"... even though I'm feeling a lot of antagonism towards the smugness of the Democrats this election cycle, ya know, how they're all walking around as if Bush has fucked up so badly that everything they believe in is now incontrovertibly validated - even though that's true, I haven't gone Republican. It's simply that when I'm listening to a conservative, I'm comfortable knowing that he's lying to me and that he's comfortable knowing that he's lying to me: there's a nice symmetry there. Trouble with liberals is... I think they actually believe what they're saying. It's very disturbing..."

well, the bastards are at it again: another article about how McCain is playing on peoples subconcious fears regarding blacks. I mean, the Obama camp and its wretched acolytes and apologists in the press are shameless with this race baiting nonsense. They smeared Hillary with it [and her husband] but other than denying the reality of it she really couldn't counter attack since a significant section of Democrat primary voters were sympathetic to the black thing - hell, look what they did to Geraldine Ferraro: she simply pointed out the obvious, that a certain element of the left wing were in love with idea of electing a black president, and was labeled a racist. McCain will indeed have a freer hand when it comes to refuting this nonsense, but when the goal of the smear is to rouse subconscious sympathy for Obama by simply suggesting, no matter how tenuously, that any attack on him has a racist element to it - well, can you refute something like that? Suppose so - but will have to be smart about it.

Of course republicans have been doing the same to liberals for years over ideas of patriotism and support for the military etc - what's curious is how comfortable extreme elements of left wing are with turn around is fair play notion - that seems quite out of step with their purported ideals. Don't quite know what to make of that. Other than it worries me.

"... so she gets this salty look on her face and says to me 'Oh, you just don't like Obama because he's popular, you're such a dyspeptic bastard'. I thanked her for the compliment and pointed out that our relationship may have ended like a Nietzscheian whelp in the darkness - but at least it improved her vocabulary. Though not, apparently, her sense of humour, seeing how she stormed off leaving her current beau to sneer at me as if I were an undergrad or some such awful thing. I mean, of course I don't like the guy because he's popular. American Idol is popular. Bowling is popular. And if Hollywood starlets are preening and prattling over a thing, well, fuckin' eh, I'm goin' dyspeptic..."

See Israelis just conducted military run through of attack on Iranian nuke sites - large deployment of F-16s with fuel tankers on 900 mile trip over the Mediterranean, the exact distance to Iran's main nuclear facility. They did this so everyone with vested interest in Iran's nuclear ambitions would notice. Some have pointed out rightly that this is to send a message: we're prepared to stop this thing if no one else can. Nobody seems to be pointing out though that sending a message of this sort pretty much commits Israel to act on its implied threat should the problem persist: Israel has shown in its history that it really doesn't make idle threats, views them as dangerous, and that one would be foolish to doubt their resolve or imagine they're bluffing. No one seems to be noticing that with these maneuvers Israel has just upped the ante significantly. The remorseless logic of war will soon reach a point where its conclusions cannot be denied.

Interesting: Obama campaign defends efforts to 'shield' their candidate from press and photogs by playing victim card ie they have no choice but to closely guard his image since he has been so unfairly characterized in the past - it has nothing to do with trying to hide something, heavens no [undoubtedly only a racist would think something like that]. So when they moved two Muslim women wearing head scarves from out of the camera frame at recent speech, or when Obama met with national black leaders and photographers were not allowed access nor were the attendees allowed to talk to the press afterwards, well, you see, that was because Obama has been a victim of bias. Got to hand it to these people: they've mastered a Democrat version of bull shit to rival the Republicans' version. Now, I guess in one sense there's nothing wrong with that - after all, when in Rome etc etc - but that his supporters, who have railed against similar GOP tactics, do not seem troubled or even aware of this, that gets at the root of my apprehensions concerning Obama - people who not only inspire but actively seek out such blind devotion should give one pause.

Of course, a marginal counter argument could be that in any ostensibly free system the will of the people will always be somewhat blind by nature. I mean, one could argue that the only virtue of democracy is that it allows for the fact that its citizens do stupid things and exhibit poor judgment on a regular basis and therefore regular change is welcomed as a necessity and that openness in turn feeds the dynamism of the system - whereas closed systems on the other hand fail because they fear change. One could argue that - the key variable being that change does not inoculate the system against abuse, in fact, change can be a catalyst for abuse - and Obama is the change you can believe in candidate. You've been warned.

Related: David Brooks in the Times today points out, in reference to Obama opting out of public financing, in direct contradiction to everything he's said over the last few years, and rationalizing this move with some pretty specious arguments, Brooks points out that republicans fail to see what a ruthless political animal Obama is. Certainly, that's one of my theories concerning the guy: that he's essentially a charlatan lusting for power for whatever reasons and, if that's so, what becomes troubling is the question of why? Power for power's sake, possibly to appease some inner demon or as a reflection of an abiding arrogance? To implement a radical liberal agenda? His record is so thin it's impossible to know. Probably the later, given his political roots, but who the fuck knows. The point is, once you start connecting the dots on this guy red flags should be going off all over the place - assuming of course you're an objective observer. And there's the rub - to wit: reading one of the top left wing blogs to see what they have to say about Obama opting out and they essentially fall over themselves trying to avoid drawing obvious conclusion that Obama is not what they so desperately want to believe him to be [of course if what they're after is implementation of a radical left wing agenda no matter the cost then I guess, in a sense at least, that he's exactly what they want him to be].

Do the troops deserve or require unquestioning fealty in service of their mission? McCain argued something of that nature in thesis written just after release from Vietnamese prison, postulating that the reason he and those like him survived the ordeal was because they believed in the mission and had faith in their cause while those who capitulated to their captors no longer believed in the war nor the principles that put them in harms way. Liberals have objected to McCain's thesis.

Now, on the surface of it Liberal complaints seem reasonable - you certainly don't want the military running around untethered, free from oversight or objective analysis or public control: that would certainly be contrary to democratic principles, not to mention the constitution. Yet - there is an unreasonable constituent to a military ethos - hell, the entire command structure is based in large part on unquestioning fealty. And so? Obviously a delicate balance must exist and be maintained between a society and the military entrusted with protecting and preserving the rights and desires that define that society - which suggests to me that McCain is more right than he is wrong and liberals more wrong than they are right, insomuch that McCain seems to understand that there's an irrational component to the effective projection of power and liberals I think are not at all comfortable with that.

Which brings me to an interview Obama did with the Wall Street Journal regarding his views on the economy. What struck me was how reasonable and evenhanded he sounded, how educated he seemed, how open to suggestions he was without ever really getting into specifics on anything - and I realised this is why the educated class likes him so: they want to believe that their ideas matter and that the world is amenable to reason: avarice, lust, violence, ignorance - war - all those things threaten the world they want to believe in whereas Obama's dulcet tones makes it seem possible. No doubt why pampered youth clamour for him as well - he makes it all sound so sweet.

"... what was it he said? Something about how Iraqis don't use toilet paper and were fond of just dropping a deuce in any abandoned building regardless of American troops sleeping there - not as an affront, you understand, but because they didn't really see anything wrong with it. Jesus fuck the christ. If they were bad shots they would say that's God's will and not bother practicing. He said when he walked patrols with a geeky looking fellow officer the Iraqis would never listen to the geek because he didn't look threatening enough, even if he was just trying to be helpful: you wanted them to stop shittin' in your billet you had to get mean. They were like children, children you didn't want to share a space with, and that lead to a lot of bad policy at first, a lot of needless violence and half-assed efforts. Obviously he wasn't particularly optimistic about the situation but agreed with McCain: with grunts finally figuring out the culture of these people it'd be idiotic to leave now, cause without a strong hand to guide them they could go wrong in a very ugly way..."

Got first hand look last night at what's at the root of the Obama phenomenon. A group of people were hanging around the restaurant for drinks and chatter, thirty something types, and they were going on with worshipful exaggeration about The Chosen One - most of which could be reduced - rendered may be the better verb - down to: He's gonna change everything. I laughed and said in so many words you mean because he's black. They protested and started throwing around some vague set of beliefs ostensibly defining a nebulous idealism. I laughed and said ah, you mean because he's black and quite liberal. They protested and, like true Obama fans, suggested that maybe I was a racist. I laughed and said not at all; I'd support a Colin Powell presidency, not Condelezza though, she was a fuck up as the NSA. They looked a bit confused with that, troubling acronym no doubt, then stumbled into some pronouncements on the whole new world order of hope vs racist conservatives rant. I laughed and said but I already said I'm not a racist, nor a conservative for that matter; I'd vote for Powell - the key here is you wouldn't nor would you be all awash with excitement if Powell were the one breaking the colour barrier here. It's because Obama intimates support for the ultra left wing shibboleths you idiots hold so dear to your hearts and is a black man to boot who conveniently speaks with the calming appeal of a white academic thus allowing you to safely imbue him with all kinds of new agey bring the world together bullshit, that's what's got you all excited. He's the perfect vessel to fill to the brim with your noxious liberal brew of sentimentality, shallow idealism and shoddy thinking. That kind of killed the conversation and I wandered off.

These people were all in their 30's, were college educated with pretty good jobs, were in relationships but not married, had dogs but no kids, liked to smoke pot, a lot from what I could tell, liked to sit around bars and restaurants talking nonsense with like minded friends. Read into that what you will.

"... I'm telling ya, Olmert will step down as PM, a hawk will replace him and Israel will bomb Iranian nuclear installations before the US election in November - not just to forestall the Persians plans and ambitions but also to deny Obama the US presidency... they'll risk a war to stop a bigger war... it'll get that bad..."

"... Bernoulli asked that a logarithmic spiral be placed on his tombstone but the engraver, a simple man no doubt, stuck an Archimedian one on there instead, implying therefore not the intricacies of infinity and the beauty of nature but rather the boredom of routine. I imagine that's god's way of saying fuck you and your number theory: I'll allow a certain amount of meddling in my affairs but you cross the line and I'll fuck you: it's still my show..."