Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD

by **Werthless** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:24:33

Sick burn.

by **dajafi** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:49:38

I have to admit that, unhappy as I am about the escalation in Afghanistan, I have absolutely no friggin' idea what we should be doing there instead. Total withdrawal isn't a good idea. The status quo--probably enough force to prop up the kleptocracy in power there, but not enough to do anything more--isn't a good idea.

Sullivan seems to think that the notion here is to give the military basically what it wants, hope it works, and withdraw if it doesn't. Maybe he's right, but my problem with it is that our politics don't really allow any president to be rational when it comes to "losing a war." In 2011, Obama will be starting his reelection campaign. If things are continuing to go to crap in Afghanistan, will he really begin a withdrawal? I just don't see it. He, and by extension Obama, posits a far more rational version of America than the one I see:

Obama was saying last night is that he is determined to return America to normal, to unplug this vast attempt at global control in Muslim countries that Bush and Cheney unleashed. He is trying to unwind the empire, not expand it.

How best to unwind the empire? By giving McChrystal what he wants and giving him a couple of years to deliver tangible results. If McChrystal delivers, fantastic. I will do a ritual self-flagellation and bow down to the man with no body-fat and a close relationship with 33 Kagans of various generations and genders. If McChrystal does his best and we still get nowhere, Obama will have demonstrated - not argued, demonstrated - that withdrawal is the least worst option.

The far right will accuse him of weakness - but they will do that anyway. All he need do is remind Americans of what the far right version of "strength" is: engaging an enemy on his own turf, sustaining an insurgency by our very presence, draining the Treasury of trillions, sacrificing more young men and women to shore up one of the most corrupt governments on earth, and basically returning to Bush-Cheney land. And that will be a very telling argument in 2012: do we want to go back to Cheneyism? To torture and endless occupation and a third war with a Muslim nation, Iran?

On reflection, Obama was saying something quite simple: one more try, guys. We owe it to those who have sacrificed already to try and finish the job. He has given the effort the full resources it needs at a time of real scarcity. He has given COIN doctrine one more chance to prove itself. He has put Petraeus and McChrystal and the 45 Kagans on notice: prove your case. And in this, I think Obama has found a middle balance that reflects where a lot of us are on this and that also offers a good faith chance for progress - with a good sense exit ramp after a reasonable length of time.

The one thing that could possibly make this work is the growing realization that we can't afford it. Democrats who are anti-war anyway (people like David Obey) are already getting on this train (and--not that my opinion particularly matters to anyone but me--it's a big part of my objection to the escalation); by 2011, as millions of Baby Boomers start to hit retirement age, some Republicans who for whatever reason can't call for huge cuts to entitlements might be there with them. The growing realization that our resources are finite and our finances aren't divinely assured of eternal solvency might be the factor that forces us into a rational assessment of costs and benefits. But that's just a guess at what the tenor of public debate might be in eighteen months. By then, this will be our longest war, ever.

by **Werthless** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 13:04:29

We're like alcoholics. "We can quit anytime." But I'm very skeptical that Congress can unwind a lot of the military spending related to the war efforts, because they'll need to "save these jobs in this economy."

We'll see. Basically, after we reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, we'll then have the military capacity to pursue terrorists in Pakistan. Different locale, similar story.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 16:14:50

NY Senate votes down gay marriage 38-24

That's not particularly close

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 19:38:06

dajafi wrote:I have to admit that, unhappy as I am about the escalation in Afghanistan, I have absolutely no friggin' idea what we should be doing there instead. Total withdrawal isn't a good idea

I don't have a problem with it

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 13:59:25

This Climate-gate stuff is pretty jaw-dropping. Freaking Hippies. Come to think of it, the environmental science people I knew at school were all pretty crunchy granola.

I am irritated.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:02:19

jeff2sf wrote:This Climate-gate stuff is pretty jaw-dropping. Freaking Hippies. Come to think of it, the environmental science people I knew at school were all pretty crunchy granola.

I am irritated.

Try to look on the bright side--we aren't going to die.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:02:46

Warszawa wrote:
dajafi wrote:I have to admit that, unhappy as I am about the escalation in Afghanistan, I have absolutely no friggin' idea what we should be doing there instead. Total withdrawal isn't a good idea

I don't have a problem with it

Seems like the right thing to do to me. You can't fight a war halfway. You've got to do it or not, but pick one. Since not doing it seems like a disaster just waiting to happen, do it. Send the troops.

I didn't feel that way about Iraq at the moment Bush made his plans known to ask for more troops, but I should have. I don't think they should've gone there in the first place, but once you're there, you can't half-ass it.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:04:06

jerseyhoya wrote:NY Senate votes down gay marriage 38-24

That's not particularly close

That's a shame, but not particularly surprising. It's irritating as all holy hell anyway, though.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:10:29

On the climategatething:

The science of human-caused global warming remains unaffected
None of the hacked emails reveal any conspiracy to publish falsified or "fudged" material in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The science of human-caused global warming will require no revision as a result of this affair. Baseless accusations of fraud, data manipulation, and conspiracy against climate change scientists stemming from the hacked emails are being massively hyped by the Manufactured Doubt industry in an effort to discredit climate scientists, since no flaw with the science can be found. The public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad, so if you can create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion, you can win--or at least buy time, lots of it. The hacked email affair is all about politics, not science. Dr. Jones is an excellent scientist, but unfortunately was over-matched as a politician.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:10:32

mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:NY Senate votes down gay marriage 38-24

That's not particularly close

That's a shame, but not particularly surprising. It's irritating as all holy hell anyway, though.

Bigotry is BACK, baby!!!1

It's convenient in exactly the same way that Billy Wagner pitching for the Braves is: simplifies and reinforces how much I fucking despise both entities.

I do think that the setbacks in California, Maine and New Jersey--where the spineless bastards didn't even bring it up for a vote--emboldened the bigots and cowards in Albany. Our state legislators are great followers, and once they realized that voting it down was likely costless in both political and economic terms, it became much easier.

Also, a staunch middle finger to the Catholic Church, which lobbied hard against this, as they've done everywhere. Priests fucking little boys? Fine, just don't get caught--and if you do, for God's and real estate's sake make sure you limit the financial exposure. Two same-sex adults wanting the community to legally recognize their mutual love and commitment? That's the Devil's work!

In terms of worldly events, this has been a pretty depressing week.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:11:24

jeff2sf wrote:This Climate-gate stuff is pretty jaw-dropping. Freaking Hippies. Come to think of it, the environmental science people I knew at school were all pretty crunchy granola.

I am irritated.

Matt Drudge had to see his doctor because he had an erection lasting four or more hours after all this broke.

by **Bakestar** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:12:31

jerseyhoya wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:This Climate-gate stuff is pretty jaw-dropping. Freaking Hippies. Come to think of it, the environmental science people I knew at school were all pretty crunchy granola.

I am irritated.

Matt Drudge had to see his doctor because he had an erection lasting four or more hours after all this broke.

It would have burst if Tom Brady had broken the story.

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:15:01

I think this is a completely apt analogy of how I feel - like Carcetti when he found out the strangler was made up by cops.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:15:09

The methodological sloppiness of the climate scientists (and I really think that's all it was) is irritating, but irrelevant. There won't be meaningful action on climate change until we lose a city or two anyway, if then; there's just too much money at stake and the interests that would lose it are too strong and too well organized.

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:17:17

dajafi wrote:The methodological sloppiness of the climate scientists (and I really think that's all it was) is irritating, but irrelevant. There won't be meaningful action on climate change until we lose a city or two anyway, if then; there's just too much money at stake and the interests that would lose it are too strong and too well organized.

I think it goes beyond "sloppiness". For a good debate, see philliesphans.

Crap, my eyes are bleeding and I think I might be struck down for having written such a thing.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:23:19

jeff2sf wrote:
dajafi wrote:The methodological sloppiness of the climate scientists (and I really think that's all it was) is irritating, but irrelevant. There won't be meaningful action on climate change until we lose a city or two anyway, if then; there's just too much money at stake and the interests that would lose it are too strong and too well organized.

I think it goes beyond "sloppiness". For a good debate, see philliesphans.

Crap, my eyes are bleeding and I think I might be struck down for having written such a thing.

Yeah, what the hell. I probably could script that before reading it. Obviously I'm trying to put off doing work, but I'd rather do work than read the opinings of kalasfan and EastFallowfield.

To me, the question is whether the underlying scientific consensus is cracked. I have enough faith in the empiricism of the experts and the availability of data that if there was real doubt, we'd hear about it.

(I also have to confess that I find reading about climate change about as engaging as watching paint dry. It's absolutely important, but as I have no tolerance for the underlying material, I defer to the experts.)

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:26:08

I know, but it's Julio, Atown and PC doing all the talking. EF posted once and got smacked down for trying to politicize it.

These guys are all ATROCIOUS moderators, but the last 2-3 pages of that thread is worth 20 minutes of your time. And much like you "defer to the experts". I deferred to them as well, until I just learned they were making shit up as they went along.

Again, much like Lester and McNulty were ultimately on the side of the Angels, their little scheme could have done so much harm to the overall movement, it can't be forgiven.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:28:26

The more direct evidence--glacial retreat, destruction of coral reefs, shrinking polar ice caps, Salmon disappearing from the Pacific Northwest, rising sea level, increasing desertification of Africa, the fact that ships can now more easily use the northwest passage north of Canada--all point in the same direction, and out of context e-mails and hockey stick graphs don't change any of that.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 14:30:03

All three of those guys are worthy of respect. I guess I'll check it out. Again, though, they could making shit up in one or two instances without the underlying case being changed. (edit: Paul's list here was more what I was thinking; those glaciers are melting, period.) But your Jimmy/Lester comparison makes sense.

Though I really hope you're not spoiling anything for anyone who hasn't watched Season Five. Maybe I'm oversensitive to that because literally all but two of the "shocks" in the series were ruined for me in one way or another.

Archived

Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD