Monday, October 31, 2011

Dear America



“Winning overseas means re-election for Obama in 2012 so he can finish bankrupting the country while destroying the Constitution. But apart from the president’s claque, no one else is seeing Afghanistan quite that way, it appears, and there might even be a longing in the country for a president who will speak frankly about how badly the war is going as a prelude to getting out of the quagmire. Will Obama be able to hold on with the plausible fiction that he is presenting, or will enough of the media and public finally see through the game that is being played and vote him out of office? Or will he only be able to survive because the Republican candidate, whoever that might be, is perceived as being even more dangerous than he is? That is the true dilemma of American politics: Bad is invariably succeeded by worse in a dizzying line-up of the ruthlessly ambitious but mentally and morally challenged who seek the highest office in the land.”


I write as a Canadian citizen, one of your northern neighbors (“neighbors” spelled incorrectly), an inhabitant of a country that shares with you the world’s previously “longest undefended border.”

That was then. This is now. Bring on the drones.

I, an ordinary Canadian citizen of grumpy disposition and possibly malignant tendency to read, have long been critical of American foreign policy and vented spleen on multiple occasions, some - like Giraldi - on the Antiwar.com web site, a bastion of libertarianism, although I myself am a prairie populist who thinks that universal health care is a no-brainer. My view of the current Canadian government is of a proto-fascist police state that mirrors the American drift to the same. As George Carlin said, there’s no need for a new Iraqi constitution because the USA has one it isn’t using.

However trenchant my criticism, there are no criticisms of American foreign policy more excoriating than those of Americans, like those of Philip Giraldi. He and others like him give me hope.

Meanwhile back at the United Nations Security Council, the current endgame of “responsibility to protect” is being played out – Gareth Evans arguing as might be expected that the whole thing was a wild success and a blueprint for UN involvement in the future, as in fact Michael Ignatieff has argued with considerable eloquence.

As my kids would say, “Yeahno.”

First of all, we all need to know what actually happened in Libya, an accounting of civilian deaths and injured caused by the sclerotic autocratic Gaddafhi/Kadafi/Quaddafi whatnot regime, as opposed to NATO. This wasn’t a UN operation; it was an improvised NATO operation. Anyway, we need a straightforward accounting in order to honestly assess the whole R2P thing, the control experiment unfortunately not being possible, despite the enthusiasm of Evans, Ignatieff, and others who have a stake in proving themselves correct.

Then, there is the grillion dollar involvement in Afghanistan. There’s a lot of windy verbiage about the whole “Occupy Wall Street” thing, from which is missing the obvious conclusion that the USA has its own horrendous welfare state which is the military. It contributes nothing to the American economy except as Michael Herr memorably described it, “noise, waste, and pain,” and accounts for the American national deficit as well as the destruction of any American example for “leadership” in the civilized world.

You know, it’s not clear why the USA regards “leadership,” particularly its own, as its unique role in the world, the whole “leader of the free world” fantasy being exactly that. The American delusion that it is destined to lead the world into a better life – OK, “Manifest Destiny” – clearly sucks, as was obvious in 1873, when Treaty 3 was signed at Northwest Angle, Lake of the Woods, in large part to forestall the treatment of native populations like the treacherous abrogation of the Fort Laramie Treaty.

So here’s a message to America from one of your best friends: wake up. You can agitate for smaller government and greater individual responsibility, and against the “redistribution of wealth,” but somebody has to look after the chronic schizophrenics and the traumatized people who have been fighting self-evidently stupid, aimless wars in Asia, and the combination of poverty, humiliation, impotence, and testosterone is a recipe for disaster, like the French Revolution.

The Occupy Wall Street people are painfully trying to reinvent the wheel and point this out to you. You’ve already invented the wheel, which is to say, The Constitution of the United States of America. Use it or lose it.

Use it. Please.

Make Wall Street a UNESCO World Heritage Site

Another of the world's greatest ruins






Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Mark Carney and Jamie Dimon




















Why can't we get this on YouTube? What's with the private meeting? It's public policy and fabulous entertainment.

"He couldn't quite remember what the dreams were in fact, but they had seemed immensely important at the time. They had certainly not involved this huge towering office block he was now falling down the side of. All of that had come when some of the original team had started to settle down and get greedy, while he and others had stayed out in the field, researching and hitch hiking, and gradually becoming more and more isolated from the corporate nightmare the Guide had inexorably turned into, and the architectural monstrosity it had come to occupy. Where were the dreams in that? He thought of all the corporate lawyers who occupied half of the building, all the 'operatives' who occupied the lower levels, and all the sub-editors and their secretaries and their secretaries' lawyers and their secretaries' lawyers' secretaries, and worst of all the accountants and the marketing department."

Douglas Adams
Mostly Harmless

International affairs and the scientific method

















Anne-Marie Slaughter, she of impeccable credentials (Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, McDonald's, ack!) has suggested a “thought experiment” – this is Einstein isn’t it? – in which there is no military intervention in Libya.

Her conclusion:


"Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine the UN did not vote to authorise the use of force in Libya in March. Nato did nothing; Colonel Muammer Gaddafi over-ran Benghazi; the US stood by; the Libyan opposition was reduced to sporadic uprisings, quickly crushed. The regimes in Yemen and Syria took note, and put down their own uprisings with greater vigour. The west let brutality and oppression triumph again in the Middle East.
"This is the scenario many wise heads were effectively arguing for with their strong stands against intervention to stop Col Gaddafi. Over the months those analysts have reminded us of their views, calling Libya a quagmire."
This isn’t an experiment, and Ms. Slaughter has no data, only speculation. There’s an important difference between speculation and data. In international affairs of course, it’s difficult to do a controlled experiment, as it is in geology. It is however, important to distinguish the difference.

Likewise, Michael Ignatieff has written an eloquent statement about Libya, conveniently ignoring the Tunisian experiment, the Egyptian experiment, and UN Security Council Resolution 1970.

My point is not that Slaughter and Ignatieff are wrong, but that they exist in their own self referencing universe, that they ignore inconvenient data, and in fact that this is the problem of people who have impeccable credentials but no actual experience in testing reality, the scientific method, and who rely on "expertise" based on words meaning something exclusively to themselves, like the Sophists.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The F-41

nth Generation Fighter



F-41 design specs:
  • single pilot
  • reliable aerodynamics
  • interoperability
  • cheap
  • unknown purpose
  • mostly harmless