"... no, no, I'm entirely against gay marriage, it's absurd, makes no sense, the arguments rallied in defense of it and that act as if arguments opposing are wholly unreasonable and prejudicial and petty make no sense... having said that though, to stand against it as a political matter seems of dubious merit... possibly better to just get the inevitable over with and thus expedite the shoveling of this malingering farce off to the margins where it belongs... and it's not like I have some anti-gay agenda or carry some deep and irrational enmity for homosexuals, I don't... I just find sham political crusades tricked out with specious rationalizations to be extremely annoying..."

Why thawing relations with Cuba is bad: after enduring several generations under a system that left them poor but happy because nothing was expected of them other than subservience Cubans are ill suited to survive freedom; the goal of thawing relations must be to slowly unwind communism; once unwound from Marxy America will be left having to fix the mess that remains.

Of course it's possible that thawed relations may make it more likely that the communists survive, because of increase in trade, tourism etc etc and therefore good. May also make them less likely to get mixed up in some idiotic scheme with Chavez because they're less in need.

So thawing relations is good. Whatever keeps them a benign communist afterthought is good. I suppose a thaw in relations could do that - so never mind. But it does put Obama in tough spot with Cubans in Florida when he has to explain that his conciliation initiative is about keeping the commies in power. Which brings us back to purpose is to slowly unwind communism - which brings us back to a thaw is bad.

I'm gonna have to pass on this one.

Curious comments form Gates and Israeli Prez Peres - to wit, attack on Iranian nuke sites out of the question. Gates point was that an attack wouldn't succeed, by which he seemed to mean wouldn't entirely abrogate Iranian nuke threat, and that the upshot would be everyone would hate the Jews [he's kidding, right?]; Peres just seemed to need to express his opinons that an attack was not going to happen, that they're committed to negotiations etc etc.

Israel has made it clear that they do not intend to let Iran get the bomb: they've run simulations, practiced refueling options, various leaders have stated openly or strongly inferred that only over their dead bodies would the Persians be allowed to develop nukes - and so Peres' statement is very odd and I have no explanation for it other than he felt the need to get his personal opinion out there for some reason. One could speculate that Israel was always bluffing and Peres speaking marked their new negotiating posture - but why now? Doesn't really make any sense. Could be the case but if so seems kind of ineptly managed, which leads me to believe it ain't the case.

Gates though - his comment about if they do it everyone will hate the Jews is flat out absurd and makes me think this is just the US wanting to get out in front of things so as to try and stay as clean as possible when the shit hits the fan. His second point about the attacks only slowing down and not stopping the nuke program seems to deliberately ignore the notions that one, Israel may be ok with that and two, the show of stength and resolve may be just as important to them as slowing down the program. Think about it: if they allow Iran to develop nukes after all they've said to the contrary then they are gonna look weak and everyone is gonna know that America has sided with Iran against Israel - that's to put it a bit too simply but in essence that would be the message. Does anyone really believe Israel is going to sit still for that? But consider it further: even if Israel does capitulate does that not create a dynamic that could prove just as dangerous? Israel will be chastened, it will look weak and somewhat isolated - it is therefore logical to expect that they will be extra motivated to exhibit strength against their perceived enemies. It is entirely plausible that by stopping Israel from attacking Iran because of fears of what devils could be unleashed you could be creating a scenario where those devils are unleashed regardless - in fact unleashed explicitly because Israel feels its very existence is in peril, the exact dynamic that pertains viz Iran.

Another thought as well: if US was really confident that Israel was going to be governed by them viz attack wouldn't they keep their mouths shut so as to keep up pressure on Iran? I mean, if you know Israel is not actually going to go through with it wouldn't the smart move be to leave the possibility in play? And, for a kicker, let's not forget that most of the Arab states in the region would be pleased if Israel took out Iran's nukes, although publicly they no doubt would make some show of outrage. Considering all these points makes me believe more likely attack will happen than not. Peres' statement can now be fit into a plausible scenario - misdirection, get the Iranians believing the game is going their way.

Having said all that I still find it hard to accept it will happen - and having said that logic still points to it happening - in fact Gates' comments have made the logic of it happening more convincing, not less.

To rethink my take on the F-22, and then to rethink the rethink - meaning, the program ostensibly has been cut, production stopped at 187, even though just a few months ago the Air Force declared they needed at least another 60: 10 squadrons of 24 planes each to fulfill needs of the 10 air expeditionary wings or forces - but after having done some reading up on the F-35 Lightning I decided that, even though the F-22 is a lot prettier to look at than the F-35, I felt I could live with the Raptor being canceled.

Then I read a disgruntled ex-airforce bigwig who basically agreed with my opinion that the best reason to keep the F-22 going was to nurture the the high end manufacturing it necessitates - in essence the Raptor drives the technology forward and America needs to be doing that else the edge will be lost. He also made some other interesting points about the role of the F-22 in AEFs and that no other plane can really fill that role and how the F-35 although a nice plane is still 5 years away from deployment, is untested, and even if it lives up to potential will not be able to fill the advance scout and destroy role that the F-22 was designed for.

And so I don't know what to think now - hard to know where political agenda ends and valid military argument begins. I do know the congress rushed through an 800 billion dollar stimulus plan that is at least half bull shit - some of that could have easily paid for those 60 extra planes - ah. let me see 60x140=8.4 billion, no? I mean, c'mon.

Obama kills some pirates [which the press for their own dubious reasons trumpet as a foreign policy success] and a military analyst wonders why Navy broke SOP by getting in so deep in the first place, to which I respond:

You seem to discount political calculation: Obama, in danger of looking weak given his agenda, must take advantage of opportunities to look strong especially if those opportunities comport with his agenda - likewise, given his agenda, he cannot afford to look weak should events conspire to force such a scenario upon him. To not do anything would have risked making him look weak - once they decided to escalate, the use of force given the intransigence of the pirates was virtually guaranteed because the only thing worse than the hostage being killed by pirates while stalked by a multi million dollar destroyer is having the pirates escape to shore with hostage while being stalked by multi million dollar destroyer - Obama is being lauded for showing resolve etc etc but fact is once escalated the choice is already made. The question is did Obama, possibly deluded by his own agenda, fully understand that? - because the big risk here of course is if the Somalis decide to call his bluff with a 'political' statement of their own and the situation starts to spin out of control - I have trouble seeing how it's to the brigands' advantage to pump up the volume, but then I'm not a Somali pirate.

update: appears that Somalis intend to call bluff seeing as how they've already assaulted four more ships, including an American flagged one - again, the important question here, if it was really against Navy SOP, and I have it from a good source that it was, the important question is why did the Navy decide to interdict? Did they force this decision upon Obama? did he force it upon them? or was it mutually agreed upon?

"...I'm not sure what Israel's refueling options are, I doubt anyone outside the IDF really does - although one assumes we have a pretty good idea of how such an attack would proceed beyond the auspices of American approval. But your claim that if they go through Iraq that 'we would stop them' is curious - we certainly could stop them, but that would be to cross a line that may prove as dangerous as allowing the attack to proceed since we would be emasculating Israel's defense profile and essentially not only giving the green light to Iran to do whatever it wants but also signaling to the rest of the Mideast that Israel's power is on the wane. This surely is the quite valid point of the Slate article: Israel is holding a very strong hand should it feel compelled to act unilaterally..."

Ah - see Europeans have rejected Obama's call for help re Afghanistan - not that there's anything shocking about that - what I'm wondering is if the big speech he gave in Strasbourg the day before being rejected by NATO, where he called for a brave new world free of nuclear armaments, I'm wondering if he was really serious about such an impossible and foolishly naive thing or whether it was just his way of saying 'Hey, my Euro brothers, the cowboys are back on the ranch and the good guys are running things again, so lets all smile and join hands and move the the great enlightenment forward - oh, and by the way, since we're all such good friends now, wouldn't mind some help blowing stuff up in Afghanistan'.

What I'm saying is, was he being a stooge in thinking it is possible or even wise to attempt getting the nuke genie back in the bottle or a stooge in thinking that by sounding all post-modern and progressive that he could somehow charm the Euros into getting their hands dirty in Afghanistan? Christ, I hope it ain't both.

update: appears now the Euros will be sending some help - but minor and only on the policing side, not war fighting - and so obviously this 'offer' was all along their fallback position so as to not look unreasonable.

Lil' Kim seems about set to launch a missile into space which Japan may choose to knock down but the US looks like they won't bother with - and the growing POV on the left is that to do nothing is the best option since Lil' Kim is playing to a domestic audience and an 'aggression' by America would suit Kim's purposes just fine - an argument that does have its merits but conveniently ignores fact that a successful launch of a missile into space will also play well to Kim's intended audience - in short the cloistered masses are going to be force fed a rousing nationalist message no matter the outcome.

A more vexing view of the issue though is to wonder if lil' Kim is merely playing to a domestic audience and we therefore do nothing then doesn't that at least create the possibility that Kim, given the absence of a belligerent American threat to rail against, will come off looking weak and foolish and if that's the case will he not then have ample motivation to up the ante? It's probably true that us shooting down the missile might for a moment serve Kim's purposes - but in the long term are not the benefits to be realized ours? We get to test our missile defense capabilities, we stunt NK's ambitions because if they can't test the technology they can't perfect it - yes, Kim will get to use the 'aggression' to stoke anti-Americanism but that is status quo and so is there really any use or sense to our response being swayed by it? In other words, one, we can't really know what Kim is up to, of what outcome best suits his purposes; and two, we can't really know what message he eventually feeds his oppressed people does us the most potential harm. Therefore our response should be based on strategic practicalities: if more benefits accrue from shooting it down then we should shoot the fucker down and not get caught up in a dubious game of trying to guess how Lil' Kim might try to exploit whichever outcome he's left with.

Having said that I suppose the argument against shooting the missile down is that such a 'provocation' would give Kim all the cover he needs to do some serious sabre rattling, actually mustering troops on the border etc etc, and since no sane person wants a war, even a small skirmish of a war breaking out on the peninsula - well, what you might end up with is Kim having even more leverage than he does already.

On the other hand, not shooting the missile down merely commits you to another round of meaningless rhetoric that will end, since China will not cooperate, with Kim getting what he wants. One view would be that no matter how frustrating this is it remains the safest approach. The other view would be that that this approach amounts to a sort of negative gradualism that ends up enabling what it imagines itself inhibiting: North Korea as a very dangerous and unstable nuclear proliferator and provocateur.  

Ya start to feel that all the countries out there calling for world wide, all encompassing regulations to be thrown over the global financial system are seeking refuge, not from economic crisis, but from their own anemia - you get the feeling that they see this as their opportunity to redraw the margins as a means to rationalize away their own weaknesses vis a vis the US... that this is their chance to cut the US down to something more 'manageable' and allow for the emergence of their longed for world government.

China on the other hand seems to see this crisis not as an excuse that explains away their mediocrity but rather as a vehicle that delivers more decidedly to the fore the looming threat of their immanent power. Europe essentially is in retreat and would like to take America with it, but for China the time apparently is now and the game it seems is very much on.

"... if you're uncertain about your feelings concerning the future that awaits us just ask yourself a simple question... how are ya gonna feel when China puts a man on the moon?... excited, joyful, proud even?... or troubled?... of course it's easy to accuse me of a pathetic Sinophobia or some irrational near racist fixation on the Asian threat... but the reality's a bit more complicated, isn't it?... once ya start thinking about the question..."