Major economic powers hoarding oil? Sounds like war to me. Repeating myself I am but I keep remembering how a couple of years ago being ridiculed was the norm anytime I argued that the logic of the dynamics told me it was more likely than not that there'd be a military confrontation over Iran's nuke program - I still don't understand what it was made so many supposedly smart people resistant to a reasonable and objective appreciation of things. I've said it before and maybe it's true: I think liberals actually believed Obama - it's so idiotically absurd it's hard to imagine ostensibly bright people being this stupid - but I think they actually believed Obama's ascension to the throne signalled the ushering in of a new world order and they weren't about to let Iran spoil the prettiness of it all - these people sincerely thought it seems that war was a crudity that could only happen to unenlightened bumpkins like Bush. This almost willful embrace of naivety truly does confound me, I can't empathize with it at all - it's an outlook more in keeping with the delusional fantasies of love - and I suppose that's it because, really, what better explains the sad folly of these people than the besotted dementia of a romantic fixation?

Article in NY Times about Obama trying to hew an 'everyman' image of himself in opposition I guess to the elitism of Romney - an of the people graft as it were - an 'he plays baskeball, he's one of us' type of idiocy - and that's it, no where in the article does it suggest that this isn't idiotic or that having an everyman image matters in the least little bit as it relates to doing a good job as an executive. I'm not naive, I understand a 'president' is in many ways just another product that needs to be sold to a gullible public looking to buy something - but of course it's also much more than that - and yet the NY Times, the putative citadel of liberal intellectualism, regularly runs these de facto 'pro-ignorance' articles which pretend to some keen insight but amount to nothing more than tawdry advocacy that makes clear what really matters to them is a liberal agenda regardless of whether or not there's any intellectual merit to it.

I'm really sick of this puerile nonsense - from Santorum and his 'etch a sketch' inanity to supposed left wing intellectuals acting as if of course superficial imaging is a presidential attribute to be admired. Politics in its current incarnation looks increasingly ridiculous, a process not worthy of the history that made it. Don't know why this is since politics has always been plagued by the farcical [Aristophanes was treating it as farce 2000 years ago] - the system could undoubtedly use some tweaking - but I tend to feel the nature of modern media drives partisanship and partisanship, as with any absolutist urge, is by its very nature stupid. In other words, politics probably cannot be divorced from the simple mindedness of partisan appeals - but the scope and superficiality of modern media is possibly feeding the dependency in a very unhealthy way.

Interesting - the actions by SWIFT to shut down Iranian banks abilities to make international transactions [which, again, amounts to a virtual blockade and therefore is tantamount to an act of war] is front page news in Israel, but I don't see it on the front pages of any major American news source. Maybe it's not an indication of a native idiocy and they're just a little slow getting to it. Let's take a quick look at some European papers... no, nothing there either. Hmmn. Sure sounds to me like it should be big news. Guess I don't know what I'm talking about.

Now, it's not like I think Iran is actually gonna treat this as an act of war - still, something significant has to happen in response, no? Some other piece of this puzzle has to fall - my guess is it comes from China or Russia. I just don't see Iran capitulating - a fake capitulation, that's another thing.

Ah - I see Iran is shipping military supplies to Syria through Iraq - Iraq, namely Shiite president Malaki, is refusing to stop this activity, but is managing to push down sharply on Iraqi Sunni attempts to send similar aid to their afflicted brethren. And yet American commentators still rally for a US involvement in Syria - not once have I heard one of these idiots address the fact that if we start a full blown civil war in Syria it could easily spill across the borders into Iraq and Lebanon and then germinate into something quite dangerous - not once have I heard any of them address fact that maybe Iran would love for us to wade into a Syrian quagmire - would certainly both give the Mullahs a very efficient way to divert the peoples attention away from the hardships the sanctions are supposedly causing while proffering up a perfect rationalization for why Iran needs the bomb - these fools do admit, reluctantly it seems, to reality of how utterly disorganized the Syrian 'opposition' is but then fail to mention how rife with radicalism it is as well, both of which conditions suggest that if we stoke to full boil this simmering civil war it could turn very ugly very quickly and end up empowering some strikingly unpleasant devotees of the prophet.

Still find myself shocked at how many American pundits and so called experts embrace involvement in this fucked up little corner of the world as if Iraq and Afghanistan never happened. Not that I'm suggesting that America divest itself of interests in the region - but is it too much to ask of people getting paid to comment on tactics and strategy related to foreign policy to show some respect for a careful meditation on evidence and the cautionary deliberations of experience?

Apparently North Korea is planning to launch a satellite soon and thereby test long range ballistic missile technology [so much for the reset implied by recent signed agreement that was remarkable only for the fact of how many people actually thought it a milestone of some sort]. Now, it was during Bush's last term [or possibly we were already in Obama world] that similarly troubling missile technology was test fired - and there was much debate about whether the US should shoot the missile down. Without benefit of hindsight there's no correct answer in this kind of debate since there's much potential downside no matter which way you go - but I supported shooting it down for these reasons: the only way to perfect this technology is by trying it out - you shoot it down, they can't perfect it; if we don't call their bluff on these things the dynamics suggest the provocation will just worsen - them launching a satellite is a perfect example of this; we have anti-missile technology - there may be an upside to getting to test it in a real world situation - and then ask yourself if there's a nice deterrence payoff from an interdiction of this sort - would it help re Iran? - of course, if we try and then fail to knock the thing down, that's not good.

So here we go again with N Korea testing missile technology that we definitely don't want them perfecting and then exporting - what to do? I say shoot the thing down. At some point there has to be a line you cannot allow countries like this to cross - otherwise you're opening the door to devils unknown.

Viz my prior post on China vs India, from Globe and Mail article:

UNICEF says that 640 million Indians are still “open defecators” – people who relieve themselves in fields or next to railway tracks – a figure that remains high despite hikes in government spending on sanitation projects. Local governments have tangled those projects in corruption and bureaucracy, and even in places where toilet blocks are built, people have been slow to adopt use of the new facilities.

Wow. And I complain about having to navigate my way around dog crap that yuppies refuse to pick up in my pleasant little neighbourhood. This info just floors me. Put India down as one of those countries I will never, ever visit.

Would my opinion of Obama change if he were to attack Iran? Two stories came out today that seem to suggest either Obama or Israel or both are indeed very serious about not letting Iran nuke up - apparently Obama sent a message that sounds like an ultimatum through Russian diplomatic channels to Iranian brass telling them they have till April to respond positively on demands to step down their program - and then very much under the radar a Navy officer in a senate committee meeting let slip that the US now has four minesweepers in or on their way to the Persian Gulf, which according to some Navy analysts I read suggests the US is definitely preparing for something bad. This is either a very hard edged bluff or Obama actually really means it when he says he has Israel's back - even if only a bluff, the severity of it suggests the Obama administration believes Israel has already decided to do this thing if something doesn't happen soon to convince them otherwise.

I'm so used to seeing Obama as a person whose every act is motivated solely by political calculation [whether to promote a leftwing agenda or promote himself through a leftwing agenda, I dunno] that even though I know it's absurd [right?] to read a political component into something so dramatic as this, should he actually do it, I still can't give the man the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, if he goes there, I will have to reevaluate him.

That being said, I don't think he does it - I think this is probably all about putting as much pressure on Iran as possible and knowing full well that's likely to fail, and then being prepared for the shit storm that will follow. I think this means that Obama has finally figured out that for Israel it's a perfectly logical thing to view an attack on Iran as yes dangerous, full of peril, unpredictably bad in all sorts of ways, and yet still necessary.

[the report of the ultimatum passed through Russian channels is being denied - the deployment of significant naval assets though is quite real. Also pay attention to recent act by SWIFT, a huge financial institutions communications supplier based I think in Brussels - it has shut down, by EU decree, services for Iranian banks etc - which from what I read means Iran cannot do international banking anymore, which means I guess they can't engage in normal trade practices etc etc. Seems this would significantly ramp up pressure on the Mullahs, to what end who knows. Also I would guess ramps up pressure on Russia and China to help Iran circumvent this virtual blockade or publicly disavow support for them - cause a blockade which this is essentially amounts to an act of war by the EU on Iran. If we get to the end of April and Iran still hasn't caved gotta believe tensions will be dramatically spiking. Should we expect Iranian backed terroist attacks against Brussels, the EU homebase? I dunno - don't know what to expect at this point, other than it's likely to be bad whatever it is]

What would happen if in some magical world you could put Paul Ryan and Obama together in a room and have them debate for three hours healthcare and entitlements and budget deficits and tax reform and then force every voting age person in America to watch it? What percentage of the electorate would come away from that debate with a thorough enough understanding of the details, not vitiated by bias, to form an enlightened judgement on who won, who was more in the right? One percent? Two? Possibly at the most five percent? And yet somehow we're convincing ourselves that the election in November is going to set us on a path to fix our problems? How exactly? Pure luck? A deus ex machina? At what point does democracy devolve into an exercise in willful ignorance generated out of fear or laziness or the decay of incoherence?

Santorum's bible belt wins last night [although he rakes in only 3 more delegates than Romney did, who won Hawaii, at the end of the day][actually turns out Romney finished 6 delegates ahead of Santorum overall] reminds me of this Politco essay from yesterday - essentially an article about how stupid voters are - I like the quote from a guy who runs a polling company on how he has to explain to his clients over and over again, because they get so frustrated from the incoherent results, of how they gotta keep in mind that, ya know, voters are stupid.

Now, none of this is new - I of course like to joke that the problem with democracy is that people get to vote - and I've said all along that the reason this GOP primary has been so disturbing is because of the way it has thrown into sharp relief the fact of how ignorant or misinformed or delusional or enthralled to simplistic instincts the average voter is - and that's because all along it's been very clear there has only ever been one credible candidate, and yet the likes of Herman Cain - Herman Cain people! - have at times been enthusiastically embraced by the electorate. I mean, think about it, in yesterday's southern primaries over two thirds of votes cast were for candidates that are deeply flawed [and in Gingrich's case mentally unstable as far as I'm concerned] and so ideologically extreme or otherwise compromised as to be virtually unelectable in a campaign versus Obama [and in Paul's case absolutely unelectable]. Even in Hawaii, which Romney won handily, still over half the votes cast were for guys who are either farcically unfit to be president or have no chance of beating Obama or both. How can a reasonable person not be troubled by something like this?

Democracy, in its modern incarnation, has in general seemed to survive this vulnerability of ignorance, possibly because the dynamic of change and individual empowerment implicit in the idea of democracy adds such vigor and value to a society that it easily out weighs the downside of electoral mistakes. My question is are we reaching a point where this balancing of good and bad, which by and large has tilted in our favor, starts tilting the other way? I'm thinking specifically of a few factors which seem to be working against us here - increased competition from the wider, often non-democratic world; mass media that seems to feed partisanship which in turn feeds gridlock which in turn feeds an impulse towards the ignorance of populism - and also how this saturation of mass media may rob elites [or the elites that really matter] of a power they have always had to control events [to that point a story I read recently fascinates because of how it reveals polls in the 60s showed most Americans opposed the space program - which means the program went ahead because elites understood how important it was]; and finally how the complexity to the problems we now face makes the knowledge gap in the electorate seem like a much more disturbing vulnerability than it did before - well, not just seem, the knowledge shortfall is now undeniably I think, when measured against the complexity of the issues facing us, a very real concern.

[of course the problems the EU is going through right now would strongly suggest that 'elites', especially of the bureaucratic kind, are no better at distinguishing up from down, good from bad, wise from ill advised, than the putatively 'ignorant' chattel of the state]

[and then even if one is willing to concede that Western democracies have become in a sense too democratic and therefore we must migrate towards some kind of oligarchic hybrid, you still have the problem of insuperable ideological divides - possibly the answer is getting rid of political parties, or just making the executive branch a truly independent body that is not beholden to a specific ideological agenda]

[I'm seen picking on republicans here but the fact is it was Obama's election that got me thinking in these terms - the utterly irrational way not just the average person, but also elites justified their enthusiasm for the man was quite disturbing - to me it's obvious that Obama is president because the country was swept up in a wave of mass delusion fed by abject ignorance and naivety. The real scary part is that all the alternatives to him were equally problematic - Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency? Jesus. Hillary probably would have been a better CEO than Obama but I have not been impressed at all by her performance as secretary of state - but at least her nomination would have made some rational sense. Historians may very well look back on the election of 2008 and say that was the point democracy took a blind turn down a very ugly road]

What's the right word... stunned? Dumbfounded? Dumb definitely fits - so dumbfounded then that so many republicans are still trying to, if not actually defend Limbaugh, then striving desperately to rationalize or deflect criticism of him. Now it's big Obama boy uber liberal Bill Maher's use of 'misogynistic' language towards women that they're peddling to show that it ain't just conservatives who have a problem with the ladies - ah, listen guys, comparing Limbaugh to Maher is moronic, no one's gonna buy that, and anyway it quite misses the point - the real problem with Limbaugh was not the objectionable language per se - hell, I can walk by the catholic girls school down the street from me at lunch hour and hear language that would make an epithet like 'slut' seem positively timid - so it's not the abusive language per se - it's the confirming of the impression to moderate, independent women that conservatives see females as a problem that can easily be solved by turning back the clock fifty years. Most women I know were just as outraged by the fact Rush didn't seem to know how birth control pills work than they were by the imputation that anyone who uses them must be doing so because they're intent on destroying America through very unladylike wantonness.

It's stunning how many conservatives just don't seem to get this - and worse, don't seem to get how very bad it is that one of their presidential candidates has openly expressed opinons that suggest that for him there's nothing wrong with the country that can't be fixed by taking away from women the right to judge for themselves how, where, when, with whom and how often they are having sex. After all, who can quibble with the fact that the only thing standing between a righteous man and God's salvation is a sexed up woman? This is obvious.

Looks like I was depressingly prescient in thinking the Koran burning was maybe the result of a growing contempt for Afghanistan among US troops as some rogue solider goes on killing spree of civilians. I think the effort there was doomed anyways, but something like this seems destined to make that a certainty.

I always believed counter-insurgency was a flawed theory, conjured out of the frustration of not being able to fight the war you really want to fight, that could only possibly work under specific conditions, namely a lot of troops, a long commitment and an understanding that changes effected cannot be merely structural, they must be cultural as well - neither of which Obama was willing to comply with or acknowledge when he ok'd the 'surge'. I maintained all along that Obama originally embraced the Afghan war in the 2008 primary for reasons of political expediency; I believe his support of the surge was done in the same spirit [ie you only had two real choices, go big or go small - he chose a middle course that was doomed to eventually fail but offered him the best chance of a tolerable political pay off given his prior endorsing of the effort there as the 'good' war relative to the 'bad' one in Iraq] - the current malaise is what you reap from those compromised seeds. Not that I'm pretending Bush and Rumsfeld do not deserve blame here, maybe even most of the blame - but, as with all things Obama, I was intrigued by how people refused to look beneath the surface of the decisions he was making - I saw nothing but political calculation in his thinking on Afghanistan and therefore if this thing totally comes apart, I'm sure not gonna be surprised by that.

Same goes for Libya by the way - that place is a mess and slowly sliding towards civil war - and yet his supporters still talk about it [well, they don't actually talk about it, they merely quietly remember what they thought they thought about it six months ago and try to pretend that Obama's vaunted humanitarianism doesn't look quite shallow when comparing the imagined carnage of Qaddafi to the real carnage of Assad] as if it's some kind of brilliant success. It was a stupid, utterly misguided endeavor and I am entirely convinced history will prove me right on this.

"... when thinking about the notion of democracy and Islam, I would recommend to call to mind the example of John Locke... to ask how it is he came to be... ask from what intellectual, social, cultural milieu did he spring... ask what historical forces carried him and his views, his ideas forward and then, once delivered, what historical wherewithal not only sustained those ideas, but imbued them with new life and vigor... and then ask yourself where outside of the Western tradition could even the mere lineaments of those circumstances that made Locke ever exist without first being imposed by force, whether exogenous or arising from of an internal fracturing of a momentous sort...?"

Is it an indictment of democracy that China is doing better than India? India has the same surplus of low cost labor, both menial and skilled, same access to oceanic trade and the south east pacific supply chain - why can't it compete with the Chinese manufacturing juggernaut? From what I read it's a result of corruption and the general dysfunction that afflicts its democracy, or the particular culture of its democracy, which may be a crucial distinction. Chinese autocracy certainly seems adept at setting a goal and then putting the pieces in place required to meet the goal. It will be interesting to see though if after time democracy serves the long term interests of India better than autocracy serves those of China. Should also be interesting to follow how the specificities of culture and the nature and forms of institutions manifested thereof plays out here - liberal elites don't like to put things in such qualitative terms [unless of course the US is the thing being maligned], but one imagines one of the consequences of globalization will be how it forces a light on the way culture impacts why some societies prosper while others lag behind.

Possibly I'm wrong on Romney's primary problem - or, at least, it's not as bad as I've been suggesting. Being forced to run to the right is of course a problem, especially against opponents who are hardly Reaganesque in their rightness - Santorum scares women and anyone with a college degree from anywhere other than Oral Roberts University - and Gingrich is, well... Gingrich - these guys feed a perception of republicans that can alienate independents and the spill-off toxicity of that can and is I think hurting Romney - which is why I say the longer he has to directly compete against them the more compromised he becomes. [conservatives didn't seem to get that one of the most damaging aspects of the Limbaugh disaster was his opinons seemed to crudely echo Santorum's own highly problematic thinking on the subject of women and contraception - that so many republicans don't seem to get how bad a thing that is is a bit shocking]

But I've read a few predictions on how the delegate count is panning out and what to expect come April - and the impression is Romney is looking good here, as in the math indicates Santorum and ol' Newt don't have much of a chance. Now, the caution is that there's three rural/evangelical states coming up next week that Santorum could sweep and once again you could have a situation where those reluctant Romney voters who will support him only because he seems inevitable and has the best chance of beating Obama start convincing themselves that gosh darn it maybe Santorum can get 'er done - and then you maybe have another lemming march.

The problem for Santorum is that even if that happens, he's still going to be behind by a significant amount in delegates and April is not only full of states where Romney should do well, but they're winner take all contests to boot. Which means by the end of April Romney could have this thing for all intents and purposes sewn up - which would mean even if Santorum and Gingrich stay in the race Romney can just ignore them and focus his attentions on Obama.

So, potentially, as idiotic as this primary has seemed, it's not necessarily the death march I've been suggesting. Then again, if Santorum sweeps the god fearing states next week and Gingrich drops out and endorses Santorum [more out of intense hatred of Romney than anything else] the death march could be back on. Like I said, if circumstances force Romney to appeal or pander to the base in order to stave off some Santorum rally, that's bad - and likewise, if in the manner of Gingrich Santorum's only workable line of attack on Romney apes the very things Obama will be saying against Romney come the fall, then that as well is not helpful. Remember, the core of Santorum's support is social conservatives and the uneducated working poor - both of those demographics hunger for anti-east coast elitist rhetoric - Santorum has attacked Romney as not being a 'true' conservative but hasn't as far I remember gone Gingrich on Romney's wealth and success yet - that could easily change.

So, a knockdown but no knockout for Romney - which means I guess, given my previous statements, he's toast and the GOP with him - well, maybe not toast yet, but they're nested in the toaster - possibly Romney has enough of a delegate lead now that he can ignore Santorum [and with him the base] and focus on Obama, which could help him. Yes, by winning Ohio it's very hard to see how Romney now doesn't eventually win the nomination - but with Santorum winning three evangelical/rural states and Gingrich winning hometown Georgia the potential remains high that Romney is going to stay stuck having to engage these marginal yet interminable clowns of the uber right which, as Lear found out with his own malicious jester, can do nothing but diminish one's stature throughout the realm as a whole. I'm amused how some still want to compare this drawn out race to Obama vs Clinton without acknowledging the key difference - both Obama and Clinton were legitimate presidential candidates with great narratives to ride on [first black, first woman president] - Gingrich and Santorum have little appeal outside of the republican base and very definitely have no exciting narratives to bear them aloft - exact opposite actually. Sure, Obama pulled Clinton too far to the left which would have hurt had she been the nominee - but not nearly as much as Romney is being hurt by the same dynamic. Not even close.

Now, people are gonna criticize Romney again as being a weak candidate - and there is some validity to that - but I believe Daniels and probably Christie too would have had the same problem - the base - the signal vulnerability of democracy has always been that people get to vote - but the real problem, when one considers things that can actually be amended, is how we go about nominating our leaders - for each party the extremes of each have way too much of a say in what the rest of country is going to be stuck with as a choice of candidates - and we're seeing this dysfunction play out in a very uncomfortable way in the GOP primary because the most telling aspect of this race from the very beginning has been the obvious fact [to an unbiased observer] that there has only ever been one credible candidate running. I still find it confounding that so many people actually left their homes yesterday and lined up to vote for Santorum - why? what on earth are you thinking? - these people either must have severe psychological issues or suffer from some kind of learning disability - or they're taking their instructions from god. It's frightening.

It is clear though that the republican establishment, if such a thing exists [which it must in some way for this sentence to make any sense] seems to have come to the understanding of how bad what's happening is - most of these people I'm guessing would in a heartbeat just install Romney as the candidate if they could do it - which makes me wonder if my prediction of a civil war in the GOP is going to start bubbling to the surface - tempers publicly flare - and then Gingrich and Santorum go even more populist with their 'the little guy against the elite' bull shit - yeah, things could start to get nasty here. I still say if I'm Romney I get out and run as an independent and leave the irremediable base to suck on it - again, I have absolutely no idea how feasible such a thing is - but if I'm a rich guy running for president for the second time and watching my chances of winning in November slowly being corrupted into nothing by two guys who have very little chance of getting the nomination but even if they do absolutely no chance of beating Obama - well, I just couldn't tolerate such a thing.

“There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time we started talking about the costs of not stopping Iran.”

Words from Netanyahu at AIPAC yesterday. It strikes me that it was about two years ago that Tom Ricks banished me from his blog for saying pretty much the same thing - although granted my language was somewhat more animated - but I was then and am still now shocked at how many public intellectuals have had a 'head in the sand' approach to Iran - I mean two years ago Ricks essentially ridiculed and dismissed outright as absurd any argument that either laid out the reasons why Israel might feel they had no option but to attack or, god forbid, any argument that attempted to actually defend such a decision.

I should reiterate that I'm not advocating for or against an attack - I hear McCain yesterday suggesting we bomb Syria and I think the man is nuts, that's an asinine idea - when we start an all out civil war and Salafi sects start butchering Alawites, who will we bomb then? [you certainly would be foolish to put a match to that tinderbox before knowing just how horrendously combustible Iran is going to turn out to be - and what are you gonna do if Iraqi Sunnis decide to join the fight?] - so it's not like I have war fever - I'm just curious as to why a nobody like me could see clearly how this all might play out but a pro like Ricks, a guy who could tomorrow probably arrange an interview with Obama if needed, was so blind to the reality. And maybe that's it - devotion to Obama - these devout acolytes of the Chosen One are very protective of him - maybe it was simply a case of them knowing what a disaster Iran could be for him and that's why they could not bring themselves to contemplate the potentiality of it in objective terms.

Or maybe it's a case of people like Ricks truly buying into the fanciful notion of Obama being an avatar of a brave new world where the ugliness of war only happens to simpletons like Bush - enlightened souls transcend such crudities - maybe nothing more than classic liberal hubris roused in defence of besotted ideals.

Damaging the brand. Certainly I've been talking for awhile about how a drawn out primary featuring the likes of Cain, Gingrich and Santorum would do that - and I'm now hearing a lot of concerned republicans talk along these lines as well. But I'm wondering if I was wrong in thinking the Limbaugh buffoonery was a tipping point for the GOP into absolute farce kind of territory - I mean, I was right about Limbaugh and how misguided any attempt at defending him would be - but I'm sensing that the episode has maybe catalyzed the power brokers into getting proactive in saving the brand from the self immolation currently holding the day - I'm speaking here specifically of several high profile republicans coming out and endorsing Romney - it feels like a concerted effort to change the narrative. If we see this same dynamic play out among voters today - if the average voter has looked at the Limbaugh fiasco and come to same general conclusion - then could potentially be a good day for Romney.

On the other hand, since things seem to be trending Romney's way, should he come up short the sense of disappointment and disarray will be amplified - and then the brand is damaged beyond repair for this election cycle I think.

Has the GOP now officially jumped the shark? [has referring to something as having jumped a shark jumped the shark?] Let's switch metaphors: has the GOP now officially driven itself into the mire of an ideological ditch? Certainly the primary has decidedly turned things in the direction of the ditch, as at various times the three stooges Cain, Gingrich and Santorum took turns behind the wheel and displayed a real affinity for reckless driving - but still the car hadn't quite slipped over the edge yet - and then along comes Limbaugh and his slut and bamm! Tipped over like a turtle in a trough full of muck.

And the bad thing isn't so much that for millions of independent voters [the only electoral demographic that matters] of which at least half of whom are female the idiocy of Limbaugh is now the voice of conservative opinion on what it means to be a young woman today in America looking to prevent an unwanted pregnancy [they're all whores, obviously - c'mon] - that's bad, but what's worse is how conservatives are either defending Limbaugh, desperately trying to rationalise what he said with specious excuses [he's just an entertainer, it's satire, this is really about religious freedom] or simply running from the issue out of fear of the base [Romney's 'no comment']. Watching various shows yesterday it's shocking how many conservatives think this an argument they can actually win - delusional doesn't even begin to capture the near psychotic like detachment from reality that thinking displays - even if you can somehow concoct the perfect defense that magically frames this all in a seemingly reasonable way, YOU STILL LOSE THE ARGUMENT! The demographic you need to win over in November has absolutely no desire or stomach for a culture war on anything, never mind something like contraception, and especially if expressed in terms as moronic and offensive as those employed by Limbaugh. It's as if the GOP is engaged in a real world demonstration of a polisci course on how to lose an election you were virtually guaranteed to win.

Looks very much like a car in a ditch to me - with some fat guy jumping a shark in the background.

[update: Limbaugh apologizes. That surprises me. Could be sincere. Could be he realizes that in order to have a chance of pivoting the debate to freedom of religion and liberal overreach he had no choice but to apologize. Could be conservative power brokers said to him behind closed doors what they're too scared to say in the open, namely you're an idiot, you're killing us, fix this. Don't know how it changes things - still see a car in a ditch - possibly the ditch is a little less muddy - doubt it]

I have said that one of if not the key factor that will influenece the Israeli decision on Iran is the absence of trust in the Obama administration - this article paints the picture. Is there anything more predicable in foreign policy then, when the naive idealism of liberals runs head on into the cold, cruel realties of the world crowding their brief dreams rounded by a sleep, of how nightmares soon obtrude? Obama treated Israel exactly how every uber lefty has long hoped an American president would - Israel's push back against this misguided belligerence was predictable - and now when Obama desperately wants Israel to trust him on Iran he's surprised by their cynicism? The irony is very bitter indeed.

For me the math here for Israel is viciously simple - if the window is closing for you to act alone on Iran and you have a plan you believe in - if you've decided that Obama cannot be trusted to take care of things should you let that window close - and if you've also concluded that there's simply no way you can live with an Iran that has the bomb - then there's really only one choice you can make.

Why are some pundits trying to make argument that if Santorum would just keep his mouth shut viz social issues that he'd have a much better chance of winning this thing? Why would you be canvassing for a candidate who may be seriously flawed but is good at keeping the flaws hidden? How is it you somehow believe that an Obama Super PAC will not obliterate such a charade? Do you not understand that it's in the nature of fanatical social conservatives like Santorum to shoot their mouths off on this subject? And do you not understand that it's not social conservatism per se that so disturbs and frightens moderates but rather it's the mindless, uncompromising, irrational zealotry that always accompanies these beliefs that puts them off and that that zealotry is ultimately impossible to keep safely hidden away?

How did the economic pressures of the 30s motivate a general desire to look past the threat of Nazism? That various economic pressures enabled the rise of fascism in Germany I understand, but how much did Great War fatigue and then the depression feed the desire to look past the rising threat that would soon engulf everyone? Well, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that - but I'm just thinking about how current economic woes and worries combines with a Europe in absolute retreat as a military force and America worn out from Iraq and Afghanistan to create a similar run from reality as concerns Iran... maybe China too. Not to engage in fanciful historicism or the forcing together of puzzle pieces in order to manufacture a pattern one believes is there, but... can't deny that the species does seem to have a knack for repeating itself.

Apparently George Will has written an article, not yet published but being talked about on various fronts, that contends that the GOP no longer has any tenable presidential candidates [not news to me - I've been predicting this for six months] and that republicans should therefore just concentrate on a battle that actually is winnable: taking congress in order to make sure Obama is constrained in his second term. Not an entirely bad notion - except that he doesn't then it appears draw the logical conclusion, ie the GOP must nominate Romney because as a moderate, pragmatic conservative he will not scare away independents the way Santorum and Gingrich will - Santorum can only do harm when it comes to winning close congressional races - but it's not only that: if Santorum or Gingrich is the nominee, not only do they have no chance of beating Obama, but the extreme social conservatism on the one hand and the megalomaniacal nuttiness on the other will tarnish conservatism as a whole - this is already happening - this is why Romney's favorables are in decline and why he'll have trouble beating Obama should he win the nomination. Why doesn't Will concede the logic of this? He's on record as not liking Romney - but if your whole point is that the presidency is no longer an option and we should just focus on the house and senate, why should his dislike of Romney keep him from drawing logical conclusions? My guess is because Will is manifesting the pathology that is undoing conservatives and conservatism: intellectual disunity, confusion, chaos and contradictions, distemper in the grassroots, emotion trumping common sense, a delusional moralistic irredentism seeking to recapture some perfect American past, ideological obsolescence, senescence and general dysfunction [how on earth have they allowed themselves to be drawn into debating contraception for christ sake? How have they allowed Limbaugh's imbecilic calling of a college student a slut because she uses contraception become the sound bite middle America will now associate with the right wing on this issue?]. Will seems to be making a very pragmatic argument and then undermines it by abjuring the logical pragmatism that must follow - nominate Romney.

One almost has to admire Obama here - the ruinous ineptitude of his liberalism has so driven the right wing batty that even the brightest acolytes of the conservative ethos no longer seem capable of making sense.

Some NGO types held in Egypt on charges not worth tying to remember get released and everyone wants to talk about it as a positive development, an easing of tensions - but then read below the fold and see that some unfortunate 'christian' afflicted by the taint of impure beliefs has been sentenced to six years in jail for insulting the prophet Mohamed. Phrase 'blind leading the blind' comes to mind.

"... it's a clear indication of just how delusional, how significantly sundered from reality a healthy segment of the conservative base is that so many of them, both from the rank and file and the elite, sincerely seem to believe that Santorum is electable, could actually beat the chosen one... it's a madness akin to the solipsistic, cloistered dementia that might cause a board certified lefty to feverishly promote the nomination of, I dunno, Noam Chomsky, the black Obama... these people are that nuts... I am so convinced of Santorum's absolute lacking in what middle America is looking for in a leader that should he win the nomination and then through some unnatural connivance of twisted fate beat Obama I swear to never talk about politics ever again... because should that sweater vested throwback somehow preach his way into the White House by promising to reawaken womenkind's aggrieved soul by absolving it of the sin of contraception, then that will be a clear indication of either me not having a god damn clue of what the hell I'm talking about or of this great democratic experiment otherwise known as America having completely lost its frickin' mind... and if it's that, then the time will have come to find a nice little isolated cabin in the woods, avail myself of a stump beside a babbling brook, and daily sit watching for the coming of the end..."