With talk swirling about regarding Obama and weak leadership, and suspicions too that Dear Leader is not just extremely cautious [less flattering meme: dithering, indecisive, unfocused] when it comes to the use of American power, whether in actual terms or simply as an implied threat of real urgency, but rather is quite hostile to traditional conceptions of American power, sharing an opinion held by his liberal academic cohorts that the world would be well served by less America and more… well, more talking it seems - these people apparently are so taken with the absolute splendour of their ideas that they have convinced themselves that the mere expression of these beauties will suffice in changing everything for the better - Obama has certainly spent much of his presidency governing that way and why not since the fervid acolytes who tirelessly promoted his brilliance often talked as if that is exactly what would happen, just elect the eloquent black guy president and everything would change.

But I digress - with such talk constantly swirling about I was struck by an arms control expert, who worked for both Bush and Obama administrations and so apparently not a partisan hack, I was struck by him saying recently that he was convinced Obama understood the acute danger of a nuked up Iran and therefore he had no doubt that if it came to the dire pass Dear Leader would indeed use the military option - he was sure of it. His conviction surprised the hell outta me because I've never believed Obama was serious when he declared all options were on the table - I've always believed he was just saying what he had to say to keep the perception of the negotiations as legitimate viable and to make sure Israel stayed on the sidelines - I've simply never believed that Obama's fall back plan was anything other than containment and that Iran believes this too which is why they may bend but never will break when it comes to nukes.

So this guy's certainty about Obama and the military option is perplexing - yes, I've often said that Obama is one of the best liars I've ever heard, a true master at bullshitting and therefore he could even have some of his own people fooled concerning his true plans - we'll see I guess but I'd be shocked if Obama actually went down the military road - I think he'll settle for any deal that offers the illusion of being viable and if Iran breaks the deal containment will be plan B - there's just simply nothing in Obama's default ideological presuppositions and sympathies nor his actions to date as president that suggests to me that when he says all options are on the table he's doing anything other than lie - ya know, along the lines of 'if you like your health care plan you can keep it' - I mean, what clear thinking person doesn't understand that that was a lie? The guy's good at lying and quite clearly has no qualms about doing so if the agenda requires it.

[having said all this about Obama The Weak, Hagel comes out today and names China as chief shit disturber in Asia-Pacific theatre - and brings up the cyber espionage charges again - can't say as I saw that coming, I mean to directly lay the blame on China - something of course had to be said what with Big Dragon sticking its oil rig in Vietnamese waters etc etc - but wasn't expecting something this 'in your face' - not sure what to make of it - is it possible Hagel went off book here? He's strayed before, but by misadventure, not deliberately - nope, bit puzzled by this - the thing to keep in mind is this sets in motion a chain of events that cannot now be ignored - if Big Dragon decides to turn up the heat Obama can't simply walk away as if this little scolding is enough push back - ya gotta stay the course otherwise you're inviting huge problems - and I'm pretty sure Big Dragon will be testing to see if indeed you're truly willing to stay the course]

With many, both liberal and conservative, agreeing that Obama's West Point speech was varying degrees of awful, boring, false, lacking real substance, utterly misplaced in its pedagogic pretensions, poorly argued, a transparent and rather feeble effort to cast wandering and weak as provisionally pragmatic and well reasoned just so long as, ya know, no one dare question the reasoning - given that response one perforce now wonders: what the hell was Dear Leader thinking? Is he just clinging to the idea that he can still govern by means of pretty speech giving? He squeezes out a few lofty sounding phrases and order is restored? Maybe - and you know, when it comes to spewing rhetoric about inequality and climate change deniers and homophobia and racism and the war on women and all the vague base pleasing populist fodder of that sort, he probably can still get away with the illusion of governing by teleprompter because the media is generally gonna back up those narratives. But foreign policy is just too real and combustible and stubborn and intractable a thing to be easily tamed by false narratives spun by your media allies - there's only so many lies you can tell before the flood of reality starts to push its way through and not even the Grey Lady can save you when that levee starts to crumble.

The image of Obama as weak, misguided, tentative, indecisive, prone to seeking refuge in phony intellectual conceits, pandering, apologetic, not a strong and proud promoter and defender of American interests and power, unfeared as an enemy and untrusted as a friend when it comes to the practice of foreign policy is out there, it's settling in, it's embedded in the weave of his desultory actions - and it ain't going away - and I don't think there's much he can do to fix it. The worrying thing is that that may be because he doesn't see it as in need of fixing, he doesn't see it as a problem, he just doesn't see America or the value of American power in those crudely unenlightened terms - such a viewpoint I'm sure would stand him in very good stead in the Harvard faculty lounge - but in the real world it means you're gonna get your ass kicked.

Youth unemployment is a problem in the US, but an especially bad problem among young black males - I believe I read the other day that the unemployment rate among young black males in Chicago is over 90% - that's insane - and it's not much better anywhere else in the country. What I find interesting is how no one seems to talk about this quite obviously dire situation when discussing immigration reform and amnesty and the flooding of our labor markets with low skill, poorly educated workers - these people are going to be doing the very jobs all those unemployed youth already in America should be doing - why is no one talking about this? How is the way people talk about immigration reform and amnesty not equivalent to us signing off on creating a permanent underclass of unemployed and unemployable youth, especially African-American youth, who are forever dependent on gov't handouts for their survival? This seems utterly crazy to me - and yet you rarely hear people talk about it when discussing immigration reform. I'm not sure why - I'm guessing political correctness - no one wants to touch the subject because they fear conclusions will be reached that will offend some people who very much relish crying grievance over some perceived offense - it's gotta be something like that because this issue has huge problem written all over it and yet it's barely discussed.

This an interesting story, as in disturbing and depressing and galling - let's quickly get to the crux that jars sharply - America essentially bankrolls Europe's security by taking the great cost and great risk associated with true military power on our shoulders, which is what allows Europe to pretend it can afford its various welfare states not to mention its somewhat pacifist, certainly unrealistic, pollyannish strategic outlook - and increasingly the main driver of these costs and risks America bears is China and how its rise potentially threatens a world order that yes, serves well America's interests but also without question Europe's too - and Europe pays us back for this largesse by significantly aiding and abetting that rise of China's military to the point where someone is quoted as saying China's navy would be nothing without tech and hardware from Europe.

Ahhh... this is crazy, right, a model that cannot possibly hold? We bear great cost and risk protecting Europe so that they can sell essential technology to the threat we're protecting them from - this is a madness that is not sustainable, right? I understand America is hardly blameless here and that we've profited greatly from this world order we've borne the risks and costs to defend and that certainly our business practices and foreign policy goals have often clashed - but still, this is nuts, yes? Galling - the progressive dreaminess that is the EU, for however long that dream lasts [which may not be too long given the way things are going], was and is made possible by American power - them arming our [and ultimately their] enemies may just be the the unfortunate yet unavoidable downside of free markets - still, it's bloody galling. I'm mean, look at the Ukraine mess - Europe has left itself very vulnerable to Putin's machinations because of their dependence on Russian gas - part of that dependence is the result of the EU's gleefully pollyannish idealist embrace of green technology which also implies scorning the development of non-green energy sources - and what makes this seemingly quite foolish behavior possible? American power - the EU assumes it can survive weakness since America will be there to save their ass. 

And the earth shuddered with sadness - the NY Times gives a thumbs down to Dear Leader's West Point speech - my, my - is Obama's disingenuous, dissembling, ultimately quite shallow teleprompter act even starting to wear thin for liberals? No - my guess this just a mere flirtation with disavowal - the liberal elite always return to the fold - and when they say bad things about Obama there's always a 'yeah, but...'  thrown in, either in the article itself, or in some missive of love that soon follows.

The West Point audience wasn't so squishy in its dislike of the speech though - the response to it has been politely labeled 'icy' - yeah, I'm sure. Nothing like a military that views its commander in chief as someone they're really not keen on stepping into harms way for - I guess being props in Dear Leader's philosophical whimsy of image preening is not the way to rally the troops. What a shock.

Related to speech, word also comes down that Obama is looking to step up support for the good Syrian rebels - to which my response would be good luck finding the 'good guys' in that mess of shit and regardless how the hell does this make any sense? One of the arguments for early involvement in this war was that that was the only way to keep the conflict from turning into a breeding ground for radicalized Sunni jihadists - I'm not at all sure that would have worked but at least there was some sense to it - but now? Talk about trying to kick shut the jihadist barn door long after the virgins in paradise seekers have thoroughly run amok. I don't get this one, other than it again being an image management calculation. Is this some attempt to put pressure on Iran viz the nuke deal? That seems highly unlikely, and I wouldn't see the strategic sense of it even if it were feasible. Besides, isn't this war essentially over? Doesn't a token effort to fluff up the putative 'good guys' just guarantee more carnage that changes nothing? And how exactly without American boots on the ground do you expect to serve the dubious interests of 'good' insurgents without at the same time serving the interests of the 'bad' insurgents as well?

And then let's consider how all the parties that don't like America and have vested interests in the outcome of this war will look upon this effort - Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the various al Qaeda affiliates - a halfhearted commitment from Obama could get ya nothing but a hornets nest rattled for no good reason - and could inspire those vested interests to engage in some escalatory behavior designed to make you look weak and foolish, which is exactly what will happen if you're trying to do war by the half measure without a coherent strategic outcome as the goal.

I just don't see how you get a coherent strategic outcome here without a viable proxy, strongly backed, that can serve America's interests against Iran's and Russia's - where in this mess do you see a viable proxy? Even if there are 'good' insurgents one can sort of trust, do you really think AQ etc etc are gonna let them prosper at their expense in the mad scramble for influence that Syria would become should Assad go bye bye and there's no American force on the ground to impose something resembling a peace? I don't think so.

Sorry, this looks like more window dressing to me, image management - that's what Obama's about, either because when it comes to foreign policy he is by nature and ideological predisposition not qualified to lead - or because he has a specific goal here and it has very little to do with serving America's interests, at least not in terms that the average American would understand or agree with.

Obama at West Point - predictions

Polls show half of Americans want a less ambitious, less involved, less demonstrative, less declarative, less unabashedly American foreign policy, in keeping with what Obama is giving them - I wonder how many tomes on war and statecraft and strategy those polled have read - one assumes most if not all of them couldn't spell Thucydides never mind discuss the merits of his famous book - but hell, forget scholarship, I wonder how many of those polled have ever served or know the slightest god damn thing about serving in the military or even have the most basic understanding of how a military functions. Foreign policy cannot be poll driven because it is too complex, too far reaching, too sophisticated in its reasonings and modes and historical contexts and too removed from the humble experiences of the average citizen - it is by and large and necessarily so the sole purview of the chief executive and quite possibly, certainly when you're talking about a superpower, the most important thing that chief executive will do - it is up to him or her to judge the best path forward that serves the vital interests of the country and then explain and justify that path forward to the people regardless of whether or not they wanna hear it or can even comprehend it - it is not his or her job to give the people what they ostensibly want but rather to convince them that he or she deserves their trust - if congress disagrees, the founders gave them the power to do something about it.

So people who try to defend Obama's foreign policy by claiming it comports nicely with what nearly half the country wants are idiots or mere apologists or naive sycophants. If you wanna defend Obama's foreign policy, do so on its own terms and don't you dare quote polls to me.

Which brings us to Obama's upcoming West Point speech which, according to previews, will be promising more small ball dressed up as something bold and engaged but not in a very bold or particularly engaged way - in other words, more leading from behind - in other other words, more beguiling optics, more theatrics, more rhetoric, more empty gestures that sufficiently poll well. Obama, ever image conscious, sees that the perception of him as weak is settling in and so, true to form, he's gonna roll out the teleprompters and give a lofty and no doubt well reviewed speech which the NY Times will hail as substantial maybe even inspiringly so but that will change absolutely nothing in reality - unless of course one thinks the preening of Obama's image a reality worth considering.

[of course the real thing to worry about with this speech will not be that it is just more image management from Obama but rather that it will be deliberately obscure and disingenuous since the actual behind the words point of it will be that a less powerful America is a good thing and not at all inherently problematic and full of perils]  

The spike in violence in eastern Ukraine against Russian sympathizers, with one official in Kiev stating that the insurgents will be 'exterminated', is interesting - in sense that the election of the chocolate tycoon, who has said he wants to work with the EU and Russia to calm things, a gesture which Putin has welcomed, however disingenuously, well, you'd think that'd lead to a tamping down on force against the Russophiles rather than a sharp spike up - which suggests to me that Ukrainian nationalists, in control of the temporary gov't, maybe do not trust Mr Chocolate to stand firm against Putin's intentions, whatever they may be - because this spike in force risks escalating quickly into something that draws Putin in in a much more decisive way - which, again, to me only makes sense if the Ukrainian ultra nationalists are convinced Mr Chocolate intends to conceded something to Putin [one assumes some sort of federation] which is the political solution ol' Vlad has been looking for.

It's very murky - but I'm not seeing anything yet that tells me Putin's gambit has gone awry or twisted beyond his control - I still think he's in the catbird seat here - he knows better than anyone in the West how corrupt and vulnerable a polity Ukraine is and therefore I assume knows where and how to apply pressure. Could all go south on him, sure - and if he starts talking about the 'new gov't' in ways that definitely sound conciliatory that might indeed suggest control has slipped away form him - but I'm not seeing that yet and the spike in violence by the ultra nationalists, to my mind anyways, seems to confirm that.

[or is Mr Chocolate calling the shots here? Some are suggesting that - but he hasn't been sworn in yet - although who knows if that matters in a place like Ukraine - still, even if he is behind the spike it doesn't make sense to me - unless of course they've determined Putin's all bravado here and they're calling his bluff and pushing in all their chips, relatively speaking - but I've said and fully believe Putin cannot let himself look like he's backing down, like he's lost since so much of the point of all this was perceptual - he can try and claim he had nothing to do with the pro-Russia insurgents but no one believes that - then again he does still have Crimea so I guess if things start to turn against him in the East one could view it as a draw and that will be good enough, for now - but I'm not sold on that - there's another play coming seems to me]

NY Times does somewhat flattering article on Jeb Bush, describing him as something of a bookish technocrat, which is how the less whiny and mawkish of the liberal illuminati like to think of themselves - so obviously the Times has decided Jeb is running, is a threat to Hillary and must be smeared into oblivion, made primary toxic - they got Christie with 'bridgegate' since electable straight shooter was Christie's thing and the trumped up scandal seems to have deep sixed that - and now, much as they did with Romney, they're gonna make Jeb unpalatable to the conservative base by stigmatizing his refined qualities as strange and not to be trusted - and thus, again like Romney, even if Bush wins the nomination you hope you've stirred up enough distrust in the base that they just don't bother going out to vote. Having seen Obama exploit liberal media bias in this way you'd like to think conservatives have figured out countermeasures - but then one would like to think a lot of things which just don't turn out to be true.

The interesting wonder is will the Times et al be as unquestioningly in the tank for Hillary as they were for Dear Leader? They see where such blind faith got them with Obama - an utterly awful president - a sane and thoughtful person would take a step back and reevaluate - but these people aren't sane, are they - that ain't how ideological fervor works - blind faith is a virtue, not a flaw - and so I'd imagine most of the liberal elite still cling to their Obama delusions and resist contemplations on maybe having been wrong and misguided - to allow such pernicious thoughts could upend their entire belief system, and we can't have that - I mean, what's truth compared to guarding one's faith against doubt? Look at the Financial Times tearing apart of new liberal favorite Piketty's numbers and arguments - does anyone honestly think Krugman, shameless ideologue that he is, is now gonna take a step back and reevaluate his unquestioning adoration of that socialist dream work? No bloody way. 

Krauthammer reaches conclusion, at least publicly - perhaps he's believed this for awhile now - but reaches same conclusion I came to weeks ago about Putin's grand scheme and fact that if there wasn't an informal 'anti-American' alliance between Russia, China and to a lesser extent Iran before Crimea the logic of such an arrangement would now have been made obvious by how Putin's actions in Ukraine have changed the game - the mutual strategic benefits of such an alliance should be clear.

What's striking about this is how absolutely unclear this has been to so many in the West who make a living by expressing their supposedly enlightened opinions on things - and what's truly frightening is how unclear this all was and possibly still is to Obama and his entire national security staff - when Putin moved into Crimea, Obama and Kerry were utterly flummoxed, it was as if it was entirely beyond their abilities to see the potential of a larger strategy at work here. Cluelessness like that amongst the leadership of the free world should cause any sane person to fret deeply about where all this might be heading.

I notice that talk concerning charging members of the PLA's cyber espionage brigade with a crime has died away completely - I've heard nothing since the story first broke, which maybe suggests one of the options I saw materializing, ie Obama et al going quiet and hoping that China views this as the capitulation it is and just moving on, is indeed possibly in play. We'll see - but understand just because there's no dust being stirred up doesn't mean bodies aren't being stomped into the dirt - in other words, silence equals Obama's capitulation or an acknowledgement that it was nothing more than theatrics which amounts either way to yet another perceptual victory over American power by its 'enemies'. That's not good.

[update: just read some Obama official saying they do intend to push forward with charges - we'll see - we all know Obama feels shallow gestures, lofty rhetoric and 'reaching out' with humble - apologetic - hand is smart foreign policy and pushing forward with these charges will decidedly not fit any of those descriptions, the Chinese will make sure of that - so we'll see] 

"… sorry, I know you very much want to think me a racist, but I don't have a problem with the president's race, none at all, zip… well, except in the sense that his race is used and abused so liberally by liberals to suppress dissent and construct free speech killing orthodoxies of correct thinking dogma that if one dare challenges the legitimacy of one is immediately stigmatized as not being fit for tolerance and summarily disappeared… I do have a problem with that, as should anyone who values true democracy as a good and necessary thing… but alas so it's like to be with all the identity candidates the left puts forward from now till end times, it won't be them being a woman or Hispanic or gay or whatever that will trouble me but rather how that identity will be used to bury my opinions and take away my rights to openly debate anything I deem worth debating… my problem will not at all be with their identities per se but rather with the enforced orthodoxy those identities will be co-opted to blindly serve… this is why, had Iraq not compromised her reputation so, it would never have sufficed for the left if Condoleezza Rice had become the first black and female president since those identities, wasted on a person vitiated by wrong thinking, would have been utterly drained of utility in service of the great cause… forget all their high minded sentiments and putatively noble ideas, for the liberal elite if the first black president had been a conservative or even possibly just a moderate independent it wouldn't have moved the needle at all, except of course into the negative one imagines… no, he had to be one of them for it to matter, for what good is race if it can't be used to stifle debate and enshrine as beyond reproach the autocracy of the progressives…"

So, with regards to China espionage charges, Great Dragon responds with a little fire, proclaiming loudly their absolute innocence and demanding that the charges immediately be rescinded [that 'immediate' demand amounts to a red line, yes, an ultimatum?] - Obama of course now cannot comply with this request without rendering his presidency null and void [or at least obviously so for those many still nurturing the delusion that everything's just going along swimingly].

So what now? Seems to me Obama has three choices [aside from actually backing down]: make a big enough concession in some other policy area that appeases China; just stop talking about the charges and hope that China let's it slide [sort of a backdoor appeasement]; or get serious and offer up proof since China is so vehemently claiming its innocence. In my mind it has to be the latter since now that you've made this move anything else will amount to capitulation - no doubt that is why China is so vehemently proclaiming its innocence [which is absurd and everyone knows it]: they're daring Obama to come out and publicly call them liars, no doubt betting that he won't do that - which, as I said, will amount to a win for them and yet another huge blow to US credibility as a superpower thanks to the worst president ever. This should be interesting.

[the unnoted thing to note here is that if Obama moved forward with these charges without considering these various permutations of how it might play out - well, that would be inexcusable - so, since these are not stupid people, if their response to Big Dragon's anger looks confused or indeed like capitulation, how would we explain that? It's not impossible for such smart people to also be utterly incompetent, but it certainly does challenge credibility - I'd have to believe it was something other than incompetence - ideological delusion? a complete lack of interest in the intelligent practice of superpower foreign policy? a deliberate attempt to undermine US authority? I dunno]

[and of course the other problem implied here is: why take this action now? Everyone spies on everyone else - but the big problem is Chinese corporate spying, which other countries also do, sure, but not anywhere near the level that China does it nor with the deep tangle of government companies that happily ignore international rules of business and the rights of intellectual property - it's that incentuous relationship between  government and business in China and the mere size of it that makes it such a dire threat - but again, why raise the issue now? Has there been some really significant security breach we don't know about? Do they actually think China will respond positively to being called out and curb their misdeeds? Or did they just not think it through?

The other interesting consideration that I've wondered about before is: when would a cyber theft of intellectual property by a government sponsored business be so egregious and pose such a severe economic threat that it amounts to a just cause for war? I mean, if a Chinese gov't sponsored business with the help of the PLA's hackers stole the next big thing from Apple, what exactly would the appropriate response be? If it's a private company ripping you off you have options - but a Chinese SOC using state intelligence services to steal intellectual property from a private American company that amounts to billions upon billions of lost revenues and possibly even the ruin of that company - I mean, what's the proper response to something like that? Is it really so crazy to think of such a theft amounting to a just cause for war?

Put it in real world terms to understand how significant a problem this could be: five years ago Blackberry was by far the big player in mobile - and then the iPhone came along and crushed them - what if Blackberry had been a Chinese SOC using PLA hackers to uncover the secret of the iPhone thus allowing them to beat Apple to the punch and completely rewriting the fortunes of those two companies and all the wealth - and jobs - that came and went with them? That's a big frickin' problem, yes? If it's just Blackberry the private Canadian company engaged in these illegal activities Apple has options to redress the wrongs and get their money back - and a weak country like Canada would never think of risking the anger and retribution from the US by running to Blackberry's defense even if they wanted to ignore the theft committed - but that's not the case with China - they are powerful, they don't care about transparency and fair practice and they could care less about honoring rights governing intellectual property - so, again, what's the proper response to state sponsored corporate espionage that threatens American businesses in a very significant way? A blockade that brings financial hardship can be considered casus belli - why not this? You start to realise that at some point America is probably going to have to spell out just how far too far is when it comes to this kind of theft by China - in other words I think, establish casus belli]

With Obama having shown how to expertly play identity politics by ruthlessly, shamelessly exploiting the left leaning media's utter love of identity politics and thusly win elections you really have no right winning, I sort of joked awhile back that post Obama Democrats from now until the end of time [the end of time being when liberals have finished ruining the country] will nominate in national elections nothing but 'identity' candidates - and so it is word comes down that Julian Castro is being groomed to be Hillary's running mate. Ah, yes - gosh, how quickly in Obama's America jokes morph into reality. And I'm sure if this all plays out as progressives so fondly dream it might Castro's eventual VP will be openly gay.

I mean, if it wasn't actually so plausible, you'd laugh at the absolute absurdity of running a country this way, right?

Such a scenario is all a factor of media bias - which is why I say media bias will destroy the legitimacy of a democracy if something doesn't come along to correct it - and then you'll get a dangerous push back from the far right, which is exactly what we're seeing happen in Europe in response to the anti-democracy uber left EU.

If the GOP cannot find a way to defeat this beast things could really start falling apart - and to my mind, since media bias is the key to all this, the only way to defeat it is either by nominating someone who is extremely good at handling the media, who really shines when the cameras are on - or match identity candidate for identity candidate - make Susana Martinez or Nikki Haley your candidate in 2016.

Hmmn... I see Obama has slapped some significant cyber espionage charges on Chinese military hackers - all very symbolic I suppose since no way you're ever gonna get near these guys but... an interesting and somewhat unexpected development all the same. Is this Obama starting to realize that the world increasingly does not take him seriously as a 'strong' leader when it comes to US interests and trying to reverse or mitigate the debilitating effects of that image? If so, is this then just more empty gesturing from him, shallow optics? Dunno - curious to see how this plays out and what China's response will be - the thing about weak leaders trying to look strong is that the people you're looking to impress have already formed their opinion about you and therefore may simply ignore the gesture, which puts you in the possibly somewhat difficult position of a 'so what now' moment - or they may see the challenge as an opportunity to prove your weakness by calling your bluff and upping the ante - in such a way perceived weakness invites escalation. To my mind Obama has fully earned his reputation as a weak leader and simply doesn't have it in him to behave otherwise, possibly because of an ideological predisposition that clings to a worldview that judges such crudities as being beneath him - possibly because he views traditional notions of American power as a utility of increasing irrelevance or simply as something not worth preserving - whatever it is, if China has come to the same conclusion, they indeed may treat this as an opportunity to play some hard ball.

In hurling an insult at someone who had the temerity to question his leadership, Erdogan illustrates why liberals of Obama's ilk will never get the Mideast because getting it would force them too far outside of their ideological comfort zone and threaten too deeply their idealist sympathies - Erdogan cursed the churl with the epithet 'Israeli spawn' - apparently in Turkey there's no more reviled an insult than that. Nevermind how Obama infamously professed his love for fellow deep thinker Erdogan - but consider how Turkey when measured as a progressive Islamist polity [we offend credulity, yes] stands head and shoulders above 'Palestine' - and yet when the leader of that progressive redoubt really wants to insult someone he labels them 'Israeli spawn' - and idiots like Kerry think they can forge a peace that conveniently ignores that reality? Delusional doesn't even begin to capture the folly of Obama's foreign policy. 

The emails demonstrating what we all knew to be true about the IRS scandal - i.e. that the abuse was politically motivated and run through Washington - are interesting in so much as this abuse represents a serious attack on the very foundations of a democracy - rule of law, freedom of speech, right to political assembly, accountability of elected officials etc etc - by the most invasive and punitive bureaucracy at the government's disposal - and yet where's the outrage? A ruling party corrupting a death star bureaucracy like the IRS in order to suppress dissent and abrogate the rights of people they don't like so as to in essence steal an election is a pretty big god damn deal because you're basically saying that your democracy is no longer legitimate - and yet where's the media and press outrage over this, over the Obama administration seemingly having no qualms whatsoever about turning the erstwhile greatest democracy in the world into a banana republic if it serves their agenda? Is the progressive Nirvana being promised here so alluring to the liberal illuminati, so blindingly seductive that they just can't bring themselves to care about little things like rule of law and constitutional rights and democratic principles? Are they saying they're quite fine upending the entire system just so long as at the end of the day we're left with an America replete with transgender washrooms and kiosks on every corner spitting out welfare cheques at will?

The liberal elite has gone insane, they've taken leave of their senses - you can cry hysterics about the wackos on the far right all you want but it's these batshit crazy leftists that scare me because they have real power what with the media on their side, a sympathetic and onboard president in the White House with no doubt another to be installed in 2016 and a demographic base that is growing in influence and seems to have no problem with just how batshit crazy these people are - in other words, the far right can never acquire the kind of power the far left now and increasingly has - and the amount of damage they can do with it is truly frightening.

Media bias will destroy the legitimacy of a democracy - which is why I say if an undeserving Hillary is installed as leader in 2016 by a virtual junta run by the media through the glassy eyed ignorance of the liberal base, then I think conservatives in greater numbers will be forced to conclude that the politics of the country, at least on the national level, are no longer legitimate and therefore can no longer be expected to serve their interests - and then you start heading down a pretty dark road that ends god knows where. 

With liberals struggling to figure out ways to say bad things about Boko Haram without at same time saying 'bad' things about Islam or even just mentioning the word 'Islamists' at all [although kudos to Bill Maher for being one of the few lefty types willing to publicly go negative viz the problems with Islam - there's a lot he says I'm no fan of but have to give him credit for being quite possibly the only opinionist in the left leaning media still holding firm to enough objective integrity to actually speak hard truths about a subject the liberal elite has decreed taboo and never to be raised amongst polite illuminati] - anyway, with liberals squirming under the unpleasant inability to employ reality squashing doublespeak like 'workplace violence' or tie the madness to an absurd video or simply banish the inconvenient vulgarity as if it were an address being given at Brandeis by an untouchable [ie anyone who does not think exactly the way we do] I was reminded of this fine essay taking to task Tony Blair for trying to warn of the dangers of Islamist extremism while holding fast to the delusion that extremism is somehow unnatural to religious convictions. Blair's countryman, John Locke, a very pious man, wrote four hundred years ago about the harmful uses religious conviction can be put to and therefore of why separation of church and state and the avid protection of personal liberty, private property and a private conscience were so important - and yet here's Blair all these centuries later trying to talk about Islam as if those thoughts were irrelevant to its practice.

All religious convictions, by the very nature of their guiding parameters and modes of believing, are liable to the allure of extremism - in other words, extremism is a natural by-product of faith if that tendency or potentiality is not mitigated or balanced out by external factors - this is especially true of religious convictions buttressed by an inherent political component - that four hundred years after Locke the Muslim world is still not free nor willing it seems to allow others the freedom to talk about their faith the way Locke and those that followed him did of theirs is proof of how strong and pronounced an influence the political component of Islam is - and an apt demonstration of why Blair's inability or refusal to recognize that reality is naively foolish or delusional - indeed, in trying to appease the diktats of correct speech as defined by the autocratic left and the ever eager to be aggrieved Muslims by artificially attempting to separate legitimate from illegitimate when it comes to religious ideology and convictions Blair is essentially proving the point he's trying so hard to avoid talking about - namely, that religion and extremism go hand in hand - hell, that's true of any doctrinal belief system that is held together and sustains itself through blind faith - given the right circumstances, extremist abuse is always just a step or two away because fear and failure are always just a step or two away - control becomes paramount - and if economic and political evolution cannot wrest that control from out of the oppressors hands, then cultural stagnation, extremism and autocratic abuse are the natural result - and thus you have the Muslim world. I mean, we would never argue [well, some would] about whether it was Philip's Armada or Elizabeth's protestantism that was the legitimate expression of Christianity - we realise that'd be a silly argument to have - we would recognise rather that Philip's vision was of a Europe that was slowly fading and Elizabeth's ramparts a new world that was rising to the fore - and this was four hundred and thirty some odd years ago!! Could any Muslim leader today say what Elizabeth said all those years ago - "I would not open windows into men's souls" - and survive? And yet Blair et al want to talk as if that isn't the real problem here?

Look, I give Blair credit for trying to engage on an important subject and I understand that given the repressive idiocy of political correctness he has to couch his language in falsehoods and obfuscations - indeed, given that England with its debate killing 'hate speech' laws has bent over backwards to try and appease Muslim sensitivities, if he didn't couch his language in deceptions he might find himself in jail - still, please tell me he as a former PM of England who obviously knows well its fraught religious history with its Bloody Marys and Tyndales and Cromwells etc etc, please tell me a man like that doesn't actually believe that when it comes to religion extremism is somehow a perverse aberration and not an abuse entirely to be expected given the right circumstances, nor believe that when it comes to the backward looking nature of Islam and the encroaching modern world that those circumstances do not exist aplenty.    

Kissinger suggests Putin's actions something of a desperate ad lib - that he would never have spent all that money to buy positive PR with Olympics only to get caught in this negative PR Ukraine mess. I guess in a sense that's true - although events so far have definitely been good PR for Putin within Russia - and Olympics plans were laid years ago when thoughts on Ukraine were no doubt more optimistic - if given a choice between good Olympics PR and losing Ukraine, that really ain't a choice at all from Putin's point of view - and let's also remember that that gobs of money spent on the silly Olympics went to make Putin's buddies rich, that buys loyalty and so still money well spent regardless of PR from his point of view.

I think people are looking at the growing 'mess' in Ukraine and concluding that Putin miscalculated and acted rashly and now it's starting to unravel on him - I don't see it that way. To me they must have long had plans of how to deal with a Ukraine problem and I think the smoothness of the Crimea operation is proof of that - and in order to avoid actual invasion the growing 'mess' is necessary so as to force the US/EU into giving Kiev an ultimatum viz political compromise - Putin knows that there's no way the EU wants or can deal with a shooting war in Ukraine that leads to all that Russian money draining from the EU economy and banking system, never mind threat of the gas being turned off - so the mess is deliberate and actual invasion always only a last resort - way I see it anyway. 

People suggesting that the referendum going ahead against Putin's wishes is proof of him losing control are assuming that it wasn't Putin's goal here to look reasonable, like the 'good guy' seeking conciliation, and that the referendum going ahead against his wishes was always the intention - that's the way I see it because, one, the objective here is a political compromise that favors Putin's ambitions so he has to look amenable to some degree, and two, I don't believe for a second that if Putin didn't actually want that referendum to go ahead that he couldn't have stopped it - I just don't see that as credible.

The wild card in all this are the Ukrainian ultra nationalists - it certainly is possible that they're becoming more of a complication than Putin planned for and if so things could definitely start to get ugly - proof of that being true would be if he starts supplying the Russian loyalists with more substantial weaponry.

waves in the China Sea

Trouble brewing between Big Dragon and its neighbours in the unquiet sea in wake of Obama visit raises interesting points - with Vietnam trying to block Chinese oil rig being planted in disputed waters and Philippines taking into custody a Chinese fishing boat they say intruded upon and illegally fished its sovereign waters people are asking if a show of support by Obama during his visit has emboldened them - possibly. With China's 'three warfares' strategy and its attempt to create dubious legal realities or givens on the ground [or water] becoming clear to everybody it's possible Vietnam and the Philippines are trusting in Obama's promises and forcing counter claims to China's unilateralism - it's also possible this push back is being done in concert with the US, that a back room agreement has been reached to systematically counter or challenge China's attempt to unilaterally create dubious legal givens - both these things could be behind these conflicts. There is though a third option that most are not considering - that China's wary neighbors are testing Obama's resolve, feeling out whether his security promises were real or just words - because when you think about it, for these countries to forge a coherent strategy going forward to counter Chinese aggression they need to know whether or not Obama is going to be there for them - therefore these actions could be just as much about testing Obama as challenging Chinese unilateralism.

One thing for sure, as I've said often before and other's too, belief in the peaceful rise of China was always more about vain hopes or dearly embraced delusions than realistic analysis - conflict is inevitable, the only question is how hot, how big and how scary - if an American president makes the right moves, deterrence could work to keep the lid on this thing and buy time for political reforms to take root in the Middle Kingdom - but unfortunately, for one thing, I've always felt there's virtually no chance the politburo with its tentacles stretching out everywhere ever or at least willingly allows reform to take root - and secondly, regardless, I don't believe for one second that Obama is that president - more importantly, neither does the PLA I imagine.

nuke me, Jane

Should Iran betray any pending nuclear deal - and I certainly believe they will - I believe they've acted all along as if convinced Obama lacked the will to stop them and therefore is quite happy to embrace an illusion - but I'll indulge the optimists and say should Iran betray any pending nuclear deal after Rice has now again promised Israel that they will never let the Persians nuke up, I wonder if Dear Leader has realized or admitted to himself that that will mean a world where only one of two things will remain true when it comes to these weapons: one, anyone who wants them can get them; and two, the only reliable way to stop that would be through the use of force by America. Ahh, for those heady days of leading from behind - for a president who wholly embraced the utterly delusional intellectual conceit of the 'zero option' when it came to nukes, that he may be responsible for a policy that makes obvious just how delusional that conceit was and moves the world in a diametrically opposite direction from coveted zeroness, well... actually, kinda seems fitting, no?

Are the ultra nationalists controlling the Ukrainian push back against the pro-Russians? If they are, can they be cowed into a political surrender which is what Putin is looking for here? The Ukrainian forces are not heavily armed and Putin could definitely turn up the heat by supplying some anti-tank weapons to the pro Russian forces - will he? A few Russian attack helos would definitely bring the Ukrainian push back to a halt - but I don't see Putin wanting to escalate like that yet. I'm guessing he likes the role the Ukraine far right is playing here, serves his purposes well, and with Germany now pushing hard for new talks in Geneva, Putin will wait to see what those talks reveal about who's really calling the shots in Kiev and whether a political compromise [the Russians call this capitulation 'federation'] can be forced from them - if not, expect the entry of anti-tank weapons and possibly the introduction of 'legitimate' Russian troops - armor, attack helos - the Ukrainian forces currently trying to surround and take back eastern towns are not robust and would be quickly wiped out by a swarm of KA-50s - and if it comes to that my guess is Kiev, under extreme pressure from the EU, will have no choice but to compromise - unless the ultranationalists push the gonzo button and then this thing heads in a direction that gets much harder to predict.

It's difficult to know how delusional the US/EU are but I feel [hope] they must realize the sanctions they're proposing are useless, mean nothing to Putin when measured against what he'd lose by surrendering to them - and with the amount of Russian money flowing through the EU banking system any attempt to get tougher could hurt the EU as much as it might hurt Russia - and to what end since Putin will not, cannot be swayed by such. The only way maybe to get at Putin would be to get the oligarchs to turn on him by hurting them sufficiently with sanctions and sundry penalties - but if that approach had potential I'm guessing the oligarchs would already be sending out signals, either deliberately or by insinuation, about the efficacy of it - if they were willing to sacrifice Putin seems to me they'd be letting that be known before too much damage is done, and don't see much evidence of that happening. 

Kerry runs now to South Sudan to work his magic [he's starting to remind me a bit of that foppish waterfly Osric from Hamlet] and immediately gets about threatening sanctions on the belligerents as if people involved in a brutal ethnically driven tribal war are really gonna give a shit about sanctions - which makes one wonder: are threats of sanctions becoming argot for the Obama administration's dawning realization that the world ain't at all like they so badly wanted to believe it was and they just don't have a damn clue what to do about it?

And why isn't this the ANC's problem? Or China - they wanna buy up Africa, let them deal with it. But of course they wouldn't do so in a properly enlightened progressive's way - liberals - they wanna think culture doesn't matter, historical context doesn't matter, that we're all equal beneath that incovenient surface and it just takes a bit of understanding and high minded rhetoric to reveal it - yeah, definitely argot for we don't have a fucking clue.

As things get messy in Ukraine, some are wondering if Putin's bluff has been called, if Ukrainian nationalist forces have outfoxed him - ahhh... not the way I see it - to agree with that you'd have to believe that Putin's real goal here wasn't always political upheaval with the threat of invasion hanging over it and then using the leverage of that threat to force the US and EU into applying pressure on Ukraine to accept a political compromise - because if that was the goal [which I think it was] then for the moment things seem to be heading in that direction - you'd also have to believe that should this stratagem fail Putin never intended to invade Ukraine as a last resort - but of course he must have accepted the reality of an invasion should it come to that because there is no political future for him if he's seen letting people he's characterized as 'anti-Russian fascists' chase him away.

So I still see this as things playing out the way Putin intended - increasing upheaval, increasing threat of wider escalation until Putin gets the political capitulation he's looking for and would prefer over an actual 'invasion' - but just because an actual invasion as far as I'm concerned would not be the preferred outcome, logic dictates it must still be a final recourse that is very real because I just don't see Putin playing this gambit without acknowledging that final reality.

Cillizza over at the Post says watch out for Rubio viz GOP 2016 nomination - not sure how much I agree with his various points - but definitely agree with one: next to Christie, Rubio is the most talented politician of the lot when measured relative to attributes required to overcome burden of media bias afflicting conservatives - if you're looking for someone who can change the way Republicans are perceived, who can effectively push back against the caricature spewed out endlessly by liberal media of conservatives being intolerant and unpleasant throwbacks to a time that has passed, then you're looking for either Christie or Rubio [although I still wonder why Nikki Haley never gets mentioned - must be something there I've missed]. I saw Rubio give a speech a few weeks ago that was, as far as the optics of 'broad appeal' go, brilliant - and Christie's the only other person in the potential field who can do that - which is the main reason why, hell, possibly the sole reason why I've been a backer of the big guy for awhile now. If Christie can't recover from the non-scandal the media conveniently blew up into a scandal, then I'll certainly be watching Rubio closely. Biggest knock I have against Rubio right now is lack of executive experience - and I really like executive experience.

With the obviousness of Benghazi now being rendered so obvious that even benighted liberal diehards are paying attention, it's good to remember that, bad as it was, the real scandal here is not so much that the Obama administration lied about the terrorist attack in order to protect their reelection bid and help Hillary out viz 2016 - politicians lie, that's not news - what is and was news, as in disturbingly revelatory, is that the media and press went along with the lie, enabled it, nurtured it, fleshed out its narrative in order either to directly impact the election in favor of their chosen candidate or because they were so blinded by ideological adoration for their chosen candidate that they managed to convince themselves that indeed there was nothin' to see here so just move along.

You cannot have a proper democracy if the opinion generating apparatus of that democracy is deliberately lying or enabling lies in order to protect and promote a favoured ideology and candidate - that's a knife right to the very heart of what democracy means - and your democracy will not survive it if the offence isn't corrected or resists correction because the knife is just too deep - which is what I fear is the truth. You see, if the media got it wrong in a deliberate effort to protect Obama, then possibly that can be fixed - there's maybe enough decent people left out there I think who are right now shaking the clouds from their eyes and realizing 'ya know, we really fucked up here, we really allowed this whole Obama thing to spin out of control' - and if that's the case I do think a correction is possible. But if Benghazi played out the way it did because the media was/is so utterly blinded by ideological lust for what Obama represents to them that they could not tell an obvious lie from truth - then that's trouble, that's big trouble and these people are probably just too far gone for correction - and where that leaves the country I have no idea - not a good place one imagines.

Between how a flawed and broken immigration system is skewing election results in an unhealthy way, the GOP's possible inability to effectively address this problem because either they lack the internal wherewithals to effectively address it or because the damage is done and Democrats and their media allies are never gonna allow the damage to be undone since it serves their purposes so well - between those two things and that media's demonstrated willingness to distort truth in order to serve progressive agendas and how that feeds, enables the general liberal urge towards orthodoxy, conformity of thought and ultimately autocracy - well, if those three things stay constant ya can really start to see how the road ahead could get quite unpleasant.

I know progressives imagine that a liberal ascendancy resulting in a domination on the national level of the political process will lead to all kinds of wonderful things - but that's not how it will play out, no way - I mean, these people are progressives because they're delusional, drunk on the fumes of their wild musings - and so what they think that future will be like and what it will actually be like will of course prove quite different things - and we're seeing signs of this spring up in Europe where right wing forces are rising up in opposition to that great progressive autocracy called the EU - and it's decidedly in the nature of the conflict that extremism on both sides will be the result - that's what happens when democracy starts to fall apart because you see the whole point of democracy is to mitigate extremes by promoting and defending freedoms - and there's no greater freedom in a democracy than the right to hold an opinion and have that opinion heard - which brings us right back to media bias and why it is such a dangerous thing - and back to why Benghazi was and is a big deal.

Rumsfeld makes a very interesting point in Fox interview viz perceived weakness of Obama - I know the reflexive instinct is to ignore Rummy, but this important point often overlooked - namely, it's not just Obama's actions in the foreign policy realm that seem to define a president who doesn't like or doesn't trust or is uncomfortable with or is simply uninterested in the uses of American power that cause concern and send a troubling message to allies and a comforting one to enemies - it's the far left wing view of government and economic policy that he and his ideological fellow travellers espouse and embrace as a true faith that also confirm and give credence to what his foreign policy actions imply - in short, implied in the far left desire to move America towards a European social welfare model is that we will no longer be able to afford a powerful military, which is exactly what has happened in Europe where they stopped spending real money on defense and now their security is absolutely dependent on the US - it's not just Obama's foreign policy that troubles allies and encourages enemies, it's the whole package - because an America managed by lefty ideologues like him will necessarily fall from great power status. I mean, imagine an Elizabeth Warren as president - that would send a clear message to allies and enemies alike that America is no longer in the superpower business so have at it.

Given this the question becomes: is Obama's weak foreign policy a result of him not being well suited at all for the job of chief executive of a superpower with America's responsibilities - or is its muddled, enfeebled incoherence a deliberate attempt to incrementally hollow out, encumber, invalidate American power? As I've said before, you cannot have the kind of society and bureaucratic welfare state that Obama and his ilk are most sympathetic to and have enough money left over to pay for a great military, never mind retain the ability to engender and encourage the cultural characteristics required to breath fire into that military.