Meanderthal

Who's In Charge?

An internet friend of mine who is also a military veteran with a completely different skill and experience set from what I acquired on active duty, has a favored saying about combat operations.  "Amateurs talk strategy.  Professionals talk logistics."

My buddy doesn't set military policy.  He isn't consulted when an invasion is planned.  He doesn't train officers or enlisted or the civilian leadership.  He is however, correct.  The current problems with supplying our combat troops in Afghanistan appear designed to demonstrate the truth of my buddy's maxim.  The fuel that is so crucial for so many things is being intercepted and sabotaged. 

Hitler, Napoleon and countless othr military leaders and strategists, some competent and some crazy, have had that maxim demonstrated to them, frequently in disastrous fashion accompanied by terrible loss of life amongst the common troops who would be at the end of the supply chain.  Afghanistan is notorius for being an incredibly difficult place to establish and maintain supply lines.  That difficulty is a large part of the reason for its reputation as the graveyard of empires.

Most of us veterans joined the military when we were young.  Many were like me and prone to believing what we were told by authority.  We weren't stupid but we had truly impressive amounts of ignorance.  As our ignorance was alleviated, we sometimes noted that what we had been told did not jibe with our experiences.  At that point, we were in transition, we were in the process losing our amateur status.  That process continues to this day.  We did not buy the "cakewalk" predictions of Iraq or the excessively optimistic projections for Afghanistan.  But we weren't in charge.  Those who were/are in charge appear to have given much more thought to operations than to ensuring the combat troops were adequately supplied.

One look back at the maxim and you know what kind of person is in charge.

 

CAFKIA

 

From What? From Whom?

Sarah Palin is telling Republicans that it is time to take the country back. 

For eight long and torturous years, the Republicans controlled the government.  Even when they had a majority, the Democrats caved on every significant measure out of fear of being seen as soft on defense or being identified as a (Gasp!) LIBERAL.  In the roughly two years of saner government, nothing of note that the crazies enacted during their reign of error, has been undone.  There has been no effort to hold accountable those who obviously lied or those who at the least, were criminally delinquent in doing the jobs that they campaigned for, that they were hired to do.

So, I ask the title questions.  I also suggest and request that every honest American do the same.  If confronted with a statement or claim of taking the country back, ask them if they mean back from the Bush Republicans whose policies still dominate our economic crises.  Ask them if they mean back from the Cheney Cronies whose war profiteering has cost us and Iraq so much in blood, culture, and civilization.  Ask if they mean back from the Energy Emirates who destroyed the California economy and the life savings of so many in the rest of the nation, not to mention delaying progress in developing cleaner and better sources of energy.  Ask them if they mean to take back the nation from the Hedonistic Horde whose apathetic approach to anything other than acquiring more cheap shit from China and watching mindless television is what allowed the Republicans to do what they did.  Ask them if they mean to take back the nation from themselves.

If we do not learn to have the difficult and uncomfortable conversations, then our version of democracy will be perverted again and again and again.  We must ask them and ourselves these questions.  Or get used to being Third World.

CAFKIA

Converting the converts

I lectured on Africa and its problems with democracy today. This semester in my Geography 101 class started with Sub-Saharan Africa and I've been working to build a case that we need stability (whatever that is) in this region as globalization finally starts to run out of places to chase cheap labor. Democracy, for better or worse, is a stabilizing factor usually. In Africa, it has had some good moments, but the legacy of colonialism and corruption causes pain even some 60 years after the first movements away from European domination occurred.

As a place that we need, Africa also has the burden of teaching us about itself and some key values or practices that it engages in especially with regard to democratization. In general, Africa has been moving toward more democracy, though some back tracking and recalcitrant places are still behaving badly. I give Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, and, sadly, Rwanda as examples. Rwanda is noteworthy in that its attempt to fix genocide and the potential thereof with the rule of law has faltered by application of laws against "genocidal ideologies" against governmental opponents and journalists.

Still there is much to be learned for us "converts" in the process of African democratization. The TED lecture from 2007 points one possible avenue for education on the spread of democracy. George Ayttieyeh:

Sheriffs, Voting Fraud, and the New Feudal Society

Arizona has a voting booth problem and the Sherwood Forest of Arpaio, Maricopa County, is smack dab in the middle of this latest voting machine blow up. I admit to not being nuanced in the ins and outs of how voting machines can be hacked, but it only takes one case of PacMan being loaded up to a supposed secure system to make me blanch. As a person who studies culture for a living, I think back to a great set of readings  dropped by G.G. Coulton long ago called "The Medieval Village."

In this book, which is actually a synopsis of a larger work on medieval Europe by Belloc's great rival, he introduces the concept of the "sporting chance." Basically, the sporting chance was the final link in the feudal system that culminated the villein's life. Most feudal arrangements guaranteed a lord's rights over certain items of a serf's possessions at that person's death. In a total cultural system like feudalism, it really isn't shocking that your lord could come and take what was rightfully his, within that system, and people did not step back and think "Hmmm, this ain't right." It was as life was.

Anyhow, a twist was placed on the system of taking the vassal's best draft animal and his second best raiment upon death. In some places, especially England, the lord could send his warden -- they rarely did this trivial stuff in person -- to get that which was rightfully his before the death of poor John The Thresher or, even, sad Thomas Applegarth. The twist was the sporting chance.

In the rules of the sporting chance, the lord could make a "reasonable" request of the serf to prove that he (it was usually a 'he') could still have a chance of living or being productive. Usually it was something like "Applegarth! If you can walk seven stout paces from your threshold, I will not take your best draft animal and your second best raiment." If that orchard keeper couldn't, then what was rightfully his, became, well, not rightfully his.

So, this is where I come to my leap of logic: These unaccountable and very hackable voting devices are much akin to that call at the threshold. "Arizonan! If you are willing to submit to our system, then you have a sporting chance your vote may be counted." In many ways (and in ways I haven't fleshed out yet), a vote is your best draft animal in our society. If they can introduce a twist on the system that calls you out before the only moment  at which you no longer have that vote (your death), set up a standard which you can not achieve (verifying that your vote counted), and forces you to either consent to doing what is expected or failing to vote at all, then they've "totalized" our democratic society.

It's a noodle-headed thought and not quite complete, but there are many other examples of this sort of justified behavior that empowers and re-empowers certain members of our society and those who would enable them (e.g. credit card companies). It also raises the question of what is the benefit in subverting a democratic system by voting fraud has to the "wardens" who show up at the threshold to take your vote. Somehow, someway this residual medieval societal tool will show up to take their best draft animal and second best raiment.

At A Loss

First, let me just say that in the whole scheme of things, this just aint the most important issue of the day.  Second, even if it is the screw up that I and many others think it is, it will not cause me to withdraw my support.

All of that not withstanding, I am at a complete loss to comprehend or explain what was going through Barack Obama's mind when he chose a hate monger to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.  I sincerely hope that he did not intend the incredible insult he delivered to the LGBT "community" who were huge supporters of his.

I have tried to rationalize the choice of Rick Warren to myself.  I understand that BO wants to reach out to the evangelical community.  I understand that he is playing a political longview game.  It is just that there were/are many routes that he could have chosen that would not have directly and completely offended a group that supported him early and actively.  While his victory was unambiguous, his political structure is not developed enough that it can withstand the removal of an integral and significant part of the foundation. 

Barack Obama has shown that he has truly impressive political instincts.  Perhaps there is something here that I just do not see but for right now. I'm at a loss to understand this.

CAFKIA

Team Obama

The possible strategy behind the picks.

Finally, we have unity between conservatives and progressives.  Unfortunately it is a unity based either in stupidity or deceitfulness.

Both sides are tripping all over themselves to criticize Obama's picks for his cabinet and advisers.  Progressives in particular seem to be livid that moderates figure so prominently and conservatives, who want change less than they want a salt filled straw in the eye, are falling all over themselves pointing out that Obama's picks seem to be at odds with his campaign mantra of "change".  One side is being incredibly shortsighted and the other is being blatantly disingenuous.  Both are being patently ridiculous.

Barack Obama will face challenges upon taking the oath like no president in recent times has seen and possibly, no president ever.  I certainly have no contact with or special insight to the Obama mindset but, it is obvious what he is doing.  Given the current economic crisis and the wars that have so far been idiotically prosecuted, team Obama will have to hit the ground running.  Among the things he wants to avoid are contentious and drawn out confirmation hearings.  He also simply does not have the time to wait for an entire crew of fresh minded Washington outsiders to learn the whos, whys, and hows of the Washington system.  It is almost an impossibility that many of today's picks will not start to need to spend more time with their families in two years or whenever things start to get better.  I fully expect them to be replaced with those who would be considered outsiders today.  They will be working for current picks and/or will have been apprised of their position on the list and will have been given study materials plus, they will not all start at once.  It would be irresponsible, even if it were possible, to institute al the desired change at once.  It must be instituted over time.

However, all of that is pretty much secondary.  There is an old saying that "the fish stinks from the head".  The Clinton appointees will not do as they did under Bill Clinton.  They will have the knowledge and experience but they will have a leader with a a different agenda.  What seems to be forgotten is that Bush did not hire stupid people to work for him.  He hired smart people(of perhaps questionable moral character) and he led them to do stupid things.  The fish stinks from the head.  Anyone who doubts that Barack Obama could take the exact same crew who helped bush screw the nation and achieve significantly different and positive results is simply not paying attention.

So what say we give Obama a chance to lead.  What say we withhold judgment until we have some evidence.  It may be that he can't fix this but then, it may be that no one or group can fix this.  For sure his chances will not be improved by building his team entirely out of rookies.

CAFKIA

High Class Relief

Today, many in the nation breathe easier.  For many of us, we believe that the end of the incredibly inane and mismanaged war-like action in Iraq is at hand.  Others may have reason for hope that the age of universal health care is possible.  Still others may hope for a new era of environmental responsibility.  Racism might be seriously diminished.  The days of systemic disenfranchisement of immigrants and minorities might get shorter.

Yes, there is something in the Obama victory for nearly everyone that is honest with themselves.  However, one person in the nation is more relieved than all the rest.  It is my considered opinion that Cindy McCain had significantly less than no interest at all in being First Lady.  She wanted that scrutiny like a heroin addict wants an aquarium.  Having grown up in gated neighborhoods where any access to her was on her terms, I find it extremely unlikely that she was looking forward to several years of considering what people whose opinions she cared nothing about might think of what she did prior to doing it.

I'll just bet that whenever John isn't looking, she giggles to herself in relief. (Although she may feel a little guilty about voting for Obama.)  I suspect she will have some shopping brought to her.

CAFKIA

Comical Ignorance

Except it isn't funny.  Pitiful perhaps, dangerous maybe but, funny it aint.  "It" is the response of the reich-wing bloviators I half heard on CNN late at night responding to General Wesley Clark's well considered denunciation of the idea of flying and/or crashing a fighter plane as qualifying one for the job of POTUS.  I suppose it will come as a shock to no thinking person that General Clark is waaaaaayyy more likely to be right when it comes to military issues than the chickenhawk guild.  However, there are a couple of points worth expanding.

In the USN, unless you are the CO or XO of a squadron, a pilot is in command of nothing.  (S)He does not lead men and flying is not generally considered a command path.  Even the term/job "plane captain" does not refer to the pilot but instead, to the enlisted (wo)man who has the responsibility for just damn near everything on the bird except when it is actually in flight.  Yes, pilots are officers but, few of them turn out to be leaders.  Their training focuses on what they can do to avoid costing the U.S. and USN a shitload of money by giving gravity primary control of an airborne plane.(Such training apparently did not take with McSame as evidenced by his time as a POW.)  They also receive some training on delivering death, destruction and mayhem on command.  As a general rule, with acknowledged exceptions, O3 and below flyboys know less about leadership and command than your average E6 and up.  Yea, sure the E6 will have to salute the O3 but that is more tradition and general orders than it is respect.

"Line" officers are the command path officers.  They learn to drive boats and head up divisions on a ship and they cross train in a lot of different shit.  In running a division, they will be the leader of the enlisted men who make up that division (if the Chief lets them) and they can dream of their own command.  Interestingly enough, John Kerry was a line officer with command experience.  When he was being unfairly dissed and outright lied about by veteran and chickenhawk alike, such experience wasn't especially valuable to the GOP.  Even to the point of the rank and file rethugs making graphic fun of Purple Heart earners at the national convention. 

In short Barack Obama has just as much command experience as John McSame.  Both have "commanded" political campaigns.  It is comical ignorance indeed to believe that all military service is the same or that all military jobs are command prep.  But, these comically misinformed  individuals have huge misinformed audiences.  Even worse, none of them seem to even want to know the truth.  The relevant truth here is that Clark is right.  Flying and/or crashing airplanes is in no way, shape, form, or fashion, suitable or significant preparation for the job of POTUS.  Serving as a POW does not give one special insight into how to prosecute a war or, how to lead the nation in times of peace.  Physical suffering for one's nation does not entitle one to high political office.  It just doesn't.

I interacted with a lot of officers during my time in the military and, like just damn near any other enlisted puke, I learned to size them up pretty quickly.  If I was being recalled into the military tomorrow and I had to choose one of the two presidential candidates to be the officer I reported to, the nation would be in trouble because with my life on the line, I would pick the intelligent, analytical, clear-headed, quick thinking one of the two.  I'd pick Obama.

CAFKIA

cross posted to the American Patriot Institute

Above All Else, Irony

Mike Huckabee did it as a joke.  An unfunny, ill-advised, sick, racist joke but still, he claims it was a joke.  Hillary Clinton says she was using it as a time line statement to justify her staying in a race she has already lost.  The references to assassination should not have come from any politician regarded as astute yet, within a day or two of each other, two of our candidates for president of the nation have made just such a reference. 

Republicanism isn't funny.  Sure it is frustrating, annoying, deceptive, and several other unflattering adjectives but, funny just isn't one of them.  A reference to the possible lynching of a black presidential candidate made to a gathering of paranoid, xenophobic racists is particularly not funny.

Unfortunately, all to frequently the path democraticism takes to funny goes right through irony.  In my experience of direct conversations as well as what I have overheard and read, Hillary is hated and feared by the Reich-wing above all else.  I don't know why and efforts to explain it to me haven't clarified shit but, it is so.  Given the attitude of that wing of American politics toward her, it seems incredibly unlikely that any plan to eliminate Obama by assassination would be timed so as to help Hillary Clinton an any way.  And there indeed is the irony.  As long as Hillary is his presumed replacement, Obama is likely safe from any organized attack.  (One can never discount possible actions from individual psychos.) 

Irony is tough.

CAFKIA

Answering Bartcop

I could probably find the original question but I don't feel it is worth the effort.  In essence, the author of the Bartcop, militant liberal humor website, asked why black Americans so readily deserted the Clintons and ran to the camp of a relative unknown, political newby.  I think the question is flawed  but, I will try to address it anyway.

In a lot of ways, Bill Clinton was one of us.  His two major advantages of birth were being born white and really freakin' smart,  His disadvantages, single mother, poor, small town, Arkansas, were easily enough to offset the advantages.  For whatever reason, and I sure do not know how he acquired the skill, Bill Clinton appeared to be able to comfortably be the only white guy in a room full of of blacks.  Somehow, he doesn't even stick out in such a situation, it appears to be the most natural thing in the world.  A lot of black people learn this skill early (well, the reverse).  We learn it through constant repetition, or at least I did, as well as by having some natural "talent" for it. 

I do not doubt for one second, Hillary's bonifides as a liberal.  I believe that she is and has been concerned about the "less fortunate".  I don't doubt her sincerity or, believe that she is anything other than as presented. 

She isn't one of us and she never will be.  That is not meant as an insult or slight or as a pejorative at all.  It is simply an observation and acknowledgment of reality.  I do NOT know Hillary Clinton, I'm not psychic, I'm not privy to any insider information, this is my opinion formed from observation, reading, and essentially living through the last couple of decades and paying a relatively high level of attention.  I doubt that Hillary would be comfortable in that black crowd.  I don't see how she could avoid sticking out or, that it would appear to be a natural situation.  In short, Hillary isn't Bill.  It is an obvious statement but apparently one that needs to be said.  That doesn't mean anything that isn't said.  I'm relatively sure that one-on-one, HRC is comfortable interacting with a wide variety of ethnic groups, cultures, and nationalities.

In my opinion, "we" did not desert the Clintons.  We deserted Hillary.  We were behind Hillary, those of us who were, because of our fond memories of Bill, our disgust of republican policies, her position as the presumptive front runner, and the relative lack of another candidate we felt had the organization and support necessary to win in the general.  (ideologically, I supported Kucinich, pragmatically, I was behind Edwards)  Barack Obama was a name that some had heard but, it was news to me that he had a national following.  As he started showing stronger and stronger, it became increasingly difficult to justify not supporting him.  His political positions were certainly at least as close to mine as Hillary's were.  I obviously do not speak for all blacks but I imagine that many of us had discussions with ourselves asking why would we ask a white to make things right for us and our nation when we had an apparently competent and intelligent black who actually had a chance to win.  Why would we out ourselves to ourselves as an Uncle Tom?

If Obama had arrived in time to run for Bill's 2nd term, I doubt he would have gotten a majority of the black vote.  Hillary was never the president.  Our allegiance was simply not to her.  As we became informed about options open to us, a lot of us decided that for us and what we want for our nation, Obama was a better fit.  I read and hear about these Obamanics who have some ill-defined grudge and want to banish the Clintons.  I have never had one of them out themselves to me.  All of the Obama supporters I have spoken to in this primary season have only admitted to being FOR Obama. 

Insulting Bill and/or Hillary Clinton does not appear to be the primary goal of any of the blacks who have made their views on this election known to me whether by private conversation, blog, radio, editorial or what.  I'm on the verge of believing that I'm being insulted, that it is being said that I could not have higher motivations and/or that if I did, I could not satisfy them with a black person. 

Yea, that's insulting.

CAFKIA