Obama, McCain, Boehner, and Pelosi in Agreement - A Bad Omen

Part I: The Excuses

A guide to the rationalizations currently being given for war with Syria was recently published on Breitbart.com. The excuses are from that page, the analyses are my own:

1. American credibility is on the line
American credibility is on the line because Obama's described of the use of chemical weapons as crossing a "red line." In reality, America's credibility isn't in danger, just Obama's. Only die-hard Obama supporters would equate the two.

2. Iran must be deterred
This one is from John Boehner. OK, so then why not get to the point and take action directly against Iran?

3. It is in the interests of America’s allies, especially Israel, to strike Syria
Then it should be Israel's job to do this, not ours.

4. The use of chemical weapons violates basic standards of human conduct
Agreed. Unfortunately, such violations are all too common. Is it a fact that Assad used chemical weapons on the rebels, or was it the other way around? Regardless, is there ANYBODY in Syria that would be a US ally and not just looking to be "friends with benefits"?

Part II: Release the... Oh, Never Mind

The watch dogs (both main stream media as well as the "opposition" party) are acting as lap dogs, as usual. They explicitly assume that the Syrian civil war is our problem. They treat this as a done deal, that the decision has been made to go to war with Syria. The administration wanted to take military action even before the UN inspection team even gathered evidence - they didn't want facts to get in the way of their theory.

To muddy the waters, Obama decided to seek Congressional authorization for military intervention, though he claims he didn't need to do so.

Part III: End Games

Senator John McCain criticizes the current wording of the authorization in that there is no "end-game" plan. Perhaps McCain missed that part of the presentation because he was playing poker on his iPhone?

Whatever.

What is much more interesting is Obama's end-game. What does he get out of it? Here are some off-the-cuff theories:

1. The whole affair acts as a diversion from all the other scandals: Benghazi, IRS, NSA, ATF "Fast and Furious", overall spending, etc. The Administration believes that to make one scandal to go away, they must create an even bigger scandal. But isn't this just a bit over the top? Really, all it takes to divert media attention is a bright shiny object who twerks.

2. This is for the benefit of certain Democrats and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) during the midterm elections
- If congress rejects, then Obama saves face. That's good for Obama, and therefore good for America (so his acolytes believe). Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war rages on, and supporters of military action are then given ammunition against those who rejected it, namely the Tea Party and the so-called Peace Democrats.
- If congress accepts, then the blame could be spread around if things go bad (and they will).

3. This is yet another executive-branch power grab.

Of course, there can be other theories, and more than one can be true at the same time. My money is on #3: Each and every action taken by Obama has strengthened Federal government power in general, and executive branch power in particular. The consequences are that we are less free as a nation and economically worse-off.

Part IV: The Analysis

With the exception of McCain and a few others, everybody involved in this are on the other side of historical events: the most recent and relevant being the second Iraq war, but Vietnam, Korea, and other wars would count as well. It is commonly said in DC that McCain is perpetually one war away from happiness, and so he is one individual who isn't on the other side of those events. It will be interesting to see how two people in particular - Obama and Kerry – bridge the events.

In October 2002, Senator Obama gave a speech against the Iraq war in which he said, in part:

"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. 

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. 

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. 

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. 

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars..."

In 1970, Navy Lieutenant John Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In 1971, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in opposition to US conduct during that war. This no doubt caused quite a bit of media attention, and most likely was the start of his political career.

During one of the VVAW protests, Kerry and other veterans threw their military decorations over a fence which surrounded the Capitol building. When he did this, he said:

"I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try and make this country wake up once and for all."

These two men, Obama in 2002 and Kerry in 1971, were neither pacifists nor "non-aggressivists." But Obama and Kerry in 2013 certainly have shifted sides. Were Obama and Kerry always so opportunistic, or were the younger versions of those two men "authentic" and the older versions opportunistic, or is it the other way around? Perhaps they have been absolutely corrupted by absolute power. Whatever the reason, we may never know why they sold out.

Monetize the Apocalypse!

Just finished watching two episodes of National Geographic Channel’s “Doomsday Preppers” as well as half of the first episode of a new series called “Doomsday Castle”. Here’s what I learned...

1. I really hate TV.

2. The father character on "Doomsday Castle" used waaaaaaay too much dye in his hair and eyebrows, and that the cast should save themselves from skin cancer by avoiding tanning beds.

3. NatGeo should put more into the writing of those shows. Hint: manufactured conflicts aren’t drama, they’re particularly cheap and obvious melodrama. Please, we get enough of that crap from Washington.

4. Those shows, especially “Doomsday Preppers”, are great money-making opportunities!

The purpose of this note isn’t to denigrate preppers nor the prepper movement. In fact, I consider myself to be a prepper, especially after learning from the Maryland Snowpocalypse of 2010 that you can’t survive a winter storm on one frozen pizza and two packs of ramen noodles. The purpose is to make a guess about the business model of those TV programs and the characters that appear on them.

Quite often, the preppers purchase underground shelters - and this is a great chance for the builders of these shelters to advertise their services and the quality of their products. This happens especially when the builder shows-off the shelter to the customer: the builder is genuinely beaming with pride, and is also realizing that he’s completed a cycle that will generate a new batch of customers.

And this doesn’t just happen with the builders. One of the “Doomsday Preppers” episodes featured a man named Bill Hennessey, who provides security for a prepper compound. A little googling shows that he is a retired Marine who has turned that knowledge and experience into (I suppose) security consulting, and he works with a company called Survival Warehouse.

Other “soft marketing” and “product placement” occurs when the characters purchase dehydrated meals and bulk seed packages.

It is clear that preppers are truly committed to surviving devastating events, and frequently have pushed themselves beyond their preconceived limits. That’s a good thing. Those who are serious about it know that they are trying to find a working balance between the general skills required for self-sufficiency and the various commitments required to carry out specialization of labor.

It is also clear that there is money to be made here. There's nothing wrong with that.

Gil Scott-Heron was wrong: the revolution is being televised.

Now I Want to Be Your...Weiner

Link: http://www.xojane.com/sex/sydney-leathers-guide-for-sexting-with-politicians

This essay of Sydney Leathers (one of the people with whom Anthony Weiner has been sexting) interests me for several reasons:

First, as a tech geek, I find her description of Facebook to be priceless:

I messaged Anthony in 2011 saying I was "disappointed" in his behavior from his first sexting scandal. Then he "poked" me out of nowhere on Facebook and said he was "sorry for letting me down." I love that he poked me. When "Insider Edition" asked me what "poking" was, I told them, "yeah, it's a button on Facebook you push if you want to fuck someone." I've deactivated Facebook since then. It's trouble.

Second, as a wonk and a person who despises all politicians, I enjoy the utter contempt she displays for those "attention whores":

Dangr33: so you won't tell me what picture of me you like the most or turned you on the most? only tv?
Sydney: Specifically your health care rants were a huge turn on

Finally, we find out just exactly why Anthony Weiner's wife is still with him. The length and girth of this goes far beyond the "stand by your man" crap.


Why post this on "The Other Side of History" blog?  The whole scandal shows what is happening to the concept of "shame" following the popular availability of Internet access.

But, is it History?

You say to yourself: "this story about Sue the Tyrannosaurus Rex is interesting and all, but it is natural history not real history."

Agreed. Real history has to have a human actor. What about this?

A story read on PRI's The World in April 2012 describes the finding of a frozen baby woolly mammoth in Siberia. The mammoth showed signs of being killed by human hunters. Natural history or real history?

Historically, where are we at?

Originally posted this on a militia forum I belong to...

Comparisons between past and current events are often made in the discussions here, essentially stating that the present situation is like...

1) Just before the Revolutionary War
2) Just before the Civil War
3) During the Cold War
4) France under the Vichy Régime during World War II
5) None of the above

Historically, where are we at? We all are armchair generals to a point, but the purpose in asking this isn't to set armchair generals all a-twitter. It is asked in hopes of finding overlooked tactics, strategies, or anything else that would help us restore freedom!

A strong case could be made for each of the above analogies, and that case would only be strengthened by what comes next.

So, we have us rightfully and deeply pissed-off at a distant and corrupt government, one which has no regards for individual rights and that treats us as their ATM machine. Small militias spring up like mushrooms. Then, a general who was passed-over for promotion switches sides...

Or, we have our country dividing along issues of individual rights, state rights, and federal authority. Rhetoric gets hot, media fans the flames, and people stop listening to each other. Then, it is brother against brother...

Or, we have two cautious enemies, each waiting for the other to make the next move - both agreeing that the first move has already been made. Then, one side realizes (while waiting for the translation) that they can no longer afford to play...

Or, we have our leaders selling-out to those would deprive us of individual rights. They have turned the machinery of the state into tools of oppression. Then, a bunch of draft-dodgers form the Maquis and they try to hold off the bad guys as best they could...

If none of the above are right, we could be down with General Stanley McChrystal, who, by switching to a counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, understood that the next war could be different from the last one, and that analogies could either sharpen one's vision or cause blindness. Too bad he didn't have the wisdom to realize that some wars should not be fought, nor to realize that Al-Qaeda has natural selection on its side...

Historically, where are we at? This isn't an idle question - the answer determines, in part, the tactics and strategies that would be most successful in regaining our freedom. 

Armchair generals: ready, set, GO!

Ode to Sue, the Tyrannosaurus Rex

A story:

Whilst living in Ohio, I used to visit Chicago, either for business or for short vacations. On my first trip, I was scheduled to be in Chicago for three days, and I knew that I would spend two of them at the Field Museum. Now, the large foyer of the Field Museum has the skeleton of Sue the Tyrannosaurus Rex prominently on display, dramatically greeting visitors as only an apex predator can.

It was love at first sight.

I literally spent five hours looking at Sue from all different angles; photographing her; sketching her; dissecting her with my eyes.

The mechanics of the pelvis and hip joints are extremely interesting, but the mechanics of the jaw is something that mathematicians would call "non-trivial". After numerous diagrams, the pattern by which the muscles attached and crossed each other began to dawn on me.

"Yes! Yes!!"

Had there been anyone else around, I would have high-fived them.

No, I did not smoke a cigarette.

What is "The Other Side of History"?

Hello, and welcome to my first blog - "The Other Side of History"!

What is this blog about? First, what it isn't about...

It isn't about "The undiscovered Country, from whose bourne No Traveller returns," which is a Shakespearian allusion to death. Unless you read it in the original Klingonese, in which case it means "the future".

Nor will this blog be directly about "The End of History and the Last Man," in which Francis Fukuyama claimed that "Western liberal democracy" will be the universal, final form of political ideology.

It would be close to say, however, that the subject of this blog is how "the end of history" and the Klingon "undiscovered country" will not make cowards of us all.

So really, what will this blog be about? The specifics will be clear after the first few entries, hopefully written before the start of next week.