Obama

The Great Unifier

by

To win wars, clean up oil spills, or define domestic policies, don’t we need to work together? Isn’t the president’s most important duty – the one that lies under all those others – to unify? I suspect that was the founders’ thoughts, since the presidency is the one post for which the entire country votes.

Sure, I saw enough of BDS to suspect Bush less culpable than his audience; I’m trying to be objective. And the leftist pundits are unhappy. Still, crazy as they are, they aren’t the thugs at polling booth doors – nor responsible for the large numbers at Tea Party rallies.

Surfing responses, I was struck by Luntz’s focus group: the more Obama talked the more reactions diverged; his audience became intensely argumentative. Some were attracted to populist rhetoric and others turned off by it.

My impression of past polls is despite a good-sized discrepancy on many issues, the lines were roughly parallel. The more knowledgeable might remark whether this divergence is common. Perhaps it isn’t a big deal. I hope not. We don’t need an increasingly polarized country. But though I would like us all to at least minimally get along and be more productive, that doesn’t mean I’m buying much if any of the goods Obama was selling last night.

Quote of the Day

by

Andrew Garland, commenting on this post by David Foster:

A tyranny is not just one willful man, but a large faction that says the law and constitution does not matter. If the populace is so stupid as to support or endure this lawlessness, then we have an established tyranny.
 
This is asymmetrical warfare. The Democrats flout the law, then say “under the law, you can’t do anything except vote us out”. The desire for law and order among most people is used as a shield against any action to stop the lawbreaking of that group.
 
Obama’s and the Democrat’s actions are not just allowing more destruction by oil in the Gulf. They are weakening the rule of law, or possibly are revealing that the law in our great country is a thin tissue, long hiding the arbitrary power of the government and the tyranny of Congress.

Read the whole discussion.

Attack Israel, Collect $400 Million

by

The USA promises a new financial aid package for Gaza, which means Hamas:

Obama described the situation in Gaza as “unsustainable”, saying a better approach was needed and calling for a “new conceptual framework” for Israel’s blockade. A White House statement said the new funds “represent a down payment on the United States’ commitment to Palestinians in Gaza, who deserve a better life and expanded opportunities, and the chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank”.
 
The money will go towards infrastructure projects in both Gaza and the West Bank, including $10m for the construction of new UN schools. It did not explain how the schools will be built while Israel maintains its embargo on construction materials entering Gaza, claiming they could be diverted to make weapons and build underground bunkers.
 
Earlier this week the UK government promised an extra £19m in aid. Israel today announced extra items it would allow into Gaza, including crisps, canned fruit, packaged hummus and shaving foam.
 
“They will send the first course. We are waiting for the main course,” the Palestinian economy minister, Hassan Abu Libdeh, was quoted in the Israeli media as saying. “We are waiting for this unjust siege to end.”

When you subsidize something you get more of it. This new subsidy package effectively rewards Israel’s enemies for their recent 4GW attack. Further attacks are now even more likely than they would be otherwise (i.e., our initial weak response could only embolden the Iranian-Syrian-Turkish-Palestinian axis, an actual cash payoff will embolden them further).

The Turkish government is no doubt anticipating its own fat envelope, courtesy of US taxpayers.

Note also the Palestinian economy minister’s attitude of entitlement. Keeping the Palestinians on welfare helps to maintain their hostility to Israel. If they had to work for a living they might be forced to be more accommodating. (Martin Kramer makes a related argument.)

Amazing Coincidence

by

Anyone remember the Russian submarine Kursk (K-141)? In the year 2000, it was severely damaged by an on board explosion and sank in relatively shallow water. All hands were lost.

(And yes, I know that Wikipedia is unreliable and should not be used as a reference. But it is the best brief encapsulation of the facts that I have found on this subject.)

Within days of the disaster, both the British and Norwegian military had offered the use of their underwater rescue teams. The Russians flatly refused, even though both of the foreign teams were probably the best trained and equipped in the world for retrieving crew from a stricken submarine. This proved to be a terrible mistake on the part of Russia, as budget woes since the fall of the USSR had caused maintenance to be cut back to the point that their own specialized rescue submersibles were no longer able to do the job.

What is more, then President Vladimir Putin found himself at the center of a great deal of negative PR. On vacation when informed of the disaster, he made the decision to continue relaxing while the rescue efforts started. It wasn’t until five days after the explosion that he made a public statement about the incident, lending to the impression that he was unconcerned about the lives of fellow Russians.

The humiliation of the Russian government was complete when it came to light that they didn’t even have the means to raise the wreckage from the sea floor! Two private Dutch companies had to do the work, making the initial refusal of help all the more poignant for the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

I’m bringing up this bit of ancient history because I see some amazing parallels between the Kursk disaster, and the current problems with oil gushing from a damaged offshore well.

Read more

Own Goals?

by

The other night on Fox one of the heads characterized Rand Paul’s principled libertarian criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a political “own goal”.

Meanwhile, President Obama not only did not take issue when President Calderon of Mexico, a guest at the White House, used a joint press conference to criticize his hosts because of the State of Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, Obama actually spoke in support of Calderon’s argument and against the government of Arizona and, implicitly, against his own country.

Here are a couple of questions:

-Did Obama and Calderon coordinate their remarks ahead of time?

-Who really made an own goal here?