Wow - conservatives finally starting to figure the Obama out. Only took four years. Hell, eight plus years actually since Dear Leader’s 2004 keynote address made clear to any sane and reasonably astute person willing to listen what the man was all about. Idiots. Politics is like the ever living gospel of stupidity - which makes the electorate a congregation waiting, heads bowed, to be blessed into a stupefying ignorance. We deserve to be destroyed by China. Here’s my golden rule for future reference, besotted GOP: in an age of unfettered media bias, any democratic candidate that the elite of Hollywood and their hollowed out pretty little manikin minions love, crave, are ecstatic over, worship, adore - fear that person - that’s a very dangerous candidate and you’re not gonna beat him by offering up some boring Mormon preaching pragmatism and common sense. The electorate ain’t made up of a bunch of John Lockes - the only John Locke they know of was the one on Lost, fittingly enough. The people want something to love - that’s because they’re idiots and enjoy being lied to. Give them something to love - think of it as the intellectual equivalent of rubbing a dog’s belly.

I guess, given how badly Hagel is doing in his confirmation hearing - so badly that uber liberal bright lights, the hem kissers of Obama, are openly mocking him on Twitter - I guess this proves my contention that the main purpose of choosing Hagel was to try and goad pissed off conservatives into unseemly acts against one of their own. I take it though that Hagel is doing so poorly that conservative 'intemperance' is going to look perfectly justified here - so Obama's little gambit possibly goes awry - but, really, what does he care? If Hagel falls he now gets to nominate Flourney, the first woman SecDef, and the renown of that will make people quickly forget Hagel - and that was probably Obama's thinking all along. The man's an awful president doing nothing but bad for the country, but when it comes to making cunning, shamelessly cynical little moves to further his purely personal political interests, guy's got a knack for that - and it is that shamelessness that really gets me, ya know, cause it speaks to either a truly disturbing arrogance [although that arrogance could easily be the zealotry of a committed ideologue, and increasingly I believe thats the case] or to a guy who's utterly convinced the press is never gonna hold him accountable for anything so he just does what he wants. I mean, how else to you explain Hagel? From what I've seen and read it sounds like the confirmation is an absolute disaster - I find it hard to believe Obama is so utterly detached from reality that he didn't suspect Hagel was a pretty problematic choice - I mean, don't get me wrong, I do certainly believe that Obama and his court are quite delusional and misguided, and I do believe Obama shares many of Hagels 'ideas' on foreign policy and the military - but they can't possibly be that detached from reality - and so Hagel had to be just a shamelessly cynical political play, no?

But watch, he'll probably still get confirmed. My god, where is this country going? What's happening to us?

“... until you consider the implications of it I admit the assertion sounds like a glib tautology, but for liberals, being idealists, their schemes must be woven throughout with ideals, they are wedded to the ideal as their necessary companion forever... and this is why their plans so often if not always are deeply flawed, pretty but hollow things, hobbled by forced, illogical constructions... because at their very core liberals are necessarily impractical, necessarily detached from reality since a false world is the only world in which their ideas can possibly make sense... delusional detachment from reality and a consequent retreat into a realm of lofty rhetoric and libidinous theory making, unencumbered by an empirical pragmatism, is a fundamental prerequisite for the liberal, they cannot remain viable otherwise... and so it follows that the prerequisite adjunct to this delusion is the public lie, the grand illusion that hides all flaws in order to maintain the perception of inviolability... for the beating heart of idealism is the pretense of an attainable perfection and consequently all idealist autocracies become dependent on the great lie for their survival... so it is that any objective observer who cared to look could see, from the very beginning, that the true appeal of Obama was that he was especially gifted in this regard and no doubt that’s why, probably without even knowing it, liberal elites so slavishly love the man... he’s just such a wonderful liar... indeed, his story, so lovingly nurtured by the media, is a near perfect lie of pretty lines hiding a hollow core... which is why accordingly I increasingly surrender to the fear that the looming danger to this still great but undeniably weakened democracy is that the average person, if they come to believe their lives will be made better, no matter how whimsical and bereft of substance that belief may be, is quite willing to love the lie too... when you combine this tendency, this vulnerability, with a media that is so corrupted by an ideological preference that it can't even feign impartiality anymore, and you put all this power in the hands of unabashed idealists unconstrained by the dictates of a healthy scepticism, a scepticism, mind you, that is the life blood of the democratic spirit and in essence the animating soul of our constitution... well... I'd say that amounts to a rather significant threat to the republic...”

Well, this pleases me in that it demonstrates that conservatives are slowly coming round to my way of thinking - for reasons that perplex me it has taken republicans an awful long time to figure out Obama, but possibly they're finally starting to get it - as media darling he has a huge advantage and he plays to this advantage like a ruthless Machiavellian - you're not gonna beat the guy by being confrontational, not when you don't control the senate and you're unfavored by the media - you've got to be patient and cunning, and you have to have confidence that if you give the uber liberals enough rope, they will hang themselves. [although I admit to the possibility that we may be approaching a Rubicon moment in America in the sense of, if tree of misguided liberal policy falls ruinously in the forest and the media takes no notice, does anyone hear it?]

Interesting recent poll that makes the point I dwell on to an annoying excess no doubt - in the run up to the election polls showing a majority of Americans supporting higher taxes on ‘the rich’ emboldened an Obama re-election strategy that was essentially all about demonizing these rich devils whose unspeakable evils were made manifest in the ‘out of touch’ Mormon menace of Romney - and the media were more than happy to sing along to the tune the master had set. One problem though - the average voter is grossly uninformed in the best of cases, utter fool in the worst - turns out people were more than happy to tax the crap out of the 'rich' because they were under the impression the so called rich didn’t pay any taxes, robber barons all - when the cretins were made aware of fact that real world is not actually an Oliver Stone movie and that consequently these dubiously stigmatized rich [which for Obama meant any pale skinned male driving a BMW but not living in Hollywood] were not all incarnations of larcenous greed and rapine and do in fact pay quite a bit in taxes, suddenly subsequent polls of these now somewhat less uninformed voters showed that taxing the blood sweat and tears out of the so called well off was not so popular a thing after all.

Combine an electorate that bounces lazily between ignorant and uninformed and is therefore highly vulnerable to manipulation, with a media that is biased and in Obama’s case egregiously biased, and you’ve got yourself a serious problem. If you believe that in a democracy an uncontested, unchallenged opinion is perforce a bad opinion, a dangerous opinion - and I would suggest that the whole point of democracy is to challenge opinions, to test them in the fires of debate - then even if you agree with Obama’s words and deeds you must still recognise, if you’re to have any claim to integrity whatsoever, acknowledge at the very least the potential that the dysfunctional if not diseased dynamic evidenced above, upon which those words and deeds rest, presents as a looming threat to the republic.

Although, given my premise, I suppose I'm forced to admit that for anyone so locked in agreement with the Obama that the logic of this has escaped them so far, it's not likely they fall under its influence now.

"... when Obama says or implies or hectors or pontificates or humbly suggests he’s gonna use executive privilege to implement gun control people should understand that, one, he can’t do that, and two, his goal in saying it is merely about political gain... this is what Obama does well, it’s possibly the only thing he does well... he’s not a great thinker, certainly not an able leader, his ideas are largely hollow and in some cases delusional and almost always dangerously divisive... but when it comes to leveraging his celebrity and ruthlessly, often shamelessly using in that regard what the media so pliantly gives him against his political foes, the man is an evil genius... he embraces the language of the tyrant, intimates abrogation of the second amendment, enrages the far right which induces extremist rhetoric that ultimately thanks to media bias makes all republicans look intemperate and out of control and everyone else reasonable in comparison, which splits the GOP as moderates and ideologues clash on how to coordinate a conservative point of view, which results in a political victory for Obama even though in the end the impact of his actions on gun control specifically and gun violence in general will likely be minimal, possibly even non existent... it's brilliant ... probably ruinous for the country of course and no doubt destined to set some very bad dynamics in motion either way which means it's an apt metaphor for the Obama presidency overall... but looking at it strictly as a cunning political play? Brilliant... well, clever at least..."

I like I think the approach some are advocating for an intelligent GOP stratagem re the debt ceiling. Since I find it unlikely [though not impossible] that Obama will pursue either the 14th amendment gambit [way too sketchy] or the trillion dollar coin trick [a gimmick that would not inspire confidence in the marketplace nor look like something befitting a serious man of putative substance] - and since I think republicans have finally figured out that when it comes to ‘negotiations’ the only outcome Obama is interested in is one where he is clearly the winner and you are clearly the loser - given these things it looks like we’re heading towards another fiscal cliff like stalemate and therefore a stratagem by the GOP that allows them in a sense to shut down the gov’t without actually shutting down the gov’t may work. The idea is that if Obama refuses to get real on budget cuts that Boehner offers him the votes he needs to extend the debt limit for 3 months while ‘negotiations’ continue - and the GOP would just keep extending the limit every three months until Obama comes up with some cuts - the effect of that I think would essentially be a de facto shutting down of gov’t that still allows congress to meet it’s obligations.

Might work - certainly better than any of the alternatives I’ve heard of. Problem is as always the media - to win in the end all Obama has to do is appear more reasonable than the republicans [the whole point of the Hagel nomination as far as I’m concerned] - his position doesn’t actually have to be more logical or credible or intelligent or realistic etc etc - he just has to seem reasonable while the GOP seems unreasonable - and Obama has an advantage here that I don’t think any president has ever had, a media willing to sell whatever message he wants sold - the fourth estate and its adjuncts have made it clear that they are not only willing to look the other way while Obama reaches for the cookie jar, they’ll even pry the lid off for him and push the jar closer.

Watching the Sunday shows it seems that conservatives are a bit confused as to why Obama looks intent on nominating Hagel as SecDef - Hagel has said some controversial things that annoy and worry both sides of congress, on Israel, on Iran, on the size of the American military - these things rightly trouble conservatives and a few moderate liberals - and he's also said some things about gays which gets the hyper liberals biting their lips with trembling angst - and added to all those negatives Hagel doesn't really have in the end many credentials that suggest he's a good fit for the big chair at the Pentagon - there are lots of people Obama could choose from with better resumes that would be acceptable to republicans.

So people are confused as to why Obama seems intent on nominating the guy. Let me explain - Dear Leader is all about personalized political victories - whether this is because he's a petty egomaniac or a not so petty messianic megalomaniac who equates a win for him as being therefore necessarily a win for the country too, or whether it's because he's a committed manichean revolutionary who sees only good and evil - progressives are good, conservatives are evil - and therefore thinks only losers believe in compromise and bi-partisanship - whatever, I can only guess as to the hidden or not so hidden motivations behind his behavior - but his behavior is clear regardless. Now I'm sure Obama shares Hagel's view on many things like Israel etc etc and would therefore be fine with the guy as SecDef - but it's my humble opinion that what he really likes about Hagel is that he's a republican that republicans don't like and so when republicans in congress oppose his nomination, maybe defiantly oppose [Obama's preferred outcome] he can then go before his media friends and assert 'You see, it's as I told you, I'm reaching out to these people but they're saying no, they're intolerant, they're stubborn and divisive - they're the problem, not me' [and then of course some bobble head in the black congressional caucus will moronically chime in with a racism charge] - and presto, there ya go, a political victory for Obama - does nothing good for the country, quite the opposite I think - but as long as the media more or less plays along [what are the odds] it will still be a political victory that possibly comes in handy when he stonewalls and then demagogues the GOP on the debt ceiling and budget cuts - and that's all that really matters to him.

The interesting question to be decided here is how lasting will these 'victories' prove to be - because, let's face it, they do seem petty, trivial, they can be seen as reflecting a delusional, myopic, self serving approach to the erstwhile most important job in the world - it's not hard to see them as quite fragile testaments to a hollow, misguided presidency - it's not hard to see them feeding a hubris that leads to disaster.

What’s her name, president of Argentina, K something, wants back her Falklands - evil English imperialists stole them from her a few score of years ago and justice demands their return according to her wounded sensibilities. World’s such an amusing place, tipsy with such antic fools. I’m assuming she does understand - and the press too who straight-faced reported the story - they do understand I’m assuming that Argentina is a Spanish reckoning for silver, named thusly because the evil Spanish imperialists who created it, civilised the place as it were, let loose their busy conquistadores on the land ‘cause they thought it full of, just bursting at the seams with argentum. It was Spain taught early modern Europe how to be imperialists, they perfected the art with great ruthlessness - indeed it was England’s defeat of Spain’s imperialist Armada in 1588 that in many ways started the Saxons on their own slow rise to Empire - and so if English imperialist guilt is suppose to compel them to give up the tiny Falklands, logic dictates that a far, far greater guilt demands that the ruthless ravages of Argentina’s conquistador forefathers be undone as well. Regardless, if England’s gonna give up the lonely outpost to anyone it should probably be to the Dutch since I believe they were the first to land there - but of course you start unwinding these imperialist threads and the quilted world will fall apart in a way that will make only the gods of chaos happy. But offended liberal sensibilities must be assuaged!

The abject silliness of this reminds me of last election and the spectacle of Obama addled Latinos and African-Americans linking arms against the evils of white conservatives who are of course all proximate slave owners by the wonders of arbitrary association [the films of Quentin Tarantino prove this] - no doubt it’s simpler for these slow witted soldiers of the left to imagine the slave trade and racism in general as having been conjured up by a handful of white anglos in colonial Virginia but again in fact slavery as it came to be practiced by the early modern imperial powers of Europe [to distinguish it from the various permutations of the trade practiced by many cultures and civilizations throughout history] was by and large perfected by the Spaniards [and their Portuguese brethren] first.

Are all liberal notions this confused, this detached from a coherent reality? Often seems so - yet they give voice to their jumbled thoughts with the jejune pride of an unembarrassed conscience - I mean, Obama on a regular basis says things that are utterly nonsensical and devoid of substance and yet he imparts this besotted wisdom with such charming conviction that people embrace the received ignorance as if it were the only sanity standing between their trembling souls and a looming madness.