Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/09/2010 12:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So-o-o IOW, when TV's HOMER SIMPSON told better half MARGE that his character was white US Male aged 18-34 + that "EVERYBODY LISTENS TO HIM" [Markets-Demographic Consumer Profile], HOMER BACK IN 1980's-90's FORGOT TO SAY THAT IN 2010 HE WOULD ALSO BE UNEMPLOYED, becuz BURNS, SMITHERS, + SPRINGFIELD NUCLEAR didn't get a BAMMER STIMULUS NOR BAMMER-CARE???
...There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy's. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in Strasbourg, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Which of course means: If we're all exceptional, no one is.
Take human rights: After Obama's meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we too are working on perfecting our own democracy.
Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with China about human rights, the U.S. delegation brought up Arizona's immigration law -- "early and often." As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents, and suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.
Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama's modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as he has gratuitously and continuously confessed America's alleged failings -- from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11.
It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.
It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the first-person pronoun "I."
Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to cabinet members and other high-level government officials as "my" -- "my secretary of homeland security," "my national security team," "my ambassador." The more normal -- and respectful -- usage is to say "the," as in "the secretary of state." These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and protect the Constitution -- not just the man who appointed them.
It's a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama's exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies -- both about himself.
Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. But it is odd to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/09/2010 11:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Compare Obama with Jimmy Carter: for all his faults, Carter was never a denier of American exceptionalism, in part because, unlike Obama, Carter:
-- spent his formative years climbing up through an institution whose mission is to defend and assert American interests, aka the USN
-- actually managed a large organization of consequence, having to make tough decisions, understand and create and defend and fight for a budget that made some fiscal sense, aka the state of Georgia
-- actually ran a business, met a payroll, managed employees and navigating volatile markets, gaining understanding of how wealth is created in this country
How many of our current political class under the age of 60 have ever managed anything, met a payroll, served in the military, had a life outside of politics?
I first read the title as 'Obama Faces Left Wing Spinal Tap'. Which I liked better ...
Barack Obama faces about the same problem that confronted Bill Clinton in 1994 when he lost control of Congress. In both cases, the Democratic presidents had alienated moderate and conservative voters and found themselves increasingly isolated with a political base of liberals and minorities. In each instance, the president worried that off-year election turnout among their base would be attenuated both because it always is in non-presidential years and because their policy failings had reduced the enthusiasm they found among their base voters. And both men found themselves forced to escalate their rhetoric and move their ideological positions to the left in order to try to drum up the kind of turnout they needed to keep power in Congress.
When President Clinton asked me to help him to move to the center to win re-election in 1996, he said "I've moved so far to the left that I don't even recognize myself." At heart a moderate while Obama is, at core, a leftist, Clinton was alluding to the positions he had to take to keep the support of his liberal House majority. Obama -- for whom the further left he drifts the better -- has no such qualms but the political impact of his move to the left will be just as fatal for his Congressional majority as it was for Clintons'.
When a president moves leftward, a vicious cycle begins to set in. Driven to raise the intensity of his rhetoric and to take positions further to the extreme, he alienates more and more centrists and moderates, forcing himself to rely more and more on left wing voters. This reliance, in turn, fuels an ever more pronounced leftward drift until he ends up with a vastly diminished political base.
In Obama's case, his reliance on minority voters adds to the difficulty as he drives racially fair whites to see him as governing primarily in the interests of minority voters.
Obama's decision to have his Justice Department sue Arizona over its immigration law -- despite the fact that American voters back the statute by 2:1 -- is the latest illustration of that leftward drift. So is Attorney General Eric Holder's decision not to prosecute the Black Panthers who posted themselves at a mixed-race polling place in military uniform with clubs to deter white voters.
The further Obama moves to the left, the more he has to move to the left. And the worse it is for his ability to control Congress.
#1
Uh, if you're already to the left of Trotsky, it's kinda hard to be trapped by anything. Barry doesn't dare let the electorate know just how radical his politics truly are.
Posted by: Jefferson ||
07/09/2010 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The man is totally boxed in. Labor is fragmented between diehard SEIU types and the "bitter, clinging" private sector white working class; American jews increasingly are deserting him over his unfathomable bashing of Israel; left-libs are disenchanted.
All he has left, really, is a) "I'm not Bush" and b) the race card.
Well, that and dissing Bibi. And telling Israel it couldn't build settlements. And telling Israel to give up half of Jerusalem. And telling them to apologize to Turkey. And for thinking that they are being too hard on terrorists trying to kill Israeli soldiers while trying to break their blockade against weapons on Gaza. And thinking it's OK for Hezballah to have missiles. And questioning the US-Israel alliance. And not standing beside Israel.
U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.
In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied "I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern."
Obama spoke to Channel 2's Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an "excellent" meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said.
"I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West," Obama went on to say.
Obama added that he believed a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved within his current term. "I think [Netanyahu] understands we've got a fairly narrow window of opportunity... We probably won't have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized. It's going to be difficult."
The American President entirely sidestepped the question of whether the U.S. would pressure Israel to extend a current 10-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements, failing to give a clear answer. The moratorium is set to expire in September, and Netanyahu has announced that he would not extend the timeframe. The U.S., however, views continued Israeli settlement construction as a serious obstacle to peace efforts.
When asked whether he thought Netanyahu was the right man to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, the U.S. President said that "I think Prime Minister Netanyahu may be very well positioned to bring this about," adding that Israel will have to overcome many hurdles in order to affect the change required to "secure Israel for another 60 years"
In a separate interview with another Israeli media outlet, Obama proclaimed that he was not "blindly optimistic" regarding the chances of a Middle East peace agreement.
Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process, he said in another yet-to-be-aired interview that was taped on Wednesday. He noted during the interview that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be "a great source of hope."
Meanwhile on Wednesday, Netanyahu told U.S. Jewish leaders that direct Palestinian-Israeli talks would begin "very soon", but warned that they would be "very, very tough."
Netanyahu told his cabinet earlier this week before flying to Washington that the time had come for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prepare to meet directly with the Israelis, as it was the only way to advance peace.
Israelis and Palestinians have been holding indirect talks mediated by Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell. Aides to Obama sounded a hopeful tone regarding the negotiations last week, telling reporters that the shuttle diplomacy between the two sides had paid off and the gaps have narrowed.
At a meeting with representatives of Jewish organizations at the Plaza Hotel late Wednesday, Netanyahu discussed the efforts to promote Middle East peace. "This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation," he said, adding "the sooner the better."
"Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will," he said.
#2
I think gorb's inline comments at the beginning of the article give the Israelis enough reason not to trust him.
Bambi would just love it if both sides signed a "peace" agreement while he was still in office. He could claim that it was all his doing -- and he should get another Nobel.
Of course, Jimmy Peanut got the Israelis and Palestinians to sign the Camp David agreement. He didn't get a Nobel, and the Israelis and Palestinians are still fighting.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/09/2010 4:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's just his narcisim rearing it's ugly head.
Obaminition: "It couldn't be about what I say or do. It's much more personal. It has to be." *Runs off crying because some one in the international community doesn't like him*
#8
If Obama had a shred of patriotism, before running for president he would have announced that considering it was less that 10 years after 9/11 he didn't feel comfortable with his middle name, and publicly change his middle name to "George" or "Abraham" (or anything even vaguely Judeo-Christian). The fact that he didn't was one of the first things that made me suspicious of his values and agenda.
#9
I bow to no-one in my contempt for the moron, but even I have to think that's kind of unreasonable. He is what he is; I blame the 52 percenters for their imbecility. To blame Obama for being Obama is like cussing out the scorpion what was hiding in your shoe when you ought to be off finding yourself some anti-venom ASAP.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/09/2010 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
You can call me Ray or you can call me Jay or you can call me Ray Jay or you can call me Raymond Jay or you can call me RJ; but you don't have to call me Hussein.
#13
Oh, and Micheal Totten just posted the below at
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
Hussein Has Nothing to Do With It
President Barack Obama agreed to be interviewed by Israel's Channel 2, and at one point he came across like a peevish and blinkered man who hasn't a clue how others see him or how the Middle East works.
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
If he was trying to reduce anxiety among Israelis by making that comment, I can assure him he failed.
I was in Jerusalem the day he was inaugurated. Everyone knew his middle name then, and the Israelis I met on that trip swooned over him as much as my bohemian neighbors in Portland did. Whether for good reasons or bad, his plummeting poll numbers are based entirely on what has occurred between then and now.
In a speech he gave in Wisconsin on June 30, President Obama said: "We already tried the other side's ideas. We already know where their theories led us. And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future. We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward."
For the Soviets, moving forward meant that with each consecutive five-year government plan the economy of the USSR would eventually surpass the American economy (the one Obama thinks has failed).
They could have succeeded: Russia has abundant natural resources and a well-educated populace, with a culture that's been in existence for far longer than the United States.
The central government enforced these five-year economic plans with zero interference from members of the U.S. Republican Party or Fox News. Yet, they were about as successful in growing the economy as Obama's stimulus package has been in creating American jobs.
The idea is that government-appointed experts and officials know how to drive innovation, rather than people who make their own choices, and who have real expertise and experience in their chosen field.
In his Oval Office address, President Obama spoke about creating a clean energy future:
"As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how were going to get there. We know we'll get there."
Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev, after returning from a visit to the U.S., decided that the USSR had to increase its production of corn. All Soviet republics, from Belarus to Siberia, replaced the crop most appropriate to their soil and climate with corn, as directed by the ministry of agriculture. The following year, the corn crop was a failure, and there was a shortage of potatoes and grain for the population to eat.
There is a common theme crystallizing from Democratic leaders: Their policies are driven by their ideological vision and, in their own words, they don't have a clue about what to expect.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, speaking about his financial reform bill, said: "After great debate, we have produced a strong Wall Street reform bill that will fundamentally change the way our financial services sector is regulated. No one will know until this is actually in place how it works."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, talking about health reform in March, said: "(This) is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
The response of authorities to the catastrophic oil accident in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates how centrally controlled bureaucracy works. It is revealing to see how the federal government obstructs localities trying to save their states from disaster.
America is an advanced and prosperous country. The failed economic policies that Obama talks about somehow produced a dynamic economy, with opportunities available to more people than everywhere else in human history.
But liberal elites do not make the connection: They yell loudly about regulating capitalism and talk quietly about regulating speech, capping salaries, taxing incomes and creating bureaucracies in order to control everything and everyone.
Instead of relying on basic laws of economics and an understanding of human nature, they elevate socialist-style management based on the political economics of class warfare and central planning.
The left believes that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are backward and out of date. Meanwhile, their new ideas for transforming America are based on old, unsuccessful concepts from Marx, Engels and Keynes.
The country I grew up in was filled with statues of the leader, his arm proudly extended, pointing toward a future where the life of all citizens would be framed within the boundaries of his vision.
I prefer the Statue of Liberty.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Soviet Union was evolving toward using TRIZ to help invent its way into the future. It happened to collapse before TRIZ came online...oops...
So is Obama going toward TRIZ? Stalin's Gulags? Trotsky's madness or Lenin's Ukrainian land reforms with some winter germination thrown in for old time sake?
#2
Here's Wikipedia on TRIZ; since I'm a Marketing major from a commuter school, I'll leave it to the more technically oriented 'Burgers to figure out if Bambi's wrecking crew is using it as a decision-making model.
As to the other paths suggested by 3dc...well, keep in mind that Bambi's court includes a real live Lysenko.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/09/2010 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
#1 The Islamo-nuts must think we're f*cking retarded. Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-07-09
Well, 70% of Congress is, which isn't quite the same thing but has the same result.
Actually, this has been coming since July 20, 1969, when the US first landed a man on the moon. The Saudis have always refused to believe we did that, because of one of the prophecies of Mo-ham-head that Islam would rule the world before man ever walked on the moon. Our getting there was an "insult" to their religion, so we didn't do it. The Saudis have been working feverishly to destroy our space program ever since. Under their muslim brother "President" Obumble, they have succeeded.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/09/2010 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One of the hallmarks of narcissism is a clinical degree of detachment from reality.
The notion that NASA should focus on muslim outreach is of an altogether different order of insanity than anything we've seen from this man so far. I believe that The One has passed a line here. Nixon was paranoid; Clinton a sex fiend; but this one has his own personality disorder. He needs intensive work with a shrink, asap.
It Is Extremely Troubling that Extremists Beat, Flog, and Kill Anyone Caught Watching the World Cup
"Does Islam ban entertainment? Is anyone who plays soccer crazy and brainless? Why are people forced... to hide so they can watch soccer games 'secretly' for fear that they will be murdered? Is an extremist gang entitled to impose its 'tutelage' on society and to flog, beat, and murder [people] for watching a soccer game? What is happening in Somalia during the World Cup? Does the Islamic world need more people to accuse others of apostasy and to try to hijack Islam and make it hell because of a piece of leather [i.e. a soccer ball], in accordance with their criminal principles and ways?
"In Somalia, there is a 'fragile,' 'weak,' nearly dead government that controls very limited parts of the capital Mogadishu, [even though] it claims to control [all of] Somalia -- while the Islamist groups ban music, soccer, and any form of entertainment.
"In Somalia, the people are living in humiliation and [in danger] of extermination at the hands of extremist groups that cling to the outward manifestations [of Islam] and reject Islam's principles and tolerance...
"It is extremely troubling that an extremist group prohibits watching the World Cup games, and then beats, flogs, and even kills anyone [who does so], on the grounds that these soccer games involve 'crazy men jumping up and down as they chase an inflated object.'
"The best-known modern study that forms the basis for fatwas banning soccer is the 2003 40-page study by 'Abdallah Al-Najadi, which bans playing soccer unless peculiar rules and conditions are met -- including the elimination of fouls and penalties, and of red and yellow cards. Al-Najadi's study also included what he called historical soccer facts, on the basis of which he banned the game.[1] These fatwas are attributed to Wahhabism.
"I recall the story of the terrorist caught by the Saudi Interior Ministry in 2003, in a raid on an apartment in the Al-Khalidiya [neighborhood] of Mecca. He was a fellow from Chad or Malaysia, nicknamed 'Abu 'Abdallah Al-Maki,' and his [real] name was 'Abd Al-Hamid Al-Tarawri. Prior to his arrest, when [he was found] booby-trapping Korans and endangering children, he had preached at mosques in Mecca and publicly banned soccer as a Western invention that distracts Muslims from their religion.
"At this time, as the World Cup is going on, there are reports from Somalia that soccer fans are in a great crisis, subjected to a grave threat, after the Islamic movements forcibly prevented them from watching the World Cup games -- to the point of killing two of these 'weak' viewers..."
Anti-Soccer Fatwas -- An Attempt to Hijack Islam
"In Saudi Arabia, the clerics allowed soccer, provided that [the players'] private parts are not exposed, and that no one is prevented from praying [at the proper time]. Prior to that, [Saudi university lecturer] Sheikh Naser Al-Hanini issued a fatwa permitting people to watch soccer, provided they don't see [the players'] private parts, that it does not prevent anyone from praying [at the proper times], and that it does not cause hatred. But to anyone who asked, he recommended not watching soccer, even if all these conditions were met.
"Two months ago, [Saudi cleric] Dr. Yousef Al-Ahmad issued a fatwa that prohibited sending Muslim children to train at the Spanish Real Madrid Football Club, because it entailed travel to countries of the unbelievers.
"Some Islamic countries have no known fatwas preventing soccer, but a dispute did erupt between Egyptian and Tunisian clerics over players prostrating themselves after shooting a goal. The Tunisian clerics banned this, while the Egyptian clerics permitted it, because it was in order to thank Allah. Some Saudi clerics also banned it, saying that it 'harms Islam.'
"...These fatwas, and the attempt to forcibly hijack the religion in Somalia and other places, prove that the Islamic world is in a crisis that does not end with a ban on soccer or with the extremism of a single group -- but that the problem now is much more profound, because there are extremist minds that are trying, in the name of the religion, to destroy the minds of simple folk, 'superficial minds' that are incapable of waking up and thinking when presented with 'booby-trapped' fatwas based on prohibitions, accusation of apostasy, and murder. And the governments and the legitimate Islamic organizations remain silent."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why doesn't Assad change the name of the country from Syria to East Persia? It would be more reflective of the reality on the ground. Maybe the national seal should be an image of Assad kneeling, kissing the hand of the Iranian President.
#2
Iran hasn't finished (although its well underway) paying for rebuilding Hezbollah assets destroyed in the 2nd Lebanon war. There are other civilian buildings that Hezbollah has promised to rebuild but no one really expects them to do so. Hezbollah has lots of other O&M costs for which Iran is paying.
All this while the Mullocracy has its own financial problems.
Posted by: lord garth ||
07/09/2010 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
See also FREEREPUBLIC > HEZBOLLAH WARNS ISRAEL ON SYRIAN TV. Israeli IDF to suffer higher casualties than 2006 in any new Hezzo-Israeli Conflict in LEBANON.
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.
With aid from Iran, Syria has a factory producing M-600 missiles for Hezbollah. So is Assad really looking for 
