If the Stuxnet worm is of Israeli origin [which seems increasingly likely] and America knew of the plan and possibly even collaborated on the execution [one strongly suspects part of that at least true] then does this change my opinion of Obama's Iran appeasement policy? Possibly, not sure - given the extreme sophistication of the virus [when well seasoned cyber war wonks are referring to it as 'incredible' and an 'absolute game changer' you know it's serious shit] but given the sophistication of the project it must have been a long time in the works and therefore any American collusion or participation would have been inherited by Obama from Bush - and so one could see the appeasement initiative as a ruse possibly, which would be interesting - or Obama feeling the impending sabotage of Natanz afforded him the time to play at diplomacy, which would be less interesting and remain vulnerable to skepticism - but I don't know. Remember Bush was criticized on the right for his somewhat soft Iran policy - but I guess we can assume that he too was guided by a wait and see approach since I take it no one could really be sure how damaging the cyber attack would be - Iranian HEU production is down about 25%.

Curious though that the virus showed up first in China and Russia which seems a bit odd since the virus apparently was coded to specifically attack Natanz  - now, this probably just a reflection of the enabling role they play in Iran's nuclear ambitions and therefore the vulnerability to infection that goes with that - still, one wonders - the targeted industrial hardware almost certainly came to Iran through China since the company that produces the hardware never sold it to Iran [in fact I believe the selling of it to Iran may be prohibited] - if Israel created the worm they would have to know which hardware was being used - obviously their intelligence services could find this stuff out - still, knowing how much China is investing in cyber warfare, what if this is them running an experiment in large scale industrial sabotage that they can conveniently blame on Israel? Seems rather far fetched - I ain't ruling it out though.

I'm amazed, well, struck by how many [liberals] want to make the argument, as they do with the GZ mosque, that the average in this case Muslim is no threat to America, means us no harm, as if this is a compelling argument - since when it comes to autocracies, tyrannies, it doesn't matter what the average person thinks or says or does - that's what makes these things autocratic. We all know that most Iraqis did not like Saddam, a great many Iranians are not fond of the theocracy and sure as shit almost all North Koreans aren't thrilled by Dear Leader and etc etc. Therefore, sticking with the mosque example, one must see that the problem is not Muslims per se, but rather Islam because Islam needs to be theocratic, it depends on an autocratic imposition in order to function in true accordance with its tenets - the average person, to be put it coldly, just doesn't much matter. Now, sure, no doubt many Muslims, especially in western societies, don't really pay attention to the theocratic imperative of Islam just as many Christians ignore a great deal of the agenda their Christ was selling - but that doesn't matter - the mullahs and attendant reactionaries and revolutionaries believe in it, it's important to them, and in a culture that has known nothing but theocracy and dictatorship or some bastard child thereof like phony democracies that are mere fronts for endemic corruption, what the mullahs et al believe is all that matters. So, again, a little amazed that so many make this argument as if it's cogent - or rather, struck by how many supposed 'experts' do not point out the flaws in the argument, do not seem to understand or fail to make the distinction that we're talking about systems, not people - and that makes all the difference.

This why I tend to, if not entirely support, at least strongly sympathize with the French ban on burqas - at some point one must ask the quite logical question: if an outsider enters a culture and says they accept and adopt the fundamental principles of that culture and yet insists on behaviors that are both at odds with those fundamental principles and lend credence or legitimacy to an opposing system of fundamental principles, at what point does this political aberration become a problem? Again, France is 10% Muslim, America .5% - certain elements in America may want to pontificate about intolerance in France etc etc but if America woke up tomorrow and was suddenly 10% Muslim attitudes would change dramatically - and that's because although the constitution is a progressive document advancing and protecting many rights and freedoms and America is consequently a very open and tolerant society that does not therefore imply that anything goes - it does mean you get a lot of latitude just so long as you willingly embrace certain fundamental principles but it is not a license to arbitrarily create new laws and conventions [or in the case of Islam regress to antiquated ones] - and there's a subtlety here that people either don't get or choose not to see - because in a way in America virtually anything does in fact go up to a certain point - there's a lot of crazy or annoying or dysfunctional shit that just gets ignored because it's too small or insignificant or non-threatening to be noticed or cared about or be judged capable of threatening the greater whole - but that does not imply there's nothing fundamentally wrong with these 'aberrant' things - we may tolerate one Ashton Kutcher - if suddenly tomorrow there were a million of him, well... something would have to be done, right? Just because I may be obliged to tolerate the one Kutcher and the social contract that enables this tolerance may require such a loathed sacrifice from me in order that my own rights and freedoms be respected and held inviolable that does not therefore imply that Kutcherism in and of itself is a good or tolerable thing.

Interesting - Russia decides not to send promised game changing S-300 air defense system to Iran in compliance with present sanctions regime, or so they say. Seems odd if not questionable that after several years of playing chicken with this issue, keeping pretty much everybody wondering what their real intentions were and if there was a hidden strategy at work - seems dubious to me they just suddenly wake up convinced of what the right thing to do is. But what then? They trying to encourage a strike by Israel to drive up oil prices? Or is it really just a practical matter of them deciding that they'd have more to lose than gain by completing the sale?

Of further interest now will be waiting to see if China steps in to fill the void - their missile defense batteries are based on [stolen from] the Russian system so would probably prove an able replacement - but how would China view the long term strategic implications of such a move? They already are the most important enabler of Iran viz the nuke standoff - but the machinations of that game are fairly easily covered, buried behind rhetorical obscurantism - delivering a missile system would be a much more overt inserting of themselves into the political fun-house of the Middle East and could potentially be interpreted as an open challenge to America's dominance in the region.

Little starling to learn China controls a virtual monopoly over rare earth minerals, the elements required for the manufacturing of a lot of high tech stuff - including military technology - and has increasingly been limiting how much of it they make available for export - and that's making some people nervous - Japan's economy is dependent on rare minerals as is the US military.

So, let's see - China, America's chief rival for the next 50 years on several fronts, is by far the largest holder of the burgeoning US debt, which means they could basically shut down the American economy any time they wanted to - and they utterly control access to rare earth minerals, so they could conceivably shut down the American military anytime they wanted to - there are obviously mitigating conditions tagged to each of these threats, but still, the threats are hardly reduced to mere fantasy because of that.

This does not strike one as an optimal state of affairs for the US. Now, the US used to be the main source of rare earth minerals and so one imagines can address this strategic dilemma if they choose to [although there are apparently significant complications involved with mining this stuff, which is why they got out of the business in the first place] - and Japan and the US could start hoarding the minerals so as to build up a strategic reserve - but that begs the question: is China putting quotas on exports because their expansive manufacturing sector is increasingly hungry for rare minerals - or because by limiting supplies they make it harder for Japan and the US to steer excess into strategic reserves? The latter scenario would suggest to me a rather aggressive foreign policy lying in the weeds - and would seem to amount to a rather clumsy provocation since these minerals do exist elsewhere - so does that mean the intent here likely not strategic? or that China, when it comes to wielding it's new found powers, is indeed clumsy - autocracies layered with opaque bureaucratic structures do tend towards aberrant behaviour.

No one's commenting on how the midterm election will be big for me - as in if the republicans clean up as predicted and Obama doesn't pull a Clinton and embrace practical moderation like a long lost lover then that will mean or strongly indicate that my prediction of Obama not wanting to serve a second term is possibly correct since the only way Obama could possibly be re-elected in 2012 while continuing to govern from the left is if the economy stages a miracle recovery - but I don't even think that could save him if he's still perceived as a left wing ideologue. So big election for me - my reputation [imagined] as the most perspicacious [consistently apocryphal] pundit out there hangs in the balance.

I see Krauthammer took a shot a Palin today - essentially saying that she's responsible for that wackadoo getting the nomination in Delaware so she should go to Delaware and make sure the wackadoo gets elected otherwise she will have cost the GOP its chance at taking over the senate. I agree - everything I've read about O'Donnell [the wackadoo] makes it fairly clear that she's a carpetbagger, she runs for office repeatedly as a way of making a living - she's nuts - she obviously recognized the Tea Party's fondness for supporting 'unusual' candidates and exploited this compulsion to make one more unwarranted run at a senate seat so that I guess she can pay her rent for the next year - that's what I see - con artist.

What's curious is that only Rove and now Krauthammer have had the guts to step forward and state this obvious fact - everybody's afraid of pissing off the Tea Party - which means Palin really can't back track now, she's painted into a corner. If O'Donnell pulls off a miracle and wins, Palin looks like genius and she's on her way to the White House - on the other hand if O'Donnell turns into the electoral embarrassment that seems inevitable and thereby turns independents off of the GOP and improves Obama's fortunes - is Palin then toast? A very curious situation developing here.

update: right on cue Sarah takes to the teleprompter yesterday and grabs the challenge by the throat, sending out a rallying cry to all elements of the GOP to embrace the Tea Party so the party as a whole can be reborn and the country with it etc etc - again showing why only a fool would dismiss her - yes, she could be a not so bright, not so stable self promoter - or she could be in possession of political skills and instincts that put her on par with masters like Clinton and Reagan - it's not clear. So I see one of three things happening: O'Donnell turns into an embarrassment that spills over onto all Tea Party candidates and alienates independents and costs the GOP significant gains in November - this would be a disaster for Palin and probably bring her run to an end; O'Donnell doesn't win but does ok and more importantly does nothing to damage the reputation of other 'insurgent' candidates - that's a win for Palin because Tea Partiers will respect her willingness to take a risky stand for the cause; O'Donnell wins - huge win for Palin, will be impossible not to take seriously after that.

Don't pay attention to Ackerman anymore since his JournoList affiliation and activities were revealed.

The pursuit of COIN only makes sense if America plans on remaining the dominant economic and military power in the world - COIN only matters because of America's global significance and the foundation of that significance is conventional military power, not COIN - COIN exists because of conventional power - if that status quo cannot be maintained then COIN is ultimately a waste of time. Given present circumstances is conventional dominance coupled with unending COIN-like engagements really possible while China rushes forward with a valid plan to undermine the former without having to entangle itself in the latter? That's the real question to be answered, because if the answer is no then the ultimate winner in Afghanistan will be China, not us.

"... a truth commission is a public shaming designed to serve a partisan political interest and would have little to do with either the 'truth' or the clearing of the nation's conscience - in fact would probably righteously abuse the former and greatly aggravate and unsettle the latter - would certainly be an open invitation for partisans from each side to hurl rhetorical bombs at each other so why on earth you think that'd be good for the country - or more importantly the military - is beyond me.


Regardless, it's obvious you have a lot of military connections - but do you actually talk to soldiers? Cause the soldiers I talk to do not share your point of view at all Mr Ricks - granted they're all Marines and possibly therein lies the difference - but you sit down for a beer with these boys and start talking about a truth commission and they'll get up and leave - these guys have seen and done a lot of bad shit, the echoes of which still haunt them, I've seen it in their eyes as they tell me the stories - are you then suggesting it would be a good idea to call a truth commission to look into those 'facts' as well? So all consciences can be cleared and all hearts unburdened?


What exactly has to happen for you liberals to finally understand that the world has absolutely no interest in limiting itself to actions you deem appropriate?..." 

"... why do you speak of tolerance in absolute terms? Tolerance is always conditional - any idealistic expression of freedom and liberty etc is always constrained by practical considerations - any country no matter how tolerant it imagines itself to be will embrace 'intolerance' if the predominant culture begins to feel threatened. I've lived extensively in Paris - 20 years ago there was no arrondissement I would have considered a no go zone - that's not true today - and 20 years from now? Would you call France foolishly intolerant for, as any open society does, placing specific limitations on immigration to protect the integrity of a status quo? Conversely, would you consider France a shining example of enlightened tolerance if it just threw open its doors and said come one, come all and once you're here do what ever you want?

Conditions always apply to any expression of freedom and tolerance - America is so diverse and sprawling and fungible that it possibly can pretend that's not true, but it's always true - the people who settled this country certainly understood that, but with so much opportunity and space to exploit and with the threat of available cultural permutations so limited it was easy to pretend tolerance was in a sense absolute - that is of course until the predominant culture bumped up against a truly alien one in the form of aboriginals and proceeded to exterminate them - conditions always apply.

France and America may share an historical attachment to certain ideals - and we're all thankful for those ideals - but France ain't America and it's ridiculous to expect it to be - it's much smaller, it's cultural traditions much less diverse, and its shared sense of history much older and much more set in its ways. I've lived there and I know how proud the predominant culture is and I know for a fact they view Islam as a growing threat - the French may be particularly sensitive to this perceived threat but the fear of Islamification exists throughout western Europe, and it's not because of racism [although it'd be naive to think racism doesn't play a part - then again racism is just a fear of cultural dislocation] or a distrust of Muslims per se but because of a distrust of the inherent political demands of Islam  - European history is scarred by religious strife and that's because religion in Europe used to be highly politicized - the almost draconian secularism of the French constitution is an apt reflection of that - well, shariah by its very nature necessarily makes Islam highly political and therefore highly resistant to the adoption of Western norms [I mean if your faith is dependent upon the enactments and oversight of a political entity how can you accept a political entity that doesn't promote your faith?]   - and thus you get the fear -  awash in delusion in America you may view this fear as hysterical and unsubstantiated - but for Europeans it's real [although the fact that their poorly thought out post colonial immigration protocols created the problem does complicate ones sympathy]... you could put it this way - engage in a thought experiment - imagine that suddenly tomorrow every black in America or every Hispanic suddenly converted to Islam - do you really think the remaining 80% of the non-Muslim population would welcome the change and sing the praises of unending tolerance and comity between divergent cultures? You're living in a dream world if you say yes. Well, in about 30 years it's estimated France will be about 20% Muslim..."

I take a lot of heat for my praising of Sarah Palin - but that's the point, it's amusing how annoyed, almost insulted liberals become if you say you like her - I find that revealing - and the fact is she embodies certain characteristics, some bad, some good, that lie at the center of a realistic understanding of politics and power - so she does tend to fascinate me.

But I still think I'd be shocked and not a little alarmed by her actually running for and winning the presidency - I mean aside from making me look a bit soothsayerish since I did float such a possibility back when most were dismissing her as little more than an ignorant, bumpkin clown - but that brief sense of having one up on the supposedly much wiser punditry would soon recede behind some real concern.

For instance, apparently it was an endorsement from Sarah that pushed Christine O'Donnell to a surprise win in the Delaware republican primary for Biden's senate seat - apparently the GOP had a real shot of taking over this traditionally liberal seat - as long as they didn't nominate Tea Party favourite O'Donnell who, from what I've read, is either an absolute wacko in the far right fundamentalist religious zeal mode or an absolute con artist who sings whatever song she needs to sing in order to advance her 'interests', in this case feeding the Tea Party frenzy to it seems back anyone who doesn't sound, look or smell anything like politics as usual. And now it's thanks to Sarah that we got this girl, a person so vile that apparently even Karl Rove can't stand her.

And so the concern - but on second thought concern only if Sarah made this plunder out of ideological blindness or astounding ignorance or an impoverished sense of judgement - what if she made this 'blunder' as part of some cunning calculation to make herself even more of a hero to the Tea Partiers [but to what practical end if candidates like O'Donnell scare away independents]? Look, they might say, how our Sarah sacrificed her good name and put it all on the line to support the cause and send a clear message to the GOP establishment! What if she's that cunning? You see, that's why the girl fascinates me. [but, c'mon, you don't really think she's that clever - it's just more fun imagining that she might be, no? Could be I've invented a scenario for my own purposes that has very little to do with reality - I still insist that reading from the teleprompter there's few out there better and, like it or not, that's a significant talent to have - but removed from the security of a rehearsed performance she does come across as 90% ambition and self promotion and 10% substance - but then again I could say the same more or less about Obama - sure he has law school smarts in the sense he can remember a lot of details and weave them into circumlocutions that vaguely resemble something a truly eloquent person might say - but have I heard or read anything from him that suggests a profound understanding of the world and the people crawling across it? No - just sounds like another salesman to me, except that the product he's moving just happens to be himself and the self he is selling is the phony promise of a liberal transcendence neatly manifested in his post racial, transnational persona]

Mustn't confuse difference between speculation and theory - I can speculate on what Shakespeare was trying to say in Hamlet but it's impossible to know for sure - I can demonstrate why I think the fat Dane was meant to mean a certain thing, but I can't prove it - and because I can't prove it the interpretation is open to rebuke, often intense rebuke if the interpretation seems extreme - but of course the rebuke itself can also not be proved.

I had no problem with D'Souza's speculative essay - I took it with a large grain of salt, as all speculation should be taken with some seasoning - but that doesn't mean there was nothing there worth chewing on. After all, the Obama presidency invites speculation - I doubt any president in our history was elected on such whimsical, fantastical terms - one could read ostensibly intelligent writers pontificating on how the simple act of America electing a black man as president was not only going to forever change this country for the better, but change the world - that's pure, unadulterated fantasy and yet supposedly serious people were treating this wild speculation as if it were indisputable reality.

So take D'Souza's essay for what it is - not veiled racism [although I can't prove that] but rather as a somewhat distorted reflection of the times and therefore not without its merits. After all, Obama did write a rather emotionally drawn book about an absent father, so... Hamlet, I am thy father's ghost...

The Imam behind the GZ mosque has finally come forward to address the controversy but his views actually lend credence to the opposition - he says if he'd known the mosque would cause such unease he'd never have chosen the contentious location [this seems unlikely cause how could one not have imagined there might be problems with this] but he can't back out of the project now because that would provoke outrage in the Middle East. Sorry, but doesn't that amount to an admission that the concerns motivating opposition to this mosque are based on a reality ie that there's a problem with Islam, at least as concerns the political, consitutional, civil and cultural norms of the West? Appease our sense of historical humiliation and the absolutist needs of our faith or we'll start burning things to the ground - that's not a winning argument. I mean I'm sure progressives might buy into it cause they're afraid of confronting any problem that refuses to conform to solutions amenable to their sympathies - but the average American ain't gonna look too kindly on an offer to submit or die.

"... yes, I say Obama is anti-business... I mean, forget the fact that everything in his past suggests that is so or likely to be so... but ever since he took office the populist line from the administration has been the financial crisis is Wall Street's fault, bankers are evil, big business is all about greed feeding on the backs of poor workers... populist drivel... the fact is the crisis is a dog with three heads... banks took on way too much risk, gov't and the Fed actively encouraged this behavior and consumers - again, with Washington's blessing - excited by a mindless enthusiasm gladly lemminged forward and leapt to their credit engorged deaths... in short, we all jumped into this bed together and consequently we all got fucked... now, it would be nice if the president could distance himself from ideological pandering for a time and talk about what has happened in honest terms and thereby possibly restore some confidence to the marketplace... but of course these people are all about ideology, they don't believe in the marketplace, they believe in government and the enlightened guidance of an intellectual elite leading the oppressed towards the reformed beauty of an ideal future and the effulgence of a self serving glory that they can forever bask in, breathlessly congratulating themselves on their shared wonderfulness, like pretty girls all giddy in the court of the King..."

"... who's comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin et al? The point was ideology tends towards delusion - and you people are delusional if you think America can remain a military giant while embracing soft, EU style socialism. The political contexts within which a powerful military can exist and thrive are very limited - and Obama's anti-big business, anti-Wall Street, redsitributive, trans-national, 'I'm here to redeem the evils of America nee the West's imperial/colonialist past' guilt mongering fantasy world ain't one of them. So people like you and Mr Ricks need to make up your minds: you wanna be the EU or do you wanna be America? History is pretty clear on the fact that you can't be both..."

It was always my impression that when the BP oil spill first happened that the Obama administration's initial reaction was to use the disaster as a prop for the continued bashing of big business and big money - saw it as an excuse to practice the crass anti-capitalist populism that was in keeping with the unsympathetic view of business in general that had marked their approach to the financial crisis since the inauguration - and only after it became apparent just how serious the problem brewing there in the gulf was did they start to tone down the populist politicking and ramp up the disaster response - but I never read anyone else characterizing the Obama response in that way so I wondered if maybe my impression was tainted by bias and forgot about it.

Thankfully though [well, it's really a small deal not quite in need of the giving of thanks] but thankful anyways for the concerns of my delicate ego Dinesh D'souza at Forbes has written a rather scathing review of Obama's antiquated anti-colonialist agenda and the delusional psychology behind it [in short, Obama has daddy issues] where he sees Obama's response to the BP disaster in much the same terms as I saw it. So... there ya go... a victory for me... small victory, true, but ya take what you can get.

Have I misunderstood what the establishment clause et al say about religion in America? It's clear Americans in general see their liberties and attributes thereof as representative of something bequeathed to them by a great and loving God and not as a victory for secularism - in fact a certain element in America would probably see secularism itself as a gift from God - and certainly there's an element that would judge secularism as evil, sinful and against the interests of the republic. So, yes, in a sense I've misinterpreted the meaning of secularism when it comes to America in general - it's possible the founding fathers would have understood the republic qua God in more enlightened philosophical terms, but America as a whole remains a fairly pious nation, or rather, tends to want to see itself in a context that blurs the line between secularism and religion when it comes to the founding principles of the nation.

Still, regardless, the evolution of secularism is fundamental to the Western tradition - it's virtually impossible to understand our sense of democracy, capitalism, individual rights and just laws without it - and that sets the West off very distinctly from Islam where Sharia is the defining context - and my whole point was that it's up to liberals to make that argument because conservatives are hindered by a base that puts everything in terms of a loving God - and what has disturbed me is the revelation that liberals are just as boxed in by their progressive ideology as conservatives are by their moralistic one - not that I was unaware of how left the left has swung - but to not be able to make the secularist argument here because you're afraid it runs against the progressive idealism espoused by Obama and his ilk? That has shocked me a bit - and it will lead to bad things - one extreme just provokes the animus of an opposing one as both fight for what the see as their survival - and so you get a church in Florida that plans to burn the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary - and the point is do I think this act is aimed at Muslims or liberals? I think the enemy here for this church is liberalism - this is the kind of insanity that ensues - the left failed to take up the realist, secularist argument when it came to the mosque, instead deciding to preach an extreme idealist left wing view that's at odds with the way a majority of Americans tend to see this issue, in fact seems disdainful of anyone expressing skepticism towards the Cordoba initiative -  and thusly the god wackos on the right are emboldened.

The crazy thing is that skepticism is an intellectual attribute one could associate quite naturally with a classically liberal point of view - I would consider a great skeptic like Hume as a perfect example of a liberal in the classical sense - and the mosque problem opens itself up to a classical skeptical secularist critique - and instead liberals can't run away from the problem fast enough. Quite revealing - in fact I would go so far as to say that the mosque issue has revealed in a most glaring way just how empty and detached from reality modern liberalism is.

History seems to suggest that for great powers [which America still is, much to the chagrin of progressives apparently] domestic policy and foreign policy are inextricably, unrelentingly joined - in fact America's rise to great affluence and power came on the heels of dramatic foreign policy initiatives - consequently, to aspire to the leadership of a great power and either not understand this dynamic or simply to be in denial of it causes one to conclude that such a person is a fool, dangerously naive... or has a hidden agenda.

So I take it Tom your brief parsing of Obama's speech to find a president unwilling to bear or uncomfortable with the burdens and frustrations of foreign policy concerns is your way of finally admitting that he is naive or a fool... or harbours a radical agenda hidden away from the public. Well done.

"... Avigdor is out to sabotage the peace talks? So in other words, if current peace efforts fail it will be Israel's fault. Have you not read Abbas' remarks made this morning to Palestinian press saying he doesn't feel any need on his part to compromise on refugee question, settlements, 67 borders, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, division of Jerusalem etc etc? But of course if talks fail it will be Israel's fault.

As shrewd analysts in Israel always try to point out to the West which the West seems inclined to always ignore: it doesn't matter what Palestinian negotiators say to the western or world press - listen to what they say in their own language to the Palestinian and Arab press if you want a true picture of things.

Now, as to why the West insists on ignoring this rather obvious impediment when discussing the state of negotiations... well, I think we can take a few good guesses as to what that's about..."