Tom Ricks objects to the phrase 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and I respond:

"... I'm not going to defend Cheney on torture... even though it's clear you paint over the fact that it's a much more complicated issue than your bias allows for... still, it's misleading to dump on him without raising the likelihood that Cheney's support for EIT is more rhetorical than literal... you assume, conveniently, that Cheney is a blood thirsty Inquisitor, whereas the reality is he no doubt believes there is value in the projection of strength, even if at times that strength presents itself in unsavory, even somewhat irrational terms... it's disingenuous on your part not to wonder if that is indeed Cheney's real motive here... but of course it serves your political bias better to act as if he's evil incarnate..."

"... furthermore, Tom, what language do you suggest be used to define interrogation techniques that fall into a grey zone? Are you suggesting there isn't or shouldn't be a grey area? Because that would be pretty naive - you can't entertain the thought that maybe Cheney's engorged rhetoric is a push back against such naive political correctness? Our military employs something of a euphemism when it comes to 'grey areas' - special operations. You have a problem with that as well? SOCOM pushes the boundaries between right and wrong, between appropriate and inappropriate, because that's the nature of war. Are you saying that those charged with interrogating terrorists should not be afforded similar license? It's clear to me Cheney's bluster is not about wanting to waterboard every SOB who passes through Gitmo - it's simply push back against the sentimental logic of the left... a logic which, as seen in the proposed trial of KSM, sounds pleasant in theory but proves a disaster in practice..."

Did speculate several weeks ago that wouldn't surprise me if Obama had already lost interest in being president [if it was all about ego and image, of being lionized as the first black president and the money shot of liberal wet dreams everywhere, why now endure the slings and arrows of actually holding the office in difficult and uncertain times that can only serve to diminish that image?] and possibly contemplating with some relish the idea of either losing in 2012 or making a Johnson-like departure and then blaming his defeat/departure on backward thinking republicans and a political system too flawed and limiting for the great purpose he asked of it, only to be reborn on the world stage as the one thing he has any real interest in being: Cynosure of the left, celebrity incarnation of grand causes, giver of stirring speeches that vaguely promise much while accomplishing very little [but conveniently paying exceedingly well].

Sure enough, in recent interview he suggested he'd have no problem with being only a one term president. Given the sparse amount of info and observation that have fed my Obama conjectures I find myself a little shocked about how well I seem to have nailed him. Must mean I'm quite wrong, oddly gifted - or the failure of the press as a whole to subject the man to a proper regimen of dispassionate scepticism has created the false impression of some complex puzzle in need of explication.

New age European theorists believed the EU was an expression of a coming post-nation state reality - but the unspoken implication was that they were really talking about a post-democracy world, at least democracy as we have known it. But what if China is a truer expression of a new reality - a truer, more practical, more cunning expression of it? Doesn't the EU then become a laughable after thought, an impotent, unworkable appendage to that reality? And where would that leave America? Isolated and left to either fade in the face of the Chinese threat or to lash out against it on its own? Certainly, the EU's inability to solve Greece's insolvency problem to the satisfaction of its three main players - Britain, France and especially Germany - suggests the EU may not be viable in the long term as an economic powerhouse, and if that's the case, what is it then? It has no heft politically, culturally or militarily - if it's not an economic difference maker, what is it? A quaint idea to amuse the fantasies of irrelevant intellectuals?

"... grumpy? Not nearly grumpy enough relative to the provocation. Given the unimpeachable logic of Friedman's drop a bomb, build a school theory of diplomacy I imagine by the time we defeat radical Islam we'll have engendered a pervasive Bloomsbury aura to float across the Arabian peninsula - we'll know we've won when the editorial board of The New York Times sits down in the shade of a palm with newly enlightened Imams to chew qat and discuss the narrative techniques of Henry James. Maybe Raytheon and General Atomics can sponsor the event..."

The growing peevishness between China and the US - over arms sales to Taiwan, the Google hack and a general lack of respect for intellectual property rights, the artificial valuation of the yuan that stacks trade surpluses and undercuts competitiveness all in China's favour [although China would argue that since a lot of that cash ends up in the American treasury China therefore not the only beneficiary] [though some economists would argue that all that Chinese cash floating around was like gas to the flames of the housing boom and therefore current economic malaise at least in part the fault of the artificially valued yuan] - whatever - many commenting on this sniping between the two giants - some saying it's just typical Chinese grousing in public about things that annoy them - some saying it's China feeling its oats as a rising super power and that they now feel a little arrogance is justified - some say Obama is setting up concessions that eventually can be made in order to secure China's support viz Iranian sanctions [delusional I say if so] - and some saying it's time the US abandon Taiwan and embrace with goodwill the 'new hope' that is today's China.

My opinion? As long as you believe [as I do] that the gigantic state owned corporation that China essentially is will never willingly expose itself to the unpredictable dangers of democracy nor learn to abide the fickle affections of a truly open society and therefore hold that the somewhat loosely defined and at times awkward spirit of cooperation that presently exists between America and China is more likely than not destined because of fundamental differences to wear thin no matter the latter's economic vigour or continuing embrace of a species of capitalism [in fact one would guess exactly because of those two things] -  believing that you as America continue to push back against the inchoate nature of the Middle Kingdom but in ways that are reasonably calibrated and strategically nuanced  - you for sure stand by your allies in the Pacific, absolutely do not telegraph a naive weakness by abandoning Taiwan and never take your foot off the gas as far as military expenditures go. In short, work with China when possible, show them the hand when necessary and don't take anything for granted [as in capitalism naturally leads to democracy].  Simple as that.

Essentially, then, my view on how the US should approach evolving relations with China depends on whether you believe it will transition peacefully into a democracy or resist the democratic imperative and constituent norms and conventions of an open society and entrench itself deeper as an oligarchy fueled by a gov't run capitalism. To imagine a peaceful transition is to engage in wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned - logically I only see two realistic scenarios: grievance by the poor and the young and frictions caused by trying to suppress the freedoms capitalism by its nature seeks out lead to eventual social upheaval that results in the emergence of a proto-democracy that may with help succeed in crawling forward or may prove phony [as in Russia] or too weak to survive, collapsing back into a more severe iteration of a the status quo; or that status quo simply continuing on - except bigger and more powerful and more ambitious and more aggressive, inevitably leading to, because the dynamic of competing interests, complicated by divergent means and expectations, cannot be contained, conflict with India or the US or both. Tailor words and deeds accordingly.

[hows does the the apparent rejection by Chinese movie goers of much promoted [mandated] biopic of Confucius, which endorses submission to authority, in favour of Avatar, which glorifies rebellion in the service of individual rights, alter my thinking here? It doesn't - I only contend that there's no necessary connection between capitalism and the emergence of democracy and an open society - never mind a viable democracy - and my main point is that regardless of what the people want the vast, omnipresent bureaucracy that runs China will be the big loser should democracy emerge and therefore why on earth would they embrace it? They'll fight it tooth and nail - therefore, you either get social upheaval or propagation of the status quo held together by various controlling mechanisms, one of which may turn out to be citizens themselves who balk at the changes, some unpleasant and disquieting, that democracy forces on the individual]

Gays in the military - Jesus, is this conversation really necessary? When I scanned MSNBC's home page this morning why was a story about a highly placed US security official declaring the certainty of a large scale al Qaida attack sometime in the next six months placed below a story about gays in the military? Why? The political arm of the gay mafia [oh, c'mon - that's scurrilous] has done a very good job, an exceptional job of making supposed injustices committed by brutish heterosexuals against enlightened homosexuals the most important civil rights cause - hell, human rights cause of the last fifty years. Kudos to them: I am now considered beneath contempt for entertaining the thought that although the idea of spousal privileges for gay couples makes adequate sense, the notion of gay marriage, that pretends that there is no practical, cultural, historical, sociological or epistemological differences dividing homosexual vows from heterosexual ones, is a logical absurdity. If there's no difference between gay and straight marriages then what you're really saying is that marriage is about love - in which case, why should the gov't be involved at all? But of course the gov't is involved and that's because marriage in its heterosexual manifestation isn't about love but has always been about social stability and the making of babies [making you understand - not adopting or creating in a test tube but a seminal, random, unique and often inexplicable rutting between male and female, full of existential mystery and dread and ignorance and implied but barely noticed burdens, that ends with a fertilized egg].

I'm straying - my point is that it is that very political skill and acumen and zeal that gay rights activists have displayed that worries me as far as gays in the military goes - the military is about winning wars, not promoting limited or marginal political or social agendas - it's about optimal performance in extremely stressful circumstances in order to secure vital and far reaching strategic concerns - if the adept political operatives of the gay rights movement try to impose a largely irrelevant agenda on an organization that is extremely relevant, then that would be a bad thing. What I'm saying is, gays in the military per se? Sort of but don't really have a problem with that. Gay political activism and a representative agenda thereof either operating in or encroaching on the military? Big problem. [example: feminism - women are allowed in the military but kept by and large from combat, from fighting on the front lines - what if feminists were outside military bases protesting this de facto discrimination? The military would be forced to indulge an agenda that had nothing at all to do with its central function and promised nothing that would enhance the effectiveness of combat operations, in fact would most likely have the opposite effect. I think most reasonable people can understand how that would be a bad thing. Now, feminists, for various reasons, some quite obvious, have never taken up this challenge - but would gay activists be likewise inclined should the military piss them off or enact procedures and practices they don't agree with? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. Sure, it's easy to exaggerate the concern, but that doesn't mean it's not justified - male bonding in combat situations adheres to fairly ritualized norms - I'm pretty sure the word 'faggot' and other inappropriate epithets and actions and insinuations are a regular and popular feature of this ritual - what happens when the now openly gay guy in the company complains, possibly to an outside agency? This is hardly an outrageous scenario - and when the politically correct, who have never even been in a football locker room never mind on a battlefield, involve themselves and suggest soldiers shouldn't be behaving this way? Well, then you got yourself a problem - and for what? To promote the dubious cause of gay rights - a cause which, even if one chooses to view it favourably or as noble, when considered objectively doesn't really need to be fucking with the military in order get what it wants - unless of course what it wants is for homosexuality to be seen as no different from heterosexuality - an existential absurdity as far as I'm concerned - but if the case brings me back to original point: it's the aggressive zeal of gay activists that concerns one].

Again, again - Blair, in testifying before British witch hunt re Iraq war and how the hell did you get us into this mess you bad bad man etc etc say you're sorry, beg our forgiveness etc etc - in testimony Blair states that Iran presents a similar situation and the West should remain open to a military intervention - and of course everybody goes nuts crying you loathsome, war mongering bastard! Just how vile a beast are you that you can even think such a thing?!

Ok, I'm gonna say this just one more time [a silly rhetorical invocation since no one is reading this]: there are scenarios, chains of events that can unfold if you use a military strike to interdict Iran's nuclear ambitions that are bad; likewise, there are scenarios, chains of events that can unfold if you choose not to use a military strike to interdict Iran's nuclear ambitions that are bad. There's a lot of bad here no matter which way you look - an objective and rational observer must conclude that if you close your mind to the military option you're allowing fear or an ideological predetermination to cloud your judgment and that could come back to haunt just as surely as being too open to the visceral satisfaction of simply pulling the trigger.

In short, there is no obviously right answer when it comes to Iran yet people all across the political spectrum [although predominantly on the left] are consistently declaiming as if there is. To me, that spells trouble. If that's the point Blair was trying to make I entirely agree with him.

I was struck by Obama going before republicans at GOP get together and engaging in an open forum with them - and not for the reasons most are commenting on, how it was a cunning move on Obama's part etc etc - I mean, it was that, yes, but I'm struck by republicans not seeming to realise or being slow to realise that Obama was doing this precisely because he felt strongly the advantage would be his - they played into his hands - did none of them note that he just brought the man who guided his slick campaign back into the fold to help burnish his dulling image? The republicans treated this as if it were just some respectful give and take but the reality was Obama was getting back to the one thing he's really good at: selling an image - which I'd label as suave intelligence that telegraphs to the average voter reasonable moderation with a hint of affability. It's all bullshit, of course - but they bought it, or at least, that's the impression one is left with. Yes, power is daunting and demands respect - no one wants to be seen berating or bad mouthing or even simply arguing with the president - but of course that's the dynamic Obama is exploiting in order to sell the image!

Possibly I'm over-estimating the one and under-estimating the other - but when Obama claimed, in a very personable and reasonable way, that he's no ideologue if you're in that audience you have to immediately understand you're being played because given his record he either is an ideologue or he has no coherent control over his agenda and has allowed ideologues to co-opt it - certainly independent voters are of the growing opinion that he is or they fear he is an ideologue. Once he says something like that he's thrown you a challenge that if not immediately contested beats you down - and sure enough the one sound bite you heard over and over again on the news was reasonable Obama declaring that he's no ideologue. He wins, you lose. The thing to do would have been to ask if he's no ideologue why then is there a growing sense among independents that he is? The only way for him to answer that question is to either interpret the polls in a very narrow way and you can then attack him on that, or to blame republicans for painting a false picture of him - in other words, to defend himself against charges of being a left wing ideologue by ascribing the smear to right wing ideologues, a circuitous argument that gets you nowhere - unless of course it goes uncontested. You get into a game of presumed reasonableness with Obama and he's gonna win - that's how he beat Hillary, she needed to get tough with him and was at her best when getting tough but because she feared [with good reason] alienating the ultra left wing of the party who adored Obama she had to reel it in and play nice - she's not good at nice, but even if she were you're still being forced to play to Obama's strength and simply by conceding that ground you lose - the whole allure of Obama was this persona of smooth and reasonable intelligence matched to a naive idealism conjured up by his race. Agree to a game of softball with him and you're not gonna win. [oddly enough, say what you will about her, but Sarah Palin seemed to understand this and wanted badly to play hardball with Obama, something the McCain camp adamantly refused to do - which makes me wonder if Sarah indeed does possess some rather keen political instincts] [understand this is not an endorsement of Sarah - her continuing cavort through the playhouse of American politics does fascinate, but in the end still stirs up more fear than anything else]

Axelrod, speaking of the president, tells the Washington Post: "This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity." That's got to be a joke, but the message is clear: President Obama and his men are a lot smarter than the average voter.

That little epiphany regarding the prevailing zeitgeist of the administration from Taranto at the WSJ in amusing article about the rising number of frustrated liberal elitists stepping up to peevishly hurl insults at the American electorate for displaying such ignorance in their rejection of the Obama agenda a mere year after that very same intelligentsia sang choruses of praise to that very same electorate for having the wisdom and insight and greatness of spirit to apparently sign off on and utterly give themselves up to the deification of the cherished Obama.

This is the very thing I found fault with when Obama was first championed by the uber left, after the 2004 keynote address, as their chosen one - a religiously themed put down of Obama that has definitely grown stale but still gets the point across, ie that the devotion to this man was utterly delusional, based more on the idealistic and indeed emotional needs of the believers than on any empirical reality belonging to the thing so fervently believed in - and this pathology presented itself in over emphasizing Obama's putative intelligence - so clearly an irrational and fantastical reaction against Bush and so clearly lacking in any realistic or coherent or nuanced or thoughtful or practical conception of what it means to lead something as complex and unwieldy and strategically vital as the United States of America - Cicero has his place, but god forbid you allow yourself to believe he can adequately play at being a Caesar.

This populist reasoning roused in support of the bank tax and repeated again in the SOTU speech last night is annoying, galling even, no? I don't necessarily disagree with elements of the bank tax or with certain aspects of it that may prove sensible, but this populist bullshit that fat cat bankers should be made to payback the honest taxpayers who bailed them out is nonsense - one, the way Obama is touting the tax suggests its main purpose is to continue an anti-big business scapegoating of bankers and I don't see how that's good for the economy; and two, the money will not be going to pay down in any substantial way some nebulous debt owed the taxpayer but rather is just a shake down of big money that at best puts a small dent in the fiscal profligacy of a liberal agenda, the real culprit here [well, that's to overstate things a bit, but Obama has been spouting anti-big business, anti-rich 'special interests' since he came to office as if the public and the gov't had nothing at all to do with the financial crisis and I think in a deep recession where confidence in the business environment is shot, where major newspapers are running headlines that ask 'is this the end of capitalism?', I think to throw oil on that fire is/was utterly foolish - as well I think that an anti-business, pro-gov't intervention prejudice inspired the muddled incoherence of the stimulus package, a misbegotten bastard child that right from the get go contributed to the perception, among taxpayers and the business community, that the system was coming undone - and then the blind arrogance of throwing a monstrous and monstrously expensive health care reform bill on top of that? - yeah, I don't think it's out of line to say the profligacy of a liberal agenda is much more of a problem here than fat cat bankers - which of course is not to suggest there wasn't a serious breakdown in the business model - I'm just saying the liberal approach to a correction has often done more harm than good].

[update: in keeping with a delusional conceit of mine that imagines myself as being out in front of things in general WSJ publishes op-ed basically making same point as me, that this populist cage rattling over big money is shallow, disingenuous and counter-productive - writer alluding to FDR who she claims tried the same myopic tactic in the 30s only to watch business continue to lie dormant with big money sitting on the sidelines, at least until WWII came along to scare everyone straight - don't know how true that is]