The Lipo-Pod

What Phil Gram said last week about us becoming a nation of whiners was cruel and unfair, but partially true. It is utterly insensitive to dismiss someone who has just lost their job and is about to lose their house as a “whiner”. Yet the whining about skyrocketing food and energy costs has reached a crescendo recently, even as we continue to consume vastly more than we need and to disdain any sort of conservation or abstinence.

This sort of whining invokes the image of someone obese standing at the buffet in a Vegas hotel, his plate piled high with meat and potatoes and complaining because “they” just ran out of the lobster Newberg. We Americans have been spoiled. A fleeting glance at history will prove that we have been spared much of the misery visited upon less fortunate regions of the world in the last century.

Indeed we have long taken it for granted that we have a God-given right to guns, gargantuan fuel sucking, hydro-carbon emitting vehicles, cheap food and gas, the right to vote and many other luxuries and privileges that most people in the world could either not comprehend or could only dream about. Many Americans seem to resent the fact that lesser developed countries are growing rich and now boast of a burgeoning middle class.

In years past the protocol was to arrive on Ellis Island, change your name, take the pledge of allegiance, then move into a ghetto on the lower east side of Manhattan and hope that your grandchildren might ultimately crawl their way up into the middle class. With their economies booming, in large part because of our insatiable appetite for their exports, people in India and China want a better life. These people now expect their turn at the buffet.

The process of buying a new car in China these days is an almost sacred ritual; one that confirms or validates upward social mobility. We Americans look on and begrudge these people their success. Pradeep Mehta, the secretary general of an independent research institute based in New Delhi observed back in May that if Americans all went on a diet and attained the same weight as middle class Indians the massive amount of food saved would feed many starving people in Africa.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/worldbusiness/14food.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Americans%20and%20liposuction&st=cse&oref=slogin)

He further observed that the amount of money Americans spend every year on liposuction would be enough to provide food to starving people around the world. He is probably right. Of course one of the main reasons commodity prices have increased as much as they have in the last year or 2 is precisely because of the emerging middle class in countries such as India and China.

There is no crime or greed in this; it is an ineluctable trend. And if the pace of change and development endures, then I am sure there will be billions of Rupees and Renminbi spent on liposuction in the years ahead. We are all human, after all. In the meantime we Americans will just have to suffer the slings and arrows from a world that does not pity our current economic plight.

I would add to Pradeep Mehta’s comments that if the average American adult male weighed 185 lbs. and the average adult female weighed 130 lbs. the airlines would save billions of dollars a year in jet fuel. In his blog, Infectious Greed (dated July 14), Paul Kedrosky revealed an illuminating set of statistics and estimates from an ATA document that would support this hypothesis:

§ One airline saved over 17 gallons/year per pound of weight per airplane after shedding in-flight phones, ovens, excess potable water, and some galley equipment on an older fleet

§ In removing seat back phones from its MD-80s and B737-400s, another airline shed 200 pounds per airplane, translating into 3,400+ gallons saved annually

§ Alaska Airlines indicated in March 2004 that removing just five magazines per aircraft could save $10,000 per year in fuel; also, the airline has reduced the weight of catering supplies

§ Air Canada considered stripping primer and paint from its 767s to save 360 lbs. per plane

§ JetBlue and US Airways and others have moved toward a paperless cockpit

§ By removing six seats, JetBlue reduced A320 weight by approximately 904 pounds

§ Airlines have been able to remove ovens, trash compactors, or even entire galleys, due to the elimination of hot meals on selected flights; others are using lighter seats; they have also removed magazine racks and replaced hard cabin dividers with curtains

§ AirTran ordered carbon fiber Recaro seats for its 737-700s to shave 19.4 pounds per row, resulting in estimated fuel savings of $2,000 per year per aircraft

§ Alaska’s new beverage cart, at 20 lbs. lighter, could save $500,000 in annual fuel costs

§ Some airlines flush lavatories during extended ground delays to minimize takeoff weight

(http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/07/14/the_slimfast_di.html)

So if the airlines could save billions of dollars in jet fuel by resorting to these measures, just imagine how much could be saved if America shed a few million lbs. of fat. CNBC revealed today that 25% of Americans are obese; not fat or just overweight, but excessively fat. That means some 75 million Americans are obese. Of the remaining 225 million let’s assume that a further 25% are fat and need to knock off about 20 lbs; undoubtedly a conservative assumption.

That‘s 56 million Americans; now assume that in this combined mass of 131 million Americans each needed to lose 35 lbs. (another conservative estimate). This would mean a staggering figure of 4.5 billion lbs. of fat, or nearly 2.3 million tons. The maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 747-400ER is 910,000 lbs, or 455 tons; just to put this into perspective. The other night a friend of mine and I were at a late night “happy hour” at Ruth’s Chris here in Seattle.

Seated next to us were 5 of the largest women I had seen in years; and I am being kind in describing them as "large". They must have averaged 240 lbs a piece, with one or two weighing in at nearly 300 lbs. And as you might imagine, they were slurping Cosmopolitans and gorging themselves on steak sandwiches, crab cakes and all manner of high fat foods. It was enough to make me lose my appetite. Imagine being seated next to one of these ladies- or Heaven forbid! In between two of them on a flight.

We have all seen those small metal racks at the airport designed to check that your “carry-on” luggage is within the acceptable metrics. So why not have an economy class seat placed right in front of the check-in counter to insure passengers do not take up more than their fair share of space? If a passenger flying coach is too fat to fit into the seat so as not to invade the space of the passengers sitting beside him, he is given 3 options: 1) pay for 2 seats 2) pay for an upgrade or 3) go home and go on a diet. How about this for a solution?

If we are unable to trim down to size of the average, middle class Indian man or woman someone should devise a way to take all that excess fat from liposuction and burn it as fuel. It is revolting to contemplate, but then again we use manure to fertilize our pastures; why not burn body fat to power our vehicles? I have even come up with a name for this kind of eco-car: the Lipo-pod! Or perhaps the i-Cannot-Believe-I-Used-To-Weigh-That-Much.

Today, the Yankee ethos of modesty and taking only what you need survives only in small pockets here in the USA. Get over it America. We have had our turn at the buffet. We need to go on a diet. And perhaps the tough economic times that almost certainly lie ahead will provide us with an opportunity.

Sky Mall

Flying in the USA is more ordeal and odyssey now than it once was back in the heady days of jet airplanes; understatement of the year, right? Few remember the smoke-filled cabins of the "jet age"; the nattily dressed stewardesses who wore white gloves and pill box hats, and called you "sir" and "ma'am"; who took your coats and hats and helped you with your carry-on luggage, no matter which class you were flying; and who couldn't imagine that one day they would need plastic handcuffs and pepper spray to restrain obstreperous passengers.

"Flying USA" (as opposed to "Surfing USA") has changed immensely in only the last 7 years thanks to Al Qaeda. Yet the joy of flying in America began to erode as far back as the late 1960's and early 1970's, due in large part to hijackers, to the first and second oil "shocks" and ultimately to airline deregulation in 1978. It is sad when I realize that one of the few pleasures left to us weary airline passengers- especially those of us flying coach is reading the Sky Mall magazine, tucked into the "...seat pocket in front of you."

I admit- I might be speaking only for myself and a few other closet Sky Mall fans, but everyone has secret fetishes. I think? Besides there is not much joy to be had in reading the in-flight magazines these days. So before I start reading Vanity Fair, the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times I have to get the Sky Mall magazine out of the way. Why? Because I love to see what utterly useless crap people have invented.

Many of these inventions have some purpose, and I confess that I have been tempted to buy a few things from the magazine over the years. My favorite "thing" for sale in Sky Mall is the Auto Buddy; an innovation so dazzling in concept it reminds me of the famous quotation attributed to Charles Duell, the head of the US patent office in 1899: "Everything that can be invented- has already been invented". Poor Mr. Duell.

He had not the imagination to conceive of rocket ships, "Wankel" rotary engines, microprocessors, submarines, plastic surgery, penicillin, nuclear power plants and the countless other inventions created and patents granted since 1899; to say nothing of the Auto Buddy and all the other crap for sale in Sky Mall. In case your imagination fails you, as it clearly did Mr. Duell the Auto Buddy is a “doll” (inflatable, per chance?) for want of a better term that resembles a burly, lumberjack.

"Why would I want one?" you might ask. "Because you don't have one!", the salesman would reply. He is designed to sit in the passenger seat of your car, and appear like a muscular, ill-tempered accomplice for the sole purpose of repelling bad guys that might take advantage of a lone driver when stopped at a light. To be fair, I can see how this sort of comfort doll might dissuade a would-be attacker late at night in one of the more dangerous neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

I just wonder if some might be tempted to bring Auto Buddy back inside the house with them, seat him at the dinner table or in front of the TV. I really tried, but the only new “thing” I could conceive of for the Sky Mall inventory is a custom built rack, or storage device made to fit everything for sale in the Sky Mall magazine. The Auto Buddy, of course would reside either in the car, or somewhere inside the house. But we won't go "there".

The Dreaded Bali Dog

Someone once said, “Call someplace paradise, then kiss it goodbye.” This is a line from a Don Henley song, but wonder if it hasn't been said before. I disagree, but understand the message. Indeed, Bali is the best example of places I have visited where the authorities have managed to contain the depredations of rampant tourism and preserve the island's fragile, beautiful culture.

Bali is almost always referred to as “paradise” by tourist / travel agencies, travel guidebooks as well as by the Balinese themselves. In many ways, Bali does fit the idyllic profile of a "Shangril-a": the beaches are quite beautiful. The people are gentle, friendly and absolutely devoted to their spirituality. The women are, by in large, feminine and lovely in their brightly colored sarongs. The rice fields and terraces are arguably among the most beautiful in Asia.

Of course the almost never-ending temple festivals and richly diverse dance performances are, for me, one of the high points of visiting Bali. One could go on and on, waxing lyrical about the sublime vistas of volcanoes and palm-fringed lagoons, but you get the idea. This is not to suggest that the ravages of development and years of tourism (about 1 million tourists visit this small island every year!) haven’t taken their toll. My first visit to Bali was in February of 1985.

I spent the first few days in the ghetto of Kuta Beach; a Sodom and Gomorrah place renowned for its bacchanals; a place where Australians go "to do and to be undone", to drink themselves half to death and to destroy themselves on surfboards. Think of Kuta as the Cancun of the East Indies. Yet I found the rest of the island pristine. Over the past 23 years development and tourism have had an obvious impact. Yet these modern encroachments are limited to the southern-most part of Bali.

One especially nasty feature of Bali- one that has nothing to do with tourism, and one that offers a strange counterpoint to Bali as "paradise" is the ubiquitous Bali dog. Imagine, if you can, a hybrid between the common wharf rat and the mangiest dog you have ever seen; their color ranging from a mottled brown, to a dirty gray to a spotty white- or a combination of all 3. I remember them well from my first visit to Bali; roaming the streets of Kuta in packs, occasionally snapping at your trouser legs, or your bare ankles, looking rabid and malevolent.

Every household in the countryside has at least one of these chimerical beasts that act as guard dogs; very effective, I am sure. Cerberus comes to mind. You see these creatures mostly lying down in the middle of the roads, the very paradigm of lethargy; or skulking around menacingly, the females with pendulous teats swaying, indicating that they have young out there somewhere waiting their turn. As you approach them in your car they get up and move almost at the last instant before impact, as if they are reluctantly doing you some huge favor (like sparing you the task of sponging their remains off your fender).

You also see them rummaging through trash heaps, sometimes chomping on such delicacies as small packages of tomato ketchup. You almost pity them until you realize that they are, for the most part, well looked after in spite of their wretched appearance. And any shred of pity vanishes once you surprise one on a dark street, trying to protect their “dinner”, little plot of land, pups or whatever. Perhaps one of the most fantastic Balinese mythological characters, one that figures prominently in their legends and dance performances is the witch,

She’s really quite something to behold, with her bulging eyes, insanely long, crooked teeth, lolling tongue, horrifying mane of filthy hair, with her necklace of human entrails and appetite for eating children. The only way of rendering her even more ghastly would be if she were depicted walking one of these Bali dogs. Watch out for them, when in Bali.

The So-Called 'History Channel'

THE HISTORY CHANNEL

A while ago I read a comment by a concerned viewer on the History Channel website that began, “Where is the ‘history’ in the History Channel?” I have wondered about this for some time. I used to be a huge fan of the History Channel, even when it was known informally as the “Hitler Channel”, due to all the WWII documentaries they aired. And as fascinated as I am with WWII, even I had to admit that some of the documentaries the History Channel aired on this subject were a bit fatuous: “Hitler’s Children”, “Hitler and the Occult”, “Would Hitler Have ‘Done Vegas’?” and so forth.

But wow! Has the History Channel departed from its ostensible mission statement! Whereas before you could count the number of documentaries on the channel which were of dubious historical value (or had nothing whatsoever to do with “history”), now you can count those that are of genuine historical value. A glance at a TV guide or program for the History Channel will validate this in an instant. For instance, among the programs airing these days on the History Channel are:

Modern Marvels. The very name of this program suggests it is not about history. And the word “disaster” appears in almost every Modern Marvel program title.

The Works. This program is about garbage disposal and following New York City’s garbage to its final destination in a landfill. Perhaps there should be a Garbage Channel? I never knew there was a demand for this kind of programming.

Ice Road Truckers. Now here we have history in all its scholarly glory. This is of course a program detailing the perils these “extreme” truck drivers experience traversing the arctic tundra in the depths of winter. I can see the programming value in this, because some of these stories are bound to be pretty hairy / interesting; but what is it doing on the History Channel?

America Eats. This program is about the history of chocolate, and would be more appropriate for the Food Channel; but yes, I agree- even chocolate has a ‘history’.

Monster Quest. This program is about the search for mutant animals and mythical creatures. Today’s offering? “Super Rats”; a program where experts report that mutant rats are getting bigger and more dangerous and have appetites for just about anything- including human flesh: the “Rat Channel”, maybe?

Ax Men. This is a program about logging. No history here.

UFO Files. This program is about UFOs. Here the program directors don’t even bother to try and work “The History of…” into the title.

Everything has a history. You could make a documentary about the history of: hardware, radial tires, power lines, cotton candy, thong underwear, hypodermic needles, bee hives, pie tins, shopping carts, key rings, paint…the list is endless. And you can be sure; the people in charge of programming at the History Channel might just stoop to air it. As absurd as this may seem, I have seen some of these titles in History Channel guides, impelling me to check to be sure I had the right channel.

I am beginning to wonder if the people in charge of programming at the History Channel scour the market for cheap documentaries about anything, then slap on “The History of” to the original title and presto! They have a program they can air. To be fair, the History Channel does offer programs that are about history- and not just about WWII and Hitler; though many of these tend to be somewhat histrionic reenactments featuring 3rd rate players. I just wish they would air more “intelligent” programming and cut the more ridiculous ones.

Given the treasure trove of documentary material “out there” I would like to see more programs on Vietnam, WWI, the Korean War, the Great Depression, the Napoleonic Wars, the Renaissance and the Reformation. Documentaries about countries and cultures that have suddenly become mainstream news: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, China, India, Brazil would be relevant. They could also focus on the history or major technology, such as the internet, microprocessors, and the “Space Race”.

One of the best documentaries I have ever seen is called “The Prize”, based on the Pulitzer Prize award winning book by Daniel Yergin of the same name. It is a sweeping history of the oil business from the days before John D. Rockefeller through Gulf War 1. It is dazzling- the scholarship that went into researching and producing the series, the photography, the music and the narration are all 1st class. Yet for some strange reason this documentary series is not available on DVD today and The Prize on VHS tapes sells for hundreds of dollars on Amazon and eBay.

Why couldn't the History Channel look into getting programming like this? I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of Nielsen ratings, but I rather suspect that the History Channel is now “dumbing down” their programming to appeal to the “slack-jawed troglodytes” out there (to borrow the phrase from the Simpson’s Monty Burns) to keep their advertisers happy. Programs featuring endless car chases, big explosions, acts of random violence and sex have far more mob appeal than programs that offer real historical information and analysis.

Picture the seething throng disgorged from the Coliseum in ancient Rome after a particularly sanguinary afternoon of sport; 2,000 years may separate us from them, but all it takes is a car crash or an air disaster to bring out the worst in us. So if the History Channel has abandoned the idea of showing us real historical documentaries, and is simply pan handling to the sponsors and the "slack-jawed troglodytes"- well then I freely admit to being naive, and deplore the sad decline of the History Channel.

CNN: What happened!!!???

CNN

I remember CNN in its infancy. I recall CNN’s early days with some measure of nostalgia. I, along with millions of other cable TV viewers, was mesmerized by the slick, 24 hour coverage and the seeming ubiquity of CNN correspondents. For me, the defining moment for the network was when the space shuttle, Challenger, exploded shortly after takeoff in January, 1986. I rushed home from work to watch in horror as the shuttle blew apart.

For some strange reason I needed to see it to make sure that something so ghastly had actually happened. Another milestone: CNN’s coverage of the stock market crash in October 1987 set new standards for professionalism in TV journalism. And when I was traveling overseas, returning to my hotel room in the evenings to relax involved a shower, a cocktail and watching CNN cover world events. Even the venerable BBC’s cable TV news coverage was a pale carbon copy of CNN's.

I was an addict. So what happened? The CNN of today is a very different news channel than it was when it began broadcasting. Indeed it is quite different (and I do not mean “better”) than it was only 5 or 10 years ago. CNN is often accused of having a liberal, or left wing bias. This does not bother me, 1) because the bias is hardly perceptible and 2) they have made efforts to balance their presentation of the news, with equal opportunity given to liberals and conservatives.

Contrast this with the Bill O’Reilly “propaganda” factor, and Fox News in general and CNN emerges as a paragon of omniscience and objectivity. What troubles me most about the CNN of today, however, is that the network has shifted from reporting the news to producing the news. I recognize that CNN is not alone in this, but I had held them- perhaps naively, to higher standards. There is no better evidence of this shift than the latter day Max Headroom character CNN has created in Anderson Cooper.

Gone is the staid, composed, conservative David Brinkley, Roger Grimsby and of course Walter Cronkite treatment of the news. CNN’s new heavyweight of their cable news scene actually appears a lightweight- pretty, stylish and "oh!" so earnest. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Cooper’s journalism. He is a professional. Yet CNN is promoting him and his show, “AC 360” (trendy, trendy, trendy), as if it were a movie feature, or new reality TV show- with Mr. Cooper as the matinee idol.

All you need do is watch the ads that CNN runs throughout the day to validate this statement. And to give Mr. Cooper gravitas, CNN sends him to Iraq, when they already have one of the most polished, capable war correspondents in the world over there- Nic Robertson. So what value is Anderson adding to the war zone coverage? Not much. But he does look so dashing in his carefully studied, rehearsed poses and entreaties to watch his show (no longer "report" or "segment").

These are meant to appear candid. They fall flat. A few weeks ago CNN ran a program that featured Mr. Cooper and his “sidekick”, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, venturing off into the wilds of Africa to save the world from deadly diseases. That was the way CNN promoted the program; that Messrs. Cooper and Gupta were off to, “…..to save the world…” Why not give them tiny, black “Green Hornet” masks and little capes? I cannot wait for the comic book, “The Amazing Adventures of Anderson Cooper!" or the feature film / reality TV show of the same name.

The producers of 360 are clearly “dumbing down” the news when they air the “joke of the day” on 360: tonight’s “joke” was a photo of Prince Harry (or was it William?) flashing a strange hand sign at his audience / the cameras at a polo match. CNN’s stab at what it signified? It was the prince’s new gang sign. Was that supposed to be funny? And if it was, has CNN stooped so low that they feel impelled to do jokes to win over an audience? What’s next? Cheap parlor tricks?

Well if you are into that, then you probably see nothing wrong with Anderson and his comely female accomplice trading cute one-liners at the end of a segment- with him being faux witty, and she being so coquettish. If this is professional TV journalism, then I am a coconut! It is as if CNN is playing to the 8 year olds out in TV land. Aside from CNN’s "creation" of the Anderson Cooper icon, the other things that really bother me about CNN are, in no particular order:

1) The obsessive coverage of disasters: as long as there are flames, smoke, explosions, mass death, plane crashes and “acts of God” they have “Breaking News” for us. CNN seems especially fascinated by force majeure events such as hurricanes, tornados and wild fires. To be sure, other networks indulge in the same vaudevillian antics (correspondents clinging to lamp posts, running from dumpsters to mailboxes to see if it can be done and speculating on how long that Shell station sign will last before being blown away) during hurricanes. But CNN gets first prize for conspicuous lunacy in this category.

2) Lou Dobbs. He was once a peerless journalist and CNN’s best financial news correspondent. Now he is a 1 issue demagogue. If I hear him say “illegal immigration” or “our broken borders” or “outsourcing America” one more time I may throw something at the TV. My ears bleed.

3) Nancy Grace: arguably the best female impersonator on TV today. Her specialty, in case you have never had the chance to watch her in action on CNN’s “Headline News” channel, is covering murders, rapes, kidnappings and all manner of sordid, beastly acts in lurid detail. Her tone is nothing if not shrill. Every man involved in an alleged rape, murder of kidnapping is treated / portrayed as “guilty until proven innocent”. My idea of Hell is not me being prosecuted by Nancy Grace- but having her as my companion in an afterlife.

Admittedly CNN, and any media channel or network that depends heavily upon advertizing revenue, are only playing what we “slack-jawed troglodytes” (to borrow a phrase from The Simpson’s Monty Burns) want to see. I hate to state this, let along accept it but let’s face it- playing to the lowest common denominator is highly profitable. Which would “we” rather see on CNN: coverage of the death of Princess Diana, or the death of Mother Theresa?

They died within 1 week of each other. Mother Theresa devoted her life to humanitarian causes; to working with the poor, the sick, the diseased and the downtrodden. Princess Diana was a celebrated patron of charities and to her eternal credit did much for humanitarian causes. Yet in terms of “yield” or accomplishment Mother Theresa’s life work eclipses that of Diana’s, mostly because she had a 30 year head start (Mother Theresa became a missionary at 18 and arrived in India to begin her life’s work in 1929- 32 years before Diana’s birth).

Yet to paraphrase one cynical observer: Diana was a royal, she was a princess, she was glamorous, lead a jet set life, was a controversial figure and most of all, was a “babe”. As beautiful a spirit as Mother Theresa was, she would never have made the cover of Vogue, or osmopolitan. But I digress. It is true that CNN and other news channels will respond to what “we” really want to see, just as Detroit will oblige “us” and manufacture the steel, gas-guzzling monstrosities that “we” want to drive (until "the market" will ultimately save us from our own profligacy).

Too bad, but helicopters hovering above an overturned school bus with no sign of fire, smoke or casualties are infinitely more spellbinding than an interview with the foreign minister of Iran. I am just sad to see the advertisers and the "slack-jawed troglodytes" prevail, CNN sell out and in so doing, become just another gaggle of talking heads trying to get our attention with non-stop “breaking news”.

July 6, 2008

Mr. Obama

OBAMA AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST

Obama supporters: be advised. The following may upset you. I dislike Mr. Obama’s arrogance- not in that he dares run for president. I have found him to be arrogant, lofty and complacent. In spite of the blessing conferred upon Mr. Obama by Caroline Kennedy, he has none of the charm and charisma of JFK. I am also tired of liberal Democrats invoke the sacred memory of the former president, and cloak themselves in the mantle of JFK. Clinton did it. Kerry did it (ad nauseum) and now we have Obama doing it.

This just in from CNN: Barack Obama plans to take a page from the JFK political play book and have a Cecil B. de Mille ceremony for his acceptance speech near the end of the Democratic National Convention (Monday, July 07, 2008). I understand inspiration and the potent, seductive nostalgia for the Camelot era but please! Be your own man! Create your own era. Don’t borrow so shamelessly. It is troubling to think that so many people are lining up behind Barack Obama for president, because he is black.

I am completely opposed to voting for or against anyone because of race, religion, gender or sexual persuasion- especially when the office in question is Oval, and especially when the stakes have rarely if ever been higher for us as a nation. Of course many of Hillary’s supporters were lining up behind her, because she is a woman. We have never had a woman president. We have never had a black president. We have never had a transvestite as president, but I would refuse to vote for one empowered by the fact that, “We have never had a transvestite as president.”

I say that if the most competent, qualified person running for president happens to be an elderly black, Jewish woman- vote for her! I would do so with great enthusiasm. But we are not “collecting” interesting, diverse people for some sort of political menagerie. In the case of Mr. Obama, he was elected to the US senate in 2004, and started serving his term in Washington in January of 2005. We now know that 2007 was pretty much a write off, as far as experience in the Senate chamber is concerned, because Mr. Obama was focusing on his bid for the Democratic nomination.

One has to wonder about how focused he was on his senatorial duties as far back as 2006, as well. So in terms of executive experience, at the federal level Mr. Obama is a light weight. This does not render the 7 years he spent in the Illinois state legislature invalid or irrelevant. His work there qualified him to run for the US senate. A few terms as a US senator or as a governor of a state would be much more solid credentials on which to build presidential aspirations. As to the argument that he is new, and untainted by the toxins of working within the Beltway- this is flawed reasoning.

If anyone of you reading this blog entry believes that “Sir Barack” will canter into Washington on a white stead, clad in immaculate armor with a plume in his helmet, lance in the air and slay the 3-headed dragon of legislative grid-lock, lobbying and money politics you are dreaming. There is nothing wrong with dreaming, but do not whine if and when those dreams are dashed on the rocks. Washington is, as Wall Street is, an exceptionally tough place to do business. It is the ultimate arena. You need more than dogs as friends to make a difference there (no disrespect to President Truman and his memorable observation).

And when courting “friends” in Washington you need to be prepared to collaborate. This invariably means compromises and alliances. Ultimately this involves deals struck with lobbyists. Remember! We are a nation of disparate, competing interests. Clearly much reform is needed in Washington and in / of our political system. I think Washington DC was far less a swamp back in the early 19th century when it really was a swamp than it is today. Campaign finance and lobbying are two obvious areas in dire need to reform.

But this will not change overnight any more than drilling for oil and gas offshore or in protected wildlife refuges will make much difference in what we pay for gas anytime soon. And while it sounds nice when someone says, “One person can make a difference!” as President Mr. Obama will either observe Washington’s protocols and play by the rules or leave the field a beaten, disillusioned man. I wish Colin Powell had run for the Democratic nomination. I can see solid presidential material in him. As for Mr. Obama?

He is still in Pampers, politically speaking. If he is elected I will line up behind him as our president and hope and pray for the best. As usual our choices and alternatives are less than dazzling. One final concern: would a President Obama be tested in the same way as his hero, JFK, was tested by a cynical and unscrupulous adversary (Nikita. Khrushchev), who seek to take advantage of someone seemingly young, inexperienced and vulnerable? Would a President Obama look to play tough guy, or to make some kind of demonstration to prove these potential adversaries wrong?

I shudder to think of the consequences. I look forward to the day when we have a woman president, a black president, a Jewish president, a Muslim president- as long as they have the resume, experience, credibility and gravitas to be the chief executive.