That is the plan, and it’s making extraordinary progress with a minimum of violent extremism. As Soeren Kern elaborates, in England Islamist organizations are now pressing to turn twelve British cities into Islamic emirates: autonomous Muslim enclaves governed by sharia law, independent of the national justice system. They call one proposed emirate “Londonistan” — surely not to honor Melanie Phillips, who wrote a book by that title, but confirming nevertheless the phenomenon she so brilliantlydiagnosed. In these cities, non-Muslims are serially harassed, women are threatened (and worse) for failing to don the veil, and visiting officials such as former home secretary Jon Reid are heckled, “How dare you come to a Muslim area?”

In France, the government now posts on its official website the list of 751 zones urbaines sensibles, the Muslim enclaves considered no-go zones. Non-Muslims are on notice: Enter at your own considerable risk. The police no longer go in. The nation no longer exercises sovereignty. The same pattern is seen in Brussels, Rome, Amsterdam, and the Ruhr: As the number of Muslims increases, so does the number of enclaves. The policewill not enter without police escorts, which often means the police will not enter, period. As one police chief told the German press, the governments may deny it, but everyone knows these no-go zones exist, and “even worse, in these areas crimes no longer result in charges.” The Muslims are “left to themselves. Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture.”

These are the wages of a myopic concentration on the physicality of violence coupled with an irrational denial that the violence — jihadism — is only is part of an ambitious plan to govern in accordance with sharia. Violent jihad is not wanton. It is part of a strategy to implement sharia as the foundation of a fundamentalist Muslim society. That is why sharia is worth studying. The idea is not to kill non-Muslims; it is to overcome resistance. Sometimes that is done by “violent extremism,” but it is just as effectively done by demoralizing the police. It is even more effectively done by infiltrating the councils of government policy.

This from McCarthy over at National Review - always can be relied on to conjure up some boilerplate viz Islam - and ya know, it's not like I'm anti-Islam per se - what I am is anti church getting all mixed in with state and Islam unfortunately seems especially vulnerable in this regard - such works against fundamental aspects of the Western tradition, one could even argue the most fundamental of the fundamental attributes defining the West - my problem with Islam is that I don't believe as currently understood and practiced that it as a belief system can function as its overlords of doctrine see fit and really as the Koran itself sees fit without a significant political component being operative - that's my problem with Islam - if people want to follow that faith and believe in that god, go ahead, I don't really care - I tend to view all religion as somewhat silly; when it comes to people and their gods I weave between utter disdain, bemused scorn and besotted indulgence - whatever - but in addressing the complications raised by Islam let's not forget what makes the Western tradition the Western tradition - let's not through some phony, manufactured, naive sense of absolute tolerance or cowardly denial fail to defend and celebrate the very things that make us us. That's all I'm saying. Acceptance of the essential, of the defining characteristics of Western history and culture should at least be the minimum standard for citizenship, no? If you're a Muslim, or any one else wedded to a creed for that matter, and you have a problem with what it actually means to be a citizen of the West, to be an American, well, ya don't have to live here - it's not required - after all, it's not like there's thousands upon thousands of infidel American despoilers clamoring to emigrate to Pakistan or longing to crack open a beer in Mecca. I may not agree with a lot D Rumsfeld had to say, but I agree with this: America may not be perfect, but America ain't what's wrong with the world [well, in a manner of speaking - put another way, there's much more wrong with the world than simply blaming America can even remotely account for]

A few interesting facts here: recent poll suggests about half of American Muslims believe that Muslims themselves do not express sufficient criticism of Islamic extremism - interestingly, a strong majority of Muslims who feel this way are women. Are Muslim women the beachhead of fundamental reform of Islam in keeping with the requirements of a modern society? Maybe - therefore does that make one agree with France viz the banning of the burqha? Possibly - France like all of Europe has a Muslim integration problem that looks almost unfixable given current thinking and approaches - possibly the burqha ban is the kind of strong medicine needed that regardless of the bad taste ends up doing good. - on the other hand the ban could indeed be the manifestation of an innate cultural enmity, of an intractable incompatibility not amenable to persuasions of any sort and thus a precursor of dire troubles to come. So it is that one should remember, that if Europe has a Muslim problem, and it seems pretty clear it does, it was foolish, ill conceived policy decisions concerning immigration and social welfare and other endemic dysfunctions spawned by years of bad or otherwise misguided governance that created the problem - Europe brought the calamity on itself. Unfortunately, there's little consolation to be found in this acknowledgement - solving this problem will not be like fixing budgetary deficits or backing out of an unwise treaty or foreign policy misadventure - you can't simply say to the roiling, disgruntled Muslim underclass of Europe "Sorry guys - this really hasn't worked out the way we thought it would - do you mind just all going back to from whence you came?". Nope - I don't see how this gets anything but worse - I mean, Europe is broke - austerity measures are going to mean cuts in gov't services - that's gonna exacerbate the problem, no? I mean, sure, runaway social welfareism helped create the crisis - but you pull that lid from the pot without turning down the heat - well, something bad's gonna come boiling out of there.

And this: in the last year about a quarter million increase in amount of students choosing education in Madrassas in Turkey; also, in order to get into a university in Turkey, it is no longer required that you have graduated from a 'secular' high school, or whatever the high school equivalent is in Turkey. Do I trust Erdogan? Absolutely not. I'll be very curious to see how both he and Ahmadinejad try and manipulate events in Libya to their advantage - remember, Libya is backdoor entrance into Egypt - they both would love increased influence in Egyptian political matters - and one assumes the Muslim Brotherhood would welcome that influence.

I won't pretend to know much about economic theory, tax policy etc etc - I read some things from which I glean parcels of useful info but in the end the arguments hover well above my understanding - I do find it interesting that reputable and often well known Phds in the field can express diametrically opposed opinions when asked to comment on causes of current dire state of Western economies and indebtedness and what elected officials should or should not be doing about such - that's interesting and forces one to wonder if economics is a science or an ideology - maybe ideologies that manifest consequences to which scientific analysis can be provisionally applied - but regardless, I try to approach the issues with a sense of practicality - and so when democrats talk of raising taxes I make the what seems obvious objection: when you've so completely demonstrated your inability to spend the public's money wisely, why on earth would I think entrusting you with more of it a good thing? Likewise, when republicans talk about cutting taxes I say: I get how it seems counter intuitive to punish your most productive citizens, I get how big government can become a threat and impediment to the expression of vital freedoms - but how can I be certain that simply letting 'the rich' keep more of their money will result in greater productivity that benefits all? So it is it cheered my heart this morning while watching CNBC that a former CEO of a major enterprise [can't remember who and what] basically made the same points, ie - giving the gov't more money is like loosening the leash on the dog that's threatening to kill you; cutting taxes without incentivizing that stimulus towards increasing domestic productivity does not seem particularly enlightened either - he used the example that when he was a CEO and the Bush tax cuts were enacted those savings for the most part ended up being invested in China.

So, in short, for the average voter unencumbered by ideological bones in need of picking, it becomes I think fairly straight forward - the gov't spends too much money and often for reasons of highly dubious merit; the tax code is grossly inefficient and counter productive. Fix those things and maybe we can forestall a complete collapse of Western civilization.

Pentagon released its analysis of Chinese military modernization efforts - these things in last decade(s) have been notoriously bad, as in significantly underestimating the state of PLA upgrades - I've only browsed through it, but others with much more expertise than me seem so far to believe no egregious flaws jumping out - other than continuing attempt by Pentagon to say out one side of its mouth that China isn't a rising threat while out the other that they are - a perfunctory dance that I guess is necessary but is also starting to seem a bit silly - can't believe either side is much fooling the other at this point - but I suppose ambiguity has its sundry uses for both - China [that is gov't sponsored editorial] has of course declared that the Pentagon is way out of bounds with it's declarations even though what China is up to is pretty much obvious to anyone with a brain and an internet connection.

One phrase though did  jump out at me - that China lacks operational expertise - in other words, they may be acquiring the tools of modern war making, but they have no real world battle experience of putting those tools to good use - in other words, they've paraded, they've done the pep rallies, but haven't played an actual game yet. China's only significant military experience of the remotely modern variety was Korea and then briefly against Vietnam in the late 70's - but those experiences are of little to no relevance when it comes to 4th generation war, war as it has existed since Iraq, 1991. That's a big shortcoming, a significant roadblock to modernization if the point of that modernization is to compete with the vastly more experienced, battle tested and operationally vetted US military [and of course that is the point of the modernization - not that I'm saying China seeks war with America - rather, they want control of their corner of Pacific - at least that - and so their goal is to either gradually force the US out through various stratagems and intimidations and opportune alliances or, should hostilities come, to quickly get the advantage so as to convince America that pursing a military solution to the disagreement really wouldn't be worth it]

The upshot being here - if China truly wants to catch up to the US it needs to fight a war, several probably. Lucky for China, life being the perverse thing that it is, as an ambitious, rising power, war will inexorably find them out - such is the way of all flesh. Unfortunately, these 'wars' will also inexorably run up against American interests, directly or by insinuation - possibly forcing a charge into the breach betimes the readiness for such - and let's not forget, inexperience can foment an irrational enthusiasm for the thing not known.

But let's set aside jingoistic imponderables - what if China attempts to go the full Sun Tzu? And by that I mean taking Sun's dictum of the best victories being those won without having to actually fight for them, taking that dictum to its absurd extreme - if they never fight how can China ever truly modernize relative to the US? No doubt their heavy investment in cyberwarring is an attempt to address that paradox - still, sets up an interesting dilemma: either they truly modernize which means fighting wars and dealing with the complications and dangers arising thereof, not the least of which is inevitable conflict with American interests; or they eschew with Tzu, avoid the wars by means of other stratagems but by doing so fail to truly modernize and therefore remain vulnerable viz the US - with that vulnerabilty being dangerous not necessarily because it incites the US, but rather because it incites a wary and possibly paranoid delusional PLA to act rashly over some perceived slight or aggression - and remember, as I've remarked on before, there's a strong likelihood that the Politburo will increasingly come to rely on the stoking of hyper nationalism to control or subvert domestic problems - a dangerous combination that: autocracy, a strident sense of national purpose and unschooled militarism.

[Of course, this can all be rendered meaningless if Obama gets his way and turns the American military into the emasculated police force leftist European intellectuals have been dreaming about for awhile now - why do you think liberals are crowing about the false 'victory' in Libya, asserting it as proof of a new model for American military engagement?]

I see that a mere two days after my raising the notion of Huntsman running as an independent, that others are now doing same - I insist on believing I was the first to see the logic of it [although only the small comfort of this delusion shall be my reward] - apparently polls suggest that the electorate is particularly primed for a third party run this time around, what with the president seemingly not especially liked by anyone at this point and congress utterly despised by most as well -  to me it seems somewhat obvious since I don't know how else to explain Hunstman's doomed to fail strategy for winning the GOP primary. I mean, I suppose he could just simply be an idiot - so many of our best people are these days.

[and let's not forget Mitch Daniels as a 3rd party candidate since it seems the reason he dropped out was the critical attention his long separation from his wife would draw from social conservatives in the GOP primary - his wife apparently was none too thrilled by that prospect, and one can hardly blame her. But again, the thing about Huntsman is he's rich and it's hard to see anyone other than a rich guy being able to pull off a 3rd party run - I mean it's speculated that Obama could have as much as a billion dollars to put towards reelection - hell, this time next year the guy could be viewed by a significant majority as the worst president ever and still possibly pull out a victory with that kind of money to spend. Some people in this regard mention Trump - but that's mostly liberals trying to make conservatives look bad by linking their agenda with an idiot like Trump - the man's a clown and all that's needed is a cursory look beneath the veneer of his public persona to make that obvious to everyone and therefore he's not even remotely a serious candidate - shit, the guy appears in gaudy, low budget commercials in Canada hawking mattresses for one of his lousy companies - mattresses!! Again, liberals love the guy cause he makes conservatives look like morons - although, Trump voted for Obama, so... one almost starts to think that politics in America is in a perilously degenerative state]

Some reports coming out, supposed leaks from insiders, calling Mrs Obama's spending habits as Prima Donna 'disgusting'? That she's addicted to high end vacationing? That she's spent upwards of ten million on such in the last three years? I'm not a big fan of attacks on the prima donna, that comes across as cheap and petty - and this really has the feel of sour grapes from a disgruntled employee - I'm dubious of veracity of this story - having said that, if true, or if a reasonable semblance of truth attaches itself to the story, then Obama is toast - you might as well have him resign now and get Hillary in there - ten million? Jesus. I think even Sarah could beat him if that turns out to be accurate.

I had mentioned Krugman's lament for WWII type spending and ridiculed it with some light sarcasm - but I also thought at the time Krugman brought this argument up in a TV interview that it sounded quite flawed, that there was very little about America's position in the world then compared to now that would suggest such a huge spending spree would produce similar results - and Victor David Hanson has written this nice little piece making that very point. I like the analogy he makes that America under Obama has more in common with post war England, about to embark on a disastrous regimen of socialist policies, than with the hyper capitalist entrepreneurialism and, possibly more importantly for purposes of this post, robust industrial and manufacturing base of post war America. A soldier with just a high school education or even without had some reasonable expectation of returning home and maybe working for a Westinghouse, a Proctor and Gamble, a Bethlehem Steel, a General Motors - that is most decidedly not the case today.

What is really driving Zakaria’s commentary, I suspect, is what often happens when liberals are elected and fail: their supporters begin to lay blame on the American system of government. Jimmy Carter’s advisers did the same thing. It turned out the problem then, as now, wasn’t the American system of government; it was the American president. The failures of Obama cannot be laid at the feet of Madison. And if the public is wise, they will do to Obama in 2012 what they did to Carter in 1980.

That's from Peter Wehner at Commentary - I mean, it's an accruate statement and all, but mainly I like someone calling out Fareed Zakaria for what he is: a putatively 'objective' intellectual who was actually a shameless Obama promoter in 2008 and is now zealously morphing into a shameless Obama apologist as we head into 2012. We're seeing a lot of this - cadres rewriting history to suit the changing narrative of Dear Leader - Jon Stewart, another who shilled shamelessly for Obama in both primary and general elections, is now showcasing his objectivity by actually criticizing liberals as if to say 'no, it wasn't obsequious ideological blindness that caused me to blindly worship Obama - I honestly thought it was a reasonable idea to make a guy with no resume and few accomplishments president simply because he was black and gave nice speeches' - of course this is Stewart coming off his previous ploy of trying to convince people that Obama wasn't stumbling because of a too liberal agenda, but by not being liberal enough - this too is Krugman's life boat of choice: 'the stimulus plan should have been three times bigger!' - Krugman actually suggested a few days ago that WWII pulled us out of the last great contraction so something like that might be a good thing now - I don't think he was actually calling for a world wide military conflagration to save Dear Leader and the cherished illusions of the liberal agenda [boy, ironic doesn't even come close to capturing the twisted thinking there] but neither can I absolutely guarantee that he might not be willing to sacrifice a few million people in order to see the integrity of his uber lefty thinking redeemed. Hell, Mao had no problem killing about 50 million of his own people in order to preserve the sanctity of an idea [did I just compare Nobelist Paul Krugman to Mao? That can't be right]

[although, in fairness, seeing how much scorn I'm directing at Obama et al, in fairness I must say that republicans are idiots too - specifically I'm talking here about Gov Perry questioning the validity of the theory of evolution because, ya know, it's only a theory - I mean, these people can really put one in a foul mood - I still believe that great, powerful countries like America can only be governed successfully from the right, that enervation and decline, as we see presently playing out in Europe, are the natural consequences of leftist agendas - still, I'm not a fool - it often, way too often becomes a rock and a hard place conundrum trying to figure between republicans and democrats who's being the least annoying and idiotic in what they say -  related: haven't paid much attention to Huntsman's campaign for the nomination cause I figure he has no chance, and given the tactic he's taken up of criticizing his opponents with dead on assaults - for instance he faulted Perry on evolution silliness and Bachman on her ridiculous claim she'd lower gas to $2 a gallon -  that have thrilled democratic pundits he indeed does not stand a chance - but I caught a few interviews of his and I gotta say I came away somewhat impressed - which got me thinking: is it possible he's angling for an independent run? He's definitely got the money for it and the strategy he's employing may be suicide for a GOP primary but is probably perfect for an independent run - he seems too smart not to realize that what he's doing now can't succeed and therefore... - now, doubt he'd go with an independent run if Romney's the candidate since one Mormon is gonna be a tough enough sell for voters - but if Romney doesn't get the nod I dunno, how else explain what he's doing? I mean, he's been a successful governor, a businessman, as former ambassador to China he's got more foreign policy mojo than anyone else in the race - he speaks Mandarin for christ sake - did I say he's rich? I dunno - like I said, how else explain his strategy since one assume he's not an idiot]

So, the Magical Misery tour [kudos to guy on team Romney that came up with that tagline] - no, not the absurdity of it being an obvious campaign event paid for with public money the impropriety of which not only does not seem to bother the MSM all that much but is indeed encouraged by them given their active and preening participation in it [I guess as the first black - sort of black - president they feel Obama's deserving of this illegal indulgence][did I just imply something racist? Well, Anderson Cooper will say yes indeed it was racist and therefore it must have been cause of course as a gay man if he's like to be outraged over a perceived act of intolerance it must then be intolerant][did I just imply something homophobic? Well, again...]

But it's not that absurdity that gets my attention - it's Obama out doing, in the dire midst of a protracted economic downturn and a full year removed from the nitty gritty of the coming elections, out doing the only thing Obama does well: self promotion, indulging and preening for an incestuous press, massaging perceptions of his enlightened loftiness to dullard voters too vapid it seems to realize he's more celebrity to them now than president - this is the man's only proven gift, talent, and apparently the only thing he really cares about in the political sphere - and what dumbfounds me is how it is only now after three failed years as president that people are finally starting to wake up and notice - the man's all hat and no cattle - well, maybe I should be cautious here -  I'm not exactly sure that he's merely an egoist whose only real goal was to be the first black [sort of black] president and glory in the renown and fame that would then fall his way from that historical comeuppance of ye olde colonialist bastards - and I think jointly along those lines as a secondary motivation he wanted or fancied to be seen as a global transformative personality - not so much because he believed in a world changed for the better but rather that he believed in a world that honored him for offering his services in the ostensible improving of it - I mean, I tend to think that's his real game, but I'm not entirely sure those were his prime motives - cause it certainly is possible that he indeed is or sees himself as an uber lefty activist that has expertly conned his way into uber power and avows and swears and pledges that just so long as he remains in the big chair giving big speeches that keep the blinkered masses all awed into submission by his utter wonderfulness that the revolution will surely come, surely it will - he could be less superficial egoist and more cunning revolutionary, I can't say with absolute certainty that's not the case - although one could certainly safely opine that the cunning revolutionary is almost always as well a flaming egoist.

Is Paul Ryan thinking of jumping into the GOP primary fray? He was a big supporter of Mitch Daniels [my preferred choice for the republican nominee] and his thinking on entering the race apparently changed dramatically when Daniels dropped out, or so this article would have you believe. There are three options walking the sidelines right now one of whom I think absolutely needs to get into the race - Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Ryan. Bush I think is definitely out; Christie sounds like he's out but I still believe he'd really like to be pulled in - but I don't see him jumping in unless the calls for it get very persistent and loud, that kind of demand is what he's looking/waiting for the way I see it; Ryan is pretty young, has a young family vulnerable to the viciousness of a presidential campaign that he's probably concerned about protecting and as far as I can tell he lacks foreign policy credentials and executive experience - significant points of worry - but every time I hear him speak on the economy, the role of government and the fateful choice facing America come November 2012 I come away thinking 'that guy needs to be our next president'. I'm also possibly open to supporting a coup by Petraeus.

[I was willing to give Perry a look see, but he said something pretty moronic yesterday about Bernanke that comes too close to confirming ones worst fears about nominating another good ol' boy from Texas - that being said, his record as governor of the by far best job creating state in the republic cannot be ignored - and he served in the military, albeit piloting C-130s - hardly glamorous I guess, but still...]

[Jennifer Rubin weighs in on the Ryan question - she's a long time Ryan fan and I seem to remember I started reading her blog after she wrote something nice about him a year or so ago, soon after he caught my attention with an interview I think on CNBC - somehow Ryan almost starts to seem like the only choice for people like me]

[the rationale rises in defense of Perry contending his provocative anti-Fed rant was an appeal to the Tea Party etc - I have trouble seeing that - being embraced by the Tea Party is not really a problem Perry is gonna have - being seen as electable should he get the nomination is - Romney may have a problem with the Tea Party, but not Perry - still, Perry ain't backing off what he said and Obama has dropped his two cents into the debate, so I guess one could argue that now it appears Obama is arguing directly with Perry and Perry is firing back with bravado and that this sets Perry above the standing of his opponents and that's a good thing - possible, I can see that - still, demonstrating his electability to independents is Perry's problem, that's the whole point of his entry into the race ie he's not Bachman in the sense the Tea Party may love her but independents probably won't and so she's not in the end a viable candidate - the whole point of Perry is that he doesn't supposedly have that problem - so I continue to think he misspoke, it was a misstep, but Obama's involving himself changed the dynamic and Perry's camp saw an opportunity to make it look like a clever strategic ploy]

"... different cultures produce different outcomes and it's those different outcomes that decide all the good, bad and ugly that happens in the world... neo-liberal sympathies, summed up in the professorial elitism of an Obama which paradoxically champions wistful dreams of equality, these sympathies, which are incapable or unwilling or in earnest denial of recognizing or coming to grips with this often unpleasant but still fundamental reality of culture, these sympathies I say are what pose the greatest threat to the Western tradition... when Obama went to Europe early in his presidency and upon being asked about American exceptionalism espoused a glib panutopian idealism of all countries being exceptional and good and noble he betrayed either a profound ignorance of or arrogant disdain for the way the world actually works... of course, the peevish contarian might posit that the fact that America produced an Obama and then in a fit of mass delusion decided to make him its leader may suggest the sun is already in steep decline for my beloved Western tradition... and I'm not sure I'd know how to answer that nettlesome postulation..."

"... the math on China is pretty obvious, as far as I'm concerned... they aspire to great power status, no doubt to the point of equaling the US, possibly to the point of desiring supremacy... unless they've somehow come up with a way to circumvent the harsh realities and irreducible necessities of history, this desire will lead to war, many wars probably, but some wars for sure... so it has always been with such things and so it will be with them... it's a given these wars will either directly or by proxy or by implication not be in the best interests of the US or run counter to US sympathies... therefore conflict with the US is virtually guaranteed... granted, the scope of this conflict is impossible to determine... but regardless, conflict is inevitable... well, inevitable barring Obama managing to finish the job he has begun and so ruining America that we have no choice but to prostrate ourselves before the earnest zeal of Middle Kingdom's minions... indeed, that in fact may be Obama's grand scheme for world peace... ruin America and surely all will be well..."

Obamacare has completely trapped the Democrats on fiscal policy. In order to pay for Obamacare’s trillions of dollars in new spending, they had to raise taxes by $500 and raid Medicare by another $500 billion. As a result, all the low-hanging revenue and spending fruit are already gone. As even The Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits, the Democrats must now argue for higher taxes, and not just on the wealthy. In order to pay for all their entitlement programs, the middle class is going to have to pay more, too. But Ezra can admit this because he doesn’t have to win elections; Democrats in public offices do. That is the reason you haven’t seen a Democratic budget since Obamacare became law and it is the reason you will not see another one till at least 2013.

From The Washington Examiner re Paul Ryan's [why can't he run for president?] article in WSJ about democrats' truancy viz passing a budget. This was exactly my complaint viz Obamacare two years ago - forget arguing whether in and of itself it was good policy or not - the real problem was that in order to pay for the monstrosity you would have to suck up fiscal resources that were desperately required elsewhere. I'm guessing if you asked liberals what, if forced to choose one, was the greater good a gov't could give its people, a vibrant economy or universal health care, a shocking number of them would without hesitation say the latter. Idiots.

"I have traveled abroad at regular intervals since Obama entered the White House and the decline in his global image among the elites I interact with has been discernible. Early in his presidency, my foreign interlocutors sounded as blinkered and starry eyed as any Grant Park attendee. But with each new trip, I have noticed that the fervency receded and the doubts mounted. And now when I talk with government insiders, people with actual experience dealing with the U.S. government (as opposed to watching it on BBC and the Daily Show), there is often a quietly expressed nostalgia for earlier administrations -- even, gasp, the Bush administration. A grudging consensus appears to be emerging: that President Obama gives good speeches, but even three years into his term he has not yet hit his stride on the nitty-gritty of actually leading as president, domestically or globally. (Interestingly, my interlocutors are much quicker to give Secretary Clinton strong marks. They seem to attribute any good things to her and any bad things to the president.)"

From FP magazine - I warned y'all about this guy - it's amazing how many ostensibly intelligent people allowed themselves to be beguiled into thinking Obama was fit to be president. Reminds me of what I said a while back, mimicking the old joke about opera [the problem with opera is all the singing] - the problem with democracy is people get to vote.