Looking like I was wrong - does appear that Netanyahu indeed intends to release Palestinian prisoners in order to get the PLO to the negotiating table - that surprises, I assumed all along it was some kind of ruse but apparently he's serious - but of course he knows that the chances of these negotiations going anywhere are extremely slim, and he must know that he's set up a situation here where if the cabinet votes the release down [a good chance of that happening from what I read] everyone is going to call Israel the villain - and also he's setting up the situation where PLO drags out negotiations till all or most of the prisoners are released then pulls out at end declaring it a victory because of the free prisoners and because they've made Israel look weak in eyes of Arab street. I'm not getting it - unless they've planned out the course the negotiations are going to take and the way prisoners are going to be incrementally released so that at a certain point there'll be no way for the PLO to walk away without looking like the ones who have no real interest in peace - that could be what they're thinking - pretty risky, but I'm willing to be convinced that it's a good play.

update: release passed by cabinet 13-7 - fairly strong support, which suggests to me that something along the lines of strategy outlined above must be in play here - although, if PLO suspects same would not be surprised if they insist on all prisoners being released before negotiations can begin, which far as I'm concerned Israel would be crazy to agree to.

Obama in meeting with Vietnamese leaders draws line of comparison between Jefferson and Ho Chi Minh - ah... are there even words to express how absolutely awful a president this guy is? Amazing. Raises an interesting question though: does he do stuff like this on purpose knowing that it will thoroughly piss off the right, which maybe leads to some writhing in pain overreaction and then when the media covers the overreaction but ignores the reason for it the image of republicans as intemperate fools is further driven home for ignorant Obamaphiles everywhere - or are these just unguarded moments when the true uber liberal Alinskyite slips out from behind the covers and we get to see the real Obama? Don't know, but it almost hurts one's brain thinking about the mess that's gonna be left behind by the time this man is finished torturing us with his nonsense.

Yes, how we remember back to when the great Obama braved offense to his deepest sympathies and finally made a visit to Israel and then congratulated himself for forcing an apology from the evil Netanyahu to the admired and beloved Erdogan over the malingering Mavi issue - and we wondered, what's Bibi thinking here, what with the facts and Israeli public opinion both declaring clearly there was nothing to apologise for? We concluded that Netanyahu must be thinking that if he declines Dear Leader's most generous offer to humiliate and demean Israel before Islamist Turkey, that just confirms what the Obama already very much wants to believe, that all Mideast problems begin and end with Israeli intransigence, and what does that do for us? Nothing. But if he agrees, with conditions of course, it's a virtual certainty that Erdogan takes actions to undermine that agreement, for amity between Israel and Turkey would not serve his Islamist agenda at all - and then we get to hold this bitter reality over Obama's head the next time he tries to gives us the high hat and say to him 'don't try and lecture us on how to operate in this rotten little corner of the world - we get it, you don't'.

And now Erdogan has done as expected - well, in actuality he started shitting on the agreement the day after the phone call - but a couple of weeks ago his deputy PM blamed recent riots in Turkey on sinister Jewish plotting and now he has said they will not accept compensation payment for damage caused from Israel unless it is accompanied by a clear admission by Netanyahu of Israel having done something wrong and oh so very bad, which goes against the agreement. Now, I suppose Bibi could take complete leave of his senses and cave to the demand, but unless hell is in the process of freezing over I'd suggest disabusing oneself of that expectation.

There's an aspect to the Anthony Weiner farce that no one seems to be talking about and the liberal media wants apparently to avoid talking about, or at least dress up in dissembling narratives - namely, what the hell is Weiner's wife doing staying so humiliatingly loyal to a guy who quite clearly has some significant issues? Well, McCarthy over at National Review has an opinion on that which if you're inclined to grant legitimacy and credence to leads one's thoughts down some pretty disturbing trails, both as concerns Obama's seemingly incoherent at best, grievously misguided at worst Mideast policy directions but also liberal elites view of Islamism in general.

All things being equal, as the putative free thinkers of America who reject the moralistic asservations of irrational piety, liberals should be in the front lines of scepticism towards Islam, just as they should be in the front lines viz criticism of any moralizing dogmatism spewed forth by a religion - and, sure enough, when it comes to the US they're ever ready to pounce with great outrage and umbrage taking at some idiot thing some Christian fundamentalist has uttered - but when it comes to Islam, they're much more forgiving, much more tolerant, much more willing to champion the warm euphemisms of understanding - even the calling of Islamic based terrorism Islamic based terrorism is frowned on by these people as being insensitive. Not hard I guess to figure what this is about: Christian extremism is linked to conservatism in America - moreover, Christianity in it's missionary guise is seen as a perfect expression of the arrogance of white privilege and, in its Puritan form, the acquisition of wealth - accordingly, indulgence of Islam and its excesses becomes a proxy for directing contempt at the things the liberal elite loves to hate: notions of white privilege, capitalism, the military.

Russia's communists used to view the West's uber liberals as convenient gateways into America, both for the spreading of propaganda to the gullible but also of course for the infiltration of national security operations. Why would anyone think Islamists wouldn't view and manipulate America's uber liberals in the same way? If the constitutions of the United States and France and England etc etc placed theocratic principles ahead of secular ones the uber liberals of the West would be with justifcation screaming Christian fascism from morn till night - but Islamism they're willing to tolerate - a case of the enemy of my enemy is a friend?

What if, when Obama leaves the stage, the Democrat that follows doesn't revert back to some Clintonian-like moderation and bipartisanship but instead builds on the model Obama has fashioned - which essentially amounts to taking Democrats' core constituencies of minorities, women, youth and the media and squeezing every last bit of advantage and electoral gain out of them? It pits one half of the country against the other half, it breeds anger and bitterness and distrust, and it perforce corrupts the media, thereby effectively hollowing out the first amendment - but if it wins elections, increasingly marginalises and demonises conservative thinking and thus slowly but surely pushes the country left, who cares, right?

So, if the Obama playbook of maximizing potential from core constituencies while not even bothering to appeal to conservative concerns becomes the go to approach of Democrats, what happens to the country? Well, the scheme could fail - but my guess is that only happens if the GOP substantially improves its game by doing much better at messaging, much better at mitigating toxic effects of biased press and media, much better at nominating candidates with broader appeal - problem with that is two fold: even if they manage that, demographics may undermine their efforts regardless; but more immediate problem I think is that it's much harder for conservatives to nominate people who can make the broader appeal while not completely pissing off the extremes of the base than it is for liberals and that's because, with the media's help of course, it's much easier to paper over the idiocy of the far left than it is to drown out the idiocy of the far right as far as moderates are concerned. The far left hates Hillary, but if she sounds like she'll be, at least in some vague ideological sense, Obama part two, they'll vote for her - but how do you get the far right to vote for someone like Christie?

So, assuming the GOP fails or proves incapable of effectively countering the Obama way, what happens? I'd say, because the Obama way is entirely dependent on the media and press playing along even when they apparently don't realise they're playing along [see press' glowing reviews of Obama's wholly disingenuous and beside the point Trayvon Martin performance], I'd say conservatives and many moderates who lean right will start to view the political process, at least as far as Washington is concerned, as illegitimate - they'll start to think of the country as having fallen to a quiet coup enabled by the media. What happens then is anybody's guess - could the country actually split apart? Seems unlikely but who knows. My guess is you get probably sort of what you have now, ie if GOP can keep control of the house that'll mean continuing gridlock in Washington which inevitably results in more and more power and initiative shifting to the states. Right now the only good governance you're seeing in the country is happening at the state level and not surprisingly most of those well run states are conservative. If things play out that way it may force Democrats into rethinking the wisdom of the Obama way.

Or the country could break apart.

I'd like to be able to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his little Trayvon Martin performance yesterday - I'd like to think he sincerely thought he was doing something helpful or at least doing something he felt he had no choice but to do, what with the liberal media intent it seems on provoking a race war and he being the first black president - but I can't. All I hear when he speaks is a disingenuous guy willing to say or do anything if there's political gain it for him - including, with eye towards IRS scandal creeping closer and closer to the White House door, breaking the law. He's a used car salesman with better diction. With his presidency increasingly distressed, an economy still in need of life support from the Fed, unemployment still way too high, Obamacare falling apart, foreign policy in shambles, an impeachable scandal lurking just off stage, he needed to change the subject, divert attention. The man's a huckster peddling ideological snakeoil to the gullible. I'll give him his due, though, he's good at it, he's got a knack for manipulating these moments and of slickly promoting a partisan point of view but in terms that the media interprets as moderate and reasonable. And that's the key and the thing that's truly disturbing - Obama is what he is and I never expected him to be anything other than what he's proven himself to be - but the way the media and press have allowed themselves to be corrupted by ideological preference is something to be truly worried about - I have trouble seeing how a democracy is not threatened when the press willingly gives up its right to free speech in the name of a political agenda - it's deeply troubling and seems certain to lead to something bad.

So, is Kerry to be congratulated for getting Israel and PLO back to negotiations? Ah... no. I mean, sure, it's possible this is a positive turn, but in reality it's all theatre far as I'm concerned - raise enough of a fuss as Kerry has done and Israel has no choice but to agree because world opinion is always at the ready to call them unreasonable - which is exactly why the PLO also agrees since they know any failure will be blamed on Israel and any success [highly unlikely] credited to them - in short, it's a farce with Kerry as director.

Now, some want to believe that Israel's willingness to give up prisoners as a concession to get the PLO to the table means that they actually are holding out hope for this thing - and must admit I'm a little confused as to what they're thinking in making this gesture - but most likely explanation to me is that this is their way of mitigating backlash when talks collapse, as in 'you see, we gave up these prisoners so of course we were serious about reaching an accommodation, but...' - etc etc etc. It does seem questionable if not flat out risky or misguided giving up these prisoners to serve a process you deem doomed to fail - and so logically one might assume they in fact don't see it as doomed to fail - but not I'm not buying it.

"... is it that, as idealists, liberals cannot abide any notion of inequality, for such offends and ultimately threatens the ideological purity of their abstractions, and this explains both their strong inclination towards the comforting illusions of socialism and their irrational, near pathological fixation on the perceived evils of white privilege?..."

Right now, this looks to be the best thing to come out of that grotesquery of left wing absurdity and delusion that was the Zimmerman trial.

Now, c'mon - I bash Kerry for his idiotic peace mission - and now Jerusalem Post is reporting Israel has agreed to negotiations based on '67 borders? This is very hard to believe - but the story is saying PLO has agreed to recognize Israel as Jewish state, so... possible I guess - still seems highly improbable, there's got to be more to this story. My understanding of IDF strategic thinking is that there was no way you could ever go back to the '67 borders - but a combination of changing military technology which modifies tactical realities plus the PLO recognizing Israel could I guess get you there conceivably - still, there's gotta be another shoe to drop here. I'd hate to be in a position of having to apologize to Kerry.

[update: Bibi denies it, at moment sounds like just more game playing from the PLO - sorry, John, apology goes back in pocket for the nonce]

Is this an answer to my question regarding Latino response to the Zimmerman verdict and what it means going foward viz GOP hopes among the Hispanics? If so, then it's not the answer proponents of amnesty wanna hear. We've known all along that Obama and his maenads were going to demagogue white conservative racism to Latinos no matter what happens with immigration reform - the question is, how vulnerable to or even welcoming of this demagoguery will Hispanics be? I thought Latino reaction to Zimmerman verdict might shed light on that - and as of now looks like Latinos are more than happy to enable and encourage Obama's machinations.

Zimmerman circus does once again throw jaundiced light on co-dependent relationship holding white liberals and the black community dysfunctionally together. White liberals need blacks to always and forever be willing to define themselves in terms of slavery and racism in order to keep their core constituency motivated and keep the narrative of evil white conservative men alive and viable - and blacks need to constantly play the race card because their only access to effective political clout is though white liberal guilt. Like all co-dependent relationships it ruins both parties even as each imagines themselves being well served by the dynamic. Interesting change will occur when mass of a multi ethnic America, where Asian and Hispanic minorities wield more influence than blacks, no longer really cares about slavery and Jim Crow etc etc, depriving blacks of political relevance. Those will be interesting times.

[see that AG Holder has declared to NAACP convention that Zimmerman case demands review of 'stand your ground' laws - my God, is the liberal media never going to tire of being treated like lap dogs by this administration? This case was never, ever about 'stand your ground' - legal experts on left and right confirm this, the trial itself confirms this since 'stand your ground' only came up in a marginal way - and yet here's the attorney fucking general talking about it as if it were central to the case!! Liberal media, you have to grow a pair and stand up and admit that this administration is completely and utterly awful, pathetic - otherwise this country is doomed]

Not sure what the Zimmerman circus says about race in America - the bad, sad, ridiculous, dysfunctional, absurd stuff we already knew and the political motivation behind much of the hyperbole and the rhetoric of perpetual grievance is a well worn path obvious to anyone who wants to see it - although I would be interested in polls targeting Latino impressions of the verdict seeing as how Zimmerman identified as an Hispanic regardless of liberal media’s concerted efforts to assign him into a racial grouping of their own conjuring called ‘white Hispanic’ - fascinating people, liberals - anyway, polls of Latino reaction to the verdict would be quite illuminating viz GOP hopes of somehow gaining traction in that demographic. I know that Hispanic activist groups distanced themselves thoroughly from Zimmerman, but I’d be curious to know what the average Latino thinks about it all.

But aside from that, regardless of what it says about race in America, what it says about political ideology and perception is clear: liberals are idealists who use feelings and sentiment to drive a conceptual view of the world that does not necessarily need to reference anything real - in fact, such a realist limitation can often prove dispiriting in the extreme and is therefore to be avoided at all costs; conservatives are sceptics whose opinions are empirically grounded and who seek to draw reasonable conclusions from logically rendered facts. This is of course to grossly generalize things - still, if you look at reactions to verdict, it hews close to reality: liberals see racism because their sentiments tell them that for their world view to make sense that’s the concept that must be at play here regardless of what some objectively distilled truth might be suggesting to the contrary; whereas conservatives say the prosecution’s case was rotten with reasonable doubt and therefore there was no just way to convict Zimmerman of the crime he was intemperately charged with. Simple as that. Any attempt to make it something other than that is to engage in the spinning of narratives for dubious reasons.

Ah, yes, of course - mayor of Nablus declares that if Kerry's moronic mission of peace fails that Palestinians will take to the streets to do the one thing they really do well, chant curses at Israel and storm angrily about for the cameras. This was all pathetically predictable, right? Palestinians encourage idiot America into yet more 'peace negotiations' knowing full well they'll fail and then use the failure for camera fodder so the whole world can see what truly awful peace hating people Israelis are. It's just pathetic. Makes you think the guy was right who joked last week that Kerry got the job of Secretary of State so as to make Hillary's entirely forgettable, and in the case of Benghazi, disastrous term at State look brilliant. Kerry is simply a joke at this point - and he still has three more years to go!

Hey, but wait a second - how do we know that Obama's motivation here isn't the same as the Palestinians, use failed peace negotiations to make Israel look bad? I mean it was obvious from the beginning that Obama felt that since he was clearly the most popular, most wonderful, most gosh darn perfect person in the world that he could leverage Israel against that celebrity and get them to do whatever the hell he wanted them to do - sure, Israel had the gall to flip him the bird and, yes, despite the media's best efforts Obama's celebrity ain't what it used to be - still, seems entirely possible to me that Dear Leader is playing at the same game here, convinced he can blackmail Israel into doing something it clearly thinks unwise. Hell, I'd almost expect such behavior from the worst president ever.

Hey, didn't I say the exact same thing last week? Here's possible GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal in concise fashion nailing down the truth about the Democrats and immigration reform:

The truth is, many Democrats don’t really care about meaningful reform of our immigration system. They are pushing a pork-laden Big Government power grab and hoping to demonize the Republican party in the process. If it fails, they get to demonize Republicans among Latino voters in the next election; if it passes, they will happily grant amnesty to millions of people without solving the fundamental problems with the current system. They see the Senate bill as a win-win.

This is what modern liberalism and the Democratic party under Obama are all about: all that matters to them is winning elections, regardless of how many lies you gotta tell or how low you gotta sink - this is because in their arrogance and self righteous fervor they believe that as long as the country moves left, that's a positive regardless of circumstances - doesn't matter if the policies they promote are sensible or good for the country as a whole or as we've seen over and over again with Dear leader whether they're respectful of the role of congress or even the constitution - as long as it leads to wins, that's all that matters. As I've said before, listen to how a liberal will talk about Obama: it's as if his performance as president is beside the point, which is simply mind boggling - go back and listen to how they talked about him in 2008 - dare bring up fact back then that his resume was thin and he didn't look to be qualified for the job and that his putatively brilliant speeches were nothing but fluff and you were instantly vilified as being a racist for only a racist could fail to glory in the pure wonder of this 'historical' presidency - back in 2008 it didn't matter one little bit to these people whether the man was up to the job because the only 'job' they cared about was moving the country to the left.

And that's the truth about immigration reform - big gov't combined with significant demographic changes mean one thing to Democrats: the chance to move the country irrevocably to the left. Whether it's good policy or not is entirely beside the point to them.

Isn't the logic here that, having attained power, having had their true colors and competencies revealed, and consequent to that having been pushed from power by a coup, doesn't the logic of things dictate that the Muslim Brotherhood can never be allowed to rule in Egypt again? The bitter rivalries that would be unleashed by such a turn would be too great, but more important than that, since the MB could never trust the military again and therefore the military can never trust them again [if they ever did] then, well, like I said, doesn't logic indicate the Brotherhood is finished as a viable political force, barring of course a successful counter revolution or a total breakdown in civil order?

And doesn't it then logically follow that the Brotherhood must be aware of this reality and consequently modifies its behavior accordingly, ie becomes increasingly militant and extreme? I know some are arguing that the Brotherhood will simply go back to playing its waiting game - but I have a hard time accepting that - sure, there'll be some in the Brotherhood who will push for that approach, but I gotta believe there'll be other factions who will be making the argument that the game has irrevocably changed and the old rules are no longer relevant - which means, watch out, things could get very ugly indeed.

See it from Egyptian military's POV: with what has happened and given the bitter history between them, how could they possibly ever allow the Brotherhood back into the political process, if there even is a political process that survives current troubles? To me it seems obvious that they can't - and once you accept that fact, certain conclusions necessarily follow.

[but wouldn't that also mean that any group with Islamist inclinations must be kept subdued viz the political process? Ah... that would be my guess - which is not to suggest such an agenda would be publicly stated]

[apparently interim president Mansour is offering cabinet positions to Brotherhood members - which makes no sense to me - could be an insipid or artificial attempt at placating outrage from the MB - could be the interim operatives are simply flailing about incoherently]

[you really think there's no point in offering some sort of an olive branch to the Brotherhood? Ah... only if they forswear Islamism - but even with that you still get back to 'trust' - why would the military trust the Brotherhood or they the military? Otherwise, what's the point of the coup? The coup only makes sense if one, the military sincerely intends to institute secular, truly democratic governance, which seems unlikely to me, or two, we're heading back to Mubarak era type rule with maybe a more pleasing patina of faux 'democracy' laid overtop of it, which I see as unlikely to succeed because shovelling the 'democracy' cat back into the bag will not be easy and may be impossible - again, the delusionists in the West want to continue trying to convince themselves that Islam and democracy can share power, but that's just crazy and ignores realities our own history teaches us, it's to practice wilful ignorance, which is a pretty good definition of political correctness in general - if Muslim polities wish to embrace true democracy it will mean also embracing secularism in governance - failure to do that will result in what you see and have seen in Egypt: a dysfunctional and corrupt Islamist faux democracy or outright dictatorship or a dysfunctional and corrupt faux democracy managed by the military or outright dictatorship - or chaos - understand, as vile as Islamic extremism is, reality is that in a narrow sense it's rational because democracy, true democracy is indeed a threat to Islam just as it was a threat to Christianity hundreds of years ago - England of course wasn't a democracy under Henry VIII but when he rejected the Pope's messing in his nuptials that was in essence the act of a democrat, he was rejecting absolutism - now not surprisingly he retained claims to absolutism as far as his regency went, but Charles I was to learn a harsh lesson in how fragile a thing that was once the democratic spirit had been set loose]

Has Obama's penchant for governing by imperial dictum inadvertently [or possibly unavoidably] given cover to GOP house to do as it pleases on the immigration bill? Having effectively rewritten a part of Obamacare by royal decree [actually, a blog posting] it seems to me the GOP can now legitimately claim that it is impossible to deal with the 'amnesty' issue under this president because he cannot be trusted to abstain from simply rewriting the bill once it's law in order to suit and serve the political ends of the left. Sure, if the press refuses to push back on the Obama Imperium it may be a hard message to sell - and yes, you're gonna be demagogued as racists, but that was going to happen no matter what - still, looks like there's cover in it to me.

The problem with immigration reform has always been one of trust and the people promoting and defending the Gang of Eight bill either for some reason don't see that problem, are grossly underestimating it, or are in denial - or they're just flat out lying. I mean, David Brooks went on a bit of rant the other day over how he thought it incomprehensible that the GOP was not sold on the Gang of Eight bill, could see no rational reason for them not to embrace it - but even if allowing the point made by him to be judged reasonable it is still only true if the bill is enacted as written - if once a law it's to be constantly undermined and twisted and abused in order to serve a liberal agenda, well then that's a pretty damn good reason for the GOP to reject it, or reject at least the amnesty part of it. Now, Brooks is a smart guy so how can it be he's not seeing this? Either he's glossing over the truth in the name of advocacy, or he's in denial about how corrupt and self serving the administration is.

the facts and Egypt

There seems an almost tautological obviousness to it, yet still many appear surprised - but cultures that feel compelled to infringe on personal liberties when it comes to speech and thought and actions inevitably result in governance that is oppressive, one perforce leads to the other - why can’t we just say that in regards to Egypt, why must Obama dance around reality here? Well, of course because he’s Obama and liberals of his ilk ignore reality as a matter of ideological necessity - but fact is the modern world was created by the West and now everybody’s trying or feels the need to catch up but without the advantages of our history, our culture, our traditions - not to mention our religion which was uniquely well suited to adapt to the history that was unfolding around it - would it be so bad to just say that? Now of course one understands that there are elements of Western Civilization that clash with the naive idealism of modern liberalism and therefore the progressive elite often act as if the West was merely a happy accident that succeeded in spite of all its egregious flaws - but regardless of liberal idiocy the US it seems to me doesn’t have to be about supporting the coup or supporting the deposed Islamists or any variation thereof, there should be rhetorical room here for us to legitimately point out that both are a consequence of a culture that is oppressive in a world where such oppressions do not easily fit and that you’re inevitably going to pay a price for trying to make them fit.

[and a note to those saying America should withhold monies from Egypt in order to force the coup leaders to act ‘responsibly’ even though there’s no agreement on what acting responsibly would or should look like - this indeed may be something that is doable and a reasonable way to go, I'm not sure, count me highly sceptical - but let’s keep in mind that if we draw away from Egypt, China and Russia are more than ready to step in and replace us, especially when it comes to military support - I mean, the Su-35S is a nicer plane than the F-16 - so withholding money would have long term consequences that could prove quite destabilizing and therefore let's stop talking about that option as if were a simple matter - and I assume Israel would be strongly opposed to us coming out hard against the coup]

democracy for idiots

Growing tired of way media. press, politicians, Obama insist on talking about democracy [now viz Egypt] as if it's simply defined by voting - voting is but the logical consequence of all the other rights and freedoms and cultural wherewithals that precede it, prepare the way - and voting is quite frankly the weakest link in the chain because voters make mistakes all the time - we're living with a rather big mistake right now. What truly defines democracy is a toleration of change borne of a freedom from dictatorial authority and tyrannical absolutism purchased through the securing of individual rights - the right to free speech, open debate, a free press, free association, the right to private property and a private conscience - and all these rights protected by a transparent and independent judiciary that answers ultimately to the people through an elected, representative and responsive assembly - the voting part is practically an afterthought, an answer to the question 'well, we've freely and openly debated this thing from all sides - now how the hell do we decide what to do?'

Egypt wasn't a democracy under Morsi, it was tyranny by a different name - and until the political function of Islam is forced from Muslim polities, whatever replaces Morsi is like to be a species of tyranny too. Obama won't say this because he's loathe to saying anything that might be seen as impugning Islam - but it's not to impugn Islam, it's simply to state a fact - if democracy is defined by freedom from absolutism then there's no such thing as democracy in a place where absolutist claims can take away freedom - I guess you can think of such a place as a limited democracy if you want, but that's sort of a nonsensical statement in keeping with she's a little bit pregnant - when it comes to democracy, you're either pregnant or you're not.

Hey, look, it's Ozymandias!

Victor Hanson pretty much nails the depravity of the neo-liberal with a paragraph:

Modern liberalism, among other things, is a psychological state, in which very-well-off Americans find ways through their income and privilege to be exempt from the ramifications of their own ideologies, while adopting causes and pets that exempt them from guilt over their own status and limitless opportunities. Judging by their concrete actions, they are indifferent to the poor whom they romanticize at a safe distance. In short, voting for larger government and subsidies is seen as a necessary cost of being a reactionary, liberal elite.

How ridiculous does Egypt make Kerry look?

How ridiculous does Egypt make Kerry look? His brief time as Secretary of State was already looking pretty pathetic as he was thoroughly embarrassed and played by Russia and China - and then came his absolutely absurd peace dance over the last few weeks with Israel and the other side - with all the shit breaking loose in the region right now does Obama really think the Israelis give a damn about some unattainable peace with the Palestinians? The 'peace' charade is at the top of their to do list? I assume Kerry is doing Obama's bidding with this absurdity - or maybe Kerry took the initiative and Obama said while suppressing a yawn, "sure, go ahead, knock yourself out - I'm off on a six million dollar parade through Africa for some reason".

And then Egypt explodes and Kerry and his boss seem surprised by it and once again look as if they're not quite sure what to say or who to support.

Three and a half more years of this nonsense - I mean, will there be anything left of America's reputation by the time Obama is finished?

Egypt and Libya problem?

Egypt and Libya problem? Owing to Obama's brilliant leading from behind in Libya which successfully managed to leave behind a breeding pen for Muslim extremists and a staging ground for jihadists looking to vacation in beautiful Syria, not to mention Mali and other places of pure splendor - thanks to this great work by Obama what are the odds these ever resourceful chaps hook up with disgruntled [to say the least] Islamists in Egypt? Think about how ugly something like that could get.

Egypt

Egypt - has anything more convincingly demonstrated the naive, simple minded nature of liberal foreign policy punditry [not to mention Obama's instincts thereof] than Egypt and the Arab Spring in general? First, they welcomed the dumping of Mubarak and cheered the youthful protesters without once it seems wondering what the Egyptian military's motives were here [they enabled Mubarak's exit after all] nor considering that the youthful but quite naive 'democracy' chanters were certain to be pushed aside as the Islamists came to the fore. Then, when that indeed happened, they cheered the Muslim Brotherhood as if they were just good ol' moderates with nothing but good ol' intentions viz democracy etc etc and of course the MB is nothing of the sort, not even close. This was always going to go badly - and it's entirely possible this is playing out exactly as the coup in waiting military thought it would play out, they indeed may be motivating the protesters behind the scenes.

I don't know how it ends - well, it won't end, this will be a process, towards what I don't know, I'm guessing something bad - although if the military reasserts control we could just revert back to what existed under Mubarak with cosmetic 'democratic' changes laid over top [very hard to imagine though it being that simple - the various cats are out of their sundry bags and they're not going back in without a fuss]. But what about in the long run? I've always said that if the Mideast is to evolve out of its medievalism that this will be done amid much upheaval and discord because what will be happening, even possibly without the players fully knowing it, is that Islam will be under challenge as a political entity. Gibberish spoken in the West about how of course Islam is compatible with democracy etc etc will be exposed for the idiocy that it is - closed, intolerant, regressive, oppressive, idealist systems cannot endure or live long with the inconveniences and somewhat chaotic nature of democracy - democracy is about accepting, even embracing change - closed systems don't like change, they don't like dissent - democracy is all about dissent and compromise - Islamists support 'democracy' just so long as it rubber stamps the 'legitimacy' of Islamism, otherwise they have no use for it - so for the Mideast to move forward it was always going to be about pushing Islam off to the side and that, given the highly political nature of Islam and the way it infiltrates Muslim polities, was always destined to be an extremely traumatic experience - and possibly impossible to do without a complete breakdown of order.

So the first stirrings of this process may be what we're seeing in Egypt - and in the long run that may prove a good thing - unfortunately in the short to midterm it's like to be an extremely uncomfortable ride.

Turkey

This is an extremely disturbing story - and not at all surprising. Turkey under Erdogan is not to be trusted [hell, his assistant PM yesterday blamed recent protests there on the Jews - I mean, c'mon, this is an ally of ours? This is Obama's good buddy? It's farcical] and they should absolutely not be getting the F-35. Now of course Dear Leader will be useless per usual as far as doing anything constructive here so it's gonna be up to congress and it'd be nice if some sensible Democrats spoke up as well - no F-35s for Turkey. The antagonistic forces are lining up against us - they do the kabuki dance of 'we're all friends here' in public but behind the scenes the pieces are being moved into place - China's strategy is increasingly obvious - tendrils everywhere in order to increase leverage, undermine American influence and poach technology - if this story is true and we go ahead with an F-35 sale to Turkey, it'll be proof that America as a superpower is being woefully mismanaged.

I’d say the great unknown ...

I’d say the great unknown of all the great unknowns viz immigration reform, or amnesty and open borders as the more cynically inclined are wont to call it, is what will the consequences of a mass demographics shift in the age of multiculturalism be compared to such when the dynamics of the melting pot ruled? Let’s face it, the two belief systems offer and promote quite different views on the nature of people and nations and the role of government - and America became great and powerful under the latter - will it remain great and powerful under the former? No one knows the answer to that question - people are making a lot of assumptions, but ultimately it’s all guesswork.

I tend to believe immigration under a multiculturalist ethos inculcates a neo-liberal world view, especially among ethnicities and cultures not directly connected to the Western tradition, and therefore the country is doomed to move left in its politics, although that shift could prove temporary if the GOP manages the wherewithal to adapt - big ‘if’ there. This is troubling because I don't believe great countries can be governed from the left - the sympathies and ‘causes’ which stimulate the neo-liberal may work in unimportant places like Sweden [although recent events there throw that into question] but a superpower is by necessity fuelled by something altogether different.

In short, neo-liberals, progressives if you wanna call them that, don't want to live in a great and powerful country because such creatures perforce embody things, do things, become responsible for things that conflict with and often outright contradict the qualities and beliefs that liberals see as defining them - and therefore either wilfully or as simple consequence of the sympathies they by nature promote the liberal seeks to undermine the offending power.

"... my general feeling is

"... my general feeling is that people are doing most things wrong regardless of their ability to convince themselves that they're actually doing most things right... but worse than that, amidst all this wrongness it seems to me that the bad guys are doing less wrong vis-à-vis their view of the world than we, the putative good guys, are doing vis-à-vis our view of the world... granted, given that Obama doesn't seem to have a clue what the fuck he's doing, our view of the world may be getting seriously short changed here... still, the depressing conclusion one might be tempted to draw is that Obama’s ineptness is simply a manifestation of what ails us and that consequently we could be entering a time when the forces for good may be operating at something of a disadvantage relative to the opposition, a disadvantage that is largely self-imposed, generated from within... history certainly abounds in turns of this sort...”