You see, the politicization of the oil spill has made doing anything absolutely impossible. Some Repubs think that we need to pray (hey, Palin has one point, we are friggin clueless how to stop this), others think that we need to layoff because by roughing up BP the administration are a bunch of obstructionists bullies (how did self regulating business work out here?). Dems are just screaming and crying and finger pointing. Here is the bottom line, none of this sh!t is helpful. The bottom line is that this happened under the nose of all of them and they need to STFU and do something productive, even if it closing their traps and getting people focus on this Charlie Foxtrot.

There is plenty of hell to catch for the next hundred or more years over this. Just wait until we figure out what the chemical dispersants did to the sea life in the deep. The only way we are going to know is our personal experience.

Damn it, I want to take the Metro downtown and start slapping people. As to spending tax payer dollars, even if BP reimburses the Government, is to get the best and brightest focused on this. Spend some coin with MIT, NASA, CalTech and the rest to figue out how to stem this (all crazy ideas accepted), and moreover how to accelerate the switch off of fossil fuels in under 10 years (dare I say a CCC type push to install the necessary infrastructures - or does that label me a Communist?).

Why don't I feel any better not that I vented?!?

TenuredVulture wrote:Are you sure that's really Sarah Palin?

The Bitter Quitter Twitter Critter herself.

thephan wrote:Damn it, I want to take the Metro downtown and start slapping people.

Me too, except it has nothing to do with the BP spill. I just like hitting people.

(only people that deserve it, like Jennifrrrr twitting in the middle of Dillards that she just saw the hawtest shoes... *slap*)

TenuredVulture wrote:Are you sure that's really Sarah Palin?

verified and everything

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owMAs2t2Fo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Your tax dollars at work

Are you fucking kidding me?

demanding undocumented get paid fairly helps legal income workers by not having what's been a black market for low-skilled labor. it also raises the wages of said undocumented workers while deflating the incentive to use them

We agree on this. The market is distorted by illegal black market labor.

Not sure why I needed to write that. I think I'm just surprised that paccy and I agree on something related to politics.

So we wake this morning to the McChrystal story.

Link

Scarborough kind of came off as a bit whiny in the article to me. We'll see what happens, but I don't actually believe he'll be fired.

I doubt he get fired, but I am sure his arse gets chewed badly. Perhaps he must stand at attention on the steps of the US Capital today and tomorrow (96 today and 100 tomorrow with off the chart humidity). This is a seriously career limiting move unless he is looking to become a Republican folk heron candidate built on disrespect in the chain of command (something open in SC?).

So Gen. McChrystal is in tuh-rouble for saying mean things about the administration. It's not quite a McCarthur/Truman thing--yet--but it ain't good.

I'm sure the Rush crowd will blast the administration for their un-American, socialist and terror-sympathetic assertion of the principle of civilian control over the military. Just like they did when Shinseki took issue with the Bush team's predictions about Iraq.

But that's a sideshow; the real issue I think is that the military guys are right that we're (still) neither all in nor all out in Afghanistan. It's human nature that they're derisive about their bosses; the mistake was not swearing the Rolling Stone reporter to a blood oath that he'd keep the less measured remarks off the record. I would guess that Obama himself understands this, and will say so to McChrystal: "Say whatever you want about me; I'm a big boy, I've been called worse. But what the fuck with letting it go into print?"

What with the country going broke and all, I think we'll have to admit defeat, or something like defeat, in Afghanistan. The acceptance of our limitations and a blow to our collective ego seems like a first step on the long road back to living within our means as a society.

jerseyhoya wrote: Your tax dollars at work. Are you $#@! kidding me?

I expect employer abuses to be up during hard times. Mandatory extra work without compensation. The undocumented part is a bit quizzical. I do not recall which department has responsibility for certification of workers citizenship (Social Security, Internal Revenue, ?), but I would think that wage an hour complaints on places like construction sites might draw the attention of DHS as well.

You are correct dajafi. Gen. McChrystal is not necessarily incorrect in his assessment, but he needed to handle this within his chain of command, not in Rolling Stone.

As far as victory or defeat, that is a hard call. Who has been truly victorious in Afghanistan? The US serious understood the volatility of this region through our experience with the Russian occupation, yet we failed to see how that would play out with our own strategies. We can look at the list of egregious mistakes of the recent past, but it is not helpful in find our way out of this CF.

thephan wrote:You are correct dajafi. Gen. McChrystal is not necessarily incorrect in his assessment, but he needed to handle this within his chain of command, not in Rolling Stone.

As far as victory or defeat, that is a hard call. Who has been truly victorious in Afghanistan? The US serious understood the volatility of this region through our experience with the Russian occupation, yet we failed to see how that would play out with our own strategies. We can look at the list of egregious mistakes of the recent past, but it is not helpful in find our way out of this CF.

I've been reading a bit about McChrystal and (especially) Petraeus recently--Vanity Fair had a really good profile, by Mark Bowden, of Petraeus. It's almost needless to say that they're incredibly impressive guys, really exemplary Americans. Petraeus seems almost superhuman.

That Petraeus is characterized as "the most competitive guy in the military" really captures the dilemma. Hyper-competitive people, especially when they're also hyper-talented, are going to give it everything they have--but they'll also never admit when the task is simply impossible. I doubt that David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal have ever considered they might not succeed--which is the whole point of civilian control of the military.

but of course, you ALWAYS say that, dajafi. This article has nothing to do with real, substantive disagreements on what's going on right now in Afghanistan or the hopelessness of the cause. You're just using this as an opportunity to say what you always say.

Now, you're not necessarily wrong... but your point loses impact if you just use any excuse to bring it up like a bad Tom McCarthy segue "The Phils lost last night, and you know who else is losing, our proud men and women of the military".

That last part wasn't a shot at you, just a chance to ding McCarthy.

outsource afghanistan to china. they've shown interest in the lithium and have already developed plans for a railway. they'll fund some money in there and do just enough to keep the place from going completely to hell. we can get out of the state building nonsense and focus on covert combat on the afghan-paki border and focus our diplomatic efforts on getting pakistan and its ISI under control.

and i say this as someone who agreed with the McChrystal report and his COIN strategy. but if he's not going to get what he needs to make it work, then stop half assing it and get out. i'm with bob herbert on this.

jeff2sf wrote:but of course, you ALWAYS say that, dajafi. This article has nothing to do with real, substantive disagreements on what's going on right now in Afghanistan or the hopelessness of the cause. You're just using this as an opportunity to say what you always say.

Now, you're not necessarily wrong... but your point loses impact if you just use any excuse to bring it up like a bad Tom McCarthy segue "The Phils lost last night, and you know who else is losing, our proud men and women of the military".

That last part wasn't a shot at you, just a chance to ding McCarthy.

And you said that you wanted to give Obama a year to fulfill his campaign pledge to escalate that war and see if he could succeed where every empire in the history of ever has failed.

It's not a year yet, and I'm enough impressed with those two guys--which was the other part of my point--to want them to have the rest of that time. But I don't think even you would claim that it's looking very good.

My larger point, the one that I'd say I keep bringing up, is that we have to start living within our collective means. Wars of choice to me are a lot less important than many of the other concerns we're facing as a society.

Then again, I'm pretty sure we're fucked anyway; if we didn't spend the money we don't have on this stupid thing, we'd find other stupid things to spend it on.

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:but of course, you ALWAYS say that, dajafi. This article has nothing to do with real, substantive disagreements on what's going on right now in Afghanistan or the hopelessness of the cause. You're just using this as an opportunity to say what you always say.

Now, you're not necessarily wrong... but your point loses impact if you just use any excuse to bring it up like a bad Tom McCarthy segue "The Phils lost last night, and you know who else is losing, our proud men and women of the military".

That last part wasn't a shot at you, just a chance to ding McCarthy.

And you said that you wanted to give Obama a year to fulfill his campaign pledge to escalate that war and see if he could succeed where every empire in the history of ever has failed.

It's not a year yet, and I'm enough impressed with those two guys--which was the other part of my point--to want them to have the rest of that time. But I don't think even you would claim that it's looking very good.

My larger point, the one that I'd say I keep bringing up, is that we have to start living within our collective means. Wars of choice to me are a lot less important than many of the other concerns we're facing as a society.

Then again, I'm pretty sure we're $#@! anyway; if we didn't spend the money we don't have on this stupid thing, we'd find other stupid things to spend it on.

I'm not sure what "not looking good" means. I thought we were doing ok. But I could definitely see pulling the plug in 5 months.

But why do you go through life with such a negative attitude? We're fucked? From time in memoriam things always look not so great. And things always turn out relatively well. We'll fix things when it's time to fix them. Not before.

I don't really want to get into a debate about whether I'm right or wrong on us figuring things out. I'd rather just ask why you want to be so gloomy? Cheer up.

The six-month ban on drilling has been blocked:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFWAT0 ... 622?rpc=44

Three of the war's biggest supporters in the Senate pointedly declined to offer Gen. McChrystal their backing in a joint statement. Sen. McCain, Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said: "General McChrystal's comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between commander-in-chief and the military. The decision concerning Gen. McChrystal's future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States."

I still think he stays. I think he screwed his next promotion however.

There is some good top brass in the services these days. Admiral Olsen is another solid leader.