A Real Test

As I argued in a post last week, President Obama's involvement in the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips proves nothing about the young president's leadership or talent as a president. Dealing with four primitive Somali pirates is nothing to get excited about. Obama did what anyone in that position would have done: more or less authorize the use of deadly force. The result was what you would expect when the world's most talented, best equipped military goes up against four primitives armed with AKs.

But the imprisonment of Roxana Saberi provides exactly the kind of test Joe Biden mentioned during the campaign. A real opportunity to see what the young president is made of. Iran is a banana republic, but that is where the comparison with Somalia ends. They have international support from Russia, potentially France, and offer the kind of complexities not present in the pirate kidnapping affair. Saberi is an American citizen, and her kangaroo trial was probably more of a set-up than anything. She was picked because she is an American and the Iranians are confident they can back Obama down in ways they never could have with Bush. I have argued this for a long time. Anyone from a masculine culture, anyone from a background less genteel instintively senses weakness in Obama, because he represents the new man of the Left, one who consciously eschews the "male" image of the past. Again, as I argued before, this is not inherently bad. Indeed there are many good things about the new man, but there are great potential dangers and pitfalls when such a man comes into contact with distinctly different cultures where strength is the only way to get respect. Obama is not imposing, and he lacks the depth or experience to not make dangerous blunders like his deferential bow to King Abdullah.

As I understand Middle Eastern and Persian cultures the "bow" indicates subservience, a tacit and conscious admission of inferiority. I would guess that Obama's bow was the impetus to Iran's decision to find a way to test the waters. Seeing the president make such a cultural blunder encouraged the Iranians to find a way to embarrass the president further, deligitimize him in the Islamic world, and continue positioning in the Intenational game of politics and power. Saberi was picked not because she is a journalist, not because she is a woman, not because she is a spy, but because she has American citizenship. The Iranians want to force president Obama into a situation that really tests him. There is almost no way they can lose, as it seems unlikely that Obama will find an easy way out of this situation. We hope that he will surprise them and begin building the respect he desperately needs in the Islamic world, but it seems far less possible. The Iranians timed it perfectly. Worrying that Obama may gain some respect by association with the successful rescue of Captain Phillips they immediately put him on the defensive and deflect attention away from his success with Phillips. They are in essence, trying to bolster the inferior image the president unconsciously created with his bow to King Abdullah. The show of strength and superiority over the Somali pirates is no longer on the radar and Obama gains little, in the Islamic world at least, through it. Instead he now faces a far more complex and dangerous situation, but one he should deal with, as Saberi is an American citizen and deserves our defense and aid.

The ball is in his court and he must play. But this is a far more difficult game, and while we all want to see him back down the Iranian thugs it will not be so easy. The Russians and the French may not feel like helping, and Obama may be in a lose-lose situation. The Iranians have too many options and even releasing Saberi can be, if manipulated correctly, done from a position of power and authority, the way a king would grant a boon to an inferior. Good luck president Obama, and good luck Roxana Saberi.

So it Begins

I have never heard of preemptive apologists, but this WAPO editorial comes as close as possible to a preemptive defense of what will surely be another Obama defeat. The editorial seeks to address the president's promise to "reset" relations with Russia, arguing in its subtitle that "Mr Obama isn't contemplating change solely on the part of the United States." This goes back to the problem I documented twice already: Obama is perceived by everyone around him, including his admirers, as weak and vulnerable. Or as David Broder put it, "unimposing." The Russians are strong, dangerous, and corrupt. President Obama has about as much chance of getting anything from the Russians as Elton John would have of solving the Latin American drug war if Obama appointed him Drug Czar. Although Sir Elton would probably have less scandal in his background than the rest of the President's appointments... The chorus of one of his most famous songs is prescient considering Obama's situation:

And i think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think i am at home
Oh no no no i'm a rocket man
Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone

More empty posturing

Wow. The Obama administration got tough and forced out the CEO of GM. The President has mastered stating the obvious

"`We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry," President Obama said on Sunday. "But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge—at the other end—much more lean, mean, and competitive than it currently is.''

Water is wet too. Wonder how long it will take the magic tele to get around to that little tidbit. Of course, the president will dress it up a little, "we have noticed the amazing capacity of hydrogen dioxide and are looking into ways we can utilize this untapped potential for solving the crisis I inherited from my predecessor."

Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to demand Ron Gettelfinger, overpaid president of the UAW, to step down. The more things CHANGE, the more they stay the same.

I always liked the circus but...

At this point in the New New Deal we can stop talking about ideological differences and start talking about simple competency. If the Obamateur,as Mark Steyn refers to him, was referring to his Congress and his administration when he made his Special Olympics comment he might have had a point... The media does treat democrats as if they were "special." Rush that stimulus through at the urging of the president and forget that AIG lobbyist, er senator, Dodd added that "special" language to it that you didn't read Mr President? That's ok, here's a cookie and a couple more adoring biographies. Be incompetent enough to give Gordon Brown a DVD set encoded for North America? Don't worry, we know, you're special. Did your big wig economist say that the fundamentals of the economy are "sound"- almost exactly what you ridiculed Senator McCain for a few months back? Well, we understand that you struggle with the similarities between the words "strong" and "sound."

The only problem is that real "special" people are genuinely likable and decent people. Like many kids growing up I was a little unnerved by people with Downs Syndrome, but my best friend had an aunt with Downs and through him and her I learned first to be comfortable, and then to enjoy people with Downs. They are some of the most likable and beautiful people you will ever meet. Not so our with our "special" leaders. They run our country like carnival hucksters taking our cash at the door and leaving town when we realize they painted stripes on a donkey and called it a zebra. You can put lipstick on a pig, but its stilla pig right? So why aren't we enjoying this circus? Because we aint getting our money's worth. These clowns aren't funny.

David Freddoso Kills it

I only heard of David Freddoso during this past election, but he has been on a killing spree. This article goes into great detail about the phony outrage and hypocrisy of the democrats over the AIG bonuses. He goes beyond the soundbites from Dodd everyone is hearing and really digs into the depth of the democratic corruption and hypocrisy. The democrats voted for it, even after various republicans had pointed out the errors , arguing that this very thing could happen! Absolutely amazing. Please read the article. The democrats should be getting hammered for this- but don't hold your breath. Establishment corruption at its best. Welcome to Chicago.

Or what, You gonna slap me? revisited

Obama supporter David Broder officially announced the end of the honeymoon for President Obama in a piece that has created a lot of discussion. Unfortunately the most important line he wrote is a throw away that has gotten zero attention. Toward the end he admitted, "Despite his popularity, Obama is not an intimidating figure and so he can expect to be tested time and again." I wrote about this in a January post Or What? You gonna Slap me? Because this by far the most critical and dangerous aspect of President Obama.

I grew up on the other side of the tracks in a heavily masculine, Mexican culture. A culture where "weak" men got no respect. Coming from this background one of my first solid impressions of the young president was that he was a pushover. As I wrote then, this is the kind of black man you see coming down the street... and cross to say hello. So what is going to happen when Obama runs into the clear and present dangers on the international scene? How is he going to impress the still Red Chinese? Ahmadinijab? The Dear Leader of North Korea? Boris "KGB" Yeltsin? Heck, Sarkozy has more moxy than the President and he's the president of France. The snubbed Gordon Brown has far more dignity and elegance (sorry Sean Penn) than teleprompt dependent Obama. I would guess that millions of blue collar and rough around the edges Americans with backgrounds similar to mine are already developing the same gut level lack of "intimidation" Broder so aptly identifies. What does that mean for the truly dangerous men? They are not so favorably disposed to President Obama as Broder and the elegance lover Penn. It's safe to say they see him with disdain, and will respond accordingly.

I want my MTV

Many moons ago a sharp cat named Karl observed that religion was "the opiate of the masses." While being religious, I find that I can still agree with him on many levels. Religion does have a sedative or relieving effect for the believer. It offers a sense of hope beyond the tragedies of history. I have always thought that this explained one of the main differences between Leftists and conservatives. For even conservatives who are atheist still maintain many of the epistemological assumptions about certain transcendent realities that will exist regardless of tragedy or personal failure. Leftists on the other hand acknowledge no secure knowledge of anything transcendent and thus, find themselves forced to create heaven here on earth. This is why their activists are so much more passionate and religious about their politics- it's all they have.

But I digress. Sometime during the 20th century a new opiate made its way to the center of western civilization. An opiate even more numbing and desensitizing than previous ones: Hollywood. It has often occurred to me that the Right is wrong in thinking that the Left has no plan for defeating Radical Islam. The Left has the greatest and most culturally devastating weapon of mass destruction produced in the 20th Century. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Brangelina, and company can wreak more havoc on an indigenous culture than any Special Forces operation. Just let em loose and you have complete and total cultural decay faster than a Sean Penn oscar acceptance speech. Sex, drugs, and rock n roll, baby. It's all you need to bring a culture down.

"Money for nothing and chicks for free." There is no greater opiate, no stronger narcotic than Hollywood. Millions of Americans care less about the recent election than they do about seeing the Dark Knight catch the Joker. Timothy Leary would be proud of our current culture with its ability turn on, tune in, and drop out. It also explains why so many Americans would vote for a man with no experience and little more than an astounding ability to read from a teleprompter. He is a new politician. He is Hollywood. Welcome to the new opiate of the masses. As long as they keep us entertained they can do whatever they want, consequences be damned. Because of this "celebrity politics" Obama may not be held accountable just like the rest of his colleagues in Hollywood. He can make or break any promises provided he just keeps us entertained. In essence, Obama is more Hollywood than Reagan or Schwarz. He lives in the same elite bubble and channels the same celebrity indulgences. We can forgive him everything as long as he keeps us entertained. Welcome the new opiate of the masses. Rock on.

One question settled...

To all those lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists who think President Obama is a Muslim: We now know beyond the shadow of any doubt that he is not, cannot, shall not, be a Muslim. He likes pork way too much...

Washington and Obama

I remember years ago reading an essay by an old school journalist about how the 60s and the Vietnam War changed journalism. It was a very thought provoking article, because I had never seen the kind of respectful, patriotic journalism he was talking about, but I knew enough history to know that he was right. I also remember Robert Novak (I think it was him) talking about how back then you didn't print all the salacious details about politicians private lives. There were open secrets for example about the JFK, but there was a different code of journalism then.

I love to use this in class as it prompts some fascinating discussions, and we can watch old Hollywood War Movies and compare them to movies today and talk about how even though the Iraq War has had less casualties than D Day we are still trained to be instinctively against it. There is only one war the establishment still allows us to support: The Civil War. Although we remain blissfully ignorant of its many defeats and bumbling leadership... Lincoln's near defeat for re-election etc...

But I digress. It seems that currently we have returned to that previous state of journalism in regards to President Obama. Going back to the early days of campaigning the press showed a deep reluctance to dig into any of the more embarrassing histories and associations of Obama. Moreover, they treat him with a sort of reverence and awe that can only be compared to the treatment our first president received. Indeed, only George Washington was treated with more respect and honor than President Obama. Unfortunately, there is no doubt as to where this newfound respect and deference originate, and we cannot hope to see the return of a time when the media had some kind of standards... It is less from respect for the office, the country, and more a result of anatomical "thrills" as Chris Matthews would put it. But then you could call George Washington a "community leader" too!

Nirbama?

Utopianism has long been a hope and dream of western civilization. Primarily a vision of the Left, I think it is safe to ask ourselves if many of our fellow Americans have finally reached that final stage of Enlightenment and entered Nirbama.

Let us recap. The new president has had more than his fair share of self- induced problems. We can only hope his ever changing cabinet may finally settle down in the next couple of years... probably just in time for the taped phone conversations between Rahm Immanuel and Hot Rod Blago to go live. His deer in the headlights "trade war?! What's a trade war" moment kicked us off towards the reconciliation and global respect we lost during the Bush years, and his unconstitutional power grab for the census has yet to shake the faithful. The New Republic has declared conservatism dead, presumably slain by St Barack. Bushitler's Secretary of War obviously was redeemed from his evil master, presumably in private medition with The One. Why else would he remain close to The One? Even though The One keeps his secrets we know it must be for our great good.

This is because he has indeed led huge numbers of the nation into a new stage of enlightenment: Nirbama is Now. Medical professionals and mystics have discovered a causal relation between Bush Derangement Syndrome and Nirbama; the stronger the case of BDS the quicker the transition into Nirbama. What is Nirbama? A unique and highly enlightened state of mind. No less an authority than Gautama Buddha himself declared that the origin of suffering is ignorance. The greatest ignorance is not knowing the true nature of reality and entering a stage of self detachment from what we westerners would call reality. It seems that followers of The One Dalaibama have discovered a unique form of detachment from reality.

Remember the Buddha's teaching:

• Anicca (Sanskrit: anitya): That all things are impermanent.
• Anatta (Sanskrit: anātman): That the perception of a constant "self" is an illusion.
• Dukkha (Sanskrit: duḥkha): That all beings suffer from all situations due to unclear mind.

Clearly "facts" are part of the impermanent. No longer ignorant to passing fancies called "facts" those who have entered Nirbama suffer from no unclear thoughts.Free from illusion they can follow The One in spite of the tyranny called Reality. Enter Nirbama and drink from the waters of Understanding.

Clinton 2.d'oh! redux

President Obama continues his upgraded, broadband, overclocked, reboot of the Clinton presidency. The 2.d'oh! revolution continues. No president in history degraded the White House and the position of president quite as effectively as Bill Clinton. I had this debate with a colleague just this week. I asked what she thought of an older man in a position of great power who used that power to have sex with a young woman barely a few years older than his daughter. Well, in that decontextualized way you can imagine what she said about the sexist and degrading behavior of such a man. Then I mentioned Clinton. Her defense: Well, she came onto him. Me: So if one of my students comes onto me that makes it ok? Well, no. But you people are always so judgemental. It was a private act! That is the line I always wait for, because it offers me my best chance to co-opt the progressive "if the People lead, the Leaders will" follow attitude of the Left: The Oval Office is not a private office. It's the office of the people, la gente (it's very effective to throw a few highly accented Spanish phrases into the mix, even if you grew up speaking English first and have no accent).

I have about a 50% success rate with that basic fact. My colleague is a decent women who simply cannot let go of her faith in the Democratic party, but when she realized this fact she did admit that there was something destructive and degrading about what President Clinton did. The other half of President Clinton's story is that he got away with it. In doing both he degraded the office in a way it never had been. Now President Obama has not done anything like that, and probably won't but he has broken a long standing tradition of presidents and started blaming the previous President. In his press conference yesterday he got a little cranky (missed nap time?) and reminded his audience that he inherited this economy.

Now this is shameful and degrading on so many levels. First, it infers that the economy is only the fault of Bush and republicans, a childish and dishonest look at how we got here. But there is a much deeper and disturbing character flaw suggested by such a statement. It almost seems easier to "understand" Clinton's failure because it is such an old and common one for men. When an adult male starts whining and blaming other people, we should have an instinctive revulsion to such behavior. It is not mature, and it is certainly not what great leaders do. Did Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Churchill ever do anything even close?! Clinton at least waited a few years before foisting his indignity on the office of President. Obama couldn't wait a few weeks.

Have no illusions here. This is a very serious issue. President Bush had every opportunity to blame shift. After all, it was the Clinton administration who failed to act about terrorism. But Bush never even came close to blaming Clinton. Bush could have blamed the democrats for the economy, but no (maybe he should have tried to be a little more vocal here). Bush never even called out the democrats for their irresponsible, Al-Jazeera evening newsbite comments like, "The War is Lost" (Harry Reid before the surge he voted for had been implemented). Even though those irresponsible statements by democrats functioned as "one for the Gipper" moments in terrorists camps Bush still never called out or blamed his democratic colleagues. Yet here we have the leader of America and the free world almost whining as he suddenly realizes maybe I don't want to play ball with the big kids after all. They don't put the ball on a tee after I couldn't hit it!

This is very painful to watch. And write. While disagreeing with President Obama, I do not want to see him fail or be mocked. Growing up in a rough and lower class world, my first instinct is to mock Obama a whole lot more than I have done here. But something restrains me and even nags at me about the things I have already written. You know what that is? The dignity and respect surrounding the Office of President of the United States. But president Obama, like Clinton before him, has done great damage to the nobility and honor of the office. I would still die for President Obama, but it would now be only the "President" and not "Obama" I would die for. He has degraded the office of President in a way no president before him has ever done. No, he didn't sound like a whiny child, but it doesn't matter. No president has ever played that blame game, because it is undignified and not worthy of the office. Presidents don't behave like that. Great Leaders don't behave like that. Children and rank immature, partisans behave like that. Bloggers and journalists can behave like that. But presidents NEVER behave like that. Or at least they never have before. You have sullied and tarnished the office, Mr. President. Please stop.

Clinton 2.d'oh!

"I've got to own up to my mistake which is that ultimately it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes." (Cited Here. Video not yet available.)

Thus, President Obama washes his hands and stills the raging waters once again. Like Jesus, he arises, speaks a few calm words and stills the storm. And his disciples were sore amazed saying among themselves "Who is this man that even journalists and lobbyists obey him?" One of the best article titles on the latest Obama debacle comes from AP writer Calvin Woodward "Obama comes under sharp criticism from himself" ?! If you're not smiling you should be. That one was hilarious. Read the article, it's even funnier. Disciple Woodward manages to turn the whole thing into a victory for Obama who ends up being so much different than that Bush guy who could not criticize himself.

Ordinary Americans should be shrugging their shoulders as this proves even more that Obama is nothing more than Clinton 2.0: more charming, quick witted, and socially interactive. For those of you that don't know, web 2.0 refers to things like Facebook and Delicious that allow the user to "personalize." They are "dynamic" environments where things "change" constantly. Sound familiar? It should. Obama "changes" much faster and far more dynamically than Clinton ever did. He is even more adept at "personalizing" the average American's pain right? I mean the price of arugula has skyrocketed causing us to cling to our boom sticks and sky spirit...

But any honest American would have asked President Obama the questions Williams, Couric, and the rest of America's Truth Squad somehow missed, "If there aren't two sets of rules for prominent people then why does Geithner get to stay?" "Why does Eric Holder, who pardoned a prominent rich man because another prominent rich man received a payoff from the first rich man's wife, get to stay?" Two sets of rules anyone? As one famous ordinary American would say, "D'oh!"

Or what? You gonna slap me?

One of my most visceral memories of the new president was an interview where he was "getting tough" on all those unjust critics of his wife. He was really playing the part well, but I remember my gut level reaction being, "Or what- you gonna slap me?" As he continued to present what he thought was toughness I started laughing. Because to anyone who grew up on the other side of the tracks Obama is not tough. He's an emasculated metrosexual academic. A Whole Foods guy. This was really clear to me when I read his description of rebellion from his college days. "We ground our cigarettes into the carpet and played our music loud..." (probably not an exact quote). I found those passages of his book, and there were lots of them, hilarious. Because from my real world lower class, barrio perspective, rich private school guys like Obama are rarely rebellious tough guys. Oh, wait, he tried Coke too. Wow. Never been threatened by gangs, never got into a real brawl, or went down to Watts or South Central to see what real tough guys were like. I always imagined him and his friends thinking a real "daring adventure" would be going to the kind of Mexican dive I grew up in and associating with all the"people." You can just imagine them sitting there looking around them at all the "diversity" and feeling really hip and cool. Just one of la gente ( the people). Or I imagine him hanging out at Whole Foods smoking herbal cigarettes making suggestive, but PC comments to all the ladies, "Did I ever tell you that you have a beautiful mind. Bet you're gonna brake the glass ceiling huh?" "Wanna experience totally equitable passion?" You get the picture.

Maybe I am not completely fair here, but I am closer to the truth than many would like to admit. The guy went to private schools his whole life and tried way too hard to rebel, but always in a politically correct, establishment approved way. This is the kind of black man you cross the street... and say hi to. Which is not all bad. let's face it. Barack Obama is a likeable man with some real sincerity, despite his political heredity of dirty Chicago. Neither is there anything inherently wrong with the "New Man" of the left. Like any image or persona, it has strengths and weaknesses. The New Man was obviously a reaction to some of the failures of the old masculine warrior type of the past. But like the masculine hard-edged cowboy type, the New Man has his inherent problems too. Specifically, he is not capable of instilling immediate respect or even fear in men who come from a more masculine culture like hispanic, or- and here's the kicker- Islamic culture. The gut level response from a male culture to a man like our new president is an instinctive awareness and probing for weakness. Obama's western, postmodern male is perceived as inherently weak and easily controlled.

So what does the hyper-masculine world of Islamists thinks about the New Boss? Definitely not the same as the Old Boss. He is not the kind of guy who takes you out to the wood shed. He's the new male, sensitive and thoughtful, attuned to his emotions, let's sit and talk about this, which is exactly what he has committed to do, unconditionally, with the world's most dangerous men. How do you think they are going to respond? How about, "Or what- you gonna slap me?"