Mailvox: Fear-based strategy

DS disagrees with today’s column:

Afghanistan is important, although it is being mishandled to the “nth” degree by people who know nothing about combat. Afghanistan was/is the base for the Taliban and they were using it as such for their incursion into Pakistan. The government of Pakistan is at best, wobbly. Pakistan has nukes and the wherewithal to deliver them into the hands of the likes of Al Qaeda or simply launch them against either us or Israel.

By keeping the Taliban fragmented and on the run were have been preventing that from happening. Now maybe you want to wake up to an air burst over the Midwest (or 2, or 3) taking down our grid, our nation and our way of life, followed by mass starvation in our cities, or to read the morning paper and see that Israel no longer exists, but I don’t.

First, it is ludicrous to think that occupying Afghanistan is somehow tantamount to defending American territory against nuclear attack. The invasion of Afghanistan not only destabilized Pakistan, but renders a terrorist nuke more likely since terrorism is a fundamentally non-military option. Keeping the Taliban “fragmented and on the run” in no way inhibits their ability to acquire nuclear technology from North Korea or Iran.

Second, it is remarkable to see DS attempt to argue that we should occupy Afghanistan in defense of Israel. I don’t think even Justin Raimondo at his most peacenik paranoid would draw a connection between the one and the other. This attempted defense isn’t so much hapless as complete gibberish. Anyhow, if Israel’s survival truly depends on occupying Afghanistan then let the IDF do it. As they have demonstrated for 30 years, they are more than capable of occupying territory populated by a hostile people.

Fear seldom leads to clear thinking, least of all when the thinking required is strategic.

True, but he’s still weird

Steyn on Obama:

In recent months, a lot of Americans have said to me that they had no idea the new president would feel so “weird.” But, in fact, he’s not weird. True, he’s not, even in Democratic terms, a political figure — as, say, Clinton or Biden are. Instead, he’s the product of the broader culture: There are millions of people like Barack Obama, the eternal students of a vast lethargic transnational campus for whom global compassion and the multicultural pose are merely the modish gloss on a cult of radical grandiose narcissism. As someone once said, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” When you’ve spent that long waiting in line for yourself, it’s bound to be a disappointment.

Obama isn’t the first black president, he’s the first teen president. On a tangential note, I have to admit that I find it both irritating and amusing when left-liberal Americans who have never been anywhere outside the borders for more than two weeks, don’t speak anything but English, and have seldom encountered an idea that wasn’t spoon-fed to them by a teacher or professor try to strike the citoyen du monde pose in front of me.

But I have to disagree with Steyn. The fact that there are no shortage of other useless and narcissistic weirdos doesn’t make Obama any less weird. It is surprising to me that more people didn’t observe how psychologically strange Obama has been from the start. There is something intrinsically wrong with anyone who is still that much of a blank slate after more than a decade in the public eye. Forget the missing birth certificate, where are the friends and old girlfriend, where are the proud teachers and professors? And since his inauguration, Obama’s presidency has provided one risible moment after another, and I strongly suspect that the ultimate punch line is going to be a doozy.

WND column

Nine Years of Futility

In December 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan with 80,000 soldiers supported by 1,800 tanks. The government of Afghan President Hafizullah Amin was overthrown in less than a week at a minimal cost of only 86 fatalities. However, Marshal Sokolov was unable to establish control outside the major population centers, and despite reinforcements that increased its total occupation force to 100,000 troops, 80 percent of the country remained outside the control of its military or its puppet government. Over the 10 years of the failed occupation, Soviet forces lost an average of 1,445 dead annually (63 percent of which were combat-related), until they finally retreated in a two-stage, largely peaceful withdrawal that was completed in February 1989.

World Cup Day 2

Korea dominated Greece. Just dominated them. They looked fast, sharp, and capable of pestering the elite teams. I can’t see them winning the group but they should go through easily.

Argentina toyed with Nigeria. It wasn’t anywhere nearly as close as the 1-0 score indicated. Messi was absolutely awful and should have had at least two goals. He was shooting so badly that I kept thinking he was a midfielder.

England was better than the USA throughout, but the USA should have actually won it. The referee showed himself to be England’s 12th man when Jamie Carragher wasn’t given a red card after pulling down the US player by his neck on a through ball at the end of the game. Both teams should go through without any trouble. The US midfield played too defensively for my liking, but the defense was sturdy and did a great job of controlling both Heskey and Rooney.

I got your “recovery” right here

The Federal Reserve Z1 report came out on Friday and the only surprise was that the decline in Household debt has not kept pace with the decline in Financial debt.  However, the pattern to which I alerted you in RGD has continued; Federal debt has grown an astounding 48% since Q2 2008 while overall debt has fallen by 0.6%.  Since G (government spending) is a primary component of GDP, this proves that there is no private economic growth, there is only a massive amount of government borrowing and spending being used to temporarily prop up the economy. 

Note to inflationistas.  Remember that the formal M2 money supply is only $8 trillion, so the central bank manages about 13% of the debt+M2 money supply in the US debt-money system.  Even with the refusal to recognize tens of thousands of home mortgage defaults, (which is why household sector debt hasn’t declined as much as one would expect), private sector debt has fallen $2.5 trillion.  As Robert Prechter has explained, debt is deflating faster than the central bank and federal government can inflate.  This is exactly the process described in RGD as the Great Depression 2.0 scenario.

A few notes. First, notice that the 2010 Q1 decline in financial sector debt is HUGE. At -4.4%, it’s more than TWICE the -2.15% average quarterly decline since the sector debt growth turned negative in Q1 2009. Second, this is even bigger when you realize that 2%+ quarterly debt growth was normal for decades. Second, the rate of federal debt expansion is slowing. It was only 6% in the previous quarter, down from nearly 10% the second half of 2008. As I have repeatedly written, the federal strategy of replacing private debt with public can only work in the very short term; 6% of $8 trillion is less than 4% of $15 trillion. Third, the WSJ reported last week that the relatively small 1.75% cumulative decline in household debt is ENTIRELY the result of debt defaults, not reductions in the level of debt. So, we can expect the -0.44% average quarterly decline in that sector to shrink faster in the coming quarters. Fourth, the inability of state and local governments to even maintain their debt levels at their 2% pre-2008 norm is what prompted Obama’s call to provide $50 billion to them today. So, federal debt isn’t merely supposed to cover the decline in financial and household sector debt, but now has to make up for the lack of growth in state and local government debt too.

Needless to say, it simply is not going to work. My guess is that the public perception of the Great Depression 2.0 will take effect when household sector debt declines by more than 2% per quarter. RGD readers will remember that I expect this to take place in Q4 2010.

World Cup Day 1

I thought South Africa was a little better than I expected them to be and Mexico was downright lazy. Neither team has a striker capable of finishing; Mexico in particular was plagued by the dread Midfielder’s Disease. There must have been five or six occasions when a Mexican player passed up the opportunity to make a shot in search of the perfect opening, the defense closed, and the ball was lost without ever a shot being fired. A good result for South Africa and a poor one for Mexico. Based on the talent difference and Mexican control of the ball, it should have been 2-0 or 3-1.

Although Nicola Anelka had one great season for Arsenal about 12 years ago, I have long considered him to be a downright negative. France would have been better playing with 10 players than starting him up front. I’ve never seen a player at the International level ignore more passing opportunities in favor of trying to beat three defenders at once. He’s a physical specimen, fast and strong, and still less than worthless on the pitch. Once the ball went to Anelka, it was as good as turned over to Uruguay. Given the red card, it was a great result for Uruguay and disastrous for France. Even England after Rooney’s injury last time around looked more capable of scoring than this French team.

A perfect summary

It isn’t often that I find myself wishing I’d written something someone else wrote, but this comment by Alexa Menos is the most flawless description and indictment of current female confusion that I have ever read. And I quote:

“Why don’t men in a matriarchal, polyamorous society behave as if they’re living in a patriarchal, monogamous society?”

If you change the rules of the game, don’t be surprised when the players begin to play it differently than before.

NB: Cocomment appears to be down so I’ve turned on Blogger comments.

I am agog

Frankly, I’d have been less shocked if a picture of Nate wearing leather chaps commando in the Folsom Street parade appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

A while ago on Facebook, regular reader and contributor Nathan Cherolis posed an interesting question for downtime in the NFL with the World Cup approaching. It went something like this: If you could take one guy from each AFC South roster to train intensively for one year to be a World Cup goalkeeper, who would it be?

Welcome to the Euro side, Nate. We’ll have you drinking Blue Hawaiians in no time.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Teachers aren’t just stupid, they’re increasingly dishonest to boot:

Of all the forms of academic cheating, none may be as startling as educators tampering with children’s standardized tests. But investigations in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Virginia and elsewhere this year have pointed to cheating by educators.

Needless to say, this behavior was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted by many on both sides of the test standards issue. Personally, I don’t care either way. As far as I’m concerned, attempting to fine-tune mass public education through technical measures falls well into the lipstick-on-a-pig category.

The only interesting thing is how easily corruptible the great influencers of tomorrow’s leaders have turned out to be. At least the great destroyers of the global economy were playing for personal millions. These petty thieves were willing to sell out their charges for less than $3,000!

World Cup 2010

The quadrennial carnival starts tomorrow and it promises more excitement off the pitch than on it. Here are my predictions:

1) The USA upsets England and wins Group C.
2) The number of World Cup-related deaths in South Africa exceeds the number of goals scored.
3) South Africa will not get past the group stage.
4) Australia will finish last in Group D after being upset by Ghana.
5) The Italians will argue vociferously over which strikers should be starting and who was substituted too soon/late. Before and after every game.
6) Holland will finally claim the Cup.