Israel » |

October 22nd Presidental Debate Analysis

Oct 232012

The final 2012 presidential debate was held last night. Again, the winner is not the American people. Here are some thoughts and clips from the transcript at The Washington Post.

First up, Governor Romney:

ROMNEY: … also help the Muslim world.

And how do we do that? A group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the — the world reject these — these terrorists. And the answer they came up with was this:

One, more economic development. We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development.
Number two, better education.
Number three, gender equality.
Number four, the rule of law. We have to help these nations create civil societies.

Sounds great, Mitt. I only wish you would support those things in America, too.

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

That would have been a great line, but he stumbled over it. I know, I know: He’s the president, not a stand-up comedian. Continue reading »

October 22nd Presidential Debate Preview

Politics No Responses »

Oct 222012

The third (and, thankfully, final) presidential debate will be devoted to foreign policy topics. Expect to hear a lot about Governor Romney’s love of American Exceptionalism. As I’ve written before American Exceptionalism is a loaded, dog-whistle term that serves as an excuse for misadventure abroad and inaction at home.

President Obama will likely remind us about his work to end the war in Iraq. He will not remind us about his promise four years ago to close the “terrorist” storage facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Expect both to get into a pissing contest over who loves Israel more.

If President Obama increases his debate aggressiveness again tonight, he may try to compare and contrast his and Governor Romney’s world police tough guy cred. It might go something like this:

A Pointless War With Iran

Politics 1 Response »

Mar 092012

The chickenhawks are at it again. Now they are trying to push us into a war with Iran. So we should go to war with Iran because they might decide to develop nuclear weapons and they might decide to use them against Israel or the United States someday?

Let me tell you what would happen if they did. If Iran attacks Israel, they will be nuked by Israel or the U.S. I’m pretty sure modern drilling technology can go through a layer of glass to remove Iran’s oil afterwards.

That should be the basis for the rule. OK, Iran, you can have nuclear weapons, but if one goes off in Israel or the U.S., we’re just going to assume you did it and wipe you off the face of the Earth. That should be enough of a deterrent. It’s a spinoff of the Mutually Assured Destruction strategy. Let’s call it YAIG, for “your ass is glass.”

Some will try to argue that the Iranian regime is crazy enough to do it. Well, that would take a lot of crazy. But if you were that crazy, you would not be able to get in the position to rule an entire country. A lot of ambitious rational people would easily find a way to take you out before you got into that position of power. I’m not buying the myth of the suicidal lunatic regime.

Consider the possibility that they are not crazy, but are sounding crazy to get some domestic support. It is like when a Republican candidate implies that he doubts President Obama was born in America. We know he doesn’t really doubt the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate, he just thinks he’s playing to the base.

Could it be that this is really not about nukes at all? There are still several different powerful groups that want to trick us into another war for their own varied interests.

The mass media loves war. Ratings go up when they can show pretty pictures of things blowing up. Weapons manufacturers love it when inventory is used, so they can sell more.

The neocons’ worldview of American dominance requires that we shove our military weight around often. The neocons want to attack Iran for the sake of a regime change that will expand the reach and influence of their American Empire. They really like all that oil, too.

Radical Christian fundamentalists are always eager to crush Israel’s enemies. Why? They believe in a prophecy that requires the Jewish temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem before Jesus can return. They believe the end times script requires a Jewish dominated independent state of Israel. The Radical Christian fundamentalists want a preemptive strike to protect Israel, if not to spark a so-called Armageddon itself. To them I’d respond, “Hey, Dumbass, if Israel is such an important part of God’s plan, then maybe God will protect Israel from annihilation — or do you need the prophecy story to play out exactly the way you say it will just so you are not proven wrong?”

Besides, do you really think Jesus would like to return to such a ravaged place? He might just say, “Earth kinda sucks. You guys are always making wars and Jersey Shores, I’d much rather stay in heaven, thank you very much.”

Now, I did read the “Left Behind” series. It is a pretty good post-apocalyptic dystopian adventure. As a skilled reader, I was able to enjoy it by skipping past the pages and pages of praying and glossing over the propaganda. It’s understandable if a lot of people don’t have the patience to bear it.

The drumbeat of war against Iran will continue from the same people who brought us the Iraq war. These people just want an excuse to go to war and kill anyone who doesn’t like or obey us, starting with those countries with a lot of oil to control. It is a shame that they haven’t been discredited and that Americans have such short memories.

Tired Phrases: “Thrown Under the Bus”

Humor 1 Response »

Mar 062012

The phrase “thrown under the bus” needs to be, well, thrown under a bus. It is so overused. For example, this morning I did a Google search of News in the past 24 hours for “under the bus.” It found “About 1,170 results.” Only a handful involved actual bus accidents.

Some of those facing clichéd bus-related injury today: Conservative MLA Hector Goudreau, Courtney from The Bachelor, NFL coach Gregg Williams, Arsenio Hall (somehow a self-inflicted bus tossing), Wes Welker, the Saugatuck Township board, Dwight Howard’s Orlando Magic teammates, Israel, Danica Patrick’s crew, Bob Kerrey, LGBT issues, taxpayers, India Incorporate, and something called “The Miz.”

It’s time to retire this expression. Maybe we can get the bus drivers’ union involved. I’m sure they cringe every time they hear it.

Jerome Bettis would be a great spokesman for the anti-”under the bus” campaign. I bet he’s tired of pranksters knocking people down in front of him.

What will it take to make it happen? Unfortunately, the expression has been resilient. It has survived previous attacks. I’m thinking it will take the form of an extremely clueless and insensitive use. I can see the headline now: “Congressman West Throws Rosa Parks Under the Bus.” Yeah, that would do it.

Rules for the Class War: Rule #4: Accept the Wedge Issue Truce

Politics, Rules for the Class War 1 Response »

Feb 062012

If you are going to have a productive and peaceful class war, you should put the other “wars” on hiatus.

Wedge issues are one of the biggest barriers preventing patriotic Americans from uniting to restore American capitalism and recapture America’s greatness. The Crazy Rich and their allies have used these wedge issues to divide us for decades. These are the issues they use to trick you into turning against your own best interests and those of your country. Here’s a partial list: abortion, gun control, gay rights, flag burning, immigration, Israel, racism, climate change, religion, and terrorism.

Yes, some of those are serious and need resolution, but 1) they are minor in comparison to the rising threat to the integrity of our political process (how power is acquired and its limits), and 2) the pursuit of wedge issues themselves is pointless because they will remain stalemates until our representative democracy can be made properly responsive and functional again.

How can you trust the system to fairly or effectively resolve any of these issues when the process can so easily be co-opted by just a few people? Even if you were to persuade a sizable majority to take your side on your pet issue, your efforts are in vain without a process that responds to that majority instead of the whims a very powerful few.

The defenders of the status quo want us to scuffle over trifles and not notice that they are looting the country’s wealth causing its greatness to crumble.

How do you show that you’ve adopted the wedge issue truce? When someone raises a wedge issue to divide us (or make good TV) call them on it. If they try to insert it into a debate, use the term “wedge issue” like some have used “class warfare.” Tell them, “You are trying to use wedge issues to distract and divide us from what is really important.”

So Class War Rule #4 is: Accept the Wedge Issue Truce. Put all of those on the back burner. Just let it go … for now. Once we “get our country back” and on the right track again, only then can it possibly be worth our time and energy to take up wedge issue debates.

With the wedge issues on the shelf, the working classes (composed of many different people with many different and conflicting beliefs) will find it much easier to come together to work toward greater goals.

Leaving Iraq: The End of an Error

Politics No Responses »

Oct 242011

President Obama has announced the withdrawal of (almost) all troops from Iraq by the end of the year. We will be leaving up to 200 Marines to protect that monstrosity of an embassy we’ve built. Someday it will be a nice place for tourist to visit (at least we got something out of that war).

It is apparent that the Iraqis pressured him into the decision and it is a popular move for Obama now during the election season. I’m sure there are going to be many on the right who will be calling this a failure. Probably a lot of neocons will be crying about the loss of “force projection.” Surprise, surprise — the Heritage Foundation doesn’t like it one bit. . Here is how they overstate the threat:

[Withdrawal] will undermine U.S. security interests in Iraq by severely limiting bilateral U.S.–Iraqi cooperation in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias. The U.S. military pullout will also weaken efforts to contain Iran by leaving a partial power vacuum that Iran will exploit to expand its own influence.”

If I was in the Navy I’d be offended by the Heritage statement. They are saying our Naval presence in the Persian Gulf alone would not be enough to “contain” pissant Iran. Come on. In the most likely conflict caused by Iran, they will just end up being nuked by Israel anyway, so we really can’t use them as an excuse to maintain occupation of Iraq.

In one of his statements, President Obama hints that he knows what the right thing to do is: “Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build — and the nation that we will build — is our own, an America that sees its economic strength restored just as we’ve restored our leadership around the globe.” Does this mean he is ready to reallocate vast resources we spend on policing the world, and instead put them toward rebuilding America? We need to stop wasting money by overspending on security. As I asked before, who are we this afraid of?

Iraq withdrawal is a good start. How about we leave Afghanistan next? If the president really intends to do that, I’m betting he saves it until at least July or even waiting for the Republican convention. I wonder how many Americans will die a pointless death in Afghanistan between now and then.

1 2