Please, no snickering. The self-reliant citizen? In the damning formulation of contemporary American vernacular, he's history -- as in over and done with, fuhgeddabouttim. What's left of that founding vision on this less than Glorious Fourth of July 2011 in the Brokest Nation in History? "You go talk to your constituents," President Obama taunted Republicans on Wednesday, "and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids' safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?"
In the Republic of Brokistan, that's the choice, is it? Give me safe kids or give me corporate jets! No corporate aviation without safe kiddification! In his bizarre press conference on Wednesday, Obama made no fewer than six references to corporate-jet owners. Just for the record, the tax break for corporate jets was part of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" -- i.e., the stimulus. The Obama stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Democratic-party stimulus that every single Republican House member and all but three Republican senators voted against. The Obama--Corporate Jet stimulus that some guy called Obama ostentatiously signed into law in Denver after jetting in to host an "economic forum."
Charles Krauthammer did the math. If you eliminate the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Corporate Jet Tax Break, you would save so much dough that, after 5,000 years, you would have clawed back enough money to cover one year of Obama's debt. Five thousand years is the year 7011. Boy, our kids'll really be safe by then. I see some leftie at MSNBC has just been suspended for characterizing the president's performance on Wednesday as that of a demotic synonym for the male reproductive organ. So I shall be more circumspect and say only that even being a hollow unprincipled demagogue requires a certain lightness of touch Obama can't seem to find.
Speaking of corporate jets, did the president fly commercial to Denver? Oh, but that's different! He's in "public service." A couple of weeks before he flew Air Force One to Denver, he flew Air Force One to Williamsburg, Va. From the White House (well, via Andrews Air Force Base). That's 150 miles, a 30-minute flight. He took a 747, a wide-bodied jet designed to carry 500 people to the other side of the planet, for a puddle-jump across the Potomac.
#1
What if I said non-public transportation:
Peloski's private jet?
The jaunts to South Africa and tourist jump through Central America?
Puerto Rico for a fundraiser? Hawaii for a break?
Corporations
Does this include major airline corporations, or just the jets they make in places like Wichita KS (which are heavy union influenced)? Which, by the way, are one of the items the USA still exports.
Or the small business corps who handle private transport for celebrities and VIPs?
Of course we are not just talking about a jet. We are talking about every dial, diode, seat cushion, tire, wire; everything then service.
#2
Of course we are not just talking about a jet. We are talking about every dial, diode, seat cushion, tire, wire; everything then service.
That's the same argument the White House advanced during the government takeover of the auto industry. Funny how it's okay for Detroit, but not for anyone else.
#3
Obama taunted Republicans on Wednesday, "and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids' safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?"
The usual politician's cry: It's for the kids!
A restatement of what Mark Halperin said would be appropriate.
Since January, Ive been hounding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice for answers about a deeply flawed policy that allowed guns to be sold to known straw purchasers and then transported across the border to Mexican drug cartels.
Until this week, my efforts to conduct my constitutional responsibility of oversight have been stonewalled by the Justice Department. Finally, the administration agreed to provide me the same access to documents and witnesses that are afforded to the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa, and the Justice Department Inspector General.
In the meantime, in an effort to distract from the investigation Congressman Issa and I are conducting, the ATF released selective statistical data that inaccurately reflects the scope and source of the problem of firearms in Mexico and the drug trafficking organization violence. The implication made by the ATF and various press reports that 70 percent of the firearms found in Mexico come directly from U.S. manufacturers or U.S. Federal Firearms Licensees selling guns to drug trafficking organizations is incomplete and misleading. Not only does this paint a grossly inaccurate picture of the situation, but theres also evidence that the U.S. State Department doesnt believe it either.
And, to make the release of the misleading numbers even more egregious, I obtained an unclassified U.S. State Department cable that dispels myths about the source of weapons trafficked to Mexico. The unclassified cable includes sections such as: Myth: An Iron Highway of Weapons Flows from the U.S. and Myth: The DTOs (Drug Trafficking Organizations) are Mostly Responsible.
When the ATF promotes this kind of misleading data, it distracts from the real questions of our investigation: Why was the ATF was involved in a policy to allow guns to fall into the hands of straw purchasers who were then transporting them to Mexican drug cartels and who approved this reckless strategy? Congressman Issa and I are committed to getting to the bottom of this irresponsible decision, regardless of agency attempts to manipulate the truth.
If as the NRA states, the purpose of this operation was to underscore the need for more gun control, it makes sense. Obama and others in his administration never saw a gun in citizen's hands that they liked. The answer to the question of "who approved this abortion of an operation?" has to be at the highest echelon of government.
Despite the Pakistani anger at the United States for flying into Pakistan to raid Osama bin Laden's hideout (in a military town), and the subsequent expulsion of many American military trainers and intel specialists, the CIA decapitation (kill the leaders) campaign there continues. So far this year, there have been 41, compared to 118 for all of last year (and 53 in 2009, 33 in 2008, 4 in 2007, 2 in 2006 and 2005 and one in 2004). Attacked by Predator and Reaper UAVs, armed with missiles, the terrorists (al Qaeda, Taliban and the Haqqani Network) have lost about 50 senior leaders in the last six years, most of them in the last three years. These losses are not only bad for morale at the top, but are seriously disrupting terrorist activities. The terrorist losses have been severe, and include heads of operations, finance and intelligence. Many of the mid-level commanders were bomb making, and terror attack experts. These losses caused additional casualties as less skilled bomb makers died when their imperfect devices blew up while under construction. New bomb makers have been less skilled because of poor instruction.
One does have to wonder why the ISI doesn't send instructors. These are the good Taliban, after all, committing jihad in Afghanistan instead of at home.
The loss of operations commanders meant operatives were less effectively deployed, and more easily caught or killed. The damage to their intelligence operations meant there was less success in general, especially against the growing American informant network on the ground. The financial leadership losses has meant less income, and more reliance on stealing from locals, which makes the terror groups even more unpopular.
#1
Prior to WW II, Stalin purged a huge proportion of senior and middle officers. I recall reading the figure. I don't recall it. One of those numbers that is so unlikely that it simply doesn't compute.
There have been reports or at least speculations that the notably paranoid Stalin was faked into it by German intel.
There was no time after that for the replacements to shake out, get experience, go through the various advanced schools, and be promoted, demoted, siberiaed or put in responsible positions as a result of performance before the war started.
Big, big problem for the Red Army at the beginning.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
07/02/2011 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yes, being a good socialist, Stalin wasn't into promotion for 'merit' till the Germans were getting too close to Moscow.
#4
Pappy
Brings up a possible problem. Somebody, probably Wretchard, asked the hypo of what would happen if the Iranians put us in the position of having to do something we couldn't make ourselves do. Nuking them, for example. Not that we couldn't, under some circumstances, make ourselves do that.
But here's a possibility:
We get into a conventional war with them. As last time with Iraq, they get a bunch of kids to run at our lines, each with a get-to-heaven card and two grenades. By a bunch, I mean tens of thousands.
We have to kill them. Killing tens of thousands of kids with rifles and machine guns and submunitions and artillery and mortars, carpeting the battlefield with dead Iranian kids.
Imagine the reactions in various quarters.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
07/02/2011 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
But here's a possibility: We get into a conventional war with them. As last time with Iraq, they get a bunch of kids to run at our lines, each with a get-to-heaven card and two grenades.
Richard, it's a bit of a different situation now.
The political climate has changed a bit. There are many casualties of the Iran-Iraq war still kicking around. Okay, maybe not actually kicking, but you get the idea. A lot of water has passed under the bridge; some of the gloss of the new theocracy has worn off. And then there's the Green Revolution.
I think Iranian tactics will be different. The IRGC leadership has been receiving training, both outside the country and from foreign assets within Iran. We're likely to see something more along the lines of Hesb'allah, the Taliban, or the North Koreans, plus a few more twists provided by Iran's mentors.
#6
the CIA decapitation (kill the leaders) campaign there [Pakistan] continues.
George W. declared Iran part of the Axis of Evil. I have often wondered why we did not try to decapitate the leadership of Iran. They are stirring the pot of unrest in many, many places. They provided weapons which killed our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are still doing this. It would seem that several countries in the M.E. would support this. Why not go after the heart of the beast?
#7
Pappy. I get that. I also know that it is impossible to explain anybody starting any war in the twentieth century without him being seriously wrong about a lot of stuff.
It's only in the old military technothrillers that the fighting started in a logical way. Real world, not so much.
On the other hand, I was using that as a hypo. There are other hypos where we might end up having to do something equally bad-looking.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
07/02/2011 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Pappy. Suppose the mad mullahs decided to do it that way BECAUSE that's how it would end up. And figured we'd back off after enough bad PR. They know the left and the dems and the MSM have their back on this sort of thing.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
07/02/2011 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As per #6, TOPIX/WORLDNEWS > [US]IRAN FUNNELING NEW WEAPONS TO IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN, which have rallegedly already been used by local Hard/Bad Boyz to kill or maim US troops.
* STALIN > was covertly violating the terms of the SOVIET-GERMAN NON-AGRESSION PACT, + pushing for the rapid modernization of the Soviet Army in anticipation of unilater attacking NAZI GERMANY = BFF ADOLF circa 1942-43, espec wid the bulk of Wehrmacht forces tied up agz US-supported Britain.
Adolf gets the bad press, but in reality he's quilty of attacking Stalinist Russia before Stalin attacked him ala "SOVIET/STALIN'S PEARL HARBOR" SURPRISE ATTACK.
Going back to IRAN, END OF THE COLD WAR + OWG-NWO + GLOBALISM" = the US is unlikely to unilater attack Iran unless ...
> IRAN-ordered/facilitated new 9-11 or worse occurs agz CONUS = ONE OR MORE MAJOR US ALLY, i.e. DE FACTO "THREAT TO PEACE + SECURITY"???
> UNO = UNSC Mandate [Globalist?] to do so in any case, as opposed to the US suppor NEUTRAL-AGZ-ALL-PARTIES UN NFZS inside Iran.
> At last check, the majority of ordinary Iranians are Nationalist, Regionalist, + pro-Islam/Muslim, but NOT agz the US-WEST despite the anti-US Mullahocracy in charge of Iran's Govt.
> IRAN'S OIL = US, GLOBAL ECONOMICS.
> OWG-NWO "GLOBALISM" = set up of REGIONAL, CONTINENTAL, + TRANS-REGIONAL/CONTINENTAL GOVTS, e.g. NAU, EU, African Union, Mediterranean Union?, Asian Union = Community of Asian Nations?, ..............@etc.
NOT EVEN COUNTING ALL OF THE POSSIBLE OWG-AFFILIATED LESSOR SUB-ENTITIES.
All things equal, CHANGE IN IRAN = will ideally occur via DOMESTIC, IRAN-FOR-IRANIANS LED "REGIME CHANGE", NOT WAR.
The post-Cold War, poet-911 focii of the US = US-WEST/ALLIED is agz "ROGUE" STATES + LEADERS, + "ROGUE" NUKE-WMD ARMED MILTERR GROUPS to include Cells + Nons.
Again, Nuke-wannabe Iran prefers to stay on the Media, Diplomatic defensive while it nuclearizes - Iran is unlikely to openly declare itself a de facto NucWeaps State until such time its non-State/NGOS MilTerr Proxies also possess a "sufficient" or par capability, or greater, to routinely + PDeniably attack the US-WEST wid Nukes-WMDS in TerrorOps.
In its own way, Iran also fears "Rogue" MilTerrs + collapse/implosion of its Manifest Destiny + Shia Islam, + the National, Global consequences of "Peak Oil/Resources" + New Technologies, etc. in future.
#10
Pappy. Suppose the mad mullahs decided to do it that way BECAUSE that's how it would end up.
Frankly Richard, don't think it would happen that way. Not unless they were really, really against the wall. The Mullahs and the IRGC leadership have gotten quite comfortable post-revolution. Both control nearly all of Iran's economy. The population is nowhere near as willing as they were some 30+ years ago.
On the other hand, they see what the Taliban have been able to do, plus they've gotten help in strategy and tactics areas from 'interested parties'. Hence I think it'll be more a n unconventional war along the lines of what is seen in Afghanistan, plus attacks on the Gulf States and Israel.
#11
Pappy.
Let me try again. Let's presume that the hypo I mentioned could never happen in a millionbazillion years. Okay? Good.
Now, are there things the Iranians might be able to think of that we could be presumed to not want to do, but have to? Nuke Teheran after a US city gets nuked? Think of all those innocent civilians....
It's a hypo as an example of the question of whether we can be backed into a corner where we have to do what we cannot make ourselves do.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
07/02/2011 23:31 Comments ||
Top||
[Dawn] Writer Akbar S Ahmad writes in Foreign Policy Magazine (Code of the Hill May 6 2011), about the death of the late Osama bin Laden ... Maybe his Mom misses him... and talks about his time posted in the tribal agency of Wazoo, a part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). He writes somewhat glowingly about the people of the region preferred honour over a life of paying taxes. He cites the Pashto proverb "Honor (nang) ate up the mountains; taxes (qalang) ate up the plains."
He describes the society of which he is a product off as one where "people pay rents and taxes and live within the state system in hierarchal societies that are dominated by powerful feudal, political, or military authority". Unlike in the mountain areas, leaders in qalang societies have their status bestowed on them by birth or through economic or political means. He then expands on this arbitrary distinction between societies of honour and societies of taxes by arguing that the Military establishment is a product of the "qalang" society. He then emphasises how societies of honour are freedom loving and the importance of honouring tribal identity when developing the region.
I write with respect for Akbar S Ahmad's knowledge, personal ties to the region, long service in the tribal areas and Pashtun belt. However, ars longa, vita brevis... I believe his article misrepresented Pashtuns of Waziristan and the tribal belt.
He tries to justify the present situation by citing the Pashtun honour code of Pashtunwali, of "doing Pashto" as the cause for the regions backwardness. This centuries old code advocates living an honourable life which honours oneself, being hospitable to strangers, punishes ones enemies and does not dishonour others. While the code does exist today in many variations, to assume that it turns Pashtuns into people to whom the normal rules of human life do not apply is misleading. This is a classic stereotype of the "noble savage" that has been promoted for long about Pashtuns. During the time of the British Raj, the closer the British got to the Frontier the more savage the local Pashtuns got; conversely the further away the nobler Pashtuns were perceived.
In fact, within Pakistain this stereotype often co-exists with the cultural one of the "ignorant chowkidar". The ignorant chowkidar is mocked for his poor grasp of Urdu, his lack of intelligence and lack of interest in the trappings of modern society. Neither of these simplistic generalisations are true, it is just an easy way out of understanding complex societal structures.
Traditionally, Fata was a part of the country where the Frontier Crimes Regulation applied. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Fata is a part of Pakistain; that was governed by political agents as the government representative working through government backed Maliks and jirgas.
It exists in an anomalous situation, where locals are subject to collective punishment, arbitrary arrests and in its time, the FCR gave the political agents unbridled power. In fact as per Article 247 (7) of the constitution, the courts have no jurisdiction over the region. Under these laws, children as young as two years old have been convicted under the FCR. Jurists like the late Chief Justice A.R Cornelius in 1954 described the FCR as "obnoxious to all recognised modern principles governing the dispensation of justice".
The FCR, was brutally effective in ensuring state control of the region, if not its development. Things have since changed radically, the constant conflict in the region and deployment of the military has shifted power away from the political agents to either the military or jihad boy leaders. Most major decision making is now in the hands of the military the old system has collapsed.
The factors contributing to this collapse are not hard to see, a generation has been depoliticised and radicalised, large numbers of locals are working in the Middle East, the old Maliks have been killed or forced to flee. Finally we have an international brigade of people from all over the world who have created an occupied emirate in Islam's name using the locals as cannon fodder.
Akbar Ahmad argues "They should consult the elders and utilize the jirga in order to introduce schools and health schemes within their traditional systems so that the people of the nang areas have a sense of hope for the future."
This would be possible has the old systems existed now, they do not anymore with jihad boy commanders ruling parts of the region. The socio-economic figures on the region are even more shocking, the literacy rate in Fata is about 17 per cent and only three per cent of the total women population. The most recent 2009-10 census reported a school dropout rate of 63 per cent among boys and 77 per cent among girls, while 54 per cent children quit schools before completing secondary education. This is easily the highest dropout ratio in the country. So how does one invest in structures that barely exist anymore?
What is really needed is radical reforms in the region, allowing political party's to operate in the region, opening up existing roads in the region to the locals, investing in the IDPs and investing in development like the, seemingly forgotten reconstruction opportunity zones. There are precedents that are worth studying closely, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... provincial government has successfully merged the former provincial tribal agency of Kala Dhaka into the new district of Tor Ghar (literally black mountain). They did this by working through the remnants of the old jirga system and in exchange offering large scale investments as an incentive.
While we should not forget the past; we should not allow the memories of the past that Akbar Ahmed so deftly writes about, confuse traditionalism with a generation of radicalisation. Instead of Nang versus Qalang we should recall the poetry of the late Ajmal Khattak
Leave me alone if you will
The modern (hypocritical) Aurangzebs haunt me still
I am the Pashtun of my age
The truth is there is nothing noble about being radicalised or living a life of enforced deprivation and there is definitely nothing noble in being considered a savage.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Al Gore, the Norma Desmond (Sunset Boulevard) of climate change. Norma Desmond was a fading movie star who had long passed her prime and was looking for a way to return to the spotlight.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Wazoo
