When GWB was in office, North Korea's Chia-pet leader was a bit more circumspect, and rightly so, in dealing with the West. Now that Obama is in office, Max Leader Chia-pet appears to have taken the measure of the man and the rest of administration - and is back to serious saber rattling. Obama just doesn't strike fear into the heart's of nuclear armed psychopaths the way GWB did and McCain likely would have.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the election of Obama, the "great healer", led another nation to use nuclear weapons? When it comes to dealing with international maniacs inclined to mass murder, McCain was the better choice. Oh well, at least we have a pro-abortion (a real issue, though I am staunchly anti-abortion ), pro gay marriage (a non-issue, they have no idea how lucky they are. Marriage primarily benefits the marriage/divorce industrial complex, i.e. lawyers and "family court" judges) president.
Yes, I know, (spare me the emails, I am 500 behind), if North Korea used a nuclear weapon it would not be Obama's fault. It WOULD be the fault of the Media, the Left, and the economic collapse, without whom he would not have been elected.
Too often I hear elitists say that there should be some intelligence or educational minimum in order to be able to vote. I got a better one: If you do not have children you are not mature enough to vote.
What's that have to do with anything?
Let me use an example from a contentious issue that has NOTHING to do with economics or energy - but describes perfectly how people's sense of politics, ethics, and values shift as they get older and have children. (And this is sure to piss people off - because of its accuracy. Soft headed and inaccurate claims - "Martians are the best dog trainers" - do not piss people off. "Black men can jump higher than white men" really pisses people off. I mean come on, Hollywood made a movie about the issue, remember? "White Men Can't Jump". We all used our inductive reasoning to come to this conclusion, but we are not allowed to say it out loud.)
The VAST MAJORITY of high school and college students (while they were students, that is) over the past 30 years were pro-choice. Yet 51% of Americans in a recent Gallop poll were Pro-Life. As people get older, AND HAVE CHILDREN, their views and outlooks change. Having a front row seat to the responsibilities of being a parent and contributing citizen changes folks.
Obama won 52% to 48%, or by 4%. Of voters with more than 1 child, it is my bet he lost by at least 10%, and perhaps as much as 20% by voters with 2 or more children (that they actually care for and provided for. Absentee fathers and welfare mothers are another story).
I am only pointing out my sense of American Demographics (as a former politco, this is the kind of thing we used to do). Obama won Manhattan in New York City by over 70%. Manhattan has the LARGEST CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE LIVING ALONE in the U.S. (ergo, childless). Obama lost Utah HUGE, Utah has the largest concentration of large families in the country, and Obama lost big in the South, the region with the greatest number of larger families.
In other words, being Left or Right in your middle age has much to do with your reproductive habits. Some would argue the opposite, that your reproductive habits were shaped by being Right or Left. Of course that argument is more than specious - it is outright silly. If that were true, then College students of yesteryear would have the same percentage make up of Right and Left as the middle aged folks of today - and that just ain't so.
I bring all of this up to show how political operatives "work" their candidate to win elections. And sometimes the operatives win - and America loses.
There won't be an energy crisis if Kim Jong-Il uses a nuclear weapon. There won't be an abortion issue, or a gay marriage issue, or flag burning issue, or a freedom fries issue. There won't be an economic crisis.
There WILL BE the greatest humanitarian crisis since the advent of the Third Reich.
But at least Obama is young, handsome, and half black... so we got that going for us.
Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com
Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com
25 comments:
You are right, Jeffers. If we had elected our own psychopath to the White House, then all the other international psychopaths would have been much more impressed.
Gaah
Gahh:
Is that the best you could come up with? Name Calling? Isn't that what 3rd graders do when their argument is insufficient on the merits?
This is a very complex problem, one that won't be solved by the simple minded symbolism of either the Left or Right.
George Carlin famously quiped that he "leaves symbols to the simple minded."
And since the Chicoms have no interest in whether the North Koreans use a nuclear weapon, it really is all Obama's fault because he's such a pussy.
Especially since North Korea has the capacity to deliver their huge nuclear arsenal anywhere on the planet, even to the extremely pro life mullahs and psychopaths in the Muslim world.
Booga, booga. They're all out to get us.
Is that logical enough?
BTW, McCain would probably have already used a tactical nuclear bunker buster on the Iranians and the crazy/stupid would really be on in Irak and Afghanistan.
I really wonder if North Korea and Iran are suicidal countries. If they launch a nuclear strike on any country, then their entire country, people, culture and way of life will be wiped out within minutes by a response from US nuclear armed submarines.
It seems to me that North Korea is testing the waters of how far it can go before Obama actually does something. One can only hope that state actors are rational and not suicidal.
~Dennes
I think the North Koreans are testing the Obama administration, but also using it as a negotiating ploy to get extra concessions in the next round of 'discussions'. Let's see what Obama does first, before assuming the worst.
But the good news is that China, which is a very close trading partner to NK, has come out strongly against the tests and knows its not in China's best interests. China would certainly stop NK from starting a war in it's back yard.
I'd say China and NK is a bit like having a Rottweiler on a lead; China likes it to growl and bark now and again, but won't let it off to get into a fight!
A bit like America uses Israel!
P.S. Greg: I thought you didn't want to talk about abortion? ;-)
"When it comes to dealing with international maniacs inclined to mass murder, McCain was the better choice."
When it comes to international maniacs inclined to mass murder, Bush and Cheney will be tough to beat.
At some point someone will come along and be worse than them, but it will take over a million deaths to even be equal.
Why does the US need to go bankrupt in dealing with countries like Iran and NK?
Both countries are surrounded by nuclear powers who are quite able to deal with any misbehavior.
Donal:
I was trying to bring up the evolution of people politics - and it that issue had the easiest demographic analysis for folks to understand. Gun control and gay marriage just didn't have it.
People let their politics get in the way for productive analysis. I was also trying to point out that while my politics were "here" my analysis led me "there" - sort of full disclosure.
This is also NOT TO SAY that the election of Obama will lead to a nuclear development on the Korean peninsula, only that the odds have increase somewhat, and I place the reason for that at the feet of those I think that should bear the responsibility should this come to pass.
Because, at that point, ALL of those other "issues" (non issues, really) will not matter a good fart.
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with energy? Nobody who has a functioning nuclear weapon is going to use it (except us, which Truman didn't want to do until it became very clear if he didn't, a LOT more people would be killed). The rich people run countries, and they have little use in provoking another country to use their nukes. It's a death sentence. "Sabrerattling" is what countries do just to show the world they are still alive (Iran, a defeective country, does it all the time). Kim-Jonggg Il may be funny looking, but he knows what he has and doesn't want to lose it. And as far as NY versus Utah goes, nobody goes to visit Utah. Nobody really cares about Utah, and Utah likes it that way. :)
Jeffers said- "George Carlin famously quiped that he "leaves symbols to the simple minded."
Simpleminded?
" I got a better one: If you do not have children you are not mature enough to vote."
"In other words, being Left or Right in your middle age has much to do with your reproductive habits. "
"There won't be an energy crisis if Kim Jong-Il uses a nuclear weapon. "
"But at least Obama is young, handsome, and half black... so we got that going for us."
Donal:
I would be just as quick to point out an irony committed by pro-life, or pro-gun, or pro freedom fries fighters if I felt that they were the constituency for candidates that represent "hope" but might in fact have some serious unintended consequence.
The issue here is unintended consequences - and they do not get any bigger than a nuclear explosion, whose secondary effects would likely be the starvation of 1 o 2 billion people.
Stay with me.
I am a chess aficiando. Love to play. In chess, each move alters the remaining possible moves, and one must consider the consequences of each move.
The same is true here.
I think it to be the height of ridiculous to stand on ceremony/politics regarding the possibility of a nuclear exchange, as that "move" would negate them all.
Dear anon @8am:
And your point is?
The first and last of your quotes were my attempt at humor. The second is supported through statistical analysis, and the third is merely my sense of global trade in the event ANY major city has been destroyed in a nuclear explosion.
So, please, expand upon your criticism. Spell bind me with your acumen.
In your own words, if you do not mind.
Donal:
With your background I would value your input on the ANALYSIS - not the rightness or wrongness.
If people's politics DO NOT evolve, then the percentage of college students and 50 years old supporting these contentious issues would remain constant.
To my mind, that clearly is NOT happening.
That the politics of, say "Race" in AMerca, for example, would have an effect on the nuclear outcome on the Korean peninsula is - I think - the very definition of unintended consequences and an excellent example in chaos theory.
Hey, I was just thinking out loud.
America sends food and oil every year to N.Korea, so we are in fact supporting Kim Jung Il, no matter what we say. And we have done so for the last 3 administrations, Republican or Democrat. So all parties involved support the status quo.
I like in order to vote federally you have to pay income taxes. Its looking like the lower 51% is forcing the other 49% to pay all the taxes.
I think NK isn't as important as you'd suggest.
But I agree that people change their minds by their circumstances. Here's a short personal tale;
An ex-girlfriend's father was a welder, but over many years of big contracts and hard work he'd built himself a large house and tidy nest-egg. He voted labour and was a union man, but I used to tease him that if the left took power they'd tax all his money off him. He admitted that he'd been worried about that. The conclusion to our subsequent converstions was that people vote Left when they had nothing (e.g. young and starting out), but voted right when they had something to tax or lose.
Kids come into that equation too.
But once you start with 'rights to vote' you'd also need to move onto 'right to have children' too, a decision with far more potentially disasterous consequences.
Re; pro-life or pro-choice, I have to admit I'm undecided. I have trouble with the logic of spending fortunes on giving people who can't have babies a pregnancy, and killing other babies in the womb. I have problems in spending fortunes keeping sick old people alive who'll die soon anyway (50%) of the healthcare budget in the US)when a fraction of that would save the misery of hundreds of thousands of babies in the developing world (and educate them too). I acknowledge the futility of all this when there are 6.8bn people on an earth that can only sustain 2bn (at best) without cheap oil.
Meanwhile Greg, if you try to get your head around all the possible consequences of all the possible permutations, your head WILL explode! Consider yourself warned!
By the way, a UK think tank has suggested that any couple who has a baby should be automatically married under the Law, so the father is fully responsible for both mother and child. THAT would have interesting consequences!
Donal:
As always, well reasoned, well said, and politely delivered.
I was not serious when I said the "no kids - no vote" thing. I was making fun of the MoRons that I read of in the comment section of other blogs, such as the energybulletin et al, that go on to claim that the masses are too dumb and only 28 year old, trust fund grad students from Berkley should vote.
When I get political, I usually have my tongue squarely in cheek.
In any even, you clearly received what I was getting at:
Our political views are in a constant state of evolution, and what some young people believe to be a foregone conclusion they might feel differntly about in 30 years or so.
Obama's international apology tour scared me s#!tless. Not that the US hasn't done things that deserve apologies, but that he is spreading the perception of weakness. His weakness may even be a fact. Who knows. In any case, no perceived weakness in this world will go untested, as you have also noticed.
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela et al. are watching. China may have put NK up to this latest round of tests, for all we know. It's pretty likely. Their policies will be greatly influenced by Mr. Obama's reaction to North Korea's actions. Look out!
Regards,
Coal Guy
Coal Guy; A few years ago I dated an Icelandic lady. We took her two sons to France, but she was upset that the culture there would be a bad influence on them, because she thought all the men there were gay. She had made the elementary mistake that strength means aggressive macho, and didn't realise there are more subtle, intelligent ways of expressing strength.
But don't worry; in the future there'll be new versions of GWB to vote for. Maybe Arny will stand?
;-)
Greg, I rarely disagree strongly with what you post, but today I'm afraid I do.
Firstly, if NK uses a nuclear weapon it won't be Obama's fault, or the media's, or the loony lefts or whoever else in the USA you want to blame it on. It will be the fault of the megalomaniacs who run NK, plain and simple.
NK is not a colony of the USA, it is not under the USA's jurisdiction in any way, shape or form. It is its own sovereign nation. This notion of the USA being the world's policeman is really getting a bit old.
NK is a secretive, paranoid & oppressive regime where the leaders keep in power by telling their people that the whole world is NK's enemy. Its run by the military, and military men like to flex their muscles from time to time & show everyone how strong they are. I just don't believe that they care that much about the USA or even that the US is their prime target - SK is, followed closely by Japan and probably China.
Please, get back to writing about oil & financial matters.
Further to what I just posted, the NK leaders also don't care that their people are starving or that there's barely enough electricity for a couple of hours power per day. They don't care when international leaders stand up and denounce them - they probably get off on it (hey look, everyone's taking notice of us - respect!).
If good old punch-drunk McCain had been pres they would probably have done the same & enjoyed watching his angry raving on their version of youtube, then told the hungry masses how America wants to destroy them & their dear leader but "don't worry, our nuclear weapons will protect us."
"People let their politics get in the way for productive analysis." A few of your recent blogs sound like that.
China does not really have any interest in reining North Korea in. Think "scissors strategy" as in the Chinese invasion of India and the Soviets "help".
China's main interest in North Korean nukes are getting the U.S nukes in South Korea out. S.K based nukes can strike China in no time at all.
Finally, nukes or any other weapons are just like any other weapon in anyone's arsenal. Nukes will be used again, on a first strike basis, when a nation state finds it in it's national interests. Man at his core is still the same animal he has always been.
The U.S will not use nukes in a first strike. Because of this policy we are very vulnerable and nations like N.K are emboldened.
AS other commenters here nave noted, your argument hangs on caricatures and the "insanity" of N. Korea to launch a nuclear missile. For what purpose? To what end? The US under Bush failed to cow N. Korea and you act as if this all started under Obama and would not have happened under Bush. Got any proof? Both Bush and Obama had/have the wrong policy re N. Korea.
This site typically has excellent analysis. This post is not analytical; it appeals to fear and prejudice. Go back to politics where this is what passes for consultation.
Touchy, Touchy!
Perhaps I am completely wrong and out of bounds with my commentary.
Perhaps nuclear armed dictators are playing certain political factions here in the U.S. like a fiddle.
The good news? I am not president of Harvard, and you don't have to read my blog.
Post a Comment