How does a country like North Korea pull back from the brink of war - or maybe more accurate to ask can a country like North Korea pull back from the warlike hysteria it has conjured up? If I'm to assign something that resembles logic and coherent thought to the vile and villainous creatures who run that madhouse, I'd have to guess that that is their calculation here - namely, that in the end we'll have no choice but to recognize that with outlandish rhetoric and absurd martial theatrics they have marched themselves so close to the precipice of war that the only way they can now back away is if we give them what they want. I suppose it's clever of them in a completely insane sort of way - but it does force one to assume they actually have a 'coherent' plan they're working here - what if they're just riding a wave of craziness at this point, just making it up as they go along and consequently have no idea what they're gonna do if we call their bluff?

This is why it was always my opinion that constantly giving into North Korea's demands and provocations was creating a dynamic of escalation that would inevitably lead to a no win scenario - that these actions were acquiring a logic and momentum of their own and leading us to a place where all the answers left to us would be nothing but ugly. I thought the best [and by best it's understood one means least bad] solution was interceding before it got to that point, interrupt the goose stepping bastards in mid to lateish crazy as it were before they could mature that crazy into a full blown psychotic episode, by either shooting down the rockets they were testing or possibly by giving an ultimatum to China to fix the problem otherwise watch us shoot the things down - I thought the rocket tests were presenting us with an opportunity to change the math on N Korea [and China too for that matter when ya think about it] and that practicing caution, which certainly has its appeal as the putatively wise and reasonable thing to do, could very well just lead us to the dire pass we were imagining ourselves avoiding by not shooting the bloody things down in the first place.

[and let's remember, as I've argued before, that there was another very good reason to terminate Lil' Kim's rockets with extreme prejudice - as the country is now clearly demonstrating, you don't want these people perfecting this kind of technology - and if they can't test the rockets 'cause you're shooting them down, they can't perfect the technology]

[Lil' Kim is now saying that his nukes are off the table viz negotiations - the Hermit Kingdom is now a nuclear power according to the pudgy polemicist - and since they're a client of Iran's budding nuclear dreams that means... well, that means I think that maybe we've arrived at the no win scenario I was talking about. If this is Kim's bottom line position, a postion which we of course cannot accept for a whole bunch of reasons but especially if we intend to be taken seriously viz Iran's etc etc's - and if Kim has stuck his neck out so far here that he can't afford to come back empty handed, even if only relatively, and hope to stay alive - then this sounds 'no winish' to me - we call his bluff, which as far as I'm concerned we pretty much have to, then he really has no option left but to start a war of some sort in order to manufacture leverage - barring something 'major' going on in the background this kind of seems like the direction we're heading in - if China has been holding something back as a 'worst case' play, now I think would be the time to play it]

Well, I'd say that, between the lines, intimated, heard but not said although sometimes said in a way etc etc at the Supreme Court's review of what in the hell this marriage thing amounts to exactly in an age where nothing it seems amounts to much - I'd say my opinion of it all is being endorsed [in so many words, give or take, etc etc]. My opinion being: if we've gotten to the point where wild procreation is so removed from or even foreign to the idea of marriage that we are willing to believe that there's absolutely no difference between gay and not gay - if marriage is now to be so loosely defined, so utterly reduced into the realm of mere sentimentality - if we've come to this point then the dictates of logic demand that we move on to the next obvious question, ie why should the government be involved in this charade at all? Think about it, is not the next absurdity going to be that of single people who do not want to marry going before the supreme court to argue they're being treated unfairly because people foolish enough to marry even though baby making by force of nature or personal choice is not an option are unduly favored under a now woefully antiquated tax code?

And I really don't understand why those who oppose gay marriage don't take up this argument, that the less marriage is about the complex, highly fragile existential imperative of baby making and the more it is seen as simply being about an expression of love between consenting adults, the less justification there is for gov't being involved. You're not gonna stop the advent of the legal gay nuptial, it's coming like it or not, so if you believe acceptance of gay marriage undermines the true meaning of marriage then logically your only option is to advocate for a situation where a philosophical, spiritual separation of the two would not be considered unconstitutional - ie, get gov't out of the marriage business - not only would that make one's claims concerning the particular and unique sanctity of marriage betwixt man and woman legal, above board, kosher, but it would also deny the proponents of gay marriage the soapbox they crave.

In the end, I don't really care - well, it bother's me that in order to avoid being labeled an intolerant brute I'm forced to accept an absurdity that defies, offends logic and common sense - that's annoying - and annoying as well it is that with all the other serious problems we should be focused on here we are stuck spending so much time debating something that is ultimately either trivial or a waste of time - 'cause think about it, gay marriage only matters if the people who oppose it are right; but public opinion is steadily rendering that opposition illegitimate and unfortunately those standing in opposition have yet to figure out the logical consequences of this reality, ie your tactics will amount to piss in the wind, eventually - on the other hand, if proponents and supporters of gay marriage are right, that there's nothing to fear here etc etc and Life's just one big jolly episode of Modern Family and there's no reason whatsoever we shouldn't be able get along and love each other and etc etc til ya just wanna puke, then all that will come of this grating din of noise is that the lives of a small minority of the population will be marginally improved - that's it - and yet here we are carrying on as if the fate of the republic hung in the balance with this looming decision.

Sure, if you're a gay couple wanting to 'marry', the debate matters - and yes if you're a gay rights activist who sees just how apt an agenda promoting tool the marriage debate has been, the theatrics matter - and more power to them quite frankly, I bear neither any ill will - but for the vast majority of the citizenry this is just noise that will do absolutely nothing to improve their lives whatsoever - the liberal media of course will work hard to convince you that thinking good thoughts about gay marriage will perforce make you a better person and a great many people have and will continue to fall for this sentimental sophistry - but the bitter reality is that for the vast majority of the citizenry gay marriage will only impact their lives in any significant way if the people who oppose it are right - but that's not the conversation we're having, is it?

So let's get the gov't out of the marriage business and hopefully put an end to this infernal noise.

Humorous how little time Erdogan wasted in making the 'new accord' with Israel seem like a very shallow thing indeed - Israel for the moment is taking his gloating in stride, pretending [I'll call it what it is] that the man's bloviating Islamist grandstanding is not in the end important, while quietly reminding anyone listening that, should the amity fall apart, people will know who to blame for it - and by people we assume they mean Obama and his benighted band of jesters.

Are we to think this was always Netanyahu's plan? He knew simply getting along with Israel would not sit well with Erdogan's grander schemes and that therefore he would impatiently chip away at the accord bit by bit until it was rendered meaningless, allowing then Israel to go to Obama and say "stop trying to tell us how to behave - we understand this land and its people and its twisted politics and its revanchist extremism and its regressive cultural antipathies much better than you".

But I was thinking - let's allow for the nonce that below the dinge of seedy Islamist rhetoric the 'amity' persists in some viably strategic sense - what happens then if the Sunni freedom fighters in Syria prevail but leadership thereof is usurped by extreme elements of that army of Allah and they for whatever reasons turn there enmities toward Israel and the Golan Heights? What does Erdogan do or say then? Or alternatively what happens should the fighting spill over into Lebanon and Hezbollah either deliberately or through some intemperate escalation draws Israel into the fight - Erdogan is no friend of Iran's, but does one seriously believe he'd rush to the defence of Israel in such a situation?

Remember, apparently, of all the world leaders Obama deals with, reports hold that Erdogan is the one he feels closest to, not just personally, but intellectually. Says a lot, that.

Ah, Obama in the Holy Land - suits the man I suppose - and the trip certainly sums up what trails in the wake of the illusion - incoherent, impractical, unworkable proto policy dressed up into a seeming something by charming celebrity and pretty speeches - liberals love it, more sensible people ask 'it's all very nice, I'm sure... but what now?'. Four years ago in Cairo he pissed off the Israelis while flattering the regressive enthusiasms of the Islamists by apologizing essentially for the sins of Western Civilization; and now he pisses off the Muslims by reaching out to Israel and essentially apologizing for... well, apologizing for being a naive fool I guess. Who knows really what the man is thinking. No doubt when he took office his thoughts were in keeping with liberal elites who believed all you had to do was whisper sweet nothings to the Arab street, get tough with Israel's nasty conservatives and then let the great power of the Obama persona sway the quivering Israeli public into demanding concessions from their stubborn, peace hating, light denying leaders. Sounded all so simple. I suppose this latest speech was in that sense a sad, timorous echo of those earnest times. No doubt that's why Kerry as he was leaving meekly intoned with astounding vacuity that peace was now in the hands of the people. Idiots.

Much more interesting though than Obama's increasingly pathetic intimations of a new world order with him I suppose at the center of it was his getting Bibi to apologize to Erdogan for the entirely reasonable attack on the Mavi Marmara - that indeed was news. Not because it marks a reset in Turkey/Israel relations as some are suggesting - any reset that happens will be illusory and short lived - Erdogan cannot undo the incendiary things he has said - what he's about is perfectly clear and there's nothing there that adds up to good news for Israel - or us, for that matter [see these comments from J Goldberg, that apply mostly to Mursi in Egypt but also with modifications as well to Erdogan]. No, what's interesting here is wondering what in the hell Obama had to promise Netanyahu in order to get him to make this painful obeisance - or, alternatively, how big of an IOU does Bibi now figure he's toting around in his back pocket waiting to be thrown down on the table when needed? Sure, I don't think it's 'let's bomb the crap out of Iran' big - but it ain't chicken shit either.

Is Obama a marginal psychopath? Well, that of course sounds like an inappropriate joke - but the jest is at least half serious given circumstances. First, he puts a deadline on Iran - this I don't get - I've assumed all along and for good reason that he's just bull shitting on Iran, there'll be no real action there etc etc - and then he goes and says they'll have ability to make a bomb within about a year and he has no intention of letting that happen - what the fuck? He's essentially locked himself into actually doing something or otherwise looking like a shameless liar - for sure I've always believed he was a shameless liar, but he'd always given himself a rhetorical out to cover up the fact he was lying so it all made sense in an absurd, amoral sort of way - but now he's basically set a deadline, hoofed into the sand - and yet I still have no confidence whatsoever that he actually means it - so what the hell is going on here? A complete change of heart? He has absolutely no clue what he's doing and is making it up as he goes along? Or he just feels there's no lie so big that he can't get away with telling it?

And then he goes to Israel today and for all intents and purposes gives a pro Zion speech that completely reverses the tenor of his much reviled [if you're a conservative] or much revered [if you're an idiot/liberal] Cairo speech of four years ago - I mean, what does one make of that? He's a psychopath and feels there's no lie he can't get away with? He's had a sincere change of heart? Or he has no clue and is just filling in the blanks as best he can?

Very disturbing. Gives weight to op-ed in WSJ today that makes case that Obama's foreign policy has created an incoherent mess that will eventually amount to an invitation to aggression. At the moment I can't make sense of what the man is up to. Maybe there are subtleties here that I'm flat out missing.

Also reminds me of a piece I read on how some Russian strategists are convinced that American actions under Bush and Obama must be motivated by some devilishly cunning plot to sow a kind of disorder that eventually accrues to the benefit of the Great Satan - apparently they believe this because they find the alternative explanation so utterly unbelievable, ie that the most powerful country in the world is being run by fools.

I'd be inclined to say that GOP wistfulness viz Rubio as a way to pump up the hispanic vote is indication that the GOP remains somewhat confused about the way forward. Probably better demographic to target are Asians - they can be won over, not easily, but it's doable - hispanics, like blacks, are culturally predisposed for foreseeable future to vote left and just going with an hispanic candiate won't change that - that's like saying if Condi had led the party in 2012 things would have been different, the black vote would been split etc etc - that's a fantasy - Condi may have done a better job of running an intelligent campaign and may have done a better job of attracting some fence sitters and women away from Obama and therefore may indeed have won - but I doubt very much she would have changed the black/hispanic vote much - certainly not the black. I'm not ruling out Rubio, I'm just saying don't fool yourself into picking the guy simply because he's hispanic - if you're gonna think in those narrow terms better off going with Jindal. I'd say keys for 2016 are: do better with women; do better with youth - you may not be able to win youth vote, but if you pick a candidate who isn't an easy target for youth ridicule, someone who can go on Colbert and hold his own and get laughs, that's just like a win; any candidate who can do those two things will perforce be an easier sell to Asians because it will mean that candidate's 'narrative' is playing well in the media and that the GOP hasn't had since Reagan; and then anybody who can do those three things maybe has a chance of peeling about 5% of the Hispanic vote away from the left - which possibly would be enough. As for African-Americans - forget about it - there's nothing a republican can do to win that demographic over and shouldn't even try because you just end up alienating too much of your base [and, no, not because they're all racists - you just have to go too far left to make it happen and appease too much ideological lunacy in the media - blacks will vote uber left from now til doomsday and there's little that can be done about it - the Hispanic vote on the other hand is potentially more dynamic, potentially more maleable - but we're talking a good 10, 20 years down the road for them - so I'm saying, yes, engage with hispanics, sure - but don't fool yourself into thinking you can swing 2016, 2020 your way simply with grovelling appeals to hispanics - I just don't see that happening].

[this guy has a different take of the black vote - and he may be right - certainly, if an intelligent approach could steal away 10-15% of the black vote from the left that would be a game changer - no doubt I tend to write off the black vote because the monolithic, brain dead group think nature it tends to manifest makes me uneasy - and the spokespersons for the black community have a knack for laughable/grating protestations - the Jesse Jacksons, that moron from MSNBC, the Black Congressional Caucus - these gag inducing uber left blowhards really do not inspire confidence of any sort - so my viewpoint is no doubt tainted and there probably are some soft targets there the GOP could go after with an intelligently nuanced approach]

Mickey Kaus on the real Obama agenda - people keep talking about his scheme to break the republican party so that he can take back the house in 2014 and push through a truly emboldened liberal dreamscape - and I'm sure he wouldn't mind that, but fact is it's probaly not a realistic outcome to expect - what Obama really wants to do is set the table for the next liberal president, put in place an electoral wehrmacht that exploits all the soft points in the American system that currently so favor the left so that essentially you're at the point where you see, as I've intemporately said before, a liberal coup that expertly leverages demographics and a pliable media to forever twist the country left. Remember, not only will Obama be handing the next democratic president an unstoppable machine to play with - that next president will have the further advantage of Obama running around giving inflamed speech after inflamed speech without any political limitations restricting what he says or how he says it or how often he says it - GOP optimists are talking about how 2016 will be more forgiving for them because they won't have to worry about Obama 'artificially' raising black and hispanic impact on the vote - but why would that be true? Sure, they won't have Obama to vote for in 2016, 2020 - but if he's out there saying in speech after speech that a vote for Hillary or whomever is just like a vote for him, well... as Kaus says, Obama will have effectively done an end run round the two term limit.

Now, I do believe without much reservation that's the game they're playing - as to whether it works or not... best laid plans as they say.

How appropriate that a rant about pop tarts so perfectly captures the sad state of America right now - Mark Steyn brilliantly holds forth on the noxious absurdities strangling life from the republic bit by miserable bit. And conveniently his invective hits upon a point I've made often: great powers will not survive governance from the left - it's like inviting a cancer into the body politik that will assuredly consume it. Finland wants to elect a bunch of lefties - fine, go ahead, have at it 'cause who really gives a shit - but a great power will be ruined by a political shift of that sort that persists. Indeed, Europe is a good example of this dynamic - Greece for years elected socialist governments - but who cared, it was Greece - then along comes the Euro, a thing with pretentions to great power and real significance, and suddenly it matters a great deal that Greece is a horribly run socialist dumpster fire, and Spain, and Portugal, and Italy... in short, the forces that make a great power possible and then sustainable are often, if not always at odds with the effete sentiments of the enlightened who've convinced themselves into thinking they know better. The left wing elites who dreamt up the EU, assembled it out of golden fancy, either lacked the hard wisdom to understand these hard facts or arrogantly assumed such dark things lay forever in the past and the future would therefore obediently align with their fond wishes.

Reading this I wonder if maybe I can actually learn to like this Rand Paul fellow. I've been saying for years that if you're a supporter of gay marriage then logically you should also paradoxically support gov't getting out of the marriage business altogether. For gov't, involvement in marriage was always about the making of babies and the raising of healthy [one fondly hoped] families thereof - and specifically as concerns the means by which heterosexuals go about getting in the family way since existentially that travail is a complex and fragile journey fraught with many dangers and complications - in accepting the idea of gay marriage one basically is conceding or endorsing the fact that marriage is no longer about children, it's now about love - and indeed that is the language gay activists use when they declaim that the gov't has no right to tell them who they can choose to love - and I agree - if you're an advocate of gay marriage then logically you should also be an advocate of gov't getting out of the marriage business altogether since, if marriage is now to be simply about love, what need is there for the gov't to be sticking its nose into that? Laws should stay on the books of course concerning the welfare of children.

Ironically, my guess would be that if such a thing were to happen 'interest' in gay marriage would drop precipitously since the construct would be sapped of all political utility.

Too early for second thoughts, second guesses on the whole Rand Paul thing? Apparently not. My sense of it now is that, tired of seeing republicans with no clue it seems of how to sell a message, of how to get the media to work for you - it was nice to see one act as if it wasn't 1950 and he was struggling to figure out this new fangled television thing - or something like that. I know that I didn't care at all really what Paul was talking about - I have opinions on Obama's drone love that only loosely intersect with Rand's thoughts thereof - in the end I just liked the feeling of a conservative operating in a way that seemed to suggest he wasn't some orphaned waif wondering in from a world where the internet didn't exist - or something like that.

Anyway, this is the short version of the problem for the GOP the way I see it - right wing 'extremism' plays much more negatively as a function of media driven narrative than left wing extremism, and that's not just because of media bias, although of course media bias plays a significant part - and as a consequence the whole conservative brand gets tainted. This probably explains why Asians, who should be a fairly loyal right wing block, avoid the GOP in numbers that mirror Hispanic antipathy. And it was along these lines that the Paul stunt seemed like such a winning play at first - expose liberal hypocrisy, maybe embarrass Obama, express a conservative or quasi conservative view point without sounding like you're either an idiot, a fascist, or some out of sync throwback to a bygone era, and then do all this in a way that makes it seem like you actually get how the media works - looks like a win.

On reflection though, a few brambles stick out - as in, by and large I don't really agree with what Paul was talking about, although there are certainly concerns of his that I could see myself sharing if it weren't for much bigger problems and issues crowding the stage - and then: was this simply a savvy self promoting media move on his part, or is he actually so concerned about the presidency devolving into a dystopian tyranny that he felt he had no choice but to act boldly? And if it's the latter, what happens if the only upshot of it is that he riles up the wacko wing of the party that was wont to follow his nutbar father around like he was L Ron Hubbard and they were all much uglier versions of Tom Cruise - cause that's not gonna be a good thing for the GOP.

Reality is Obama and Holder want to avoid constitutional specifics on domestic drone use not because they're proto autocrats looking to piss Hellfires down on Tea Partying malcontents but rather because they don't wanna talk about the subject of drones at all - it's a swamp full of questions they don't have answers to, at least not good ones, and last thing they need is for people, especially their own people, to start asking those questions because the script they have playing in their heads really doesn't allow for that kind of honest integrity - these people see themselves as revolutionaries after all and for such grand schemers truth is often more of an enemy than a friend - uber liberals of Obama's ilk need the much smaller American military implied by a heavy focus on drones, special ops and 'leading from behind', not only because it comports with their naive and vain notions of power and idealist conceptions of right and wrong - they also just as importantly if not more so flat out need the bloody money a cut in military outlays would give them because, to paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, when it comes to socialism, access to other peoples cash is key to keeping the egalitarian illusion viable.

Now, if Paul had incorporated some of that kind of talk into his speech, I'd be much more sanguine about whether or not what he did was a net benefit from a conservative point of view. Trouble for Rand Paul is that, even though he's made concerted effort to distance himself from his father, he's not gonna be able to shake that baggage entirely - and when left wing drool heads like Bill Maher are seen praising the anti-drone 'Rand Stand', that's gonna remind a lot of people that Paul senior is probably left of Obama when it comes to views on the American military - and at that point you're approaching Michael Moore territory.

This from Mickey Kaus/Walter Mead, apropos my wondering if Christie's seemingly odd unrepublican-like behavior can maybe be interpreted as cunning machinations on his part to forge a third electoral way for himself since neither right nor left seem capable at moment of forming governable plurality that provides the kind of inspired but effective leadership the country needs etc etc - not that they mention Christie - what the big guy's up to is more a fixation of mine.

Interesting - China signed off on strong UN sanctions against North Korea, which is the first time they've actually matched actions with words when it comes to the unhelpful antics of the Hermit Kingdom - and people are thinking this is because China has finally gotten to the point of no longer being able to tolerate them getting their crazy on. Maybe. But what if what's really happening here is that China is afraid of being held responsible for what's to come? What if China has good reason to believe Lil' Kim may be on the verge of doing something quite incendiary, something that may lead to the military intervention of the US and they're worried about looking responsible for it because their relative inaction on NK til now has essentially enabled the delusional bastards? It's not impossible NK has come to the conclusion that their best bargaining chip is to start a war or come perilously close to starting one in order to force China to rise to its defence. And how exactly would China respond to a military intervention by the US or South Korea should things spin out of control and it come to that? Just a few weeks ago China and Russia made it clear they would not tolerate such a thing. I dunno - people seem to be looking at this repeal of the armistice stuff etc etc as just more of the same with the addition this time of China now being fed up with it - but I dunno - I get the feeling it's more complex than that, more problematic, more worrisome - possibly much more worrisome.

Was struck by two affirmations of my view of China floating to the surface recently - a Chinese naval officer declaring that Obama's vaunted 'Asia pivot' was toothless rhetoric, a show piece without substance, and that China should take the opportunity, with a weak president in the White House, to make a more brazen show of putative power in hopes of settling China Sea 'issues' now - and then Shinzo Abe suggesting China will increasingly come to rely on hyper nationalism as a means of justifying the continuance of the autocracy and as a rhetorical ploy to keep bound growing demands for freedom which is usually the offspring that comes of crawling into bed with capitalism - capitalism implies giving people the right to freely choose what they want - hard to square that with the kind of closed state a communist autocracy requires.

It's strange knowing the PLA's view of Obama's strategic grasp is similar to mine - but not surprising - only people who pay no attention to foreign policy think Obama is doing well in that regard - I always considered the Asia pivot to be nothing but politics and that it was a guarantee that you would not see the necessary resources flowing in that direction to make such a thing possible once the policy had been announced, which is exactly what happened - it's not unlike Obama's Afghanistan policy, which again was just politics as far as I'm concerned - the first rule of counter-insurgency is the target population needs to believe you're in it to win it otherwise they will not commit to necessary changes and sacrifices - you don't append an arbitrary deadline to it - which is what Obama did - Obama needed Afghanistan as a rhetorical tool in order to beat Hillary in 2008 - after that it became merely a question of how to extract himself from that promise without damaging his political brand - thus the phoney 'surge'.

As for the PLA becoming more aggressive, well, to me this is obvious - increasingly China sees itself as a military force to be reckoned with, a military power - and it very much needs its neighbours to view it as such - but there's no muscle on the bone here, there's no proof of it, and there's no tradition of military excellence to draw upon - America has 200 years of military excellence and expertise to draw upon - China has nothing - it's a virtual guarantee that the powers that be within the PLA view this as a significant shortcoming that must be addressed - but regardless of embarrassing comparisons with the US military, the dynamics of the region demand that this shortcoming, this perception be addressed - the dynamics of the region all point to inevitable conflict - whether the conflict escalates into something truly frightening, that's unknowable - that the chances of serious escalation increase the weaker America becomes seems like a given - although one imagines the PLA's thinking on this is the exact opposite ie taking America out of the picture will result in a quick realignment - this not unlike imperial Japan's thinking in the run up to Pearl Harbor.

As for China and democracy, this too seems obvious: the powerful and well placed are getting rich under the status quo - any move towards democracy threatens that privilege for a variety of reasons and so it's irrational to believe the powerful will willingly give up that status quo - therefore they will try and fake it - somehow keep the growing middle class 'happy' even as they're denied the only true happiness of freedom - while at same time keeping the huge, roiling underclasses 'quiet' even as glaring inequalities feed their growing rage and resentment. And on top of that in order to grow the economy the political mavens must somehow encourage a more robust consumerism but you can only do that by offering the middle class more freedom of choice - how do you stop this expectation of freedom from spilling over into the political domain? I have no idea - but probably the bigger problem is that a growing consumerism means more ostentation and displays of vanity etc etc which means the vast inequalities in the society will become more visible, more glaring, more on show - how do you keep the roiling masses of the impoverished countryside from rising up under the aegis of a new maoism against a privileged urban aristocracy increasingly prone to showing off its wealth? How do you control that resentment?

I just don't see how China avoids a domestic crisis of significant proportions - and that could result in god knows what - a neo-maoist regime? democracy? China split up into autonomous provinces? Who knows - but to me the coming of this crisis is as inevitable as the coming of the Civil War was to America. History catches up to you - we try to out run it, out smart it, but it catches up.

I would say I generally [with some reservations] agree with this post from Jen Rubin - comparing the CPAC debacle with Rand Paul's filibuster performance acts as a nice set piece defining what's demonstrably wrong with the republican brand at the moment and what potentially could be right about it. CPAC, in scorning Christie while lauding an insufferable moron like Trump, loudly reminded everyone as to why the republican brand is tarnished and in decline right now and drew attention to unsettling reality that a significant number of conservatives unbelievably simply do not seem capable of grasping that fact nor of appreciating how badly the GOP needs a do-over as regards messaging. Conveniently, along comes Paul to show how it's done - and not only does he manage to speak passionately for several hours about a complex subject without ever doing much of anything to fit or confirm the left wing caricature of unhinged conservatism, he also manages to embarrass and reveal as hypocritical the liberal intelligentsia by attacking Obama on an issue they themselves should have been championing - in short, with one very long speech he managed to make the republican brand suddenly look substantive and noble while making the liberal brand look weak and pathetic. That's a good day's work.

Now, I'm not at all sure how I feel about his arguments - truth is I haven't paid a great deal of attention to the constitutional issues raised by Obama's drone love - I've been more concerned about the strategic implications, which I consider quite dire - as in, Obama's drone wars are a manifestation of his lead from behind mentality and a representation of what the uber liberals need the American military to become if they're to pay for their welfare state - as for the constitutional issues, I'm sure Paul's arguments are compelling and worthy of respect [although he's a libertarian and I tend not to agree with libertarians when it comes to questions impacting foreign policy] - but reality is, regardless of how cogent his criticism may or may not be the key effect of it I'd say will be how it shines a bright light on the hypocrisy of Obama and the liberal intelligentsia and the way it showcased how a conservative can speak with passion about his convictions without sounding like an empty headed fool or a madman worthy of endless lampooning at the hands of Jon Stewart.

Dear Leader invites GOP legislators for dinner to 'discuss' impasse - advice to GOP legislators: this is a set up. With the press [wonder of wonders!] sort of turning on him viz the sequester and polls suggesting a majority of Americans not really buying what he's desperately trying to sell viz the sequester Obama's no doubt feeling like he's maybe made a mistake here, that he could be losing dictatorial control of his cherished narrative and so better try and trick the GOP into handing it back to him - don't agree to anything until you've figured out how he's planning to sell it because however he's planning to sell it it's meant to make you look bad - either he'll offer something that seems reasonable but he knows you will reject so that he can then paint you as extremists - or he'll offer something that actually is reasonable but he'll do so in such a way as to make it look like it was only made possible by his great leadership and magnanimous forbearance in the face of right wing zealotry. If you've actually managed to wrest the narrative from his imperial hands, do not now offer it back because you've been fooled into thinking Dear Leader's intentons are honest and free of cynical calculation. They're not.

[on that whole 'liberal press dares to find fault with idol Obama wonder of wonders', this a nice piece that gives voice to the hopes one tends to worry will never be fulfilled given the whoreson nature of the times. Of course there's always been the chance/likelihood that arrogance and ideological blindness would lead the administration into serious missteps - but they've already made many mistakes and it hasn't mattered - what needed to happen and all at the same time was, one, Americans increasingly becoming sick and tired of Obama, two, the press increasingly becoming sensitive to looking like suckers being played by Obama and consequently breaking formation, and three, the GOP posturing itself as if it actually had a clue as to what it was doing. Maybe with sequestration the three are in alignment - way too early to say that though, this games's far from over]

Possibly I excerpt this paragraph from an article Peter Wehner wrote for Commentary yesterday as a means of pathetically patting myself on the back for being such a clever soothsayer -

What I do know is that the sequestration fight has once again shown us that Barack Obama has a defective public character and a post-modern attitude toward truth. He simply makes things up as he goes along. It looks to me that there are few things he will not do, and fewer things he will not say, in order to undermine his opponents and advance his progressive cause. That is something that is deeply injurious to American politics and America itself.

- since of course this is exactly how I've been describing Obama for several years now - but actually it's not a sad vainglorious self smile I'm after here - it's rather an expression of how surprising I find it that conservatives have been so slow in figuring the man out. Now, I do tend to be Hobbesian in my cynicism so it's not asking much of me to see the bad in someone and to dispatch this damning opinion with alacrity - and so maybe I have an advantage in this game - but, still, conservatives have been disturbingly slow in forming a serviceably unsentimental understanding of the man who wants to ruin them - or maybe more accurately the man who very much wants to help them ruin themselves. Just last week I heard the putative savior Rubio characterize Obama in a way that made it clear he still felt deference was due and giving Obama the benefit of the doubt viz his motivations warranted - give Obama the benefit of the doubt and he will trample you to death, and as he's trampling you to death he'll be giving a melifluous speech on how the country must rise above petty politics and partisanship and blame, and somewhere Oprah will be wiping away a tear with fat fingers and elsewhere a young, idealistic scribe will be rolling phrases from the speech over and over in his head as if they were scripture and still elsewhere a down on his luck citizen will be fumbling in a frayed pocket for the new coin of the realm, food stamps, and as he's stacking up boxes of macaroni and cheese and six packs of coke he'll look up at a TV and see the smiling face of Dear Leader and think to himself 'yes sir, yes sir' - and all the while Obama will have his foot on your neck stamping the life out of you.

Reminds me of how during the election Romney and his handlers, at a time when he was receving a lot of bad press, expressed shock at how unfair the coverage was - they seemed genuinely shocked by this - and I remember thinking if at this late date you really haven't figured out that, one, the media doesn't want you to win, and two, Obama will exploit this advantage without mercy or shame - if you have not yet figured out that everything Obama does is predicated on the belief that what ever message he wants put out there will get put out there by his media cohorts and that he will ruthlessly put out there any message he feels he needs to put out there in order to win regardless of whether or not that message contains any truth whatsoever - if you have not yet figured all this out and accordingly come up with a strategy to mitigate damage and address vulnerabilities thereof, then you don't have a chance. It's over.

But is it over over? For good reason Obama and his minions feel the GOP is indeed on the verge of falling hopelessly behind, is too broken and confused to remain viable on the national stage. This isn't a pipe dream on their part, it's within reach - unfavorable demographics and media bias are daunting obstacles to overcome in the best of times and now is not the best of times for republicans even though opportunities for counter attack do somewhat abound - but proximately hapless as republicans seem right now there's a good chance there's gonna be a lot of talent on the stage come the 2016 GOP primary which would amount to a complete reversal of sad 2012 field, and that augurs well indeed - still, it's not the candidates that will be problematic come 2016, it's the process itself that hurts and which increasingly forces republican hopefuls in directions that are not at all beneficial viz a national campaign - and Obama and his maenads know this and that's why they want to stoke partisan rancor, not ameliorate it - they want the GOP angry because they feel that will divide them - and as long as the press and media cooperate and the electorate remains uninformed and vulnerable to cheap persuasion and populism Obama can play this double game of antagonizing the right while pretending to be reasonable - and I don't know how all this gets sorted out in your favor if you're a republican.

[having said all that I will say it's a good sign Boehner didn't fold on sequester - although still a lot of game left to be played there - and GOP still lacks as far as I'm concerned anyone who can explain what they're doing and why in terms that manage to impugn the president without sounding mean spirited - so that's a problem - and likewise there's as yet no one for GOP who can talk about taxes in a way the average idiot voter can grasp - you have to be able to explain why raising taxes on the successful is pointless pandering that ultimately does more harm than good - the average voter is supposedly sick and tired of petty politics - well, raising taxes on the rich is petty politics and the GOP really needs to find someone who can sell that message without sounding like they're merely trying to defend rich people - I thought Paul Ryan could be that guy but, promising as he may be as a one day Speaker or possibly maybe as a governor, I'm just not reading broad national appeal from him the way I thought I might]

If I've got this right, a supreme court decision in Canada has declared that the truth, a truth can be considered illegal if it offends someone? That speaking the truth on something can be considered wrong, a hate crime, if a specific group feels sufficiently threatened or offended by it? Interesting. So, if I'm an academic in Canada let's say, and I do a study that seems to suggest that acceptance of gay marriage does indeed contribute to the hollowing out of the traditional ideal of marriage and therefore can arguably be seen as having a negative impact on a society - and this is just a study, it's just numbers, data that can be debated, I'm not stigmatizing gays in any unfair way nor clamoring for a ban on gay nuptials - it's just a study that finds that gay marriage may not be the innocuous, anodyne thing supporters claim of it, in Canada speaking this potential truth could land me in jail? Wow. And how long before something like that comes to the US?

I get the idea that certain unsavory types may be inclined to use facts in malicious ways - and if an intent thereof is to do harm to a person then that intent should be subject to legal purview - but to explicitly put the extremely vague and vaporous and utterly manufactured 'right' to not be offended ahead of the right to free speech and expression is insane - clearly you're opening the door to abuses that lead inexorably to a person's opinions eventually being deemed nothing more than mere expressions of royal writ, an allowance one is granted on a highly provisional basis. As Murphy states in linked article: how remarkable it is the way liberal pleas for tolerance so often seem to invoke intolerance to defend their cause.

Arguably the best way, the simplest, most reasonable, most detached from ideological blather way of looking at the sequester cuts is this: randomized, across the board cuts certainly don't amount to optimal thinking viz budget making [go ahead and blame whomever you want for it having come to this - Obama - point is it has come to this] but still, when the dust settles, we're only looking at about 45 billion or so that will be cleaved away this year, which equals a little more than 1 cent for every dollar spent by the US gov't and so consequently it seems a reasonable, non-hysterical conclusion to draw that liberal hysterics about this pending doom is evidence of either, one, the Obama administration once again doing the only thing it has shown any real talent for - lying for political gain and then putting faith in the media to cover the lie as if it isn't the thing it is; two, liberals truly do think the sole purpose of gov't is to spend lots and lots and lots of money regardless of whether or not it even has the money - indeed, having the money is virtually a meaningless consideration - spending is all that matters; or three, we actually can't manage to cut a measly penny from every dollar we spend without bad things happening which forces upon one the inescapable conclusion that we are seriously, seriously, seriously fucked.

Now, no point dwelling on option three since if we're that bad off nothing we do is really gonna make much of a difference - hell, if we're that bad off might as well just let Obama have his way - republicans should stand aside and let the democrats do whatever they wanna do 'cause at least then we'll get to blame them when the country falls to ruin. But what am I thinking - we all know that if republicans stood aside and let Obama have his way and the country devolved into Greece, American style, we all know Obama and his maenads would still lay blame elsewhere - Bush dug us into too deep of a hole - the GOP stubbornly stymied my agenda by cleverly letting me pursue it unopposed - and racism!! Yes, of course racism, at this point almost goes without saying, that.

So let it be the first two that tell the real story - after all Obama's preferred governing style is to lie, obfuscate, misdirect, pontificate [aka the perpetual campaign] and then leave to the media nurture of the illusion that that's not at all what he's doing. And, yes, ivory towered uber liberals of Obama's ilk really would have no idea how to function in an environment where policy wasn't inextricably wound up in reams upon reams of gov't largesse, excess and interminable warrants - not unlike the flawlessly flawed bureaucrats of Kafka's Castle, whose madness became justification for every absurdity wrought in service to it.