Ditto to what Mr. Shilling said, can't disagree with what just wrote. I'm not that interested in defending Obama, just think 'a win is a win', and there's plenty of other things that Obama needs to provide 'leadership' on - and in some, is only one that can - and hasn't (for instance, issues involving a certain country in South Central Asia)
So Senator Levin says on Sunday that Obama needs to push Congress to stay in town until the New Year so as not to defer the tax issue and DADT repeal.
And then Congress stays in town through the weekend (which itself is quite rare) and resolves the tax issue and DADT repeal two weeks before the New Year.
It's striking 8 bells by now, but what else was he expected to do? He campaigned on it, publically supported it at every opportunity, got his (Republican) Secretary of Defensee and career military Joint Chief of Staff on board to publically state the policy should be changed, had his military leaders commission a study*, and otherwise urged congress to take action. The repeal always had to happen in Congress, because, unlike segregation in the 40's, that's where it came from via the 'Rules of Land Naval Forces' clause in the Constitution.
You could argue that fighting the repeal in court was a mixed message (and for instance Boegiboe above does, I disagree**), but ultimately Obama achieved what he set out to achieve.
*and normally 'studies' are where policies go to die. This one wasn't and designed that way. It was on the other hand, pointed out by both 'sides' during the congresional hearings the inherent ridiculousness of polling a military organization on a policy matter.
**the courts getting involved in this would have not really hindered the 'unitary executive' would not have stopped Congress from continue to shirk their constitutionally mandated perogative and responsibility (which I agree is Not A Good Thing). Also, ,ost court decisions that effect the governement, even they achieve 'results' are much better at merely producing more bureaucracy. Which already the US DoD is almost as good at as killing people and breaking things) .
I'm inclined to be charitible* and say that rushing it 'the first time' is what caused the current (that is, current as of this morning) situation. Doing the way it was done led to a 'mission accomlished' that is strong enough to make it a fait accompli, and further avoided involvement by the courts that would had led to bad precedents or Executive Orders that could be recinded by President Romney or President Huckabee (or challenged in court themselves)
*which I admit is easier to be on an issue that doesn't effect one personally.
From one point of view, it is in government's interest for Manning (if he did what he's accused of doing) to spend the next thirty years making big rocks into little rocks, and for Assange to simulataneuously have complete freedom to live the good life as a public celebrity.
The stark difference would magnify the "pour encourager les autres" effect.
Are you sure there must, with certainty, be a “world’s most powerful” country.
In any sense of 'most powerful', yes. It's a relative measure. If a bunch of eight year olds run a 50 yd dash, someone is going to come in first, even though every one is going to take longer than Usain Bolt at twice the distance.
Well, back in the day there was this. It went away when the Soviet Union fell apart and they didn't have two kopeks to rub together, but this sort of stuff is coming back if not nearly as frequent. To be clear, it's *not* violating airspace, but is coming within the air defense zone and there's long standing treaty specifically with Soviet Union and now inheritted by the Russians governing these things (both on the water and in the air)
There is no such specific treaty with anyone else the rest of the world, but there is several longstanding agreements (and if it gets ratified the UNCLOS treaty, but for a practical matter, the US already follows most of the precepts) and practices that ensure the relative professionalism of these encounters. And the US is not the only guy who plays this game. (It's why there was a bruhaha between the Chinese and Japanese a few months ago)
Martime claims are of several different sorts - coastal waters, territorial waters, economic exclusion zones. Some countries conflate these claims and/or claim rights under them that are not recognized internationally. And most everyone has in some aspect excess claims. (Most common? drawing a straight line between two penisulas or islands that are too far apart as your baseline, rather than following the coastline. Famously potrayed by Libya's 'Line of Death' in the Gulf of Sidra.) Anyway, international law (or if one prefers international custom) is almost completely controlled by precedent and once something becomes customary, it becomes de facto and then de jure. (as you see in your Truman example) So everyone pushes their boundaries at every opportunity, and others always push back, lest they lose their perogative. It's pretty much all adverse posession when it comes to international boundaries.
But the important thing to remember: It's not just the US that does it. But the US does it most often as it has the biggest Navy in the world. Furthermore, the US has been doing the freedom of navigation thing since 1803. It's *the* long standing principle of US foreign policy consitently followed by everyone. I realize argument by 'it's always been done this way' is some sort of logical fallacy, but well, it's always been done this way.
1) The America Fuck Yeah! argument does not claim that America has no faults, just the opposite. Dick moves are tolerated as part of an imperfect scheme to try to achieve some stability and greater good (two things themselves which are hard to define and often in conflict with each other). All human institutions are imperfect, and one can argue (and I do in fact argue) that ordinal listing is a mathematical certainty - that is *someone* is going to be the most powerful country in the world, and I'd rather it be the US (getting by with a little help from it's friends, as Rufus pointed out yesterday morning). But the argument also relies on the US not doing asshole things like invading Iraq (especially without a plan) nor being a pussy and keeping 100K+ troops in Afghanistan out of fear. And it also doesn't detract from the fact that we can still be the most powerful country in the world even with expending less resources, and need to, because we are out of money.
2) If the Bureau of Imperfect Analogy complaint department is still open, I'd like to submit this:
partition Planet Earth into sprawling territorial commands, with one four-star Chinese general assigned responsibility for the Middle East and so on–to include a Chinese North American Command, charged with monitoring conditions on that continent
The US does not have a "Chinese Command" or even an "Asian Command", it has US Pacific Command which covers everything between 3 miles of the California coast to Madagascar.
The higher priority given to tolerating authoritarian right wing governments, over spreading 'democracy whiskey sexy', lends itself to the latter explanation. The only thing that arguably lends itself to the white man's burden mindset was the creation and implementation of the Peace Corps. But was always a small fraction of the foreign aid budget, which itself is a tiny fraction of the 'national security' budget.
Indeed, for most of the century, it *WON* the argument.
This is exactly backward.
White Man's Burden (in the US context) kicked off in a paleolithic form with Monroe doctrine, ebbed and flowed from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of, well, everywhere else in Latin America (Tripoli happened earlier) and reached its peak with a man, a plan, a canal. Wilson actually reversed the white man's burden imperial impluse (despite being the reigning champion in the personnally racist department) with his general self-determination anti-imperial impulses that created the epononymous school of foreign policy. And then it was put to bed in the 30's when we were out of money.
Everything from 1938 to 1989 was *realpolitck* winning the argument. The enemy of my enemy was my friend. The relationship of the United States with any given country during this period was mostly, and many times exclusively, defined by that country's relationship with Nazi Germany (from 41-45) or with the Soviet Union (from 47-89)
It was only after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded 2 years later that, as last man standing, a different strain of thought become ascendent in the US: that the US is the inheritor of Rome and Britain as the Hegemon and the guarantor of the 'Pax' in a unipolar world. And these circle back to our man Monroe, but this time, for the whole earth.
Yes, everyone knows that no one in Obama's Justice Department has a security clearance or more generally, access to any documents or files created before noon on Jan 20, 2009. It's pretty much a given that Karl Rove knows the only method to disseminate information in the world is through wikileaks - and arresting one person completely shuts down the network. It is also common knowledge that American right-wing political operatives make alliances with radical Scandavian feminists -- more precisely, that in Sweden, the fourth most corrupt country in the world it's a pretty trivial thing for the prime minister to order a municipal prosecutor to stage a politically motivated arrest warrant.
Really, you're a Garmin direction away from 123 Truther Lane, Birtherville USA with this type of stuff.
Assertion: Many commentators have stated that the disclosures thus far in wikileaks thus far largely conform with public pronouncements of the United States Government, albeit more detailed and pointed.
Postulate: The intelligence and diplomatic corps of the United States, like any large organization, has some diversity of opinion, but also a lot a group think and in some instances a degree of episystemic closure.
Theorem: In support of either stated orders, or in anticipation of what the bosses wanted or both. the various diplomats around the world circa late 2001 and 2002 would have been seeking out info tying Sadaam to WMDs and/or Al Qaida, and reporting any little tidbit they could come up with --> Lemma: and not reporting negative findings.
Hypothesis/Conclusion: If a set of diplomatic cables would have been been released circa 2002, like Moore would have liked, it would have *enhanced* George Bush's case for war, not diminished it.
Evidence to support hypothesis: Look at how many people around the world are secretly itching for war with Iran.*
Evidence that would refute hypothesis: If any of the cables actually show diplomats in the middle east counselling against the Iraq invasion, either directly or by proxy. (I am not aware of any, but could have missed it)
*Without the context of the actual as-happened Iraq war, such cables would not have been seen as double dealling governments wanting for the US wanting to its dirty work for them. Not by the public anyway (otherwise the First Gulf War wouldn't have been supported)
Two data points
1) While Fox is generally on the TV in state side offices, in 'real' forward deployed ops centers, Al Jazerra is the feed of choice (alternating with BBC World News)
2) US bombs have hit everything from Sudanese factories to Chinese Embassies to Canadians, so I wouldn't take it *too* personally if I were Al Jazerra.
Culture, by definition, is a collectively social endeavor: visual arts, performance art, musical arts
I'm trying to reconcile this sentence with the fact that many (most?) of the great and/or famous musical and visual artists in history ran the gamut from socially awkward to misanthropic to to completely bat-s(tuff) crazy.
I would argue they should collect revenues as on fee on airplane tickets so taxpayers aren’t directly funding it but instead air traveler consumers
Maybe I'm misreading your subjunctive form and you already know this, but that's exactly what they do . They also charge the airlines directly because the TSA said the passenger fees were not enough. And apparently overcharged them, as there's something on the later site that talks about a refund from a court ruling this past summer.
(Note also that the passenger fee is for each 'enplanement' - meaning on the typical two-leg, one-way trip due to the hub and spoke arrangement, one pays the fee *twice* even though one goes through the security gate only once.)
There is also the cost (though not borne by the taxpayer - until another bailout that is) of one or two marshals taking up the first class seats which are the most profitable ones for the airline.
I would think* that there's enough satellites and stuff to see a massing of tanks and other mobile units that a true 'surprise' ground assault can and would be arrested and/or preempted (and almost entirely by the ROK themselves). Otoh, like North said, with their in place artillery and rocket forces, if the Il son gives the word, it's probably as quick as 'ready aim fire' to rain a lot of pain on the greater Seoul metro.
*rather I would hope - for the 70 some odd billion we're spending on intelligence: http://washingtonindependent.com/59212/obama-intel-chief-reveals-intel-budget-is-75-billion
(although all that money and we can't win the Central Asia version of To Tell the Truth)
On “DADT Open Thread”
Ditto to what Mr. Shilling said, can't disagree with what just wrote. I'm not that interested in defending Obama, just think 'a win is a win', and there's plenty of other things that Obama needs to provide 'leadership' on - and in some, is only one that can - and hasn't (for instance, issues involving a certain country in South Central Asia)
"
So Senator Levin says on Sunday that Obama needs to push Congress to stay in town until the New Year so as not to defer the tax issue and DADT repeal.
And then Congress stays in town through the weekend (which itself is quite rare) and resolves the tax issue and DADT repeal two weeks before the New Year.
"
It's striking 8 bells by now, but what else was he expected to do? He campaigned on it, publically supported it at every opportunity, got his (Republican) Secretary of Defensee and career military Joint Chief of Staff on board to publically state the policy should be changed, had his military leaders commission a study*, and otherwise urged congress to take action. The repeal always had to happen in Congress, because, unlike segregation in the 40's, that's where it came from via the 'Rules of Land Naval Forces' clause in the Constitution.
You could argue that fighting the repeal in court was a mixed message (and for instance Boegiboe above does, I disagree**), but ultimately Obama achieved what he set out to achieve.
*and normally 'studies' are where policies go to die. This one wasn't and designed that way. It was on the other hand, pointed out by both 'sides' during the congresional hearings the inherent ridiculousness of polling a military organization on a policy matter.
**the courts getting involved in this would have not really hindered the 'unitary executive' would not have stopped Congress from continue to shirk their constitutionally mandated perogative and responsibility (which I agree is Not A Good Thing). Also, ,ost court decisions that effect the governement, even they achieve 'results' are much better at merely producing more bureaucracy. Which already the US DoD is almost as good at as killing people and breaking things) .
"
I'm inclined to be charitible* and say that rushing it 'the first time' is what caused the current (that is, current as of this morning) situation. Doing the way it was done led to a 'mission accomlished' that is strong enough to make it a fait accompli, and further avoided involvement by the courts that would had led to bad precedents or Executive Orders that could be recinded by President Romney or President Huckabee (or challenged in court themselves)
*which I admit is easier to be on an issue that doesn't effect one personally.
"
I hope this means there will be classier looking uniforms.
The Marine Corps Dress Blue Uniform is a frickin damn sharp looking uniform, probably the best in the business.
The Marine Corps was also the one most against the repeal of DADT.
Make of that what you will.
On “All Apologies”
And one *really* shouldn't access that one at work. :)
On “Anonymous launches new project, press release”
otherwise someone whose postings of that nature from such a computer would be a violation of the law.
Interesting that this would be an issue of concern.
On “What Can’t Congress Do Now?”
Presumably it prevents us from being compelled to commit murder, but that’s not very reassuring.
Fwiw, I wouldn't presume that
On “Like all conspiracies, there is likely less here than meets the eye”
From one point of view, it is in government's interest for Manning (if he did what he's accused of doing) to spend the next thirty years making big rocks into little rocks, and for Assange to simulataneuously have complete freedom to live the good life as a public celebrity.
The stark difference would magnify the "pour encourager les autres" effect.
On “Wednesday’s Words of Wisdom”
Are you sure there must, with certainty, be a “world’s most powerful” country.
In any sense of 'most powerful', yes. It's a relative measure. If a bunch of eight year olds run a 50 yd dash, someone is going to come in first, even though every one is going to take longer than Usain Bolt at twice the distance.
"
Well, back in the day there was this. It went away when the Soviet Union fell apart and they didn't have two kopeks to rub together, but this sort of stuff is coming back if not nearly as frequent. To be clear, it's *not* violating airspace, but is coming within the air defense zone and there's long standing treaty specifically with Soviet Union and now inheritted by the Russians governing these things (both on the water and in the air)
There is no such specific treaty with anyone else the rest of the world, but there is several longstanding agreements (and if it gets ratified the UNCLOS treaty, but for a practical matter, the US already follows most of the precepts) and practices that ensure the relative professionalism of these encounters. And the US is not the only guy who plays this game. (It's why there was a bruhaha between the Chinese and Japanese a few months ago)
Martime claims are of several different sorts - coastal waters, territorial waters, economic exclusion zones. Some countries conflate these claims and/or claim rights under them that are not recognized internationally. And most everyone has in some aspect excess claims. (Most common? drawing a straight line between two penisulas or islands that are too far apart as your baseline, rather than following the coastline. Famously potrayed by Libya's 'Line of Death' in the Gulf of Sidra.) Anyway, international law (or if one prefers international custom) is almost completely controlled by precedent and once something becomes customary, it becomes de facto and then de jure. (as you see in your Truman example) So everyone pushes their boundaries at every opportunity, and others always push back, lest they lose their perogative. It's pretty much all adverse posession when it comes to international boundaries.
But the important thing to remember: It's not just the US that does it. But the US does it most often as it has the biggest Navy in the world. Furthermore, the US has been doing the freedom of navigation thing since 1803. It's *the* long standing principle of US foreign policy consitently followed by everyone. I realize argument by 'it's always been done this way' is some sort of logical fallacy, but well, it's always been done this way.
"
Two disconnected musings
1) The America Fuck Yeah! argument does not claim that America has no faults, just the opposite. Dick moves are tolerated as part of an imperfect scheme to try to achieve some stability and greater good (two things themselves which are hard to define and often in conflict with each other). All human institutions are imperfect, and one can argue (and I do in fact argue) that ordinal listing is a mathematical certainty - that is *someone* is going to be the most powerful country in the world, and I'd rather it be the US (getting by with a little help from it's friends, as Rufus pointed out yesterday morning). But the argument also relies on the US not doing asshole things like invading Iraq (especially without a plan) nor being a pussy and keeping 100K+ troops in Afghanistan out of fear. And it also doesn't detract from the fact that we can still be the most powerful country in the world even with expending less resources, and need to, because we are out of money.
2) If the Bureau of Imperfect Analogy complaint department is still open, I'd like to submit this:
The US does not have a "Chinese Command" or even an "Asian Command", it has US Pacific Command which covers everything between 3 miles of the California coast to Madagascar.
"
The higher priority given to tolerating authoritarian right wing governments, over spreading 'democracy whiskey sexy', lends itself to the latter explanation. The only thing that arguably lends itself to the white man's burden mindset was the creation and implementation of the Peace Corps. But was always a small fraction of the foreign aid budget, which itself is a tiny fraction of the 'national security' budget.
On “Michael Moore posts bail for Julian Assange”
Sorry honey, I didn't know you were being ironic
On “Wednesday’s Words of Wisdom”
Indeed, for most of the century, it *WON* the argument.
This is exactly backward.
White Man's Burden (in the US context) kicked off in a paleolithic form with Monroe doctrine, ebbed and flowed from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of, well, everywhere else in Latin America (Tripoli happened earlier) and reached its peak with a man, a plan, a canal. Wilson actually reversed the white man's burden imperial impluse (despite being the reigning champion in the personnally racist department) with his general self-determination anti-imperial impulses that created the epononymous school of foreign policy. And then it was put to bed in the 30's when we were out of money.
Everything from 1938 to 1989 was *realpolitck* winning the argument. The enemy of my enemy was my friend. The relationship of the United States with any given country during this period was mostly, and many times exclusively, defined by that country's relationship with Nazi Germany (from 41-45) or with the Soviet Union (from 47-89)
It was only after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded 2 years later that, as last man standing, a different strain of thought become ascendent in the US: that the US is the inheritor of Rome and Britain as the Hegemon and the guarantor of the 'Pax' in a unipolar world. And these circle back to our man Monroe, but this time, for the whole earth.
On “Michael Moore posts bail for Julian Assange”
Yes, everyone knows that no one in Obama's Justice Department has a security clearance or more generally, access to any documents or files created before noon on Jan 20, 2009. It's pretty much a given that Karl Rove knows the only method to disseminate information in the world is through wikileaks - and arresting one person completely shuts down the network. It is also common knowledge that American right-wing political operatives make alliances with radical Scandavian feminists -- more precisely, that in Sweden, the fourth most corrupt country in the world it's a pretty trivial thing for the prime minister to order a municipal prosecutor to stage a politically motivated arrest warrant.
Really, you're a Garmin direction away from 123 Truther Lane, Birtherville USA with this type of stuff.
"
Assertion: Many commentators have stated that the disclosures thus far in wikileaks thus far largely conform with public pronouncements of the United States Government, albeit more detailed and pointed.
Postulate: The intelligence and diplomatic corps of the United States, like any large organization, has some diversity of opinion, but also a lot a group think and in some instances a degree of episystemic closure.
Theorem: In support of either stated orders, or in anticipation of what the bosses wanted or both. the various diplomats around the world circa late 2001 and 2002 would have been seeking out info tying Sadaam to WMDs and/or Al Qaida, and reporting any little tidbit they could come up with --> Lemma: and not reporting negative findings.
Hypothesis/Conclusion: If a set of diplomatic cables would have been been released circa 2002, like Moore would have liked, it would have *enhanced* George Bush's case for war, not diminished it.
Evidence to support hypothesis: Look at how many people around the world are secretly itching for war with Iran.*
Evidence that would refute hypothesis: If any of the cables actually show diplomats in the middle east counselling against the Iraq invasion, either directly or by proxy. (I am not aware of any, but could have missed it)
*Without the context of the actual as-happened Iraq war, such cables would not have been seen as double dealling governments wanting for the US wanting to its dirty work for them. Not by the public anyway (otherwise the First Gulf War wouldn't have been supported)
On “Monday Jukebox and Press Release UPDATE: ANONS FACE MASS ARRESTS”
Two data points
1) While Fox is generally on the TV in state side offices, in 'real' forward deployed ops centers, Al Jazerra is the feed of choice (alternating with BBC World News)
2) US bombs have hit everything from Sudanese factories to Chinese Embassies to Canadians, so I wouldn't take it *too* personally if I were Al Jazerra.
On “DADT fails in the Senate: Open Thread”
You know who else disolved the Senate and used the Governors to keep the system aligned? :)
On “Notes on video games as culture.”
Culture, by definition, is a collectively social endeavor: visual arts, performance art, musical arts
I'm trying to reconcile this sentence with the fact that many (most?) of the great and/or famous musical and visual artists in history ran the gamut from socially awkward to misanthropic to to completely bat-s(tuff) crazy.
On “Enhanced Security”
I would argue they should collect revenues as on fee on airplane tickets so taxpayers aren’t directly funding it but instead air traveler consumers
Maybe I'm misreading your subjunctive form and you already know this, but that's exactly what they do . They also charge the airlines directly because the TSA said the passenger fees were not enough. And apparently overcharged them, as there's something on the later site that talks about a refund from a court ruling this past summer.
(Note also that the passenger fee is for each 'enplanement' - meaning on the typical two-leg, one-way trip due to the hub and spoke arrangement, one pays the fee *twice* even though one goes through the security gate only once.)
On “$200,000,000 per arrest”
There is also the cost (though not borne by the taxpayer - until another bailout that is) of one or two marshals taking up the first class seats which are the most profitable ones for the airline.
On “Dealing with the DPRK”
I would think* that there's enough satellites and stuff to see a massing of tanks and other mobile units that a true 'surprise' ground assault can and would be arrested and/or preempted (and almost entirely by the ROK themselves). Otoh, like North said, with their in place artillery and rocket forces, if the Il son gives the word, it's probably as quick as 'ready aim fire' to rain a lot of pain on the greater Seoul metro.
*rather I would hope - for the 70 some odd billion we're spending on intelligence: http://washingtonindependent.com/59212/obama-intel-chief-reveals-intel-budget-is-75-billion
(although all that money and we can't win the Central Asia version of To Tell the Truth)
On “The crazy misadventures of the TSA”
I had to look up who Bryan Fischer was. I think Fred Phelps now has some competition.
On “I’ve Never Been in a Crowd Like This, They’re Nuts”
is probably unworkable.
That's because you got some people who want to start a war - start a nuclear war - at the gay bar.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.