniques." Not torture. Yes. Of course.

Resigned
As if two giganormous spending packages weren't enough, Obama also invented a new power of the president - the CEO-in-chief. Last week, Obama asked Rick Wagoner, Chair and CEO of General Motors, to resign. What's more, Wagoner agreed (perhaps persuaded by a $20 million retirement package). You know, it doesn't bother me that CEOs get millions of dollars if they perform for the stockholders and the companies, just as it doesn't bother me that an athlete or an actor gets paid millions of dollars for entertaining us, if they perform well. Wagoner did not indeed perform well for GM and doesn't deserve such money. Yet, the real despicable act is Obama ousting the CEO of a private business. This is a wee bit too socialist for my conservative bones. Another problem now arises in Obama's interference with Wagoner's replacement. I understand that Obama met with Dmitri Medvedev, president of Russia, to ask him to take the spot since Medvedev is familiar with heavy handed government intervention and nationalized industry.

Leaving on a Jet Plane
Obama left this past Tuesday on a whirlwind tour to meet with various European heads of state. (Perhaps to give them gifts of DVDs as well, or maybe even give England's queen an iPod. Too far fetched? I don't think so.) I consider the time Obama spends outside of the US to be a good thing. As Will Rogers once said: "The taxpayers are sending congressmen on expensive trips abroad. It might be worth it except they keep coming back!" That goes for presidents as well. (Come on you Democrats! Don't you wish Bush had just skipped town?)

Socialized
Meanwhile, Congress is doing its part to follow the party line Obama's policies. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has approved in committee the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009." Not satisfied with the dangerous trend of the president of the US telling the CEO of a private business to resign, Frank wants to also control all of the money that companies pay their employees. Can you say redistribution of wealth? Can you say socialism? Can you say the end of capitalism? Sure I knew you could.

Banned
In a move that pits school administration against common sense, a Milford, Connecticut middle school principal has banned physical contact of any kind from her campus. Because of a "violent incident" (doublespeak for "a fight") students may no longer touch each other in any way. "Physical contact is prohibited to keep all students safe in the learning environment," Principal Catherine Williams wrote in a letter to the parents. I'm sure the children feel safer with such a draconian pronouncement. The question remains, however, who will protect the children from their principal?