Much has been made in this election about John McCain’s judgment. Whether it was suspending his campaign, selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, or keeping Sarah Palin from the media for a while. So let us talk about judgment.

I turn to the junior Senator from Illinois. Mr. Obama has spent considerable time defending his associations with Rezco, Ayers, et al as innocent. Perhaps, they were in fact innocent associations. Perhaps Mr. Obama is the proverbial babe in the woods, who looked into their eyes and saw their souls. But that leaves one lingering question. Were these associations sensible? Were they, good judgment?

It would seem to me that Barrack Obama is an adroit a politician as we have seen in a number of years. Any attack on him slips by harmlessly, or is rejoined by a cry of racism. (Ask Hillary, she knows.) So this fundamentally competent political operative would have us believe that his Annenberg Challenge relationship with Bill Ayers was entered into with nary a thought of the potential baggage it would carry? There can only be two potential explanations.

Explanation one would be that his association with Ayers was circumstantial, and the result of his tireless efforts to move this program forward. One that failed miserably. So it would seem that Obama’s judgment was flawed on two counts. Tainting himself by associating with Ayers, and secondly by pushing forward a program that failed so spectacularly.

It is worth noting that unlike most scandals where the crimes of an associate come to light after the association begins, Obama’s relationship with Ayers was initiated well after Ayers crimes were known. Further, it should be noted that the Annenberg Project’s failure were entirely predictable. By associating with outside “partners” who were able to use funding for their own purposes without oversight, no person of good judgment could have expected the angels of their better natures to prevail. Further, the initial limit of 10% usage of funds for “operational costs” were lifted on Obama’s watch. Another fine example of good judgment.

Explanation two is the more hypothetical. It would hold that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers shared a common political agenda. That in the harsh calculus of politics, Obama saw a benefit. And after computing this cost-benefit analysis, he chose to ally himself with this admitted terrorist and traitor.

In either case, whether it is his associating with Ayers (or Others) out of poor judgment or some more damning reason, the best that can be argued is his bad judgment. Or worse.

When one dissects Andrew Sullivan's recent piece in "The Atlantic," only one conclusion is possible:  The man is an idiot and a shill for Obama.

In a nutshell, his argument is that Iran seems more reasonable these days since they have been effective in becoming a regional hegemon.  Also, were Israel or the US to take pre-emptive action against Iran, "Such an act in today's context would immediately pour gasoline on the Islamist fire, uniting Shia and Sunni in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and anti-Western fervor."  This of course is based on Robert Baer's article in the Daily News.

Ok, let me weigh in here, because this is the sort of thinking that starts really BIG wars.

First of all, basing our strategy on what we think someone is going to do, contravenes the basics of US Strategy.  In 1950, the United States National Security Council developed a then classified report called NSC-68.  The basic premise of this 58-page document is that the US must base its defensive strategy NOT on what a potential opponents INTENSIONS are, but rather on what their CAPABILITIES are.

The reason is simple.  In the real-world, we can never really know what our adversaries intentions are.  We may think we know, we may be pretty sure, but we just don't know.  Nor can we ever know.

Now, Mr. Baer is a former CIA Case Officer who was trained in determining what foreign powers intentions are.  This is the sort of intelligence that decision makers need to assist them in developing courses of action.  But they are not policy themselves.

Andrew Sullivan misconstrues Baer's assessment as a policy recommendation.  It is not only wrong, but dangerous.

We must prepare for the world of tomorrow, in which an adversarial Islamist state has both the means and the intent of using a nuclear weapon for the avowed intention of the destruction of the Israeli state.  If, during our efforts we determine that war can be averted, then wonderful.  Those efforts however need to be both diplomatic AND military.  Diplomatic actions, not backed by the threat of violent action, devolve to so much drivel.  Economic sanctions have some net effect in certain circumstances, but are not sufficient alone to dissuade a determined state actor.  In fact, under the circumstances we now face, they will most likely have a negative effect of losing the propaganda battle within Iran, and stiffening popular support of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

We can see how well sanctions have worked against North Korea and Iran over time.

Mr. Sullivan is of the opinion that delicate negotiations are needed, and Obama is the right guy.

“To my mind, the job needs delicacy, calm, authority and patience. Above all: steadiness. The choice seems obvious to me.”

It would seem to me, that is precisely what does not work. Risk averse leaders are a tyrant’s delight. Ronald Reagan was successful in bringing the Soviets to heel, not because he was delicate, calm and patient, but because he called them the evil empire, opposed them at every step, and was prepared to push the button if needed. This is the essence of nuclear brinkmanship. When the Soviet’s embraced Glasnost, that was sufficient to bring us back to the table.

The Iranians are hoping that we will elect Obama, and do not say so because they do not want to jinx their luck. But believe you me, they want another Jimmy Carter. And as Mr. Sullivan said, the choice seems obvious to me. Only this time, we will all be the hostages, and won’t be just 444 days.

Ok, yes, if you live long enough, you will see everything. And today I read that both Michelle Malkin and Kos at Dailykos agree with Newt Gingrich that the bailout is a bad idea.

Gingrich urges vote against 'stupid' Paulson plan
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 09/23/08 01:47 PM [ET]
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that any lawmaker who votes for the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout package, which he called a “dead loser,” will face defeat in November.

Gingrich (R-Ga.) said he thinks Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is trying to scare lawmakers into passing the bailout plan quickly and without thorough study...

Continued here: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-09-23.html

I AM DUMBFOUNDED.

Kos says it best:

You want a bipartisan popular revolt on both sides of the ideological divide? This will do the trick.

See:

and http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...686/495/607689

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/23...gets-on-board/

This morning on the Today Show:

(This is from memory, so it may not be word for word)

Matt Lauer:  You condemned Sen McCain for not supporting the AIG Bailout, yet Sen Biden your running mate, said basically the same thing a few minutes later in a different interview.  This gives the appearance of just trying to gain some partisan advantage.  Isn't this the sort of thing that voters are tired of?

Obama: Well, Joe may have spoken too soon, but I will tell you what voters are tired of.  The same old Bush administration policies that created this mess.  You don't get to take a 26 year voting record and throw it out the window.

(Now I am going to try and channel Bill O'Reilly)

Talking Points:

You, Mr. Obama barely have a voting record at all, and can change your positions with the wind to take whatever position polls the best.  This country faces an economic challenge which will require consumer confidence to get out of.  By attempting to spread panic and worry for partisan advantage, you hurt our economy even more.

In point of fact, the policies which created this mess grew out of Clinton era laws which encouraged banks to make riskier loans to increase home ownership, and other policies which required banks to make a certain percentage of loans to local areas which banks operate in regardless of the default risk.

It is disingenuous to campaign on returning the economic prosperity of the Clinton years on the one hand, and misrepresent those same policies on the other.  

The truth of the matter is that the prosperity of the Clinton years was based on mortgaging our future. Interest rates were lowered to encourage economic growth by making money cheap for businesses to invest in capital improvements.  However long-term, these same measures devalued the dollar in world market, and encouraged foreign investors to gobble up what was at that time cheap American businesses due to the weak dollar.

Now eight years after the Clinton policies, we are seeing the natural outcome of those policies come to fruition.  We garnered immediate gains eight years ago by mortgaging our future, and the bill is now due.  The market could not sustain the ever increasing rise in real estate values.  Short term we were able to ride that trend by making money ever cheaper, but ultimately there is only so low, and so long you can sustain those interest rates.

President Bush is not blameless here, but I will need to give him some slack considering the additional challenges of the post 9/11 world.  Making controlled changes to the Clinton economic policies would have been wildly unpopular due to the Iraq War, and would have caused home prices to fall sooner.  In retrospect, this would have been preferable to the current market collapse, but hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.

Mr. Obama, I must tell you that I do NOT trust you, nor should American voters.  Your history shows no record of leadership on any issue that you support.  In fact your ideology is suspect.  So even if I were to believe a single word out of your mouth, I would still not support you because your policies are ill-thought out and reckless.  You propose spending nearly a Trillion dollars on new programs with a promise of paying for it by raising taxes on only on the “rich.” Not only is this akin to convincing us how much you saved shopping by using coupons, it is counter to American principles of reward for risk and hard work.

What you really are proposing are the failed policies of socialist dogma which calls for income redistribution.  Perhaps the Europeans would be interested in your “leadership” somewhere, but as for this American, I will reject you and your so-called ideas.

The other day I was taking a poll, and had something of an epiphany.  I realized that I consider the modern incarnation of the far-left as an abnormal condition.

It is, in my mind, an intensely risk averse ideology that seeks to compensate for the rejection of the family unit.

With me so far?

Historically, mankind has had to endure warfare, disease, famine, natural disaster and life-threatening accidents.  We have physiologically and socially adapted to these challenges by forming large extended families, clan systems, tribal systems and villages.  All of these constructs used the family as the base unit of organization.  Family, it may be said, is the atom (in this case meaning the Greek atomos, indivisible) of all societal constructs.

It was the family that we struggled to ensure survived.  From a Darwinian perspective, our need is to propagate our genetic material and ensure its survival.  It follows then, that instinctively, each of us should desire to increase our property and assets, and distribute them to our heirs to allow them to stand on our economic shoulders.

If we include a bit of Games Theory then, we can see that life is an iterated game of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.  While the individual will perish, the game is actually played between competing bloodlines and not between individuals.  This is important in several ways.   Firstly, cooperation becomes much more likely in a Continuous Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.  Defection (which causes immediate gains in single iteration games) is punished over several games.  In this way, we see cooperative behaviors ala Locke, in a self-interested, competitive world ala Hobbes.  The failure in classical Social Contract Theory is that it uses the individual as the unit of analysis instead of the family.

So what does this mean in plain language?  It means that the survival of the family, not in the individual is paramount.  That given similarly ordered families will tend to cooperate with each other over time, rather than compete, because cheating one another is punished over time.  Strangers, however, are treated differently because there is no expectation that treating a stranger poorly will be punished in the future.  Strangers are bargained with, local families are aided.

So what the heck does any of this have to do with modern left wingers???  Well, if you take the basic premise of Conservative versus Liberal arguments, you can see pretty plainly that Liberals propose that the INDIVIDUAL is paramount.  This basic premise begins the slippery slide from cooperation to competition at a very low level.  In highly urbanized areas, (where liberals are predominant), individuals are least likely to know and interact with their neighbors.  Social organization is not about families who share schools and churches, but rather voluntary associations of individuals based on interest or coincidence.  (Joe works with Sally).  But these associations do not typically transcend the individual.  Joe & Sally may have drinks after work, but it is less common for their Families so socialize.  I don’t assert that these relationships don’t occur, but they are less likely.  Further, due to the urban density, individuals have much more choice as to whom they associate.  With greater choice, individuals are more likely to discard relationships that have a conflict.

More rural areas, are more likely to see families interact in multiple scenarios; Church, Super Market, work, local businesses, etc.  With that in mind, the cost for abandoning a relationship becomes higher.  It is therefore more important for rural families to work out differences rather than abandoning them.  Whether these behaviors are preferable to urban behaviors is moot.  These are the societal frameworks that humans have evolved and adapted to.

Thus it is no surprise, that rural, “conservative” families are more assertive in defending their inheritance rights.  Nor is it surprising that urban individuals attempt to coerce “charitable” behaviors from others rather than rely on cooperation and charity from neighbors and extended families during times of crisis.

The modern Liberal is driven by fear.  Having destroyed the traditional societal order, they see a dark and frightful world outside their doors.  They have no one to rely on.  And so they try to create a government to replace it.  A government who will give them welfare, tax their more fortunate neighbors, take their neighbors birthrights, and distribute them widely.  To them, it is a safer world.  But one to which we are not suited by neither temperament nor evolution to live in.

Howdy All,

Well I suppose I should post this first, to provide some perspective.

The Rule of LGOPs

After the demise of the best Airborne plan, a most terrifying effect occurs on the battlefield. This effect is known as the rule of the LGOPs. This is, in its purest form, small groups of pissed-off 19 year old American paratroopers. They are well trained. They are armed to the teeth and lack serious adult supervision. They collectively remember the Commander's intent as "March to the sound of the guns and kill anyone who is not dressed like you" - or something like that.

More to come soon.
Airborne.  All the Way.  Let's Go!