Obama says our "combat troops" will be out of Iraq by 2011.
I do not believe it. I will believe it when I see it.
50,000 troops will remain past 2010. The status of forces agreement, finalized during the Bush Administration (Obama, as always, takes narcissistic credit saying: I have decided on a timetable... uh . WRONG, Barry. W's team signed off on the timetable.) demands all troops out by December 2011. We shall see. It stretches credulity to think that we will exit if the country is not stable. The definition of stable here is "oil flows unimpeded to the West." Any threat to oil production will keep up there.
Two things are possible here:
1. Obama knows he has the big Mo now and will have less as time marches on - so he's "keeping promises" left and right. Or, rather, he's rhetorically keeping promises, that he knows he can't actually keep. If Iraq sinks into chaos or partial chaos his Iraq announcement positions him as "the guy who, at least, tried." National security will demand further American presence - at which time Obama will make a serious speech about "Commanders on the ground advising him" etc etc.
2. Obama is willing to leave Iraq regardless weeks before the New Hampshire primary of 2012. He's assuming - or hoping - all will be well there...by then. If it is not he'll blame the previous Admin and say we've done enough. Most Americans hate this war. The implication of ceding Iraq to hell for Americans won't be fully evident until after November 2012 - and by then...another 4 years will have been purchased.
He's my bet: The status of forces agreement will be reworked. 50,000 non combat troops (there is no such thing, FYI) will stay. BHO can then take credit for slashing troop levels, keeping Iraq stable, and defending American interests (oil). The Left wing of the Democratic Party is much less important to incumbent Democrats. Chances are slight he'll have a legitimate opponent on the Left in 2012. He does not need to work them into a frenzy - they will be irrelevant, as they were in 1996.
Finally, Afghanistan is his war and he knows it. The best way to look at this announcement is as a confirmation that he his moving the focus of our involvement in the region - not lessening it. If, as is very likely, Afghanistan and large portions of Pakistan have disintegrated, no sane American President will abandon bases in nearby Iraq. (I realize this may not include the current American President.)
The thrust of American policy since 9/11 (and probably before) has been to ensure American dominance in the region. This has not changed.
BHO's budget takes an unexpected sharp left turn. (Though, I don't buy it yet. Seems they started as far left as they could go, without immediate destruction of the markets, to give themselves plenty of space to march back to the middle. Don't blame them. This is good politics.) Still, in many ways Obama is very much the natural successor to Bush 2. Even Keith Olbermann - Barry's loudest salad tossin sycophant - recently did a tentative piece on President Limosine Liberal Love Doll's support of Bush's polices.
With that, here is Rentarainbow's list of GWB policies continued and embraced by BHO. Fake Limo Liberal Obama Pod people - beware: your head may explode at any moment. Please be polite. Read this list away from children, the elderly and normal, thinking people.
Why does Obama support Bush's policies?
by Rentarainbow ----------------------------------------------
To date, we know Obama has RETAINED and supports these Bush policies:
(1) warrantless wiretapping of American citizens
(2) legal immunity for the telecoms giants that spied on us without warrants
(3) still prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
(4) is continuing the rendition of "enemy" prisoners to foreign countries (where they can be tortured)
(5) has decided prisoners in America's Bagram military prison (in Afghanistan) have NO rights that he must respect
(6) uses the ruse of "state secrets" to terminate trials against those who are accused of torturing prisoners
(7) plans to destroy Social Security while calling it "reforming" Social Security
(8) nominates tax cheats and lobbyists to run government agencies
(9) refuses to allow prisoners in American jails to use DNA evidence to prove their innocence (even if they pay for the tests)
(10) uses fear to get his way by rushing legislation through Congress
(11) without Congressional authorization, Obama has ordered the bombing of a country we are NOT at war with (Pakistan)
(12) is stonewalling media requests for access to court records in the ongoing Guantanamo detainee litigation.
- - - - (Save this list and add to it as the days and weeks go by.)
Sorry all. Comments are not loading. I will be skipping the evening post for now. no comments is no fun. I'll post as soon as this is resolved. UPDATE FROM HALOSCAN: Update 1: Users can now view comments, but can not add or edit comments. This will take up to 24 hours to restore.
In the meantime sink your teeth into this little piece of Manchurian Candidate deliciousness. Cinie and Cannonfire are digging deep. I wish this conspiracy did not make so much sense. But, alas, it fits perfectly and is, of course, all about oil.
Photo: Iphone shot of a sign in Downtown LA. I find it near to poetry. I want someone to write an opera around this sign. A love story between "hamburger" and "Chinese" interrupted by "taco" induced societal chaos - or vice versa - or who cares...The grand clash of cultures on the Pacific rim - glued together by the mysterious, omnipresent, all powerful, "ATM".
Really Cold War. Polar nations (that includes the U.S.) maneuvering for Arctic Oil.
Okay, not to into the Bash Jindal Express here. As a long time observer of that party - it was clear a while ago Jindal was a dud. The GOP brown delusion. He was never anything but a "look we have brown people, too" front for the GOP men, whose castration fears pique around Palin. I am always glad to see Rush and the social conservatives get slapped around. Wish the GOP would embrace the Moderates and Libertarians. Regardless, of Obama's chatter - there is some space opening up at the Moderate Table in Club America. Also- as for the sub contest between the Libertarians and the Social conservatives in the GOP ...it is past time the libertarians got some love and for the Falwell Freaks to Go to the Back of the Bus.. This would open the GOP to new energy. But the Dobson nuts would have to shut up for an election cycle or two. For now the GOP is stuck. Odd but true: Palin is the only person I see out there that could pull off embracing the libertarian energy, and neutering the social conservatives while keeping their votes. Maybe Jeb B - (not a good choice for the obvious reasons. Though, by 2012 another, smarter Bush might be viable. Yes, Obama could end up being THAT bad.) Romney: maybe but he is just so...uh...icky...
Anyway, this is kinda funny. Obama says he's gonna fix everything...details to come...
Quote: Men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love...
William Shakespeare- As You Like It (Rosalind at IV, i)
Music: In deference to the LA cultural mash up above. I throw a little more in to the wood chipper. Dick Dale's Surf Hava Nagila.
Living as I do in the second largest Spanish speaking city on earth, Los Angeles, I interact and live with many Mexican-Americans and Mexicans. Rather happily, I'll add. Mexican cultural contributions to my city are incalculable, and probably the largest influence - more so than "North American" influence. Not to mention the backbone. Until the recent crash one could, quite truthfully, state that many of the jobs held by the Hispanic underclass would not be done by others. This is not new in the American experience. Immigrants, legal or not, grab the low rung.
I no longer think others are not be available for the low rung labor jobs. Everyone is spooked. The shift in my neighborhood, Koreatown, in the last 6 months is palpable. Not long ago I never heard English in the neighborhood markets, only Korean and Spanish. Now English is as normal as Spanish. No, all the second language graduates did not suddenly invade. English speakers have been priced out of richer parts of town. (Mostly white, but not all. Black Americans are rolling downhill, too.)
I don't participate in the immigration wars much. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have it wrong. Conservatives demonize Mexicans and Mexican culture in a way I find reprehensible. Fear of the "other" oozes whenever I hear a talking head pop off about "illegals". From my observation, few cultures have a work ethic as embedded as Mexican culture. Certainly American culture is much more beholden to the "something for nothing" ethic now, bromides about the Puritans not withstanding.
Liberals are, as usual, in their own sort of denial. A victim is found (immigrants)- and all rational thought leaves the discussion. Of course, sovereign nations have the duty to protect their borders. Duh.
Further, Mexican migrants in the Southwest are not at all the same as Irish migrants during the potato famine. Yelping "We are a nation of immigrants" is...well...dumb and beside the point. Mexico is different from Ireland for the most obvious reason - Mexico is right there. There is no ocean between us and them. An immigrant is not cut off from the homeland in the same sense. Certainly a migrant is a foreigner here. But vast swatches of Los Angeles are, for all intents and purposes, Mexican. People and commerce move back and forth in a kind of nether land. Mexifornia. Irish, German, Indian, Italian immigrants had no such experience. When they left their homelands, THEY LEFT.
That's a weather report, not a judgement. It is what is. Which is why I find the implosion of Mexico the most under reported story of the new year. The collapse of Mexico is a real possibility and not one American leader (including my favorite, SOS Clinton) seems remotely concerned with it. Northern Mexico is a few steps this side of civil war. A breakdown of Mexico would unleash a "humanitarian disaster" to use the hackneyed phrase. And not on our doorstep - in our living rooms. Why is next to no one discussing this?
Quote: Bill S. speaks about the phenomenon of throwing people under the bus:
But 'tis a common proof That lowliness is young ambition's ladder, Whereto the climber upward turns his face; But when he once attains the upmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend.
- William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Brutus at II, i)
Of course Obi made a good speech on Tuesday. He almost always gives good speech. This is not new or remarkable. This is his strong suit as a politician. His "strong speeches" should be expected. The downside is that his passion on the podium does not match reality on the ground.
The weirdest part of his rhetoric last Tuesday was the gulf between the man who forced the unread stimulus/debt bill two weeks ago on us was, with a glint in his eye and a grim look on his mug, now telling us we must cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Obama.
But, doubling back, he then he forcefully moved on to a laundry list of plans. All of which, one presumes, are not free. All the while telling us he does not like Big Government. It makes the head spin.
How and why should we trust this man? He's broken a slew of promises - but continues to glide on to the next speech, the next event, the next airing of the Obama show, unscathed and clearly not troubled.
My theory is that Obama is closer in personality to Hugo Chavez than Ronald Reagan. Psychologically, there is a need to be present at all times. A need to be adored. The inauguration was followed by a campaign style push for the stimulus, rallies and all included, followed by a prime time presser, followed this week by a prime time speech in the easiest major venue on earth. In between was a one day summit on Monday. As if some thing could get done in one day, other than a group reach around of THE ONE.
Will Obama continue this way? Making himself present at all times - invading the prime time airwaves every week? Chavez does in Venezuela.
(Noquarter notes an obvious indicator of his narcissism here. He never mentioned his own cabinet, the Supreme Court, or you and me. This is a small , but telling, detail. We matter to the degree that we adore him. Pods know this instinctively. It is why they attack so viciously. As for me, I simply can not trust a man who is never humble. Funny how much Lincoln gets thrown around by Obama since they share only a home state. Lincoln's fuel as a leader was his humility. Obama's is his narcissism.)
But Obama is not an empty suit. Not at all. He intends to rework the landscape of the U.S., as Chavez has in Venezuela. Barry and Michelle do have an idea of the way things should be. They just rarely come totally clean on what those plans are. By default, he is less mysterious than he was a month ago. But not by much. He really is W's better, smarter, off spring. Doublethink with style.
This is not your father's Orwell.
Think I am wrong? Fine. I certainly could be. But ask one simple question. Who pays? I make no apologies for my old school liberalism. I want the Federal government to do more than the average conservative. LBJ and FDR never neglected the simple question: Who pays? The answer was - we do and the rich pay more. Many did not like that answer, but it was an answer. Social Security, Head Start, the TVA, Nixon's EPA, Eisenhower's interstate highways - all Big Government. All good.
So who pays? We are sitting around a table at an expensive restaurant. The head of the table has just ordered a lovely, expensive meal. Here's our secret: No one at the table brought their wallets. No one has a dime in their pocket. Including the man who just ordered.
Regardless of the calls for sacrifice, he's banking on something for nothing. Why shouldn't he? It has worked so far.
History, as it always does, has other plans for Obama. At best, he'll be our Gorbachev. Scrambling to rewrite the rules of a system that has become untenable. As I've said before, I do not think we can or should "get through this." This is what brought us to the brink.
First off : let the current HBO campaign for Real Time with Bill Maher be the death knell of the the Hope poster ripoffs. Please. Maher has forced that creepy little piece of creepiness to jumpeth the sharketh.
Second: Someone needs to say this, HE'S NOT FUNNY. He delivers Leno's rejected jokes then hosts a round table of largely pointless blather. The hook being that it is "live", though the guests often seem to be anything but...
Third: He is a TOOL. Sorry kidz, but there ain't nothing new or interesting coming out of this guy's mouth. He's a run of the mill, cocktail party circuit, Obama, Limousine liberal. New ground has not been broken on Real Time in a while. Here's what HBO likes: It's cheap to make. Really cheap. Cheap, while maintaining an aura of being relevant, though it is clearly not.
Finally: He's tacky - as he proved beyond the shadow of a doubt when he griped about his mean little Doco not being nominated while presenting the Best Doco Award at the Oscars.
Poll: Obama below 60%. Revolt: Soldier says, "He's not my commander." Turd: Jindal clears way for Palin in 2012. No links, just thoughts: 1. Do you think stroking BHO's dainty ego is a job requirement for White House employment? It does seem as fragile as ever. 2. Do you think we will hear about W's drinking over the past few years? If W stayed sober the entire 8 years I would be stunned. Getting better: After President OBummer speaks market only drops 80 points the next day! Things are looking up! Keep Hope alive!
Wonderful Music: Steve Wonder gets The Gershwin Award for popular songwriting Thursday night. I love this man. I am seriously.
Different morning post that usual. Shakespeare is my secular god. I am an open Bard worshiper. Harold Bloom is my personal go to critic for a number of reasons. His clear headed understanding of the poison of resentment victim theories in academia is always refreshing and helpful. When Bloom writes about a play - he writes about the play. Not "social justice."
I paraphrase Bloom: Whenever a director tries to illuminate a Shakespeare play with a currently fashionable idea - the play illuminates the idea, not the other way a round. Whenever we go, Shakespeare has been there first.
Bloom rightfully understands that the only sane stance to take when approaching Shakespeare is awe. Once the largely imaginary and self imposed fear of reading the language is overcome, an endless bounty of humanity is waiting, actually demanding, attention.
Though by no means a literary critic or even all that well versed - I can find no fault whatsoever with Bloom's contention that Shakespeare invented us. That is, how we perceive our own consciousness in the West and our relationship to ourselves comes from the plays. The Bible and Koran not withstanding. Both books being about our relationship to God. Shakespeare's major characters do not change because the "gods" or any outside event changes them. They change because they overhear themselves. And listen. Much of what they hear is ugly, some beautiful, all true. "To be or not to be" predates "I think, therefore I am" and is its antecedent.
The 20th century belongs to Freud. (I suspect the 21st has long since been claimed by Einstein and his off spring.) Yet a Freudian interpretation of Hamlet is not possible in reality. Freud was obsessed with Shakespeare. The proper starting point is to attempt a Shakespearean analysis of Freud - as Bloom posits. Freud did not "discover" the unconscious. He read Hamlet and Macbeth. And at the very least, Cleopatra, Anthony being a lesser light in that play.
At any rate, my mind is well equipped for scavenging, not deep intellect. (I scavenge, therefore I blog.) The Bloom portion of the Charlie Rose show is the first 20 minutes. He reminds us that academia can and should be about curiosity and the pursuit of understanding. Not what it is now, factory farms for victims.
A reader sent this post in response to my post on Holder and race below. As always I enjoy receiving comments, thoughts, and posts - if you have something to say on (nearly) anything please send it along. John@liberalrapture.com
Moving On, While Not Forgetting.
By Roberta
I think you bring up many excellent and pertinent points in your Better Things to Do, post, J-SOM.
Slavery and racism are a part of America's history. That sin will be a blot on our history forever. It is also a blot on many civilization's and many country's histories. The history of mankind is rife with man's inhumanity to man.
But in defense of America, and as far as I know, we are the only nation that was born with the proposition that,"All men are created equal." And our history since then has been a movement to try and reach that ideal. And since man is a fallen angel, or is imperfect, sometimes that movement has been slow, plodding, and imperfect.
But hot-damn, many, if not most people in America, have tried, especially since the sixties and Martin Luther King to judge people, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. And we have moved in that direction and have made many strides.
In the sixties and seventies when I marched and worked for equality (racism and sexism) I thought we made progress, even though more remained to be done. As one example, I never, ever thought then that I would live to see the day that an all white jury in Texas would find three white men guilty of murdering a black man as happened in the eighties or nineties. But I did.
Now I feel that a lot of that progress has been obliterated.
I believe that Obama's entire campaign, and now Holder's comments, have set race relations back fifty years in this nation. That saddens me. But mostly it angers me.
I grew up in an alcoholic family. Both of my parents were alcoholics. To say that my childhood was filled with upheaval and abuse does not begin to describe. As an adult I could have gone in several directions given that background. And I did some counseling and joined Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACOH). But after about six months with ACOH I left.
I left because too many of the people there wanted to live in the past and nurse their grievances about their parents and their past. That was all they wanted to talk about. They were fixated on it. They could not get past it. I did not want to live that way. I wanted to, not forget the past, but to move beyond it, and more importantly, rise above it. I did not want to change the past. I wanted to make my future different and better.
We have to put the past behind us and move on. For our own and our nation’s health and sanity we need to shed the victim mentality and forge ahead.
We are all one. E pluribus Unum. Out of many one.
If the greatest experiment in self-government ever in world history is to survive it is imperative that we all learn from the past, but move forward as well.
Notes on my secular God: Apparently, an amazing Othello in currently running just barely off Broadway.Remember JSOM's motto (which I just made up) : a Shakespeare scene a day keeps the stupidity away. The opposite of the Summer of love: Summer of Rage in Ye ole London Towney?
Music: Springsteen recorded Bring 'Em Home in 2006. Springsteen endorsed Obama in 2008. Obama will be sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in 2009.
Oops. Guess the Boss f*^ked up. (Actually, I've been tired of Bruce for a while now. He's been repeating himself since the 90s. The Seager Sessions are wonderful, but broke no new ground.)
AIG will report the largest corporate loss in history. AIG is already 79% owned by the Federal Government (that's you and me)to the tune of 150 billion. They want more. Here is what the answer needs to be:
For God's sake, where does this end? Where is this "money" coming from? Who pays for this in the end? Who is being bailed out? What is being saved? Not the future. The future is being eviscerated.
Our grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren will not call this the generation of hope - but the generation of shame.
The first spark of Revolution. That's how Kunstler referred to Santelli's rant heard round the world here. Let me add that Team Obama is inadvertently cobbling together a ragtag coalition of dissenters. Everyone from disaffected whites (see Holder), to pensioners, to hardcore 2nd Amendment defenders, to the outer shelf of the Left that as seen the light about President Mess, to the 93% of homeowners who are current on their mortgages - some inflicting great pain on themselves to be so, are currently panicked or seething. Or both.
It used to be, not long ago at all, that only fringe types, peak oilers, Ron Paulists, and on the other end, real, unabashed Leftists , could be heard sounding the economic alarm.
No more. Last week George Soros and Paul Volcker, pronounced the Post War world economy, dead, dead, dead. Hard to get more Establishment than those two.
When I heard that BHO will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday I felt a pang of sympathy for him. The scramble to stay one step ahead must be taxing - so to speak. I don't mean a step ahead of the economic tailspin. That's not possible at this point, if ever it was. Obama and crew are trying to stay one step ahead of the social meltdown that seems set to follow close on its heals.
It is errant nonsense that BHO did not know how bad things were last November - and is just waking up to the facts. He's not an imbecile. Hillary knew. Paulson knew. Anyone who spent 10 minutes with the god of information, Google, knew. Obama was chosen with this moment in mind. But the man has triangulated himself to the edge of the abyss. The need to please his handlers (Wall Street Types, all), his resentment based socialist instincts, (that he truncates at every turn), and his own narcissism adds up to the flailing we see before us. Obama speaks, the market keels over.
I suspect on Tuesday night, Obama will take President Clinton's Good Morning America advice. He'll tell us what a great people we are and how we can handle any crisis. He'll dip in to history to assuage us. Pelosi will glow with Nancy Reagan-esque adulation. Most of the Democratic side will be up and down so much it may cause a stroke or two. Still, Obama needs to push the reset button and he knows it. His approval rating will not be in the 60s much longer. Below 50% and the media grizzlies attack. Ask Bush. After he went below 50% for good during the Shivao debacle, he never got his groove back. Then Katrina castrated him for the duration.
Obama will then get to the meat of the matter using various cloaking devices to soften the blow. The largest being entitlements. We are about to witness a man who just shoved a trillion dollar debt bill down our throats intone about cutting deficits. As is becoming the norm, happiness will be felt throughout the land...for 24 hours. Social Security is on the block. When that becomes clear to Ma and Pa America things are going to get sporty for Barry.
An unravelling has begun. I'm not sure it can or should be stopped. (AIG will report the largest corporate loss in history a few hours before Obama speaks.) After a brief stint in January thinking that a big spending bill was our last hope, I've returned to my first, gut instinct: The system must be allowed to fail.
I don't mean capitalism. I mean the system in which debt and credit have replaced goods, services and real value. Houses as ATM machines is only the most apparent manifestation. If the actual (not conjured) American economy looks more like it did in 1970 then so be it.
In 1970 we began "debting" for others' energy. Since, we've "debted" for everything else to keep things going. Returning to the 90s (where stocks returned today) is not a tenable goal. Though Clinton erased the deficits, he could not touch our debt. More credit is not the solution. It is the problem.
Suspicion should be the watchword as we witness the frantic impulse to find an acceptable economic baseline. Is it 1997? 1987? We are being downsized whether we like it or not. Why suspicion? Because Rahm and crew don't see this downsize as a crisis. They see it as an opportunity.
For what is any one's guess. I certainly have mine. Alas, they all include the word "conspiracy" so I'll defend my ego and not go there. Quietly watching my worst fears come to pass is horrifying enough.
Of course, the real wild card in this is all those who will not be in the House chambers on Tuesday night. We only just got told we must take some harsh medicine. Being told now we must swallow or else is not likely to elicit any long term joy. And will be a shock to the system to say the very least.
To my moderate shock the Oscars were actually good TV. Except for the "tribute to musicals" Baz Lurman mess, the numbers were fun and engaging. The self congratulation was - FINALLY - overwhelmed by a little class. I only winced once or twice. Oscar night tends to be the tackiest night in Hollywood. It actually wasn't tacky. The 2 best actor awards actually went to - in my opinion - the Best Actors. Like him or not, Sean Penn's Harvey Milk is a masterful embodiment. The Reader lost me half way through (I stopped suspending my disbelief) but Kate Winslet was worth double the price of admission. Ben Button, a truly rotten movie, was nearly shut out. The academy finally realized that being bored while watching pretty things float by for 3 hours is not ART. (Yes, I did just bite the hands that feed. Pray no one over there is looking - or cares what I think.) Heath Ledger's family accepting his award was moving and compelling. I was glad to see Jerry Lewis get some love, too. One of the best kept secrets in this weird town is just how important Lewis is. While writing, directing and starring in The Bellboy, Lewis adds a small television monitor to the camera so he can watch instant playback of his own performances. The invention, called video-assist, revolutionizes how movies are made.
All in all, the reach around masturbatory nonsense was at an all time low.
Penn's acceptance speech in which he interjected his thoughts about equal rights was of value. He then called Obama "elegant" - which, oddly, I agree with. He is sort of an elegant man, at least with a crowd and a TelePrompTer handy. Unfortunately, the job he holds is not Commander in Chief of evening gowns. Though, a friend mentioned last night that he seems to think it is.
Cowards? Are we cowards about race? I am cowardly about some things in my daily life. Race is not one of them. I would LOVE to talk about race. A lot. For extended periods.
The trouble - from my white male perspective - is that whenever a conversation about race is initiated it ends up being, in fact, not a conversation about race at all. Thoughtful people who do not tow a party line by spewing a litany of victimology bromides are quickly slapped down as "racist". This ends the conversation. There is a deep, deep attachment to the problem and very little intelligence directed toward a solution. Brutal truth: My experience tells me it is not thoughtful whites who are attached to the problem. Maybe I am wrong. Let's talk about that.
Holder called us "cowards" which is not exactly an invitation to speak freely. Nor was the relentless double think of the Obama Pods last year.
It is amazing and important to have a biracial candidate - but IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT HIM YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS RACE AND YOU MUST BE A RACIST.
Deny it all you want. That is what happened last year. Openly. Smaller states that went for Clinton were full of "racists". There were South Carolina Obama rallies with thousands screaming "race doesn't matter." Except, of course, if Geraldine Ferraro voices her opinion. Then it matters - oh boy - does it matter. Can we talk about that? The Obama campaign's sneaky and vile attacks on the Clintons as racist is another example. Can we talk about that? Or how about the ongoing, secretive, relationship he has with Phleger - a man whose racism was, literally, put on a pedestal and blasted across Obama's church. Can we talk about that? Or Obama's embrace, then dismissal of Wright? Can we talk about that? Can I really say what I think about Jackson and Sharpton without being bullied and trashed like Ferraro? Can I say out loud that I do, in fact, see a deep corrupting influence in the Black "leadership" AND at the same time that I try diligently to comprehend the pain of the history of race in this country? As a white man am I allowed this?
Sure doesn't seem like it.
This "race conversation meme" is rightfully interpreted by many whites as "We talk. You listen" Why is it that the only whites that are given the megaphone are either blatant racists or 60s liberal apologists? There are other views.There are those of us who would like to have a real conversation in which EVERYONE is allowed to talk.
Here's a little truth I don't think gets spoken enough: Non racist Whites do not care about race to the same degree that Blacks do. (Racists of any color do care about race a great deal.) Since this is, by no fault of my own, not as pressing an issue for me as it is for some, I am left with having to make an effort. But the effort is never rewarded, and frankly, it is not pleasant being bulldozed into the stereotype chair whenever a view that might confront the real problem is introduced. It is not cowardice, Mr. Holder, it is annoyance and exhaustion.
Don't tell me we must "have a conversation about race" when you mean "let me talk about how badly Blacks have been treated." That is a different - though potentially valuable - talk.
In 2009, with the economy caving, the BRUTAL TRUTH is: this alleged conversation about race does not include me and so...wait for it...I don't care. Why don't I care? I feel no white guilt. I did. But I don't anymore. I got tired of it. It got me nowhere and, in the end was counter productive. Tough, but true.
Here is the real "conversation about race" I'd like to have: Black anger and frustration, and White guilt exhaustion. If "both sides" can talk as adults about this we'd make some progress.
Calling me a coward doesn't even make me angry. It is worse than that. It makes me shut people like Holder out. Or off - as the case may be. Feel free to jabber on about what a victim you are and what a coward I am. I have much more pressing things to attend to.
A reader sent this email chain. I read it with interest and some joy. It is between a the "submitter to L.R." and a reasonably well known writer. I have no way of verifying the validity of this - I tend to take it at face value. But this isn't journalism and I protect the innocent and the guilty alike. I post it here with identifying markers deleted.
It is an essay really on the difference between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters in 2008. And the near impossibility of BHO's fans to address anything of substance.
I am fed up with the "Obama is so smart" meme - which, like all else about him, never gets examined. He's not as smart the Clinton, I doubt very much if he's smarter than LBJ or Carter. Certainly, he's not anywhere near Jefferson - to name a few DEM Presidents. Where did this meme come from? The same hole that spit out "Bush is strong" ad nauseam in 2000.
Finally: though not stated here - any honest American man will admit that sexism had a big role in shaping 2008. Fear of women in power is the subtext for much of the Hillary bashing that went on in print and on TV.
Take what you like and leave the rest.
Onward:
John: Here is the exchange between me and ______. I hope you find it interesting. I find it fascinating because _______ is an amazingly smart and level headed person so his reaction surprises me.
Just to let you know, not that you would question me, but every thing I've said about my interaction with Obama is completely true. In fact, I know Obama even more than I describe below since I am very good (as in best) friends with one of his major fundraisers and with a person who worked directly for his state campaigns in IL so have been in small meetings with Obama through those relationships. I used to have a high level political appointment in the Clinton administration which is why I have good friends and former colleagues who worked in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. And, I worked for six years for XXXX so those dinner fundraisers are true to life (and were plentiful). I also happen to have been able to get to know Hillary somewhat as a person. Again, she's made her share of mistakes, but their personalities, work ethic and level of integrity could not be more different. I still remain shocked at the choices that were made last year.
Email #1:
Person XXX:
I have read your columns over the years with great interest. I haven't agreed with you on everything, but I'm certainly aligned with your basic outlook. However, I can't disagree with you more on your assessment about our current president. You and others whose writing I find compelling - like the writer of the _______ blog - have seemed (pardon the strained metaphor) to have a fog (or maybe it's rose colored glasses) over your usually clear eyed vision when assessing Barack Obama.
(I also think you are way too critical of Bill Clinton. He certainly had his faults, but not everything bad in life can be laid at his door. And, he isn't as venal as I think you believe him to be. As intelligent as he is, he is also a product of his time, his upbringing and his personality. You do ignore the fact that his Vice President did try to - albeit far from boldly enough - begin to build an infrastucture and education of the public that might lead away from insane oil dependence and toward a more sustainable way of life. And, I think you forgive Bush II his real agency in creating the morass we are in today. Granted he didn't start the country on its road to oil addiction, but he plunged us off a cliff with lunatic wars, outrageous deficit spending and an enabling of a regulatory scheme that encouraged rampant mortgage fraud and abuse. He was much more than just a "caretaker." He actively and enthusiastically helped loot the treasure of this country for 8 years. However, at this point these disagreements are almost quibbles, given they are moot.)
My concern is your opinion of Obama. At a very fundamental level, I have no idea on what you base your belief that Obama is "basically honest and intelligent." Knowing the man as I do, including the people he surrounds himself with (and no -I'm not talking about just his spiritual counselors but those people who have nurtured his political career and on whom he relies for advice), I have found him to be a rather deceitful person who, certainly, is smart enough but whose vaunted intelligence is vastly overrated - his judgment even more so. First, to address the claims I've heard so many make that he must be intelligent in light of his graduating from HLS. Believe me - having attended an Ivy League law school myself - I know that such attendance is not a proxy for intelligence. Nor is becoming president of the law review when it is a popularity vote as opposed to merit-based based on assessment of scholarship. (I also am only a few years younger than Obama and am African-American,=2 0so I fully understand that the bar for entering a top law school is higher for people of color - that doesn't make all of us geniuses just by the mere fact that we were there.) Moreover, I haven't found his writing (which has only been about himself) or his post-graduate career to be anything that would lend me to think more highly of his intelligence. Certainly his ability to mimic the cadence and tone of the most compelling African-American speakers of the past while reading remarks written for him by others (and even those heavily lifted from previous speeches by other people), doesn't impress me as indicative of great intellectual ability by itself.
More importantly, I've had the opportunity to meet and talk with Obama in small, intimate settings and gain a better sense of the man than anyone can based on t.v. interviews and his ubiquitous speechifying. (I was for many years active in the Democratic party. I also worked for some years for an investment bank which was a major backer of Obama from the time he ran for the Senate. And, he was eager to spend lots of time with the top bankers of Wall St in small dinner settings in glorious NY penthouses. I was often invited along simply because I was one of the few blacks at my bank they could invite to "color" these dinners.)
My first encounter with him was at the 2004 Democratic Convention when he was being lauded as being one of the next wave of leaders of the party.&n bsp; I, too, was extraordinarily impressed and borderline euphoric then, after hearing his convention speech. He initially struck me as well as a charismatic, brilliant young man, who might just be the chance we were looking for to inject new ways of thinking into our polity. But, when talking with him after the convention speech, I came away thinking he did not have any truly out-of-the-box ideas about the best direction for the country or even how to cure the doldrums of the Democratic party. Time enough, however, I felt then for him to learn, reflect and chart better courses.
Over the next months I then was able to talk with him and hear him talk in various fundraising venues - which is where he spent most of his short time in the Senate before hitting the presidential campaign trail. (The first time post-convention was at George Soros' house). I came away each time a little more uneasy, particularly when it became clear he was going to run for President. He skims the surface of issues and problems. In fact, his remarks, when not prepared come across as vapid. He repeats, like rote, tired democratic tropes. (And frankly many Republican ones. He truly does admire Reagan and not just because Reagan won elections). He seems to have spent little to no time in deep introspection about any particular area of policy. He spent very little time at his actual job in the Senate or doing any substantive work - which was similar to his time in the IL State Senate. (What was little remarked upon when he ran for US Senate or POTUS was what a mess the Chicago district he represented was left when he advanced to the US Senate during a period when even poor districts in the country got at least somewhat better.) He certainly - for someone whose father (like mine) is African and who (as did I) lived overseas for a time - seems to at bottom be relatively incurious about geopolitics. And, he would get a glazed look in his eyes and look about for someone else to move on to when I raised questions about how he would address the looming US financial crisis I could see on the horizon.
All in all, I found him to be a completely conventional politician - interested in his own advancement - with no particular personal vision for the future of this country or the world. And, all this without even the small saving grace of being a policy wonk like either Clinton, Gore or even Biden, etc. This was why his entire campaign rested on the ephemera of "hope and change" which could mean anything one wanted it to mean, along with a list of plagarized policy "positions" taken from other democratic primary candidates. From what I've learned about him, I do not believe he has deep guiding principles and certainly no specific political philosophy or forward-thinking vision for how to right our ship. That is why his actions to date - and I believe this will continue=2 0- have been disappointingly although, to me, not suprisingly conventional and, frankly, in large part a continuation of Bush's policies if not a recreation of Clinton's.
Even more disturbingly, having followed the primary campaign closely and having good friends in both his campaign and Hillary Clinton's, I can also say how shocked I became at the really dishonest tactics he used, from race-baiting to caucus fraud to paying cyber stalkers to terrorize pro-Clinton writers and website owners. But, given the stunts he pulled in IL in the early days of his career that I came to discover in doing due diligence before deciding on my own vote, this really probably shouldn't have shocked me as much as they did.
The one thing that did amaze me, as his campaign unfolded and there were more and more danger signs about his character or lack of it that came to light for anyone who wanted to really look, was why so many people who I respect as clear eyed thinkers, not given at all to buying into conventional wisdom couldn't see this man as he really is. He's not evil and I can't say that he's outright corrupt, but he's not honest. (For goodness sake, the man broke virtually every important promise he made during the primary campaign as soon as it was over, and he's busy continuing this trend now that he's president. Call me crazy, but that doesn't strike me as someone who is "basically honest."). I also do not believe h e has any type of handle on how to effectively govern, particularly not in these times.
He is telling some unpleasant truths now about where the economy is headed, but not because he wants to try to pull America's collective head out of the sand and lead us to a sustainable way of life. He's lowering expectations out of a well-honed instinct for political survival and while he still can plausibly claim that the mess is not his fault. His actions, however, show that he - and to be fair to him, probably just like anyone else who would have been elected, including certainly McCain - is bent on finding whatever veins he can that haven't yet collapsed to shoot up the addict a few more times. He's desperate to have us stay out of detox and rehab, because that would be very painful until we are clean and conventional politicians do not traffic in pain.
I apologize for the long email, and I realize you have no reason to believe that I had the opportunity to interact with Obama up close and personal (although I swear that it is true and my assessment of him is based on research about his background and work as well as personal interaction with him). But, I felt the need to share with you now as I think you are going to become more and more disillusioned with him as the years drag on. Most urgently, I feel that it is vital that we have no illusions about who Obama is. If, indeed, there is civil unrest in this country as we spiral downwards, I do not trust him to safeguard civil liberties and the remnants of democracy we still have, and I think it is going to be very valuable to have eyes wide open about where he might take the country.
Sincerely, XXXX
Response:
He repeats, like rote, tired democratic tropes.
XXX-- Anyone in the public arena ends up speaking in tropes, because one is bombarded with the same questions incessantly. By necessity you develop a refined rhetoric. Maybe his "glazed look" was simple fatigue. I know how I get on the road (and I'm not in politics, where you really have to be nice to people). FDR was viewed as a completely conventional politician (and mentally mediocre, too) in the period around his first election v ictory. History made him a hero. He was mostly style and poise and acted contrary to his patrician roots. Events have a way of shaping personalities in power. My feeling about Obama is that he has plenty of... let's call it 'capacity.' If nothing else, he has already shown admirable poise under pressure. It should be clear from my blog that I am simply giving the guy a chance. I'm not jumping up and down saying he's 'the saviour.' Only that he appears capable and poised. And that people expect a lot from him. Somehow i suspect you are a disappointed Hillary Clinton booster.
XXX XXXXXXXXX
Response:
Dear XXX:
Sigh - I didn't deflect the question so much as I tried to argue - as I have to others - that it doesn't and shouldn't matter to the validity of my critique of Obama who I supported in the primaries . But, since we apparently fail to agree, I also see no reason not to be transparent. Unlike those who "actively" supported Obama, I am not going to end up embarrased by my analysis of the candidates or my choice. I voted for Hillary in the blank blank election. I did donate to her primary campaign, although not at the maximum limit, even though I could. I did not stalk pro-Obama blogs to send out wild accusations about the man or insult him and/or berate his supporters. I did not cover myself, house or car with pro-Hillary paraphenalia as did so many Obama supporters in XX and elsewhere. I did not ignore Hillary's faults or completely dismiss where I disagreed with her or sing praises of her that boarded on worship. Where she said she would pursue a certain policy or program, I took at her word and didn't try to twist it to mean something that I would like and evaluated how that would change or not change my support. And, where she said something that was gobbledygook (which did happen, although not often), I didn't excuse her; I said so and added that to my evaluation. In short, I treated her as a not-perfect, but smart, competent, highly capable individual with a track record of work, means of handling adversity, executive abilities and&nbs p;stated and followed-up on principles and ideology that I could evaluate. So, I don't know whether I would be considered an "active Hillary supporter" or not.
I began the primaries supporting Edwards initially but then, even before he dropped out, decided I would most likely not vote for him as I became less and less sure that he would stick it through or win the general. I then settled on Hillary as the much better candidate from any angle than Obama. What you are purposefully (it seems to me) ignoring is that I supported Hillary because I had already evaluated Obama by the time he announced his candidacy and found him wanting because I knew him more than many others did. In reviewing the two of them, I decided Hillary was far preferable. In this, I am not alone. I have numerous current and former friends and colleagues who worked with Obama in IL who refused to support his candidacy either, but would only say that in private given that so many were in the throes of Obama worship last year. See also Alice Palmer whose neck Obama stepped on to gain his IL senate seat. She supported Hillary too because between Hillary and Obama, Palmer could trust Hillary. Frankly, to really know Barack is not to love him. And, that has nothing more to do with Hillary Clinton than does my distaste for certain bankers I used to work with who I also find to be dishonest and not as intelligent as they think they are.
XXXXXXX
Response:
It's really discouraging (to my opinion of the state of public debate) when people take detailed and substantive criticism of Obama and dismiss it as "just disappointed over Hillary,"
Hey XXXX-- It was just a conjecture, not a dismissal or an accusation. I answered your letter pretty comprehensively -- given the volume of mail I get. You even managed to deflect the question: were you or were you not an active Hillary supporter??
XXX XXXXXXXXXX
Response:
XXXXXX:
It's really discouraging (to my opinion of the state of public debate) when people take detailed and substantive criticism of Obama and dismiss it as "just disappointed over Hillary," who this is not in any way, shape or form about. Not that I should have to even state this, but I'm not disappointed over Hillary. I am disappointed in another massively missed opportunity to have a real leader with vision and core principles and real courage at the helm the next 4 years.
I'm actually bemused as I'm not even sure what the logic chain is in your accusation about Hillary since of course if one had supported Hillary and thought Obama was supremely unqualified for the role he now holds, of course, you would be disappointed. I have no idea how that disappointment in being once again saddled with someone not up to the task of the Presidency invalidates the ability to accurately asses Obama's qualities; however, but to Obama supporters somehow it seems to. It's very odd, (particularly in the weird obsession with Hillary who I mentioned only in passing, along with a list of other past presidential candidates) and it reveals more about the lack of nuanced reflection on the part of Obama supporters about his character and record than it does about the person critiquing him. And, it does neither the citizenry nor the health of the country (such as it is) any good to dismiss critique of his actions so cavalierly.
I'm sorry, but those who aspire to the Presidency do not get to be given "a chance." They don't get 3 strikes or a couple of screw-ups before we really give them the business. This is not an Outward Bound course for wayward youth. If we needed to rely on Obama's "capacity," whatever that means, as a blind leap of faith, the ramifications of such a leap should have been discussed more honestly and intelligently while people had a chance to make an informed decision among the choices we had. It would be amusing to me if not so tragic, that during his campaign we were regaled with laudatory tales about Obama's sterling judgment which was supposed to make him "ready on day one." Now, what we hear is yelling from the left that we need to "give him a chance" and we're harshing his mellow as well as that of his followers by pointing out that he's clearly far from ready and frankly seems to be already not up to the task. In fact, the bar has been set so low for him (or maybe we're just used20to this after Bush II) that the mere fact he'll say "I screwed up" in public is supposed to somehow illustrate his immense qualifications for the job.
Well, I didn't sign up to "give the president a chance," and the fact that we are being asked to is another direct contradiction to an Obama promise. And, as a voter, a taxpayer and one of the people who is his employer, he's going to have to face the hard work and hard knocks that come with this job without excuses. He asked for it so here it comes.
And, no - not everyone in the public arena "ends up speaking in tropes." I know quite a few very talented individuals who can carry on intelligent, nuanced conversations with a keen grasp and intellectual curiosity about a broad range of subjects in very different venues with very different audiences. They also happen to be great managers too. That's another canard that lets Obama off the hook for being much less than his hype. Plus, as I tried to point out, a number of the venues I was in with him - 10 to 15 people at a meeting or a dinner - were not ones where you would expect someone to give you not much more than a stump speech in response to hard, policy questions. Not people who were aiming for the Presidency, at least. And, he was certainly fairly animated when talking about his "life" and "his story which could only have happened in the U.S." (tell that to all my relatives and friends in the UK and Germany who are biracial with one African parent) and how he went into politics "for his girls future" and when asking us to reach deep in our pockets to help him succeed. It was only when he was pressed to delve deeply into significant policy issues that he became uninterested, bored and fidgety.
No - any support I might or might not have had for any other democratic primary candidate (being very close to senior Hillary advisors when she was in the Senate, I s aid often that I didn't think she should run at all because she would be eviscerated by the press and I thought there was a good chance she wouldn't win the primary) has 1000% nothing to do with my alarm about how unprepared for the monumental task before him is Obama. The fact that I would have to even preface my opinion about him by proclaiming this shows how deep into denial and unwilling to have a healthy skepticism about Obama his supporters have become.
XXXXX
Response:
Hey, XXXXX, You're imputing all kinds of motives to me. Unfairly ! Lookit, in 1933 a lot of people thoughtFranklin Roosevelt was too dim and too much a glad-handing, lightweight patrician pol to be an effective president. Now there's divergent opinion about whether any of his programs either prolonged or ameliorated the Great Depression, but he certainly restored a sense of legitimacy in national leadership that Hoover and the GOP had lost. I've said more than once that t he best Mr. O can do (IMO) is to give Americans some moral support as they endure hardship. That's obviously not solving all the nation's (or the world's) problems, but it could go a long way to avoiding real strife.
XXXXX
Repsonse:
XXXX:
I really don't mean to impute bad motives to you at all. I just am striving to have discussions about Obama with his supporters that are based solely on his record, character and activities - without the distraction of imputing an ulterior motive to those who question him. I certainly hope fervently that you are right, and I will be proved wrong about Obama. If you are right, we all win (or at least are better off than the alternative). If I am right, the consequences are almost too scary to imagine. I completely understand your reference to FDR and you are certainly right about how FDR was viewed when he first gained office and that he rose to the task before him. This is not the first time I have heard similar comparisons between Obama and FDR. What keeps me up at night with that comparison is that FDR did not really fully restore faith in the economy or the authority of the presidency until the US joined WWII. And, I recollect now how much FDR agitated for us to join the war long before we actually did. Was that solely because the cause was just - which it undoubtedly was? Or, was it also because the FDR administration was becoming desparate for anything to jolt the economic system? I sincerely don't know. But, I very much worry whether Obama might find a similar solution irresistable because the type of untold misery of WWII certainly isn't worth undergoing in order to reestablish flat screen tvs in every room like a chicken in every pot. And, unlike in the 30's where the population was relatively fit and more regimented - our citizenry isn't morally, physically or psychically equipped for a universal draft and rationing. This is before we even get to the nuclear weapons everyone is armed with today.
So, if the best we can hope for is that Obama turns out to be similar to FDR, I'm not sure whether that's a comfort or not. But, I take your point.
A reader sent me a wonderful exchange between a pro-Obama "intellectual" and a citizen who questioned him all along - which I am formatting - to make it anonymous - for Saturday. As a placeholder I post the "rant heard round the world":
Though now seen by everyone - I have a few notes: 1. It is delightful and somewhat inspiring to see a professional lambaste El Presidente with such passion. This type of rant makes me happy to be American. And no, I don't agree with all of it. But after the uniform Obama Adoration Complex Media Assault we endured for all of 2008 I love seeing this guy pop off. 2. Santelli's statement that the bit of Exchange floor he's standing in is a "cross section of America" is absurd. I did not see one non white face on the clip - or a woman, or a laborer, or...or..or...
It seems Obama is making things worse - but lets be honest - Wall Street is awash with culpability here. I am not a socialist, or a libertarian or an unreconstructed capitalist. (Greed is not good.) I am an FDR liberal. The government must take action. Sadly, the action Obama's Democrats are taking is about paying off constituencies, rewarding criminal enterprises like Freddie and Fannie, and punishing good behavior.
Regardless, whoever loudly points out that the Emperor is naked right now is fine by me.
Finally, a pointed little paragraph from from Fred Barnes: Obama, the market killer. The Dow fell 332.13 points on inauguration day, 381.99 points on the day Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced step two in the bank bailout, and 297.91 points when the president signed the stimulus bill three days ago. Financial markets are a bet on the future. The market's view is that an Obamanomics-driven economy looks grim.
I wish thoughtful liberals were circling the wagons now. But I'll take what I can get.
Music: From the 90s. I rag on Rap - not because it never contributed to the Pop library - it did. But because it has long since worn itself out and is now mostly just lazy whining and a crappy substitute for actually composing a song. But earlier there was moving, yes moving, rap recordings. Coolio: I'll C U When U Get There -incorporating Pachelbel's Canon in D major.
Obama is flying around bragging that he has gotten a bill passed that spends more money than President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spent in the same amount of time.
Oh goody.
Obama is spending more money.
Yippee.
But what is he BUYING with that money?
Is Obama buying "recovery"?
Is Obama buying jobs?
Or is Obama buying votes for his 2012 re-election?
Just by way of comparison, here's a timeline of FDR's first 100 days as president (in 1933) when the Great Depression had already been raging for a few years; thousands of banks had closed, stocks had lost most of their value, and there was 25% to 30% unemployment, not even counting women who were not considered part of the workforce. Millions were homeless; they had lost their homes and were moving in with relatives and friends. One third of the nation was ill-fed and ill-clothed.
FDR worked aggressively and creatively to stabilize the banks, feed the hungry, provide jobs for the jobless, and protect farmers and homeowners from foreclosure.
(P.S. FDR's recovery initiatives worked. We don't know if Obama's pork-laden "stimulus" bill will create recovery and new jobs, or if it will sink us further into "catastrophe.")
And, by the way, it might be useful to know WHO is overseeing the spending of this close-to-one-trillion dollars in "stimulus" money. Is anyone?
Who?
Tell me who.
Who is in charge of seeing that the $787 billion in this "stimulus" bill and the $78 billion in Obama's mortgage "bailout" are not wasted and/or not going to the very people who drove us into this economic 'quicksand'? (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have "recovered" quickly. Those 2 foxes not only gets to guard the "housing" hen house - they get the deed, the keys, and the run of the place. )
Will these Obama expenditures be "stimulative," or will they be just so much 'quicksand' that swallows more and more of our tax dollars?
This caused howls of protest from the Left, many who had already thrown in with the "man who pledged to end the Iraq war" -or so they chose to believe. The "America out or Iraq wing" of the Left embraced a single speech BHO made that was not even recorded at the time - as proof that he was one of them.
Fast forward to February 2009 current President Obama, has now embraced the Bush Iraq time line, having thrown 15 other Iraq war stances overboard. Further, he has ordered 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Let us call this a surge of troops. Though, they refuse too.
I do not fault Obama for this order. He campaigned on a pledge to increase American presence in Afghanistan. Nor do I fault him for the sneaky way he announced the buildup. (As an afterthought to the stimulus signing.) His week was about the economy and he played that up. "More war" would have been a buzz kill.
I do, however, fault all the pro-Obama peaceniks for their unbelievable level of denial. The fact is Obama is hashing out various plans for the troops he's sending to the region but he still has not settled on one. Sound familiar? W, Cheney, Rummy and crew pulled this stunt in Iraq.
As is too often the case, those, like me, who are generally, but not always, against interventions, are of two minds. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Still do. I think we should have fought and won Afghanistan in the first place before moving on to Iraq - which is is not a war against a government that harbored people who attacked us - but a resource war. The sickening truth about not vanquishing the Taliban in the first place is that now nuclear armed Pakistan is in peril. The drive to set up a pro American oil state in Iraq may now have horrific unintended consequences.
Do not be fooled into believing this is a change in strategy on Obama's part. This is an extension of the same strategy started by W in 2001: Control and dominate the region. Obama is fulfilling the next step. Or going backward to clean up the first, bobbled, incursion if you like that view better.
If Thomas Ricks is correct, and the Iraq war it is not winding down, it is entirely possible that in the few years we will fully engaged there and Afghanistan. The man who came to end the Iraq war will oversea a massive extension of war in general.
And why must we control the region? Simple answer: Oil. Slightly more complex answer: Oil and the need to check China, Russia, and Iran.
Have any opinion you like about this. I, myself, am torn. But getting out of the region is not on the table. The American policy argument here is purely one of where and how - not why and when to exit - as so many on the Left want to have us believe. We are not leaving. We can't, unless we are willing to cede a massive chunk of power to Russia, China, and Iran.
One of the down sides of being a blogger ( and, in fact, there are not too many) is dealing with resentful dime store journalists. I long ago got over the idea that I was:
A. Trying to get an A in High School journalism class. and/or B. That as a blogger this site (on any blog site) is in any way comparable to a newspaper. Or that it should attempt to be one. Ms. Huffington, having attempted to force her gay husband into a Senate seat and failing, and attempting, hilariously, to force herself into the California governor's mansion and failing - seems to have succeeded in forcing many to believe she runs an online newspaper.
At any rate, knowing that a blog is, in fact, not a cigar, has freed me up to opine, rant, rave, make fun of, and generally hold forth on subjects that interest me without too much care.
An oddity in the big blogger world (of which this site does NOT qualify) is the pissing contest between "legit" news sites and, say, adolescent whiners playing dress up trying to get a ticket to the Big Show - (I am thinking the word "cheetos" here.) Huff and Kos acted as kiddy club houses for Clinton haters all last year. Now, God Bless 'em, they are stuck with both Obama and their humorless egos.
The "real" media is no better. Grabbing crap from big blogs, promoting it, and then screaming that blogs can't be trusted is psycho. But alas, can we expect more from places like MSNBC that are run by amoral bridge trolls?
Nevertheless - I do like it when a big time media outlet reflects an opinion I recently stated on this blog. I am as susceptible to "smug" as any Pod. I just don't think "smug" is a lifestyle choice as Huffington, Kos, Sullivan and the rest clearly do.
I railed on Shepard Fairey after he was arrested in Boston for tagging. Most of my rant that night had to do with the odd - and smug - liberties "artists" like Fairey take with copyrighted material. But I ended by declaiming that he was not an "artist" in any real sense. I still believe this.
Oh, and I loath that "Hope" poster for all the right reasons. It is cheap, creepy, Orwellian and unconsciously ironic. It is not art. It is commentary. These are not mutually exclusive. I know. I've been to the Sistine chapel. Still, grabbing an AP photo, then watering down the stupidity, pain, and delusions of millions into a one word marketing coup is shrewd - but that's about it. AMC has a show called Mad Men in which doing the above activity is dramatized weekly.
Imagine my happiness when the New Yorker ripped Shepard a new one. Ah, validation.
Tony Blankley is not a person I go to much for analysis or opinion on much of anything. Nevertheless his take on Obama's emerging management style is interesting and, as far as I can see, spot on. He takes four examples we have so far and examines them. Then he gives us four ways to look at what his actions mean. I recommend his piece highly.
Money quotes -
on Gitmo: it was breathtaking that at the signing ceremony, President Obama didn't know how -- or even whether -- his executive order was dealing with this central quandary. (The disposition of the prisoners.)
On what Obama's management style may indicate: his personality type leaves him surprisingly uninterested in things that aren't personally about him.
The second quote goes to one of my primary hunches about this man who is President - a hunch confirmed by ample anecdotal evidence, from debate insults, to over the top set pieces backgrounding speeches. BHO is supremely narcissistic. This is both a danger and, possibly, an asset in a President. A danger if his illusion of himself is confronted and debased by outside events. An asset if he sublimates his deep desire to be adored and uses it as a reason to lead, and lead well.
Photos: L.R. Reader Roberta sent me these pictures of Los Angeles in the late 19th and early 20th Century. I really love stuff like this. From anywhere. The fact that it is my home town makes it all the more interesting to me. But I just like seeing pics of places...real places..Send me photos of your towns. Please. john@liberalrapture.com
Quote:
When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice.
Bush3 - part 2, BHO's mini surge: ObamaBush deploys more troops. So sorry Code Pink. Please go crawl into a corner, and smash your Hope Bongs. Buck up, Code Pinksters, you'll always have Nader!
Music - today from the 70s: Lola. The Kinks. I do believe this may be a perfect piece of pop music.
I want to avoid conspiracy theories. Really, I do. It's no fun wondering about larger patterns most of the time. Otherwise smart and kind people get huffy, dismissive, and condescending when anyone like me even says "conspiracy" in passing. My personal "magic bullet" in these cases is to remember that I have no commitment to the outcome on any given theory. I am just curious.
Therefore I ask: Are people in the highest echelons of this society trying to destroy the economy? Is the national debt so far gone now that the creation of hyperinflation is the only way out?
It looks more and more like the stimulus is an inferno accelerator. TARP 1, TARP 2, stimulus bill and now...whatever comes next...housing bailout? Seizing banks? All would seem to add up to a forced dumping of dollars by foreign governments. The "full faith and credit of the U.S. Government" is becoming painful even to think, much less print.
We are bankrupt. I don't see another way to put it. The credit card is maxed.
I watched the L.A. riots from my window in a sketchy part of Hollywood. It stopped being a "race" riot after a day. For 2 more days it was a purely economic riot. The have nots seized the moment - looting and taking what was otherwise impossible to have.
The membrane between order and chaos is less than razor thin.
So far the economic jolts have been disparate and, for many, still distant. This will change.
SOS Clinton is overseas on her first official trip. ("SOS Clinton" may end up being the mantra of the next for years. Just insert a comma and it works "S.O.S., Clinton!") What is already striking about her trip is the level of engagement she demonstrates. It struck me a few years back that Rice seemed exhausted by the job - and spent most of her time spinning her wheels.
Lord knows, President Kool-Aid won't let her get too much credit unless it makes him look good.
Clinton would make an amazing President. I see no reason to stop blogging on this point.
On another note, Kunstler posted on Monday. I always find him a good read. However, as I've said before, his myopic and truly harebrained support of the Lightbringer was - and still is to a smaller degree - disturbing. It is a case study in last years Obama phenomenon. Many who spent their intellectual lives dead set against magical thinking, for unfathomable reasons, engaged in the worst form of projection and magical thinking about BHO. He still largely refuses to see Obama for what he is - the latest clerk fronting the elite's store. But after a month of Obamaland, his cheer leading has disintegrated into reminders that Obama is "smart." Whoopee. Not so long ago being smart in the Oval Office was an assumption, and hardly needed repeating.
(I find the "he's so smart" meme baffling. I certainly find no particular fault with this assessment. He does seem smart enough. But he's hardly the intellectual giant the Pods make him out to be - as a last resort while their agenda gets flushed. The great service that W provided those who will follow him is that he set the bar so damn low. And if speaking off the cuff in complete paragraphs about difficult issues is an indicator, BHO is substantially less intelligent that Bill Clinton.)
Get past the need to bash the Clintons (I do think it may be in the survival DNA of certain types: Air, Food, Shelter, Bash a Clinton...) and he has much to say worth hearing.
I am willing to look on this handicap as just that - a handicap - and enjoy his writing. What is dogging many of us who supported Mr. Obama is the delayed entrance of much-vaunted change. At this moment of "stimulus" and TARP-II, it seems to have been about a desperate attempt to preserve the hypertrophic debt economy of "miracle" mortgages, blue-light-special shopping on credit cards, and endless happy motoring at all costs. And by "all costs" I mean literally bankrupting our society at every level to keep on living as if it were still 1999.
ICountry: It is a crappy time to be a country that begins with I. Iran, Iraq, Iceland, now Ireland.
Soup For You!: Orlov on the next few years. The theory states that the United States and the Soviet Union will have collapsed for the same reasons, namely: a severe and chronic shortfall in the production of crude oil (that magic addictive elixir of industrial economies), a severe and worsening foreign trade deficit, a runaway military budget, and ballooning foreign debt. I call this particular list of ingredients "The Superpower Collapse Soup."
Bristol Talks: Abstinence is NOT realistic. Bristol, you are correct. Conservatives are WAY off base on human sexuality. OR more on point they are FEAR based. Talking openly, removing shame about sexual desires, (including Gay and Bi impulses- homosexual behaviour with some members of a population is normal and healthy in many mammals.) being realistic and helpful about sex, STDs, and having contraception available is realistic. To think that human biology would change just because we invented High School in the 1800s, or because some ancient agricultural society handed us down a series of edicts that made sense TO THEM - is idiotic.
Music: From the 60s. Okay this was released in 1970. But it may be the last moment in American culture before irony was dumbed down completely. Imagine a pop song about a personal existential collapse in 2009. Country gets close on occasion. But Hip Hop is merely about being horny all the time. Rap is about giving legions of the talentless the impression they matter. Both have long since worn out their usefulness....and need to go.
