It was, of course, great news that Captain Phillips was rescued. The captain, his crew, and the navy SEALS all did their job heroically. What I don't understand is why people are saying that Obama passed his first crisis as president. Just like when people questioned before if Obama had the strength to lead the military, I am confused. I asked then: what strength do you need to send the best trained and best equipped military to fight? It is not as if the president has to pick up a gun and fight the bad guys himself. In this case, he did what he and any other reasonably intelligent person would have done: give the authority to the people on the scene to make the judgment to kill if necessary. It is like going to Afghanistan after 9/11, anyone could have made that call. It is making stupid calls like going to Iraq that really separate the dumb ones from the smart ones.

Obama did what he was supposed to and got lucky. If the captain had been harmed during the rescue, he would have been blamed even though he had given the same order. Luck plays a big role, just ask Jimmy Carter whose rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages ended miserably through no fault of his.

Now what do we do about the pirates. Obviously the navy can't protect all of our ships not to mention those of other countries. Going to Somalia would be a risky proposition even though some have suggested that it would not be like going into Mogudishu during the Clinton years because the pirates are located on the coast. But if we are to attack their position, wouldn't they try to hide among the civilians inland like Hamas do in Gaza? Certainly we cannot go in without support of other countries. In the short term, the commercial companies will have to hire mercenaries to protect the ships. In the long term only by helping Somalia estabish a stable government will these acts of piracy become extinct. Good luck with that!

Two stories in the LA Times touch on subjects that I talked about in earlier blogs. I really have nothing new to say on the subjects, but I am mad again reading about them.

The first is about hospitals having to settle with the city of LA for dumping patients onto streets of skid row after they were discharged. The city uses some obscure law about false imprisonment to extort from the hospitals. As I said before, these people were homeless BEFORE they were hospitalized. The hospitals may have acted on behalf of their bottom line and sent these patients back to the streets, but where were they supposed to sent them? They were from the streets! If the argument is that nobody should be homeless then it is the responsibility of the government to provide a place for them. The hospitals are already giving these people free or only partially compensated care and who do you think will have to absorb the added cost of finding a place for these people to go? The result of this and other mandates on hospitals will be shutting down of ERs which will lead to health crisis for the whole population. Shame on the government for extorting the hospitals.

The next subject is John Yoo, the law professor at Berkeley who wrote all kinds of legal opinions supporting the actions of the Bush administration. In an opinion in LA Times today there were arguments about whether Yoo should be fired as a law professor. As I said before, I don't agree with Yoo's opinions. But crazy liberals can teach at Berkeley, but crazy conservatives can't? He is not flunking his students for going against his opinions nor is he stiffling debate in his class. So what is the big deal? As I said before, if someone admitted to Berkeley's law school can be brainwashed by a professor, then he/she should not have been admitted in the first place.