So Christie gave his highly anticipated speech at Reagan library and once again made non-denial denials of his intentions to seek the presidency - regardless of which the speech was very well received and hailed as presidential - and so all are trying to figure out what exactly his intentions really are etc etc - I still feel that my original interpretations of Christie were right - he wants to be dragged into the contest and will only enter if he feels a significant number of  conservative power brokers have bought into his candidacy as a necessary thing and are therefore in essence co-opted into the effort to make it successful - that has now happened. I believe this has been his strategy all along and the advantages of it are obvious: that a significant proportion of conservative leadership in the country now have a vested interest in seeing him win - well, don't need to be a genius to see how that's a good thing; he's avoided much of the early primary crap - the idiotic debates, the straw polls, the endless pandering; the weaknesses of his opponents have now been exposed and he can play off them in ways they will be unable to reciprocate; most importantly though is that he has established himself as a true leader, ie he looks like the anti-Obama in so much as Obama now looks like the egotist who sought out the presidency when he really wasn't ready for the job whereas Christie in all humility resisted the call and only sought it out when the need and his duty to serve became undeniable - to me this narrative of the humble man of the people stepping up to do his duty for God and country will play like gold against the Obama narrative of arrogant egotist in search of personal glory.

And of course should he run and lose that he was drawn into the race by pleas from the powerful will serve him the way it served Reagan in 1976 - the loss will not impoverish his political prospects going forward - he can walk away as undamaged goods. It's a brilliant strategy - although unfortunately could also be entirely a figment of my imagination - completely plausible he has milked the notion of him running for the same reasons Sarah did - it's good for business. I don't really get that vibe from him, but entirely plausible.

A recent study [very technical, but if you wanna read it it's here] suggests we've underestimated, possibly by a great deal, the damage done to us by mass loss of manufacturing to China. I've read a few experts who sort of agree with the study but still claim the authors over do it and end up affirming status quo, ie more good than bad to be found in excretions of Chimerica monster. But to me raises interesting points regardless: what will it say about us as a culture if we've completely miscalculated the dynamics of our economic relationship with China? If the turn is for the worse, how bad can it get and what happens if it's too late to turn back? What if China knows we've got it wrong and have been quietly exploiting our stupidity all along? One can already make convincing case that when it comes to military questions we've made significant miscalculations regarding how Middle Kingdom's post-Mao rut with capitalism would supposedly beget changes in China that would reduce their threat profile - but jesus, if we got the economics wrong as well, which of course will in turn worsen security concerns, shit... could lead to some major upheaval in not too distant future.

What if the break up of the European Union [which I'm assuming is inevitable in some way ie it will not be the post nation state bureaucratic marvel imagined by its creators] is the first corpse to bob to the surface of this fetid pool? That's to wax a bit excessive - but what I mean is, what if the cultural mindset of the West since the end of WWII has been in some fundamental way wrong, misguided, delusional - but the sheer weight of our economic might just pushed these flaws and vulnerabilities out of sight - but look out, there they are, staring us in the face, like spoiled, insufferable children we've indulged into a kind of madness who have returned home to torture and accuse with pouty scowls and peevish, grunting irony? They've grown up, they're useless and you can't go back now and raise them up right. I tend to think that's exactly how the nouveau mandarins of China see us and they feel no pity whatsoever, which of course is fair - but what if it's actually true? Hard to believe a whole lotta bad wouldn't be the result - turmoil, chaos, possibly a revolutionary chaos - after all, how would one fix such a problem short of demanding epochal change? What if the current partisan dysfunction in Washington is a foreboding wisp of the chaotic winds to come? Sure, the idiot child Obama thinks he's the true agent of change, bright scion of the gods of promise - but in fact he's a throw back, a manifestation of the delusional thinking that brought us here [if here indeed is where we are] - no, the change I'm talking about would be a much more frightening thing - not a gift, not a promise - no sweetness and light - rather a bitter trial on a dark and difficult road.

[well, that has a mushy, end of days feel to it - what I'm thinking of here is I was reading, viz European Union troubles, recollections of when the Union was verging on birth and the minority nay sayers [realists] were being ridiculed by the enlightened majority yeah sayers [progressives] as xenophobic, backwards, intolerant etc etc for having the temerity to suggest the concept was naive, simple-minded, hopelessly idealistic and doomed to fail - and of course the realists have now been proven right - and what struck me was the disdainful, dismissive arrogance of the progressives was very much like the scorn Obamaphiles expressed towards those benighted enough to question the obvious brilliance of Dear Leader - I mean I couldn't get into a conversation about Obama in 2008 without it eventually being implied or explicitly stated that if I couldn't see how magnificent the man was or grasp the pure beauty of his message it must be because I was an abject fool or a racist - and of course now my skepticism has been vindicated - point being, this evinced inability for our culture to effectively differentiate fantasy from reality may be symptomatic of a degenerative or enervating contentment afflicting advanced cultures that renders them incapable of putting hard truths ahead of comforting lies. I mean, the idea of a European Union has been around for awhile but reality always beat it back - why not this time? I would say the comforting illusion of a Pax Americana going on forever and giving 'Europe' the sense that it would remain secure without ever having to actually pay for that security and the general good will and prosperity that followed in the wake of the Berlin Wall going bye bye - suddenly progressives were freed just enough from cold reality to imagine their fanciful post-modern musings to be rationally grounded in actual truths]

Priceless... a day after black actor Morgan Freeman makes news with very public, adamant and heavily reported statement declaring racism the reason Obama is doing so badly, that the extremist intolerance of small minded Tea Party elements and their racist machinations are behind the chosen one's fall from grace, the very next day these vile extremists make African American Herman Cain winner of the Florida republican straw poll. Priceless. Straw polls of course are infamous for being platforms for ideological agitation on the extremes of each party. Is there any chance this idiocy stops? Jesus, this was already tiresome in 2008 when moronic Obamaphiles were accusing Hillary of being a racist for saying bad things about Dear Leader - now it's just absurd. And yet these idiots go on - and worse, they're actually convinced of what they're saying, are convinced that their opinions are the fruit of reasonable, considered thought and keen analysis. It's very annoying.

News flash - racism exists, it's a very common human response to cultural frictions - all cultures, not just white males of western European decent hating on others who look different. All cultures dislike and distrust and fear all other cultures they come in contact with to some degree - this is fundamental human behavior - hell, it's pretty much fundamental behavior for anything alive and processing oxygen in order to stay so - of course there are those who deny the chosen one because of his somewhat dark pigmentation and the culture they may associate with it - but mostly the repudiation is a response to the man being very liberal and apparently incompetent - possibly 'Tea Party' activists should be happy he's incompetent - maybe he's incompetent because of his left wingedness, possibly the two go hand in hand - whatever - point is for anyone of a moderate or conservative bent there are very, very good reasons to dislike Obama that have absolutely nothing to do with race - I've not been a fan since his breakthrough speech in 2004 and I'm pretty sure I'm not a racist - like a lot of conservatives there was a time when I would have gladly entertained the idea of Condi Rice or Colin Powell being president - there's a very good chance that in the not too distant future both Nikki Haley [of Indian decent] and Marco Rubio [Hispanic] will run for president and like most conservatives I'll probably be open to supporting them if they prove capable - and you see, that's the key - prove capable - it's about performance and skills and beliefs, not skin color - in fact the only way race in any credible way factors into discussions about Obama is when we start wondering about what it means, what it says about the continuing viability of democracy when a guy can be elected leader of the most powerful nation on earth simply because he's black - and that's pretty much the only context within which Obama's race can be seen as an issue worth discussing.

But I'm wondering - would Mr Freeman be happy if a man demonstrably ill suited to running the country were to be reelected simply because voters were sensitive to charges of looking like racists if they didn't comply? Cause the only way his opinions make sense is if he's a complete and utter fool or he actually does think it a good idea to shame people into reelecting an incompetent - but, hell, ya know what, given the way liberals think, they probably wouldn't have a problem with incompetence just so long as it meant well.

God, we are screwed, aren't we.

It always strikes me as interesting that when talk comes up of resolving problem of huge US deficits the left invariably says there must, must be a balance between budget cuts and tax hikes on the 'rich' [in essence defined loosely as anyone who just seems to have too much money] - and yet I never hear any convincing reason as to why there must be this balance - the right at least tries to explain belief that taxes and the big gov't they inspire are counter productive - but what usually happens on the left is that defense of tax increases comes down to vague imputations of 'fairness' but never is fairness explained in any coherent way nor is it made clear how some watery exhortation of balance does anything to enhance the economy - often the magic word is spoken and people react as if the meaning and value of it is perfectly clear - and I guess for the left it is clear: successful people need to be punished because obviously their success happens at the expense of the less successful; that the only true measure of a society is not how much opportunity it offers and how this opportunity in turn translates into an appropriate distribution of potential power but rather how an extant power, demonized by the rubric wealth, can be redeemed by a beneficent and enlightened state redistributing it to those it was ostensibly stolen from.

Now, it's not that I'm against tax increases per se as a matter of some reflexive disgust - I believe tax reform that exalts efficiency and encourages growth is what's necessary but will not therefore automatically tune out talk of tax increases of some sort - no, what I find confounding, galling is wrapping the idea of tax increases in phony ideological populism that seems to have nothing to do with a plan for enhancing the economy - the only real objectives here should be cutting budget deficits while improving productivity, in fact dramatically improving productivity given rising threats from emerging economies - if you can only manage one of those, it has to be the latter because at least increased growth will mitigate damage of former - you definitely cannot do the former at the expense of the latter cause that gets you nowhere - and you very definitely cannot fail to do either - and what all of this very, very definitely should not be about is what oh let's say two tenured, left leaning professors of sociology, sipping tea in a Harvard faculty lounge might, in an existential sense, consider fair.

But, unfortunately, the left will argue that gov't expenditures do increase productivity and that the hard working middle class cannot bear the burden of debt reduction while the wealthy [whose greed of course caused this mess] loll about lazily in golden fields of excess - and so I guess it will end up coming down to ideological palaver and pandering regardless, which inevitably leads to tawdry populist appeals - Obama has already made it very clear this is the path he intends to go down. Are we doomed here? Maybe we're doomed.

This is shocking, as in definitely didn't see it coming - reports this morning that Erdogan has given a speech in Cairo encouraging Egyptian lawmakers to make any new constitution secular in nature - Muslim Brotherhood apparently not thrilled by this - this surprises me, shocks actually - Erdogan is moving Turkey away from Ataturk styled secularism - he's spent the last two weeks ratcheting up heated rhetoric with Israel over Gaza flotilla raid that is quite obviously about making him look like the de facto leader of Mideast Muslims - so for him to raise the 'S' word like this in Cairo, with Libya up for grabs, with the Palestinian UN vote round the corner etc etc, flat out surprises me - I don't get what he's up to here - to me it's obviously a feint of some sort but won't pretend to see the endgame [a guess is that he understands that 'fake' democracy with 'secular' trappings provides good cover for what is ultimately an Islamist agenda] - be curious to see how those much smarter than me interpret it. [possibly the mistake I'm making here is that I assume he sides with the Muslim Brotherhood when in fact could be he favors the vestigial Mubarak factions in the military][that the Egyptian military establishment may be true object of Erdogan's affections possibly confirmed by recent deal agreeing to increased level of military cooperation between the two countries - so mentioning 'secularism' would be to draw MB's true intentions out into the open and therefore compromise a broadening of their appeal? or make the increasingly marginalized 'democrats' in the protest movement less resistant to continuing influence by the military in governance? If so imagine Egyptian military has offered Erdogan something he likes]

Obama's 'jobs plan' speech turned out to be the political calculation I figured it would be - but the interesting thing I think is that it was so blatantly political, cynical almost given the obviousness of its intent - I mean he says in the speech it's paid for and then announces a few days later what he means by paid for is that he wants to raise taxes to pay for it which means the thing's still born, everybody knows that - that's pretty cynical - but so cynical that I'm gonna turn out to be right here? - by that I mean that the man has no desire to serve another term as president, especially if the congress [as it will be] is controlled by republicans - he can't just simply lose though, rather he has to lose on terms that allow him to leave office bruised but still a hero to the left wing and therefore still a viable voice that can tour the world making lots and lots of money giving pretty speeches. That would certainly be a horrible way for a leader to behave so it's kind of hard to imagine I'm right here - still, even hardcore democrats are looking at his jobs bill and saying 'how the hell does this make any sense?'. More than likely he and his people realize there's only two ways to have any chance of winning reelection: dramatically change his ideological stripes [which will not happen for reasons stated above ie, he'd destroy his brand]. or two, make republicans look like intemperate obstructionists. The problem with the latter is, he'd still be stuck with a republican congress - and if he's not gonna alter his ideological assumptions and preferences I find it very hard to believe he'd want to serve another term under those circumstances - needless to say, the country would not be well served by such an outcome - as I've said many times, Clinton could move to the center cause that's where he came from and he owed nothing to the DailyKos/Jon Stewart types - the impression of Obama the rational moderate is merely a political prop and always has been - I think people still under estimate just how utterly political Obama is - it's all about manipulation of perceptions for him - every time he gives a speech you both hear and see it [you can tell he's practiced a lot in front of a mirror - which is fine if you're an actor - not sure about the utility of such if you're president of the United States] - it's all a cynical calculation designed to either promote himself, promote an agenda, or promote an agenda in order to promote himself.

"... the new Europe... increasingly a whole equal to less than the sum of its parts... and this depreciation, this fundamental imbalance seems to be accelerating to the point where even the European knack for ignoring a problem by making it less earnestly real through more eloquent abstraction seems overwhelmed... I suspect eventually the various discrete components of it will be absorbed as a protectorate under the guidance of some German/Chinese partnership because both of them after all, no matter how dysfunctional the union itself becomes, are well served by its continuance... and I'm thinking if Putin manages to reconstitute some semblance of Soviet Russia, which I'm reasonably convinced is his long term goal, then might as well give him a seat at the table too... although, Russia and China sitting peaceably at the same table?... likely one looking to pull the chair out from under the other would be my guess... still, the thought of Putin posing bare chested, grinning mischievously, gracing a new Euro note... definitely amuses..."

I haven't had anything to say about Libya since the 'fall' of Tripoli - I almost, in a state of dispirited disbelief, was moved to drag from noxious bile an opinion after reading some absurdity from EJ Dionne at the Washington Post - EJ is in love with Obama - I mean literally in love I think - Dionne is of that ilk of uber lefties who, on first hearing Obama speak, fell trembling before him like Moses before the burning bush - a mere day after the rebels rabbled their way into Tripoli Dionne was writing how this was a brilliant victory, that the Obama doctrine had now been completely and utterly vindicated and that since Obama's genius had now been irrefutably demonstrated only a heretical ignorance of a most vile, pernicious and cancerous aspect could possibly explain those still refusing to believe in the truth before them - or words to that effect. I was so galled by this astoundingly obtuse hagiography that I did feel an instinctive urge to spit something up - but didn't.

I didn't because it seemed irrelevant - I had said all along that getting rid of Qaddafi was meaningless vis a vis the larger questions - Qaddafi was weak, he had deliberately kept his military weak so as to forestall coup attempts - a Marine Expeditionary Force could have finished him off in a fraction of the time it took a NATO sans America to do it [and if your real concern was humanitarian that is what should have logically been done cause god knows how many have died in the six months it's taken France and England to get it done] - Saddam's army was much, much more powerful - if Dionne is gonna praise Obama for this victory he should tenfold be praising Bush for his against Saddam - but of course he can't because of the disaster that befell Iraq after Saddam was gone - which is why praising Obama a mere day after rebels took Tripoli bespeaks of an idiocy of such astounding heft it takes ones breath away. Getting rid of Qaddafi was not the issue per se defining this idiotic war [and wasn't even part of the UN resolution if anyone cares to remember - but of course Obama gets to wage an illegal war because... well, no one can explain that one, although I can make a pretty good guess] - the troubling aftermath of the inevitable dethroning was the issue; the disaster of a civil war almost surely now to come was the issue; the now revealed utter weakness of a NATO sans America and how an 'America alone' scenario, which we now have, that will destabilize long term security arrangements was the issue [if you've always believed in an 'America alone scenario this isn't huge - if, like Obama, you believe America isn't the essential country when it comes to security, well then, you've just been proven grossly wrong]; the extremely dangerous and confusing precedent set for a war raised upon a very shaky, vague and highly selective humanitarian pretext was the issue, the emergence of an Islamist state possibly linked to Iran, a newly belligerent Turkey and then to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and all lined up against Israel was the issue - the mere fact of getting rid of Qaddafi [and he still isn't quite gone remember] pales in significance when compared to the highly, highly toxic detritus trailing in his departing wake - and we set all this in motion to defend what vital interest of the US? None that I can think of.  

And so I didn't comment on Libya - until now - and I'm doing so now because the one tentative exception I made to my generally complete repudiation of Obama's Libyan adventure was that I might support something if it served a long term interest viz China's influence in the region - if one could factor in China then suddenly Libya does start to move into 'vital American interest' territory - and so word coming out this week that possibly China all through this war has been trying to supply arms to Qaddafi, that gets my attention - I have no comment other than that at the moment - I still think this war was utterly idiotic, misguided, ill conceived - but if some damage spills over onto China's reputation in the region, well... that's something. Not sure what. Could indeed set some troubling dynamics in motion, ie if China feels embarrassed or marginalized by perfidious or otherwise disreputable behavior they may be motivated to compensate in ways not comforting to the general weal.

"... I begin to feel that business leaders, when talking of the malaise affecting their brethren, of the depressive mood swamping investment and the entrepreneurial spirit for which the country is rightly renowned, I begin to feel what they're really saying, consciously or not, is that they're quite over the brief charm of the Obama story and have concluded that the man is just too confoundingly leftish in his habits and inclinations to be trusted and accordingly have decided to sit on their hands until the dead weight of his historical eminence has limped from the stage, at which point they will rise and cheer the new new with vigor... I get the feeling that the business community is so looking forward to Obama not being around anymore or are so anxious regarding the prospects of such and what that may mean to them that they can't look past the blessed event for fear it won't come..."

What if Palin decides to run in order to keep her brand viable? Meaning - she never really intended to run - but as her cat and mouse game of an endless teasing of a possible run starts to do more harm than good for her image and status within the party, what if she's coming to the conclusion that in order to stay relevant, to keep the brand viable, she now has no choice but to run? Amusing: I'm running for president so as to keep my celebrity status intact - sounds ridiculous but in reality not that much different from Obama.

Such a turn could signal the approaching nadir of American political culture and portend the looming decline of the West, sure - but I've always said, don't sell this girl short - she's a great retail politician - she's an excellent populist speaker, as good if not better in front of a teleprompter than Obama [better because the potential demographic she would appeal to is bigger and more influential than his] - and it's impossible to say for sure at this point whether or not her strategy for winning the nomination [if that's what it is] has been hopelessly misguided or brilliantly outside the box.

That being said, she still has a huge problem - well, two huge problems - she has yet to demonstrate that she can speak in an ad hoc yet thoughtful way about policy and therefore still suffers from the impression of not being smart enough to be president - and half the electorate seems to have already decided they hate her. Add a third: as much as the press is in love with Obama and shamelessly extol his putative virtues, they can't stand Palin - if she ran it would literally be a feeding frenzy of contempt and ridicule. Big obstacles. Which is why I never believed, and still don't believe she'll run - but that wasn't the question.

"... what jobs plan will Obama be announcing on Thursday? Judging from what we've seen of Obama so far, seems obvious... blame Bush, implicate cynical Wall Street greed for creating a crisis so bad it defies simple solutions, fan flames of a class war, although he'll no doubt do so subtlety... then declare or argue that rather than having been a failure so far as concerns the economy his presidency, through bold, sage actions has actually saved the economy and accordingly he'll offer up more of the same... he'll paint the picture that, as bad as things may seem, but for his enlightened leadership there'd be nothing but a smoking crater nestled between Canada and Mexico and therefore imply that the country should thank him for this... in short, since what he's likely to propose on Thursday will either expressly or by insinuation be so afflicted by left wing ideology and so obviously designed to make republicans look bad it has virtually no chance of getting through congress, Obama at that point will be in full campaign mode and engaged in the one thing he's ever shown any talent for, manipulating peoples perceptions of him for the sake of getting elected... the man's arrogance is so great that he effortlessly, almost as a matter of course manages to confuse getting elected with actual leadership... in other words, since he's so brilliant, how could supporting him not be brilliant too...?"

[editor's note: for evidence that this is probably what we will get from Obama on Thursday look at his recent short term suspension of certain EPA industrial pollution regulations - a move that will do little or nothing to spur the economy, given that the actions are short term, but much to give impression that Obama is a moderate looking to make 'difficult' compromises - and so when republicans reject his policy proposals on Thursday he can then with seeming legitimacy cry 'you see how unreasonable these people are? Here I am, this decent, honorable guy looking to reach out to them across the aisle and all they can do is say no...'. This is classic Obama - the man's a con artist, pure and simple.

But what if Obama does try a Clinton? Fine - but the problem with that is that Clinton actually was a moderate, he didn't have to fake it like Obama does - he had been governor of Arkansas for christ sake! More over, Clinton didn't owe his political fortunes to the left wing of the democratic party - he could afford to piss the uber lefties off - hell, doing so only enhanced his popularity - Obama owes everything he has to the uber lefties - they hated Hillary and promoted him, relentlessly promoted him and that's why he's president - how can he survive without their undying loyalty and enthusiasm, especially given his declining popularity among independents?]