I can't take any more media, be it mainstream or social or any other kind, because the general noisy emotional overdrive and hyperreaction over Trump's inauguration from both supporters and opponents alike is giving me a headache. It's gotten to the point that I am half-expecting febrile friends of mine both on the left and right to start yelling at me because I haven't been posting excitable effluvia nonstop online.
So I give you one libertarian's bemused thoughts:
It’s been a weird couple of months. I’ve seen more people unfriend each other on FaceBook than in the past few years combined; There have been several reports of both Trump supporters and minorities being physically attacked; I’ve been asked to wear a safety pin to proclaim to the world that I am not a racist, because the presumption now is that everyone is a racist and you have to (secretly - only not so secretly) announce to everyone if you’re not; and the senior editor of ThinkProgress is afraid of his plumber. (This, based solely on whatever profiling techniques they use over at ThinkProgress - “… a middle-aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week’s news.” - rather than anything resembling a conversation with the man.)
Here’s the thing: I’m a libertarian. I’ve been surrounded by people who don’t agree with me for as long as I can remember and it has never occurred to me to isolate myself from everyone because of our political differences. Certainly not to assault them. Nor am I filled with anxiety by the thought that people who work in my home might have different political views than mine. To me, you’re all a bunch of fascists. But I’ve somehow learned to live with you.
Heh! Seriously, though, later the writer says, "For me, watching people unravel over this election has been instructive," and what ultimately follows is not unlike what I've said about why an overly powerful executive is a Very Bad Thing and that it's still a Very Bad Thing even if (and maybe especially if) a guy you happen to like is sitting behind the Resolute desk. Just imagine someone you hate and fear having those same powers. You don't like that? Then maybe those are really stupid, dangerous powers that nobody should have, period.
Oh, one more thing. I've heard plenty of Obama-love over the last few days ranging from the classy to the completely deranged, but the one I remember the best is this: someone I know actually said that s/he wished Obama were a king so he could stay in power forever and we wouldn't have to deal with Trump. Yes, you read that right. Wished Obama were a king. Criminy, this actually happened in earnest. I half-expected the ghost of George Washington to appear on the spot and slap this person into next week. You've missed the entire point of the American Revolution.
I am so tired.
Call the deal what it is with a headline of "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals." So, yeah, even by his own stated standards. Compare and contrast.
By the way, I was being sarcastic in the post title. Nowadays I can never tell if people understand what sarcasm is.
Oh, and the Onion nailed it 2 whole years ago.
I ended up wanting to excerpt too much, so let me suggest that you read the whole thing as a jumping off point for analysis. More off-the-cuff nonsense after the fold.
Hope and change. Well, change, anyway:
If anything, the international situation Obama faced when he assumed the presidency was, in many respects, relatively auspicious. Despite the financial crisis and the recession that followed, never since John F. Kennedy has an American president assumed high office with so much global goodwill. The war in Iraq, which had done so much to bedevil Bush’s presidency, had been won thanks to a military strategy Obama had, as a senator, flatly opposed. For the war in Afghanistan, there was broad bipartisan support for large troop increases. Not even six months into his presidency, Obama was handed a potential strategic game changer when a stolen election in Iran led to a massive popular uprising that, had it succeeded, could have simultaneously ended the Islamic Republic and resolved the nuclear crisis. He was handed another would-be game changer in early 2011, when the initially peaceful uprising in Syria offered an opportunity, at relatively little cost to the U.S., to depose an anti-American dictator and sever the main link between Iran and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.
Incredibly, Obama squandered every single one of these opportunities.
Squandered or, in some cases, "threw away with both hands."
Obama's top 10 foreign policy disasters. Number 1 is Syria because:
This is a blunder that arguably sums up every one of Obama’s weaknesses in conducting foreign policy. ...
Syria has shown us the many faces of Barack Obama.
First we had Obama the deer in the headlights, doing nothing for a year after the revolt against Bashar al-Assad broke out in April 2011 and people started dying—a period when there was a real opportunity to shift the balance of forces in the Middle East.
Then we had Obama the redliner in August 2012, promising swift action if Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels … then doing nothing when they were used.
Then came Obama the unilateralist, deciding he had to take military action so he wouldn’t look like a prevaricating poltroon. This was immediately followed by Obama the devious, leaving ultimate responsibility for the decision to Congress.
By then, of course, half a million people were dead and Al Qaeda was left to take over leadership of the rebellion against Assad.
Then came Obama, president of the Vladimir Putin fan club, gratefully taking up the Russian leader’s offer to broker the handover of Assad’s chemical weapons stash because it got Obama off the hook for military action. It also taught Putin that if he wanted to start reassembling the broken bits of the old Soviet Union, starting with Ukraine, Obama wouldn’t raise a hand to stop him.
Here's the transcript of the speech. The reviews are rolling in, and, well ... You can read them for yourself. The bloom is off the rhetorical rose according to the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and even the New York Times, which said this:
Mr. Obama’s talk of the need for more transparency about drone strikes and intelligence gathering, including abusive surveillance practices, was ludicrous. His administration had to be dragged into even minimal disclosures on both topics. Just Tuesday, the administration said it wanted to make further deletions from a legal memo on drone strikes that a court ordered it to make public.
Ouch.
Personally I don't think a commencement speech is really a place for a talk about foreign policy or anything aside from a few quick anecdotes and stories, a bit of life advice, and then hearty congratulations and a swift, cheerful end because - let's get real - no matter where and who you are, nobody wants to listen to you. Everybody wants to grab their diploma, fling their headgear into the air, find their families, and start celebrating.
Get ready for alcohol poisoning, citizen! Here are Greg Gutfeld's SOTU drinking game rules, and they are brutal:
Every time he says ‘folks,’ drink.
Every time he says ‘fair share,’ drink.
Every time he says ‘extraordinary,’ drink.
Every time he brags about working tirelessly, drink.
When he frets about lack of compromise, drink.
If he says, ‘Bring me a bill, and I’ll sign it,’ drink.
When he brings up the middle class, the people he’s ruining, drink.
Every time he says, ‘It’s the right thing to do,’ drink.
Every time he cites someone that his policies have helped, drink.
If she’s in the audience, drink some more.
Every time he says, ‘I never said it would be easy,’ drink.
If he says that after mentioning ObamaCare, drink again.
If he says ObamaCare’s rough start was worth it, drink.
And every time he reminds us that running a country is really hard, say, ‘Yeah, we can tell,’ and drink …
Finally, each time you feel like you’re being screwed, drink.
Then again, being buzzed or even all-out sloshed might be the only way to endure the meaningless yakfest to come. I'm not even going to bother, frankly. Did you know that Skyfall is now streaming via Netflix?
Hey, I thought Afghanistan was the "good" war. Apparently not. Dignified Rant has the link to former secretary of defense Robert Gates' new book. What he says about Obama's approach to Afghanistan is as unsurprising as it is infuriating.
Winners and losers. No surprises.
Top 3 winners:
- Vladimir Putin and Russia
- Iran
- Assad
Top 3 losers:
- The Muslim Brotherhood and democratic Islamism
- The EU
- The Obama Administration
Out of a very crowded field, this piece picks three: the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (an Iranian resistance group), the Syrian rebels, and (of course) Israel.
The quote of the day comes from the article too:
"The lesson there is, when the United States says it has your back, don't listen."
How damning. As for "smart power," this feckless Administration makes it look dumber all the time.
It's obvious who's living in a perilous fantasyland and who's living in grim reality. Here's a piece of Netanyahu's speech.
Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself. I want there to be no confusion on this point: Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.
Such clarity is rare indeed nowadays. I can only wish our own wretched leadership were capable of it. (Video of Netanyahu's entire speech here.)
