In the United States, we have been living with political correctness for decades. As an outgrowth of Affirmative Action, it was seen as the logical extension for leveling the the racial playing field. The legally mandated inclusion of certain minority groups would be backed up by a psychological component of enforced group think. While Affirmative Action very starkly chose winners and losers for education, business and government, political correctness was suppose to force inclusion in a social sense. Those failing to toe this racial line of behavior were supposed to be ostracized. While this may have cowed the bigots and fostered a nascent inclusion, some else started to happen.
Tolerance and inclusion became deference. Instead of a level playing field, new justifications arose so that minorities should be placed in a superior position to others in school, business or government. Since to be called a racist publicy has become the 21st century equivalent of a scarlet letter, people would do any number of contortions mental or otherwise to avoid being labeled as such. While many have recognized this incredible distortion of a noble effort, the bill is here from this twisting of the American instinct for fairness. While many are unhappy with the fact that affirmative action has become a legacy for minorities, the cousin of Affirmative Action, political correctness has been revealed as threat much more damaging than some warping of the admissions process or government contract selection. We now bend over backwards to accommodate those who wish to destroy America and all she stands for. This has become crystal clear after the Ft. Hood shooting.
When Major Nidal Hassan, an Army psychiatrist massacred servicemen and women at Ft. Hood, it was a culmination of events in a chain of obvious signs of Jihadism, Terrorism and Anti-American feeling that had been going on for years. Political correctness or Minority favoritism, allowed this open sore of a person to not only work, but to advance in the military. Soliciting worshippers for Islam among patients, touting horrid punishments for non-believers and proclaiming sharia law over the U.S. Constitution were just some of the outward signs pooh poohed by those interested in avoiding being labelled a bigot, the now highest crime in America.
Is this an exaggeration?
Not according to General George Casey Jr. who said of the massacre "This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty." So over this slaughter rises the saving grace that we are still marching forward under the banner of political correctness. In other words, all personnel should continue to allow any proto-jihadist full support as they climb the career Army ladder. Imagine if another extroverted jihadist mole assumes command of a nuclear bomber or sub. Can this only be fantasy?
Well, the guy sitting in the White House had no problem being on seminar panels with Bill Ayers, American Terrorist. That guy in the White House had no problem going to church with a guy like Reverend Wright saying essentially America got what it deserved on 9/11. Barack Obama had no problem with Van Jones, an adherent to the 9/11 "truthers" If I were head of the Al Qaeda propaganda department , I doubt I could come up with a better, more divisive fiction than the one that the U. S. government was complicit in 9/11. If Barrack Obama had no problem with these figures actively working to break down America, would appointing some openly jihadist mole to a position of power in the name of political correctness be so much of a stretch?
On the more mundane level, Barrack Obama himself was recipient are tremendous recipient of the PC largess. How many people voted for Obama simply to prove they weren't a racist? Obama cleverly played the race card using surrogates in the primary and when McCain wouldn't stoop to the level of using racism, Obama played the race card himself. And it worked. After Obama was inaugurated, how many critics of the president were labeled "racist"? The administration and their parasites slapped every single dissent with that label. We can expect this label to appear again in 2010 and 2012.
If PC games were only confined to who runs the country, this land might be able to survive, but when it directly affects how we stop our enemies, the life of the republic is in jeopardy. Ponder this: did the immense growth through technology of asymmetrical threats exist even twenty years ago? Did the ubiquity and power of computer involved personal technologies exist even fifteen years ago? Did the ease of logistical coordination between disparate and far flung actors exist even a decade ago? We cannot afford any blind spots due to self-censorship, submissiveness or capitulation to ideas that threaten liberty or life. Individuals have a myriad of ways to attack slow Nation-state actors with enormous, cumbersome and docile bureaucracies. All it takes is the will, the increasingly portable technology and a handful of fanatics, sometimes only one.
The jihadist Major Hassan was conversing via email with an Al Qaeda imam in Yemen, but according to the gun shy PC Department of Defense investigators this was "research" One of Hassan's classmates at Uniformed Services University summed up the motivation. "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody religious beliefs, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit." So said Lt. Col. Val Finnell. So the PC enablers have to make up reason, plausible sounding ones, why Major Hassan got to remain in the Army. According to the AP sources at Walter Reed hospital " . . . some doctors and staff were concerned their unfamiliarity with the Muslim faith would lead them to unfairly single out Hassan's behaviour." In other words, they felt themselves to be insensitive bigots when it came to Islam. Better to dodge this guy, and hope you don't get sued for asking him if he'd like a baloney sandwich from the deli.
Even when the term fanatic seemed just around the corner, Hassan's coworkers could not bring themselves to call him the name. As one unnamed staffer at Walter Reed said " . . . he embraced his religion with such intensity that one wondered whether he could have suffered from a form of 'delusion.' " Whoever this dope was, he has been so PC programmed, he wouldn't realize Hassan or any other jihadist was a threat until the round is in the chamber and the trigger is being squeezed. Then again this was in a story in the Washington Post entitled "Army sought ways to channel Hassan's absorption with Islam." Amazing as the embrace of this therapeutic psychobabble is, what's more shocking now is that this psycho drivel is widely accepted at the highest levels of our society.
We can now assume the beltway crowd is completely inert when it comes to spotting the enemies here. The Army high command (Casey), the bureaucracy (Walter Reed, DOD) and the press (Washington Post) are all smugly ensconced in the PC blind spot. Speaking of blind spots, the White House has asked that Congress to slow down investigating Hassan and his attack. Why bother trying to track down possible co-conspirators or government blunders? After all, Major Hassan's Al Qeada imam in Yemen said he acted alone. He seems PC enough.
To have others investigating not firmly under the thumb of the Executive branch might muss things up. And the President is now an experienced foot dragger, so why not push this out until there's some other event to distract attention. Why bother committing all the resources of the government to investigating the first Jihadist attack on America since 9/11? After all, we had the FBI said this was not being looked at as terrorism, right after the attack. The attacker opens fire screaming the jihadist war cry "Allu Akbar!" and it's not Islamic terrorism? Please ignore that man screaming "God is Great" unless he blows your head off. Then we're off to mourning mode replete with more odes to political correctness like "our diversity is our strength." In this instance, our "strength" was a police officer pumping multiple rounds into a still-firing fanatic. Sanctimonious homilies are a tissue thin shield against terrorists.
The enemies of America are not stupid. There are very capable of learning lessons and applying them. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 failed, but the lessons of that failure paved the way to the horrendous massacre that was 9/11. They are watching and learning. Whether planned directly by Al Qaeada or not, this Ft. Hood slaughter enabled by a PC blind spot will be understood and filed away. Perhaps, it will give action to another plot immediately. Maybe it will give rise to another long term plot just as deadly as 9/11. Either way, a new weakness has been shown. They know it now, but the question is: do we know it? Will we ever know it?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Of Children and Politics
Recently, our constantly campaigning President found time in between Democratic party fundraisers to squeeze in some time to visit New Orleans, Louisiana, one the places devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Having copiously used that disaster as a rhetorical cudgel against Republicans, Obama now decided to bask in a some glorious Not-Bush love. If there was one place on earth that was truly justified to loathe George W. Bush, it is the New Orleans. Joining him in a plethora of egregious blunders during the storm, happened to be the Democratic governor and the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans. (who was reelected after Katrina) In spite of this, history looks to ordain this a Republican disaster and a weakened Obama, currently struggling in the polls looked for a friendly audience. At the usual stage managed "town hall" at UNO, he got his warm reception.
The headline of the day was the a question asked by one Terence Scott. After the fourth grader, was ushered onto the stage, he asked his rather obviously planted question "Why do people hate you? They're supposed to love you." before saying something about God. The President answered with disjointed banalities that ranged "I'm tough" to" I was elected" to "that's politics." Then being clever enough to embrace the old showbiz adage never follow animals or children, Obama quickly ended the affair right there on the child induced high and split. The whistle blows and another day at the propaganda factory is over, right? Not quite.
I couldn't get over the second part of the question. "They supposed to love you" Leaving aside the child mentioning God, (haven't we dealt with the Messiah complex and this President enough?) this is really starting to be a very disturbing trend. First, children in a New Jersey school singing an ode to "Barack Hussein Obama" Next it was Obama, the glorious leader speaking nationwide to school children and attempting to get them to write essays on how to "help" him. Then, it was CNN, the network of those who fact check jokes, having schoolkids on to do a song and dance number pushing for the creative destruction know as the Obama health care plan.
Obama and his web of Democratic operatives have targeted children in a way that is unprecedented, scary and absolutely vile. The slavish devotion that is being foisted on these children is beyond reprehensible. Have other presidents used children as props? Remember Bill Clinton and his constant mantra about doing it "for the children?" With this president, though, it is truly breathtaking to see the swiftness, breadth and the cold cynicism grasping so many young lives for squalid poltical gain.
A long time ago, now, there was something called childhood. It was truly a special place devoid of most if not all of the sins of adulthood. In one of the most benevolent, wisest and far sighted decisions, Western Civilization or the Enlightenment created this special time before the heavy burdens of life must be shouldered. Children would be educated, not worked. They would play amongst themselves and not be part of the adult entrainment world, as was frequently the case before the Enlightenment. They would be treated tenderly, not cheated as if they were stupid adults. And simple special events, like a childs' birthdays, would be celebrated as they were not before. Children were no longer little adults, who were thrust into the adult world as soon as they could speak. They would gradually be taught things about the world, not shoved into the glare of a ribald, vicious day. They would be shielded from the depravity and duplicity of life until they had formed a protective mental membrane or as much as they would ever have in this life and then, only then, would the world with all it's joys and sorrows be opened to them.
Obviously this was the ideal or goal and couldn't be achieved with all children. Life would intervene in its' random fashion as it does in all lives. However, for most, it worked. As children of the Enlightenment, we know it is one of the the greatest achievements our civilization. Now, we are bent on destroying it. The book referenced here "The Disappearance of Childhood" makes this abundantly clear. We can argue about degree, but only the willfully blind ignore this trend.
Like much of his Presidency, Barrack Obama is simply exacerbating this already bad problem. You want more onerous government debt for nothing? You've got it. You want more vacillation on the wars? Can do. You want more government run boondoggles? Give me a high five. You want more empty talk? Just feel the love. Problem here is this propaganda push uses in a very visceral manner the most innocent among us for highly dubious political activities. These are not adults willfully participating in the discourse of the nation. You can't involve children in this without stripping them of some of their innocence. Sure, Obama and his crew are simply the latest bunch of exploiters to work this angle, but does this make it right?
Using children for various political tasks or more is nothing new in the recent past. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, children were excellent spies and informers. Of course, near end of the war, the Hitler Youth were given rockets and machine guns and sent into battle. They did their task and if they ran, well, they were children, anyway, weren't they? During the Rustification Plan, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge used many children to help drive thousands of Cambodians out of the cities into the infamous Killing Fields. Today, in central Africa, the Lords Resistance Army fights it's guerrilla war largely with child soldiers, kidnapped from their families. In the depraved regimes of the 20th century and in the third world today, children are simply one more tool in an arsenal for use. In fact, they are preferred due to their malleable nature. Their special nature is all but ignored.
When we ignore this special nature, as heirs to one of the greatest gifts of the world, we have to ask ourselves, what are we doing? We betray ourselves as intellectual heirs to one of the sanest inventions in human history and we betray those who depend on us and love us. Obama seems all about the means justifying the ends. However, here, the means in this case are not only our future, the "better angels of our nature" walking around in the present. Gandi used to say you can judge a society by how it treats it's animals. I would say the same about children as well.
When we try to warp them for political gain, we show not only coldness in executing a political plan with innocents, there is something else. We exhibit a sadism to take something we know is beneficial from those who cannot stop us. This political exploitation of children speaks volumes about the people who do it. Only a bully goes after the weak or children as he or she looks for easy prey. Perhaps the bully himself is a rather weak figure who was exploited himself and now turns the trick on others. The United States used to stand against this coldly cynical exploitation of those who can never understand until it's too late. Now it's all part of a days work in a world stripped of another innocent beacon of hope by our cynical commander in chief. All hail the glorious leader and please cue the singing children.
The headline of the day was the a question asked by one Terence Scott. After the fourth grader, was ushered onto the stage, he asked his rather obviously planted question "Why do people hate you? They're supposed to love you." before saying something about God. The President answered with disjointed banalities that ranged "I'm tough" to" I was elected" to "that's politics." Then being clever enough to embrace the old showbiz adage never follow animals or children, Obama quickly ended the affair right there on the child induced high and split. The whistle blows and another day at the propaganda factory is over, right? Not quite.
I couldn't get over the second part of the question. "They supposed to love you" Leaving aside the child mentioning God, (haven't we dealt with the Messiah complex and this President enough?) this is really starting to be a very disturbing trend. First, children in a New Jersey school singing an ode to "Barack Hussein Obama" Next it was Obama, the glorious leader speaking nationwide to school children and attempting to get them to write essays on how to "help" him. Then, it was CNN, the network of those who fact check jokes, having schoolkids on to do a song and dance number pushing for the creative destruction know as the Obama health care plan.
Obama and his web of Democratic operatives have targeted children in a way that is unprecedented, scary and absolutely vile. The slavish devotion that is being foisted on these children is beyond reprehensible. Have other presidents used children as props? Remember Bill Clinton and his constant mantra about doing it "for the children?" With this president, though, it is truly breathtaking to see the swiftness, breadth and the cold cynicism grasping so many young lives for squalid poltical gain.
A long time ago, now, there was something called childhood. It was truly a special place devoid of most if not all of the sins of adulthood. In one of the most benevolent, wisest and far sighted decisions, Western Civilization or the Enlightenment created this special time before the heavy burdens of life must be shouldered. Children would be educated, not worked. They would play amongst themselves and not be part of the adult entrainment world, as was frequently the case before the Enlightenment. They would be treated tenderly, not cheated as if they were stupid adults. And simple special events, like a childs' birthdays, would be celebrated as they were not before. Children were no longer little adults, who were thrust into the adult world as soon as they could speak. They would gradually be taught things about the world, not shoved into the glare of a ribald, vicious day. They would be shielded from the depravity and duplicity of life until they had formed a protective mental membrane or as much as they would ever have in this life and then, only then, would the world with all it's joys and sorrows be opened to them.
Obviously this was the ideal or goal and couldn't be achieved with all children. Life would intervene in its' random fashion as it does in all lives. However, for most, it worked. As children of the Enlightenment, we know it is one of the the greatest achievements our civilization. Now, we are bent on destroying it. The book referenced here "The Disappearance of Childhood" makes this abundantly clear. We can argue about degree, but only the willfully blind ignore this trend.
Like much of his Presidency, Barrack Obama is simply exacerbating this already bad problem. You want more onerous government debt for nothing? You've got it. You want more vacillation on the wars? Can do. You want more government run boondoggles? Give me a high five. You want more empty talk? Just feel the love. Problem here is this propaganda push uses in a very visceral manner the most innocent among us for highly dubious political activities. These are not adults willfully participating in the discourse of the nation. You can't involve children in this without stripping them of some of their innocence. Sure, Obama and his crew are simply the latest bunch of exploiters to work this angle, but does this make it right?
Using children for various political tasks or more is nothing new in the recent past. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, children were excellent spies and informers. Of course, near end of the war, the Hitler Youth were given rockets and machine guns and sent into battle. They did their task and if they ran, well, they were children, anyway, weren't they? During the Rustification Plan, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge used many children to help drive thousands of Cambodians out of the cities into the infamous Killing Fields. Today, in central Africa, the Lords Resistance Army fights it's guerrilla war largely with child soldiers, kidnapped from their families. In the depraved regimes of the 20th century and in the third world today, children are simply one more tool in an arsenal for use. In fact, they are preferred due to their malleable nature. Their special nature is all but ignored.
When we ignore this special nature, as heirs to one of the greatest gifts of the world, we have to ask ourselves, what are we doing? We betray ourselves as intellectual heirs to one of the sanest inventions in human history and we betray those who depend on us and love us. Obama seems all about the means justifying the ends. However, here, the means in this case are not only our future, the "better angels of our nature" walking around in the present. Gandi used to say you can judge a society by how it treats it's animals. I would say the same about children as well.
When we try to warp them for political gain, we show not only coldness in executing a political plan with innocents, there is something else. We exhibit a sadism to take something we know is beneficial from those who cannot stop us. This political exploitation of children speaks volumes about the people who do it. Only a bully goes after the weak or children as he or she looks for easy prey. Perhaps the bully himself is a rather weak figure who was exploited himself and now turns the trick on others. The United States used to stand against this coldly cynical exploitation of those who can never understand until it's too late. Now it's all part of a days work in a world stripped of another innocent beacon of hope by our cynical commander in chief. All hail the glorious leader and please cue the singing children.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Dithering at the fork
Yogi Berra once said "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." After the rank absurdity of transforming two options into one passes, the road and the split suggest something about the inevitability of events in life. We must choose a road and go forward. Time permits no other option. We can try to go back the way we came, but since we have already travelled this road, the view can't help but be different however similar we may think it is or wish it to be.
Like the road and the fork in it, we like to think nothing is certain in life, but death and taxes, inuring ourselves to the constant fragile flux that compromises human existence. However, there are a good many other things that present themselves as inevitable. We like to think that we have free will, self -determination and such, but channels of thought and conditioning run long and deep.
Take the current situation with the Iranian Nuclear standoff and Barrack Obamas' response to it. Even with the Iranian government lying about its' nuclear program, the President wants a relationship based on "mutual respect." Why anyone would want to respect such a bunch of flagrant deceivers seems rather mysteriously masochistic. You are just asking for more abuse. Unfortunately, this diplomatic dance with Iran is nothing novel as a return to the Presidency of James Earl Carter shows.
Let us return to those dejected days of the Carter Presidency. In the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis, President Carter said to the Iranians "The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based on equality, mutual respect, and friendship." [italics mine] Then Carter "approved of the the establishment of a UN commission to investigate American iniquities against Iran. Of course, the Iranians flung that back in his face. In fact, this actually was Carter meeting a demand of the kidnappers. Earlier, "[kidnappers] insisted that the president apologize for a long list American crimes against the Iranian people, beginning with the overthrow of Mossadegh."
Wait. Didn't Barrack Obama just apologize for U.S. involvement in overthrowing Mossadegh in his recent Cairo speech? Apologizing to Iran today is just as ineffective as it was in 1979. Barrack seems to believe that craven banter with this same regime will bear some kind of diplomatic fruit. This man rooted in the "fierce urgency of now" seems completely oblivious to the past history of relations with Iran.
Also, the rather limp wristed condemnation of Iran at the G-20 in Pittsburgh, highlights a leader with seemingly little cooperation with his allies. When chastising Iran, the French and British leaders both had much stronger words than Obama. Perhaps this mousy public performance was inadvertent. Whatever the intention, the effect is unmistakable. Obama seems wholly reticent about confronting Iran. In this episode, Obama bears all the hallmarks of a weak and inexperienced leader dithering before making a big decision.
Barrack Obama, man of deadlines, (health care, Gitmo, though now ditched) seems to have none when it comes to stopping Iran get nuclear weapons. It also appears the Iranians see this fickle trait in Obama. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Ali Akbar Salehi said of the U.S. /European denouncing Iran secret plant, "Their embarrassing reaction and their unbalanced response has shocked us." This faux outrage is part of the familiar U.S./Iran diplomatic dance. After the Iranians hoodwink the U.S. at the upcoming negotiations in Geneva, Obama will either crow about some toothless agreement the Iranians have signed or try to push sanctions the Europeans probably won't back. Either way Tehran wins by gaining more time to work on the bomb.
So what did Jimmy do? As talks endlessly dragged on, Carter had reached a critical point in the negotiations with hostage takers. The Iranians were completely uncooperative. Since an offer of admission of American "crimes" didn't bring about the desired result, Carter finally acted. "He severed ties with Tehran, froze its American assets and prohibited the import of Iranian oil into the United States. Proposals for imposing a broader boycott on Iran failed to gain international support, however, even from the Europeans." We know that these actions also had no effect on the radical Muslim government in Iran, which led to the disastrous rescue attempt code named Operation Eagle Claw.
In a parallel way today, Obama and the Europeans simply have no leverage of a threatening nature with Iran . And without a stick, a carrot is simply a morsel to be stolen without further care by the thief. Even at this late date the carrot is still available for the taking. As the Washington Post reports (Iran pressured over new plant) "As an inducement for cooperation, the United States and other powers have offered economic and diplomatic incentives if Iran reins in its nuclear ambitions." So Obama is reduced to the role of an almost comic salesman begging the Iranians to take the deal for cash, clout or maybe even a NEW CAR!!! (GM of course)
This bribe strategy is familiar too. Remember the framework agreement negotiated with North Korea in 1992 to get rid of their budding nuclear weapons program. That payoff that failed was negotiated by none other than Jimmy Carter. North Korea got two light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per year all free, courtesy of Uncle Sam. That really worked didn't it? And now North Korea is a nuclear parts supplier to Iran.
This really shows one rather blatant theme of Democratic foreign policy: the bribe. At one point during difficult negotiations during the Vietnam War, LBJ turned to an aide said "Can't we just buy Ho Chi Minh a dam or something?" The habits of machine politics run deep, even into the arena of foreign policy. Unfortunately, these methods don't translate well abroad because these recipients of cash, unlike domestic money grubbers never vote and can't do much for those who do. After all, the cash or favor leaves the United States and contact with the recipient after this usually revolves around one sentence: send more money.
The nuclear standoff with Iran will follow the same path. After much posturing, Obama will try the payoff as well. He'll dress it up as artful, very slow diplomacy in an attempt to forestall an Israeli attack. If the Iranians test a bomb before the talks have ended, then the military option may be off the table entirely and it's hello nuclear blackmail. If they are still some way off to a bomb, the Iranians may even take the cash and fabulous parting gifts and all sides are happy. The Iranians continue work on the bomb, Obama nominates himself for the Nobel Peace Prize and Israel is left facing the nuts working on nukes. Like the Czechs in 1938, Israel faces the threat directly and is being treated as little more than a bargaining chip by Obama doing his best Neville Chamberlain imitation. At the fork, Obama will choose baksheesh over force and it probably won't even slow down the Iranians quest for a bomb.
But what would Jimmy do? Let go back one last time. It is the end of the Carter Presidency. The hostage crisis has effectively brought down a president. Defeated in the election of 1980 by a gaping margin of 440 electoral votes, Carter had one duty left: the payoff. Thus, " he offered to pay the modern form of tribute by unfreezing Iranian bank accounts in the United States and indemnifying Iran from future lawsuits by the prisoners. Temporarily pacified, the Iranians ended their captives' 444-day incarceration . . ."
The payoff is coming. So watch for it. I think another Yogiism is due here. "It's like deja vu all over again."
Like the road and the fork in it, we like to think nothing is certain in life, but death and taxes, inuring ourselves to the constant fragile flux that compromises human existence. However, there are a good many other things that present themselves as inevitable. We like to think that we have free will, self -determination and such, but channels of thought and conditioning run long and deep.
Take the current situation with the Iranian Nuclear standoff and Barrack Obamas' response to it. Even with the Iranian government lying about its' nuclear program, the President wants a relationship based on "mutual respect." Why anyone would want to respect such a bunch of flagrant deceivers seems rather mysteriously masochistic. You are just asking for more abuse. Unfortunately, this diplomatic dance with Iran is nothing novel as a return to the Presidency of James Earl Carter shows.
Let us return to those dejected days of the Carter Presidency. In the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis, President Carter said to the Iranians "The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based on equality, mutual respect, and friendship." [italics mine] Then Carter "approved of the the establishment of a UN commission to investigate American iniquities against Iran. Of course, the Iranians flung that back in his face. In fact, this actually was Carter meeting a demand of the kidnappers. Earlier, "[kidnappers] insisted that the president apologize for a long list American crimes against the Iranian people, beginning with the overthrow of Mossadegh."
Wait. Didn't Barrack Obama just apologize for U.S. involvement in overthrowing Mossadegh in his recent Cairo speech? Apologizing to Iran today is just as ineffective as it was in 1979. Barrack seems to believe that craven banter with this same regime will bear some kind of diplomatic fruit. This man rooted in the "fierce urgency of now" seems completely oblivious to the past history of relations with Iran.
Also, the rather limp wristed condemnation of Iran at the G-20 in Pittsburgh, highlights a leader with seemingly little cooperation with his allies. When chastising Iran, the French and British leaders both had much stronger words than Obama. Perhaps this mousy public performance was inadvertent. Whatever the intention, the effect is unmistakable. Obama seems wholly reticent about confronting Iran. In this episode, Obama bears all the hallmarks of a weak and inexperienced leader dithering before making a big decision.
Barrack Obama, man of deadlines, (health care, Gitmo, though now ditched) seems to have none when it comes to stopping Iran get nuclear weapons. It also appears the Iranians see this fickle trait in Obama. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Ali Akbar Salehi said of the U.S. /European denouncing Iran secret plant, "Their embarrassing reaction and their unbalanced response has shocked us." This faux outrage is part of the familiar U.S./Iran diplomatic dance. After the Iranians hoodwink the U.S. at the upcoming negotiations in Geneva, Obama will either crow about some toothless agreement the Iranians have signed or try to push sanctions the Europeans probably won't back. Either way Tehran wins by gaining more time to work on the bomb.
So what did Jimmy do? As talks endlessly dragged on, Carter had reached a critical point in the negotiations with hostage takers. The Iranians were completely uncooperative. Since an offer of admission of American "crimes" didn't bring about the desired result, Carter finally acted. "He severed ties with Tehran, froze its American assets and prohibited the import of Iranian oil into the United States. Proposals for imposing a broader boycott on Iran failed to gain international support, however, even from the Europeans." We know that these actions also had no effect on the radical Muslim government in Iran, which led to the disastrous rescue attempt code named Operation Eagle Claw.
In a parallel way today, Obama and the Europeans simply have no leverage of a threatening nature with Iran . And without a stick, a carrot is simply a morsel to be stolen without further care by the thief. Even at this late date the carrot is still available for the taking. As the Washington Post reports (Iran pressured over new plant) "As an inducement for cooperation, the United States and other powers have offered economic and diplomatic incentives if Iran reins in its nuclear ambitions." So Obama is reduced to the role of an almost comic salesman begging the Iranians to take the deal for cash, clout or maybe even a NEW CAR!!! (GM of course)
This bribe strategy is familiar too. Remember the framework agreement negotiated with North Korea in 1992 to get rid of their budding nuclear weapons program. That payoff that failed was negotiated by none other than Jimmy Carter. North Korea got two light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per year all free, courtesy of Uncle Sam. That really worked didn't it? And now North Korea is a nuclear parts supplier to Iran.
This really shows one rather blatant theme of Democratic foreign policy: the bribe. At one point during difficult negotiations during the Vietnam War, LBJ turned to an aide said "Can't we just buy Ho Chi Minh a dam or something?" The habits of machine politics run deep, even into the arena of foreign policy. Unfortunately, these methods don't translate well abroad because these recipients of cash, unlike domestic money grubbers never vote and can't do much for those who do. After all, the cash or favor leaves the United States and contact with the recipient after this usually revolves around one sentence: send more money.
The nuclear standoff with Iran will follow the same path. After much posturing, Obama will try the payoff as well. He'll dress it up as artful, very slow diplomacy in an attempt to forestall an Israeli attack. If the Iranians test a bomb before the talks have ended, then the military option may be off the table entirely and it's hello nuclear blackmail. If they are still some way off to a bomb, the Iranians may even take the cash and fabulous parting gifts and all sides are happy. The Iranians continue work on the bomb, Obama nominates himself for the Nobel Peace Prize and Israel is left facing the nuts working on nukes. Like the Czechs in 1938, Israel faces the threat directly and is being treated as little more than a bargaining chip by Obama doing his best Neville Chamberlain imitation. At the fork, Obama will choose baksheesh over force and it probably won't even slow down the Iranians quest for a bomb.
But what would Jimmy do? Let go back one last time. It is the end of the Carter Presidency. The hostage crisis has effectively brought down a president. Defeated in the election of 1980 by a gaping margin of 440 electoral votes, Carter had one duty left: the payoff. Thus, " he offered to pay the modern form of tribute by unfreezing Iranian bank accounts in the United States and indemnifying Iran from future lawsuits by the prisoners. Temporarily pacified, the Iranians ended their captives' 444-day incarceration . . ."
The payoff is coming. So watch for it. I think another Yogiism is due here. "It's like deja vu all over again."
Saturday, September 12, 2009
A fear of our own
At his first (of four!) inaugurations Franklin Roosevelt said " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." This phrase has become trite, it has been used so many times. Today we have "No fear!" T-Shirts and such as a modern distillation of this idea. Personally, I much prefer the way H.L. Mencken captured the paralysis of fear. For he said "People don't do things because they are either lazy or afraid." Wisdom or intelligence don't enter the inaction equation for him.
On the other hand, fear can be a great motivator. It can be a psychic canary in the mental coal mine squawking and therefore spurring an immediate response. Part of why I am typing this is fear of something I haven't ever seen before in America. As John Adams stated in such succinct fashion "America is a nation of laws, not men." So the arbitrary nature of party, sect, religion or other condition should play no role in how justice is found. The fear I have today is that those who charged with upholding the law are under constant open and subtle attack by those hold political office.
The Attorney General has decided to launch an investigation into the CIA and their treatment of guerrilla soldiers, like Khalid Shiek Mohammed. That people at the CIA will now have to fight a legal battle as well as catch and kill terrorists seems unimportant to this insipid individual. But then this is a man who called America "A nation of cowards" If the dead could rise from Bunker Hill, Antietam, Omaha Beach, the Chosin Reservoir, or Hue, I shudder to think what would happen to Eric Holder. At the very least, they would teach him to gaze into the mirror if he wished to see a coward.
Perhaps if he would like a living example he could look up the author of the book cited here and ask him how someone from "a nation of cowards" gets to be a Navy Seal; how someone from "a nation of cowards" does his duty in the face of harsh terrain, an utterly fanatical enemy and with loved ones so very far away; and how someone from "a nation of cowards" fights for people who traffic in lies and willingly lays down life so those same people have the right to despise him.
I doubt the Attorney General will venture outside the rarefied circles of the anointed liberal elite, but as the crowds of the events of 9/12 have shown, the "nation of cowards" seems more than willing to come to Washington D.C. to engage him and his master. Why? Because they have a fear that America is irreversibly turning into a cesspool of lies, corruption and, yes, cowardice. The lies of a health care takeover that is full of "details that are to be ironed out later" when no one is looking. The corruption of elected officials serving for life and if they do happen to leave before death, pocketing millions in campaign cash contributions on the way out the door. The cowardice of a president too afraid to even specifically name the Muslim murderers in an op-ed piece on the 9/11 massacre. He referred to it once as an attack and twice as a tragedy, and nothing more. Then he called for a "day of service . . . .on this day and every day." What does a horrific massacre have to do with picking up trash?
This weasel maneuver to dumb down 9/11 is loathsome as it is clever. It weakens the spirit of America by diluting the memory of our sacred dead. "Never forget" is a slogan seen in regards to 9/11, but the President would have us ditch a piece of ourselves for some recycling project. Talk about your green jobs. Is it any wonder Van Jones, the former green jobs czar signed a petition to twist 9/11 into some insanely foul inside job?
While those who perished on 9/11 by the hands of jihadist killers and those who took up arms to avenge them, occupy the most cherished place in the heart of America, for all those heroes, there are the silent or almost hidden ones as well. They are the men and women who don't have to be called to serve "every day" because they have already chosen to do so by enforcing the laws of this land.
Sadly, even these people are sandbagged by this administration. President Obama chastised a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer for "acting stupidly" in the arrest of a Harvard professor, who verbally harangued the officer. The charges were mysteriously dropped. Now a national commission has been set up to investigate this incident and, of course, the police officer involved. This attempt to provide, one more race card for Obama is all the more disgusting, since it trashes the reputation of a man that by all accounts (save the arrested Harvard professor) is a fine police officer. One thing about Barrack Obama solidly on display is his ambition, It is absolutely ruthless. Trashing the men and women who serve and support the laws of this country proves it.
For a president and his minions to attack, the CIA, local police and then call everyone else in the country gutless shows where we're headed. This president of ours is young and quite used to getting his own way. His rigid attitude may have worked as a state senator, but such an attitude at this lofty post will cripple him. The attacks on this group or that are to be expected on a man weaned on identity politics. Even the moronic decision to spark a trade war with China by slapping tariffs on tires can be seen as pleasing to some union and quite predictable. Attack someone to please someone else. Of course, the people made to suffer will be other businesses like poultry or cars that feel the wrath of Chinese retaliatory tariffs.
When you attack Americans keeping the peace here and around the globe, you've made a colossal political blunder. You may have pleased Bill Ayes, Rev. Wright or Van Jones, but that just shows a president pandering to the fringe. Such pandering on this level is an invitation to a world of political hurt as most Americans are obviously not radical revolutionaries. To be fair, attack is the usual mode of operation for any radical revolutionary and part of our president seems to yearn immaturely for this tough guy mode. Others are watching and learning the patterns of this young and inexperienced leader.
To the world, the lesson is indisputable. an American President who will attack his own is a fool and will suffer a fools fate. Allies back away and enemies are emboldened. This is my fear. It comprises a fear that this President is undermining the laws of this country. It all starts by attacking our own.
On the other hand, fear can be a great motivator. It can be a psychic canary in the mental coal mine squawking and therefore spurring an immediate response. Part of why I am typing this is fear of something I haven't ever seen before in America. As John Adams stated in such succinct fashion "America is a nation of laws, not men." So the arbitrary nature of party, sect, religion or other condition should play no role in how justice is found. The fear I have today is that those who charged with upholding the law are under constant open and subtle attack by those hold political office.
The Attorney General has decided to launch an investigation into the CIA and their treatment of guerrilla soldiers, like Khalid Shiek Mohammed. That people at the CIA will now have to fight a legal battle as well as catch and kill terrorists seems unimportant to this insipid individual. But then this is a man who called America "A nation of cowards" If the dead could rise from Bunker Hill, Antietam, Omaha Beach, the Chosin Reservoir, or Hue, I shudder to think what would happen to Eric Holder. At the very least, they would teach him to gaze into the mirror if he wished to see a coward.
Perhaps if he would like a living example he could look up the author of the book cited here and ask him how someone from "a nation of cowards" gets to be a Navy Seal; how someone from "a nation of cowards" does his duty in the face of harsh terrain, an utterly fanatical enemy and with loved ones so very far away; and how someone from "a nation of cowards" fights for people who traffic in lies and willingly lays down life so those same people have the right to despise him.
I doubt the Attorney General will venture outside the rarefied circles of the anointed liberal elite, but as the crowds of the events of 9/12 have shown, the "nation of cowards" seems more than willing to come to Washington D.C. to engage him and his master. Why? Because they have a fear that America is irreversibly turning into a cesspool of lies, corruption and, yes, cowardice. The lies of a health care takeover that is full of "details that are to be ironed out later" when no one is looking. The corruption of elected officials serving for life and if they do happen to leave before death, pocketing millions in campaign cash contributions on the way out the door. The cowardice of a president too afraid to even specifically name the Muslim murderers in an op-ed piece on the 9/11 massacre. He referred to it once as an attack and twice as a tragedy, and nothing more. Then he called for a "day of service . . . .on this day and every day." What does a horrific massacre have to do with picking up trash?
This weasel maneuver to dumb down 9/11 is loathsome as it is clever. It weakens the spirit of America by diluting the memory of our sacred dead. "Never forget" is a slogan seen in regards to 9/11, but the President would have us ditch a piece of ourselves for some recycling project. Talk about your green jobs. Is it any wonder Van Jones, the former green jobs czar signed a petition to twist 9/11 into some insanely foul inside job?
While those who perished on 9/11 by the hands of jihadist killers and those who took up arms to avenge them, occupy the most cherished place in the heart of America, for all those heroes, there are the silent or almost hidden ones as well. They are the men and women who don't have to be called to serve "every day" because they have already chosen to do so by enforcing the laws of this land.
Sadly, even these people are sandbagged by this administration. President Obama chastised a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer for "acting stupidly" in the arrest of a Harvard professor, who verbally harangued the officer. The charges were mysteriously dropped. Now a national commission has been set up to investigate this incident and, of course, the police officer involved. This attempt to provide, one more race card for Obama is all the more disgusting, since it trashes the reputation of a man that by all accounts (save the arrested Harvard professor) is a fine police officer. One thing about Barrack Obama solidly on display is his ambition, It is absolutely ruthless. Trashing the men and women who serve and support the laws of this country proves it.
For a president and his minions to attack, the CIA, local police and then call everyone else in the country gutless shows where we're headed. This president of ours is young and quite used to getting his own way. His rigid attitude may have worked as a state senator, but such an attitude at this lofty post will cripple him. The attacks on this group or that are to be expected on a man weaned on identity politics. Even the moronic decision to spark a trade war with China by slapping tariffs on tires can be seen as pleasing to some union and quite predictable. Attack someone to please someone else. Of course, the people made to suffer will be other businesses like poultry or cars that feel the wrath of Chinese retaliatory tariffs.
When you attack Americans keeping the peace here and around the globe, you've made a colossal political blunder. You may have pleased Bill Ayes, Rev. Wright or Van Jones, but that just shows a president pandering to the fringe. Such pandering on this level is an invitation to a world of political hurt as most Americans are obviously not radical revolutionaries. To be fair, attack is the usual mode of operation for any radical revolutionary and part of our president seems to yearn immaturely for this tough guy mode. Others are watching and learning the patterns of this young and inexperienced leader.
To the world, the lesson is indisputable. an American President who will attack his own is a fool and will suffer a fools fate. Allies back away and enemies are emboldened. This is my fear. It comprises a fear that this President is undermining the laws of this country. It all starts by attacking our own.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Dems fighting words
Now that Van Jones, the so-called Green Jobs Czar has resigned, one might say the cost of fighting words has risen. While he signed onto the cause that 9-11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration, the amazing foul mouth line against Republicans says something about the hubris of the Democratic power elite. Evidently, there is an assumption that thoroughly rotten behavior is forgiven if one is a Democrat and in power. Others feel that this kind of lunacy and profanity are now par for the course in our national dialogue. Perhaps that's why Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarret, close advisor to the President, according to Politico.com, heaped praise on Van Jones rather recently. Perhaps only Republicans are accountable for wretched speech or insane conspiracy theories.
That words now count differently for some who lead rather than others comprises a fundamental distortion in our national discourse. It also exposes the craven. If say, a Republican now votes for Obamacare after Democrats have called them "Un-American" (Pelosi/Reid) racist (Patterson, Rangel) or "Asshole" (Van Jones), that person is a punk. If someone called you these to your face, you'd dispute it to say the least, if not take a swipe at them. These are fighting words. Do nothing and you deserve the abuse you will receive. Anyone who's vaguely aware of how people interact know there are certain words and phrases that are certain to inflame a conversation. It's that attempt by someone to make general attacks personal that is so evil. To sink a phrase hook into someones consciousness, is to try to intimidate someone on an intellectual plane.
Unless one replies in kind, the verbal smear artist has achieved a hold over the target.
However, this verbal intimidation has not worked, so far. Barrack Hussein Obamas big speech to Congress can do little fix things. As Walter Ong wrote, once something is uttered, all else afterword is simply patchwork on the previous oral expression. Obama's soothing words can do little to stop the rancor that has engulfed the national conversation this summer. Sure' we'll get a speech of the grand visions and the individual sob stories, but for most, the system works. Look, once someone has called you a vile name, no amount of sweet words can change your opinion.
Obama cannot persuade with facts because they are completely against him. Of the 50 million newly insured in Obamacare, less than 10 million are actually indigent U.S. citizens who lack means for coverage. So we're paying over one trillion so as to insure less than 3% of the population? We're cutting Medicare to insure illegals? Will doctors want to practice in a profession that will pay them less and make them take more patients? We're taking a hatchet to one sixth of our economy when we're in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression? If this weren't so close to becoming law, it would be laughable, it's so bad. The program as it stands described now is an absolute farce.
In spite of this obvious contradiction between between facts and words, language is the way out for Obama now. Obama will, as one Congressman advocated as a course of action in Vietnam, "declare victory and get out". Obamacare is doomed in its' present form. This means the administration will pass some weasel bill supported by Democrats and a few punk Republicans probably costing a "mere" 200 or 300 billion dollars. This "victory" declared by his hoard of media toads will allow Obama to segway into another issue, probably energy. However, he is damaged goods. The vicious vile language of the health care debate will haunt him.
On the other hand, maybe it's best to take a different tack. Let's go along with the smear job in one specific instance and see if it leads somewhere. Perhaps we should assume Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Brian Baird are right and the Republicans opposing this really are "Nazis" Absurd? sure, but allow this to play out.
We know know from history the Nazis were murderous scum, but how driven were they really? Assuming Obama believes his own teams' propaganda, what is he up against? How determined are these Republican/Nazis. If history is a guide, here is an example from North Africa, 1942. It highlights the observations of one captured American officer watching the workings of a German military airfield from a holding pen.
"At El Aouina airport, whence the captives were to be flown to prison in Italy, the Americans watched as Allied bombers briefly pummelled the field and flew away. At the all clear signal, German soldiers heaved grappling hooks into a burning Junkers transport plane bombed moments after landing from Italy. Bulldozers dragged the wreckage off the runway. Landings resumed instantly, and Wehrmacht troops clattered down the aircraft ramps before the propellers stopped spinning. Only then did an ambulance pull up to the burning Junkers, and German rescue workers in asbestos suits begin pulling injured men from the wreckage.
Another captured officer turned to Frelinghuysen. "People who fight a war like that," he said, "will be hard to beat."
I'm not sure those "people" have that much in common with Republicans, so let's put them in the role that they might actually fit in, that of Americans in the same place and same time. However, let's be fair to Pelosi and use a Nazi description of them. Attributed to Erwin Rommel after he saw them fight in North Africa, this assessment of the American troops could perhaps apply to Republicans. He supposedly said of American soldiers, he had never seen worse soldiers in their first battle, nor ones who had learned so much by their second.
Republicans were drubbed in their first electoral encounter with Obama, but his youth and inexperience is showing and they seem to be learning fast. We'll find out how much they've learned next year, 2010.
That words now count differently for some who lead rather than others comprises a fundamental distortion in our national discourse. It also exposes the craven. If say, a Republican now votes for Obamacare after Democrats have called them "Un-American" (Pelosi/Reid) racist (Patterson, Rangel) or "Asshole" (Van Jones), that person is a punk. If someone called you these to your face, you'd dispute it to say the least, if not take a swipe at them. These are fighting words. Do nothing and you deserve the abuse you will receive. Anyone who's vaguely aware of how people interact know there are certain words and phrases that are certain to inflame a conversation. It's that attempt by someone to make general attacks personal that is so evil. To sink a phrase hook into someones consciousness, is to try to intimidate someone on an intellectual plane.
Unless one replies in kind, the verbal smear artist has achieved a hold over the target.
However, this verbal intimidation has not worked, so far. Barrack Hussein Obamas big speech to Congress can do little fix things. As Walter Ong wrote, once something is uttered, all else afterword is simply patchwork on the previous oral expression. Obama's soothing words can do little to stop the rancor that has engulfed the national conversation this summer. Sure' we'll get a speech of the grand visions and the individual sob stories, but for most, the system works. Look, once someone has called you a vile name, no amount of sweet words can change your opinion.
Obama cannot persuade with facts because they are completely against him. Of the 50 million newly insured in Obamacare, less than 10 million are actually indigent U.S. citizens who lack means for coverage. So we're paying over one trillion so as to insure less than 3% of the population? We're cutting Medicare to insure illegals? Will doctors want to practice in a profession that will pay them less and make them take more patients? We're taking a hatchet to one sixth of our economy when we're in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression? If this weren't so close to becoming law, it would be laughable, it's so bad. The program as it stands described now is an absolute farce.
In spite of this obvious contradiction between between facts and words, language is the way out for Obama now. Obama will, as one Congressman advocated as a course of action in Vietnam, "declare victory and get out". Obamacare is doomed in its' present form. This means the administration will pass some weasel bill supported by Democrats and a few punk Republicans probably costing a "mere" 200 or 300 billion dollars. This "victory" declared by his hoard of media toads will allow Obama to segway into another issue, probably energy. However, he is damaged goods. The vicious vile language of the health care debate will haunt him.
On the other hand, maybe it's best to take a different tack. Let's go along with the smear job in one specific instance and see if it leads somewhere. Perhaps we should assume Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Brian Baird are right and the Republicans opposing this really are "Nazis" Absurd? sure, but allow this to play out.
We know know from history the Nazis were murderous scum, but how driven were they really? Assuming Obama believes his own teams' propaganda, what is he up against? How determined are these Republican/Nazis. If history is a guide, here is an example from North Africa, 1942. It highlights the observations of one captured American officer watching the workings of a German military airfield from a holding pen.
"At El Aouina airport, whence the captives were to be flown to prison in Italy, the Americans watched as Allied bombers briefly pummelled the field and flew away. At the all clear signal, German soldiers heaved grappling hooks into a burning Junkers transport plane bombed moments after landing from Italy. Bulldozers dragged the wreckage off the runway. Landings resumed instantly, and Wehrmacht troops clattered down the aircraft ramps before the propellers stopped spinning. Only then did an ambulance pull up to the burning Junkers, and German rescue workers in asbestos suits begin pulling injured men from the wreckage.
Another captured officer turned to Frelinghuysen. "People who fight a war like that," he said, "will be hard to beat."
I'm not sure those "people" have that much in common with Republicans, so let's put them in the role that they might actually fit in, that of Americans in the same place and same time. However, let's be fair to Pelosi and use a Nazi description of them. Attributed to Erwin Rommel after he saw them fight in North Africa, this assessment of the American troops could perhaps apply to Republicans. He supposedly said of American soldiers, he had never seen worse soldiers in their first battle, nor ones who had learned so much by their second.
Republicans were drubbed in their first electoral encounter with Obama, but his youth and inexperience is showing and they seem to be learning fast. We'll find out how much they've learned next year, 2010.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Here's my vote, Mr. President, take it
Recently, President Barrack Obama has started to slide in the U.S. national opinion polls. His health care overhaul is sagging under a shadow of a more than one trillion dollar price tag. The U.S. economy continues to stagger along shedding more and more workers. His own Secretary of the Treasury said unemployment will peak in the second half of next year. His rhetorical about face on the Iranian Election turmoil made him no friends, save the despots in Tehran who needed the time granted by his shilly-shalling to crush the protesters. . His insistence on being a lapdog for Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers during the still developing Honduran Presidential crisis has exhibited his swooning for all things dictatorial. Still, I have to admit, he is the most cheerful Marxist I know. He's much more chipper than dour Daniel Ortega, more lively than the moribund Castro brothers, and more suave than loopy Hugo Chavez.
So I must say I was a bit shocked by his rhetorical hit job on the Cambridge police during the Gates fracas. Why was he so harsh when the President admitted he didn't know what was going on? Some have suggested that he needs to hit the reset button on his Presidency- to start over. Perhaps this now trumped up racial incident was just this - an attempt to reset a Presidency that is gradually sliding from a showy burst of optimism to turgid mediocrity or worse.
The President has declared this media event a "teachable" moment. Well, what does this teach us about Barrack Obama? When does Obama talk of race? He spoke about it in the campaign when things seemed to get bumpy or when he needed a lift. When Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in the Democratic primary, she and hubby Bill were blasted as racists over remarks that could only be construed as racist if you had some network news pundit tell you they were. This helped Obama big time as Hillary Clinton could never shed the label of a racist throughout the rest of the campaign. It hung around like a bad smell.
In the second race card play, Obama himself played pundit by explaining what the McCain camp strategy would be. According to candidate Obama, they would simply mention he's black and thereby make his race an issue. This ludicrously simple take on the opposing strategy allowed Obama to introduce race himself and drape himself as the righteous victim when no insult had occurred. This smear helped Obama open up space before the Democratic convention and fill a void in news that his media servants dutifully exploited.
So now fast forward to an Obama Presidency that is clearly struggling despite tremendous advantages. The old cheery Obama seems less so. Governing is tough. So what to do? A minor police incident is blown up to national scale. Racial profiling is solemnly invoked though by all accounts except the arrested Harvard professor, nothing of the sort ever occurred. Obama clearly knew he was raising a red herring, but this is not the campaign anymore. Obama now runs the show. A ruler must be more careful and constructive. This sloppy play of the race card seems out of character for the formerly suave, cheery Marxist. The race card can only played one way lest it boomerang. Most of us know, after almost 50 years of affirmative action, how the game is played.
In any discussion of race in America, there are sadly essentially two paths on which these things track. One involves invoking bland platitudes to skirt the issue until the proverbial commercial break. The other is a vicious verbal blood sport meant smear the other side as racist as quickly as possible. These smears can be as blatant as the Harvard professor screaming about race at the police. They can be slightly more subtle as Obama implying that someone white isn't smart enough to carry out the arrest of a black man. An even more brassy smear would be Sonia Sotomayor saying that her group, Latinas is smarter than another group, white men.
Now the interesting part is these people know the importance of what their saying, but are rolling the dice that they can bulldoze folks with their supposedly enlightened point of view. However, when challenged, they back down because they recognize that the larger society realizes their opinion foul and hateful. The Harvard professor had contemplated a lawsuit, but now wants to "move on." Judge Sotomayor now says her comment was "bad" After accusing the police which was one white officer on the scene, of "acting stupidly" President Obama retreated to a slightly more humble attitude of recalibration which was wise since he said himself he didn't know all the facts. Bud light anyone?
Why haven't I mentioned any white racists? Think about this one. Don Imus, radio show host made a scummy racist remark about a women's' college basketball team. When he's called out for it, he's fired as he should have been. Sonia Sotomayor is about to become a Supreme Court Justice. Barrack Obama is lauded for raising the issue of race relations in this country. And certainly no one is calling for the firing or even censure of the Harvard professor. It's easy to see which side benefits by raising the race card. Race relations are severely lopsided in this country and affirmative action is to blame. You can't create a privileged group without that privilege eventually skewing the way that group thinks about itself and other groups.
Racism was a widespread evil in the United States, but it is gradually fading. How do I know this? Because over time, the races in a heterogeneous country mix. People don't fear or hate those to whom they are related. So you get a Mariah Carey, a Derek Jeter and yes, a Barrack Obama. In time, Affirmative Action will seems rather ludicrous as everyone will say they are part this or that, but the real duty we can do now is to ignore race and focus on ones thoughts, words and deeds. Sure poor American-Africans and others need help. I would not be against means testing for jobs or education, but a blanket category of race seems insipid in this day and age. After all, you have black CEO's, black Secretaries of State (two of them) and now a black President. Affirmative action worked. As the Harvard professor would say it's time to move on.
Obviously, playing this card still works to a degree and encourages people to think of themselves as only a racial entity. However, as stated this country is becoming more mixed and those that continue to cry racism at the drop of a hat will be seen as crying wolf. Once someone is tagged as a whiner or a punk, especially a leader or prince then they have little real power. Machiavelli warns a prince must never been seen as odious. Crying wolf about racism or anything else is a big step in that direction. Lest this whole essay be seen as whiny itself, let's give the President a suggested course of action.
Want higher poll numbers Mr. President? Take a bold decisive path with actions not just words. Show that your an individual that sees what America will be like and aid her getting there. End Affirmative Action in your term. This would square nicely with your post racial billing. Eventually, it will be superfluous anyway. Why not get ahead of the historical curve? You've said you want "parity." Why not remove this last government sanctioned distortion of racism in American life once and for all?
I'm not a one issue voter, but if you do this, I will vote for your reelection. Many will toss verbal slings and arrows. Among the American-African aristocracy, I'm sure there'll be howls. However, you know this is the right way: a completely equal America before the law, in academia and in the market place. Ironically, because of your race, you may be the only one in the foreseeable future who can do this. As has been said "Only Nixon could go to China."
So I must say I was a bit shocked by his rhetorical hit job on the Cambridge police during the Gates fracas. Why was he so harsh when the President admitted he didn't know what was going on? Some have suggested that he needs to hit the reset button on his Presidency- to start over. Perhaps this now trumped up racial incident was just this - an attempt to reset a Presidency that is gradually sliding from a showy burst of optimism to turgid mediocrity or worse.
The President has declared this media event a "teachable" moment. Well, what does this teach us about Barrack Obama? When does Obama talk of race? He spoke about it in the campaign when things seemed to get bumpy or when he needed a lift. When Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in the Democratic primary, she and hubby Bill were blasted as racists over remarks that could only be construed as racist if you had some network news pundit tell you they were. This helped Obama big time as Hillary Clinton could never shed the label of a racist throughout the rest of the campaign. It hung around like a bad smell.
In the second race card play, Obama himself played pundit by explaining what the McCain camp strategy would be. According to candidate Obama, they would simply mention he's black and thereby make his race an issue. This ludicrously simple take on the opposing strategy allowed Obama to introduce race himself and drape himself as the righteous victim when no insult had occurred. This smear helped Obama open up space before the Democratic convention and fill a void in news that his media servants dutifully exploited.
So now fast forward to an Obama Presidency that is clearly struggling despite tremendous advantages. The old cheery Obama seems less so. Governing is tough. So what to do? A minor police incident is blown up to national scale. Racial profiling is solemnly invoked though by all accounts except the arrested Harvard professor, nothing of the sort ever occurred. Obama clearly knew he was raising a red herring, but this is not the campaign anymore. Obama now runs the show. A ruler must be more careful and constructive. This sloppy play of the race card seems out of character for the formerly suave, cheery Marxist. The race card can only played one way lest it boomerang. Most of us know, after almost 50 years of affirmative action, how the game is played.
In any discussion of race in America, there are sadly essentially two paths on which these things track. One involves invoking bland platitudes to skirt the issue until the proverbial commercial break. The other is a vicious verbal blood sport meant smear the other side as racist as quickly as possible. These smears can be as blatant as the Harvard professor screaming about race at the police. They can be slightly more subtle as Obama implying that someone white isn't smart enough to carry out the arrest of a black man. An even more brassy smear would be Sonia Sotomayor saying that her group, Latinas is smarter than another group, white men.
Now the interesting part is these people know the importance of what their saying, but are rolling the dice that they can bulldoze folks with their supposedly enlightened point of view. However, when challenged, they back down because they recognize that the larger society realizes their opinion foul and hateful. The Harvard professor had contemplated a lawsuit, but now wants to "move on." Judge Sotomayor now says her comment was "bad" After accusing the police which was one white officer on the scene, of "acting stupidly" President Obama retreated to a slightly more humble attitude of recalibration which was wise since he said himself he didn't know all the facts. Bud light anyone?
Why haven't I mentioned any white racists? Think about this one. Don Imus, radio show host made a scummy racist remark about a women's' college basketball team. When he's called out for it, he's fired as he should have been. Sonia Sotomayor is about to become a Supreme Court Justice. Barrack Obama is lauded for raising the issue of race relations in this country. And certainly no one is calling for the firing or even censure of the Harvard professor. It's easy to see which side benefits by raising the race card. Race relations are severely lopsided in this country and affirmative action is to blame. You can't create a privileged group without that privilege eventually skewing the way that group thinks about itself and other groups.
Racism was a widespread evil in the United States, but it is gradually fading. How do I know this? Because over time, the races in a heterogeneous country mix. People don't fear or hate those to whom they are related. So you get a Mariah Carey, a Derek Jeter and yes, a Barrack Obama. In time, Affirmative Action will seems rather ludicrous as everyone will say they are part this or that, but the real duty we can do now is to ignore race and focus on ones thoughts, words and deeds. Sure poor American-Africans and others need help. I would not be against means testing for jobs or education, but a blanket category of race seems insipid in this day and age. After all, you have black CEO's, black Secretaries of State (two of them) and now a black President. Affirmative action worked. As the Harvard professor would say it's time to move on.
Obviously, playing this card still works to a degree and encourages people to think of themselves as only a racial entity. However, as stated this country is becoming more mixed and those that continue to cry racism at the drop of a hat will be seen as crying wolf. Once someone is tagged as a whiner or a punk, especially a leader or prince then they have little real power. Machiavelli warns a prince must never been seen as odious. Crying wolf about racism or anything else is a big step in that direction. Lest this whole essay be seen as whiny itself, let's give the President a suggested course of action.
Want higher poll numbers Mr. President? Take a bold decisive path with actions not just words. Show that your an individual that sees what America will be like and aid her getting there. End Affirmative Action in your term. This would square nicely with your post racial billing. Eventually, it will be superfluous anyway. Why not get ahead of the historical curve? You've said you want "parity." Why not remove this last government sanctioned distortion of racism in American life once and for all?
I'm not a one issue voter, but if you do this, I will vote for your reelection. Many will toss verbal slings and arrows. Among the American-African aristocracy, I'm sure there'll be howls. However, you know this is the right way: a completely equal America before the law, in academia and in the market place. Ironically, because of your race, you may be the only one in the foreseeable future who can do this. As has been said "Only Nixon could go to China."
Monday, June 29, 2009
Iran, "the magic key" and the Samson Option
Now that the Iranian demonstrators are almost ground under the heel of the Revolutionary Guard, we, simple spectators in the West can take stock of the situation and reflect on where the Middle East is headed now. While the protests for electoral integrity are heartening to most democrats, the flame that sprung to life seems now spent. Though the catalyst of this expression was state sponsored event, unlike Tianemmen Square, the end result seems much the same. While there was much hue and cry via new media, on the dominant state media the song of hate remains the same. Strangely, for one, this whole episode might seem a welcome respite.
If you're President Obama, you have to be happy. The electoral protest has bought Obama needed time to try to browbeat Israel some more or to offer more sweet words to Iran in hopes of a some face saving "peace in our time" agreement. Some have felt that the reticent and self-critical reaction offered by Obama initially was a ploy. By hanging back rhetorically, Obama gave the odious Iranian regime p.r. breathing space to crush the protesters. This theory continues that Obama wanted to create a p.r. debt so that the Mullahs essentially owe him one. Having given them something the President now has a chit in the Iranian favor bank.
I don't quite buy this notion. I don't doubt for a moment that Obama would leave the brave protesters in the lurch. After all, this was a man who denied the Iraqi surge after it succeeded. If he would play politics when the lives of American soldiers are at risk, why wouldn't he cynically use foreign protesters?
The real stumbling block in this theory is that it assumes Obama is naive enough to believe he could extract some sort of viable deal from Iran. Woodrow Wilson was duped into believing the he could get the concessions he wanted in the Versailles Peace Treaty, but that was by his allies not his enemies. To believe Obama would strike a deal with the America-hating nuclear jihadists seems a stretch since any deal would be violated instantly. The fallout from such a deal gone sour could cost Obama his second term. That is his one overriding priority. This doesn't mean the Arabs won't try to sell the snake oil of a phony deal anyway.
Many deals seem to be floating around the Middle East these days. Saudi Arabia was recently trying to push a deal when Obama was in the Kingdom recently. (for the second time in less than six months) According to Saudi media, King Abdullah ordered Obama "to solve the Palestinian issue and impose a solution if necessary." You can bet Obama promptly bowed and scurried from the room. Still, he'll have a tough time finding the so called "magic key." This "key" is what some Arabs believe will solve all the problems of the Middle East. It encompasses the favorable settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
What is favorable to most Arab governments just happens to be not so favorable to Israel. Some Arabs favor the instant destruction of Israel (Iran, Syria, Yemen) or the slow dismemberment of the Jewish state through repatriation. (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) Unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in any deal that allows the Arabs to ship any number of Palestinians real or ersatz into Israel. Unlike the United States, Israel built a wall. That solved the people problem, but not the rocket barrages. However, the small conventional rockets are nothing compared, the nuclear jobs Iran has in mind, but here too Netanyahu has a defense of sorts. It's called the Samson Option.
You see, though the U.S. press (perhaps still obsessed with all things Obama) never mentions it Israel is a nuclear nation. How many bombs and what kind are obviously a closely guarded secret. We do know however that they work. In the 1980s, Israel tested a nuclear device off South Africa, courtesy of the then racist Apartheid government.
The most important aspect of the Samson Option is the saying "never again" Having suffered mass slaughter at the hands of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, the resolution that the nation of Israel was founded on is explicit. Any threat of a new Holocaust would be stopped with all due swiftness and certainty by whatever means possible. The Jews, themselves, would die as a race fighting rather than be killed via the manner of the Nazis. Samson was killed when he tore the building down, but all his enemies were destroyed as well. In nuclear terms, this means Israel would obliterate all countries that pose a threat if Israel were attacked with nuclear weapons. Paralleling the biblical story, though she would perish, Israel would destroy the entire Middle East if attacked.
I guess Iraq and Afghanistan might get a pass due to U.S. forces present, but all other countries would get flattened. Harsh? Absolutely, but this is part of what has allowed Israel to survive all these years, not "tough negotiation." Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD has kept the peace, until the rise of a fanatical Iran. Now, today, we have in Iran, people desperately trying to change course. If they succeed, the Middle East may take a path away from nuclear holocaust. If not, then there is only one deal left. It is the Samson Option.
If you're President Obama, you have to be happy. The electoral protest has bought Obama needed time to try to browbeat Israel some more or to offer more sweet words to Iran in hopes of a some face saving "peace in our time" agreement. Some have felt that the reticent and self-critical reaction offered by Obama initially was a ploy. By hanging back rhetorically, Obama gave the odious Iranian regime p.r. breathing space to crush the protesters. This theory continues that Obama wanted to create a p.r. debt so that the Mullahs essentially owe him one. Having given them something the President now has a chit in the Iranian favor bank.
I don't quite buy this notion. I don't doubt for a moment that Obama would leave the brave protesters in the lurch. After all, this was a man who denied the Iraqi surge after it succeeded. If he would play politics when the lives of American soldiers are at risk, why wouldn't he cynically use foreign protesters?
The real stumbling block in this theory is that it assumes Obama is naive enough to believe he could extract some sort of viable deal from Iran. Woodrow Wilson was duped into believing the he could get the concessions he wanted in the Versailles Peace Treaty, but that was by his allies not his enemies. To believe Obama would strike a deal with the America-hating nuclear jihadists seems a stretch since any deal would be violated instantly. The fallout from such a deal gone sour could cost Obama his second term. That is his one overriding priority. This doesn't mean the Arabs won't try to sell the snake oil of a phony deal anyway.
Many deals seem to be floating around the Middle East these days. Saudi Arabia was recently trying to push a deal when Obama was in the Kingdom recently. (for the second time in less than six months) According to Saudi media, King Abdullah ordered Obama "to solve the Palestinian issue and impose a solution if necessary." You can bet Obama promptly bowed and scurried from the room. Still, he'll have a tough time finding the so called "magic key." This "key" is what some Arabs believe will solve all the problems of the Middle East. It encompasses the favorable settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
What is favorable to most Arab governments just happens to be not so favorable to Israel. Some Arabs favor the instant destruction of Israel (Iran, Syria, Yemen) or the slow dismemberment of the Jewish state through repatriation. (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) Unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in any deal that allows the Arabs to ship any number of Palestinians real or ersatz into Israel. Unlike the United States, Israel built a wall. That solved the people problem, but not the rocket barrages. However, the small conventional rockets are nothing compared, the nuclear jobs Iran has in mind, but here too Netanyahu has a defense of sorts. It's called the Samson Option.
You see, though the U.S. press (perhaps still obsessed with all things Obama) never mentions it Israel is a nuclear nation. How many bombs and what kind are obviously a closely guarded secret. We do know however that they work. In the 1980s, Israel tested a nuclear device off South Africa, courtesy of the then racist Apartheid government.
The most important aspect of the Samson Option is the saying "never again" Having suffered mass slaughter at the hands of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, the resolution that the nation of Israel was founded on is explicit. Any threat of a new Holocaust would be stopped with all due swiftness and certainty by whatever means possible. The Jews, themselves, would die as a race fighting rather than be killed via the manner of the Nazis. Samson was killed when he tore the building down, but all his enemies were destroyed as well. In nuclear terms, this means Israel would obliterate all countries that pose a threat if Israel were attacked with nuclear weapons. Paralleling the biblical story, though she would perish, Israel would destroy the entire Middle East if attacked.
I guess Iraq and Afghanistan might get a pass due to U.S. forces present, but all other countries would get flattened. Harsh? Absolutely, but this is part of what has allowed Israel to survive all these years, not "tough negotiation." Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD has kept the peace, until the rise of a fanatical Iran. Now, today, we have in Iran, people desperately trying to change course. If they succeed, the Middle East may take a path away from nuclear holocaust. If not, then there is only one deal left. It is the Samson Option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
