Well, Obama had his meeting yesterday with the white cop he inferred was a stupid racist and the black professor whose presumptive irrationality he defended against all common sense. I'd hoped that such a farcical attempt at face saving would not happen - but turns out the press, for the most part anyway, seems to be treating the event as the foppish, ridiculous charade that it was - so I suppose that's some consolation. Could it be that the MSM is falling out of love with its Obama? I tend to doubt it - probably just a rough patch - a weekend away together someplace nice should effectively paper things over for awhile.

Walking down at the beach, saw a herd of summer camp kids being driven to the water's edge by their counselors, one of whom admonishes his charges to remember 'no throwing stones into the lake'. There you have it, the death of our society, our Western culture, revealed in one simple moment culled from an endless drudgery of moments: young boys not allowed to throw stones into a lake - I suppose to guard with suffocating vigilance against the chance of someone getting hurt or possibly worse to snuff out any hint of boisterous competition because you know some boys can't throw that well and some girls can't throw at all. Absolutely pathetic. I picked up a stone and heaved it at a seagull just to try and right the universe in some small way. Missed.

"... it startles me how small their imaginations are concerning unrest in Iran... they act as if without question now the rise of a disgruntled opposition obviates the need for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities... whereas obviously one could just as convincingly say that Israel may conclude that Iran's response to an attack because of internal tensions may be dulled, fractured, inhibited, problematic in any number of ways, thus increasing the likelihood of an Israeli aggression... Israel may speculate that an attack potentially serves the cause of the opposition by shaming the status quo and rationalize it that way... they could conclude that a discontented Iran equals a more dangerous, obdurate and unpredictable Iran, in short, makes it more of a threat, not less, thus strengthening the need for action not mitigating against it... the liberal commentariat don't see these things almost as if what they imagine to be true is of much more importance than what actually is true..."

But there's a logic leap here, overlooked to America's peril. As China grows richer, it is the state-controlled sectors of the economy that are growing more powerful, not the independent private sector -- which has been deliberately suppressed. Of the roughly 1,500 companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges, less than 50 are genuinely private. As much as 95 percent of Beijing's $586 billion economic stimulus package, announced last November, will go to state-controlled enterprises. This makes China Inc. more powerful but does not push it closer to political reform. On the contrary, it has offered the Chinese Communist Party better and more resources to entrench its power and position in the country's economy and society.

The implications go well beyond China's borders, strategists warn. As Beijing's power grows, it will be less inclined, not more, to uphold the current regional order in Asia. In a recent study of 100 recent articles by more than two dozen of China's top strategic thinkers, I found that four of every five articles spoke of circumventing, reducing or superceding US powers and ideas in Asia. China views the liberal order as one designed to preserve American hegemony in the region. Even if Beijing has so far benefited enormously from rising up within the existing order, it might not be so friendly to it once it's risen far enough.

That from a Foreign Policy mag article defining the two camps viz China as those who stress 'function' - that the relationship is a function of economic inter-dependence and as long as that is the case everything will be fine - and those who stress the 'strategic' - that as long as the two powers diverge as a matter of political and cultural ideology it would be naive and short sighted to act as if the differences won't at some point overwhelm the dependencies and therefore a strategic approach to the relationship would be well advised. Needless to say, Obama falls into the former camp, myself into the latter.

I repeat my Iran arguments to Fareed Zakaria in response to his op-ed in Washington Post today extolling the false 'moderates in Iran/containment will work' model:

There are indeed moderates in Iran - every autocracy has its moderates - but they reside outside the realities of power. The 'reformers' in Iran are not moderates, they have co-opted moderate trappings to get what they want. Do you really believe should Rafsanjani et al wrest control away from Khameni et al that suddenly Iran is going to become a moderate state? That the Koran and Islam will no longer be held up us the unimpeachable arbiters of truth and justice? That a nearly complete nuclear program will be abandoned? That newspapers will suddenly run stories questioning the 'law of the jurists'? That young women will suddenly be seen walking the streets of Tehran unscarfed? That the Republican Guard and its allies are just going to quietly step aside? I'd like to believe you are not that naive.

No, rather I imagine you promote this false argument of moderation in order to rationalize your real argument - containment - but unfortunately that argument is also flawed, in and of itself, and obviously as a contingency of presumed moderation. Containment may work, may work in avoiding big confrontations, as evidenced in the Cold War, but it doesn't do so good when it comes to smaller aggressions, as also evidenced in the Cold War - in fact it can act to exacerbate the smaller threats and, contrary to what advocates of this theory claim, it's the smaller threats, not nuclear war per se, that worry Israel most: Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, radicals in Egypt etc etc. In short, in touting containment you're trying to avoid the real problem: a nuclear Iran is a dangerous thing, every bit as dangerous and quite possibly more so than what a military strike by Israel to interdict would prove to be

When Clinton brought up the idea of containment the alarm bells went off in Israel because they saw it as Obama saying 'we can live with a nuclear Iran' - and Israel was right to be alarmed because that is exactly what he is saying. Whether Obama and you, for that matter, are being naive or disingenuous in promoting this 'idea', I don't know - but Israel ain't buying what you're selling - although I imagine Iran quite happily is.

Providing health insurance to the 47 million Americans who don't have it -- the key feature of the bills before Congress -- is likely to expand heart attack treatment and increase spending on it, not pare it back and reduce the cost.

That from Wash Post article on how expensive health care has become and will continue to be and why thinking that by adding to the number of overweight Americans to be covered you're going to be able to control costs and save money is just profoundly silly - the very point I tried to make a few weeks ago. Health care conjoined to ever improving and expensive technologies and a population that demands better health while engaging in lifestyles not conducive to such is irreducibly and unavoidably inflationary - the only way to manage that dynamic is to ration access and quality or make people pay - but no matter what you do it's gonna cost a shit load of money.

Now, the American system is no doubt flawed and needs to be fixed - but it's an outright lie to pretend that can be done without significant trade-offs and expense - and to try and do so in this economy with budget deficits spiraling out of control may be worse than a lie, it may be delusional. I don't know what worries me more: that Obama is doing this to secure an unassailable democratic voter base - or because he actually believes it's a good idea.

Least surprising news of the day: Obama seeking to turn his calling white cops stupid racists blunder into a transcendent, post racial, nobody's at fault here we're all just victims of a collective failure to rise above the prison of unpleasant facts in order to embrace a purer existence moment by inviting the aggrieved parties to the White House for a chat - this guy is so full of shit I almost admire his brazenness. I would like to hope that the cop is smart enough to know he's being played for a fool and bold enough to turn down the invitation, but of course that's not going to happen - can already see in my mind the news reports extolling Obama's brilliance at turning a PR disaster into a shining success. A spectacle to weary the soul.

Most surprising [although possibly on reflection not that surprising] news of the day: Ireland makes blasphemy against the law. What the fuck?! Now, as one law blogger points out, Ireland's constitution already essentially criminalizes blasphemy so not having a law forbidding it was unconstitutional - still, this is almost beyond belief, right? I haven't checked today, but I'm pretty sure we're still in the 21st century here. My buddy Joyce will be spinning in his grave for days on end when he hears about this - whether from laughing or crying, dunno...

Lost in all the dust stirred up by Obama calling cops racist and parading his mellifluous self in front of the cameras yet again in attempt to shove socialized health care down the throat of America by making the novel claim that increasing marginal tax rates and adding to an already bloated deficit will actually improve the economy, in fact is vital to improving the economy - lost in all this is the fact that Hillary has been talking tough to the North Koreans. Don't know where this comes from - is it possibly her initiative? Whatever - I did say awhile back we should be calling Lil' Kim's bluff - of course I meant by shooting down one of his missiles, but I guess this amounts to largely the same thing. Hard to know how this will pan out - you have to get a lot of countries to play along and stay the course - so far only push back has been NK officials petulantly calling Hillary names - in essence, calling her a bitch - but I guess she's used to that.

Two problems still linger for me regarding cancellation of the F-22 [but as one analyst has pointed out the last Raptor won't be coming off the assembly line until 2011 I believe which means it's not an absolute certainty that we've seen the last of it].

Firstly, all this talk about the F-35 filling the void doesn't quite jibe. For one thing, the F-35 is already two years behind schedule and nobody knows as yet whether it can live up to the hype or if in the end it will be significantly cheaper to produce than the F-22. As well, the F-35 was designed to work in concert with the F-22 at a time when it was believed there'd be several hundred F-22s not a mere 187 - it wasn't designed to act as a stand-in for the F-22. Finally, there's no fighter/bomber in the world existing or in production that can do what the F-22 does, namely, fly very high and very fast while remaining stealthy, so to say increased numbers of F-35s will compensate for decreased numbers of F-22s makes about as much sense as saying you're gonna compensate for a lack of computers by buying more blackboards [which is not to belittle the no doubt marvelous technology that will power the F-35].

But regardless one could still argue that when utility and cost are factored together the plane just doesn't make enough sense to warrant producing more - except, if that's the case, why are Israel and Japan and apparently Australia so interested in buying the plane - ie, this plane is obviously esteemed by allies and since they could essentially underwrite the production of more planes and they feel there's value in doing so, why don't we do it? Because release of the technology is viewed as a threat to national security - but doesn't that work entirely against the notion that the F-22 is a waste of money? Isn't the plane you refuse to sell to anyone because the technology is so valuable by definition a more valuable plane than the one you're willing to sell to anyone, namely the F-35?

I dunno - that's to put it too simply - still, the pieces don't quite seem to fit together here.

Has Obama put his foot in it by calling the cops who arrested the Harvard professor stupid on national TV? Stupid and racist. When the details of the arrest surfaced it didn't sound right to me the way the press was reporting it, as over aggressive cops harassing a black intellectual simply because he was black. Incident was in a good neighborhood, on Harvard property, cops must have noted immediately that the guy was well educated etc - you read the arrest report, written before it became a scandal, and nothing sounds untoward or obviously inappropriate - they respond to a call about a break in by a couple of black guys, they arrive at house and want to question a black guy discovered in the house, the man goes ballistic and starts screaming racism at which point cops probably say fuck this and arrest him. Unfortunate, sure - but racist inspired stupidity? Doesn't sound like it. Sure, the cops may have done or said something to set the guy off - but isn't it much more likely that this Harvard professor, whose whole life and career is about studying racism, overreacted and saw the devil he was already predisposed to see? What motivation would the cops have to abuse some old intellectual on Harvard property?

I'm guessing there's a whole lot of cops out there feeling none too happy about being characterized as stupid racists for doing their job.

update: and of course right on cue Obama 'clarifies' his comments today - 'I wasn't calling the officer stupid, I meant the situation was stupid' - although now it appears he thinks everyone is stupid who thinks he meant the officer was stupid. No word yet on whether or not he's sticking with the racism slander - will wait with great expectation for him to explain to us ignorant types just what he meant by that.

update: now some suggesting that the question was 'planted' - ie, Obama wanted to talk about this and chose a question at the end of the press conference from someone he knew was going to ask about it - if true that's priceless.

What's with the albeit small but still continuing protests in Iran and disobedient shit disturbing by several high ranking officials? Why can't Iran stomp out dissent the way China did? Because there's one unassailable authority in China, the monolithic communist party, it tolerates no shades of gray and you either obey its dictates or you are cast aside, often with the help of a firing squad. The putative unassailable authority in Iran is the clergy and although all that abide within are pretty much cut from the same cloth, that cloth is not all of one pattern - one design clashes with another and any rash attempt to unwind the insulting thread threatens the integrity of the whole garment [rode that metaphor right into the fucking ground].

But that's what troubles me about Iran: if the apostates succeed in upending the standing order of things how do they stop that change from overwhelming the whole? The change the apostates are after is essentially cosmetic and self aggrandizing - it is not a new order but merely the old order reconfigured - but the people out on the street want something more and I don't see how the apostates stop that dynamic since inevitably the whole idea of the legitimacy of Islamic governance will be questioned - and then what you'll have is a dangerously chaotic situation which will almost certainly invite an extremist backlash - which is why I maintain that no matter what happens Iran is destined to go through a period of increased intransigence. I don't see how anything that has happened improves, in the short term [and I'm talking 10-20 years] prospects for stability and better relations in the region.

An absolutist regime cannot allow dissent and hope to survive, which is why what's happening in Iran doesn't add up. Now, Iranians may be on the road to rejecting absolutism and that may in the end prove to be a good thing but in the interim is likely to prove disturbing. Does anyone actually believe should Rafsanjani wrest control of things from A--- that suddenly Iran is going to stop meddling in Iraq, stop financing Hezbullah and Hamas, stop a nuclear program that's probably about 90% complete, stop forcing women to wear the hijab, stop believing that the Koran and Islam are the final, unimpeachable arbiters of justice and truth? C'mon, people.

Hillary lets slip that Obama administration has contingency plans in event Iran acquires bomb, ie bolstering defense profiles of mideast states, US nuclear umbrella etc etc - she said this as if intended to dissuade Iran from pursuing nukes, the idea being I suppose that Iran will be less secure not more if it goes nuclear - but Israel interpreting this as evidence that Obama has already accepted inevitability of Iran going nuclear, something which I have thought very possible given moves US has made. If Hillary misspoke, said something she shouldn't have, then that would seem to confirm Israels fears - but if she meant to say it the only reason for doing that would be because Obama admin thinks it a viable negotiating ploy, thinks Iran amenable to ostensibly logical counter arguments - but of course Iranian leaders are moved by a logic of their own which they no doubt see as inviolable and to imagine that exogenous claims against it stand much of a chance of success is pretty thin soup.

So, what i think you're left with is: Hillary misspoke and said something she shouldn't have, possibly revealing Obama admins true POV re Iranian crisis; or she said something she meant to say but for fairly dubious reasons and therefore was ill advised to say it since it achieves nothing other than undermining the Israeli position while boosting the Iranian.

Is it their goal to undermine the Israeli position? Certainly possible if their ultimate goal is to avoid confrontation with Iran and learn to live with it going nuclear. I'm guessing Netanyahu is becoming increasingly disturbed by what he sees coming from Obama.

I'm beginning to slide on the F-22 debate - Gates' argument that big price tag, narrow focus items like the Raptor limit flexibility and flexibility is what the military requires going forward given the variegated nature of threats - this argument starting to convince me.

Still, no one as yet has really addressed issue that in order to maintain technological advantage you have to advance cutting edge technology, that the F-22 widens the gap viz air superiority so much that it inhibits the ability of your opponents to catch up - that there being no airforce to oppose the Raptor should be seen not as a flaw of the program but rather a success of the program.

You can argue that the current allotment of F-22s added to the coming boon of F-35s is enough to maintain and promote our technological advantage, and that may be a valid argument - but Rome started to become vulnerable to Barbarian advances when it surrendered its technological advantages, started to alter, for various reasons, the structure of its frontier forces leading to a decline in effectiveness and a weakening of deterrence. Be wise to heed that lesson.

update: Senate votes down additional money for the F-22 - not surprising, I suppose, but what I found funny was Obama going on TV and hailing the decision because it stops the waste of 1.7 billion taxpayer dollars - 1.7 billion! that's literally spit in the ocean compared to the hundreds of billions wasted in his bullshit stimulus - this guy plans to run trillion dollar deficits for the next ten years for fuck sake! Fucking shameless. Is there anyway this could be the beginning of characterizing military spending as a waste? Not from Gates of course, he's pretty much reliably hawkish - but to proceed with his agenda Obama is gonna need to come up with some cash - something to keep in mind as budgetary pressures mount over the next four years.

A leaked e-mail from an officer managing the force transition in Iraq reveals a simmering antagonism that could well boil over into something quite messy:

The acrimony that has marked the transition period has sowed resentment, according to several U.S. soldiers, who said the confidence expressed by Iraqi leaders does not match their competence.

"Our [Iraqi] partners burn our fuel, drive roads cleared by our Engineers, live in bases built with our money, operate vehicles fixed with our parts, eat food paid for by our contracts, watch our [surveillance] video feeds, serve citizens with our [funds], and benefit from our air cover," Bolger noted in the e-mail.

What I'm wondering is if the restrictions being placed on US military by this show of Iraqi 'confidence' is a result of foolish bluster, political grandstanding for the coming elections, or possibly references a more nefarious sort of scheming, ie attacks against US troops by Shiite militias are up - these militias are linked to Iran. Skulduggery afoot? Heavens, no, not in the Middle East, pellucid bastion of common sense and noble ambitions.

Soak the rich to pay for universal health care - extreme liberal agenda pretty much laid bare with that idea: rich don't deserve what they have so lets take it from them for the sake of utopian egalitarianism, otherwise known as the consolation of mediocrity, otherwise known as socialism. I have no illusions concerning the merits of the rich - as I have no illusions concerning the merits of the middle class or the poor or any other strata populating this provisional excrescence called society. Some people are worthy, most are of marginal relevance, a great many are virtually useless. The fundamental difference between the ideology of socialism and the practice of capitalism is that socialism wants to believe that people are essentially good and deserving whereas capitalism tends to act as if people are essentially weak and unreliable. Extremes of both are bad and will end with tyrannies of various orders - but as reality forces things to the middle only capitalism retains its vitality because its inherent realism makes it the most adaptable to and accommodating of exigent circumstances which amount to what we generally call life, which is why it has been so successful: socialism withers under the constraints of a delimiting, unrealistic dogma.

Of course it could just simply be a case of democrats behaving like cutthroat opportunists [you mean like capitalists?] by offering government controlled universal care for the purposes of binding a shit load of voters to them in perpetuity. Still, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... is it a socialist?

"... but why would you want a world free of racism? I only say that half facetiously... in the sense that to a degree it's entirely normal to fear, to be suspicious of things that are different... such feelings are the product of a healthy skepticism regarding the world and I would never want to lose that just for the sake of a shallow illusion... take anger, hatred, envy, aggression, contempt, scorn, fear from the world and what you're left with is Oprah... racism can't even touch the sickness of a mind that would long for something like that..."

Washington Post runs article today about maintenance costs on F-22 being so high that the viability of the plane is questionable for that reason alone. But then on an air defense website quotes from Mullen about how the Russian family of S-300 anti-air systems is a game changer and from an Israeli official saying that regardless of costs the F-22 is only platform capable of reliably negating the S-300 and is therefore worth the costs [it is believed Iran has a version of the S-300 system but Russia denies the sale]. Interesting.

There are so many highly placed advocates for and against the Raptor that it's hard to know where the truth lies, everyone has an agenda to spin - I continue to believe that you walk away from technology like this simply because of money at your own peril: if there are design issues that cannot be overcome, then that's a problem; but if this plane works and is sustainable then it really seems short sighted to deep six it. There seems to be plenty of evidence out there to suggest that countries like Russia and China, who lack the resources to match the F-22, will simply choose instead to counter air dominance through sophisticated ground based systems, ie the argument that there's no opposing air force for the F-22 to go up against seems increasingly irrelevant.

[true, there are other ways to jam anti-air radar - whether they can be as effective as a fully functioning squadron of F-22s, especially if the coming S-400 system represents a marked improvement over the S-300, I don't know - but it's possibly a convincing argument to suggest the Raptor is way too expensive if its only role is to jam or take out radar systems - although, I don't know about that since what other platform can do everything the F-22 can do, a stealth aircraft that can fly at mach 2 without using afterburners, can detect and eliminated radar systems, and can afterwards dominate the cleaned airspace with state of the art avionics and BVR targeting? It's not simply a case of jamming radar so a bunch of F-15s, 16s and 18s can rush in and start dropping JDAMs everywhere]

Still, no matter how vital to America's strength technological advancement is, if that technology is more show than substance then I suppose the money would be better spent somewhere else.

Interesting opinion in Jerusalem Post this morning quoting unnamed Israeli officials as believing that Iran will have the ability to make a bomb within a year but won't - that they will instead get to the point where they can quickly produce a nuclear force but not take the final step. What that will give them is the ability to claim compliance regarding proliferation concerns but still reap the advantages of a nuclear deterrence.

If true it would be in line with what I've said - that an Iranian bomb would not be aimed directly Israel but used rather as a means to promote Iranian influence and power elsewhere to the disadvantage of Israel - think how the Soviet Union used nuclear deterrence to expand its sphere of influence. In fact my whole point regarding how Iran getting the bomb can prove just as destabilizing as an Israel attempt to interdict such is based on that model.

Question is: wouldn't they need to test the bomb first - or can production follow closely on the heels of a test and so that's not really an issue? Israel has never demonstrated its nuclear capacity and yet still reaps the benefits of a perceived deterrence.

Curious - my belief that Obama's performance on the economy has been awful has been stated - why he keeps getting credit for doing a good job is beyond me, the stimulus package is now coming to be seen by the majority as an absolute boondoggle - but what's curious is that China is increasingly making noise about creating an alternative reserve currency, which would certainly scuttle Obama's plans to institute Great Society II by running huge budget deficits for the next ten years - most seem to think China doesn't really mean it but rather this is just their way of forcing Obama to amend his profligate ways before they start undermining the value of China's two trillion dollars in currency holdings - what's curious is that that puts me and China, China and a whole slew of conservative economists for that matter, on the same page when it comes to judging Obama's performance on the economy. No way that can be good, right?

Honduras? When did Honduras become an issue? When Obama decided to back the return of the exiled president even though he was legally [mostly anyways - it is Latin America after all] removed from office for attempting to change the constitution through a fraudulent referendum. Of course it's true the US had a history of supporting corrupt right wing politicians in the past down there as part of a possibly not so well reasoned out cold war strategy - but Zelaya ain't no right winger and this ain't the cold war. What makes this interesting is that Zelaya is rather closely tied to uber lefty Chavez and you'd think it'd be US policy not to serve the interests of wacko Chavez - but for some reason we are. That makes Honduras an issue.

The guess here is that the Obama administration was caught completely off guard by this, heard the phrase military coup, immediately assumed the worst and hurriedly ran to sympathize with the aggrieved party - and now, after reflection, they find themselves in something of a bind. Step away from Zelaya as they should and Chavez throws that red meat to the restive socialist hordes roiling in the equatorial sun; stay the course and you're basically propping up a lunatic Bolivarian ranting socialist America is the great Satan freak show , not something you really wanna be crawling into bed with, I'd think.

Tough one. What makes it especially interesting is that China has been assiduously forging ties with this freak show for a few years now - imagine the possibilities there.

"... my reaction to all this fuss over Michael Jackson? The world... has jumped the shark. You think you've become as cynical as it's possible to be regarding the species and then something like this happens and you realize, nope, I can take it to another level..."

Well, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen comes out today and says exactly what I've been saying for several months now: that the consequences of Iran getting the bomb will be just as dangerously unpredictable as the consequences arising from an Israeli strike to interdict - it has driven me crazy how supposed pundits dismiss as if ludicrous an Israeli strike because it would be the worst possible outcome - it wouldn't be, it should be obvious to anyone expending a little imagination on the problem that it wouldn't be and it's a bit troubling that so few in the commentariat seem to get that. I'm not saying Mullen agrees with me entirely on how this puzzle fits together - but it's nice to have the scales adjusted towards a semblance of reality.

Obama in Russia. I'm not sure any gestures made in attempt to 'reset' relations will matter if you don't know who's in charge - and we don't know who's in charge nor what exactly the agreement is between Putin and Medvedev - are they co-conspirators or rivals? is there a trust or mutual suspicion between them? is it possible they themselves are still exploring the limits and boundaries defining the relationship? Common sense would suggest Putin wouldn't have selected Medvedev without an understanding existing but that of course doesn't rule out Medvedev being a cunning bastard with plans of his own - but then again one has to believe Putin would have been very careful to guard against such a thing. There is a limited but still somewhat relevant opposition to Putin in the country and one can't simply dismiss possibility that Medvedev shares some of their concerns - but much more likely that if there is a divide between the two it's because of Medvedev's ambitions to out Putin Putin - I mean, he is a short little bastard and that ilk has a history of not dealing well with the seductions of power.

One thing for sure, the lack of clarity is to the advantage of Russia and disadvantage of the States, something which Putin would be entirely aware of and would explain why no effort is made to make clear who's calling the shots. Thus, any agreements you make under these conditions are of dubious merit and must be carefully calibrated - to wit, nuclear arms reductions. These reductions are all to Russia's advantage since they cannot afford to maintain long range missile capacity as is and the agreement does not address tactical weapons of which Russia has a large numerical edge - so essentially Obama looks to be giving away something for nothing. Obama of course is thinking about the nonproliferation treaty which requires efforts to reduce stockpiles - but if Putin believes that the NPT is a worthless document, no longer relevant [and if Russia helps Iran become a nuclear power he'd have good cause to believe that] then you still have the appearance of America giving away something for nothing.

It's possible that Obama is trying with these agreements and negotiations to separate the sand from the water - Iran would be the sieve - ie, create a situation where Medvedev can diverge from Putin over Iran and thereby throw light on the leadership question. Something like that is possible I suppose, although I have trouble seeing exactly how the math would work. More likely I'm afraid is that this is just further evidence of Obama's vain romanticism in the realm of foreign policy and an extension of his misguided 'world without nukes' agenda.

Of course I haven't considered how European missile defense figures into the equation. Apparently Obama did come out today in a Moscow speech and say that if Iran has no nukes then the missile shield is unnecessary - something of an odd statement since the real targets of the missile shield are of a global nature, including Russia and China, not simply about Iran - but if they are trying to drive a wedge between Medvedev and Putin such a declaration would make sense - probably the only hope left of stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions is to get Russia on board as a hardliner - Obama can't go back now re missile shield logic should Iran acquire the bomb - so in effect they're hanging a big carrot out there for Medvedev - either that or setting the stage for some serious confrontations down the road or an even more serious capitulation by Obama.

One sees now how the murky leadership issue favours Russia - they can intimate a division between Medvedev and Putin, intimate action on Iran and manipulate America, if Obama chooses to embrace an unreasonable optimism regarding these things, into a losing position: no missile shield, arms reductions that entirely favour Russia - and China for that matter - and a proxy in Iran serving anti-Americanism everywhere.

You can't negotiate with people if you don't know what they want.

Sarah Palin resigns - I say anything that knocks the freak show of dead Michael Jackson, a pathetic media circus that seems designed to demonstrate once and for all that modern society is truly a hollow shell of meretricious ephemera perched on the very edge of collapse - anything that knocks that garish expression of an exhausted culture beneath the fold must be a good thing.

But to treat Palin as a thing of interest in and of itself - well, if her plan is to cash in on her status as a party favorite then it makes complete sense: why endure the headaches and burdens of governing if there are sweeter rewards out there to be had? She's in a unique position - iron is hot, strike - simple as that. So the only real question is: what does it mean if she still has political ambitions?

To answer that I tend to think you have to view it entirely in the context of Obama: he's a celebrity politician, so is she; his power is derived from his celebrity, so is hers; he has the vital political talent of being able to 'connect' with people, so does she; he had, and still has for that matter, a thin resume ergo his success was dependent on a superficial, populist dynamic - same with Sarah. Seen in that light political office, especially in these tough economic times, may have proved more of a hindrance and liability viz her political ambitions: free of public chains she's in a much better position to control her public image - in the same way Obama has helped himself by not staying too long in any office he has served: old preconceptions need to be tossed with these two because their powers are based on the fancy of their public personas not the substantial facts of relevant experience.

And so I tend to believe those seeing flawed strategy in her actions are missing the point: given the normal expectations applied to politicians Obama should never have been elected, in fact he should have been punished for his arrogance - but Obama is not a normal politician. Same with Sarah - the old logic suggests she should be punished for quitting, but I don't see that happening. Of course, as Rove has said, the onus is now on her to make it work, the governorship gave her an out, a bit of cover that she now cannot resort to: her public performances going forward will have to be both compelling and convincing otherwise her ambitions, assuming she still has any, will be toast. But then that would have therefore been the case even if she had stayed in office - and so, on that basis, I think what she's done makes complete sense. The claim that this reinforces a view of her as being a bit 'crazy' only sticks if her performances here on out play to that perception - but again, if that's the case, she never had a chance anyway so what does it matter? As well, how can the democrats attack her as having abandoned her responsibilities when Obama did the same thing, truncating a six year senatorial term after only two years in order to pursue the presidency? And Palin can legitimately argue that she accomplished more in her two years as governor than Obama did in his two years as senator [I know he served four years but essentially two of that was spent chasing after the nomination].

If you see Palin as a republican version of Obama, appealing to a different demographic with a different style and different optics but playing off the same populist dynamics, then you cannot judge her resignation using old parameters that probably don't matter anymore - certainly at least don't matter as far as these two are concerned. Personally, I hope she's got what it takes, not because I'm a supporter, but because I think it would make for a truly fascinating 2012 campaign - although possibly fascinating in a rather morbid sort of way since I lean towards seeing both as appealing facades hiding serious structural flaws.