US pulling out of Iraqi cities - Iraqis - some - celebrate - what happens now? I tend to agree with Ricks who writes today that it's not a question of whether this evolution succeeds but rather of how quickly the nominal successes of the past year unravel. The surge worked, but probably in the same way a tourniquet works to stop bleeding - tourniquets don't heal wounds. The argument verges on a tautology - but, for tribal societies, whose problems are based on tribal conflicts, for these societies to evolve they must obviously move past tribalism but that only happens if substantial changes have altered the fundamental dynamics of the society. Is there any evidence of that happening or having happened in Iraq? Faint whispers possibly - possibly the beginnings of such, but nothing to convince one that the road ahead will be relatively smooth. If we go by the example of the West and express it as concisely as possible you get this formula: halting progress divided by years of war and upheaval leading to dynamic changes leading to the rise of capitalism, the subjugation of religion and the enshrining of private property, individual rights and representative government. Is there any reason to believe Iraq, or any other society of that ilk, is anywhere but at the beginning of that process?

Now I suppose that ultimately there's no irrefutable reason why the East, to give it a name, has to evolve the same way the West did - and indeed it may not - different factors are at play and I'm not scholar enough to do a comparative analysis - but I am saying that if the East does not follow in the footsteps of the West and does not adopt certain institutions and freedoms and cannot learn to abide change and is unable to abandon or move past the tribal comforts of an oppressive faith then whatever it becomes will not be our friend.

And so you have Iraq. I supported the war and, despite much evidence to the contrary, still believe it was probably the right option poorly enacted. One thing for sure, though, the East can either remain an enemy or not - to get the latter significant change is required - history teaches us change almost always involves conflict - change of course guarantees nothing other than the possibility of something better - but without that, what do you really have?

Ah ha! - Israeli MK comes out and says that if the US continues to try and blackmail Israel and 'back it into a corner' viz peace negotiations with Palestinians that that will do more harm than good. Exactly what I've been saying for a few weeks now - that this MK was a Kadima member and had participated in prior attempts at negotiating a settlement with the Palestinians means he's not just some right wing wacko striking out in anger at American tactics.

I saw from the beginning what Obama's strategy was, I thought it was bogus, events in Iran have rendered it indisputably bogus I think - Israel now has the strong hand - let's see how it plays out over US calls for Israel to halt settlement expansions, much should be revealed regarding whether the US is changing gears here - if Netanyahu relents, I'd be surprised - I'd expect rather to see a tailored agreement that from Israel's perspective traps the Palestinians and lays bare the flawed logic of Obama's approach, assuming of course US reluctance to engage the clutch.

I can safely say that I know virtually nothing about constitutional law and what little I do know is no doubt more a burden than a benefit when it comes to offering an opinion on such - but, god damn it, I gotta agree with George Will in today's Washington Post: it's pretty troubling that the liberal judges of the court uniformly could not bring themselves to see the merits of Ricci over the city of New Haven. Just as a matter of common sense it seems pretty clear that the fire fighters were denied promotion because they were white - yet the liberal judges seem willing to hang from the most tenuous thread of logic in attempt to avoid that reality and preserve a liberal agenda. What the fuck? If the conservatives on the court were to bowdlerize law with ideology in the same way [and they often have I believe] over some Ten Commandments bullshit or whatever liberals everywhere would be beside themselves with outrage - yet when the tables are turned suddenly it's okay.

Don't get me wrong, I have no great love for the conservatives on the court - but by the same token there's ample reason to fear Obama hanging around long enough to turn the court left. One thing is clear, the more politicized the court becomes the more politicized it will become - if one ideology fears it is threatened by agenda of another that tends to enhance differences and antagonisms, not mitigate them. I don't see how the court, given its current structure and the way its members are ordained, has a viable future - appears hopelessly compromised by politics.

"... I notice, post Iran, the apologists of Islam are clawing their way back to the top of the dung heap to declaim with solemn oaths that the persecuting Ayatollahs of Persia are not a true representation of the Muslim way of governance... sort of like a lowly scribe in the court of Ferdinand II arguing that in no way did the Defenestration of Prague demonstrate, regardless of delightfully symbolic divine intervention in the form of a pile of manure, that mixing the unreasonable intemperance of religious doctrine with the brutalities of worldly power might prove a toxic blend... well, not really like that per se, but the gist is there... whatever, the Wars of Religion provide a convenient context for illustrating how hopelessly naive it is to think that the faith based autocracies of the East can evolve into open societies more accommodating of the West without the intercession of violent upheaval..."

So, did I nail the whole Iran business? A reasonable effort, I think- better than a lot of people who get paid to write this shit anyway. The status quo survives, the regime is hardening and becoming more severe, the Guard's influence is enhanced, and the opposition is faltering because of internal contradictions - all these things I basically [?] predicted. As long as the Guard remains strong, unified behind a single purpose, the only way we avoid confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions is if Obama capitulates - but since Israel's hand has been strengthened by events in Persia capitulation may not even be an option for the Obama no matter how much he covets it. Because the revealed popular discontent with elements of the regime is just not going to fade away and will almost certainly become an issue again it's vital for the powers that be in Iran to consolidate their present advantages - and I believe that means that on the top of their list of things to do is get the bomb as quickly as possible.

The wildcard player here is the EU: if Obama decides to become a hardliner on Iran - and in order to avoid looking shallow, weak and irresolute I don't see how he has a choice but to become a hardliner - if the EU plays along with a get tough on Iran policy then I don't know what the consequences of that would be. Of course, my suspicion is that any hardline stance taken by Obama and the EU would be at best nominal and amount to nothing in the end - which again would bring us back to Israel. I imagine if Obama fails to go hardline on Iran one of the reasons will be how then could he say no to Israel should they demand permission for a military strike?

And then you've got the USS John McCain trailing that North Korean freighter... I wonder how long it is before Obama starts smoking again?

update: apparently he already is smoking again - but only occasionally, so he says. Score another one for me, I think...

So Obama dumps on Iran for etc etc - I dunno if I have anything to say, I think it's pretty much pointless commentary by him at this point - why get drawn in now? - maybe there's some tactical sagacity at work I'm missing - but what strikes me is how no one is mentioning China - as in they crushed with much more brutality a similar uprising on their streets a mere twenty years ago and now they're treated as a leading power that we go out of our way to make nice with etc etc - does anyone really believe that Iran gives a shit if Obama's 'outraged'? It's all quite silly.

"Why, if you think confrontation with Iran is inevitable and diplomacy a waste of time do you not then support coming out more strenuously in favour of encouraging the uprising and condemning the regime?"

"Because that only really works for you if the uprising fails, but not even then since the regime needs someone to blame the discontent on, needs a visible enemy of the people as means to keep the people in line and how is it to your advantage to lend credence to that lie? The illusion of supporting the uprising is that you actually want it to succeed but then you'd own that 'success' and owning it will compromise your ability to maneuver, limit your options, never mind the fact that whatever success the uprising manages may be decidedly not worth owning. The problem for Obama is that the whole idea of his supposed newness, an idea he has promoted both literally and by association, suggests that he support the uprising and champion their cause, not stand coldly back nurturing some no longer viable notion of eventually negotiating comity with a despised regime. Some make the mistake of arguing 'no no, promoting freedom was a Bush thing' but those people fail to understand that Bush only adopted the freedom agenda because the invasion of Iraq was going poorly and they didn't find any WMDs - 'freedom' was an ad hoc post facto rationalisation. But those who supported Obama with such adolescent zeal did so because they actually believed that he represented the emergence of a new world, a world where all their naive enthusiasms would be welcomed and all their fears assuaged."

Interesting that the F-22 is raising its sleek head again - very much against Gates' wishes congress has allotted money for building of ten more and a disgruntled USAF general has written a popular report on how cutting the program irrefutably short dicks the strategic needs of the US. For my part, I love the plane - it's just so much better looking than the F-35 - it is definitely the 'hot chick' of US weapons platforms.

My superficial fixations aside, I know the USAF believes that each tactical wing needs a specific number of F22's to fulfill a vital forward operations role etc etc - in short they see it as playing a pivotal part in acquiring air superiority - and all that may be true and well thought out, wha'd' I know about it? My point has always been that the argument opponents make against the plane is the very reason it should be continued: its vast technological superiority over the competition, they say, renders it an extravagant waste of effort - like buying a Ferrari for driving to work: but I say maintaining a vast technological superiority over the opponents is what you want if you're the US because that inhibits their ability and desire to catch up - to me the important question you have to ask is if you don't have the F-22 does that leave the door open for the bad guys to try and catch up? [not that the F-35 isn't a rather high tech 5th generation fighter in its own right]

Look at how many countries now have plans to put men on the moon by 2020 - would that be the case if the US had continued its presence there, had built bases there, we're on the cusp of a visit to Mars? I doubt it. And now the US finds itself in another race to the moon - China wants to go, India wants to go, the EU wants to go - suddenly the moon is strategically relevant again - and all because the US relinquished its technological superiority there.

related: the US has recently launched a moon probe that will insert into a very low orbit and send back HD pictures of the surface - will photograph virtually the entire surface of the moon - the interesting point being that it is scheduled to send back very nice pictures of all the Apollo landing sites in time for the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing - we'll get to again see all those American flags trembling in the thin lunar atmosphere, the untouched footprints of those intrepid men - is this the US trying to reassert its ownership of the moon?

"... I'd say anyone who suggests that should the current regime fall in Iran that this will result in reduced tensions in the Mideast and a loosening of the cold grip of possible war quite obviously missed study of the French Revolution while at school... or the Glorious Revolution even... and lets not forget the always illustrative revolution of National Socialism... or any number of other systemic upheavals that have plagued the pitiful works and days of men... quite possibly missed the study of anything at all..."

This curious - a couple of mathematicians have written statistical breakdown of the Iranian election which finds the vote was almost certainly rigged - what's curious is the way they do it: apparently there's a marked difference between a truly randomized tally of numbers and a tally that has been manipulated by humans - people apparently have certain tendencies when it comes to numbers that can easily be discovered. Anyway, these guys declare that the oddities in the Iranian vote tally suggest that the likelihood that the vote wasn't rigged is less than one percent.

So - we all knew that, I think. I've never suggested it wasn't rigged - I've just said it's misleading to suggest therefore that A--- lacks significant support or that a vote against A--- was consequently a vote that served the interests of the West.

Can't wait till this study starts circulating through intellectual back alleys of Tehran and Ayatollah has to outlaw the 'wizardry' of numbers, instruments of the Great Satan. God I hope the writers of the article were Jewish...

Not since Xerxes have the Persians so confounded the West with their confoundedness - confounded me, anyway - I shall raise my Themistocles against their Zoroaster and salamis them to the salt sea - or reckon alternatively what in the name of the Great Satan is going on here?

Well, first thing I notice is that we still have no idea of how much support A--- has - the only remotely reliable poll done before the election that I know of pegged his support as quite strong, but clearly a large demographic in Tehran feels differently. Although there are indications the election was no doubt tampered with that may have been just to give A--- a clear majority, thus avoiding the dangers of a runoff election - so it would be a mistake to equate vote tampering with him not having a significant base of support. I have read nothing that attempts to answer this fairly important question - still, one thing seems clear: even if we assume a 50/50 break, half the electorate supporting the putative 'reformers', half supporting the status quo, what seems clear to me is that the reformers in such a situation would be the more vulnerable seeing as how their ranks are further split between radicals who seem to want sweeping change and 'conservatives' who merely want A--- and possibly Khomenei as well gone but have no sympathy for undoing the law of the jurists and the idea of Islamic governance.

Khomenei certainly made his allegiance clear in his speech and it seems unlikely he can now back away from those claims without fatally undermining his credibility. The Republican Guard is honour bound to defend him and his cause and may indeed wield even more power than that - ie, Khomenei is so vulnerable here that increasing authority would unavoidably fall to them - still, have read several 'experts' state that it's a mistake to simply assume the Guard's allegiance is monolithic: some seem to think that should a bloody crackdown be required that such a thing might divide the Guard. Still, logic would seem to dictate they remain firm in their 'loyalty' to Khomenei - they have an agenda, Khomenei and A--- are serviceable agents to that agenda and, in reality, siding with the 'reformers' could prove very risky - they could see their influence significantly diminished as anything that served the rise of true democracy would work against their power. On the other hand, that does not necessarily mean that they are loyal to Khomenei - my guess is logic dictates they should be, but who really knows if there aren't maybe competing factions within their rank - and, as I've said, the 'reformers' are not cut from one cloth either and therefore no reason why certain elements of the opposition wouldn't fit quite nicely into the world as the guard sees it. As for their opinion of A--- I'd say they view the role of president as a puppet serving a 'higher' agenda. Also I suppose one cannot rule out that the Guard decides that a violent crackdown is not worth it, meaning A--- is not worth it, and so they may be willing to support a solution proffered by Khomeni because they figure 'no matter who appears to be in charge, we're actually in charge'. I can't see how Khomenei can back down like that and remain inviolable, but if he does I can see how the Guard may view that as doable - it's possible that anything short of the advent of real democracy could get their provisional support, which is why I maintain that change that is anything other than sweeping will prove illusory.

I'd imagine, seeing how crowds have diminished since the show of force, I'd imagine that should that remain the case for another week it would be very hard to bet against the Khomenei faction coming out on top, which in the short term will result in a much more authoritarian and inflexible regime and in the long term who really knows. On the other hand, if we see demonstrations like we saw last week in spite of the militias being out in force then Khomenei's grip on power would look dubious - although you cannot count out that conservatives within the reform movement almost certainly do not want to see the power of the clerics and the supreme Jurist revoked - if they see Khomenei's authority being threatened that is not necessarily something that is going to thrill them - hard to get that genie back in the bottle and ultimately their power depends on that genie being bottled up. So, even should the Khomeni faction fall, it's very hard to say what comes next - my guess is it will not look much different from what it replaces if only because whatever it is will almost certainly be dependent on the Guard for survival - the Guard may ultimately be the only winner once the dust settles, which would probably be a disquieting outcome.

Should Khomenei et al prevail does that make an Israeli strike against nuke facilities more likely? I think so - for the obvious reasons of course - but also because a preserved status quo will need to exert more control, become more oppressive and therefore potentially incite increased anger towards the regime - Israel might conclude that those vulnerable sympathies play to their advantage should they decide to strike.

And what about the Obama? I'm not sure I can fault the American stance at the moment [aside from the fact that I"m not sure I'm seeing a coherent objective operating behind their caution] - rather treacherous waters swirling around this thing as far as the US goes. You have to decide which side, if either, you want coming out on top and then you have to wonder whether American involvement does more harm or good vis a vis that decision, both as concerns the cause at hand and the status of your leader's image: since I never believed negotiations over nukes had any hope of getting anywhere and since I also believe present upheavals will lead to a more not less obdurate regime and consequently must believe confrontation with Iran to be a virtual inevitability I tend to lean towards a carefully calibrated response that has the effect of casting Iran as prime cause of any future complications. My complaint has been media crediting Obama with pragmatic realism regarding his response whereas the reality is complex events have overtaken the simplistic pandering of his rhetoric leaving him with few good options as far as preserving the misguided romance of his vision and his response is merely a reflection of that. Should I care how he got to where he is if where he is is somewhat right? Yes, of course. Without question - it's a long and troubled road ahead and I'd like someone behind the wheel who knows how to drive.

Yet, ya know, I could be making the rather foolish mistake of assuming Obama is responsible for this seeming 'realist' approach to the Iran problem - after all, I have often theorized that Obama would short shrift foreign policy when it failed to yield as willingly to his facile charms as more docile domestic subjects are inclined to do - maybe we're seeing Hillary's hand at work here - always believed she was something of a cold blooded realist at heart [this notion corroborated by article in Politico suggesting her and Gates have very close working relationship?]. Contrary to most it seems I do not believe the course of Obama's foreign policy was realist in nature prior to the crisis - I thought it was marked by a vain sort of optimism and a romance of ideals that left it detached from the realities of the world and America's place in it. But now? Several interpretations possible but not enough evidence to suggest which would be right.

One thing I feel I can say with a modicum of certainty regarding Iranian showdown aka meltdown is that it's wrong to say Obama is keeping quiet in order to secure viability of dialogue after shit is finished hitting fan: flexibility on the part of Iran before current problems was unlikely, if you're an optimist, pure fantasy if you're a cynic - now you might as well bet on the second coming to set things right because Iran is going to be in no mood for compromises after this upheaval. Obama is doing what he's doing because the soft line he took before the crisis leaves him no choice. If he had taken a hard line with Iran he'd now have the option of supporting the uprising because tactically he'd have nothing to lose and possibly much to gain - but because he chose conciliation and the soft selling of an ostensibly 'new American agenda' he essentially is constrained to play it safe which has the effect of making him look weak, irresolute - all talk.

Now, he could possibly change course and become a hardliner on Iran - events may evolve in a way as to make conditions for such a switch quite favourable - but he'd be moving outside of his comfort zone, outside of the comfort zone of his liberal base and so I don't know how that would play or if it would even play at all. One of my early concerns regarding Obama involved how he would respond when required to do something not in keeping with his natural sympathies and, more importantly, decidedly at odds with the sympathies of the left wing. Could he deal with falling out of favour with the progressives? Would he be tempted to foolish and possibly dangerous policy positions in order to remain the great hope of left wingers everywhere?

Then again, if there's a brutal crackdown and hundreds of Twittering, Facebooking students are left for dead on the streets of Tehran, watch my liberal friends go all George Bush on me and demand military intervention to preserve the youthful dreams of a new Persian democracy.

"... I tell ya, if Obama continues to snub the gay community - sorry, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community... wouldn't be much of a community without the transgenders... I mean, is there anything these people don't find objectionable in the world of sexual proclivities?... might as well welcome in those stimulated by water fowl or parking meters since the only criteria seems to be sexual confusion of some sort or another... now I sound unreasonable... don't shit on the big tent, leave the tent alone... but to get back to what I was saying, if Obama continues to piss off the LGBT community he may force me to re-evaluate my dislike of him... wouldn't it be funny if the only thing that wasn't liberal about this guy was his attitude towards homosexuality?... that would be a pisser... after all, let's be honest, the brothers don't have much time for your transgendering types..."

Okay, let's take another stab at this Persian problem: is Mousavi, in allegiance with several disgruntled clerics, trying to wrest control of the theocracy from Khomanei by leveraging the naive enthusiasms of what is essentially a Tehran based 'colour' uprising to his own advantage? From what I've read of Mousavi he's no moderate, no friend of Israel or the US, was a key player in the '79 revolution and the theocratic repression of the '80s etc etc - there's no reason to expect Iran under his titular governance would be much different from A---'s. What if this is simply a case of one conservative faction nominally led by Mousavi conspiring against another conservative faction nominally led by A--- in order to install a more competent but not necessarily more moderate regime? What if the real target here is Khomenei, not A---? [op-ed I just read by Israeli think tank says Khomenei not target, not while Guard on his side, but conflict simply about two conservative factions within Iran's oligarchic, theocratic structure, battling for supremacy - Mousavi's connection to 'reformers' is merely a marriage of convenience]

Persian 'scholars' who claim special provenance over the issue are disagreeing about what this all means so not likely I'm going to figure it out - still, several points strike me as interesting:

• where's A---? What does his seeming detachment mean? Sign of his subordinate role? Indication of confusion? Or does the little bastard have a scheme going?
• why no violent crackdown yet? Does the Guard agree with this tolerance for whatever reason or is it acting against its better judgment and is soon to break loose? Do they have some understanding of the protests that we lack?
• there's a disconnect between the enthusiasm, the cathartic zeal of the protesters and the conservative theocratic reality of Mousavi's past - how to interpret that? The movement is an incoherent mess? Or signs of manipulation by Mousavi and a cadre of insurgent mullahs? And should the uprising succeed, or even if it doesn't, how will the passions that brought it about mutate, evolve, and to what end? The passionate mind clinging to the chimera of change can prove a rather unpredictable, ungovernable thing.
  
• what of the Ayatollah? My impression is he's a little lost at sea here - but the opposite could be true: like A--- he could in fact be ripe with scheming. If he is sitting on a plan I have trouble believing its goal is anything other than to keep the status quo intact. If no plan exists, then either the Guard will soon come to the fore or the uprising's chances of success are dramatically improved.
  
• and finally: where's your Obama now? It's possible things will resolve to his provisional advantage here, but much more likely the 'Obama way' has and will continue to take on serious water. What lessons, if any, will the administration take from what has happened? Trying to play softball with A--- has left them dangling: support the uprising and if it fails they're screwed - or, to put it another way, forced to face the reality that was there all along and clashes with their 'new world' agenda; take a hands off approach and if the uprising succeeds they're screwed and they look like charlatans; support the uprising and it succeeds then how can they argue against the new and ostensibly improved regime should it choose not to abandon nuclear ambitions? This only really works out for them if their plan all along was to allow Iran to go nuclear - but how can one twist that into being a good thing?
  

Iranian soccer team showing support for angry putative reformers by wearing green armbands? Given that soccer as the non-American world knows it is not so much a sport as it is a near religious expression of populist political tribalism at its most inane, most idiotic, most simple-minded, most monolithicly sentimental and dumb drunk level - that would be a striking development. And apparently Mousavi out there again today calling for mass rallies to honour the martyred dead of his purportedly sabotaged movement? Who knows where this thing goes - a dangerous, unstable momentum seems to be building though and if it continues I expect brutal violence to soon make its appearance - when you consider that A--- may very well have legitimately won the election and therefore commands a significant base of support himself and that the conservative theocratic and military powers that run the country and to which he is in large part a puppet cannot be feeling too comfortable right now and have absolutely zero interest in seeing the putative reformers succeed and yet still a contrarian momentum persists- well, Mossad's claim that this will just fade away seems less and less likely. Angry mobs feed off an irrational animus - soon if not already they will only be content with their guy being named President, whether that represents the truth or not - truth doesn't matter at this point to either side - bloody confrontation seems inevitable and the only thing I feel comfortable predicting is that when the dust settles Iran will prove less amenable to change and compromise, not more.

But long term consequences? Long term, who knows. To Mousavi's supporters the only logical consequence should be overthrow of the theocracy otherwise all this revolutionary zeal is pointless - but I doubt logic plays much of a role in what they're doing: the clerics and the Republican Guard run the country - any change that doesn't change that would be illusory, superficial.

[addendum: this highly sinister and speculative and improbable - but what if A---, in holding back on a crackdown against protesters, is trying to lure Obama into committing to some kind of support for the would be reformers? And then - bam!! - down comes the hammer and he's got Obama right in the cross hairs. Highly unlikely, but I do enjoy my Machiavellian schemes...]

Head of Mossad says protests will fade, status quo will return, there'll be no revolution in Iran - I'm tending this way as well - only real result I see coming is an even more entrenched and recalcitrant authoritarianism - so, something of a China '89 without juicy tanks-rolling-over-students TV that CNN could replay a thousand times a day - there is though a restive, feeling their oats youth demographic in Tehran that could still hold some surprises here - but it was nice to see A--- run off to Russia in the middle of all this and pose smiling with Medvedev as if they were just on their way to suck down some Vodka and a few Muscovite slave girls. These guys sure know how to put the boot in.

Obama appears to want to stay out of the fray - which is the smart choice but as I've said there were no good choices for him - he's spent most of time in office so far touting idealism and his first chance comes around to give that idealism form and substance and he walks away from it - going so far as yesterday in CNBC interview to suggest there's no real difference between A--- and the other guy - wow - not that that isn't essentially true, but it goes against the gist of his rhetoric and flies entirely in the face of what his administration was contending but a few short weeks ago, namely, lets see how the Iranian elections pan out etc etc. Negotiating a suitable solution to the Iran nuke problem was going to be a near impossibility before this mess, now I think it is in fact impossible [although of course I always believed it was a no go] - reality is knocking on this man's door with ever increasing determination: at some point he's going to have to realise that looking hip and cool in interviews with a fawning press is just not going to be enough.

Kagan in Washington Post has different take: he believes Obama all along has wanted to play a 'realist' game with Iran, ie accept the legitimacy of present regime in order to facilitate negotiations and therefore has no interest in a 'reform movement' crashing the party and confusing matters; claims the 'hail Muslim, well met' video Obama made a while back was geared towards cementing this approach. I don't see that at all. I think the whole video thing was about wanting to convey to Iranians a willingness to engage believing that this would somehow obligate A--- to play nice - I believe it's targeted audience was the entire Mideast and must in that sense be linked to the Magic Muslim speech of a few weeks ago - you could even reasonably hold that the video aided the cause of the reformers in disputed election and therefore seeded these storm clouds - for a realist approach it's carrying a lot of unrealistic baggage - it only makes sense if you've already accepted that Iran will go nuclear, which indeed may be their position - in fact, on consideration, a lot of what they've done and said only makes sense it you assume they've already conceded nukes to Iran and are thinking of a post facto detente - I think there's no chance of this, or rather, the only way this has a chance is if the US essentially abandons Israel, forces Israel into unpleasant concessions - but even then it'd be only a hollow and short lived 'victory' - still, certainly is one way of lending sense to their actions...

Let me see... how to understand Iran right now. One thing, at least, is that many in the west are making the mistake of assuming large protests in Tehran by a cultural elite that is not at all representative of Iran as a whole means a 'popular' revolution is on the boil in Iran - there may and very likely is a majority of people and possibly a large majority at that who do not like at all what's happening and it would be a huge mistake by the west to act aggressively without understanding the 'true' dynamics at play. Obama especially is in a very tough spot [of his own creation]: if momentum continues to build he must act or else be seen as the shallow actor that I tend to believe he is; but if he acts and no popular upheaval emerges [which is still very likely] then he will in effect be at war with the Iranian regime - meaning, there'll be no talking his way out of the nuclear standoff, the die will be cast. On the other hand, he could get lucky - a 'moderating' revolution could overwhelm the powers that be and Obama will be seen to have played a part in it - I think this is an extremely, extremely unlikely thing to happen but, like I said, he could get lucky - although be careful what you wish for: 'revolutions' have a tendency to produce results that 'surprise', and often in none too pleasant a way.

Also it seems to me people are not addressing the logic of the situation. Iran is controlled by the clerics and the Republican Guard; it is true there is dissension and disagreement amongst the clerics, but it is important to understand that that dissension does not necessarily represent radically different policy ideas nor does it infect the higher echelons of clerical power - also, any clergy, especially a Muslim one, depends on the unquestioning faith of its subordinates and therefore, having already declared the election results blessed by Allah how can they now come out and say 'oops, sorry'?; the Republican Guard, on the other hand, is of one mind essentially and there's a good chance they hold the final say in what happens here. Consequently, the two most reasonable outcomes are: a popular revolution does take hold but degenerates quickly into chaos and civil war with the conservatives emerging victorious and more determined than ever to make life miserable for the rest of us, namely Israel and America; a China '89 scenario is about to be unleashed which should, depending possibly on just how 'real' A---'s support is, produce results similar to the first option but with somewhat less carnage. I suppose as well there's a third option: the protests ebb away and things return to status quo ante - remember, there's a reasonable possibility that the results in fact do adequately represent the will of the people - although, with the amount of discontent revealed, things can never really be the same: it's not in the nature of repressive regimes to moderate or relent when their power is threatened.

And there is a wild card here: it's not quite clear why Khamenei agreed to review the results in the first place - a tactical error? fear? or is it possible he's actually trying to get out from under the boot of the Guard? Logic suggests it's most likely a combination of first two - but that is an unknowable at the moment.

I suppose another wild card or unknowable here is that you can't say with any certainty that, if it comes to it, Iran's hardliners will be able to crack down on its discontents with the same cold blooded efficiency with which China cracked down on theirs.

Supreme Leader K orders review of election results by most revered Guardian Council - surprise to me? Yes, if it's legitimate - but I don't think it's legitimate - seems entirely improbable that it's anything other than a ruse to appease protesters. No doubt concerns among certain clerics of looking too much in the service of The Republican Guard - but looking somewhat compromised pales in comparison to the devils that would be unleashed should the Council attempt to overturn the results - that I believe would lead to a military coup and installation of a more accommodating Ayatollah. Hell, I don't even think it's possible to conduct an authentic review of votes - there's no such thing as an independent 'elections board' in Iran - everything is controlled by the Interior Ministry which in turn is controlled by the ruling party - there's no there there as far as legitimacy goes.

On the other hand, if Obama plans on inserting himself into this thing, now would be the time: if protests continue and gain strength the Council will come under increasing pressure to look like they are actually serious about reviewing the results and that may be hard to do - angry mobs tend to want to hear one answer and one answer only: so, if Obama jumps in and feeds those flames, gives the impression that he personally has got the back of the moderates - well, then I think you have all the ingredients necessary for a real clusterfuck.

Should be an interesting week, in a morbid kind of way. Even though in reality most likely scenario is that Iranian security services take control of the situation, Council rubber stamps results and status quo returns - I believe Obama has put himself in a difficult situation with his absurd rhetoric because eventually that talk has to count for something more substantial than making people who lack higher reasoning skills feel good. As I've said before, Obama's persona works well domestically because he has a compliant congress and press and the ignorant masses want so badly to believe that if Bush was bad then the opposite of Bush must be good - but foreign policy is an entirely different beast and the attributes that have so far served him well in America may lead him down the road to perdition in the real world outside.

update: couple of guys writing in Washington Post claim their pre-election poll showed a roughly 2 to 1 advantage for A--- which is pretty much how the real vote broke down. Does that change anything? Arguably makes it much less likely Obama gets involved; if true undoubtedly strengthens A---'s hand, although other poll questions seem to indicate those who support him have naive expectation regarding his agenda [big surprise there]; lends credence to my claim that review is simply a ruse.

Don't get this at all - Netanyahu says he'll accept Palestinian state as long as it's demilitarized - Obama says this is all good - it's reported as if this is major step forward by Israel - and yet there's no way Palestinians are going to accept demilitarization - definitely not Hamas, but not likely either Fatah, and if Fatah did agree to such Hamas would viciously use it against them - it's merely a ploy by Netanyahu! So what the fuck is everybody smiling about? Is one of those situations where I have absolutely no clue as to what's really going on or I'm stumped by underestimating just how full of shit these people are or I keep forgetting the press has an agenda that is often quite pathetic in its disconnect from reality - I know, doubtful a cynic like me would be vulnerable so, but don't know how else to parse this....

Was wondering - reading about China and Russia paying lip service to sanctions against North Korea - ships leaving NK can be stopped and inspected but not by force; any ship refusing voluntary inspection must return to a port of its choosing for inspection but still without use of force - these conditions, which essentially render sanctions meaningless, demanded by Russia and China [the UN truly is a farce, isn't it?] - I was wondering, especially since now NK is swearing to go on a bomb making spree, I was wondering what happens if a bomb, dirty or otherwise, sourced in NK and therefore ultimately enabled by China and Russia, finds it's way into the wrong hands and is detonated in the US or Israel or the UK? Since Russia and China in a very real way would bear some responsibility for that 'attack', I wonder what the consequences would be? Just curious.

update: in reading today re sanctions no mention of 'port of own choosing' codicil - yet I'm pretty sure that's the case - the 'no violence' clause definitely in - so either I'm wrong or for some reason not being reported.

[used this as opportunity to test Google against Bing - only Google came through for me, although Bing does look to have potential - anyway, from what I can tell a ship that refuses inspection on high seas the 'flag country' of the ship can have the 'enforced' inspection done at a port of its choosing - so not understanding why this obviously important condition is not being reported]

So, huge win for A-- in Iran - accusations of fraud abound - no doubt some truth to that, possibly a lot of truth - without a clear majority a runoff would be necessary so the landslide suggests maybe attempt to make results looks beyond dispute. Ayatollah final arbiter of legitimacy of election and not in his interests to stoke outrage and discontent so not much doubt he'll rubber stamp results - so that's that - which was the way it was always going to be - so why all the talk prior about big changes afoot in Iran with even one prime newspaper suggesting another revolution was in the making? The kool aid drinkers at it again, those that believe entirely in the 'Obama effect'. Much of the press at this point are little more than Obama catamites.

Now, we could still see public demonstrations - Iran could go China circa '89 or Russia circa '91 - although my feeling would be it's not in the make up of Islamic theocracies to abide popular uprisings that threaten the conservative status quo - in fact a popular uprising agitating for moderation could result I imagine in something that looks like a civil war - although the military is entirely on the side of the conservatives in Iran so there'll be no 'Yeltsin on a tank' moments.

What I'm really curious to see is how far Obama will go in supporting protests if they do arise to a significant degree - will he inject the Obama aura into the Iranian political process in a demonstrative way? Sound realpolitik logic says anodyne words of encouragement but keep your distance; but the logic of Obama's rhetoric almost obligates him to get involved or risk losing credibility [this goes back to my post on how dangerous words can be]. One thing for sure, if he does insert himself into the argument, the game will definitely be afoot. Hell, if A-- is seen to be and is accepted as the landslide winner the game will be afoot no matter - and a confrontation over Iran's nukes a virtual inevitability. [well, confrontation or dangerous acquiescence - which is not to pretend that confrontation won't be dangerous as well, my point all along having been there's a distinct lack of comprehension or acknowledgment of dangers associated with acquiescence - and I don't just mean 'peace in our time' type dangers, I mean people are not recognising or are choosing not to recognise that if outside powers do not resolve Iranian nuke issue Israel will be left in a no win situation which means we'll be left in a no win situation - acquiescence is not an option for Israel - still, if outside powers fail, they'll have to pick their poison].

Does the apparent huge turnout for the Iranian elections work against my scepticism regarding reform in Iran? Possibly, in a sense. I think it's an inarguable fact that Iran is controlled by powers highly resistant to reform and that is, for the foreseeable future anyway, what matters most. Still, a large and loud move towards an ostensibly moderating candidate would suggest something - not sure what or to what end, but something.

If A-- wins a close one are we about to see a Persian version of Tiananmen Square? Possibly - and I expect with similar results. After all, a popular supposed moderate was unexpectedly swept to power in the 90's and yet regardless here we are on the verge of a military confrontation with Iran.

One thing for sure, if the putative moderate does win Obama will be taking credit for it - and Israel will be pushed even tighter into its corner - which, as I've stated, though the liberals seem to have convinced themselves this will be a good thing I on the contrary predict will produce a dynamic which will bring about the exact opposite.

update: As confirmation of the point I'm making, this from Jerusalem Post:

While all of this [ie Iranian domestic issue] is important for understanding the Iranian people, Israel's attention is not on the cost of bread and meat but on the future of Teheran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the defense officials stress. For this reason, there are some in the defense establishment who are silently praying that despite Mousavi's recent climb in the polls, Ahmadinejad wins Friday's vote.

Due to his radical character and extremist remarks, Ahmadinejad helps garner world support for stopping the nuclear program. Due to his reformist and moderate image, Mousavi - who when he was prime minister from 1981 to 1989 helped lay the foundations of the country's atomic program - may succeed in "laundering" the program in a dialogue with the United States, the officials fear.

Can it be true that Obama's old mentor, the venerable Mr Wright, yesterday accused 'them Jews' of keeping him from his star pupil? Guess so, since he's apologizing for it today - meant to say Zionists, the noun of choice for the more nuanced Jew haters.

Forget about how, after the Magic Muslim speech, Israel is entirely justified in being concerned about Obama's foreign policy compromising their security and now his former mentor, spiritual leader, confidante, political organiser is revealed to be a classic Black Nationalist Jew hater - forget how that may complicate things - tell me how the hell is it that Obama skated away unscathed by his connection to this nut ball in both primary and general elections last year? Yes, McCain, with now infamous stupidity, refused to broach the subject in his campaign - but I forgive him that, I can see how he thought it was the honourable thing to do [although I believe that what started out as honourable soon came to be seen by him as the mistake that it was]. No, I'm more concerned about the press and why that institution couldn't or, possibly more disturbingly, wouldn't pursue the issue?

As I've said before one could draw logical conclusions when taken as a whole Obama's connection and subsequent convenient rejection of Wright and his political ideology as revealed in actions and words, conclusions which spoke to the kind of man he was and the quality of leader he may be - in other words, completely legitimate premises for commentary - and yet the press practically as a whole decided 'no, we can't go there' - why?

Don't wanna go on about the obvious problem of democracy being pretty much a charade without an independent press both in possession of the necessary analytical skills and able to operate outside the influences of the powers that be and the slavish ignorance of the electorate, don't wanna go on about how a rational, somewhat honest argument over relevant issues is not possible without such an institution, but... it's quite clear the press, whether as a conscious decision or not, wanted Obama to win so - what does that say about us?

Understand, I'm pretty much with Churchill in saying that democracy sucks but hell, it's better than the alternatives - still, there's a big difference between participating, engaging with the show while knowing that to be true and playing along while remaining blissfully ignorant of the inherent problems, no?

In reference to Iraq, President Obama promised that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” Is he unaware that the United States imposed democracies after World War II?

After the defeat of German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism, Americans — by force — insisted that these nations adopt democratic governments, for both their own sakes and the world’s. Indeed, it is hard to think of too many democratic governments that did not emerge from violence — including our own.

That from Victor Hanson regarding a listing he did of examples of Obama playing fast and loose with facts of history in his Magic Muslim speech - fine, but I was struck by last sentence, in so much as dovetails with something I was reading about the purposes of COIN - as in, COIN may be a viable tactic, but to what end? To wit: let's say a proper application of COIN tactics secures Afghanistan, then what? Babysit the country for a couple of generations until...? The point being, what is the strategic relevance of COIN if, as with Afghanistan, the Taliban is defeated but the state remains broken, dysfunctional? Can COIN really be considered the better way if what it results in is of dubious utility?

I think the point trying to be made here is, what if instead of the utter destruction of the Nazis we had engaged in a long, drawn out counter insurgency against roving bands of Waffen SS etc while some distilled National Socialist government went about pretending various reforms etc - what would victory have looked like as compared to the destruction that did happen? Would victory as we now know it have even been possible?

The point being I think - proponents of COIN seem to want to think of it as 'war, new and improved', or war made rational - but maybe in trying to fit it into that box you strip it of it's ultimate value as an uprooter of the status quo - maybe the irrational component is necessary - although irrational doesn't seem like the right word.

"Basically Russia sees the crisis as an opportunity to increase its influence in the post-Soviet space," said Nikolai Zlobin, analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, D.C., who meets regularly with Russian officials. "They think this is the right time to act."

Meanwhile, back in America, the left also believes the time is right for action - namely, to remake the empire into something less imperious and instead something more progressive, more enthusiastically liberal, more agreeable.

We - they - whatever, Obama and his minions won't win this confrontation, - not that it's us against Russia again, but it is us against a world view that Russia represents. You're a naive fool if you don't think Putin's sitting there in some corner office of the Kremlin watching Obama wander round the world giving these shallow, flowery speeches and saying to himself "I got this guy".

[understand I think all political speeches are 'shallow', and I'd suppose most politicians know this to be true, accept it as being just part of the game - my problem with O is that I think he believes his shallowness actually has depth - much like an actor who, in portraying a character of putative substance, comes to imagine himself as having acquired substance too - yes, I'm thinking of you, Sean Penn]

[an alternative scenario is that he sees his 'persona' as a means to get what he wants - in other words, he's a cold cunning bastard - in which case his chances of succeeding would be much improved - I wonder which scenario troubles me the most?]

Not quite understanding why most seem to be hailing Lebanon vote as victory for moderation - doesn't the Lebanese vote always break down ethnic/religious lines and isn't that essentially what happened here again? Christian, Druze, Shiite and Sunni all vote according to their respective sympathies and you end up with a balance of power roughly as what it is now - and then I remember reading something about how the gerrymandered representational system in Lebanon tends to skew results in an artificial way which makes it difficult to render a definitive opinion on what the vote actually means. I think because Hezbollah is now more politically relevant and people tend to fear them coming to power that this causes people to view the results in a way that does not accurately reflect the reality on the ground: turnout was only 55% which may not matter in a 'stable' society but I think probably does in one rife with thorny divisions; people continue to vote along confessional lines - results are in many ways preordained; Shiite influence is growing; Hezbollah has the only viable military force and will remain a player; Hezbollah does not necessarily want to 'win' - they may feel that demographics will eventually do that for them; Iran and Saudi Arabia are big proxy players, but because Iran backs Hezbollah and Hezbollah has the military heft, Iran wins.

I'm not seeing the cause for optimism here. People fear Hezbollah, Hezbollah 'lost' and so people want to view that as a hopeful sign - but once you remove the biased emotion of fear, the facts on the ground don't really justify the optimism.

update: essay on FP website by someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this subject essentially agrees with my take: election went pretty much as one would have expected, the dynamics remain much the same; there was no 'Obama effect'; it's inaccurate to say Hezbollah 'lost' simply because they may not have done as well as some were predicting.

Is it true that the market made a significant rebound today based on Krugman saying the recession will be over by the fall? My, my, what laudable creatures we are: set fire to the sacrificed entrails of a sheep and if the flames lick high, well - Krugman's a genius!

addendum: this just occurred to me, it's so obvious I don't know why, but playing along with the whole Obama is a socialist meme, it strikes me that if that were true he would perforce be required to weaken America, to make it less, in order to make room for the enforced egalitarianism: socialism and a belief in the supremacy of the individual, supremacy of 'the American way' for that matter, cannot co-exist. Interesting I suppose. No doubt there's a reason why the mention of Krugman got me thinking about this.

Well, guess I wasn't the only one to view Obama's Muslim speech in particular and his approach to foreign policy in general with alarm and extreme skepticism. This from an Israeli op-ed piece in Jerusalem Post:

Anything not in keeping with Obama's visions of sugarplums - even killjoy genocidal aggression - can presumably be overcome by expressions of affection and therapeutic introspection. That's what progressive professors inculcated into Obama, and why he now atones to ungrateful Europeans and hostile Muslims for supposed American conceit. That's why he intimates Israel had been "disrespectful" of the pitiable Palestinians who failed in their tireless efforts to obliterate it. We Israelis are just the victims of an anomaly, a complex of gross irrationality.

To achieve enlightenment and rehabilitation in the eyes of those who know better, we need only cease seeing the worst in our mortal enemies. We must stop focusing on Arab media's harangues against us, on mosque sermons demonizing Jews and on kindergarten exhortations to please Allah by slaying Israeli infidels.

Only if we plug our ears and put blinders on will we regain normalcy and acceptance. Obama-speak compromise obliges Israel to take existential risks. Arab cooperation requires they wait patiently for Israeli suicide rather than rush in for the precipitous slaughter.

Coated with enough sugar, this poison pill appears the perfect cure. Refusal to swallow it becomes unreasonable rejectionism, which upsets the delicate international equilibrium.

Of course, the Post is a puppet of the Israeli right - but tell me what media source isn't a factional puppet these days? If you don't have an agenda you don't an audience and you don't have profits. Suppose it's always been this way so complaining about it possibly a little tired or naive.

Still, op-ed in Washington Post illustrated somewhat above's point, as writer claimed the genius of Obama is that he rejected entirely the 'clash of civilizations' template. But that's my problem with him: he wants a rhetorical victory because every victory of note in his life has been rhetorical: he's smart, he went to a good school, got a law degree and got a good job - that's what a lot of smart people in America tend to do; he became a social activist - a lot of smart, left wing types with law degrees tend to do that; he went into politics - a lot of smart, ambitious people with law degrees who don't want to practice law and who don't have business skills tend to do that. Admirable accomplishments? Sure. Special? No. Once you strip away the theatrics, the rhetorical victories, the ambition, there's not much there of interest. He wants it to be about Huntington et al and how they see the world because that's how he sees the world, as a verbal construct vulnerable to his charms - and why not? that's how he got to where he is, that's a battle he feels comfortable fighting because it comports with his narrative of the world and of himself. Unfortunately, the narrative has little real value outside of his narrow and superficial uses of it - Huntington didn't create the underlying realities and circumstances of 'civilization', he just interpreted them - nothing wrong with disagreeing with his interpretation, but in the end all you're doing is replacing one point of view with another - the circumstances remain and will insist on their own interpretation as far as the ways of the world go.

Nothing wrong with a debate of ideas - but it's not going to help you much when the barbarians are hammering at the gates. My problem with Obama, with the left in general, is that they not only want to believe, need to believe that that's not true - they in fact do believe it - it's all about getting people to buy into a narrative that's in the end ideological self promotion - new would be philosophes of a new would be enlightenment: "if only people could be made to see the world as we see it everything would be fine" - then along comes the reign of terror, Napoleon, 100 year of political stagnation, the rise of capitalism and a feast of crudities, Marxism, Fascism, two ruinous world wars and one not so ruinous cold one... you get the point... although the funny thing is a true philosophe would answer "if you had only listened to me..."

But at least I understand where the enlightenment boys were coming from, I can see how if you were a smart young man of means in that century how you might convince yourself of a certain conceit concerning progress - new worlds literally were being discovered, astounding things were indeed afoot - I get it - which only adds vigor to my query: what the fuck is Obama talking about?

So, the Muslim speech... oh boy. Worse than I thought. Let me put it simply: the thing about rhetoric, about words is that ultimately the good they can do is limited, the benefits realized by them are in the end allusive, superficial, vague at best; but the damage they can do is quite real, deadly real - and from what I've read of the speech Obama just did a whole lot of damage.

Off the top of my head the three worst things he's done with this speech are: one, set up expectations that are false, that are premised on illusions and a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of the world and that cannot be realized; two, he's backing Israel into a corner and playing right into Iran's hands - and as I've made clear before this dynamic will lead to bad things, very bad things; and three, he's taken America off the table as a great power, the greatest power - you can't do that - of course power fades, but if you admit to such, especially without it clearly or entirely or indisputably being the case, then you potentially set in motion forces that can haunt your dreams most verily - to use a trite but somewhat apt analogy: the prettiest starlet walks into a room of wannabe starlets and let's slip that 'I guess I'm getting a bit old' - it's over once she does that, she's blood in the water to ravenous sharks at that point - good night fucking nurse. Obama just walked America into a room full of sharks and said 'Here, have a bite - just promise you'll give me a standing ovation when you're done'.

When Obama first appeared on the scene I used to joke that he'd come to destroy America - part of me believed that to be, in a manner of speaking, true, but mostly it was a joke that played off the absurdly naive perceptions people had of the guy. Well I ain't jokin' now. I fixed quite early on the paradox he embodied, namely, he's come a very long way but has accomplished virtually nothing - he's talked his way into the most powerful office in the world - but there's now no talking your way out of it: reality is a cruel thing, and deaf to pleas of mercy.

update: I haven't bothered to read what the left has to say about the speech, what would be the point - I can imagine well enough the empty headed silliness of their braying without risking actual exposure - so I just read the conservatives - not that I'm expecting fair and balanced from them but I gotta read something - and I'm a little surprised to find that, although none of course had much praise for it and most touched on the very points I made, no one seemed near as vexed by it as me.

So maybe I over reacted, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe my instincts have let me down. Doubtful, but maybe...

One thing re health care that as yet you don't see the press commenting on much - and of course no one bothers to ask Obama about this, god no, can't have that - is that he's claiming reforming health care will somehow save money, whereas the reality is if you're suddenly gonna insure 40, 50 million people who weren't insured before, costs are gonna go up - the expense of health care is mostly in the fact that the technology is expensive - 50 million more people, who, since we assume they're poor are probably not particularly healthy, 50 million of these sickly bastards now suddenly with regular access to that expensive technology? - well, it's a farce to maintain that somehow costs are going to go down. No, universal health care is expensive and inefficient by its very nature and it's an outright lie by Obama to pretend that somehow that's not the case - but you sure as hell create loyal voters - just the mention of going to a two tier system in Canada gets otherwise comatose suburbanites here threatening insurrection - and there's the truth about health care reform - votes.

Which is not to suggest that the American system is beyond reproach - no health care system is - and it's not to suggest that there's no qualitative differences to the various systems - but the fact remains that medicine is expensive technology and once you make it available to people they begin to feel that access to it is their right even though they have absolutely no idea what it is they're asking for. It's as if you made the space shuttle available to a bunch of average Joes to do a few spins around the earth and then every swinging dick in the country started asking for a ride too - people just don't get it, they're very good at not getting it, and for centuries politicians have been making a good but tenuous living off that fact.

I'm not saying America shouldn't reform it's method of delivering health care - I'm saying it's a bold faced lie to pretend it's not going to be expensive.

I wonder what I think about Obama going amongst the heathens to promote the cause of universal suffrage and one worldism? - ah, not a lot. Can't really see the point of it: much like his European tour and the insipid, grandiose speech making that went on there and achieved nothing, the only purpose one can glean for this Muslim fest is to burnish his own image - and I don't even know to whom! - them or himself? Hard to say.

Words have a tactical use - but the actions and consequences of strategy are driven by circumstances, upon which nice speeches have only a tangential effect. Sure, Pericles let loose some fine rhetoric and moved a great people to action, but it was the boldness of his cunning and the coherence of his strategy that mattered most - and still he failed! - jeez - so what's Obama's strategy here? I don't have a fuckin' clue, other than, as I've said, to burnish the myth of himself.

I'll repeat, Obama's attributes work well for the selling of a liberal agenda to a fatuous domestic audience: if he tries to translate those charms and that approach to the international arena, which seems to be the case, I predict that not only will he be frustrated by events and circumstances, he will end master of a world moving in the exact opposite direction of what he's imagining.

Or he'll succeed and I'll look like an idiot - not that anyone will notice.

What I'd like to hear a reporter - if there are any left in America - it's near impossible to listen to a presidential presser, the soft, meandering, tactically inept questions that get lobbed up there by these besotted trolls leave one gasping with pained disbelief - what I'd like one of the quacks to ask Obama is, seeing as how he spent so much time blaming the economic crisis on incompetent, greedy CEOs, ask him what he says to the guy running Ford, a CEO who by and large did everything right, brought strong management to the company, cleaned up the books, did so well that despite the huge drop in sales has not had to go to the government with cap in hand begging for money, ask Obama what he says to this guy now that he's just bailed out his biggest domestic competitor, bailed out and will now be suckling with billions of dollars for god knows how long the guys who did everything wrong? Ask him if America is now the country where winners lose and losers get to pretend they've won?

Of course that will never happen - power is a very seductive thing and democracy the incantation we ignorant, liberated beasts whisper to each other in the dark to stave off loneliness. Some part of us wants to be governed by magic, favoured by the august unseen spirits as if we've been welcomed into a sanctuary, it silently drives us like some vestige of a herding mentality, a need to be led by a force we perceive as greater than ourselves, that cannot be filtered out of the collective psyche of the species.

Possibly a necessary ignorance, who knows. Certainly advertising, indeed maybe capitalism itself could not thrive without it. I wonder if that's what Mad Men is all about.

How credible is Obama's claim that the government reluctantly has gotten into the car business with its taking over GM? I was calling for a GM bankruptcy months ago, I called the initial outlays of cash an obvious case of throwing good money after bad - and I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about! If I knew GM wasn't viable, they must have known - and if so, handing over money to them was??? Creeping nationalisation. Sure, they'll claim that allowing GM to go under at that point was too risky, but I don't buy it: they knew this bailout money was destined to be converted into equity, they were counting on it. I don't have much use for the cries from the bleachers about how Obama is a socialist - still, I have a very strong suspicion that Bo and his boys are sitting there fantasizing about how this is their chance to prove that socialism can work.

Which of course raises an interesting question: what if it does work? What if a government enabled GM rises from the grave and actually performs well in a free market? I know they're getting all moist thinking about it - but could I handle such a sinister turn of events? Naw - it'd fuck me up, man.