The Necropolitan Sentinel

chi per lungo silenzio parea fioco

The Media vs. General Petraeus: It Would Be Funny If It Didn’t Suck

Posted on July 13, 2011 By

1 Comment

You know what sucks about having a Ph.D. from Princeton, being a highly decorated 4-Star General, and leading the world’s most powerful country out of the trenches of a failing war?

Reporters.

In his exit interview with NATO, General David Petraeus made some final comments about the state of Afghanistan as he prepares to leave. The woman conducting the interview obviously missed the message he had already relayed about the capabilities of the Afghan forces in handling their own affairs: They’re doing OK.

Her question had to do with whether Afghans are ready to take over their security–when NATO forces had to help them take out the Taliban suicide bombers that attacked the Intercontinental Hotel a couple of weeks ago.

But see, the good General has already explained the complexities of training foreign forces in numerous forums, and has even spoken on the issue of the hotel attack several times at this point. For this reporter to once again challenge the Afghans’ ability to hold their own – forces trained by leadership under his command, mind you – by taking the cheap shot of mentioning that a few of the guards at the gate of the hotel ran away in response to the first car bomb exploding . . . well that just irked him enough to stop her line of questioning:

“I’m not sure I agree with that…let me address that.”

That must be polite for “Let me correct you on the record before you run with those scissors.” In Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars, Petraeus had already shown a certain disdain for speaking with the political posturing types. He hated, for instance, talking to David Axelrod, maintaining that he was a “total spin doctor.” So this flare-up comes as no surprise. The next question in the interview showed Petraeus in a more jovial mood, but you can see that the exchange was edited. I wonder how explicitly he clarified things for the nice lady before moving on.

Not that such exercises in futility are anything new to him. After all, someone already picked up, years ago, on the fact that his last name rhymes with “betray us.”

The whole media vs. Petraeus thing would be funny . . . if it didn’t suck.

General Petraeus NATO Exit Interview

Andrew Klavan and the $64,000 Abortion Question

Posted on July 13, 2011 By

1 Comment

Last year I covered the May Day March in Boston, to contrast it with the tax day Tea Party event. I interviewed many of the 300 people there, but there was one that stuck out in my mind.

This was a young person named Michael; he was interested in protecting both gay rights and the right to abortion. Off-camera, I asked him a question:

“If it is determined that being gay is genetic, and a parent found their child if born would be gay, would it be wrong to for them to have an abortion?”

He said: “It would be morally wrong, but they would still have the right.” He elaborated: “Just because something is a right doesn’t mean that it can’t be abused.”

And therein lies the conundrum for the left that Andrew Klaven has discovered:

You can see pro-choicers stumble over this problem of logic when feminists, say, complain that people are aborting far more girls than boys or when gays worry that the discovery of a “gay gene” may lead to a “gay holocaust” by abortion. It ain’t a holocaust if you’re not killing people. And if unborn children aren’t human, why shouldn’t parents kill them off until they get the one they want?

This is Michael’s logical error; those who promote abortion as a right cannot deny the presence of life in an unborn child; instead, they deny the child’s humanity. Once you deny the child’s humanity, it doesn’t matter what you do–after all, you’re not really killing a person. And if you’re not killing a person, what does it matter if abortion is “rare” as long as it is “safe” and “legal”?

That whole line of reasoning sounds strikingly similar to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech:

One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.

It’s quite simple: if abortion is killing a person, then it is wrong, period! If it is not, then it is a private decision and should be unrestricted, period! The fact that young Michael called the abortion of a “gay” child “abusing a right” gives away the game. He knew instinctively that something is wrong, but can’t bring himself to make the next logical step–so he punts. In order to live with themselves, like the slaveholders of old, those in favor of abortion must deny the basic humanity of the child. That a line that Klaven refuses to cross anymore (emphasis mine):

I still believe it’s possible for a person of good will to make the argument that a fetus is not fully human for some small period of its development. Thomas Aquinas did —and the man was a saint.

But more and more, that point of view is coming to seem to me pre-scientific. In any case, if that’s the argument pro-choicers want to have, let’s have that argument, and no other — because no other matters. And if we as a free people decide that unborn children are children indeed, there is no moral alternative: we must not only end abortion, but put our full efforts into supporting humane and broadly available methods of welcoming the unwanted.

I’m convinced the day will come when people will look at the likes of Patricia Ireland, Kim Gandy, and Molly Yard in the same way we currently look at Alexander Stephens—and wonder how such educated and intelligent people could be so wrong on such a basic moral issue.

Cuba’s Misery in Dollar Terms [UPDATED, JM]

Posted on July 13, 2011 By

3 Comments

El Nuevo Herald has an article in Spanish,
Los privados: los que más ganan en Cuba, about Cuba’s barely-emerging private sector. It demonstrates that private enterprise farmers and urban workers are out-earning people on the government’s payroll: In the private sector, farmers earned $28, and urban workers $41–compared to $18 for those who get government wages.

That’s $41 a month.

Now ponder for a moment how that reflects on this island-prison, whose people are not allowed to leave.

———————————————

The celebrity chef and prolific writer Anthony Bourdain went to Cuba, and Ernesto Fontova sheds some light on Bourdain’s thoughtless exhortation, “Yes, go to Cuba!” and how such sentiments continue to prolong the dictatorship.

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog

UPDATE, JM: We have to get it through to people that it’s nearly impossible to go to Cuba without putting some money into the Castros’ hands–one way or the other. If there were a way to travel there and support the private enterprises only, that would be one thing; but they have made it nearly impossible to do. Cuba is not like China, where some private enterprise can flourish due to benign neglect: its small size makes it easier to practice a consistent form of totalitarianism.

That makes things a lot dicier for those who want to get money into the hands of the insurgent capitalists.

Not the Cakewalk She Thought It Would Be

Posted on July 13, 2011 By

9 Comments

Janice Hahn did win the race for California’s 36th Congressional District, but the contest was much, much tighter than she had any idea it would be–before Ladd Ehlinger made his video highlighting her ties to the gang community in the Southland.

NPR:

Democrat Janice Hahn has defeated Republican Craig Huey in a bitter contest for a Southern California House seat, preserving her party’s hold on the district and surviving an unusually tough race in a longtime stronghold.

With all reporting, Hahn, a Los Angeles city councilwoman, had 41,585 votes, or about 55 percent, to 34,636, or about 45 percent, for Huey, who owns marketing and advertising companies and largely bankrolled his campaign with nearly $900,000 in personal funds.

Huey campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Jacobs says her candidate has left a message with Hahn’s office to concede the race. . . .

With a light turnout and widespread voter anxiety over the economy, Republicans were hoping for an upset that would send a message heading toward the 2012 national elections, in which President Barack Obama will seek a second term.

But Hahn’s victory was far from impressive, given an 18-point Democratic registration edge in the 36th Congressional District, which runs from the famous Venice boardwalk through the beach communities south of Los Angeles International Airport.

The result was obviously disappointing for Huey, but Jacobs said the campaign was pleased that the race was well within the 18-point registration edge because “there’s a sizable amount of people who broke with registration to vote for jobs and the economy in America.”

In May, Democrats snatched a New York congressional seat in a heavily Republican district after capitalizing on fears over a Republican plan to roll back Medicare and Social Security benefits. That made the GOP eager to turn the tables in California, a reliably Democratic state in national elections.

The seat was previously held by Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, who resigned earlier this year to head a Washington think tank.

The race presented a stark choice.

Huey, 61, is a conservative who wanted to slash spending, taxes and debt and roll back government regulation; Hahn, 59, a Los Angeles city councilwoman, is a fixture in local Democratic politics who wants to see the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the growth of alternative energy.

The midsummer contest received little attention at a time of year when voters are thinking about weekends at the beach, the struggling Los Angeles Dodgers or how to survive the partial closure this weekend of Interstate 405, one of the region’s main traffic arteries.

Each campaign had pooled over $1 million and plowed much of it into sharp-edged advertising: Hahn had sought to link Huey to Sarah Palin and referred to his agenda as “extremist,” while Huey derided Hahn as a career politician with ties to a troubled gang-intervention program.

Bill Clinton recorded automated phone messages for Hahn. Organizing for America, the group that provides Democratic Party’s foot-soldiers, asked supporters to make thousands of phone calls. . . .

Hahn hails from a Los Angeles political clan. Her father was Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, a legendary figure in local politics who held office for decades. Her brother James Hahn served as mayor of Los Angeles from 2001 to 2005.

This may have been a bit of an anomaly for the Hahn family, and it could even be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, inasmuch as Hahn’s district will be redrawn in another year, making her seat much less safe. And the issue of her gang ties may not go away, even then.

Stacy McCain pretty much live-blogged the election; he summarizes at the top of the post, though. And Zombie discusses some of the sleazy things she did in order to win this race.

“Palin and the Prudes”–and the Sexists

Posted on July 13, 2011 By

13 Comments

There is something about Palin that drives a certain kind of liberal around the bend, and many of my liberal friends are completely incapable of admitting how much of this is plain old garden-variety sexism. In-capable.

Elizabeth Scalia dissects this in First Things:

Let me begin this column with a disclaimer: I am not a big fan of Sarah Palin.

The reason I know this is because any time I write anything either mildly or constructively critical of the woman, I get scores of emails excoriating me as a “Palin-hater from the get-go,” from people who are completely aware that I not only predicted her invite to the McCain ticket, but applauded it, too.

But the reason I must make the disclaimer is to head-off those who truly do hate Palin and try to disguise their hate in concerns over how she dresses. These are the people who dismiss any defense of her as mindless wingnuttery.

Actually, disclaimer or no, anyone who defends Palin on any front—even against ludicrous charges that she is responsible for an assassination attempt by a seriously ill man—is instantly dismissed as a rightwing hack, such is the state of 21st Century anything-but-open-minded “liberalism,” which is a far cry from the liberalism to which I was raised.

American’s sad ideological balkanization is most obviously exposed for the sickness it is whenever this woman’s name is mentioned. Thanks to cable news and the social media echo-chambers that invite us to pledge allegiance to a stark perspective and then hiss “enemy” at anyone who thinks differently, Americans are being conditioned to absorb The Daily Outrage on cue; we are one nation, quite divided, with reactionary hyperventilation for all.

And if the nation is becoming addicted to hysteria porn, its centerfold is Sarah Palin.

I know this because of a Facebook thread begun by a friend. She had linked without comment to Newsweek’s latest Palin cover—a rather unflattering, harshly-lit image of the former governor, arms akimbo and wearing the sort of shapeless and unmemorable henley hoodie that women wear when they’re running to the grocer’s and don’t much care how they look.

The very first comment on the picture—from a “liberal” who might be supposed to know better than to objectify women and whom, one presumes, considers himself a free-thinker—went like this: HAHAHAHHAAAAA Keep flashing those [breasts], Sarah!

The poster was correctly diagnosed by others as projecting his own obsession upon Palin, and he was good-naturedly given the chance to hit “reset,” but he could not let it go. Next he suggested that if only she were a smarter woman, like Jeane Kirkpatrick, he would treat her better. Apparently the class distinction that existed back when James Carville talked about Paula Jones’ trailer park background still exists, and it still permits the so-brights to treat anyone they consider their lesser in sexist and reprehensible fashion. Palin’s “tight little running shorts from 2008—perfectly unsexy, standard-issue running shorts worn for the cover of a fitness magazine—indicated to this paragon of prole-tolerance that the mother-of-five was thrusting her body into our faces because “sex sells” and she needs to distract us from her myriad misspeaks and incompetencies.

It was at this point in the stupidity that I became annoyed . . .

Read the whole thing, because Eliabeth took this in a direction that I wasn’t quite expecting.

But suffice it to say that it’s come to a point where at certain moments I almost don’t care any more about what’s best for the country: if people are unable to be the slightest bit objective about Palin, and insist on being driven mad every time her name comes up in the news, however tangentially, then it makes me want to see her run if only to watch lefties and ultraliberals turn on the spit of their own intellectual prejudices.

What do you think? Is Gov. Palin electable? And if not, is that intrinsic, or because the media have succeeded in damaging her image beyond repair? If that’s the case, does this Newsweek profile–which actually discusses the real Mrs. Palin, the one I knew by reputation before she was running for VP–turn the tide at all?

How to Defeat al Qaeda: Start a War with Iran

Posted on July 12, 2011 By

2 Comments

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has finally opened up to reporters about our mission in Afghanistan and in doing so he offered some good news, albeit questionable: We’re in a good position to defeat al Qaeda and now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we’ve just got ten to twenty more guys to go and viola! Al Qaeda kicks the can.

Hold it right there kimosabe.

Is this the product of a David Axelrod creation? No, I’m not doubting the viability of such a proposal since after all, taking away the top 20 leadership positions in nearly any organization would have a crippling effect and further, General Petraeus has given his nod to the claim, citing a “strategic victory” should such targets be killed or captured. But a few points come to mind.

First of all, the sudden positive spin on defeat and the allusion to victory is suspicious given the military leadership’s reaction to the new Afghanistan strategy. Granted, targeting individuals using counterterrorism methods is in line with the new Obama-Biden plan for Afghanistan, which obviously would be the pursued strategy for hunting these terrorists down; however, if counterterrorism alone would have worked as the be-all, end-all strategy to defeating the terror threat in Afghanistan, why would we have 100,000 armed forces over there? In the big picture, if counterterrorism worked alone period, why would counterinsurgency doctrine exist at all? (Psst…it existed long before General Petraeus did)

This is why I mention Axelrod. The message has gone from, “how can we ever win now?” to “hey, this is all we need to do to win!”, and I don’t like it. Which brings me to my next point…

Secondly, how many al Qaeda leaders have we taken out thus far? What I’m getting at is that at this point we only have 10-20 left, but how many did we start with? About 10 to 20. Unlike the counterinsurgency which was just really implemented about a year ago, we’ve been at the counterterror helm for ten years now. Capturing top leadership isn’t like a dodgeball game where we just keep popping mortars until we get them all. These guys have to be hunted down through surveillance, intelligence, and ultimately sending our commandos in to take them out. Or a predator drone. Whichever works best. So if we want to place some estimates on this new claim, we can get one to two top guys every year. Kind of puts a new perspective on that positive messaging, eh?

Then again, there’s a new factor that wasn’t the case while we were hunting down the leadership prior to the capture of bin Laden: there’s been an influx of new intelligence from that raid and, in the world of intel, knowing is half the battle. Of course, that advantage might be canceled out by the intel gathered after 9/11 using our more…politically questionable interrogation methods, meaning we have about the same quality of information to work with as we did after 9/11 and thus, our timeline isn’t shortened any from the raid intel. Oh wait! David Petraeus will now be the CIA chief, which by default means good things. I’m sorry, I just can’t hide my bias!

Oh and there’s just one more point to make: a good number of these guys are in Iran. Yep. If Obama is the new Carter, then that means there’s a potential for another Operation Eagle Claw moment, granted we’d be trying to kill people, not save them of course. But that’s not really the worrisome point. Word on the street is that Iran will respond if attacked.

While Panetta has shown some cajones in claiming that the U.S. will step up to the Iranian threat of their arming insurgents in Iraq, the primary fluff has been centered on their nuclear program while their influence and threat in the region is beyond what they “might” do. What they “are” doing is far-reaching and undermining nearly all of our efforts in the Middle East and now, they’re standing in the way of an entire war effort by harboring our enemies that started the war. Since, for political posturing it seems, the message is that we just have to get these 10 or 20 more guys to “win” the war, we seem destined to toy the line with one more war to get there.

The question then is, how will Iran respond to U.S. targeting and elimination of those enemies when we have to knowingly breach Iranian soil to get to them? Considering that Pakistan is supposed to be our ally and they had a big problem with us killing bin Laden on their soil, we might be looking at having our troops learning Farsi in the near future.

Unless of course, this is just 2012 posturing.

Employment and Energy Security with the Lifting of the Drilling Moratorium

Posted on July 12, 2011 By

3 Comments

Check out this graphic:

 

 

 

Right now the US imports about 70% of its oil.  30 years ago, we only imported 28%.   What happened?

Well our economy boomed, we created a huge demand for more oil and we had to find other sources.   But that’s not the only reason.  The government of the US hasn’t been the most helpful ally in this battle for resources.   ANWR is the perfect example of what not to do politically.  The Clinton era narrative of “it will take 10 years before we have anything” rings hollow right now some almost 20 years later.  Obviously had we done what was necessary then, we’d be reaping the benefit now.

But that graphic is stunning, don’t you think?   In a partnership with Canada (the country from which we import the most oil and it is an extraordinarily secure source), who now provides about 20% of our total consumption (US + Canada = ~ 58% of our annual total), we could be 92% self-sufficient in 20 years.  What that would mean is we could get that other 8%, for instance, from Mexico (now providing about 10% of the total).  Or not.  We’d no longer be held hostage by an oil cartel and unfriendly or unstable countries.

Right now 30% of our imports come from Saudi Arabia (2), Venezuela (4), Nigeria (5), Iraq (6), and Algeria (8).   We could eliminate every one of them as a supplier.  Every. One.

Of course that means doing something politically now.  But that doesn’t seem to register with this administration.  And that seems funny given the obvious screaming need for them to be seen creating jobs and driving the unemployment rate down.

Check out these numbers from a study by Quest Offshore Resources done at the behest of the American Petroleum Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association.

Key findings:

  • Total offshore-related oil and gas employment could hit 430,000 in 2013 if the permit slowdown is reversed, including about 187,000 new jobs.
  • New policies could result in a 71 percent increase in oil and natural gas spending in the Gulf to $41.4 billion.
  • Texas (will reach 149,000 jobs) and Louisiana (129,000) would gain the most from a return to normalcy in the Gulf, but the jobs impact would touch a number of non-Gulf states as well – including California, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, Quest says.
  • Tax revenues would accrue to all levels of government “if the government pursues a balanced regulatory approach that allows for the timely development of the backlog of (Gulf) projects in an environmentally responsible manner.” Said API President and CEO Jack Gerard: “We need to create taxpayers, and that’s what this would be doing.”

Result?  A 20 year program that would result in jobs, revenue and energy resources.

Seems like a no-brainer right?  Politicians are currently embroiled in debt ceiling negotiations, but take a look at what doing something like this would mean:

By granting comprehensive access to U.S. oil and gas reserves, $4 Trillion in state and federal revenue could be generated to fill American treasuries and eliminate nearly 30 percent of the national debt.

That growth would spur new jobs – lots of new jobs:

530,000 jobs could be created with increased access to U.S. oil and gas resources. To put that in perspective, that would provide enough jobs to employ 85 percent of Vermont’s entire population. By 2015, development of the Marcellus Shalealone could create 160,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, 20,000 jobs in New York and 30,000 jobs in West Virginia. Add that to the 9.2 million Americans currently employed by the oil industry and you’ve got the economic engine powering our economy and our way of life.

That is how you turn an economy around.  That is how you increase revenues to government.  That is how a smart government would approach the current problem (and in more areas than just gas and oil).

Instead we have the “permatorium”.   If you’re wondering why this isn’t happening, you need to ask the administration:

“The slow pace of Gulf development since the accident has cost jobs, revenue and energy production,” said API President and CEO Jack Gerard. “The study shows what could be accomplished on jobs if project approvals and permits could get back to a normal pace. We’ve done the necessary work raising the bar on safety. We cannot continue to delay developing energy and hiring people in the Gulf. The disappointing unemployment numbers from the government last week make this more important than ever,” Gerard added.

The “accident” of course is the spill in the Gulf.  And Gerard is right.  This slow down, after the industry has “raised the bar on safety” is inexcusable.  Especially in this unemployment climate.  Especially in this economic climate.  Especially with tax revenues down.  And especially with energy insecurity so prevalent.

9.2% unemployment, a slowing economy, a revenue starved government, a country suffering from energy insecurity and a huge part of the answer sitting right there in front of them – and they refuse to act.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[Promoted to a Featured Post by JM.]

Operation: Scare the Old Folks

Posted on July 12, 2011 By

5 Comments

So pretending that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional didn’t work. How’s about a round of “frighten the geezers”?

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The problem is, your guys already gave that game away . . . by admitting their own ineptitude in being able to carry through that threat:

Reuters has a fantastic story this evening on the impossible quandary facing Treasury officials should the unthinkable come to pass; purely as a practical matter, it’s far from clear that it’s even possible to stop making the 3 million payments that Treasury makes automatically every day. Doing so involves a massive computer-reprogramming effort which I’m sure could not be implemented overnight — and for political reasons nobody is going to get started on such an effort until after all hope is lost for a deal in Congress.

That’s not just Social Security checks, by the way — that’s all sorts of payments. So, nice try, Obama.

First « 421422423424425 » Last