Meagan McArdle has a new blog and I thought this entry, which pushes back with great effectiveness on liberals who want to compare the high court's 'attack' on Obamacare to the court's stare down with FDR over his grand socialist schemes of the 30's, a treat to read [that's an off-putting phrase, treat to read - should be edited out but I suspect the writer lacks the skill or sense to do so].
It's interesting, should the seeming inevitable happen and Obamacare is struck down in part or whole this morning, it's interesting how liberal surprise now ripening into contempt at this turn of events reveals the way ideological extremes narrow the mind and cloud the natural reasonableness of common sense - remember Pelosi's screech of scorn at a reporter who dared ask a few years ago if the left feared a SCOTUS challenge to the royal writ of Obama - "are you serious?" she condescendingly declaimed, and then repeated the query just to drive home what a grave impertinence she thought the question to be - that's the great lesson here.
Of course court may uphold the mandate - but the point still stands regardless - liberals simply assumed there were no legitimate constitutional claims to be made against the ACA - the arrogance was telling.
addendum: the mandate is upheld - but as a tax. The right leaning constitutional scholars I read seem very surprised by this - not surprised that the law was upheld, but rather upheld on these terms. I assume Roberts, who joined the left for the decisive vote on this, wrote the opinion - should make for some interesting exegesis over the next few days. To my astoundingly untrained eye it seems this something of a win for opponents since the argument was that Obama tried to sugar coat the mandate by pretending it wasn't a tax, now they would have no choice but to call it what it is - also, since the ACA is in general unpopular, I'm guessing the Obama administration saw an advantage in running against an extremist high court rather than for a law most seem to dislike.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
It was striking to hear the other night, while watching CNBC, three 'experts' - market analysts, investment gurus, whatever - all agree on something that I've been complaining about [without the slightest hint of expertness] for years - to wit, why do people accept China's numbers on GDP without question? When China declares its spending on defense it's just accepted wisdom in the foreign policy community to assume they're lying and then multiply the number by a factor of three of four or whatever - and yet when China releases economic data there seems to be a naive willingness to accept these figures as above board - I've never understood why that is - at the very least we know the number is juiced by excessive gov't investment and so even if the numbers are accurate they're still misleading - so it was nice to hear supposed experts confirm that I'm not crazy for thinking that - one of them made the point that GDP always mirrors electricity usage and if you were to guess China's real GDP based on electricity usage it's not 8%, it's more in the neighbourhood of 3%. It's probably inappropriate that, if his claim is true, I take pleasure in it.
I'm seeing more people talking about this, but not enough given that I think it spells trouble - namely, what happens if, despite large declines in support among white middle class voters, especially white men regardless of socio-economic standing, Obama wins in November because of his near unanimous support from blacks and his very strong and growing [see amnesty pander] support from hispanics? It's obvious people don't wanna talk about this issue because it sounds racial - and for sure, if a conservative dare bring up this issue the New York Times will call them a racist the next day - but it needs to be discussed, if only to mitigate or prepare ourselves for the discontent that could be unleashed if the above scenario plays out - and as polls stand right now the above scenario is how things are gonna play out.
Between them the black and hispanic vote will account for about 20-22% of the electorate in November - black support for Obama is near unanimous, hispanic support was at about 70% but with the amnesty pander polls suggest that number could climb to 80% and counting - and yet, what are the motivations of these two groups, what criteria drive this entirely skewed support? Does Obama's performance as president matter at all to them? Is it that they're convinced after careful consideration that by and large his policy positions are good for the country? Is it that they find Obama's mantra of blame Bush, blame Wall Street, blame rich people, blame Europe etc etc etc absolutely credible as an explanation of current troubles? Or is it that an extremely narrow focus on extremely narrow issues of great importance to them but of little or no importance to anyone else - and indeed viewed with some hostility by the opposition - make the choice not only obvious but an imperative?
If you garner near unanimous support from blacks simply because you're black - well, and also too because you espouse the glories of big gov't all aflutter with the kinds of social programs the poor like [meaning, Condi Rice would not garner unanimous support from black voters were she the minority candidate in this race] - and you garner support encroaching on unanimous from hispanics simply because you're viewed as a fellow minority who's soft on immigration - and also again because of evinced deep love for big gov't etc etc - but your support from the white middle class craters because you basically... well, basically because you suck as a president, to put it crudely - and you manage to win reelection because of the former and despite the latter - does anyone really think that's not gonna lead to problems? Or put another way, does that sound at all like a healthy democracy serving the interests of the common weal? Sounds highly problematic and bloody dysfunctional to me.
As I've said before, look for the social contract that makes democracy possible to come under threat when elections are viewed as existential - that is, when the losing side does not simply feel that they've lost the ability to effect positive change but rather feel that they're lost the ability to effect a change that is absolutely vital to the survival of the republic - and when this destabilizing result is seen to have been caused by a flawed system that has failed to serve the interests of the nation as a whole against the limited interests of a disgruntled, misguided few [well, one fifth of the electorate ain't exactly 'a few' - rather, a minority raised to an unjustifiable significance by a confluence of disconcerting factors - I mean, it's probably impossible to poll a question like this, but if you could poll it I think we know what the answer would be - that is, given his performance, would Obama have any chance of winning this election if he wasn't black?]
[now of course poor minorities will vote liberal regardless of the race of the candidate, and the need to appease this core constituency is part of what causes liberal thinking to be so foolish and misbegotten - any polity that is guided by the needs of its weakest elements is doomed - which is why the most important constituencies in a democracy are the business and entrepreneurial classes and the tax paying, consumerist middle classes, regardless of race - asians fit perfectly into this demographic and although I haven't seem poll numbers on them I'm guessing they lean right - so the question is will the concerns of the latter be trumped by the needs of the former simply because the race of one of the candidates skews the numbers just enough to make it so? And in an environment where elections are viewed as existential, shouldn't we expect there to be significant fallout if such comes to pass? Certainly the press is not gonna report on this dynamic - the New York Times will publish articles on how a few old bigots in Kentucky will in no way vote for a colored boy - but you're not gonna see an article from them on how Obama can't possibly win without the support of people who will vote for him simply because he is black - and this failure on the part of the fourth estate to address the obvious problem here will only serve to feed the sense of anxiety among those who will believe, should Obama win, that this system is broken]
Between them the black and hispanic vote will account for about 20-22% of the electorate in November - black support for Obama is near unanimous, hispanic support was at about 70% but with the amnesty pander polls suggest that number could climb to 80% and counting - and yet, what are the motivations of these two groups, what criteria drive this entirely skewed support? Does Obama's performance as president matter at all to them? Is it that they're convinced after careful consideration that by and large his policy positions are good for the country? Is it that they find Obama's mantra of blame Bush, blame Wall Street, blame rich people, blame Europe etc etc etc absolutely credible as an explanation of current troubles? Or is it that an extremely narrow focus on extremely narrow issues of great importance to them but of little or no importance to anyone else - and indeed viewed with some hostility by the opposition - make the choice not only obvious but an imperative?
If you garner near unanimous support from blacks simply because you're black - well, and also too because you espouse the glories of big gov't all aflutter with the kinds of social programs the poor like [meaning, Condi Rice would not garner unanimous support from black voters were she the minority candidate in this race] - and you garner support encroaching on unanimous from hispanics simply because you're viewed as a fellow minority who's soft on immigration - and also again because of evinced deep love for big gov't etc etc - but your support from the white middle class craters because you basically... well, basically because you suck as a president, to put it crudely - and you manage to win reelection because of the former and despite the latter - does anyone really think that's not gonna lead to problems? Or put another way, does that sound at all like a healthy democracy serving the interests of the common weal? Sounds highly problematic and bloody dysfunctional to me.
As I've said before, look for the social contract that makes democracy possible to come under threat when elections are viewed as existential - that is, when the losing side does not simply feel that they've lost the ability to effect positive change but rather feel that they're lost the ability to effect a change that is absolutely vital to the survival of the republic - and when this destabilizing result is seen to have been caused by a flawed system that has failed to serve the interests of the nation as a whole against the limited interests of a disgruntled, misguided few [well, one fifth of the electorate ain't exactly 'a few' - rather, a minority raised to an unjustifiable significance by a confluence of disconcerting factors - I mean, it's probably impossible to poll a question like this, but if you could poll it I think we know what the answer would be - that is, given his performance, would Obama have any chance of winning this election if he wasn't black?]
[now of course poor minorities will vote liberal regardless of the race of the candidate, and the need to appease this core constituency is part of what causes liberal thinking to be so foolish and misbegotten - any polity that is guided by the needs of its weakest elements is doomed - which is why the most important constituencies in a democracy are the business and entrepreneurial classes and the tax paying, consumerist middle classes, regardless of race - asians fit perfectly into this demographic and although I haven't seem poll numbers on them I'm guessing they lean right - so the question is will the concerns of the latter be trumped by the needs of the former simply because the race of one of the candidates skews the numbers just enough to make it so? And in an environment where elections are viewed as existential, shouldn't we expect there to be significant fallout if such comes to pass? Certainly the press is not gonna report on this dynamic - the New York Times will publish articles on how a few old bigots in Kentucky will in no way vote for a colored boy - but you're not gonna see an article from them on how Obama can't possibly win without the support of people who will vote for him simply because he is black - and this failure on the part of the fourth estate to address the obvious problem here will only serve to feed the sense of anxiety among those who will believe, should Obama win, that this system is broken]
Friday, June 22, 2012
Do I need to adjust my thinking on Syria? Well, my thinking merely amounted to a series of warnings and a general sense of shock at how willing some seem to be to rush into Assad's magic kingdom as if having learned nothing at all from Iraq and Afghanistan - not to mention Libya, which the American media ignores [more water carrying for Dear Leader I assume] but is settling into yet another abject lesson on just how badly you can screw yourself attempting 'to do good' in the lands of Allah.
But of course intervention is or would not simply be about a Susan Power-like obligation to do nice things or whatever that foolish, ill-conceived UN ex cathedra chant was that ginned up the absurd incoherence of Libya - no, would also putatively be about strategic line drawing, and the pluses and minuses of such a calculation deserve serious consideration.
Ah, for the good old days when you simply backed the strongman dictator willing to do your bidding and the strategic puzzle fell together with a logical precision - well, a logical precision relative to what we have now - for the phoney cry of freedom and attending hollow affirmations of a kind of democracy have thoroughly muddled the dynamics by enabling once marginal or erstwhile suppressed players - in Libya, various criminal gangs and Islamist tribes - but after the liberal press announced a day after Qadaffi met maker that Obama had won a great victory for... well, for something everybody stopped paying attention so Libya doesn't matter again apparently - in Egypt, where supposedly democratic passions were in full flower, they hold a vote and only 50% of eligible voters bother to exercise the privilege and of those, about half chose a new secular soft tyranny ostensibly to be run by one of Mubarak's old pals but with the military ultimately pulling the strings in the background, and the other half an Islamist sham democracy otherwise known as a theocratic autocracy a la Iran to be 'run' by the Brotherhood but that may or may not, depending on deals struck, end up being controlled by, you guessed it, the military - or you're gonna get a civil war - or a military crack down - or... anyway, what you're not gonna get and what none of this is definitely gonna end up being is a democratic revolution regardless of whether or not Reuters still insists on calling it that. Like I said, strategic picture muddled and options not obvious.
And then there's Syria, where not only do you have the muddle of reviled dictator versus Islamist radicals masquerading as freedom fighters and champions of democracy, but you also have highly combustible sectarian hatred and distrust that could possibly erupt into a regional war, strategic imperatives and ambitions by key local players which again could precipitate a regional war, and in the background pushing and prodding in known and unknown ways competing powerful geopolitical interests that could lead to outcomes of both immediate and long term strategic import. In short, Syria has the potential of morphing from small stage into a very big one - as the nexus of a variety of long brewing and unresolvable animosities, competing interests and strategic ambitions of both the limited and extremely expansive kind, untold demons could crawl from the depths of this pit.
So back to the original question: should I change my thinking on staying out of Syria? I think those arguing for a humanitarian intervention are... misguided - that didn't work in Libya and it could not work in a much bigger and badder way in Syria - a civil war that metastasizes into a regional war is lurking just beneath the surface here, so even if there's a demonstrated humanitarian claim to be made, which I'm not sure that there is, the threat of an attempt to 'do good' turing into something very, very bad is too real thus rendering the humanitarian option inert. Unfortunately, this 'non-action' is complicated by Obama going into Libya for humanitarian reasons that probably pale in comparison to Syria, with the result being America looking confused and feeble - but I'm not sure how you correct that misstep by now going into Syria, especially if you're not going to see it through to the bitter end - 'leading from behind' is most decidedly not an option in Syria. If we're going to start a civl war in order to stop a humanitarian crisis we are then obligated to fight that civil war in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis - you could fool yourself [and the world] into thinking that wasn't the case with Libya - such rationalizing won't work in Syria.
So what about the arguments that the only way to facilitate an exit of Assad was for the US to get involved, or, failing that, to facilitate the empowering of a Sunni/Isamist faction we might be able to work with was for us to get involved? As for the first, I don't see Assad going unless China, Russia and by implication Iran sign off on it, and why would they sign off on it? The only leverage in such a debate would be for the US to threaten to step in on the side of the insurgents unless China and Russia agree - but they know that would be a bluff - they know there's no way Obama is going in there, so again, why would Russia and China sign off on giving Assad the boot? As for the second point, that's highly speculative - and without boots on the ground, how do you possibly influence events in such a directed way? We had trouble enough doing that in Iraq and we occupied the bloody country. People who back that option I think are failing to learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan - namely, Muslim polities are extremely fucked up and so if you're gonna get involved your purpose has to be either short term tactical or long term strategic - the middle is just nothing but chaos and confusion.
But should the civil war come, would it then be time to choose sides? This assumes that we're seeing the beginnings of a large scale Sunni/Shia confrontation and in order to balance the China/Russia/Iran side of things we have to back the Sunni regardless of how repugnant they may be. I don't have an answer for that one: stay out and possibly it ends in a stalemate and you keep your hands clean - or possibly you enable a stark shift in the balance of power to the other side resulting in who knows what consequences, but probably a confrontation between Israel and Iran - certainly Israel would not sit back idly; step in and possibly you effect a desired outcome - a civil war that is contained and ends with a stalemate and various trade offs - or you somehow end up in a shooting war with Iran and Russia - maybe Iraqi Shia too - and what about Turkey and the Kurds?
In the end conjecture is moot since Obama ain't getting involved - he may be tempted to try another leading from behind, but I think he got spooked by Libya where he found out there's no such thing as an easy war - and I think he also realizes that it would kill his reelection hopes to make a small scale commitment and then back off should things escalate, as they almost certainly will.
But forget Dear Leader - what would I do? Well... I wouldn't have gone into Libya so me not going into Syria would not have left me looking weak and over matched by events and therefore possibly I'm in a better position with Russia and China viz Assad - or if I had gone into Libya it would not have been from behind and so again my credibility in negotiations with Russia and China over Assad is intact - that being said, don't really think getting rid of Assad changes much of anything on the ground anyway, at least not as things currently stand - so in the end, if I see a full blown civil war is inevitable, and we appear to maybe be getting there, I try and carve out some Sunni faction to back [Saudis I imagine can help here - although their motivations are not to be simply assumed as being in line with ours - same goes with Turkey, even more so with Turkey actually] and then labor behind the scenes to leverage one interest against another to hopefully bring about a stalemate [and I'm assuming Assad's exit too] as soon as possible - I'm kinda thinking that's your best option should this thing really start to escalate.
There are those who cynically opine that we should just stand back and let the Sunni and Shia beat the crap out of each other - or hell, let China and Russia become responsible for this fucked up corner of the world - welcome to the suck, boys - hey, wha' do I know, maybe that's not as crazy as it sounds.
But of course intervention is or would not simply be about a Susan Power-like obligation to do nice things or whatever that foolish, ill-conceived UN ex cathedra chant was that ginned up the absurd incoherence of Libya - no, would also putatively be about strategic line drawing, and the pluses and minuses of such a calculation deserve serious consideration.
Ah, for the good old days when you simply backed the strongman dictator willing to do your bidding and the strategic puzzle fell together with a logical precision - well, a logical precision relative to what we have now - for the phoney cry of freedom and attending hollow affirmations of a kind of democracy have thoroughly muddled the dynamics by enabling once marginal or erstwhile suppressed players - in Libya, various criminal gangs and Islamist tribes - but after the liberal press announced a day after Qadaffi met maker that Obama had won a great victory for... well, for something everybody stopped paying attention so Libya doesn't matter again apparently - in Egypt, where supposedly democratic passions were in full flower, they hold a vote and only 50% of eligible voters bother to exercise the privilege and of those, about half chose a new secular soft tyranny ostensibly to be run by one of Mubarak's old pals but with the military ultimately pulling the strings in the background, and the other half an Islamist sham democracy otherwise known as a theocratic autocracy a la Iran to be 'run' by the Brotherhood but that may or may not, depending on deals struck, end up being controlled by, you guessed it, the military - or you're gonna get a civil war - or a military crack down - or... anyway, what you're not gonna get and what none of this is definitely gonna end up being is a democratic revolution regardless of whether or not Reuters still insists on calling it that. Like I said, strategic picture muddled and options not obvious.
And then there's Syria, where not only do you have the muddle of reviled dictator versus Islamist radicals masquerading as freedom fighters and champions of democracy, but you also have highly combustible sectarian hatred and distrust that could possibly erupt into a regional war, strategic imperatives and ambitions by key local players which again could precipitate a regional war, and in the background pushing and prodding in known and unknown ways competing powerful geopolitical interests that could lead to outcomes of both immediate and long term strategic import. In short, Syria has the potential of morphing from small stage into a very big one - as the nexus of a variety of long brewing and unresolvable animosities, competing interests and strategic ambitions of both the limited and extremely expansive kind, untold demons could crawl from the depths of this pit.
So back to the original question: should I change my thinking on staying out of Syria? I think those arguing for a humanitarian intervention are... misguided - that didn't work in Libya and it could not work in a much bigger and badder way in Syria - a civil war that metastasizes into a regional war is lurking just beneath the surface here, so even if there's a demonstrated humanitarian claim to be made, which I'm not sure that there is, the threat of an attempt to 'do good' turing into something very, very bad is too real thus rendering the humanitarian option inert. Unfortunately, this 'non-action' is complicated by Obama going into Libya for humanitarian reasons that probably pale in comparison to Syria, with the result being America looking confused and feeble - but I'm not sure how you correct that misstep by now going into Syria, especially if you're not going to see it through to the bitter end - 'leading from behind' is most decidedly not an option in Syria. If we're going to start a civl war in order to stop a humanitarian crisis we are then obligated to fight that civil war in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis - you could fool yourself [and the world] into thinking that wasn't the case with Libya - such rationalizing won't work in Syria.
So what about the arguments that the only way to facilitate an exit of Assad was for the US to get involved, or, failing that, to facilitate the empowering of a Sunni/Isamist faction we might be able to work with was for us to get involved? As for the first, I don't see Assad going unless China, Russia and by implication Iran sign off on it, and why would they sign off on it? The only leverage in such a debate would be for the US to threaten to step in on the side of the insurgents unless China and Russia agree - but they know that would be a bluff - they know there's no way Obama is going in there, so again, why would Russia and China sign off on giving Assad the boot? As for the second point, that's highly speculative - and without boots on the ground, how do you possibly influence events in such a directed way? We had trouble enough doing that in Iraq and we occupied the bloody country. People who back that option I think are failing to learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan - namely, Muslim polities are extremely fucked up and so if you're gonna get involved your purpose has to be either short term tactical or long term strategic - the middle is just nothing but chaos and confusion.
But should the civil war come, would it then be time to choose sides? This assumes that we're seeing the beginnings of a large scale Sunni/Shia confrontation and in order to balance the China/Russia/Iran side of things we have to back the Sunni regardless of how repugnant they may be. I don't have an answer for that one: stay out and possibly it ends in a stalemate and you keep your hands clean - or possibly you enable a stark shift in the balance of power to the other side resulting in who knows what consequences, but probably a confrontation between Israel and Iran - certainly Israel would not sit back idly; step in and possibly you effect a desired outcome - a civil war that is contained and ends with a stalemate and various trade offs - or you somehow end up in a shooting war with Iran and Russia - maybe Iraqi Shia too - and what about Turkey and the Kurds?
In the end conjecture is moot since Obama ain't getting involved - he may be tempted to try another leading from behind, but I think he got spooked by Libya where he found out there's no such thing as an easy war - and I think he also realizes that it would kill his reelection hopes to make a small scale commitment and then back off should things escalate, as they almost certainly will.
But forget Dear Leader - what would I do? Well... I wouldn't have gone into Libya so me not going into Syria would not have left me looking weak and over matched by events and therefore possibly I'm in a better position with Russia and China viz Assad - or if I had gone into Libya it would not have been from behind and so again my credibility in negotiations with Russia and China over Assad is intact - that being said, don't really think getting rid of Assad changes much of anything on the ground anyway, at least not as things currently stand - so in the end, if I see a full blown civil war is inevitable, and we appear to maybe be getting there, I try and carve out some Sunni faction to back [Saudis I imagine can help here - although their motivations are not to be simply assumed as being in line with ours - same goes with Turkey, even more so with Turkey actually] and then labor behind the scenes to leverage one interest against another to hopefully bring about a stalemate [and I'm assuming Assad's exit too] as soon as possible - I'm kinda thinking that's your best option should this thing really start to escalate.
There are those who cynically opine that we should just stand back and let the Sunni and Shia beat the crap out of each other - or hell, let China and Russia become responsible for this fucked up corner of the world - welcome to the suck, boys - hey, wha' do I know, maybe that's not as crazy as it sounds.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
I do like to be proven right when it comes to Obama, which may say more about my own failings than his - but, whatever - the new biography of him [see this Commentary article for quick reference] which makes strong case of what a serial dissembler Obama has been seems to confirm my very first impression of the man after hearing his 2004 keynote address at Democratic convention, namely that he's an exceptional liar who also more disturbingly may be so arrogant as to believe that a lie is true if spoken by him.
Taking stock of his easy way with deception and duplicity, his extreme ideology, the blind enthusiasm, hell, idolatry of his fans and the danger of a compliant and subjugated press wholly bought into the cult of personality that was Obama in 2008, I came to the conclusion he'd be a horrible if not indeed a dangerous president. Hard to say I was wrong - the economy sucks, important domestic initiatives lie inert or moribund, embittered partisanship is at an all time high, foreign policy is a confused mess that can only make sense to a person who believes America is an evil beast that must be subdued and emasculated [even if Obama doesn't necessarily believe that a significant number of his most ardent believers do] - and frighteningly, if the man is as good a liar as I think he is, he may get another four years to work his magic.
Rome declined for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was a failure by the Imperium to produce competent and effective leadership. Eight years of Obama following on the heels of eight years of Bush and you may be able to start saying the same thing about America.
Taking stock of his easy way with deception and duplicity, his extreme ideology, the blind enthusiasm, hell, idolatry of his fans and the danger of a compliant and subjugated press wholly bought into the cult of personality that was Obama in 2008, I came to the conclusion he'd be a horrible if not indeed a dangerous president. Hard to say I was wrong - the economy sucks, important domestic initiatives lie inert or moribund, embittered partisanship is at an all time high, foreign policy is a confused mess that can only make sense to a person who believes America is an evil beast that must be subdued and emasculated [even if Obama doesn't necessarily believe that a significant number of his most ardent believers do] - and frighteningly, if the man is as good a liar as I think he is, he may get another four years to work his magic.
Rome declined for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was a failure by the Imperium to produce competent and effective leadership. Eight years of Obama following on the heels of eight years of Bush and you may be able to start saying the same thing about America.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Just watched Rubio on CNBC - I've excluded him from VP considerations because... well, not sure why - suppose I think it will look like pandering to Hispanics and therefore possibly do more harm than good - possibly it's simply that he looks so young - he's 41 but looks 31 - but the guy is smooth, exudes competence and intelligence, seems to know exactly what he wants to say and just as importantly how he wants to say it - and he's got some charisma - in short, he just shot up my VP list. I mean, he talked about Obama's unconstitutional immigration move relative to his own DREAM act and hit all the pertinent points in a coherent and appealing and uncomplicated way - that's exactly what I'm looking for: a guy [or gal] who in a minute of video footage can make the points you want made in a convincing and cogent way and do it all with a dash of charisma. That's the thing I like about Christie - comparing the two aside from that, Christie's got the executive experience which I value greatly, Rubio's Hispanic - and let's face it, there's probably no way Obama wins in November without his near monolithic support from African Americans and his very solid support from Hispanics - if Rubio can put a dent in that Latin vote - and maybe even, as a minority, a much smaller but still possibly significant dent in the absurdly skewed black vote - then you really have to take him seriously.
On the other hand, there's this from Jennifer Rubin. I share her enthusiasm for Ryan - and her complaint against Rubio basically echoes the reason I never really considered him in the first place - too young.
addendum: now Romney comes out and says indeed Rubio is being vetted - all sounds a bit confused and awkward. Of course Romney cannot be perceived as slighting the Hispanic guy so if someone leaked this info because they were pissed off about a slighting and wanted to draw attention to it, well, you can see why Romney has to go public and deny it - but it looks clumsy - and if he's said he's vetting Rubio when he actually isn't, you can be sure that will get out - and now you can't pick Rubio even if you were vetting him cause it will look like you caved to pressure - I'm having trouble figuring how you spin this in a positive way - which makes me think it indeed was a leak by a Rubio fan, a really stupid leak cause from my point of view all they've done is make it very difficult to pick Rubio even if he was a candidate and back Romney into a corner from which there's no graceful escape - but that's little hard to buy too cause Romney supposedly put one of his most trusted people on this, so would they really bring someone into the loop capable of making such a stupid error? It's so confusing I'm almost willing to believe the leak was an Obama plant.
addendumdum: Politico selling idea that Pawlently quickly climbing the list of VP possibles - lot of conservatives seem unimpressed by that choice and I probably would have been one of them until I caught him on ABC's flagship political gabfest this past Sunday and found myself very much impressed - I think Politico makes two good points: one, Pawlenty seems much more polished, engaging and comfortable as an advocate of conservative principles now than he did during the primary campaign; and two, Pawlenty's blue collar appeal and unpretentious style may prove an effective counter weight to image of Romney as out of touch rich boy that Obama will be peddling with great prejudice.
On the other hand, there's this from Jennifer Rubin. I share her enthusiasm for Ryan - and her complaint against Rubio basically echoes the reason I never really considered him in the first place - too young.
addendum: now Romney comes out and says indeed Rubio is being vetted - all sounds a bit confused and awkward. Of course Romney cannot be perceived as slighting the Hispanic guy so if someone leaked this info because they were pissed off about a slighting and wanted to draw attention to it, well, you can see why Romney has to go public and deny it - but it looks clumsy - and if he's said he's vetting Rubio when he actually isn't, you can be sure that will get out - and now you can't pick Rubio even if you were vetting him cause it will look like you caved to pressure - I'm having trouble figuring how you spin this in a positive way - which makes me think it indeed was a leak by a Rubio fan, a really stupid leak cause from my point of view all they've done is make it very difficult to pick Rubio even if he was a candidate and back Romney into a corner from which there's no graceful escape - but that's little hard to buy too cause Romney supposedly put one of his most trusted people on this, so would they really bring someone into the loop capable of making such a stupid error? It's so confusing I'm almost willing to believe the leak was an Obama plant.
addendumdum: Politico selling idea that Pawlently quickly climbing the list of VP possibles - lot of conservatives seem unimpressed by that choice and I probably would have been one of them until I caught him on ABC's flagship political gabfest this past Sunday and found myself very much impressed - I think Politico makes two good points: one, Pawlenty seems much more polished, engaging and comfortable as an advocate of conservative principles now than he did during the primary campaign; and two, Pawlenty's blue collar appeal and unpretentious style may prove an effective counter weight to image of Romney as out of touch rich boy that Obama will be peddling with great prejudice.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Interesting how when we talk about the rise of China we do so almost wholly in quantitative terms, not qualitative - because if you're going to compare China to America, which is implicit in this kind of discussion, one should really be talking about the full spectrum of a rise to power - America wasn't simply an economic success story, ie merely a quantitative success - America changed everything - the way we talk, the way we dress, the way we entertain ourselves, the way we build and buy things, the way we view the limits of government and the people, the individuals that sustain it - everything. Does anyone see China replicating this civilizational, this epochal feat? I see zero indication of that.
I wonder if viewing the rise of China in this very circumscribed way is a result of anti-Americanism - I'm thinking of a recent poll that suggested many countries already see China as the prime economic power in the world even though it's really not close - America accounts for about 22% of world GDP, while China accounts for about 10% - although granted, China will probably pass the US in ten years or so baring significant changes to the status quo [I for one believe there in fact will be significant changes]. What's more, virtually all of the biggest, most transformative, most impactful companies in the world are American - none are Chinese. But what's interesting is how the countries where the belief is strongest that China has already surpassed the US are almost all in Europe - not surprising that Europeans would want to remove qualitative parameters and focus on a presumed strictly quantitative future reckoning of China's rise viz America - otherwise they'd have to say good things about America and they're loathe to do that.
I see a problem in this tendency to view China through an anti-American filter: it distorts reality in a way that is like to leave us vulnerable - it's self defeating - if you can't see the good that America does or has done than it's unlikely you're gonna be very motivated to preserve it - but you're diminishing or marginalizing that good in order to champion what in its place?
I wonder if viewing the rise of China in this very circumscribed way is a result of anti-Americanism - I'm thinking of a recent poll that suggested many countries already see China as the prime economic power in the world even though it's really not close - America accounts for about 22% of world GDP, while China accounts for about 10% - although granted, China will probably pass the US in ten years or so baring significant changes to the status quo [I for one believe there in fact will be significant changes]. What's more, virtually all of the biggest, most transformative, most impactful companies in the world are American - none are Chinese. But what's interesting is how the countries where the belief is strongest that China has already surpassed the US are almost all in Europe - not surprising that Europeans would want to remove qualitative parameters and focus on a presumed strictly quantitative future reckoning of China's rise viz America - otherwise they'd have to say good things about America and they're loathe to do that.
I see a problem in this tendency to view China through an anti-American filter: it distorts reality in a way that is like to leave us vulnerable - it's self defeating - if you can't see the good that America does or has done than it's unlikely you're gonna be very motivated to preserve it - but you're diminishing or marginalizing that good in order to champion what in its place?
On growing uber left frustration with Obama - see former prof of Obama's Youtube video calling for his defeat in November because Dear Leader has failed progressives most egregiously. What I do not hear from these newly disaffected is recognition of two very likely reasons for this falling out, this coming asunder - one, that maybe Obama was simply using the native naive idiocy of these people to further his own ambitions - in other words, he hasn't failed the cause because the cause was himself - or two, that when the impractical, detached from reality idealism of leftist enthusiasms run into cold, hard facts of actuality, they tend not to fare too well - what sounds like sweet music in the faculty lounge of Harvard is reduced to discordant gibberish by the harsh realities of the marketplace - in other words, Obama failed because his beliefs were misbegotten, briefly carried aloft on thin clouds of onanistic delusion perfectly captured in the incantation 'we're the ones we've been waiting for' - and so the angry disenchantment of the uber left is the sound of a scrounging in the dust for excuses and denial's sanctuary.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
So, Obama wakes up yesterday and decides he's gonna rewrite American immigration law all by himself - just completely ignore the constitution and congress [both are just so uncool, so staid in their pre-Obama quaintness] and grant amnesty to a few hundred thousand illegals because their plight is so desperate - hey, this is not pandering, it's caring - that's what America does, it cares, and I care about these poor people who just happen to sure represent a key demographic that I can exploit shamelessly to my advantage - the guy's a pisser, man. I just love how he keeps proving me right. Unfortunately, in proving me right, he's also leading the country down the path of ruin.
If I was Romney I'd have a team of guys locked in a room 24/7 just dreaming up every possible dirty, low down, shamelessly manipulative and self serving thing a guy like Obama might do in the next five months to win reelection and then I'd have another team of really smart guys in another room hammering out responses to all these potentialities so when they happen you're there with a quick and pointed reply. There's some obvious twists maybe already written into the script - embrace Simpson/Bowles or a conveniently nebulous version thereof, put Hillary on the ticket, name George Clooney new Secretary of State - but there's surprises lurking - maybe he gets Michelle pregnant - better yet, they adopt a Mexican child - no, wait, stage the abduction of one of his daughters by white supremacists and then have her rescued by an illegal fry cook named Pablo - that's a winner, that's gold.
God bless America, where anyone can grow up to not only have their very own perfectly legal kill list to play with, but also get to chum around with Sarah Jessica Parker and have her pay you for the privilege. What's not to love about that?
If I was Romney I'd have a team of guys locked in a room 24/7 just dreaming up every possible dirty, low down, shamelessly manipulative and self serving thing a guy like Obama might do in the next five months to win reelection and then I'd have another team of really smart guys in another room hammering out responses to all these potentialities so when they happen you're there with a quick and pointed reply. There's some obvious twists maybe already written into the script - embrace Simpson/Bowles or a conveniently nebulous version thereof, put Hillary on the ticket, name George Clooney new Secretary of State - but there's surprises lurking - maybe he gets Michelle pregnant - better yet, they adopt a Mexican child - no, wait, stage the abduction of one of his daughters by white supremacists and then have her rescued by an illegal fry cook named Pablo - that's a winner, that's gold.
God bless America, where anyone can grow up to not only have their very own perfectly legal kill list to play with, but also get to chum around with Sarah Jessica Parker and have her pay you for the privilege. What's not to love about that?
Friday, June 15, 2012
I tend to still be intrigued by what motivates those supporters of Obama who express their fealty in tones and terms that intimate or explicitly identify as adulation, adoration, worship - love. It's always been my impression that there's no real thing of substance operating here, nothing thoughtful and well considered, no great philosophical bonding, but rather that it's simply indicative of a feeling that the act of believing in him confers on the believers about themselves. It reminds me of the liberal obsession with gay marriage.
By all rights gay marriage should be a minor, marginal issue, relegated far down the list of issues the country needs to address and not on the list at all of issues the country desperately needs to address - but that's not gonna happen because liberals and their media cohorts are obsessed with it - the question that bothers is why? Gay couples who want to marry in a 'traditional' sense - some for eminently practical reasons, some for overtly political ones, some for no sane reason whatsoever - represent a pretty small demographic - hell, they probably represent a pretty small subset within their own relatively small subset of simply being gay aside from any reckless inclination to commit marriage - and yet for liberals you'd think there's no way the country can move another step forward until this perceived grievous injustice is undone. So why the obsession? It has to be that for a liberal an enthusiastic endorsing of gay marriage is a way of confirming to themselves that they are indeed enlightened and wonderfully sensitive people - and that the reviled uber right opposes the idea with such venom only serves to fortify this sense of having risen above the small and mundane.
Possibly a tenuous if not utterly specious connection to draw - point is it seems to me liberals tend to believe what they believe in order to confirm a feeling, generally about themselves, rather than to explicate a thought - and yet they act as if motivated wholly by some higher reasoning.
[this irrational, untethered from reality nature of Obama's support is troubling - democracy works because the losing side has faith that the rule of law guarantees them redress in a timely and predictable fashion - but if a 'bad result' is seen as existential in nature, ie the losing side believes the nation may not survive the result - and there also pertains the perception that the electoral process has been detached from the rule of law, ie untethered from reality by the irrational - then democracy will stop working and frustrated people will act out. If a leader, viewed by a near majority as incompetent, gets reelected when objective realities seem to suggest he does not deserve it, and this happens at a time when the country and world in general are afflicted by problems that excite existential fears and concern - then democracy will for some and possibly many seem to have at that point failed. What happens then is impossible to predict - possibly, after some gnashing of teeth and no doubt a several hundred point drop in the DOW, people just go about there business and wait for the midterms - but if the perception takes hold that the system is broken and the country is at risk because of it, and I think there's a possibility that could happen, then you could certainly see upheaval - maybe muted, maybe not. Romney also factors in here - if he runs a good campaign and clearly demonstrates his fitness for the job and yet still loses to an incumbent who by any objective measurement has failed miserably - then that would definitely agitate things]
By all rights gay marriage should be a minor, marginal issue, relegated far down the list of issues the country needs to address and not on the list at all of issues the country desperately needs to address - but that's not gonna happen because liberals and their media cohorts are obsessed with it - the question that bothers is why? Gay couples who want to marry in a 'traditional' sense - some for eminently practical reasons, some for overtly political ones, some for no sane reason whatsoever - represent a pretty small demographic - hell, they probably represent a pretty small subset within their own relatively small subset of simply being gay aside from any reckless inclination to commit marriage - and yet for liberals you'd think there's no way the country can move another step forward until this perceived grievous injustice is undone. So why the obsession? It has to be that for a liberal an enthusiastic endorsing of gay marriage is a way of confirming to themselves that they are indeed enlightened and wonderfully sensitive people - and that the reviled uber right opposes the idea with such venom only serves to fortify this sense of having risen above the small and mundane.
Possibly a tenuous if not utterly specious connection to draw - point is it seems to me liberals tend to believe what they believe in order to confirm a feeling, generally about themselves, rather than to explicate a thought - and yet they act as if motivated wholly by some higher reasoning.
[this irrational, untethered from reality nature of Obama's support is troubling - democracy works because the losing side has faith that the rule of law guarantees them redress in a timely and predictable fashion - but if a 'bad result' is seen as existential in nature, ie the losing side believes the nation may not survive the result - and there also pertains the perception that the electoral process has been detached from the rule of law, ie untethered from reality by the irrational - then democracy will stop working and frustrated people will act out. If a leader, viewed by a near majority as incompetent, gets reelected when objective realities seem to suggest he does not deserve it, and this happens at a time when the country and world in general are afflicted by problems that excite existential fears and concern - then democracy will for some and possibly many seem to have at that point failed. What happens then is impossible to predict - possibly, after some gnashing of teeth and no doubt a several hundred point drop in the DOW, people just go about there business and wait for the midterms - but if the perception takes hold that the system is broken and the country is at risk because of it, and I think there's a possibility that could happen, then you could certainly see upheaval - maybe muted, maybe not. Romney also factors in here - if he runs a good campaign and clearly demonstrates his fitness for the job and yet still loses to an incumbent who by any objective measurement has failed miserably - then that would definitely agitate things]
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Are strategic rivalries avoidable? I dunno - I'm just curious because you hear a lot of people talking about China and the US in these terms - the thought being I suppose that strategic rivalries inevitably become contentious and hostile so if the two can avoid becoming rivals then we can all sit back and enjoy the assumed prosperity etc etc. My grasp of history is too impressionistic to offer any concrete evidence of what past actions have to say here - but if I was gonna guess I'd say strategic rivalries are the opposite of avoidable - they're inevitable. Now, hostilities are not inevitable because one of the rivals can always remove themselves from the competition though decline or preemptive surrender - but barring that, yeah, I'd say hostilities probably are inevitable when it comes to the dynamics governing strategic rivalries - what's more, I'd guess that when a systemic or ideological disagreement divides the rivals, hostilities are a virtual certainty - as opposed to when rivals who are merely economic competitors bump up against each other [although I'm not sure you could call rivalries such as that 'strategic' - probably no]. I mean, the template for what China is doing economically is post war Japan, but when land of rising sun was challenging American business interests in the 70s and 80s no one considered war a possibility - and likewise Japan did not see it necessary to dramatically ramp up military spending [well, constitutionally they couldn't, so...], as opposed to the Empire of Japan which had different ideas and is probably the example we should be comparing present day China to when talking about the dynamics of 'rivalry'.
If Cuba was a repressive Islamic republic spouting rhetoric and ideological beliefs antithetical to American values, a Saudi Arabia without oil maybe, would we have relations with it? We scorn the scions of Castro still because apparently we can't be seen condoning noxious anti-Western gibberish when it's camped out a mere pleasure cruise romp off the coast of South Beach - but if Cuba was an Islamic state rather than a communist one, would it all be smiles and Pina Coladas [virgin of course] 'tween us? I make fun since of course our stance on Cuba is more about forcing them to cry uncle than it is about anything else - but regardless the point being, how long do we continue to pretend Islam isn't more about the political than the spiritual - or put another way, that the spiritual isn't necessarily political when it comes to Islam? What does it cost us - if anything - to continue to act as if Islam is simply just another confessional choice? We scorn communism because we take its political beliefs to be destructive and threatening to our interests - if one concludes that Islam is at least as much about politics as it is about sin and a deliverance from thereof, how logically do we keep from lumping it in with communism?
Just wondering. I'd call it a thought experiment but I'm not sure one could legitimately call it thinking. Still, it is interesting: what would happen if an Islamic state suddenly sprung up on the US border? My guess is the political intentionality of Islam would very quickly eclipse in our thinking the shallow respect we grant Allah and his mysterious scribe.
Just wondering. I'd call it a thought experiment but I'm not sure one could legitimately call it thinking. Still, it is interesting: what would happen if an Islamic state suddenly sprung up on the US border? My guess is the political intentionality of Islam would very quickly eclipse in our thinking the shallow respect we grant Allah and his mysterious scribe.
Apparently polls suggest women and France remain committed to the dream that was Obama, confirming anew it seems mischievous gibes that neither of the two can be trusted with power. France I think we can dismiss as irremediable at this point - but are there really no Thatchers out there? I was a Hillary supporter in the 2008 primaries, and not simply because the alternative was so obviously wrong for a country like America [here's a simple rule for future voters to keep in mind when making decisions: if Michael Moore thinks someone is right for the country, it's means they're wrong for the country - in fact the rule is so unassailable it should be enshrined in legislation - the Bellwether Act - the bell was traditionally slung round the neck of a castrated ram, so... an obese, womanish ram... sounds like Moore] - I actually thought Hillary would be inclined to govern as a practical moderate like her husband, except with more discipline and a robust commitment to defense - but I don't think there's anything she's done as Secretary of State to suggest that assessment was accurate - I can't think of anything I can applaud. I suppose Myanmar if I was forced to say something. [although there are some conservative women in America worth watching - yet Kelly Ayotte has sort of been on the sidelines since she appeared on MTP several weeks ago - I guess she's off the VP list - or maybe low profile is a good sign - I dunno - I'm not sure she has the charisma I'm looking for anyway - with Wisconsin now in play you really start to wonder if it might indeed be Ryan - my how this post has drifted - I just wanted to make a quick joke at France's expense].
Monday, June 11, 2012
Thinking of the national security leaks from the Obama White House that seem to have been fed to the press for the purposes of burnishing the president's image, I'm put in mind of a favorite quotation of mine from Thoreau - although the quotation comes to mind without admittedly much logic of context governing the association - but it's always been a favorite quotation and it did come to mind and so that's that - namely, "some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk". I'm finding trout splashing about in milk all over the place with this story.
Now, no doubt the milk stained footprints leading back to Dear Leader have been cleverly concealed and no concrete proof will emerge to indicate Obama promoted, okayed or openly condoned these leaks - I don't care, cause the story fits perfectly with what I've been saying about him for quite sometime: he's a political animal who will do and say anything to get reelected and to that end the operatives and machine backing him are shamelessly manipulative and guided by a disturbingly messianic sense of privilege. That Obama or one of his people would think it fine to myopically subordinate national security to a political agenda does not surprise me at all - seems to be coming as something of a shock to others - but remember I'm the guy who, when OBL was knocked off and others were seeing nothing but good, saw grievous strategic mismanagement caused by a myopic prioritizing of purely political objectives [see Gates' reported extreme criticisms of leaks regarding sensitive details of the OBL raid, leaks which Gates' clearly seems to have viewed as politically motivated - ie to feed narrative of Obama the strong, heroic leader].
Now, no doubt the milk stained footprints leading back to Dear Leader have been cleverly concealed and no concrete proof will emerge to indicate Obama promoted, okayed or openly condoned these leaks - I don't care, cause the story fits perfectly with what I've been saying about him for quite sometime: he's a political animal who will do and say anything to get reelected and to that end the operatives and machine backing him are shamelessly manipulative and guided by a disturbingly messianic sense of privilege. That Obama or one of his people would think it fine to myopically subordinate national security to a political agenda does not surprise me at all - seems to be coming as something of a shock to others - but remember I'm the guy who, when OBL was knocked off and others were seeing nothing but good, saw grievous strategic mismanagement caused by a myopic prioritizing of purely political objectives [see Gates' reported extreme criticisms of leaks regarding sensitive details of the OBL raid, leaks which Gates' clearly seems to have viewed as politically motivated - ie to feed narrative of Obama the strong, heroic leader].
"... I see Facebook as a gateway to massive groupthink... that's not liberating, that's restrictive... that's the tyranny of the virtual mob... when I view a friend's Facebook page I don't see the person I know, I see an individual subsumed into an insufferable mass of nonsense and gibberish and sentimental goo... I see a person reduced by technology to simpering data streamed like little smiling automatons into a vast, moronic ether... listening to promoters of social media talk about it in ecstatically glowing terms what I hear are hucksters making specious assumptions based on the rather naive belief that a madding crowd of people joined instantaneously in a pervasive network is perforce a good thing... why? where's the evidence of that?... to me history offers up plenty of evidence that such an assumption is disastrously wrong... social media may prove an able platform for the selling of things, but that's a utility that to this humble observer seems diametrically opposed to the ennobling value and virtues claimed for it..."
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Apropos of me having trouble believing Assad would be stupid enough to okay atrocities and suggesting the more likely explanation would have Sunni extremists behind the acts, see this report in a German newspaper
Friday, June 8, 2012
It's funny - well, funny in an extremely unsettling sort of way - but reading the liberal press you'd think - hell, you'd be convinced - that the key and indeed only factor in Obama's reelection hopes is Europe - they recover, he wins, they continue to slide, he's doomed - it's entirely out of his hands - in other words, according to the liberal press absolutely nothing that Obama has done as president as far as the economy is concerned matters - Obama has apparently for four years just been some unfortunate bystander sticken by bad luck and now doomed to wander the sidelines hoping to catch a break. This is simply pathetic. The fourth estate in America is broken, utterly corrupt and broken. I'm not at all sure how a democracy survives something like that. Maybe it doesn't.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
With reports coming out of another 'atrocity' involving women and children in Syria and me having claimed recently that Syria is not going the way of Serbia - I guess I need to address this development. Doesn't make any sense to me. Bashir's father could get away with slaughter because he had the Soviet Union standing behind him - the son quite simply doesn't have this luxury. China and Russia have made it clear they view it in their strategic interests to back Assad - but no matter how much they may want to they can't continue to do so if he's okaying atrocities - and it's hard to see how Assad survives a withdrawal of support by China and Russia - but even if he imagines he can survive, why tempt fate unnecessarily? Therefore him okaying atrocities would make no sense.
So I see only two explanations that seem to add up should the reports turn out to be true - well, three I guess if one wants to believe Assad is either a sadistic madman or a fool - the former I don't see, the latter, ah... possible I guess - so probably only two credible explanations here to my mind: there's a rogue element in the military that is doing this for reasons which at the moment are not at all clear; an extremist Sunni faction, possibly imported from Iraq, possibly associated with AQ, sees an opportunity here to dramatically alter the playing field to their advantage in that dysfunctional part of the world and is willing to do anything to make it happen. I say imported from Iraq because - well, for obvious reasons - but aside from that I just read an interesting article in Foreign Policy making the case that the Maliki government is possibly morphing into a Shiite version of the Saddam regime - so one could see how intemperate Sunni elements might be willing to do some rather extreme things in order to weaken the Shia threat - after all, they've done it before.
[are there any other players who would like to see Assad displaced and might be willing to visit the dark side like this? No doubt Russian covert operatives and the Quds Force are in country and up to god knows what - Russia and Iran may have good reason to get rid of Assad so that they can in essence take over - would they commit heinous acts like this? Wouldn't surprise me, especially the Quds Force - but if they wanted to get rid of Assad why not form an alliance with a Syrian general and have him pull the trigger? Lot at stake in Syria for a diverse set of players so not unreasonable to expect any number of disquieting scenarios bubbling to the surface]
So I see only two explanations that seem to add up should the reports turn out to be true - well, three I guess if one wants to believe Assad is either a sadistic madman or a fool - the former I don't see, the latter, ah... possible I guess - so probably only two credible explanations here to my mind: there's a rogue element in the military that is doing this for reasons which at the moment are not at all clear; an extremist Sunni faction, possibly imported from Iraq, possibly associated with AQ, sees an opportunity here to dramatically alter the playing field to their advantage in that dysfunctional part of the world and is willing to do anything to make it happen. I say imported from Iraq because - well, for obvious reasons - but aside from that I just read an interesting article in Foreign Policy making the case that the Maliki government is possibly morphing into a Shiite version of the Saddam regime - so one could see how intemperate Sunni elements might be willing to do some rather extreme things in order to weaken the Shia threat - after all, they've done it before.
[are there any other players who would like to see Assad displaced and might be willing to visit the dark side like this? No doubt Russian covert operatives and the Quds Force are in country and up to god knows what - Russia and Iran may have good reason to get rid of Assad so that they can in essence take over - would they commit heinous acts like this? Wouldn't surprise me, especially the Quds Force - but if they wanted to get rid of Assad why not form an alliance with a Syrian general and have him pull the trigger? Lot at stake in Syria for a diverse set of players so not unreasonable to expect any number of disquieting scenarios bubbling to the surface]
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"... critical analysis only matters in an environment where the unexpected and indeed the unwanted answer is tolerated... this is why religious inquiry represents such treacherous ground for the thoughtful traveller... and why Islam in particular, dependent as it is on political regimentation and social acquiescence, is so inimical to the question no one dare ask since the answer is a priori forbidden... there are no Nietzsches strolling the Arab street..."
I really don't find myself agreeing with Kissenger that much, although he usually manages to be interesting, but this theoretically detached, realpolitik rumination on all the sabre rattling noise viz Syria strikes me as pretty well put.
That being said, I deny the Chosen One and support Romney - yet Romney wants to arm the 'rebels' while Obama clearly wants nothing to do with Syria - what do I make of that?
Well, as for Romney, his position to me is clearly political, which should offend me I guess but then it would be naive to pretend this kind of game playing is avoidable when it comes to politics - I will say, though, that if intelligence reports suggest that Assad is doomed no matter what and the only chance we have of keeping an extremist Islamist regime from filling the vaccum is by inserting ourselves proactively now - well, then I could see myself entertaining the possibility of arming the rebels - but I'd still be highly skeptical - to me unless we're willing to commit to a bigger, more complex, much more dangerous military role down the road, which I don't think the American military has the desire or wherewithal to do right now and wouldn't be charged with doing anyways with Obama as president - unless you're willing to make a commitment like that you must stay clear of that bloody place. We just fought two long and costly wars in the benighted lands of Allah and in the long run the real winners of those wars likely turn out to be Iran and China. Without a clear, coherent, achievable strategy in mind you can't go in because the only strategy that makes any sense viz a Syria involvement is one that thwarts Iran's ambitions while preventing a noxious and destabilizing Sunni Islamist regime rushing in to fill the void - the only way to do that is through invasion and occupation, which didn't work in Iraq [although we entirely botched the occupation part, so...] and is clearly not in the cards here.
As for Obama, if he's staying out because of reasons stated above, then I could praise him for that - but of course, given his nature, his staying out probably has more to do with political calculations than strategic ones - I guess though since I'm forgiving Romney from possibly doing the same I must then forgive Obama too - but that's not gonna happen because Obama has completely muddied the water through an utterly confused reaction to putative Arab Spring, the politicizing of the Afghanistan campaign nee withdrawal and his idiotic involvement in Libya [one could possibly rationalize Obama's caution viz Syria if he hadn't foolishly established an entirely contradictory narrative for himself and the country in Libya] which combined make America look like a weak, incoherent, irresolute, hapless superpower in retreat. I can forgive Romney because he ain't president yet and therefore his hyperbole is probably not in the long run important - but Obama's foreign policy can be defended only if one envisions and possibly longs for a future where America is not a dominant and integral power - and since I don't see or long for such a thing Obama will be getting no praise from me. Some conservatives seem willing to concede that Obama's only successes have come in foreign policy, but I don't see that at all - at best it's a poorly if not incompetently executed muddle, at worst political agendas [and naive ideological abstractions aka Libya and the 'drone wars' which I alone seem to have figured out is the only kind of war a liberal can like] have trumped strategic coherence resulting in a significantly weakened America.
[So, what... we're just supposed to stand aside and let the slaughter of innocents continue? There's no evidence of a slaughter going on here - absolutely we're seeing the kind of bad, ugly stuff that happens in an urban based civil war - but we're not seeing Serbia-like atrocities - we're not seeing the beginnings of genocide - and if we did the situation would clarify on its own because at that point Russia and China and maybe even Iran would have no choice but to withdraw their support and I'm sure they've made that very clear to Assad. But... ah... we're just gonna pass on this chance to stymie Iran's ambitions then? Sure, taking Syria away from Iran is a set back - but don't assume too much here - because the sectarian problems that are causing the violence will still be there after Assad is hypothetically gone - which means you're like to see Sunni on Shia carnage - which means Iraq gets dragged into the conflict, pushing Iraqi Shia closer to Iran - and that probably then makes Russia and China much bigger players on the side of the Iraq/Iran alliance - which to my reckoning doesn't exactly add up to a weakened Iran - and let's not forget, at that point won't it be virtually impossible to stop Iran's nuclear program? So all these people thinking taking Syria away from Iran amounts to a death blow to the theocracy are making assumptions that could prove disastrously wrong]
That being said, I deny the Chosen One and support Romney - yet Romney wants to arm the 'rebels' while Obama clearly wants nothing to do with Syria - what do I make of that?
Well, as for Romney, his position to me is clearly political, which should offend me I guess but then it would be naive to pretend this kind of game playing is avoidable when it comes to politics - I will say, though, that if intelligence reports suggest that Assad is doomed no matter what and the only chance we have of keeping an extremist Islamist regime from filling the vaccum is by inserting ourselves proactively now - well, then I could see myself entertaining the possibility of arming the rebels - but I'd still be highly skeptical - to me unless we're willing to commit to a bigger, more complex, much more dangerous military role down the road, which I don't think the American military has the desire or wherewithal to do right now and wouldn't be charged with doing anyways with Obama as president - unless you're willing to make a commitment like that you must stay clear of that bloody place. We just fought two long and costly wars in the benighted lands of Allah and in the long run the real winners of those wars likely turn out to be Iran and China. Without a clear, coherent, achievable strategy in mind you can't go in because the only strategy that makes any sense viz a Syria involvement is one that thwarts Iran's ambitions while preventing a noxious and destabilizing Sunni Islamist regime rushing in to fill the void - the only way to do that is through invasion and occupation, which didn't work in Iraq [although we entirely botched the occupation part, so...] and is clearly not in the cards here.
As for Obama, if he's staying out because of reasons stated above, then I could praise him for that - but of course, given his nature, his staying out probably has more to do with political calculations than strategic ones - I guess though since I'm forgiving Romney from possibly doing the same I must then forgive Obama too - but that's not gonna happen because Obama has completely muddied the water through an utterly confused reaction to putative Arab Spring, the politicizing of the Afghanistan campaign nee withdrawal and his idiotic involvement in Libya [one could possibly rationalize Obama's caution viz Syria if he hadn't foolishly established an entirely contradictory narrative for himself and the country in Libya] which combined make America look like a weak, incoherent, irresolute, hapless superpower in retreat. I can forgive Romney because he ain't president yet and therefore his hyperbole is probably not in the long run important - but Obama's foreign policy can be defended only if one envisions and possibly longs for a future where America is not a dominant and integral power - and since I don't see or long for such a thing Obama will be getting no praise from me. Some conservatives seem willing to concede that Obama's only successes have come in foreign policy, but I don't see that at all - at best it's a poorly if not incompetently executed muddle, at worst political agendas [and naive ideological abstractions aka Libya and the 'drone wars' which I alone seem to have figured out is the only kind of war a liberal can like] have trumped strategic coherence resulting in a significantly weakened America.
[So, what... we're just supposed to stand aside and let the slaughter of innocents continue? There's no evidence of a slaughter going on here - absolutely we're seeing the kind of bad, ugly stuff that happens in an urban based civil war - but we're not seeing Serbia-like atrocities - we're not seeing the beginnings of genocide - and if we did the situation would clarify on its own because at that point Russia and China and maybe even Iran would have no choice but to withdraw their support and I'm sure they've made that very clear to Assad. But... ah... we're just gonna pass on this chance to stymie Iran's ambitions then? Sure, taking Syria away from Iran is a set back - but don't assume too much here - because the sectarian problems that are causing the violence will still be there after Assad is hypothetically gone - which means you're like to see Sunni on Shia carnage - which means Iraq gets dragged into the conflict, pushing Iraqi Shia closer to Iran - and that probably then makes Russia and China much bigger players on the side of the Iraq/Iran alliance - which to my reckoning doesn't exactly add up to a weakened Iran - and let's not forget, at that point won't it be virtually impossible to stop Iran's nuclear program? So all these people thinking taking Syria away from Iran amounts to a death blow to the theocracy are making assumptions that could prove disastrously wrong]
"... it's clear Obama is running a reelection campaign based on a belief that his charms and rhetorical skills are so alluring and unfailingly persuasive that he can say anything no matter how cynically removed from the truth it may be and enough of the electorate will blindly embrace it to secure him a victory... the question is, does this strategy point to a rather startling hubris animating he and his crew... represent a coldly cunning calculation regarding just how gullible the average voter is... or is it simply a desperation born of failure made manifest...?"
Saturday, June 2, 2012
I do enjoy the smooth snark of Mr Steyn and this is one of his better recent efforts. The 'striking' students of Montreal may be a perfect metaphor illuminating the ills plaguing the West - or as Steyn puts it, financial bubbles may be bursting all over but the real deflation is in Western civilization's flawed sense of entitlement, as more and more of our citizens seemingly forget, lose sight of or proudly hold in contempt the very attributes that made our culture great and history may now be in the process of rewarding us for our sins. How on earth can students strike? They can protest, engage in various civil disobediences, rave like morons, tie their myopic little wagons to whatever pathetic anarchist cult they happen to be buying their weed from - but they provide no vital or even remotely useful service they can withhold as leverage in a negotiation - therefore it can't be a strike! Sorry, but stupidity, arrogance and an unearned sense of privilege are generally not considered highly prized assets outside of Hollywood. It's farcically absurd - a farce made sad by the left wing Canadian media's indulging of the idiocy. And why if you're a hardworking business owner losing money because of the disruptions are you tolerating this insanity? Maybe it's just the French - even when they're of the lost tribes of Quebec, they're still I guess simply born with a ridiculous sense of entitlement and therefore out of respect stifle what should be a logical urge towards outrage. It truly boggles the mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)