Something to put his pearly white teeth a-grinding.


Mr. Biden, who may run for president in 2016, is viewed warily by Mr. Obama’s circle not only for being a gaffe-prone “Uncle Joe,” but also for, in their minds, being overly consumed with his own political future.

via Book Details Obama Aides’ Talks About Replacing Biden on 2012 Ticket –



Things my mother would tell the U.S. government.


“Just because we can do something doesnt mean we should do it,” he said.

via Obama says U.S. not snooping on ordinary people | Reuters.


‘Hello? Watana Siam? Yes, I’d Like to Order the Chicken Panang’

He argued that “modest encroachments on privacy” — including keeping records of phone numbers called and the length of calls that can be used to track terrorists, though not listening in to calls — were “worth us doing” to protect the country.

via Administration Says Mining of Data Is Crucial to Fight Terror –

As Barack Obama’s presidency lurched farther down the track of “I Never Thought I’d Be Doing [expletive deleted] Like This,” on Friday he in all seriousness tried to justify what even jaded wire service reporters were calling “sweeping” surveillance of Americans’ private lives.

“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Mr. Obama said.

Well, probably nobody. And, if they are, it’s under an entirely different part of the program.

via Intelligence for Dummies –

For my part, I say, Fine. Have at my phone records. I make so few phone calls that all I would be giving away are the numbers of a few good Thai places near my house and a car service that stubbornly refuses to make reservations more than 15 minutes ahead of time.

The problem here is one of the governing’s oldest: The cat, if it wasn’t already out of the bag, sure as [expletive deleted] is now.

You should not think that recent events will simply cement a previous status quo in place, rather it moves us down a very particular path and probably makes the entire problem worse.

via The loss of privacy and the collapse of creative ambiguity.

Mr. Obama, again in all seriousness, told reporters that spying on ordinary Americans is “not what this program is about.”

There he is wrong.

The worrisome thing isn’t that the government has gobbled up all those phone records, and whatever else. The worrisome thing is that it did it and no one even burped — not until now, anyway. Seemingly reasonable lawmakers and cabinet chiefs have tried to reassure Americans that, in all this snooping business, the government scrupulously followed the rules. Never mind that these are rules the government made up for itself.

Is it fear-mongering to ask where it will end? Maybe it is, but even the government’s shills, including one writing in The New York Times, couldn’t avoid pointing out the obvious.

On the surface, our system of checks and balances seems to be working. We cannot rule out the possibility that the voluminous records obtained by the government might, some day, be illegally misused. But there is no evidence so far that that has occurred.

via Making a Mountain Out of a Digital Molehill –

In the end, who cares about phone records? As we all know from the First Law of Movie Technology, “Enemy of the State” Clause, any freaky spying technique you can properly portray in a film is probably a generation behind existing technology, anyway. And, I’m asking here, are there any serious criminals hatching schemes over a 4G network?

In his infuriating remarks on Friday, Mr. Obama briefly showed his human side when he, probably reading from a script, told reporters that he had had “a healthy skepticism” about the spying when he first learned of it. But it apparently didn’t last long.

“You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Mr. Obama chirped.

And so here we are, snug up next to 100 percent security.

How does it feel? And, more to the point, was I right to order the chicken panang?

This is why gun rights are controversial.


The company, Zombie Industries, sells a range of three-dimensional “life sized” targets that “bleed when you shoot them.”

via National Rifle Association Bans Bleeding “Obama” Target, Others Remain.


My childhood is finally relevant.


At least 4 in 10 Americans believe that movies 42%, TV shows 52% and music 71% were better in the 80s than they are now.

via New National Survey Reveals The Republican Candidate Who Could Have Defeated President Obama: Ronald Reagan. – MarketWatch.



When conservatives take up armed resistance against D.C. despotism, theyll really regret some of the toys they gave the government. Rubio and Palin want the populace to be able to arm itself with assault rifles. But they want the government armed with F-35s — a $100 million-plus stealth plane with a top speed of Mach 1.6. When President Obama discovers his inner tyrant, it wont be a fair fight.

via Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners – Dominic Tierney – The Atlantic.


The Students of War

Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. …[lots of stuff deleted]… A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions.

via Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles –

Assessing the dystopian reality that emanates, almost robotically, from the above excerpts, David Luban of The Boston Review shook the bug parts and dried skin from his paperback Penguin Classics and asked himself “what the president may have taken from these two Christian writers and, more important, whether their arguments in fact support the morality of the president’s actions.”

I can save you a lot of time here by simply saying, War is not moral.

Nevertheless, I digress: “The central themes of just war theory,” Luban begins earnestly, even cheerfully, “are easy to grasp.” That is the good news and, as far as it goes, of course, that much is true. The roots of “just war,” you know, actually wrap seductively around the sprawling ouerve of the too-popular-for-his-own-good Aristotle and, perhaps, stretch tantalizingly to the tiresome, anti-egalitarian Plato, who more than even Erica Benton (Jill Clayburgh) in an “Unmarried Woman” was looking for good, moral men. It is a long, if futile, intellectual tradition.

The ideas of just war that come from Augustine and Aquinas, though, are not particularly meaningful or well-explained innovations. They are the same, starry-eyed Platonic politics hardened in the kiln of Roman law (casus belli), and then lacquered insensibly with a Christian sensibility.

I do not mean to criticize Augustine; he had a lot on his plate. Remember, Augustine was not conjuring ideas out of thin, olive-scented air like Plato, or from the inchoate Scriptures like Origen. Augustine lived at a time when civilization, at least in the West, was crumbling disturbingly down around the fringes of his toga. “City of God” was written immediately after the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 and and Augustine is never really able to find peace of mind. He dies in his home of Hippo in 430 as the Vandals are besieging the city.

In between, Augustine was part of a shift in biblical commentary from allegorical interpretations to more historical ones, a shift that follows the church’s movement out of the cultic shadows and that concerns itself increasingly with political aims. Above all, in musing about just war, he is trying to provide some hopeful comfort — and to reinforce the relevance of the church — to a literate elite that was supremely worried that hairy-chested barbarians would come out of the forest and string them up their you-know-whatses.

Luban, for himself, proceeds with a thoughtful discussion of what in war is “morally permissible,” and it does not take long for him to remark that “there are no simple answers.”

Urban II.

Perhaps he should have considered a more apt teacher for Mr. Obama: Pope Urban II.

Urban II, of course, is the pope who initiates the first crusade with a 14-month revival-style tour of what is now mostly France. Urban glad-handed with church officials and nobles and, probably, the least-offensive peasants, schlepping around the countryside in a calculated attempt to assert his political authority as a church reformer. A part of this campaign, and only a part, was an appeal for people to “take up the cross” and shake the infidels loose from the idealized holy city of Jerusalem. Ironically, these infidels were, at that moment, probably smug in the belief that they had already shaken the city loose of infidels themselves a few centuries before. (That is the notion of just war in a nutshell.)

I do not mean to revive the tired comparison of the United States military’s expeditioning (or that of any Western power) to the Crusades. Luban is talking about just war, and so am I. And the justifications that Urban promulgated in his sermons, Masses and general politicking while trudging through the mud and snow have the same admirably malleable characteristics vaguely expounded upon by Augustine. Urban’s innovation was to back it with political will and good timing.

Consider it the polished turd of old Roman foreign policy. To wit, just war is best assessed after the fact. Were you righting a wrong? Were you defending yourself? Did you win? Congratulations, that is a just war. There does not have to be a logical, rational justification from Scripture or Augustine or Aristotle or anyone else. Never mind that there isn’t one.

Whereas Augustine felt shudders in the foundations of civilization, Urban relied on the strength of it, of a Western Christian identity. His just war was not for survival, it was for control. In 1095-96, Urban was, like Gregory VII before him, embracing the ideas of just war in the context of a program of reforms intended to strengthen the church’s power, by rooting out corruption and other generally non-Christian elements. In short, at a time when the idea of a just war probably had real currency, Urban had already given up the ghost.

He probably was not thinking of the actual, prolonged conquest of the Holy Land, or about the Ten Commandments, or about the safety of pilgrims who were not in any danger anyway. In a warrior culture that had absorbed Christianity without changing its core values, he probably was thinking about the popes who, not too many years before, had in the absence of meaningful Roman authority or military power been effectively held hostage by enterprising Frankish warlords.

The world had become too sinful, Urban argued on his evangelizing and recruiting tour, allowing Muslim invaders to squeeze the frontiers of Christendom. Penance had to be done, and what better aim than the liberation (i.e. sacking) of Jerusalem, thereby bringing into sharper relief one of the important symbols of the church? By focusing the aggression of a society that was predisposed to knocking heads together, and by creating appealing motives (mainly, salvation) for the head-knocking (i.e. just war), Urban II gave a whole generation of bloodthirsty, land-grabbing noblemen valuable peace of mind while asserting the moral authority of the church and fashioning a crude political weapon for himself.

The thinking today has not advanced too far past such practical matters, as is evident on the op-ed pages of The Times:

What we need is not anxiety over targeted killings but a third way between the longstanding models of war and peace.

via The Legal Fog Between War and Peace –

For that matter, why not a side way and a slant way and a long way and a back way and a front way and a square way and any other way you can think of?

It goes too far to say that the United States is predisposed to cracking heads, but it does have the second-largest military in the world without having anywhere near the world’s second-largest population. It does not go too far to say that the idea that Mr. Obama is studying Augustine and Aquinas is, as another great philosopher on the subject of war, Col. Sherman Potter, would say, “mule fritters.”

In the end, a just war is, poetically, just war.

What You Missed in Today’s Times

It is easy to forget that Mr. Obama’s stimulus wasn’t the first.

via Republicans Malign a Stimulus, but the Plausible Options Were Few — Economic Scene –

The sculpture, which is five feet tall and weighs 250 pounds, is one of a pair of scowling athlete-combatants in intricate headdresses from the mid 900s who were positioned in battle-ready stances and come from one of Koh Ker’s temples; it is about 200 years older than the famous sculptures at Angkor Wat.

via Sotheby’s Caught in Dispute Over Prized Cambodian Statue –

A gallon of gas had dropped to $1.89 when Mr. Obama took office in 2009, in large part because of the fall in oil demand caused by the financial crisis, and has almost doubled since.

via Rising Gas Prices Give G.O.P. Issue to Attack Obama –

At About 2.8 Percent Interest

That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office not $6.3 trillion, and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years not $6.5 trillion. That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.

via : Dueling Debt Deceptions.