Hillary Attacks Obama on Foreign Policy

She claims he lacks the necessary experience! She, of course has the necessary experience as she got to watch someone implement such foreign policy successes as Mogadishu, bombing Kosovo, and the North Korean nuclear agreement.

Funny, I have no clue what Obama plans to do as president, other than take more of my money to use towards some no-doubt unproductive purposes. But foreign policy is one area where the election of Barack Obama would pay immediate dividends. First of all, the U.S. would be immediately more liked around the world. Not that being liked is such a big deal - being respected is more important - but right now we are neither liked nor respected, so it would be a step in the right direction.

Second, he would take immediate steps to get us out of Iraq (I'll have to take him at his word, here). Iraq is draining us of money and strength. The money's the real problem - $150 billion a year, at a minimum. So Barack can only help here, no experience required.

Third, he probably has the best sense of the true strategic dangers facing America in the world today - i.e., none. We have no military enemies. We have terrorist threats, but I can't see that Obama is any worse than any other candidate in this regard, and by being less militaristic we'd probably at least reduce the Al Qaeda's recruiting level (while raising our own). So one area of "hope" with a President Obama is we'd start spending significantly less money on unnecessary military activity. The other hope would be that he doesn't just turn around and throw it away on other worthless enterprizes.

What Me Worry?

My horizon for worrying about the future is a little past the end of the century - somewhere past my grandchildrens' middle ages - putative grandchildren, that is - I don't actually have any yet. I'm not sure how much to worry about that time frame, but I think there's much to fear.

Now some worry about things like global warming and nuclear Armageddon. Such calamities don't even register on my anxiety meter. While I put the probability of global warming being a real concern at about 75%, I can't imagine that if this civilization of ours is even worth saving in 100 years that we will not have settled into a path to a clear technological solution by then - and a pretty nifty one at that. As for nuclear Armageddon, sure that's possible, but hell it's Armageddon - no point worrying about that - it's all over - at least humanity as we might recognize it. But this is a real low probability event.

I worry more about the slow, inexorable decay of civilization. I worry that my grandchildren will not live in a world governed by the rule of law; that the protection of local, state and national law enforcement will not be a fundamental fact of life. I fear a world where various gangs, tribes, factions will vie for power and control of turf; where the basic decisions of life - where to live, where to work, who to marry - will be driven by these very forces.

In short I worry that this incredible civilization of ours - a true heaven on earth by any standards that the world has ever known - will perish from the earth. I'm writing about this because I found this post on Dennis Mangan's blog quite sobering. He points out that the infertility of the West pretty much dooms it to extinction. Then there is this projection of the U.S. population in 40 years (via Sailer), with "minorities" in the majority, a sure road to tribalism.

Let's consider what it is we have and what we stand to lose. What we have is a civilization where material wants are essentially eliminated. Each person has a warm, dry, comfortable bed to sleep in; dry, heated, and often cooled shelter which keeps out animals and pests (save for the occasional rodent or roach). Our clothing is easily kept clean and varied, and our sanitation facilities ensure that we need never be in contact with human waste. We have abundant food, rich in protein, so much so that too much food is a far greater health threat than too little, which as a health problem is almost non-existent. Our food and water supplies are pathogen free (with very rare exceptions), and most any disease that would have killed almost anyone 150 years ago is easily cured. The available mental stimulation is limitless, transportation ubiquitous, and miraculous labor-saving machines not even given a second thought. We have a trained police force to keep us safe and a justice system that, while flawed, typically does its best to determine guilt and innocence and send away dangerous criminals.

And now the people who created this paradise are dying out? The Japanese and it appears the Chinese (and perhaps a tiny slice of India) have caught on to how to create such a world, but others really haven't figured it out too well, and those others are the ones who would appear to be replacing the reproductively hapless Euros. Sure, in many parts of Latin America millions lead modern, affluent lives. But many more do not, and the rule of law is never very certain. It seems that some think of the wealth and safety of life in North America, kind of like oak trees and redwoods, as just simply existing within those geographic borders. But of course it's that way because the people living there have made it that way. But for how much longer?

Clemens Denies Using Steroids

Roger Clemens today forcefully denied, under oath and before the U.S. Congress and the world, ever having taken performance-enhancing drugs. You know, I'm beginning to think that maybe he really did intentionally throw at Mike Piazza in the 2000 Mets/Yanks interleague series.

Good News: Iran to Launch Satellite

Of course this is good news. Iran plans to launch its very own satellite into orbit next year. This means they will have something to really brag about to all their neighbors, something to make them look like real hotshots, a real feather in their rag. What do they intend to do with their shiny new satellite? Beats me - but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be something stupid that will get it taken out. Are they really going to go through all the expense and effort to create their fledgling space program - the envy of the entire Mideast, surely, just to turn around and see American B-1's dropping 2000 lb. bombs on their precious facilities. In other words, the more fancy technology Iran develops, the more moderate and non-confrontational their actions (if not their words) will be. Can we just forget about those bozos already?

Also in The New Yorker

With the New Yorker, you have to take the good with the bad, so along with the snarky campaign quiz (below), there was also this little gem:
Not that I can relate or anything.

A Campaign Quiz from The New Yorker

A hilarious little "Campaign Quiz" from this week's New Yorker, designed to test your hipness regarding the Presidential candidates. It's hilarious, not for the reasons the author intends, but for how impeccably it outlines the Illuminati-take on American politics.

The obvious point of the exercise is to point up the stupid/boarish/ignorant/ intolerant /backward/ bourgeois statements and attitudes of the unfavored candidates. Of note is that Barack is the Christ-figure of this tale - scourged by his opponents but of course infallible as decreed by the creator (author). Hillary (with help from (gasp) Bill!) is Pilate - the Machiavellian schemer out to ingratiate herself with the bloodthirsty masses. The Republican candidates are below contempt, uttering one preposterous, loathsome imbecility after another. It's an excellent window into the mindset of those who view themselves (and to a large extent are) really in control of the agenda.

So Romney's Out

I voted for Romney on Super Tuesday because he's not McCain and he seems intelligent and Machiavellian enough to not do anything stupid. I don't think he feels real strongly one way or the other about any issue outside of a vague moderate-Republican conservatism. My guess is most people who voted for him felt that way (other than Mormons, who presumably vote for Romney the way blacks vote for Obama). Alas, McCain is liberal on the wrong issues and right-wing on the wrong issues, and doesn't seem very smart.

'Yes We Can' - But Should We?

Obama's campaign themes of "Yes We Can" and "Hope" - isn't that kind of saying we're a country of losers? I mean, of course "we can" - we're the United States of friggin' America, for goshsakes. We don't need "hope" - we are hope. Now I certainly don't consider myself a "winner" - not by a long shot. And we should try to make life better for the losers - but a national movement centered around losers isn't exactly a build-on-your-strengths approach to the future. If we're going to mobilize the nation, don't we want to mobilize it around the people who actually accomplish things and produce value? I'm not trying to be cynical - I'm really trying to understand what this whole Obama thing is about (assuming it's more than just the appeal that goes with a good looking guy with a resonant voice who speaks intelligently if vapidly - if that's all it is, then I dig).

Sounds Like They Were Doing Their Job

CIA Director Michael Hayden testified that only three (3) terror suspects were waterboarded in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The three "victims" were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. That's what all this fuss is about - three well-known and well-funded terrorists? Now maybe you think Hayden is lying and there were in fact dozens - perhaps hundreds - who were waterboarded. Otherwise, if you find this disturbing, I have one question for you: WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

Senator Majority Leader Dick "Dick" Durbin is determined to get to the bottom of this and force a criminal investigation. Since no even remotely sane person could actually be bothered by the waterboarding of these guys, I have to assume that Durbin is fundamentally anti-American*, as there's nothing that could come out such an investigation but further embarrassment and discrediting of the U.S. Unless you subscribe to the notion that if we debase ourselves before the world then the world will like us. It doesn't matter if the world likes us - it only matters if they respect us. So, sure, when we drop bombs on wedding parties thinking they're terrorist training camps we lose respect. And when we can't bear the thought of roughing up some terrorists involved in the murder of 3,000 of our fellow citizens, we similarly lose respect. I'd be more than happy though to not torture anymore terrorists and dramatically reduce our footprint in terror-friendly regions. Pretty soon they'll forget we even exist.

* Anti-American is probably too strong - it's more like a-American. Durbin and his colleague Obama (and many others) don't think in terms of America but of some higher principles that transcend a nation - a quest for a kind of higher-order transcendent society that would have been unrecognizable 50 years ago as "American" except by the more knowing socialists. Sort of like Norman Lear's vision of the "American Way", where the nativity is banned from Christmas, where members of all racial and ethnic groups are proportionately represented in all walks of life, where pornography and family-fare are co-equal, where abortions are freely available, where school discipline is tightly constrained, where men marry men and women marry women, firearms are banned, and loitering is a natural right of man. Perhaps you do prefer such a society, but it is in no way, shape or form the "American Way."

Massacre in Illinois

There aren't too many more cowardly, despicable crimes than tying up 6 women and executing (five of) them over a botched robbery. Fortunately, one of them survived a gunshot to the neck and is providing a description of the killer.

A truly civilized society would put all their resources into tracking down this killer, ascertaining his guilt through a fair, speedy trial, and then would hang him in the public square, his humiliating death videotaped and distributed throughout the land as a warning to anyone else who might consider eliminating witnesses to their crimes. I am 100% certain we would save many lives if we did this.

Illinois, however, suspended executions several years ago due to too many innocent men being set free. To be fair to Mr. Obama, he appears to have played a constructive role (at least according to this article) in reforming Illinois' death penalty statute, insisting that all confessions in capital cases be videotaped. False confessions are the major cause of false convictions, as not very bright or psychologically weak people will admit to anything to put an end to relentless 7-hour interrogations. So, yes, if we were truly a civilized society we'd be able to figure out how not to convict innocent people of murder.

Prediction: Jints 27 Pats 24

I'm figuring on it being pretty much the same type of game as the Green Bay game, but figure each team will score one more touchdown due to favorable weather conditions. Of course every expert in the world of football is picking New England (as described in this excellent Bloomberg roundup), which explains the bloated 12-point spread.

The nickname 'Jints' is an old NY tabloid shorthand that goes back decades to when the baseball Giants played in the Polo Grounds. I suppose it's handy for headlines since it has one less letter and 'J' is thinner than 'G'. It was intended to mimic how New Yorkers pronounce 'Giants', which is as a one syllable word rather than two. So instead of "Jie-Ants" it's pronounced "Jints" - with a long i, not a short one. It's not meant to rhyme with "mints", but with "pints". But I think that's been lost to history, and most people now think of it with a short 'i' - which really doesn't matter since no one actually says "Jints", they just write it. Whatever - Go Jints!!!

(Of course since this is the world of blogging, if NY loses I can just change my post to reflect how it actually came out - you can't prove otherwise. By the way, Steve Sailer has also predicted a Giants win, by a score of 14 - 1, which is absurd since it's unlikely that if the Giants only score twice both will be TD's.)