About Me

Name: Bill Crawford
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Bib Laden Bites The Big One

And the good news is, Obama has obviously learned the power of Special Ops. If the President was the junior Senator talking in 2007, this could not have happened. This was a planned raid, and it's success is clearly a trophy for the White House.
 
They not only did that right, but they gave him his Muslim respects and buried him at sea. No trophy, no shrine- a very good move.
 
In his TV address, he did his best to portray this as a byproduct of ally outreach in Pakistan. Really? If that is the case, how the hell did he end up residing in a large house in the middle of a military garrison town? Did I say large? It was one of the largest in town, with eighteen foot walls. Like the locals didn't know. No matter. This operation was run out of Afghanistan, and that is the first good reason I've gotten out of anybody for being there again.
 
One other note: evidently, one of the intel pieces that led to this was the nickname of one of Usama's couriers- which came out of a Gitmo interrogation of KSM. Imagine that.
 
I'm enjoying the resurgence in patriotism that this brought. The one in our cities that lasted a few months after 9/11 will be shorter now- if it weren't a reason to crow about Obama, it would last one news cycle. I'll take what I can get.
 
This war is not over. In fact, it is still going to get worse before it gets better.  Bin Laden was a central figure, but Al Quaeda has long since realized that grandiose projects like 9/11 were now near impossible and they were left to little pesky things.
 
I hope this leads to a rethinking of why we got into this mess in the first place. Any resurrection of the memory of 9/11-01 is a good thing.
 
Enjoy the victory, Barrack. You deserve it.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republican Candidates

The remarkable thing about the field of Republican Presidential candidates is how they don’t even seem to be trying to make themselves visible. In 2008, there were already a few in with both feet at this point, and speculation was rampant about some others entering.

Even more intriguing is how the ones that are active in Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be perfectly happy with Donald Trump taking up all the available light. It seems that none of them are worried about him in the long run, and are content to work their way around under the radar.

So, who will prevail next year? There is no way of telling at this point. Sarah Palin is convinced that the best thing for the Republicans is a drawn out and lively debate process, and I concur. She also says that she will only step in if nobody else looks like they are signing on to the Tea Party platform.

Which brings us back to ideas. As I’ve stated here on a few occasions, the party is not chasing after the man with the ideas. It is trying to find a candidate who promises to follow the ideas being handed up from the ground. This is why New Gingrich will not make it. The Tea Party is all about being tired of waiting for the person with the right ideas- it is about being so tired of not getting them, they are handing them a simple menu and asking if they are for or against.

Past that, there is always the reaction factor. Obama succeeded in part in 2008 because he was more articulate than George Bush and exuded an intelligence Bush’s detractors were convinced George didn’t possess. This year, it will be about having an aura of executive competence (can you say “Governor”?) and about being a relative milquetoast. Like the old saying goes, if you run one William Jennings Bryant against another, the one with squatters rights wins. Actually, I just made that up.

Obama is doing his level best to raise a ton of money, which at this stage is all about scaring off any primary challenges. Nobody will be able to run him ragged , if he has a $200 billion war chest by the end of the summer.

If he is running unopposed, he will then put his money to it’s most effective use- being a primary pest in all the states where crossover voting is allowed. He will do his level best to choose his ultimate opponent from the open menu. I don’t think he will be able to, but he can make some lives miserable.

When the general election campaign begins in earnest, Obama will find that, since so many swing voters are off his radar (like they were in 2010), he will be chasing after so much smaller a pool of undecided that nailing them down will be prohibitively more expensive than his last campaign.

I have two concerns. The minor one is that someone will obtain so much momentum after Iowa, NH and South Carolina that many swing states will get left out of the decision process. My major concern is that because the deficit proble will be front and center, somebody will be nominated who is short on foreign policy skills. There is a greater war coming still, and we need to face up to that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Debate Terms

Well, not really. They are  the terms set by the Left. Or the cities. Or the coasts. I still think it is more accurate to label the larger group here as "counterculture", even though in individual encounters, I've found many (especially those with young children) blanch at being labelled "counterculture".
 
But I digress. Donald Trump is a talented, obnoxious and contemptable man, who has a hard lesson to teach to the Republicans, by example. That being, you can't be intimidated by these people.
 
In my travels in New York City and now Long Island, my paths cross often with those who share with me a confidence in their own viewpoints. The difference between us is in their tolarance of disagreement. In the middle of the country, the ferocity these types will come at you in the coastal regions takes them aback at times. At first encounter, there often is little or no reaction.
 
What the Donald can teach is that you have no need to be afraid of these people. The world of politics and public debate demands that both sides be engaged, and there are no extra credit points for politeness. The only place that comes into play is if you are a candidate, and you can afford to delegate this to a staff pit bull, while you stay above the mosh pit.
 
This is what Trump has done with the birther debate. I see no constructive reason to do so, outside of teaching us all to answer the damned questions before an election, not after. And there are two things the Donald is right about, whether you like it or not:
 
One: the question of Obama's natural American birth has not been definitively settled.
Two: Obama is spending millions to avoid getting to the bottom of the question.
 
In fact, Obama is sitting on a bunch of things that would have been informative to those looking to get to know the potential President in 2008. You want a list? Here you go:
 
Birth records
Punahou School records
Occidental College records
Columbia University records
Columbia thesis
Harvard Law School records
Harvard Law Review articles
Many University of Chicago articles
All passport and medical records
Many records and files as an Illinois State Senator
All Illinois State Bar Association records
All Baptism and adoption records
 
Now, I am certainly not in favor of turning your whole life into a goldfish bowl to run for President. But you don't think that is a bit much?
 
The point being, all that is only coming into play now, three years too late, because an obnoxious man is unafraid of a media that would sooner drive a stake into their own heart than raise certain questions themselves. For this, I applaud Trump. You're not fired. Yet.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Big Plan

Between his caterwaulings about Congressman Ryan's ten year proposal, the President has somehow decided there is a curve out there that he has to stay ahead of. That is probably why his February budget is in the amnesia file and he has kicked out his second in two months.
 
This one has actual cuts in it. The White House has obviously settled on a talking point of $4 trillion. Funny thing is, for some odd reason, they've dropped the standard ten year model, and stretched it to twelve. Why twelve? They don't say, so I will: it's to add enough time to get to $4 trillion.
 
Only less than half of that is in budget cuts- the remainder is supposed to be done by repealing the Bush tax cuts on upper incomes. So, that's how much? Two tril over twelve years? The federal behemoth has added a trillion dollars a year in spending since 2008, and he wants to scale back $170 billion a year? That's his best shot?
 
Let's get real, folks. Reagan agreed to a tax hike in 1986 and was promised $3 in cuts for every dollar in tax increase. In 1991, Bush Sr. raised taxes again and was promised $2 for $1. Neither President got bupkus. On top of that, Clinton used Bush's "no new taxes" pledge against him in the '92 campaign! Where on earth does Obama get the idea that anybody in the House is going to negotiate with him on this?
 
This issue is dead. The House will pass Ryan's budget with minor variations- after which it will die. There will be no significant concession on either side, and the White House wuill do the best they can to cough up something out of Appropriations, even if they backpedal the whole way. And none of this will get decided until the 2012 election, which is how something this big should be decided.
 
Past that, here is the Tea Party reality: the swing voters are no less scared witless over the debt and deficits than they were last year.  Ryan's budget is not the final answer to anything, but it is a numerical framework for what is coming.
 
And here's the really crazy part: eventually, to solve this problem, the middle class in this country will take a hit in taxes. The size of the hit they will accept will shock and amaze, when it happens.
 
But there won't be any hit, until they first see that the government can cut back. The cuts have to come first. There will be no raise taxes and promise the cuts deal. There just won't.
 
And if you Progressives think you had all the crap you are going to take, wait until next year. You're on the wrong side of history. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glenn Beck Ditches His Face Time

Glenn is such a curious creature. Have you read his books? They don't translate well into audio. He celebrates his ADHD problem by making his books a scrapheap of clip art, cut and paste, post-it notes and all sorts of things that he seems to find more pleasing than footnotes. He is a different version of Newt Gingrich- a unique thought process, but the same problem: he needs more than a soundbite moment to complete his thoughts, or you won't have a clue what he was getting at. That is why Newt was sometimes so cogent on C-Span and so lost on the network news.
 
Beck is way too much a pessimist for my taste. While I can see and agree with many of the connections he makes, I don't think he understands the leveling limitations that government blankets over you, especially in the West Wing of the White House, where more interests and power are in play than anywhere else on the planet.
 
So yes, Obama swept into town with some freakish friends that would never otherwise get a security clearance. But what they are able to do with some of their ideas run into some high walls that are built into the system? All part of turning the ship America- the bigger the boat, the more sluggish the controls.
 
He does consistently find problem with one set of problems over others. He is a creature of his time. His star took off not because he showed up on Fox (although that certainly helped), but because he is a pessimist and not a fan of the counterculture at a time when a big recession was firmly in place and the biggest counterculture politician in our history was taking office.
 
For all this, he drives the left nuts. He doesn't do it consciously like Ann Coulter, but he understands what he is doing.
 
He is not going dark. though. He still has his radio show, he does live stuff with and without Bill O'Reilly, he has a website www.theblaze.com that I have not seen yet and he is planning to continue to work for Roger Ailes as a producer. I've been told that part of this is because of his medical problems.
 
Any rumor that he is doing this because of falling ratings is a pantload. He could lose a third of his ratings and still be better than what they had before he showed up.
 
In the meantime, he is a good test barometer for me. Those on the left usually acknowledge that Beck drives them crazy, but they don't seem to be able to say exactly why. A few have, and that is always a pleasant surprise.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Starts The Engines

I feel so privileged. I am one of the intimate inner circle. One of the thirty million or so that got the first news of Obama's offcial re-elect kickoff. They passed out a regular Joe video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ ) and opened the first form of the campaign website at  www.barackobama.com.
 
Of course, one thing is noticeable right away: I don't see the words "hope" or "change" anywhere. Another thing smacked me upside the head, there is no policy. It's about two things, folks. Sign up and give money.
 
His heady dreams from 2008 have died. Gitmo is not only still open, but Justice is preparing all of us for military tribunals again. Cap and trade is dead, unless the EPA can make it happen while the Republican Congress is on leave. Health care was supposed to get more popular as time passed, but the 2010 elections didn't pan that one out. His "reset" in bringing the Muslim world into constructive negotiations has been a bust. Now the hope is that they can paint the Republicans as assassins of children and grandmothers.
 
Oh, and money. They wanted to get this all going on April 1st, so they could not waste any time raising money in the second quarter of 2011. They want to raise a billion doallrs. If they follow the example of 2008, they won't care if the bust on the Federal Election Commission in the process. Money will keep him alive. Money will keep him on television. And, more importantly, having a quarter billion in the bank by the end of this summer will make it almost impossible to produce a primary challenge. If Hillary wants to run, she can't play coy. She will have to start her own beg-a-thon forthwith.
 
What? Busting on FEC rules? How can you say that, Bill? Here's how: if you give less than $200, they don't need to keep records of your name, address or occupation. If they leave AVS (address verification service) on, you can only use your credit card if the name you give matches the card number. If they turn it off (like they did in 2008), you can give $100 under your name, and another $100 using the same card and the name "Mickey Mouse". And another c-note, using the same card and "Adolph Hitler". You can keep doing that to your heart's content, and go way, way past the $2500 limit for individuals in one election cycle.
 
C'mon, they can't really be that cynical. Yes they were, and yes they are. The Committee to re-elect wants to drown the system in money. They are picking up right where they left off.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Elizabeth Taylor, R.I.P.

I've gotten a few mentions of her in conversation, a few more in passing via e-mail. More than a handful wanted to know what I thought of her. The short answer is, aside from using her as an illustrative reference on Oscar night, I don't think about her. Never did.
 
She was one of the last of the child stars raised and groomed by the major studios. She had a presence that went beyond her talent. She became a fiercely independent actress, leading a path for others when the studio system died out.
 
She was the first actor to get a million bucks for a picture. When they wanted her for "Cleopatra", she told her agent to ask for that number, obviously not caring whether she got the part or not. Much to her surprise, they offered it, and she became the center of a production whirlwind for a boondoggle picture that, adjusted for inflation, was the most expensive film ever made until Cameron's "Titanic" topped it.
 
On the angel's side, she was very incvolved in awareness and fund raising for AIDS, way back when it was known as GRID (Gay Related ImmunoDeficiency syndrome). This was the subject of many of the e-mails sent to me.
 
I''m afraid though, that my strongest memory of her is how she turned one of the potentially greatest Shakespearian actors of our time into a babbling drunk. Round about 1960, Richard Burton was doing a Hamlet on Broadway that was flooring people. Ten years later, he was just a big name. Ten years after that, he was doing a sequel to "The Exorcist".
 
Oh, well. That's the way the ball bounces. May she rest in peace.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Norman Borlaug, Unknown Giant

When I was just out of high school, a friend of mine dragged me to a film being presented to her class by one of the Health teachers. The film was one of those Malthusian doom-and-gloom prophesies being put out by the limits to growth crowd (who later became the older leading edge of the global warming crowd today).
 
When it was over, I raised my hand and offered a rebuttal. I had read and latched on to four concepts that belied the film. I didn't invent them, I just found them. I believed in them because I am an incurable optimist and I think that history justifies this.
 
One: the conventional wisdom about population growth was way, way off. When you have an agrarian society, children are an asset from the time they can walk. More children also lead to better retirement. When you industrialize and children become more of a liability to raise, people magically stop having as many. This is why, since then, birth rates in every area of the world save the sub-Saharan have declined to near or below replacement level (2.1 children per family).
 
Two: When people reach a certain level of eco development, pollution stops increasing and stabilizes. This is the point where most of the country owns a refrigerator and a car and new purchases are more efficient replacements.
 
Three: Fossil fuel reserves extant are probably way, way more than these people were projecting. I've since learned to simply laugh in the face of "peak oil" advocates, who propose that world reserves are somewhere between ten and thirty years of depletion.
 
Four: Round about 1975, for the first time in world history, food production reached the point where any starvation out there was a distribition problem, not a production one.
 
What I didn't know at the time was that there was one man who was responsible for a lot of the last factor. Norman Borlaug (1914-2009) was an American scientist who developed short stalk hybrid grains that grew in more arid areas than most wheats, made heavier food grains faster and since they were shorter and didn't bend at maturity, were easier to harvest.
 
This man should be celebrated with Jonas Salk in our schools, I think he affected world starvation more than anybody else in history. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for this in 1970, but that isn't enough. It's people like this that occasionally roam the planet that allow me to get away with being an optimist. I have never seen him mentioned in a textbook. There is something wrong with that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Way The Political Left Works In America

In 2009, the Wake County School Board here in North Carolina was already up against it. They had been playing out some ideas for a number of years, mainly year round schools and forced busing to create diversity. For all it did, it also played havoc with family schedules (imagine having two kids on a nine month schedule and one year round), along with the lengthy bus rides that busing away from home district entails.
 
That year, a new practice became common- the scheduling of semi-regular teacher workdays in the middle of the week, eventually derisively called "Wacky Wednesdays", and it all gave a political impetus to oust most of the Board and bring in a new majority. A Republican majority. They came in and immediately acted on their campaign promises to end all this.
 
Well, all hell broke loose. Teacher and student protests. Parent counter-protests. NAACP protests. I heard every talking point in creation on this one. They acted without waiting for full public comment. The vote was a slim majority of a tiny turnout, and so wasn't legitimate. The new policy was inhumane. It was discriminatory, It was racist.
 
Now, they are looking to update their accreditation with AdvancED, and the group is holding it up until the Board satisfies them on concerns raised by the NAACP. The Board's hiring of a certain lawyer. The outside training of new Board members. The budgetary costs of ending year round schools. You know- education issues. How's that?
 
Mind you, they passed off accreditation on the Halifax schools recently without an issue, and I've heard that system descibed as a war zone by many people. When did this process become political?
 
Reality check: the education industry is a Democrat animal now. That is where they plant their political flag, and that is where their contributions go. If you aren't with them, you are against them. Er, that is, you are against the children, and the future.
 
Segue to Wisconsin. Governor Walker passed his reforms over the dead (absent) bodies of the minority Democrats. The Governor signed the Bill, and it should be law, right? Oh, no, not if you can find a friendly Judge to pass an injunction from the Seretary of State to "publish" the damned thing. So, they found another person to publish it, and the whole thing is being held up in court.
 
Try to understand: conservatives regard government as more of a necessary evil. They enter political office to try and tame it, and eventually they leave public service. It's been nice, people, but I have a life.
 
To a progressive, government is a life vocation. To some, it approaches a religion. The conservative approach is something to be regarded as some sort of interloper, intruding on their good works. Whatever it takes to stop these intruders is all for a good cause.
 
And in the process, if the voters occasionally get their storm und drang thing going and set that back, their ignorance must be countered. By any means necessary. It's all there in Saul Alinsky's masterwork. "Rules For Radicals". Read it and understand.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Doctrine

I try to give this guy a chance. He's beat me over the head with his audacious shovel so many times, but hell, this is still my country and he is the duly elected President, right?
 
Well, we're in Libya now, and I still haven't figured out why we are in Afghanistan. To be fair, Bush wasn't very good at explaining why we were in Iraq, but I could use his speeches from just after 9/11 to deduct a few good reasons. I haven't been able to do that with Kabul, and I refuse to stoop to passing it off as the extention of a campaign promise.
 
Now, Obama busted on many of the rules that he set as Senator, when taking Bush down to size in 2006-07. But that doesn't matter. Why? Because he is a moral relaitivist, that's why. He doesn't care if today's needs contradict yesterdays.
 
He kept his friendship with the mainstream media out of intensive care by not asking them for prime time for his speech, and then being good enough to bail out at 7:59pm.
 
For starters, his speech showed that, three years into office, he STILL can't stop using George Bush as a pinata. He needed to speak up and tell us all what was in the "national interests". First, Gadhafi was a bad man and awful things happened on his watch. Second, it is all OK, because "unlike Iraq", it was a miultilateral effort.
 
How's that? So how was Iraq so wrong in 2002? We went to the UN twice. Bush went to Congress at least once more often than Obama did here. And Hussien did some nasty things, too. What about Syria? Why not there? Surely he knows how many rockets they are firing into Isreal right now.
 
Or, as Barrack Obama once opined in "The Audacity of Hope", "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?" 
 
The man is a lawyer, what do you expect? A good lawyer knows how to talk clearly, when it is in their best interests. They also know how to put up a wall of bull, when clarity is not your friend.
 
He'll pass this off on NATO as fast as he can. This is not a priority of his. He was hoping for an "organic" revolution in the Middle East- where the West would nothave to intervene. Gadhafi laid an egg on that path. And now, Obama wants to show us that he was on this thing all along.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New York's 2% Property Tax Cap

...Is too little, too late. During the six years of the housing boom, assessed home values rose so fast that, in New York (among other places) government spending and property atxes were given breathing room by taxpayers to explode alongside. When the boom ended, taxpayers in New York were left with some of the highest rates in the country (more than four times the national average), with no resources for absorbing increases..
 
In California, Proposition 13 capped the rate of property tax increases in 1978. They found other ways to fund their dreams in Sacramento, but ran into the same wall as everybody else when the NRRA fed funding dried up this year. The wise Progressive view is that, if such a cap didn't exist, taxes could have kept up with spending, and we wouldn't have a debt problem.
 
Because, as Roger Moore says, the money is out there. It just has to be pried out of the hands of the greedy rich and passed around to the needy. Now, the same story line is appearing in New York. You can't put a cap on property taxes, you need to fund government. Look at all it does! And then, drag out the specifics of the programs that won't be cut, but decimated. The children will suffer.
 
Try this for reality. The total government expenditure here- federal, state, local and school- is 42% of GDP. The tax rate is 10% lower. Spending has exploded since 2008, but taxation has not kept up. Hence the crazy debt problems.
 
The big question for 2012 is, do we want to fund the new spending and become a new Europe? Or do we want to cut spending and become, at worst, what we were in 2007?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republican Presidential Field

Newt Gingrich has obviously passed the point of no return here. His comments and responses have gone way past the ambiguous. Newt is going to declare his candidacy in less than a month. The real story is why nobody has at this point, when in 2007, there were already a half dozen declared candidates.
 
At any rate, Newt will not get it done, as I prognosticated here a short while ago ("Newt Is Not Happening" 1/23/11). And that is because his niche in the conservative world is as an idea man. That is what got him into the role as House Speaker in 1995. In 2010, the Tea Party had grown very tired of their simple ideas being ignored by officeholders that found bigger fish to fry in Washington. They took over the role of idea makers last year, and elected candidates sworn to serve those ideas, or be tossed aside two years hence by others who would so swear.
 
That is a large part of why the Tea Party slate did better in House elections than the Senate. A Senator is more of an executive position than Congressman. A Congressman's first job is to vote on things.
 
The bottom line is, the Presidency is about as executive a position as politics provides. Obama's executive weaknesses will only emphasize that more in 2012. If the ideas are being provided by the grass roots, who needs an idea man for President? Newt's niche is already occupied. Who needs him?
 
The Republican nominee will be the one that best shows commitment with the conservative agenda and the executive acumen to show that said agenda will not be spawned into the wind on their watch. What does Gingrich have to show that he can avoid the latter?
 
For similar reasons, you can write off any ambitions Michelle Bachmann brings up. Donald Trump? Commitment to what?
 
Sarah Palin? She has all the answers for some people, and provides so much ammunition for others. She still has a future, but she still has to learn that sometimes you really should ignore your critics, and not wallow in the mud with them. Not this year.
 
The next nominee will likely be a Governor. There are a few of them fighting it out right now, but all of them will be struggling to prove that they have the executive acumen to further the Tea Party agenda. The spending orgy has to stop, and it won't happen until it stops in the White House.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Middle East: Home Of The New Revolution

In 1989, we all watched a bunch of overeager youth taking out their frustrations on the Berlin Wall. It fell at the same time the Soviet Politburo gave up the ghost for a good reason: the former would not have happened without the latter. It was a heady thing to watch for an American who had lived through the ups and downs of the Cold War.
 
In 1848, for many reasons (mostly economic), a groundswell revolution started in many streets of the old Ottoman Empire, and there were breathless expectations that a new world order was coming in Europe. The autocracies had them all outgunned, though, in money, arms and will to power. It took the first world war eighty years later to bring that empire down.
 
So, which is it going to be, '48 or '89? The brittle tinderwood that lit up Tunisia sparked a media savvy youth all over the Mideast to take to the streets, and it is playing out live for all of us, interrupted only by new pictures from Japan. It has even managed to take the spotlight off the Wisconsin teacher's unions, which is a Christmas gift they needed badly.
 
In the Mideast, there is a giant sandwich of interests. At the top, there is a host of autocrats, fueled by oil money, more secular than the Muslims like and using their money to help foster as much of a middle class as they see fit to keep them in power. On the bottom, you have a Muslim fundamentalist movement that is angling to take over the region and run it like Lebanon- fronted by Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Al Queda. In between, you have a huge population of 18-30 year olds (they still have large families there, unlike the U.S. and Europe) who know their way around the internet and obviously smell blood in the air.
 
For reasons I've gone into before here, Egypt went down peacefully. Libya, being run by a full-ought lunatic, is posing more serious problems. It goes without saying that there will be change in some major governments. The $64 question is, what will fill in the gaps?
 
The Wahhabi Muslim movement is a cunning creature, and needs to be watched carefully. They have a POV that is built on the Koran, but they hold all the sensibilities of the legions of moral relativists you will find in the West. If you don't believe this, try and understand their de facto alliance with the left in America. They hate us because of our hedonism, drug use and sexual mores. Which end of the political spectrum here would be more likely to lean that way, the left or the right? You would think that Bin Laden and Billy Graham would be barbeque buddies. But these people ally with our left because that is the side here that is less prone to take after them with arms. And if you don't understand that there is a de facto alliance, match up the talking points of John Kerry in 2004 with Bin Laden videos from the time.
 
Yes, Muslim fundamentalism is a religious movement, but they understand that they have to be political, too. And that they have to make compromises along the way.
 
Gadhafi and Libya are small time players on this stage. The bigger issue is what kind of position the autocrats will be, a year from now. The less stable they are, the more we will be paying for oil. What I worry about is the chance there will be that the Muslim revolution will eventually be running a state that actually has oil resources.
 
The great tragedy of all this is that our President doesn't seem to have a clue about what is coming with all this, and he always seems to lean toward non-intervention. Somebody needs to tell him that his cards were dealt with that one after we won WWII. Our military and economic power, along with the diplomacy that attends to it, is the glue that holds our planet together. I'd hate to see any President use their Hamlet indecision to prove that point.
 
I don't have a problem with Obama's vacations, or his travel plans. A modern American President is never really on vacation, and most of his travel, no matter how relaxing it looks on the tube, is fraught with expanding relations, which is....work. My problem with him is his fundamental ignorance of our place in the world, and of the dangers in trying to markedly change that.
 
That will be the thing that keeps him from a second term. The energy equation of it will only be the most obvious and politically palatable. That will cross the gap from policy theory to pocketbook issue, and will smote him big time. He thinks he is doing the right thing with a drilling moratorium? See how fast he runs from that one, when gas goes from $3.50 a gallon now, to $4.00. That's when his ignorance will be a migraine for all of us.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The U.N. Finds A Perverted Unity

Imagine the United Nations, acting as one. How long has it been? Twenty years, that's how long. They last found unity when Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. Now, Gadhafi (is that how you spell it now?) has brought them all together. How?
 
First, while he is an oil exporter, he is a much smaller factor in the OPEC scheme of things than when he took power in the '70's. Secondly, none of the long term established Arab nations like terrorists- they just allow convenient marriages when it suits them. Like if said terrorists are pesky like morons who keep the Soviets and Americans too busy to bother with li'l old them.
 
Finally, there is the new factor: the various factions of Muslim fundamentalists out and about in the region now are in love with the popular upsrisings taking hold all over there now. They hope to do the two step and follow a vacuum of power into a great new influence in the region.
 
That all means that, when the Security Council voted this week on the use of force against Libya, he didn't have any more friends. And that is going some, being that his pals there had no problem allowing his country to stand in regular rotation in the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Imagine that.
 
And now we have a situation where Obama can actually be talked into the projection of American military power. A unanimous Security Council, along with other countries providing the lead in air power.
 
Not that France or Great Britain would do it without us first taking out command and control and air defense with our stuff. Gadhafi is fighting us with the same stuff he had over the Gulf of Sidra in 1986, adding spare parts. What he is learning now is that our stuff has advanced at least two generations since then, I hope he has a plan B.
 
Editor's note: for all of you anal retentives out there that noted the Security Council resolution vote was 10-5, the five votes were abstentions, not "nay". In the Turtle Bay world, that is the best you will ever get.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Japan And Life On The Fault Line

You know, I have a backlog of squib notes for at least three more entires here, and it seems that new things creep in to usurp all our attention. Not subtle little things, either. Japan was a doozy on a number of levels.
 
The nuclear issue- not the longest term subject from today's events, but the most attention grabbing. Just as environmentalists used the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf oil spill to hold back domestic oil production, there will be more that try and use this as a brake on nuclear plant licensing. Those who are concerned are not being in the least unreasonable. There was a standup comic (Paul Reiser, I think) who was explaining the difference between "oops" and f**king oops"- using as the latter's example "building a nuclear plant on a fault line".
 
On this one, Japan had little choice. The whole country straddles the line between the Asian and North American tectonic plates, and their domestic oil supply is... bupkus. That is why their war against us 70 years ago was not inevitable from Pearl Harbor, but from when we cut off their oil from us a few years earlier. But Japan's building codes are some of the best on the planet, and the fact that their containment vessels are still holding after a 9.0 Richter is testament to that.
 
However, the lack of power to the cooling systems is causing all sorts of havoc there. The fact that they are introducing seawater into the containment systems means that they are dealing with at least partial meltdowns- you don't want to bring that into play unless you have to. Just for starters, it is corrosive as hell to an engineering structure that is geared for near absolute precision.
 
The Kobe quake in '95 was not near as strong, but that epicenter was inland and it created more economic trouble. Aside from the coastal towns that were devastated by this one's tsunami, the bulk of the country will get back in gear at the same speed that their power grid does. In the meantime, Japan is populated by some of the most responsible and cooperative citizens you would ever want in a disaster. You will see patience, voluntary sacrifice and a palpable absence of looting and crime that should be an example to the world.
 
The China factor is the long term question. China could well take advantage of all this and step on it's neighbor in their chase for economic conquest. From a trade standpoint, this may be inevitable. The glimmer of hope is that on some levels, Japan's need and China's ability to help may foster a new alliance, however soft it may seem on questions like North Korea.
 
The recovery from the great 1923 quake was a major factor in Japan becoming a militaristic power. They have been in a zero growth doldrum since their great government-business "partnership" went belly up in the early '90's, and this may spur something new out of them. The problem is, one never knows what that may lead to.
 
My reality is, I fear a new military resurgence from Japan much more than anything China may be capable of. China has too many sparse regions to control, and a much less homegeneous population. We must help Japan with everything we can muster, but we must also keep a poker player's eye on them afterward.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive