.jpg)
Posts
This classic piece is well-illustrated here:
Time to Start Adding “Gate” to This
4 minutes ago
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Re: Air France Update
Actually, all of the Czar’s suspicions were largely confirmed about AF447. Basically, here is a simplification of what occurred.
The plane disappeared off radar, which is natural over the Atlantic Ocean because radar cannot follow the Earth’s curvature, and there is no land there to put in enough radar. All trans-Atlantic pilots know this and expect it.
During this expected radar blackout, a storm appeared over the ocean. With no radar, no one could warn the pilots. Not a problem, though, as the pilots identified the storm on their on-board radar, and decided it was small enough to punch through with a little reduction in airspeed to minimize turbulence to the passengers.
Unfortunately, inside the storm, the pilots were unaware that an even bigger storm appeared behind the first one. A really bad one. When you are inside a storm, as they were, your radar is pretty much solid red—they were unable to see ahead to discover the bigger one, and once again, no ground-based radar could warn them.
To their surprise, they cleared the first storm without incident but ran smack into the second one. The pitot tubes froze up—almost instantly in those conditions—and the plane’s computer lost all sense of air speed. When this occurs, the plane’s autopilot switches off with a loud alarm. The plane, already at lower thrust, could not maintain airspeed and began to stall, producing an additional alarm.
The Air France pilots were commercial pilots well-trained and experienced on this aircraft; however, they lacked prior civilian or military flight experience, and had no experience flying non-Airbus equipment. They did not do what pilots do in this situation: dip the plane down and increase thrust to counter the stall. Had they done so, the plane would have regained power and they could have climbed back up fast over the severe turbulence.
The reason they did not know this is because Airbus pilots depends extensively on the planes’ advanced computer system. As the Mandarin will tell you frequently, most pilots these days do little flying: the planes do all the work, and the pilots are there only in case something goes wrong.
On Flight 447, something did go wrong, and the pilots did not remember what to do in time. In fact, almost a minute may have gone by before one of them remembered to increase thrust. In that time, the plane went nose down in a stall, and began to bank to the left.
The pilots, distracted by the series of alarms of increasing intensity, the turbulence, the outer darkness offset by blinding flashes of lighting, and the sensation of turning, evidently did not realize the plane was nosing down in the stall. Without the flight computer, neither apparently remembered to look at the artificial horizon gauge, either. So when they jammed the thrust levers forward, they did not realize they gunned the engines while the planes was pointing downward. They must have realized too late that they aimed the plane into the ocean. When they did, and pulled back to turn the plane up, they succeeded in leveling the plane a split-second before it hit the water.
The plane burst apart on contact, and all were killed.
So, was the Czar wrong on one detail...? You know, where the Czar said the French would cover this up? After all, the evidence all adds up as the Czar predicted, so where was the cover up?
Alas, no—the Czar is right so far. Because neither Air France nor the BEA revealed this information. The thunderstorm information was captured by a weather satellite; when the plane’s positional data from its satellite-based maintenance system was overlaid on the weather map, it became nauseatingly clear that the plane passed through one minor thunderstorm only to fly into the teeth of a massive storm; the plane was down within minutes after this. Temperatures were so cold at the known altitude that the pitot tubes would clog with ice in under a second. The rest of the information comes not from the still-missing flight recorder, but from the same maintenance report that indicated the sequence of events, as well as non-French analysis of photographs of plane wreckage.
The plane disappeared off radar, which is natural over the Atlantic Ocean because radar cannot follow the Earth’s curvature, and there is no land there to put in enough radar. All trans-Atlantic pilots know this and expect it.
During this expected radar blackout, a storm appeared over the ocean. With no radar, no one could warn the pilots. Not a problem, though, as the pilots identified the storm on their on-board radar, and decided it was small enough to punch through with a little reduction in airspeed to minimize turbulence to the passengers.
Unfortunately, inside the storm, the pilots were unaware that an even bigger storm appeared behind the first one. A really bad one. When you are inside a storm, as they were, your radar is pretty much solid red—they were unable to see ahead to discover the bigger one, and once again, no ground-based radar could warn them.
To their surprise, they cleared the first storm without incident but ran smack into the second one. The pitot tubes froze up—almost instantly in those conditions—and the plane’s computer lost all sense of air speed. When this occurs, the plane’s autopilot switches off with a loud alarm. The plane, already at lower thrust, could not maintain airspeed and began to stall, producing an additional alarm.
The Air France pilots were commercial pilots well-trained and experienced on this aircraft; however, they lacked prior civilian or military flight experience, and had no experience flying non-Airbus equipment. They did not do what pilots do in this situation: dip the plane down and increase thrust to counter the stall. Had they done so, the plane would have regained power and they could have climbed back up fast over the severe turbulence.
The reason they did not know this is because Airbus pilots depends extensively on the planes’ advanced computer system. As the Mandarin will tell you frequently, most pilots these days do little flying: the planes do all the work, and the pilots are there only in case something goes wrong.
On Flight 447, something did go wrong, and the pilots did not remember what to do in time. In fact, almost a minute may have gone by before one of them remembered to increase thrust. In that time, the plane went nose down in a stall, and began to bank to the left.
The pilots, distracted by the series of alarms of increasing intensity, the turbulence, the outer darkness offset by blinding flashes of lighting, and the sensation of turning, evidently did not realize the plane was nosing down in the stall. Without the flight computer, neither apparently remembered to look at the artificial horizon gauge, either. So when they jammed the thrust levers forward, they did not realize they gunned the engines while the planes was pointing downward. They must have realized too late that they aimed the plane into the ocean. When they did, and pulled back to turn the plane up, they succeeded in leveling the plane a split-second before it hit the water.
The plane burst apart on contact, and all were killed.
So, was the Czar wrong on one detail...? You know, where the Czar said the French would cover this up? After all, the evidence all adds up as the Czar predicted, so where was the cover up?
Alas, no—the Czar is right so far. Because neither Air France nor the BEA revealed this information. The thunderstorm information was captured by a weather satellite; when the plane’s positional data from its satellite-based maintenance system was overlaid on the weather map, it became nauseatingly clear that the plane passed through one minor thunderstorm only to fly into the teeth of a massive storm; the plane was down within minutes after this. Temperatures were so cold at the known altitude that the pitot tubes would clog with ice in under a second. The rest of the information comes not from the still-missing flight recorder, but from the same maintenance report that indicated the sequence of events, as well as non-French analysis of photographs of plane wreckage.
Air France Flight 447 Update [link corrected]
Mailbag: Oil, Taxes, Polls
Three things to share.First, BG writes in with a great explanation of the President’s opposition to oil company land leases:
Dread and Awful Czar -
You write that President Obama "...argues that oil companies have plenty of capacity onshore and offshore. So no need to augment drilling with additional permits."
Just because the government permits you to look for oil on land you've leased doesn't mean you can just stick a derrick in the ground at any random point and start sucking up millions of barrels of light sweet crude. The Wall Street Journal points out today that:...the reality is that natural resources are not somehow spread equally beneath the ground, or somehow pre-deposited to the plots the government decides to open to exploration. Before an oil company can drill, it must conduct seismic and geological tests to find the oil. This requires time and capital investment.In any case, why should President Obama be upset that those stupid old oil companies aren't drilling on land they've leased? Seems to me that someone as green as he claims to be would just love to lease land out in the knowledge that the renters aren't going to destroy the earth by digging holes in it. Isn't that every landlord's dream—to have a tenant who pays rent and never moves in?
If oil is discovered that can be economically recovered, many 'idle' leases spend years waiting on environmental and other permitting reviews or lawsuits. The industry pays the government for leases that may or may not be valuable at auction, and it then pays royalties on any oil that is eventually produced.
The only justification I can come up with for that rationale is that the President believes we have so much gold bullion and so many IOUs from China and the rest of the world, that we need that land to store it all, Harry Reid having made Yucca Mountain off-limits.
Regarding making up the deficit in oil production by magic, I commend you to the March 29 Dilbert:Dogbert: "I'm writing fake press releases for imaginary new green energy technologies."Our president doesn't read the comics pages enough.
Text on Dogbert's Laptop: Scientists say that by 2040 you will be able to power your entire home with the breeze from your refrigerator door.
Dilbert: "Now how will I know which green breakthroughs are real?"
Dogbert: "Seriously? You think there are real ones?"
These are all good, solid points, and BG should write in more often.
Second, Dr. J clearly saw his accountant today:
Dear President Nixon,Third, the Czar finally got a phone call from the good folks at Rasmussen Reports, who asked some good questions about the President, the direction of the country, and whether the Czar thought the President was doing a good job.
Dr. J. wants to thank you for signing the Alternative Minimum Tax into law in 1969 without indexing it for inflation. It cost Dr. J over $4,000 in extra in Federal Income Tax this year.
Warmest Regards,
Dr. J.
All right, so the Czar really let him have it.
And when asked, if the primaries were held tomorrow, which candidate among the lengthy list would the Czar most likely vote for, he was pleasantly surprised to have selected Michelle Bachmann. Lowest on the list was Donald Trump. Neither of these probably surprises you readers, who often know the Czar better than he knows himself.
Droll, Baby, Droll
The President has announced that the United States will reduce oil imports by 33% by 2020.How will he make up the balance? Not by drilling, no, no. He argues that oil companies have plenty of capacity onshore and offshore. So no need to augment drilling with additional permits.
So how will we fuel our cars? Well, natural gas can power cars. Also, mileage will go up on cars as we improve fuel efficiency.
Okay, what about the aircraft, trucks, ships, and emergency generators that do not run on alternative fuels, but require gas? There could be alternative technologies in place by then.
In other words, we will make up the balance with magic.
Hard to believe his staff is watching the poll numbers.
Pigs Fly!
The New York Legislature passed an on time budget for the first time in 28 years. That's right. For longer than some of you have been alive, through Republican and Democrat administrations, New York's elected representatives have ignored their constitutional duties.
On the upside, the budget cut overall spending 2%, and didn't raise taxes to do so. On the down side, the budget addresses none of the structural budget problems that will continue to cause shortfalls down the road, such as overly generous pensions and Medicaid.
Here's hoping Gov. Cuomo starts to make the really hard decisions.
At Least They Qualify For Antique Vehicle Plates
The Czar was surprised to see one of his favorite late-70s-to-mid-80s bands, The Cars, finally reunited. For real, this time. And not only are they reuniting, but unlike most reunited bands, they have a genuinely new album coming out.
Screech. New album, eh? The Czar is old enough to remember a lot of reunited groups with new albums, dating back to 1343, when Ankyros of Melepthea patched up his “creative differences” with Poludemikos Philamechinikos and they came out with that godawful “Ένας άνθρωπος Πολλές φωνές” Locrian Mode dreck. Most groups break up for very good reasons, with the primary difference being what they consider euphonic as opposed to their paying fans.
So, all right, the Cars released two songs and videos already. And the verdict?
You can listen for yourself, or skip below.
Like the Czar, you probably caught the first five seconds of the song and realized these sound like songs off their old albums. Really.
That ain’t a good thing.
The first tune, “Sad Song” is a weird mix of the debut album and Candy-O. The second song is a slightly slower blend of Panorama and Shake It Up. You will notice that Ric Ocasek, unable to sing like he used to, has simply decided to chant his lyrics in order to regain his enforced quirkiness. There is nothing new, and nothing cosmetic enough to cover up Ocasek’s 61-year-old voice.
A few years back, Duran Duran decided to get back together and cut a new album. The Czar hated their stuff, because it all sounded the same. And someone told them this, because they worked with modern producers to put out an entirely new, contemporary sound. That is probably the route the Cars should have taken, rather than fire up the same Lynn drum machine with the Hand Clap 2 rhythm preset, and the same monophonic square-wave synth filler. This isn’t even phoning it in: it’s pressing play on a 30-year-old answering machine message.
So the Czar’s non-binding opinion: great tunes for 1981. For 2011, you might think: not really.
Screech. New album, eh? The Czar is old enough to remember a lot of reunited groups with new albums, dating back to 1343, when Ankyros of Melepthea patched up his “creative differences” with Poludemikos Philamechinikos and they came out with that godawful “Ένας άνθρωπος Πολλές φωνές” Locrian Mode dreck. Most groups break up for very good reasons, with the primary difference being what they consider euphonic as opposed to their paying fans.
So, all right, the Cars released two songs and videos already. And the verdict?
You can listen for yourself, or skip below.
Like the Czar, you probably caught the first five seconds of the song and realized these sound like songs off their old albums. Really.
That ain’t a good thing.
The first tune, “Sad Song” is a weird mix of the debut album and Candy-O. The second song is a slightly slower blend of Panorama and Shake It Up. You will notice that Ric Ocasek, unable to sing like he used to, has simply decided to chant his lyrics in order to regain his enforced quirkiness. There is nothing new, and nothing cosmetic enough to cover up Ocasek’s 61-year-old voice.
A few years back, Duran Duran decided to get back together and cut a new album. The Czar hated their stuff, because it all sounded the same. And someone told them this, because they worked with modern producers to put out an entirely new, contemporary sound. That is probably the route the Cars should have taken, rather than fire up the same Lynn drum machine with the Hand Clap 2 rhythm preset, and the same monophonic square-wave synth filler. This isn’t even phoning it in: it’s pressing play on a 30-year-old answering machine message.
So the Czar’s non-binding opinion: great tunes for 1981. For 2011, you might think: not really.
This Explains It
The Czar was just wondering where the hell his colleagues have been lately.Here we are getting all this extra traffic, plus all the attention we got on Twitter, and the Czar is like the only guy working at the Castle tonight.
Outta here. With ‘Puter not drinking, there’s a good chance there’ll be a coupla kegs left at the B&B.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Innocence and Real Guilt
This is a story that keeps getting worse the longer it goes.
Hena Akhter, 14, lived in what is described as the rural community of Shariatpur, Bangladesh, a city of 42,200 people. She was the youngest daughter in her family, who lived in a tin-and-wood shack.
One day, as she walked toward the community toilet, she was beaten and raped by her much older cousin, Mahbub Khan. Khan was caught in the act by his own wife, who responded to the girl’s screams. The wife beat Hena further and demanded justice be done.
And so the local imam responded by finding the girl guilty of adultery. Khan was sentenced to 201 lashes with a whip (as her lover), but purportedly received only a few. Hena was sentenced to 101 lashes, and all were delivered even though she collapsed after the first powerful strike while her distraught parents watched.
Hena was taken to a hosipital, where she lingered in agony for a week before dying.
Although this punishment was in accordance with and authorized under Šarīʿa, the country of Bangladesh long ago outlawed fatwa-like punishments under Šarīʿa. As you would expect, and demand, the government is asking how they can best respond to this hideous travesty of justice. Human rights groups are astonished with the slow investigation, although recently Khan and others were arrested and charged with murder...after the story got out, of course.
The Czar sees something deeper. How could this have happened at all? The Bangladeshi government insists it has outlawed Šarīʿa, but clearly it was well underway with a wink and a nod. Had Hena survived, would there be any investigation at all? The Czar does not understand the worldwide tolerance for this sort of multiculturalism. “In these more rural communities,” some Bangladeshi government spokesgoon is saying right now, “these sorts of practices are hard to eliminate, due to the lack of education and government enforcement.” Well, dumbass, there is your problem. But perhaps, like so many governments around the world, you do not enforce your ban because, deep down, maybe you don’t really want to. The inhuman barbarity of Šarīʿa fatwas is cheaper at and easier for keeping the peace most days—as opposed to setting up a real judicial system with educated attorneys, non-corrupt officials, and unapologetic enforcement.
And so an uproar will resound over Hena Akhter’s butchering. Outrage, shock, and cries for correction. And then, in a few weeks, things will go quiet. And nothing will be done until another Hena Akhter is killed, and the process repeats as it is supposed to. Because that sort of crime and punishment doesn’t require your corrupt asses to do anything but be horrified every couple of years.
Hena Akhter, 14, lived in what is described as the rural community of Shariatpur, Bangladesh, a city of 42,200 people. She was the youngest daughter in her family, who lived in a tin-and-wood shack.
One day, as she walked toward the community toilet, she was beaten and raped by her much older cousin, Mahbub Khan. Khan was caught in the act by his own wife, who responded to the girl’s screams. The wife beat Hena further and demanded justice be done.
And so the local imam responded by finding the girl guilty of adultery. Khan was sentenced to 201 lashes with a whip (as her lover), but purportedly received only a few. Hena was sentenced to 101 lashes, and all were delivered even though she collapsed after the first powerful strike while her distraught parents watched.
Hena was taken to a hosipital, where she lingered in agony for a week before dying.
Although this punishment was in accordance with and authorized under Šarīʿa, the country of Bangladesh long ago outlawed fatwa-like punishments under Šarīʿa. As you would expect, and demand, the government is asking how they can best respond to this hideous travesty of justice. Human rights groups are astonished with the slow investigation, although recently Khan and others were arrested and charged with murder...after the story got out, of course.
The Czar sees something deeper. How could this have happened at all? The Bangladeshi government insists it has outlawed Šarīʿa, but clearly it was well underway with a wink and a nod. Had Hena survived, would there be any investigation at all? The Czar does not understand the worldwide tolerance for this sort of multiculturalism. “In these more rural communities,” some Bangladeshi government spokesgoon is saying right now, “these sorts of practices are hard to eliminate, due to the lack of education and government enforcement.” Well, dumbass, there is your problem. But perhaps, like so many governments around the world, you do not enforce your ban because, deep down, maybe you don’t really want to. The inhuman barbarity of Šarīʿa fatwas is cheaper at and easier for keeping the peace most days—as opposed to setting up a real judicial system with educated attorneys, non-corrupt officials, and unapologetic enforcement.
And so an uproar will resound over Hena Akhter’s butchering. Outrage, shock, and cries for correction. And then, in a few weeks, things will go quiet. And nothing will be done until another Hena Akhter is killed, and the process repeats as it is supposed to. Because that sort of crime and punishment doesn’t require your corrupt asses to do anything but be horrified every couple of years.
Lighten Up, Eye-talians
Here's a quote about your Gormogons, and the lovely ladies they call their wives. They are vulgar, bronzed, tattooed and muscle bound - and that's just the men while the girls are all breasts to the wind.Actually, the quote is from an Italian commentator on The Jersey Shore commencing its run in Italy. But it could totally apply to your Gormogons. And, most especially, their lady friends.
Military Squirmish
So it seems Sarah Palin had another moment of refudiation, when she used the malapropism squirmish to describe our actions in Libya. Or rather, Obama’s reluctance to call it a war.Some accounts have it sounding like a deliberate play on words, but other sources seem to show she slipped up.
Imagine the Czar’s lack of surprise when he found the Chicago Sun-Times’ Richard Roeper dedicating a third of his daily feature column to the mistake. But wait.
As the Czar read, his jaw slackened. Roeper was acknowledging that people would be ripping into her (and that some conservatives vehemently defending her), but suggested that the word was perfect, especially in her usage of it to describe Obama’s explanation for Libya.
Roeper says that the word should be recognized as legitimate, and proposed the definition as a military action you don’t really want to describe as a war, and will therefore go to any ridiculous extreme to describe it as anything else.
Wow. That is good. Like Mr. Roeper, the Czar intends to use it. Sadly, he will probably get to use it a lot.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Inventions vs. Innovation
Electrifying Car Deals...
Just in case you don’t feel that General Motors received enough of your tax dollars when the “government” bailed them out here is your chance to rectify that situation.Because electric cars are such a great idea, and the free market is just not smart enough to realize this, the government has to incentivize you to leave your Luddite ways behind and embrace the future. And this incentive will come in the form of $7,500 rebate when you purchase a new Chevy Volt.
Your Mandarin would like to send out a special thanks to Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) for giving him and the rest of those that pay income taxes the privilege of ensuring that the UAW will continue to collect union dues to fund her re-election campaign.
Seriously. Mitt is the Best You Got?
All right, the Czar will put this as delicately as he can.Mitt Romney is not a great choice for a presidential candidate. Not against the marketing muscle of Barack Obama, anyway.
Now for the disclaimers. First, Obama is not on solid ground. In fact, polls continue to show that a large majority of Americans (and a huge amount therein of so-called independents) dislike the direction the country is going. Hint: an independent who votes that he or she strongly believes the country is going in the wrong direction is not an independent, but a GOP voter. Further, Obama’s popularity is undesirably low. Indeed, it is only high among groups of eligible voters who, at their own peril, tend not to vote in large numbers. So Obama is not unstoppable; far from it: he has all the traditional earmarks of a one-term flop.
Second, there are no obvious GOP presidential candidates who are wowing the crowd, right now. Those with great potential lack name recognition. Those with name recognition lack oomph. Right now, your GOP drink choices are Fanta, Diet Yoo-Hoo, and Tab. “I’ll pass,” you might rightfully say.
Third, as the Czar keeps reiterating, things will change in the next six months (maybe more). Real candidates will be emerging, declaring, and undergoing intense scrutiny. Someone we do not quite know may emerge as a real fighter; someone else we dislike may turn our opinions around and dazzle us.
Right now, none of this helps Mitt Romney. Run Romney against Obama, and there is a solid chance of Obama being re-elected. Look at it this way: people on all sides of the aisle knew who John McCain was, what his history was, and where he stood. Unfortunately, even that was not enough to get McCain elected. Now compare him to Mitt Romney: the latter was governor from somewhere, there is some buzz about his healthcare views, and his first name sounds German. Hey, GOP, sorry to rain on your parade, here, but that’s it. That nonsense is all the average American knows about this guy. Meantime, there is complete media reinforcement on Obama. Who is an undecided voter going to pull the lever for?
Now perhaps Romney is a helpful fall guy—someone to distract the liberals and the media and the Sorosians: a ruse, a decoy, a red herring. Meanwhile, we hope, you are grooming someone who is charming, intelligent, courageous, and dedicated; someone who is flying below radar who will deliver the big hit on the public’s heart.
We hope. Because that’s the only thing that makes sense right now.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Yuh-Oh: Even AP Calls Speech Wrong
AP decided to fact check the key points made during the speech.Call the Czar surprised! Not just that AP fact checks, but that the President made some key points.
He...uh...he didn’t do so well.
Anyway, when you’ve lost AP, you’ve lost America.
Blah Blah Blah Libya Blah Blah
The Czar responds to the President’s speech, paragraph by paragraph.
The President’s Address to the Nation on Libya As Prepared for Delivery— Good to note, because he is so likely to wing it off prompter.
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us. Just to be clear: is that we inclusive of Americans only, we exclusive of the rest of the world, we inclusive of NATO, we inclusive of Europe...or just we like the Czar uses we because he leans toward the insecure?
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans. That’s pretty nice, actually; although do you need to mention that Japan is our ally? Are there really a couple of WWII guys stuck in some Pacific Ocean sandbar who didn’t get the news? On the plus side, it is refreshing to hear the President acknowledge he is the C-in-C, as opposed to apologizing for it.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks. Err...that is a bit of non sequitur. What happened in Libya? Read this paragraph again, and see if you can see which of these words is the antecedent. The Czar couldn’t find it.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents. You know, we still do not know what the current states of Tunisia and Egypt are, respectively. Friend? Foe? Probably should not have mentioned them.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.” This is a gross over-simplification of what happened, but we can let this stand for rhetorical purposes.
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power. Ah, here is where the President wriggles out of the charge that he did nothing but cavort about. Curiously absent is what happened since those first few days and today’s speech.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. Much of this happened in Egypt, too, Mr. President. In fact, there seems to be some intentionally confusing language here, as if the events are being conflated.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. No mention that we have been condemned by the same Arab League. But interesting that he acknowledges that he ordered the hit on Libya, after previously assuring us that the UN volunteered our troops. Can’t play this both ways, especially after your staffers are insisting we intend to walk away from this fight scot-free. Also, as a side note, please refrain from using the faux-British an historical construction in future.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear. To be fair, the UN offered him several days of chances to step down. This period of inactivity is generally referred to, in diplomatic circles, as “doing nothing.” On the plus side, it gave you plenty of time to vacation in Brazil.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. That stains the conscience of the world? Boy, somebody ought to look at the Ivory Coast, especially after Rwanda was such a tragedy. Apparently, there is a difference between Mediterranean Africa and other places.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance. Good news, but two questions: why is this in our national interest, when other places do not merit mention? Also, while you are stumbling through the first question, when and precisely with whom did you consult? Unless the GOP is being unusually silent, they don’t seem to corroborate this version of events.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people. This is also welcome news, although it is perhaps the smallest multinational coalition the United States has used. The Czar would be curious to see what these countries are doing, since you are about to tell us that NATO is in charge.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. This is the summary? No, this is a swipe at President Clinton. The Republicans moved pretty fast in Kuwait, and hit Afghanistan and Iraq in less time. Those do not seem to be mentioned; possibly, because they were run through Congress first.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. Wrong on all counts. We already have ground troops there, as evidenced by infantry support equipment photographed by the world press. Also, you are about to mention that we are giving power to NATO, who will of course be led by an American directing American troops.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. Oh, we get it! America is no longer in charge, and is not participating in ground ops. But NATO is in charge, and is protecting civilians on the ground. Except, again, the bulk of the operations is going to be conducted by...who, Denmark? The Norwegians? The UAE?
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do. False choice. No one doubted our ability. We doubt our responsibility and strategy. Man, this guy loves the “there are some who said...” rhetorical bit, eh?
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it. Sure, spread that wealth. Pitch light rail and green jobs at them.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people. Hmm. Sounds a bit like good old George Bush nation building to the Czar. Any possibility that Iran could be first?
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves. Um. Is this not the same strategy you slammed about Iraq? Or does the Czar have a short-term memory issue?
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home. Well, that is a surprise. And a good question, although why exactly is a false choice? You said “on the one hand.” What is the other hand?
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. Wait, wait, wait. You say the first thing is a false choice? A false choice is putting forth an idea that no one is exactly suggesting—like, for example, saying that staying out of Libya automatically assumes that the United States does not care about the rest of the world. A valid question is why does Libya get special treatment? That isn’t a false choice: it is a valid counter-argument.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. Look, that’s talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either we have a moral obligation to assist everyone who needs this sort of help or we do not. You cannot be blamed for Rwanda, but what the hell do we tell those in the Ivory Coast, who are fleeing from worse horrors? Sorry? The dance card is full?
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America. Again, as long as you have the shadow of the Ivory Coast with us, this is a BS argument. Did you know that one million refugees have fled the Ivory Coast in the last week? Where is their tomahawk missile?
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government. Actually, the real question is whether or not you should order his assassination.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. Whoops. There goes another flip-flop. Once upon a time, a guy once told us “we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.” Wait...that was you!
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. This is just insulting. Who in the opposition tells us what to do? Why would we need troops on the ground? How do the dangers become greater? Ironically, the Czar supports the decision not to kill him; but you cannot simply make statements like this without backing them up.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. Iraq is a success! Iraq, though was a failure. A terrible failure. Thank goodness it was a success. Make up our minds, already!
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be. Sounds like we plan to leave without a clear authority in place to take charge behind him. This is dangerously wishful thinking.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency. Yes, please; some of us have been waiting since January, 2009, for this.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country. Al Qaeda was in Iraq? Wow, looks like we owe George Bush an apology. I like his tough talk that he would “never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally,” but spent most of the speech explaining how he took his time to review the facts, is not clear on what the long-term plan will be, and that we took part with a bunch of countries. You know, it almost seems like he contradicts every paragraph with the one that follows.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. See? Perfect example. Now he says Libya was not a direct threat, even though he assured us this was in our own national interest.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. “Contrary to the claims of some.” No, only contrary to your claim that Americans always insist on doing things our own way, and that you intend to change that by making us a cheerleader more than a team leader. This is your line of crap, Mr. President, and you get stuck with it.
That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.” Great! We are greated as liberators! What a pain in the ass people with memories are, eh?
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed. That’s it? Iran gets a shout out, and that is the best you can come up with? How about “Iran should know its evil regime has gone far enough, and the great people of Iran can expect the same support from us that the Libyans received?”
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. Wow, sounds great. Sign us up for that kind of responsible government.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership. See, this would be a good point to name-drop Iran again. You know—drive home the message that a real, genuine international threat can be over-turned by its people if they think they, by name, will get our support.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear. Follow the drinking gourd to freedom? Well, tasteless reference aside, this sounds nice, but forgive us if we doubt your sincerity here.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. Thank God there is something the Czar cannot disagree with in this speech. As always, it comes at the end.
Short analysis: This speech answers nothing. It provides some visionary symbols, talk of oppression and freedom, of hope and bloodshed, but answers nothing specific about our role, our long-term plans, whether we are staying or leaving, what the big transvestite’s fate is, whether we are starting a precedent, or how this fits into our foreign policy archetype.
Worse, he keeps switching points of view. We are decisive, but we analyze. We are bold, but we are cautious. We will act unilaterally, but only multinationally. We will not nation build, but we will help the Libyans structure their government better. This is great for Zen koan, but ultimately adds up to a big zero. Not one of his best speeches at all.
The President’s Address to the Nation on Libya As Prepared for Delivery— Good to note, because he is so likely to wing it off prompter.
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us. Just to be clear: is that we inclusive of Americans only, we exclusive of the rest of the world, we inclusive of NATO, we inclusive of Europe...or just we like the Czar uses we because he leans toward the insecure?
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans. That’s pretty nice, actually; although do you need to mention that Japan is our ally? Are there really a couple of WWII guys stuck in some Pacific Ocean sandbar who didn’t get the news? On the plus side, it is refreshing to hear the President acknowledge he is the C-in-C, as opposed to apologizing for it.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks. Err...that is a bit of non sequitur. What happened in Libya? Read this paragraph again, and see if you can see which of these words is the antecedent. The Czar couldn’t find it.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents. You know, we still do not know what the current states of Tunisia and Egypt are, respectively. Friend? Foe? Probably should not have mentioned them.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.” This is a gross over-simplification of what happened, but we can let this stand for rhetorical purposes.
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power. Ah, here is where the President wriggles out of the charge that he did nothing but cavort about. Curiously absent is what happened since those first few days and today’s speech.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. Much of this happened in Egypt, too, Mr. President. In fact, there seems to be some intentionally confusing language here, as if the events are being conflated.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. No mention that we have been condemned by the same Arab League. But interesting that he acknowledges that he ordered the hit on Libya, after previously assuring us that the UN volunteered our troops. Can’t play this both ways, especially after your staffers are insisting we intend to walk away from this fight scot-free. Also, as a side note, please refrain from using the faux-British an historical construction in future.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear. To be fair, the UN offered him several days of chances to step down. This period of inactivity is generally referred to, in diplomatic circles, as “doing nothing.” On the plus side, it gave you plenty of time to vacation in Brazil.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. That stains the conscience of the world? Boy, somebody ought to look at the Ivory Coast, especially after Rwanda was such a tragedy. Apparently, there is a difference between Mediterranean Africa and other places.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance. Good news, but two questions: why is this in our national interest, when other places do not merit mention? Also, while you are stumbling through the first question, when and precisely with whom did you consult? Unless the GOP is being unusually silent, they don’t seem to corroborate this version of events.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people. This is also welcome news, although it is perhaps the smallest multinational coalition the United States has used. The Czar would be curious to see what these countries are doing, since you are about to tell us that NATO is in charge.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. This is the summary? No, this is a swipe at President Clinton. The Republicans moved pretty fast in Kuwait, and hit Afghanistan and Iraq in less time. Those do not seem to be mentioned; possibly, because they were run through Congress first.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. Wrong on all counts. We already have ground troops there, as evidenced by infantry support equipment photographed by the world press. Also, you are about to mention that we are giving power to NATO, who will of course be led by an American directing American troops.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. Oh, we get it! America is no longer in charge, and is not participating in ground ops. But NATO is in charge, and is protecting civilians on the ground. Except, again, the bulk of the operations is going to be conducted by...who, Denmark? The Norwegians? The UAE?
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do. False choice. No one doubted our ability. We doubt our responsibility and strategy. Man, this guy loves the “there are some who said...” rhetorical bit, eh?
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it. Sure, spread that wealth. Pitch light rail and green jobs at them.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people. Hmm. Sounds a bit like good old George Bush nation building to the Czar. Any possibility that Iran could be first?
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves. Um. Is this not the same strategy you slammed about Iraq? Or does the Czar have a short-term memory issue?
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home. Well, that is a surprise. And a good question, although why exactly is a false choice? You said “on the one hand.” What is the other hand?
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. Wait, wait, wait. You say the first thing is a false choice? A false choice is putting forth an idea that no one is exactly suggesting—like, for example, saying that staying out of Libya automatically assumes that the United States does not care about the rest of the world. A valid question is why does Libya get special treatment? That isn’t a false choice: it is a valid counter-argument.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. Look, that’s talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either we have a moral obligation to assist everyone who needs this sort of help or we do not. You cannot be blamed for Rwanda, but what the hell do we tell those in the Ivory Coast, who are fleeing from worse horrors? Sorry? The dance card is full?
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America. Again, as long as you have the shadow of the Ivory Coast with us, this is a BS argument. Did you know that one million refugees have fled the Ivory Coast in the last week? Where is their tomahawk missile?
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government. Actually, the real question is whether or not you should order his assassination.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. Whoops. There goes another flip-flop. Once upon a time, a guy once told us “we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.” Wait...that was you!
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. This is just insulting. Who in the opposition tells us what to do? Why would we need troops on the ground? How do the dangers become greater? Ironically, the Czar supports the decision not to kill him; but you cannot simply make statements like this without backing them up.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. Iraq is a success! Iraq, though was a failure. A terrible failure. Thank goodness it was a success. Make up our minds, already!
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be. Sounds like we plan to leave without a clear authority in place to take charge behind him. This is dangerously wishful thinking.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency. Yes, please; some of us have been waiting since January, 2009, for this.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country. Al Qaeda was in Iraq? Wow, looks like we owe George Bush an apology. I like his tough talk that he would “never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally,” but spent most of the speech explaining how he took his time to review the facts, is not clear on what the long-term plan will be, and that we took part with a bunch of countries. You know, it almost seems like he contradicts every paragraph with the one that follows.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. See? Perfect example. Now he says Libya was not a direct threat, even though he assured us this was in our own national interest.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. “Contrary to the claims of some.” No, only contrary to your claim that Americans always insist on doing things our own way, and that you intend to change that by making us a cheerleader more than a team leader. This is your line of crap, Mr. President, and you get stuck with it.
That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.” Great! We are greated as liberators! What a pain in the ass people with memories are, eh?
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed. That’s it? Iran gets a shout out, and that is the best you can come up with? How about “Iran should know its evil regime has gone far enough, and the great people of Iran can expect the same support from us that the Libyans received?”
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. Wow, sounds great. Sign us up for that kind of responsible government.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership. See, this would be a good point to name-drop Iran again. You know—drive home the message that a real, genuine international threat can be over-turned by its people if they think they, by name, will get our support.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear. Follow the drinking gourd to freedom? Well, tasteless reference aside, this sounds nice, but forgive us if we doubt your sincerity here.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. Thank God there is something the Czar cannot disagree with in this speech. As always, it comes at the end.
Short analysis: This speech answers nothing. It provides some visionary symbols, talk of oppression and freedom, of hope and bloodshed, but answers nothing specific about our role, our long-term plans, whether we are staying or leaving, what the big transvestite’s fate is, whether we are starting a precedent, or how this fits into our foreign policy archetype.
Worse, he keeps switching points of view. We are decisive, but we analyze. We are bold, but we are cautious. We will act unilaterally, but only multinationally. We will not nation build, but we will help the Libyans structure their government better. This is great for Zen koan, but ultimately adds up to a big zero. Not one of his best speeches at all.
Cheer Up, America! Our Best Is Yet To Come
No one would blame you for feeling a little bit cynical these days, especially with all the bad news continuously filling your email. But sometimes bad news turns into good news if you skip ahead a little bit. In fact, there are very good reasons to cheer up.First, you now know you aren’t alone. Remember when you would hear about some crazy thing going on in Congress, or with the President, or with some leftist attack on some institution and think there was something wrong there? Now you know there is, and that about eighty freaking percent of America agrees with you.
Also, remember how you would get all down with reports or anecdotes that Americans are falling behind, or that we are totally ignorant of history or politics or even how our government works? Well, now you know that these are dwindling, and that more Americans are “aware” like never before, thanks to the Internet and non-mainstream sources. People not only know that alternatives exist, they are using them in record numbers. In fact, more people are getting accurate news off the internet than are watching television, reading newspapers, or following news publications.
And how you used to wring your hands that kids in school were less functional economically, and learning nothing but crap? But in recent years, we know now that the unions are behind all this, that their influence is severely weakening, and that most teachers are working toward actually teaching kids again. That’s good news, right?
Or what about this goofball president? The guy is totally under the microscope. He can’t even meet with a former terrorist, or cut short a crisis to take a vacation, or even fiddle while Rome burns without you hearing about it. Admit it: would you rather not know about this? Of course, you want to hear all about it. Know why? Because 80% of America still cares, just like you.
Remember how you used to think that the US military wasn’t getting the respect it deserves from the public? That today’s kids just don’t appreciate soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen? Now look at how the military is treated today: with parades, fundraisers, gold ribbons, and care packages. It may be that the military is more popular with the general public today than ever before—going back to probably World War II. Heck, they barely promote this stuff anymore: not because they stopped caring, but because there is no need. The whole thing has taken on a life of its own.
Oh gosh, you think. Another Hollywood celebrity has said something stupid, or attacked someone working for the greater good, or has advocated something outrageously communist. But now, people are ridiculing them, and you realize that deep down, nobody takes these morons seriously anymore.
Likewise, you hear all these Glenn Beck stories about secret conspiracies to take down the government, wreck the economy, and eliminate your freedoms. Sounds bad, but you now realize these people are getting caught. Have you noticed that for all their vaunted supremacy, these morons never seem to notice the clean-shaven, well-dressed guy with recording equipment sitting up front?
But Czar, you say, the media isn’t doing anything about them! So what, we answer. The people know, thanks to these new alternative news sources. And the public responds in all sorts of positive ways. Think about this: do you remember hearing all these crazy stories in 1990? How about 1998? Or 2002? Or even 2006? In the last five years, there has been an explosion of news sources that expose these horrors, and the public finds ways to take it all down. We have proven that we do not need mainstream news at all.
But Czar, you add, the Obama administration will do nothing about this; they are in on probably half of it! The Czar shrugs. Then pay attention: the states are fighting back, exactly as they are supposed to. Attorneys general are filing law suits, judges are blocking actions, and the public are mobilizing into action campagins. Even private corporations are finding subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) ways to protect themselves. We can do this ourselves.
Folks say that the America succeeds despite its best efforts. Nonsense: there is a whole lot of America left, and as we predicted in May, 2009, that old-fashioned sense of do-it-right is clearly manifesting itself again. It was not dead; it was merely sleeping.
So cheer up! Our best days are always still ahead.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Japan Hit With Another
A powerful quake, registering 6.5 magnitude, has hit Japan again, replete with a 2-foot tsunami aimed at Miyagi Prefecture.
The Japanese definitely need some sort of break from this. Aftershocks have been hitting them repeatedly, whch further weakens buildings almost as fast as it wears nerves.
Let us hope that the effects are mild.
Ora pro illis is all we can offer.
Update: Tsunami failed to appear, evidently, and no reported injuries!
The Japanese definitely need some sort of break from this. Aftershocks have been hitting them repeatedly, whch further weakens buildings almost as fast as it wears nerves.
Let us hope that the effects are mild.
Ora pro illis is all we can offer.
Update: Tsunami failed to appear, evidently, and no reported injuries!
Another Powers Held Hostage
Yes, it’s Sunday—the day that bad news about the Obama administration gets leaked out, in hopes that you and the few triple-digit-IQed folks in the mainstream media completely miss it.Here is a great headline out of The Onion: Most Transparent Administration Ever Stuffs Reporter In Closet For Over An Hour. Except it appeared on Big Journalism, and also appears on The Freep.
As we understand it, Senator Ben Nelson (D-FL) had a fund raiser event on Wednesday (see? Bad news about the administration is suppressed until the weekend) at the spacious home of an Orlando-area real estate developer. And who shows up? Vice-President Joe Biden.
And a pool reporter from The Orlando Sentinel, who used his press credentials to get inside as the sole representative of the press. However, Biden’s staffers (they were specifically indicated in all versions of the story) decided that having a reporter this close to Biden and prominent guests was a bad idea. So they ushered him into a large closet, equipped with a chair and a bottle of water, and closed him up in there. A member of Biden’s detail stood outside the door to prevent the reporter from escaping.
The reporter, Scott Powers, was held inside the closet for over 75 minutes, at which time Biden left and the reporter was free to exit. Powers, unable to interview anyone, filed a story about his imprisonment at his paper, The Orlando Sentinel. We do not know what was in the original story, but the editors re-wrote the copy as a short oh-by-the-way piece by Mark Matthews and David Damron. Powers’s story of the incident was completely buried, even though Powers claims it was not.
As word of the incident got out, folks have been lambasting the Sentinel’s editors, as well as allegedly sending emails to Senator Nelson demanding an explanation. The developer personally called Powers to apologize profusely, unaware what had happened to him during the event. Powers himself is downplaying the seriousness of the incident, and said they offered him food and bathroom breaks (neither of which he accepted). “Frankly, I’ve been treated badly at over events.” Great, but it does not matter.
Another victim of this event should probably be Senator Nelson, who is facing a tough re-election bid; it would be a tough thing to try to explain what happened at his own fundraiser, you know, if his Republican adversaries were to, you know, somehow get this story out about the Vice-President, possibly with the knowledge of the Senator, you know, coercing a member of the press into a confinement against his will for over an hour. You know?
Thoughts on Ferraro
The Czar presupposes that comparisons between Geraldine Ferraro, who passed away at the age of 75, and Sarah Palin are inevitable.But rather than compare the two women directly, the Czar most recently thought of Ms. Ferraro because of the similarity of her fame compared to Gov. Palin.
Specifically, both became nationally famous for the same reason: they were basically run as a gimmick.
Back in 1984, Ronald Reagan was a guaranteed victory for re-election. So much so, that the Democrats ran Walter Mondale against him. “We gotta run somebody,” some party bigwig said, “So don’t run anybody who will kill our chances in 1988 as well.” For that, Mondale was a gag candidate. No one expected him to win. But that presents opportunties for novelty. “I got it,” said another party boss. “We can run some broad with him for vice-president. That way, when Reagan wins, we can say the Republicans hate the broads.”
The irony, of course, is that Geraldine Ferraro would have been a solid, strong candidate for the Oval Office in her own right, and certainly would have made a better president than Mondale. Fact is, everyone liked her personally. She was, by all accounts, a pleasant, intelligent, capable woman who represented a type of Democrat long extinct today.
Jumping forward for 2008, the GOP had a different problem. A serious black candidate emerged on the scene, and was destroying the Republicans in the popular media. Hollywood made Bush unpopular, and the candidates least associated with him were partly responsible for the Congressional financial messes of 2006-2008. McCain was the candidate of choice, because in those days the GOP still believed that a Republican candidate needed to be some easy-going grandfather figure who kind of got that internet thing you kids were all into.
They could probably take on Obama head-to-head on topics, but could not counter the fact Obama was never going to be an elderly white guy in time for the election. So they ran with Sarah Palin, as a gimmick. “Hey,” some GOP think-tanker said, “We either elect the first black president or the first woman vice-president.” Oddly, that seems less stupid—the GOP was at least sensitive to the notion that history was going to be made here.
The Czar has no proof, but is convinced that Palin was the reason the election was not a landslide for Obama’s inherent novelty. Looking back, clearly she would have made a better president than John McCain, particularly as we saw the national economic issue pointing straight back to Washington, DC.
Palin took nothing but ridicule and insults for her efforts, suggesting to many that she must have been very, very right about key issues in order to get the Left that torqued off. Geraldine Ferraro, sadly, was largely forgotten.
Her obituaries ring a little hollow, as if they were written by J-schoolers who had no idea that a real woman vice-presidential candidate didn’t start with Tina Fey. They are short, and fail to mention her colorful background, her long battle with cancer, and how warm and friendly she appeared to all. A good one is at the Boston Herald, if the 24-year-old copy writers want to see an example.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
News You Can Use
The Gormogons are a busy bunch, and we love to update our readers on the many things we do. Of course, some things are a bit too short for a lengthy post, so here is a short compendium of odds and ends that prove, yet again, that this should be the only website you use for your online banking.
 | Girls: this man is not a licensed training bra fitter. His business cards, as well as his T-shirt, are forgeries. Ask him to wait out front, and then ask your parents’ permission to call your local police. |
 | Don’t throw away those old shoes! Place them into a clean box, with the laces still on, and leave them outside your local fire station, where the proud men and women of the fire-fighting profession will be forced to throw them away for you. |
 | We have raised over $75,000 to bring 20 native Norwegian children into downtown Oslo so that they can hear the Norwegian language spoken in its native environs! Great work, donors! |
 | It’s never easy when a doctor loses a family pet, so the Gormogons Guild of Medical Support has launched a new program to give grieving doctors resources previously unavailable to them. These include party napkin folding, professional flower arrangement, and spooky-sound Halloween records. Next year, we hope to offer instruction in bridge. |
 | Tragically, over 8,000 stock cartoons are still out on the Internet, available for use by the public because they simply defy being funny. Usually featuring mild irony resulting from married life, a slight dig at the business world, or some wry observation about desktop computer support, these bits of clip art are trapped in a world with no future. Help out, by rounding them up and destroying them whenever you see them. |
Friday, March 25, 2011
Like a Laser, Maybe?
President Obama is purportedly leaving El Salvador early to come back home, so that he can “focus” on Libya.
Uh-oh. The President is going to focus on something.
And you know what means: a televised speech long on buzzwords but short on conclusion.
Uh-oh. The President is going to focus on something.
And you know what means: a televised speech long on buzzwords but short on conclusion.
Nukes Now
We should probably get used to stories like this.
Another anti-nuclear person has taken a close look at the Fukushima incident, and has realized that nuclear, by God, is a helluva safe technology. While the greenies were clapping loudly over Fukushima (and you know they were), because they finally had a smoking gun...well, life went in a different direction.
The world is starting to see what we here have been saying for a long time.
Another anti-nuclear person has taken a close look at the Fukushima incident, and has realized that nuclear, by God, is a helluva safe technology. While the greenies were clapping loudly over Fukushima (and you know they were), because they finally had a smoking gun...well, life went in a different direction.
The world is starting to see what we here have been saying for a long time.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Homework Assignment
And the girl turned when she heard her father enter the room. “Doing your homework, honey?”“Yes, Dad,” she said, resignedly. “I have to do a biography.”
The father perked up, curious. “Who’s the subject?” he asked, secretly hoping as all fathers do that it might just be him.
“Barack Obama,” she replied.
“Who?” asked the father.
“Barack Obama,” she repeated. “He was a president or something.”
The father laughed. “Oh, sure,” he said. “He was President of the United States, a very long time ago. Long before I was born,” he said, carefully. “Actually, before your grandfather was born. I remember learning a little bit about him. He was a great man.”
“Really,” asked the girl, thinking at once that her dad could readily be a shortcut to doing her own research. “What was he famous for?”
The father leaned against the doorway and frowned. “Well, let’s see. He ended racism.”
“What’s that?” she asked with a giggle.
“It was this crazy belief from a long time ago that certain people were better than others simply because of their race. A person who believed he was better than someone else was called a ‘racist.’ It wasn’t terribly widespread at all, but there were a couple of people—mostly on his side—who believed it. Anyway, he had this very clever plan to get rid of it. His side called everyone on the other side racists, for pretty much everything, no matter what. If you disagreed with him, you were a racist. If you wanted to keep more of your money, you were a racist. If you believed that the government should represent the will of the governed, you were a racist. Anyway, after a while, people caught on that the whole thing was a big joke, and that by calling everyone a racist, nobody was, and the whole country realized racism was over. I think.”
“Oh, I get it,” she said. “What else did he do?”
“Well, he ended these things called unions. Unions were these organizations of working people who would extort people for money. Like criminals, but technically what they did was legal. Anyway, if you didn’t pay them, they would stop working and hurt the economy or shut down the government until they did get the money. Sometimes they would beat people up or vandalize things. So people wound up having to pay them.”
“That sounds pretty bad,” she said. “How did he stop them?”
“Well, Obama was pretty clever. He eventually kept giving them more and more until the money dried up, everywhere. He encouraged them, too, to keep asking for more. And then when the workers did ask for more, there wasn’t any left. And the people got really angry and passed laws that recognized them as organized criminals. Eventually, they lost power and became a big joke.”
“That sounds like the same trick.”
“Yeah, I guess so, honey. And he used it again in the Middle East.”
“We learned about that place in geography. Isn’t it wonderful?”
The father laughed. “Well, yeah, today it is! But back then, it was a terrible place, and they really hated Americans. But Obama, like last time, kept telling them that he was their friend, and that everything would be all right. And the bad guys got so cocky thinking he was a doofus that they started annoying their people, and eventually all these revolts happened where a lot of people got hurt. Anyway, he loaned our military out all over the place, and we wound up having to fight all these terrible wars, for many years, that finally cleaned up all that mess. Libya, Syria, Iran, Jordan...I can’t even name them all. Anyway, eventually, he wound up being one of the most active war-time presidents. It sounds crazy, but we were fighting something like eight wars at a time. Anyway, eventually, the whole thing got settled when later presidents had to implement stable governments in all those places and they became nice again. Too bad millions of people died over all those battles.”
“He sounds like he was a tricky guy.”
“Yeah, well, his greatest trick was how he changed the country for the better. When he got elected, he promised all these changes. But everybody thought that he was going to fix things. Instead, what he did, was he deliberately broke and smashed stuff, until the point that even the laziest, dumbest Americans said enough was enough, and they forced Congress to repair just about everything. It was a terrible time: nearly everyone was out of work, and the dollar just about collapsed, and inflation was crazy. But it forced all these crazy laws to be repealed, and all these new, smart, and tough politicians to get elected. And boy, did they ever start cleaning things up when the American people grew their backbones again and started getting involved in politics.”
“He got a lot done, didn’t he, dad?” she asked, her homework assignment nearly complete.
“Well, the most impressive thing was that he did this all in four years! I forget the story, exactly, but I can’t imagine he lost the election. After all, since he had pretty much ripped apart everything, there probably was no reason to re-elect him. Do you have enough for your assignment tomorrow?”
“Oh, yeah!” she exclaimed. “I’m surprised we don’t get his birthday off.”
The dad frowned. “They do in Kenya, I think.”
He Actually Said It
He finally did.
President Obama, during his El Salvador junket:
There is so much wrong with this, it is staggering. And the Czar will stop here, because the only things left to say involve very impolite obscenities.
President Obama, during his El Salvador junket:
And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important, because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.Volunteered by others.
There is so much wrong with this, it is staggering. And the Czar will stop here, because the only things left to say involve very impolite obscenities.
'Puter's Nightmare of the Day
'Puter was pondering the Obama Administration's singular ability to muck up every foreign policy matter it touches, and had a sobering thought.With President Obama thoroughly flummoxed by our "kinetic military actions" in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, what happens if Kim Jong Il dies, destabilizing the Korean peninsula on the heels of Japan's earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster? Does President Obama (or for that matter Secretary of State Clinton) have the stones to face down China?
Probably not, 'Puter expects. And that's not good for anyone.
Here are some words 'Puter never thought he would utter: Stay healthy Mad Hermit of Pyongyang.
Obama May Have Lost These Voters
Over yonder on the Twitter tree, AgStateSense tweets:CZ: Re Bracket Obama, Eisenhower (I believe) once said that in battle, plans are useless. But planning is essential.Dread and Awful Czar:Thank you, AgStateSense (if that is indeed your real name), for your perspicacity. The Czar is baffled not so much by the President’s reluctance to face the hard questions about the war on Libya, but by the public admission by Admiral Mike Mullen, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the military is largely unclear on what the game plan is. Holy cats, man! Who is in charge?
I trust this missive finds you well in all things, and know that the people of Muscovy are well and truly blessed to live under your mightly gaze. Indeed, I too celebrate your every word, and hearken to a most wonderful essay by Dr. J regarding the inexplicably bad public relations move by the President, in which he opted to focus on predicting the outcome of sporting events in lieu of acting as a commander-in-chief. Praise be unto the good doctor! And yea verily unto you for your wisdom in allowing his gracious words to inspire me. Forsooth, my ears do tease out an echo of President Dwight David Eisenhower, whom I believe sagely spake: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” And might I humbly ask in awe, are you indeed completely right on everything?
And on a not-unrelated note, JS writes in from his secret mission of correcting errors in some of the Vatican’s artwork, to say:
Dear Csar,Whether you support the humanitarian response in Libya or whether you oppose the precendent-setting abuse of our military by the President, one thing is clear: the United States military is, in a very real way, not under the command of the President of the United States, but has been ordered into harm’s way by an unelected coalition of foreign nationals. This is astonishing.
I read your post and was reminded of what some former Ambassador said on 'Hannity' tonight: American troops haven't been under another country's control for a long, long time. It's a dangerous precedent to just let the UN run things and order our troops around.
Also, you're completely right on everything.
God Bless,
JS
Throughout both World Wars, American troops have had some of their orders written, compiled, and coordinated by non-Americans. But they were never specifically ordered into battle by anyone who does not report to the Commander-in-Chief. While our men and women in service are indeed receiving their Libyan orders from American officers, those officers were placed into harm’s way by the request of Europeans, who somehow got the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military to transfer executive responsibility. This is incredible.
Unconstitutional? That ain’t the half of it. Hypocritical? Seriously, who is still surprised by this President’s ability to forget core beliefs? Foolish? Yes, it is true that we have no idea who the “good guys” are in this fight, and that we might actually be aiding Al-Qaeda operatives in a very direct manner, but we have done weird things before in wars.
Look, if the Europeans asked the Americans to sort of, you know, coordinate the events in the air on the ground, fine. Command, communications, and control is something the United States does better than anyone elese. And we can help out big time, on the ground, in Operations Other Than War. But actively firing the majority of the missiles and sending in the USAF into combat missions is, in our mind, using the United States military in a combat role. The President isn’t fooling anyone with his usual “don’t worry about it” routine, or his “we’ve done this before” schtick, especially given his increasingly evident lack of historical knowledge on just about everything.
The Czar despises when people call for impeachment simply because they disagree with a President. The Czar certainly understands the calls for same from his own side, but while technically this is impeachable, the Czar does not recommend it. Instead, we should look toward thanking the Europeans for their time, but otherwise notify them that we are coming home from Libya. It isn’t our fight, never was, and if you want to approach our elected Congress about our taking on a combat role, please do so. We will be happy to provide military power on a time and materials basis.
Otherwise, to the people who support the humanitarian action, we must ask: why Libya? Why not Rwanda? Why not Sudan? Why not Burma? Why not the Ivory Coast? Why not the Copts? Why not the Israelis? Why not North Korea? Why not Zimbabwe, or anywhere a government entity physically overpowers its own people? One might wonder why a law school graduate like the President fails to understand the importance of precedent?
Wobblies
'Puter was perusing his mail last evening, after arriving home from work. You know, in a private sector job with no guarantee of continued employment, no pension, no limit on hours worked, no regular schedule, no work rules.
In the mail was Mrs. 'Puter's newest issue of New York State United Teachers' propaganda rag. 'Puter foolishly decided to thumb through the magazine, and came upon a photo of a NYSUT member pro-union rally in Rochester, New York. In the photo gallery, there's the usual assortment of "it's for the children" signs. One of the signs, however, stood out to 'Puter.
A white-bearded gent in a stocking cap to the right of the photo is holding a sign reading "Workers of the World Unite."* Even cynical 'Puter was taken aback.
There are two possibilities here, neither good for the union. The first is that the teacher, or fellow traveler, had no idea that his sign is a direct quote from Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto. This would be the "we're stupid" possibility in 'Puter's formulation. The second is that the teacher knew full well, and believes Communism and its evils are just fine and dandy by him. This is, in 'Puter's lingo, the evil possibility. That is, the facts admit of two possibilities. NYSUT and its members are (a) stupid or (b) evil.
'Puter hopes for the former, but expects the latter. And neither is a desirable status for the self-proclaimed shapers of America's future.
*'Puter would be happy to provide a link to this photo. However, to the best of 'Puter's knowledge, NYSUT has not made it publicly available. It is not on NYSUT's web page or on its Facebook page. Apparently, Communist sympathies must be hidden from the general public, lest the benighted lumpenproletariat misunderstand and storm the Reichstag.
In the mail was Mrs. 'Puter's newest issue of New York State United Teachers' propaganda rag. 'Puter foolishly decided to thumb through the magazine, and came upon a photo of a NYSUT member pro-union rally in Rochester, New York. In the photo gallery, there's the usual assortment of "it's for the children" signs. One of the signs, however, stood out to 'Puter.
A white-bearded gent in a stocking cap to the right of the photo is holding a sign reading "Workers of the World Unite."* Even cynical 'Puter was taken aback.
There are two possibilities here, neither good for the union. The first is that the teacher, or fellow traveler, had no idea that his sign is a direct quote from Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto. This would be the "we're stupid" possibility in 'Puter's formulation. The second is that the teacher knew full well, and believes Communism and its evils are just fine and dandy by him. This is, in 'Puter's lingo, the evil possibility. That is, the facts admit of two possibilities. NYSUT and its members are (a) stupid or (b) evil.
'Puter hopes for the former, but expects the latter. And neither is a desirable status for the self-proclaimed shapers of America's future.
*'Puter would be happy to provide a link to this photo. However, to the best of 'Puter's knowledge, NYSUT has not made it publicly available. It is not on NYSUT's web page or on its Facebook page. Apparently, Communist sympathies must be hidden from the general public, lest the benighted lumpenproletariat misunderstand and storm the Reichstag.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Mailbag Fun!
Dear GorTechie:
Regarding Rep. Edward Markey's claim that we're in Libya for the oil, perhaps he should follow the age-old rule, "research first, shoot off mouth later."
The U.S. imports insignificant amounts of crude oil and petroleum from Libya. We import more crude oil from Argentina than we do from Libya; we import more petroleum from the Virgin Islands - that's right, the Virgin Islands - than we do from Libya.
Oh, I suppose Markey could claim that oil is a fungible commodity, it all goes on the world market, blah blah blah, but that just undermines his argument further; if Libya is going to dump its oil in the world market pool, we don't need to be there to protect our interests. There may be other good reasons to be there, but this isn't one of them.
Barackets Obama
Dear Czar,
This is from Bloomberg News:
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile, yesterday said the U.S. would hand off its leadership role “in a matter of days, not a matter of weeks.”
“This command-and-control business is complicated, and we haven’t done something like this kind of on-the-fly before,” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Moscow today. “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.”
Sec. Gates's words do not inspire confidence in our Commander in Chief's ability to Command-in-Chief. The words 'on-the-fly' is not how Dr. J. likes to wage war, even undeclared war. While Dr. J. appreciates Batman's words of wisdom to the Young Justice team, "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy," a battle plan is certainly welcome prior to ditching it and improvising 'on-the-fly.'
Indeed, President Obama's behavior suggests that he would rather not have to perform Commander-in-Chief related activities.
Dr. J. suspects that President Obama is in a hurry to hand off Command-and-Control in 'a matter of days, not a matter of weeks' so as to get back to the NCAA Tournament Sweet-16 in time for Friday's 6:00 PM EDT tip off between Marquette and UNC.
BTW, Dr. J. switched off the tourney after Kentucky edged out Michelle Obama's beloved Princeton Tigers in the first round.
Best,
Dr. J.
This is from Bloomberg News:
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile, yesterday said the U.S. would hand off its leadership role “in a matter of days, not a matter of weeks.”
“This command-and-control business is complicated, and we haven’t done something like this kind of on-the-fly before,” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Moscow today. “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.”
Sec. Gates's words do not inspire confidence in our Commander in Chief's ability to Command-in-Chief. The words 'on-the-fly' is not how Dr. J. likes to wage war, even undeclared war. While Dr. J. appreciates Batman's words of wisdom to the Young Justice team, "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy," a battle plan is certainly welcome prior to ditching it and improvising 'on-the-fly.'
Indeed, President Obama's behavior suggests that he would rather not have to perform Commander-in-Chief related activities.
Dr. J. suspects that President Obama is in a hurry to hand off Command-and-Control in 'a matter of days, not a matter of weeks' so as to get back to the NCAA Tournament Sweet-16 in time for Friday's 6:00 PM EDT tip off between Marquette and UNC.
BTW, Dr. J. switched off the tourney after Kentucky edged out Michelle Obama's beloved Princeton Tigers in the first round.
Best,
Dr. J.
Massive Protests Coming! Dozens Expected.
Yawn.Well, that’s better than a sigh, right? Anyway, apparently, there will be massive liberal protests across the entire nation on April 4th, to teach the bastards in Wisconsin a lesson not to mess with them!
Or so say a collection of liberal groups including the Communist Party USA, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other parties of little surprise.
The Czar predicts that in Portland, Madison, Berkeley, and maybe one or two other places you can think of, they might see between 2,000-4,000 people. In New York, Chicago, and Seattle, maybe several hundred to 1,000 each. In a few other places such as DC, Boston, and Philly, maybe 200 - 500 people each, including the quads of major universities. And that’ll be about it.
Meanwhile, the enormity percentage of the American public will want nothing to do with this crap. Seems that everytime there’s going to be a massive liberal protest, the total amount of people participating nationwide would not even fill a single NFL stadium.
Because the Liberals That Matter are not bearded counter-culturists, comic book artists, or ill-smelling alternative book shop employees; they are either truck-drivin’ haulers or carpenters or auto workers or turtlenecked college grads with slightly used copies of Jane Austen books on cedar bookshelves. The large majority of liberals are not actually into radical leftist politics, and many are put off by the thugs and slugs who defaced the Wisconsin Capitol building for weeks.
Most of them realize and accept that unions, while largely nice, are fighting for breath right now, and may not be around in 20 years in any recongizable form. And that further, they well appreciate that radicals seeking to collapse and shock the US economy are going to pretty much tango uniform their 401(k)s and force them to scrape coins while working until 75 or 80.
Basically, this “massive national protest” is being called by a minority of a minority of the minority. Sure, they will make the news—the media love a good liberal protest, which in turn they will exaggerate to look much better attended. And thousands of liberals will falsely claim they were there.
But odds are significant that on April 6th or 7th, you will think about this and say “Yeah, whatever happened with that?”
The Slow Loris v Dat Ho
The Czar is embarrassed about the post produced by the Mandarin’s non sequitur amplifier, but is delighted to receive so much mail from readers on the slow loris video that attached itself to the post. The Czar was eager to receive from all of you (a) information on its endangered status and cruel treatment by pet farmers as well as (b) so many recipes for it. The Czar did not know that the slow loris features prominently in most Chinese restaurant menus (under the name kung pao), and that its bite is toxic (hence its spicy flavor in kung pao dishes).
Some of you pointed out to us that the slow loris shares many traits in common with little Dat Ho, here in the Castle: a primate, an omnivore, fairly small for what it consumes, unable to read, and (evidently to many of you) cuddly and cute. In order to prevent potential confusion between the two, the Czar has prepared this authoritative table that clarifies the differences between the slow loris and Dat Ho:
We trust there will be no questions.
Some of you pointed out to us that the slow loris shares many traits in common with little Dat Ho, here in the Castle: a primate, an omnivore, fairly small for what it consumes, unable to read, and (evidently to many of you) cuddly and cute. In order to prevent potential confusion between the two, the Czar has prepared this authoritative table that clarifies the differences between the slow loris and Dat Ho:
 | The Slow Loris: - Can climb trees slowly - Does not make much noise - Cleans itself - Does not steal from the Czar - Can live for 20 years or more |
 | Dat Ho: - Can scamper up things quickly - Pleads and whines incessantly - Is filthy and undisciplined - Steals: quite sure of it - Will be lucky to see 13 |
We trust there will be no questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)