A Welcoming Community
There are people in this country who won’t pretend that the people who made the decision to invade Iraq are not war criminals. I believe that, as time goes by, this will become more of a mainstream view. But, as it stands, Condi Rice cannot come to New Jersey and deliver the commencement address to Rutgers’ graduates because the students and the faculty will not tolerate it.
This is as it should be.
European Nations Need to Increase Defense Spending
.
Yep, Ukraine a pivot to increase Europe’s defense spending due to our declaration Russia is an adversary, not a partner for us. Iran may soon lose the label “terrorist” state, and offers more rewards for US energy sector in coming decades.
CSIS Conference: “A Transatlantic Pivot to Asia,” featuring H.E. Frans Timmermans, FM of the Netherlands plus (VIDEO)
At the conference there was listed a speaker named Hans Binnendijk, I had to google his name and found these reports. Hans Binnendijk, Theodore Roosevelt Chair in National Security Policy and Director of the Center for Technology and National Security Policy [until July 2012]. A founding member of RUSI – A Study of Possible Russian Military Strategies Against Ukraine.
(WorldSecurityNetwork in 2008) Dr. Hans Binnendijk: Where will Russia go.
World Security Network Foundation C/O Joseph Schmitz in Bethesda, Maryland (MD)
Rethinking U.S. Security Strategy Op-ed by Hans Binnendijk
(NY Times) – To set the stage for a new strategy, the National Intelligence Council recently published “Global Trends 2030,” which envisions a world of diffused power shifting increasingly to the East and South; empowerment of new actors, some of whom will have access to disruptive technologies; and a neo-Malthusian mix of demographic trends and greater resource requirements that could make the world more dangerous. For the first time in the history of these reports, it includes the future U.S. strategic posture as a potential global game changer.
A new strategy should not be budget-driven, but it will be budget-influenced. Savings from the termination of two wars are not being reinvested in the military; they will be a peace dividend. Sequestration may cut significantly below that peace dividend.
In short, the United States faces a more dangerous world with fewer national security resources. The new U.S. strategy will either need to retrench and absorb greater risk or develop more robust global partnerships to pick up the slack.
Several prominent thinkers are proposing a strategy called offshore balancing, which involves a degree of retrenchment. It would exert U.S. influence through regional powers and withdraw most U.S. ground forces from Europe and the Middle East. Critics of offshore balancing argue that it would result in U.S. disengagement and possible collapse of U.S. alliances.
An alternative approach more likely to capture the views of Kerry and Hagel is forward-partnering. Developed at the National Defense University, the approach would continue to stress U.S. forward-force deployments but with a new purpose: to enable America’s global partners to operate together with U.S. forces and to encourage partners to take the lead in their own neighborhoods.
This fits with the flow of previous strategies: During the Cold War the United States “contained” enemies to protect partners; during the Clinton administration the U.S. “enlarged” the number of democratic partners, and now the U.S. would “enable” partners to help us maintain global stability.
America’s partners in this strategy would be its traditional European and Asian allies, plus emerging democracies like Brazil, India and Indonesia. Regional organizations such as the African Union, the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council would form natural partnerships for regional operations.
DNI Publication ‘Global Trends 2030’
Remember the RAND Corporation – Robert McNamara – Vietnam War and casualties – Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Continued below the fold …
Sounds like the 50s and 60s, US foreign policy based on the McNamara’s RAND Corporation … please fill-out the blank for the next foreign intervention: UKRAINE.
Thank you, we’ll increase defense spending all across Europe and convert the people of the nations from Venus to Mars-like aliens.
National Intelligence Council recently published “Global Trends 2030”
The National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) Global Trends Report engages expertise from outside government on factors of such as globalization, demography and the environment, producing a forward-looking document to aid policymakers in their long term planning on key issues of worldwide importance.
Since the first report was released in 1997, the audience for each Global Trends report has expanded, generating more interest and reaching a broader audience that the one that preceded it. A new Global Trends report is published every four years following the U.S. presidential election.
Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds
Global Trends 2030 is intended to stimulate thinking about the rapid and vast geopolitical changes characterizing the world today and possible global trajectories over the next 15 years. As with the NIC’s previous Global Trends reports, we do not seek to predict the future–which would be an impossible feat–but instead provide a framework for thinking about possible futures and their implications.
In-depth research, detailed modeling and a variety of analytical tools drawn from public, private and academic sources were employed in the production of Global Trends 2030. NIC leadership engaged with experts in nearly 20 countries–from think tanks, banks, government offices and business groups–to solicit reviews of the report.
I think it’s basically true that there is somewhat of a disconnect between how progressives think about things and how the Democratic Party in Washington thinks about things, but this disconnect is incredibly minor when you compare it with the disconnect between how conservatives view things and how the Republican Establishment views them. For example, in Wisconsin the GOP is trying to depublicize their internal dispute about whether or not the Badger State should exert its right to secede from the Union.
In April, at a meeting of the Sixth Congressional Republican Caucus, they passed a resolution affirming Wisconsin’s right to secede. It has aroused some controversy, but what’s most interesting is what people have to say about it. For example:
To be clear, the text of the resolution reads, in full, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we strongly insist our state representatives work to uphold Wisconsin’s 10th Amendment rights, and our right to secede, passing legislation affirming this to the US Federal Government.”
“We should remove it. Nobody wants to secede from the union,” said Todd Welch, chairman of the libertarian-leaning Wisconsin Campaign for Liberty and a member of the Republican Party. “Obviously, it is an option, but nobody wants to do that. We should focus on the real issues of stopping Obamacare, stopping Common Core, protecting gun rights.”
The 10th Amendment simply states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If you couple the 10th Amendment with a right to secede, you’re talking about combating the tyranny of the federal government. This fits right in with “stopping Obamacare, stopping Common Core, protecting gun rights.”
Watch:
Lynette Clark, a leader of the Alaskan Independence Party, said that she was encouraged by the news of out of the Badger State.
“With fascism alive and well in Washington D.C., there are a lot of states that are looking to affirm their rights as republics,” she said. “Look at what is happening with the BLM and our good friend Mr. Bundy. Government agencies are out of control. It reminds me of Europe in the 30’s.”
The following is supposed to pass for sanity:
“I do believe that a state has the right to secede if the voters wish. I just believe it is necessary at this time. We are not at the point. We are talking about nullification,” said Lewis. “We are led to believe that the Civil War ended that debate [on secession], but it didn’t. The Civil War was a war; one side won, one side lost, and because of that they didn’t secede, but we can still have the debate.
“We are not saying we need to colonize the moon or anything crazy like that,” he added. “We are fighting for our constitution.”
Of course, Wisconsin fought bravely on the side of the Union in the Civil War, but some of their more politically-active right-leaning citizens seem to regret that.
So, while more mainstream Republicans are struggling to distance their party from this secession talk, the bottom line is that opposition to ObamaCare, Common Core, and any kind of reasonable gun violence control is considered completely orthodox within the GOP.
This is the party that Jeb Bush wants to run. I don’t think they will let him run it.
Hello again painting fans.
This week I will be continuing with painting of the 1937 Rolls Royce. The photo that I will be using is seen directly below. I will be using my usual acrylics on an 9×12 gallery-wrapped canvas.
But first, some very good news. The Holbrook , Az service station was selected for the juried show at the Kent Art Association, in Kent, Connecticut. It is now hanging in the current show for those in the area. It is seen below.
I am very pleased.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.
Since that time, I have continued to work on the painting.
I have concentrated most of my efforts directly on the car. The grille and headlights have been painted with some of the details seen in the photo. I’m going to refine the bars of the grille a bit and add highlights for next week’s cycle. Below, the bumper has also received some attention, now appearing in a light blue. The wheels have their whitewalls and the start of the chrome rims. Looking at it now, I’ll have to reshape them just a bit. The fenders have also been given some paint along with the windows. Finally, a touch of green now appears just ahead of the car, on the right side of the painting.
The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.
I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.
Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.
So, this happened:
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Friday he would appoint a select House committee to expand the Republican investigation into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
Also, somewhere today, a cow farted.
Ed Kilgore compares Jeb Bush’s prospective presidential campaign to Fred Thompson’s. This seems both cruel and all-too-accurate. Of course, Jeb has the advantage of a much greater network of support, but Thompson didn’t have to contend with the legacy of an idiotic brother. Thompson arguably was a more conformist conservative than Jeb, too.
I’m a bit wary of wading into the racially-charged waters surrounding use of the “n-word” and the term “Uncle Tom.” Part of me feels like it’s a topic I should just stay away from. I’ve watched comedians like Chris Rock try to argue that there are real actual niggers and then there are black people. I’ve watched white suburban kids answer their phones with “What’s up, my nigger?” and explain to me that their generation doesn’t think the term is racist. I’ve listened to stupid white people complain about the fact that black people use the term all the time, so why can’t they use it? I remember when former Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd talked about white niggers.
I don’t use the n-word. I don’t use it as an insult. I don’t use it ironically. It’s a word that won’t pass my lips. But, I don’t feel the same way about the term Uncle Tom. I am a bit surprised to read just how viscerally Jonathan Capehart reacts to hearing “Uncle Tom.” I respect his opinion and it’s made me think.
But I think it’s a term that actually means something. I don’t know what the n-word is supposed to mean aside from a general putdown. When Chris Rock uses it, he’s talking about blacks that fit the worst stereotypes about blacks. When Donald Sterling uses it, he’s talking about any and all black people. But I know exactly what Uncle Tom means. It means a black person who betrays other blacks in service of his white masters. And, if you ask black people if they think Justice Clarence Thomas fits that description, you’ll discover that most of them think that he does.
There’s an argument that it is undignified to throw such a charged insult at a member of the Supreme Court, particularly if you are a congressman. That’s basically an argument for civility. I think there’s less of an argument for the idea that Justice Thomas should be allowed to have political differences from the vast majority of blacks without his loyalty to his race coming into question. Yes, there has to be room for divergent political positions within the black community, but there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. Voting to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is most definitely across that line. And that’s not a stand alone vote. Some have said that it seems like Clarence Thomas exists to nullify everything that Justice Thurgood Marshall accomplished in his life.
So, really, it comes down to whether or not you think Uncle Tom is just too vicious of a term to use in polite society. Capehart thinks it is. I wonder how many people agree with him. I’m willing to listen.
.
Bibi’s lies: ‘Israel will always preserve equal rights, personal and civil, of all citizens, Jews & non-Jews as 1.” http://buff.ly/1jny8jw
Netanyahu pushing Basic Law defining Israel as Jewish state(Haaretz) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday during a visit to Independence Hall in Tel Aviv that he planned to push forward a new Basic Law to “legally anchor” Israel’s status as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.”
Netanyahu said he believed that the most “basic ingredient in our national lives will win legal status just as other central ingredients that constitute our fundamental core that have already been ruled into the Basic Law of Knesset.”
“Unfortunately, as we have seen recently, there are those who do not recognize this natural right and who seek to appeal the historical, legal and moral justification for the existence of the state of Israel as the nation-state of our people,” he added. “I see it as one of my basic missions as prime minister to fortify the state of Israel as the nation-state of our people.”
…
BTW In the cabinet of ministers, Netanyahu gets the support of MK Feiglin, deputy speaker, who makes it more clear by defining Judaism as the state religion of Israel, commandments of the Torah, written law given by G-d to Moses. Israel has no constitution.Minister Bennett makes no bones about building more settlements and his veto on any talks of a Palestinian state and sharing Jerusalem as capital.
Moshe Feiglin is banned from Britain but is coming to Canada. Why?
At last I managed to find the fascist description of Arabs by Moshe Feiglin. He has long been a controversial figure and his views are often described as fascist.
In the New Yorker in 2004 he was quoted as saying:
Among the Settlers by Jeffrey Goldberg
Indeed, some of the leading ideologues of the settlements, far from supporting the idea of a Jewish democracy, hope to establish a Jewish theocracy in Israel, ruled by a Sanhedrin and governed by Jewish law. Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement and heads the Jewish Leadership bloc within the Party–he controls nearly a hundred and fifty of the Likud central committee’s three thousand members–believes that the Bible, interpreted literally, should form the basis of Israel’s legal system.
“Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?” Feiglin said to me. “For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them.” In any case, Feiglin said, “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.”
Michael Barbaro and Nick Confessore have a piece up at the New York Times about big donor Establishment Republicans who are considering dumping their support for wounded Governor Chris Christie and shifting their political contributions to Jeb Bush.
It’s good click-bait, but I think there is less here than meets the eye. Barbaro and Confessore understandably sought out comment from Rangers and Pioneers, meaning folks who had bundled huge amounts of money for George W. Bush’s two presidential runs. If you look at a sample of big Bush donors, you shouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of residual support for Jeb.
If there’s an interesting insight in the article, it’s that these donors largely see Christie and Jeb as interchangeable. They also appear to believe that there are no other conceivable choices. So, what is it about Christie and Jeb that makes them so indistinct from each other? And why are they both seen as uniquely qualified?
I mean, I understand that Big Money trusts them, but why don’t they trust any other Republicans? I can see that Christie and Jeb both represent states that have more moderate electorates than Texas or Kentucky, but so does Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich.
Maybe there is a perceived moderation on immigration reform? Maybe there is less of a culture war flavor to Christie and Jeb? I can’t really put my finger on the rationale for why just these two gentlemen are considered acceptable.
Meanwhile, out in the sticks, the common wisdom is that Sen. Ted Cruz has this thing all but wrapped up. He’ll crush all comers in Iowa; New Hampshire will split its support ten ways; Cruz will win a giant victory in South Carolina, and that will be all she wrote. Could be. Could very well be. And Hugh Hewitt could be correct that the smart thing for the Big Money folks to do is to recruit Rick Santorum to peel off the big chunk of Cruz’s evangelical support in the Hawkeye State. It never made sense to me that a pre-Vatican II Catholic like Little Ricky would have much success in winning over evangelicals if they have an evangelical alternative. If you want Huckabee, you pick Huckabee. If he isn’t running, you go with Cruz. At least, that’s how it seems to me. But I have trouble thinking like an evangelical Republican.
As long as we’re brainstorming the 2016 Republican primaries, I’d like to know where Rand Paul is supposed to win. Iowa seems impossible. I saw a poll where he had a weak lead in New Hampshire, so maybe that’s a possibility in a very split big field of candidates. South Carolina seems unlikely. So, maybe the Nevada caucuses?
Here’s a favorite from the Doobie’s Toulouse Street:
What are you listening to?