POTUS Obama begins the year with the historical presumption that he will be re-elected in November. The GOP begins the year with the expectation that it will hold the House comfortably and will take a certain majority in the Senate. The EU begins the year in a recession with the expectation of a flat to negative year. The US economy begins the year sluggish with the expectation of a 1.5% GDP for the year. The American people begin the year cautious, hopeful, suspicious, watchful. The political actors in Washington are a non-factor for the economy at best, and a drain on the morale of the investors and operators. The unknowns for the year are the leadership crisis in China; the suicide cult in Iran that can pull Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut into the conflagration versus Ankara, Amman, Riyadh and Cairo; the face-off between NATO and Russia over Syria; the collapse of Egypt's economy; the disorder in Pakistan that can drag in Delhi. China sticks out as an immediate threat, because it is non-transparent and false about its debt load and non-performing loans. Then again, the Obama administration is ill-equipped for any of these fails. Expectations for rogue states to seek to take advantage of the America reluctance and incoherence. Will POTUS Obama win re-elect? Probability is affirmative. POTUS is out classed by Beijing and Moscow. NATO is not a support system, it is a talking point. What do I expect? Chaos of the rogues. Iran makes the first move, what will the UN try?
A U.S.
naval ship, CVN-74 USS Stennis, is pictured during the Velayat-90 war game on the Sea of Oman, near
the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran December 29, 2011
"... EVERYONE IN THE MARKET STILL KNOWS THIS COULD JUST TURN ON A DIME. AND JUST GET REALLY BAD, REALLY QUICKLY....". David Reilly
The financial disaster that is Europe is far from being solved. It can easily send us into another deep recession or even depression. But why fear Europe when there are so many other devils -- Russia, China, Iran, Syria -- that can cause chaos? Why? Look at all the trouble Europe has caused the world for the last several hundred years: It started with their petty rivalries, then colonization, global domination, lots of wars in between culminating in WW1, WW2 and, now, its unpaid-for-Socialism that can wreak havoc on world trade. Loss in trade with Europe is especially dangerous for China. If China goes down economically, it'll take the US with it. How's that for a new Domino Theory?
Take Vietnam, which France did for a couple of hundred years -- until it was thrown out in 1954 and we had to clean up its mess. Who remembers the French demonstrators during the Vietnam War screaming anti-American slogans and blaming us, like it was all our fault and they were never even there. Look at the poverty in Haiti. Who did the French help? The Haitian dictator Duvalier. Where did all the South American dictators go with all their stolen money? Europe. How many dictators have fled here? And, yet, the Europeans think that they can teach us a lesson in morality.
Today, for some reason, the World blames the US for all its problems.
For good reasons, I blame the Europeans.
Instead of sending money around the world, we should be sending history teachers.
"Instead of sending money around the world, we should be sending history teachers."
Depends on who they studied under. If it was Howard Zinn and his progeny, forget it. My guess is most history teachers today are schooled in Zinn's anti-American prejudices, hand-wringing about minorities, and social activism. It fits well with the blather spouted by Ayers and his crew in Ed schools.
Right you are, as always, Corlyss. I don't know where I'd stand, if I didn't stand corrected.
It's just that my idea of history is neutral -- kinda like I learned it in high school. I guess those days are long gone.
With leftys controlling most of the media as well as text books and education, the future doesn't look all that bright.
So many dead planets out there. Will we become just like the rest?
Happy New Year!
Instead of sending Teachers, a few economists from Chicago would do wonders.
We used to send American culture, back in the days of John Wayne and early Spielberg. Eisenhower seems to be the last POTUS who managed soft power as a strategic asset.
My guess is most history teachers today are schooled in Zinn's anti-American prejudices, hand-wringing about minorities, and social activism.
In other words, America won the political struggle against Marxism by defeating the Soviet Union and ringing the world with hundreds of military bases and swarms of drones, but she lost the cultural struggle, a battle that the neoconservatives are utterly unfit to wage. Instead of a country we have an economy. Only a fool dies for his standard of living.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: Happy New Year.
Except that I don't think it will be. A friend of mine well placed to hear such things has informed me in a roundabout fashion that we will be bombing Iran between now and the Fourth of July. He also contends that so great will be the concern (not to say hysteria) over terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare, particularly with regard to the safety of our food supply, that the same geniuses who have transformed flying from a modern technical marvel into a degrading psychology experiment will manage to disrupt the flow of consumer goods quite thoroughly. He counsels me not to plan on any long trips away from home this summer. Also, he has already begun stocking up on canned goods.
For what it is worth, my friend has always struck me as calm and level-headed, not the sort of person prone to apocalyptic fantasies. In the run-up to Y2K, for instance, he scorned the panicky survivalists who thought that when the new millennium arrived technical civilization would break down, and he laughed at the notion that bird flu posed any real threat. He's not laughing now.
MARTIN SHORT'S TRIBUTE TO UBL
In case you missed the very funny Martin Short on David Letterman (as I did):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgJ8bjsVv28
WOW! Hard to believe.
Imagine how well our economy would be doing with the XL Keystone Pipeline, fracking allowed everywhere, off-shore drilling et al.
Gas And Other Fuels Are Top U.S. Exports, For First Time
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/united-states-gas-export_n_1177559.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D124147
Mmmm. With all the WH fretting about Obama's base, I just don't see where bombing Iran fits into their plans to revive the happy brainless and loose them on the jobless electorate. Mead's been raising the caution flags about the rhetoric too. If Bush wouldn't do it, I don't see this numbnuts doing it.
Breaks my heart. If the WH wanted to trample on its brainless followers' cherished beliefs, they'd really be doing something for the nation and the free world if they started building out the natgas delivery infrastructure instead of bombing Iran. Last time I checked here, natgas was $1.25/gal if you had a car that could use it. You can't get a car that uses it? No, of course not. Like good little whores, Detroit is building electric cars just like the Great White Father in Washington wants them to. How do we get rid of this chickenshit government, permanently?
"... I just don't see where bombing Iran fits into their plans to revive the happy brainless and loose them on the jobless electorate."
It fits into the WH plans to get re-elected.
Geez, and I thought my past post was just a paranoid fantasy:
"Pulling out of Iraq ... provides cover if [Obama] chooses to go to war with Iran -- knowing full well that during a war the incumbent almost always gets re-elected."
"He's not laughing now."
At the risk of sounding hysterical, or panicky, may I suggest thereadystore.com. Knowing where my local truck farms are located, and how to buy direct is something that has been worthwhile. But like I said, I don't want to seem all panicky and stuff.
Corlyss and MIke
Rhetorical question. Do you remember the last time we had a Democrat in the White House running a war? With todays technology and given the nature of our current enemies, it's quite the scary thought, isn't it? Talk about your possible "Gone with the Wind" scenario! I still can't believe all of "them" sitting around pretending to watch the the OBL demise caper in real time, like they were watching their favorite actors playing out some script in a Ballywood movie. Out into the night, strolls the pretender...
Paulmentzel:
Spoke to Chuck Pfarrer, author, "Seal Team Geronimo," an account of the Bin Laden raid from the POV of the JSOC operators, most likely the CO and the Red Squadron leader in Razor 1 (the Stealth Hawk on the roof), as well as an informant or more than one in Razor 2 (covering Razor 1 on the roof). Details. The picture we have of the Cabinet watch a video projection is the picture of their reaction when Razor 2 went out of control and crashed in the yard. It is long after Bin LAden is dead. We do not have anything from the moment when the CO (Pfarrer uses nom de guerre of Kerr) confirms the Bin Laden KIA by calling in "Geronimo Echo (enemy), KIA." The operator Seals did not use helmet cams. The Obama cabinet did not see inside the compound walls until afterward, if and when they reviewed video made at the scene. The faces we see on the picture are witnessing the moment when the operation lost Razor 1 due to wildly improbable fail of two "Green Units" for navigation. At that moment, everyone on the operation worried that the aircraft was down by hostile fire, as there were still unaccounted for MANPADS (never found). I will run the Pfarrer interview later in January.
Thanks John.
It was my intention all along to point to the absurdity of the chronicle in the situation room. I'm sure for posterity and history there is in fact a place for that kind of thing. But to allow the inference of realtime drama for political pocket change seems easily as cheesy to me as does flying onto an aircraft carrier and glibly announcing mission accomplished. Obviously, I don't understand politics. And that's not to say there wasn't real concern for the safety and well-being of those involved in the mission. Ideology divides us. Adversity and need binds us together.
It might not be 100% for cheesy political reasons only. There's quite a bit of paranoia out there today, much of it justified, and for people like Jesse Ventura who claim they can't believe anything the government tells them anymore, it always helps to have as much documentation as possible. Of course, I'm not opposed to having a suitable time delay for security reasons, but as much should be released to the public as possible, and as soon as possible.
I was worried that "Romulans" might be Huffington Post, but I've convinced myself that HuffPo would be referred to as "Klingons". Romulans might be more like Rupert Murdoch.
A video of John Boehner having to back track 72 hours after drawing a line in the sand over the payroll tax cut, is going to be of much more propaganda value to Obama than anything having to do with bin Laden.
Re: previous thread: I was a paid suscriber to StratFor for a brief time, till I realized (without wishing to sound overly critical) that the information they provided was typically somewhere between dreadfully boring and completely useless (to e). I got the dreaded "your security has been compromised" e-mail from them last month. I don't think they ever got my credit information or SSN, though, since I paid by check. Anyway, I've had my credit frozen for years now, and nobody wants to be Lou Filliger for any other reason.
It's become painfully evident that nobody here cares, but FYI, it's been two weeks since I broke my toe and it still hurts sometimes. When our Chocolate Lab jumps up and lands on it is definitely one of those times.
"It might not be 100% for cheesy political reasons only."
"Hey. Grandpa Barack. What's this picture in the frame in your office, and who are all those people with you? Was something important going on? Everyone looks soooo serious!"
"Well now, you kids sit down by Grandpa's desk and let me tell you a story about how I saved the free world from those wicked 'ole terrorists."
Thus the use of the phrase "100%.... only".
Besides, if he starts believing that crap about saving the world from terrorists, he might as well move over to the GOP.
LOL, Lou! Of course you're right. They all take themselves way too seriously. I just would like to see the POTUS in some new threads now and again. Do you really think he only has one suite and three ties? BTW, I had to look up the phrase "nom de guerre". That's one of the things I like about this blog. Stimulates my desire to learn. I really like the new Oregon Duck's football uniforms, too.
Just listened to the end of the Rose Bowl on the radio ... the Wisconsin QB spiked the ball with no time left on the clock and the ball on the Duck 25 ... Chick Hearn would have said "That was not a Phi Beta Kappa play!"
Chain-smokers' clothes all turn a dingy shade of brown eventually.
IOWA DECLARED WAR ON MEXICANS -- AND NOBODY NOTICED.
Even though ethanol has not been brought up much -- if at all -- in the overly long, overly boring, self-important arrogance that is the Iowa Caucus, it's still true that ethanol is good for Iowa. However, this has to be bad for Mexicans, as corn is a basic component of their diet. I wish they would rise up and protest. Or do something.
This concerns me how? It concerns me because I love fresh corn and refuse to buy it at its current high price. I remember, not too long ago when I could buy corn at 10 (sometimes 12) for a $1 in NY during the summer. Not so, anymore.
I went shopping at a CA Mexican supermarket the other day, where I usually get 3 lbs of juice oranges for a $1. This time it was 7 lbs for a $1. Good thing I have a big refrigerator. Cucumbers were 5 for a $1. 3 Hass avocados were .99 cents. Three huge bunches of scallions for $1. Radishes were a big bargain and so on. No inflation here, except for fresh corn: 2 for .98 cents. Outrageous. And it's all because Iowa gets to go first.
This should concern everyone, because corn also goes into animal feed -- raising the price of milk, dairy, beef and pork.
Iowans seem to be very nice people. They're said to take their caucus very seriously. Heck, my barber is from Iowa and he's a genius (insofar as he always agrees with me). But I really hate this waste-of-time, browbeat-your-neighbor crap that is the Iowa Caucus.
Iowa seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the country. What's good for Iowa is not good for the United States. If Iowa chooses a Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, who cares?
Iowans think their important. They're not. What's important is the price of food. Why use food for fuel, when we have so much natural gas and oil?
"Do you remember the last time we had a Democrat in the White House running a war?"
I assume you mean successfully. That would be FDR. The instinct for successful warmaking has been bred out of them by decades of anti-Americanism. They don't believe America should make war, it shouldn't really do much to defend itself because it's so guilty of falling short of the Left's utopian delusions, and if it does make war, it should stop immediately because in doing so it becomes a perpetual engine of human rights violations. I revert to my mantra that Boomers will have to die out completely before this country can restore its heritage. Jeanne Kirkpatrick used to say "Americans need to face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is." We'll never be able to as long as Bill Ayers & progeny control ed schools, as long as Boomers control the perceptions of the US.
"It fits into the WH plans to get re-elected."
But Mike, who's going to work for the morons in the WH if not its base? Surely not the independents, who disdain identification with any useful political apparatus. Surely not the conservatives, unless they back into it by sheer stupidity, a result I don't discount entirely.
Corlyss -
I must tell you, I find myself very conflicted by the whole war-with-Iran scenario. This is because there may be very good reasons for going to war. Military advisers may even support it, as Kenneth S suggests above. On the other hand, if the motive is simply re-election -- but it's backed by the NSA -- how would anyone ever know?
I net out with the cynical belief that if the WH thinks it will win more votes than lose by going to war with Iran -- and advisers think taking out Iran's nuclear capability is a necessity -- then off to war we go.
"... who's going to work for the morons in the WH if not its base?"
The base will still be there, as well as the basest of the base. Who said otherwise? But two other answers come to mind: 1) Politics makes strange bedfellows and 2) I don't think anyone's ever been convicted of poor logic by calling a politician a whore.
Let's say in August, 2012 -- because you never know what will happen in August -- WH advisers suggest taking out Iran's nuclear capability. Obama agrees. Does this become a campaign issue? Yes and no. Yes, the Dems say: We would never have done so, unless we had to. Remember, we're the ones who pulled out of Iraq (and, maybe, Afghanistan by then) so we're really anti-war. On the other hand, this shows we're not afraid of making the tough decisions. It gives some credibility to a non-existent foreign policy. The Republican nominee would probably agree to the necessity and not make a campaign issue at all. Does Obama lose some of his base? Yes. Many probably stay home rather than vote for a Republican. However many independents, who didn't think that killing UBL was a foreign policy, may vote for Obama on the belief that he was actually doing this strange move out of necessity and, therefore, deserved high marks for foreign policy and 'thinking outside the box'. You know, we never thought he had it in him. This shows us how smart he really is. Yatta, Yatta. Yatta. That thought process may be a vote getter.
One thing that hasn't been said: If you can't solve a domestic problem, start a foreign war. It's an old adage, but some think Obama is just that ruthless. You also know the economy won't be solved by November, even though the stock market may go way up.
The one major flaw in all the above: If there is a war with Iran, oil will skyrocket. The market will crash. If the war doesn't end in a week, the economy is really doomed. Can this be spun? I don't know. What to do? What to do?
Yes, the prognosticator's dilemma. All of your scenarios look plausible enough.
I'm not sure the base is with the One. Of course they won't vote Republican, although one can hope for an occasional Road to Damascus conversion a la the young Iowan who was so angry at Obama for betraying his hopes that he's now a Ron Paul supporter and running tutorials for his demo on how to register as a Republican for the caucuses. I don't know whether to believe this changling story or not. It was on NPR.
As plausible as it is, I just don't see this crowd going to war with Iran. Soooooooooooo many missed cāsūs belli when it would have been justified, only to adopt the Bush-attributed pre-emptive war doctrine? I just think it's too great a stretch for these guys. Genada is more their speed, but they wouldn't do even that little job because of Grenada's colonial history.
I think you're probably right in picking August. Congress is out of session and this being an election year, they'll spend scant time in DC as it is.
But you could certainly be right. I can say this with supreme confidence: if they try it, they'll fuck up royally.
"if they try it, they'll f#@k up royally."
LOL. As someone on here once said about Libya: "Obama is leading with his behind."
Hayek smirks, ever ready for the BHO defamation police to cuff, haul, frogmarch and indefinitely detain. Per BHO, that detention provision was demanded by Senate GOPers, an account in some dispute. But back on point...
BHO votes present. He disengages with human beings. He leaves legislative sausage making to others. He disdains such details that, additionally, are way beyond his competence. He hates geo-political military distractions. The OBL killing may ultimately be shown a perfect RELUCTANT storm for which there simply was no escape by BHO. The notion that his DOD-CIA-State complex is now plotting an affirmative first strike on Iran is unlikely, nearly ludicrous, totally out of character, beyond his DNA. There will be no BHO finger prints whatsoever on any such action. Think Egypt. Libya. Sharia si, secular no. An attack on sharia loving, Israel hating, theocratic, 12th Imam insane Iran? Sooooo not happening. Expect dithering. Sanctions. Ultimately, adoption of the Ron Paul/Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich embrace of a nuclear Iran as good for us.