Free Markets, Free People


The worst part about installing buggy software…

…Is trying to uninstall it.

download

Jeez. This is taking forever.

H/T Darleen Click

~
Dale Franks
Google+ Profile
Twitter Feed

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

36 Responses to The worst part about installing buggy software…

  • It’s like trying to uninstall cancer.

    • Or a virus.
      And the Mushroom Media is like a Trojan, unfortunately, not like a prophylactic.

  • Nonetheless, I do believe that Obama just passed through the inflection point of doom. After his bluff was called on the debt ceiling struggle, Obama unleashed the dreaded weapon of his popular appeal and got … nothing, nothing but plummeting polls and plummeting markets.

    Now even his supporters are noticing that Obama has never had a plan for creating jobs or fixing the economy.

    Bogart: I came to Casablanca for the waters.
    Rains: The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.
    Bogater: I was misinformed.

  • The metamorphisis of hope and change is ongoing, and by election time, best be prepared for something that all previous observation and training will still leave you unprepared to witness properly. He has gradually accustomed his followers and swing supporters to a change of masks, the switch from the messiah of hope and change mask to the mask of resentment and grievance and victimization. Don’t be surprised if by this time next year he wears the mask of vengeance.

    • Hey, wait if he gets bounced in Nov., ’12, just how much havoc he’ll wreak between Election Day +1 and Inauguration Day for President Perry.

  • Martin: I could be wrong but I’ve never seen Obama in as dire terms as you do. I agree that he is a stealth leftist. I agree that he is damaged goods psychologically. But I don’t believe he has the steel or intelligence to be a terror.

    Obama’s grandiosity, aided and abetted by a lifetime of people fawning over him, led him to believe that his very presence and voice would transform the world as a matter of course. Now that he is failing and nothing in his limited repertoire seems to help, he is wilting, becoming a pale version of himself.

    This past week, instead of redoubling his efforts with grim resolve, he did a half-a**ed bus tour then exited, stage left, promising a new speech next month, but in the meantime enjoying an ultra-rich vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

    At heart he is a spoiled schoolchild accustomed to gold stars for little effort. I see petulance, not vengeance, in his future.

    • When a schoolkid throws a tantrum you shrug it off. When the worlds most powerful man decides to throw a tantrum, he can do some bad sh*t to his enemies. I mean look at what he’s having his various regulatory agencies do to TX. I have no doubt in those few months he stays in offie post-election, Baracky will do whatever spiteful things he can.
      He won’t be landslided – the urban blacks and true believers on the coasts will ensure he maintains a respectable electoral floor. But those traditional GOP states he picked off? Gone. Those usual swing states he picked won? Gone. He’ll lose the south, he’ll lose TX, FL and probably OH and VA. And you’ll see his support in the upper midwest crumble as well.
      He’ll be stung. He’ll be smarting from rejection. And he’ll have lots of targets to choose from in his fit of pique.
      ¬
      ¬
      ¬
       

      • Petulance is not the same thing as throwing a tantrum. We’ve already seen Obama petulant (“Don’t call my bluff” or cutting off an interview with a reporter) and it’s not pretty, but it’s not the same thing as launching all our nuclear missiles or arresting Cantor and Boehner in the dead of night.

        The regulatory EPA stuff is not a tantrum either, but deliberate policy from Day One to implement his agenda one way or another. As I asked Martin, how is this different from FDR?

        By petulant, I mean that Obama will become increasingly sulky and prickly in his appearances and in his interactions with Republican leaders.

        Nonetheless I believe he will be constrained by political realities and by his grandiose notions that he is a statesman. For instance, when he was being dressed down by Netanyahu on national television, Obama did not insult N. to his face or order him out of the room. Obama sat there and took it, though it was clear from his body language he wasn’t liking it a bit.

    • Nothing stealthy about it. He said during the campaign, “I’m a Progressive”.
      Does he think none of us know what that means?

      • Among American liberals, “progressive” does not mean stealth leftist. It means good decent American liberal except that they don’t say the L word anymore because it got discredited by the Left as being squishy and the Right as being tax-and-spend.

  • That’s funny.

  • Huxley writes: “I‚Äôve never seen Obama in as dire terms as you do.”

    Take a look around you. He has leveraged a financial crisis and a routine recession into the destruction of the American economy. He commandeered one-sixth of the economy in a stroke of his pen, against the wishes of the majority of Americans. He spent a trillion dollars as an emergency “Stimulus” that was nothing more than a political payoff. He has drastically weakened America internationally, and thus weakened international security. He has laid in a generation’s worth of damage.

    Even if your summation is true, that he is no more than a petulant schoolchild, what is and always has been important is that he is in power. In power. And never underestmate the vengefulness of a petulant schoolchild, in any case.

    But you still assume something that I think is dead wrong: an absence of malice. I see evidence of total malice, beyond a reasonable doubt. And my case against him has never been based on his psychology, but on his ideology, for which we now have, thanks to Stanley Kurtz, a reasonably complete record.

    • Martin: How are Obama’s efforts to enlarge the government and make big plays with the economy different from FDR’s? How are his programs different from what the top Democratic leadership — Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, Pelosi and Reid — wanted? How far could Obama have gotten with his programs if they were not aligned with the desires and expectations of Democrats from to top to bottom?

      This was not a “routine recession.” It was a serious debt recession, not an inventory recession, and debt recessions are different, more difficult beasts to recover from. Also it was a global problem in which the world banking system essentially died for eight days and no one could be sure how to fix it or what was going to happen. Much of the world could have awakened in Argentina a few months later if things had gone badly.

      Total malice is a psychological diagnosis requiring mind reading. Since Obama is such a closed person I don’t see how we can know either way. I think Obama actually believes his agenda will make America a better country in a better world. I suspect he also won’t mind settling some scores at the same time either, which isn’t nice or right, but is still a long ways from “total malice.”

      In my modeling of Obama, I think he is genuinely surprised that nothing has worked as he expected. I believe he planned 2012 as a “Morning in America” kind of campaign.

  • How is the situation different from FDR’s attempts with the New Deal? The rot of the New Deal, its core Ponzi scheme, is now rotting right on the surface. It’s later-breaking Medicare catastrophe (post-New Deal New Deal) is even worse. The destruction of American culture, especially the family is near or at the tipping point. The economy is way different: no longer dynamically industrial, capable of outproducing the world. More vulnerable than the Great Depression, because of the cultural kill off and the loss of dynamism, which are related. To this Obama administered a third massive entitlement program, against all common sense — that is the common sense of bourgeois principles.

    The recession was set to max out by June-July of ’09. In fact, that’s when the scorekeepers insist that it ended. This was not as bad a situation as the one Reagan came in on top of, with the monstrous inflation and interest rates. But, Obama laid in damage, uncertainty, and wet blanketry at the very moment that the economy was set to grow. Capital had re-formed and was ready to move toward growth, but instead it was faced with Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, and a public sector growing out of control¬†when it should have been pulled under control. Just look at the spectacular cutting off at the knees that oil production in the Gulf got *after* the mess was cleaned up for an up close profile of how it has worked. Meanwhile, the most optimistic demographic in the country is the one in D.C.

    How does he differ from the other wild liberals in the Democratic Party? He actually acted on their fantasies as president and took them to the next stage.

    And you think that he wonders why nothing he did has worked? I think he thinks it worked like a charm. If you examine his ideological background — and Stanley Kurtz’s book is what I would call¬†a political-ideological historiography of that background — it is *far and away* more seriously Leftist than the usual suspects of the Democratic Party, including the ones who profess open Marxism. Obama came to maturity both detesting the United States and I’m convinced believing in the superiority of the Soviet Union. Then the Soviet Union collapsed when he was just thirty, and serious Marxists blame that on the capitalist trickery and sabotage of the United States, the Main Enemy, as the KGB called it.

    He is a much different animal than a loudmouthed idiot like Ted Kennedy. Obama is more than capable than distinguishing in an instant between anyone’s bourgeois principles or any of his supposed followers’ falling prey to bourgeois principles and his own orthodox Marxist principles, starting with class struggle. The whole point of “community organizer” schtick was to insinuate Marxist principles stealthily at the grass roots level. The purpose was to use intimidation to get concessions from the private sector and government that would look good to those who had been organized, but the real purpose of which was to crash the system and then replace it with socialism. Therein, quite literally, is the roots of the mortgage collapse, with Acorn and Obama present at the creation in Chicago circa 1990.

    But I believe Obama has gone way far to the farthest end of that schtick. He got *there* via that church, where he, not the Reverend Wright, was by far the most radical member. And that’s got to do with the world-historical *criminality* of the United States, the Main Enemy, from the Soviet-Marxist point of view. You have to remember in all of this that Marxism was for decades the Soviet’s ideology to interpret. And it did that, in the West,¬†relentlessly, through its influence on Western intellectuals and academics. Obama is not a by osmosis Marxist, however. He is a directly trained and self-educated Marxist, first mentored as a young man by a member of the CPUSA, Frank Marshall Davis.

    He is not to be interpreted in the normative terms of American politics. He is not interested in prosperity — other than his own — he is interested in ruin and dependency ad the predicate for renewed class struggle. If you try to grasp him in normative terms, you wind up calling him incompetent and petulant, judging him in bourgeois terms and by bourgeois principles. He doesn’t care about any of that. And his malice is ideological. His psychology is immersed in that ideology, and it is pointless to try to interpret him therapeutically.

  • Martin: On one hand you argue that this was a routine recession and on the other you argue that we are poised on the precipice of collapse initiated by the New Deal. I favor the latter myself. We are faced with a huge debt crisis, fueled by leftist policies for decades, here and abroad. I agree Obama has made things worse. I don’t agree that his mission was to destroy the economy.

    My questioning about FDR, Ted Kennedy, the Clintons etc¬† was to point out that Obama and the policies he enacted may look outlandish and intentionally destructive to the right, but to today’s Democrats, O’s policies were the fulfillment of dreams cherished since the heydays of FDR, Truman and LBJ. Obama is not a singular evil figure who somehow wrested the nomination from Hillary, bewitched the nation, and then set forth upon his nefarious schemes. In fact one of the most deadening things about Obama is just how rote his script has been. Not a single fresh idea.

    The rest of your post is mostly mindreading that fails to impress me. Yes, I’ve read Stanley Kurtz and I knew who Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were before Obama ran. I know that Obama has been deeply soaked in radical leftist politics, far more so than any other president. But while those politics inform Obama, that’s not necessarily who he is or what he is doing.

  • There’s no contradiction between the condition of the government’s fiscal house, which is deteriorating, and the fact that Obama has deliberately prolonged this recession. And, it is precisely the lack of recovery and growth that accelerates and worsens the fiscal problem. The fiscal problem can be managed by deep reform *and* by strong, continuous growth. The greatest damage inflicted by Obama has been to small business, where the real growth and prosperity has to come from.

    And if you have read Stanley Kurtz then you know that fundamental to Obama’s modus operandi is crashing the system, which means that he has acted deliberately, unless you believe that his policies¬†only coincidentally followed his own M.O., that it was in effect an accident, and not deliberate. And, again, if you have read Kurtz then you know that there is a confluence of fact and Obama’s hidden and explicit ideology as the basis of everything I’m saying. You call it “mindreading.” I call¬†any conclusion I reach beyond those of Kurtz¬†valid inference. Kurtz is very reluctant to infer the full meaning of his findings (findings that he says he did not expect to find — the degree of Obama’s training in, involvement with, commitment to,¬†and deception about socialism, Marxist socialism). I believe that Kurtz intended to just lay out the facts and let others see their implications. I am one of those others.

    And, again, there’s no getting past the church. There’s no getting past the fact that Obama chose it with great care. That it is a Marxist church featuring a *Marxist* racial dynamic (for the Left, Marxist racism is good racism) and that Obama was well-prepared for it through his¬†study of Fanon, among others. As Kurtz points out, Obama’s critics were not carping about videos taken out of context. Not only were the videos in context, Kurtz says, the context is much worse and far more damning¬†than the videos. Something that I said here before Kurtz came to the same conclusion. How the church got held out of bounds is testimony to the power of the political correctness regime flexing its muscles when it it counted.

    The only thing psychologically interesting, from a political point of view,¬†about Obama is his skill at the manipulation of mass psychology, which is undeniable, even when you account for the complicity of the media, a complicity that (by its bizarre extent) is very hard to understand, unless one classifies it as herd instinct. I have referred to Obama’s capability as a “charismatist.”

    That he has fulfilled some of the oldest fantasies of the Left (universal health care, primarily), which are endless and endlessly renewed, is just the come-on for that base. His real goals won’t benefit any American in other than short term gains for those getting his payoffs. In the end, his goal is “America delenda est.”

    It is not an accident that he has been called a poat-American president; as an orthodox Marxist he sees America as the problem and I believe that his own sense of his world-historical position requires that he take care of that problem once and for all. He wants to be re-elected, that would be the ultimate score of humilition against America,¬†but just in case he doesn’t get there, he made certain to lay in a generation’s worth of damage, and counting, Some of the things he has tried in the national security realm, which caused former DCI Hayeden to raise the alarm early among the national security elite, suggest an invitation to real physical harm as well. But it was on the economy where he focused his malice, so far.

  • Note that when I refer to Stanley Kurtz, I’m referring primarily to his book “Radical-in-Chief,” which is a very deliberate record of Obama’s political and ideological development, about which he has concocted a grand deception. Kurtz discusses some of his findings in his occasional articles for NRO and other publications. But the book is what I’m mainly referring to when I cite him. This is the book that gets to the bone of what Obama is about.

  • Martin: In many ways I am like Obama. I am the product of a broken home with a leftist father rumored to have been communist. I was raised in part by my grandparents because my mother was a beatnik druggie.¬† I was attracted to radical politics in my youth. I know Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn because I read “Prairie Fire” and other such texts back in the day.

    I am mentioning this personal material to support my assessment that Obama is a complex character who should not be flattened into two-dimensional socialist cartoon. Also to say that I believe I know the New Left from the inside and I know it better than you do.

    I don’t like Obama. I don’t support him. I don’t think he is an honest guy even when measured by other politicians. But I don’t think he is a straight-arrow commie like Bill Ayers either.

    Bottom line: Neither of us now can know the truth about Obama. I am mindreading too.

  • I don’t think that Obama is a two-dimensional socialist cartoon. I explicitly reject all the suggestions that he is incompetent and has no idea what he is doing, or that he is in over his head. What I have said is that he rejects judgements about his competence as being based on bourgeois principles. He does not care about anything like your or my normative standards for presidential competency.

    What I’ve been trying to say is that he is a fully developed orthodox Marxist, who thinks his thoughts in Marxist terms, and is through his experiences in the American socialist underground (itself very much hidden in plain sight) and his own efforts to master Marxist ideology and apply it to the world around him the best trained Marxist to come to power since Lenin.

    The problems with liberals is that Marxists have trained them to pooh-pooh any suggestions that there are Marxists among them. This has a long history. I can go into some of that, but let’s keep it short.

    The best indication of how seriously aware Obama is of how alien his Marxist background and *commitment* is even to liberals, let alone just ordinary Americans, is the incredible, and with the help of the media and political correctness, masterful degree of deception used to keep it from being known. This is what took Kurtz by surprise in his research. But as he points out, *deception* is inherent to the very nature of that beast.

    And just for the record, I am also a former Left-liberal radical, who absorbed a lot of Marxist dogma but was never a flat-out Marxist. I had no taste for the full-blown ideology. But I saw no reason why the government shouldn’t pay for everything. The one exception to that was my absolute distrust of any mixing between the government and the medical industry. I rejected that merger even back when. Based on those experiences, however, I recognize Obama as someone who clearly hates the United States and wanted power over it to “fundamentally transform” it.

  • <i>What I‚Äôve been trying to say is that he is a fully developed orthodox Marxist, who thinks his thoughts in Marxist terms, and is through his experiences in the American socialist underground (itself very much hidden in plain sight) and his own efforts to master Marxist ideology and apply it to the world around him the best trained Marxist to come to power since Lenin.</i>

    Martin: Yes. You’ve said it over and over again, I understand what you’ve said and why you’ve said it, but while you may be correct, you are still mindreading.

  • Ah, no, I am not mindreading. You judge the motives and intentions of a man by where he has invested himself. Kurtz documents long involvement with Marxists and Marxist theory, right up to the final stages of his campaign for the Presidency and into the White House, and that¬†includes a Marxist church with a Fanonist doctrine of the oppressed, a church chosen very carefully and routinely attended for twenty years. I would never be willing to subscribe to the notion that someone so deeply involved¬†with the very most radical Marxist outfits and personnel is some sort of squishy liberal who doesn’t know what he really thinks or where he has been or how and why he obtained power.

    Robert Hare, the Canadian psychologist who developed the Psychopathy Checklist, a system for determinging which criminals were clinical psychopaths, did it because psychopaths in prisons, who make up roughly twenty percent, or more, of the prison population, knew how to fool prison psychologists. They excelled at talking their way to parole, with full intention of returning to a life of crime. Hare looked instead at the objective facts of their lives, what they had done, how they had lived, the types of crimes they had committed, and that became a method for determining how they would behave if they were released.

    A serious Marxist, as opposed to a mere Leftist with Marxist tendencies, or a liberal with “feelings” about “things,” has a very clear, and to him, objective view of history. The undergirding of that view is Hegelian, but the substance of it is scientific socialism that views history as an objective process heading in one inevitable direction. That process cannot be stopped, it can only be impeded, and a¬†serious Marxist sees through anything, especially ideas, that do not directly flow from this historical process and the Marxist theory that interprets it. Part of this process is how the Marxist, as the agent of historical inevitability, engages the illusions of bourgeois society and its pretenses.

    This, not popular revolution, is where Marxist movements get their real power: their ability to have nothing invested in bourgeois ideology or principles. That is all just a mist to them. What we regard as normative is of no account to them. Except as it can be used to grease the gears of scientific socialism.

    Obama was molded early on by a man who was effectively a Soviet agent, a member of the CPUSA, while he was living with his grandparents in Hawaii after being sent back from Indonesia by his mother. By the time he got to Occidental he was a true believer in *the* revolution. When he moved on to Columbia he went right to the most radical elements. At the end of his time at Columbia he was at the Socialist Scholars Conference that honored who else but Karl Marx. A strategy emerging out of that conference was the deceptive and popular front-like “community organizing” modality. He went to Chicago to pursue it. Went to Harvard to get a law degree. Returned to Chicago and was on the front lines with Acorn. Joined a Marxist and virulently (Fanonist) racist church. Hooked up with the old creeps from the Weather Underground. Was wired into the full radical network in Chicago and stepped right from that onto the national stage, doing what? Lying and deceiving about what he stood for and who he was. He spoke of racial reconciliation, the big broad view of one America, at the ’04 convention while he was up to his eyeballs involved, family and all, with a church that taught black nationalism, black supremacism, and vivid detestation of whites, who had to submit to blacks if they wanted reconciliation.

    Now, how much mind-reading is required to draw a conclusion about that fact pattern?

    Kurtz explains that Obama is a “pragmatist” who uses what he must to get what he wants. He is immersed in a level of deception that we usually only see in imposters or spies. And a lot of that deception is right out in the open, where you can see it but apparently are not supposed to talk about it. Why and how there are so many placemen in the media who manage these deceptions for him remains a serious question, but I was reminded by a documentary today about how after the U.S. and South Vietnamese forced essentially destroyed the Viet Cong and hammered NVA troops in putting down the Tet offensive in 1968, a huge victory for our side, that Walter Cronkite went on the air and said that nothing better than a stalemate was possible. And we find out after Cronkite dies that he was some kind of “one worlder” but, we are reassured, that you would never know it by the way he reported the news. Well, the American media mystery is perhaps not so mysterious, with roots and influences going back to the 1930s, when everyone in the culture business in New York was some sort of fellow-traveling liberal or radical or communist.

  • You judge the motives and intentions of a man by where he has invested himself.

    Again, you judge the motives and intentions of a man, BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW THEM. Obama has also invested a great deal of time in being a law student, a family man, a retail politician, a writer, a public speaker, and a basketball aficionado.

    If he were all so gung ho to destroy America by stealth, it seems to me that he would have arranged things to insure a second term, where he could really run wild, but he has been so stubborn an ideologue and an ineffectual leader that he looks — knock on wood — about cooked for a second term. Is this his devious Marxist plan?

  • I’m satisfied that I have made my case.

    Kurtz’s historiography (my term for it) of Obama’s political and ideological development and the methods that Obama was trained in and has used in the past are a match for the way he has conducted himself as president.

    Your argument seems to come down to that because he also has a family and likes basketball that his political mindset is unknowable, if I may shorthand you the way you’ve been shorthanding me.

    Key to Obama’s malice is his economic obstruction simultaneous with his explosion of the debt. These people don’t even bother to pass budgets anymore. The chief argument that this could not be malice is that he simply doesn’t know what he is doing.

    He knows exactly what he is doing.

  • I‚Äôm satisfied that I have made my case.

    Good.You are satisfied; I am not.

    No, that’s not my argument. My argument, again, is that you are making a judgment.

    Definition of JUDGMENT
    1.
    a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion
    b : an opinion so pronounced
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

    Thus you have stated your opinion and supported it, but unless you can read minds, you cannot prove that opinion. People disagree about opinions, and I disagree with yours.

    If Obama’s behavior were at odds with the behavior of Democratic presidents and Democratic leaders, I would be more persuaded, but it is not. Unless you are consigning stealth Marxism to all Democratic leaders, that does not make the point. I remember that Time magazine cover right after the election showing Obama as FDR.

    Furthermore, if Obama “knows exactly what he is doing,” then it must have been part of his plan to push so hard that Democrats would suffer huge losses in the 2010 elections and Obama himself to become — knock on wood — a one-term president. That doesn’t make sense to me either.

  • In my version of Obama, he is a narcissist first and foremost who has dreamed since he was a child of being a world figure. He is now living out that fantasy and discovering that fantasies, unless matched with deep seasoned competence, do not bear the weight of reality well.
    He has said so many grandiose things and failed to deliver on them. He still seems to believe that he can just give a speech, dazzle the citizenry and thereby turn things around. “Don’t call my bluff, Eric,” indeed.

    No, if everything were going according to the master, stealth Marxist plan, Obama would not look haggard, embattled, and sour. Our economy has been damaged but it will recover. Obama and his brand of Democratic politics will not.

    Those are my opinions.

  • Obama certainly knew that pushing the Congress to pass ObamaCare while there was no economic recovery would cost the Democrats at least the House. That was becoming apparent from August of 2009 on. The “Stimulus” had, of course, not worked — it was never more than a scavenging of wealth, not in any way meant to produce wealth. There were not even “shovel ready” jobs. It was a political payoff to public employee unions and to the big rentseeking corporations for their help in getting him *into* *power.*

    The drawn out nature of the enactment of ObamaCare produced tremendous economic uncertainty, and the legislation itself, with hundreds, if not thousands of focal points that are still not understood, has made hiring, job creation of any kind, a risk redoubled. Then throw in routine presidential statements and White House attitudes that are hostile to business. Then throw in Dodd-Frank, with an endless series of unknown regulatory outcomes. Then keep oil production shut down in the Gulf. Then do nothing about the growing debt. Then use the regulatory arms to further thwart business and job creation. Then make national security mischief.

    Then, my friend, look at the basic theory behind the training that dominated Obama’s adult life: make trouble and crash the system.

    When you have power, when you are *in* *power* that’s something that you can use that *power* to do. To say that he unintentionally did what he was trained to do is a bit of a stretch.

  • Obama certainly knew that pushing the Congress to pass ObamaCare while there was no economic recovery would cost the Democrats at least the House.

    Martin: So the plan was to lose the House in 2010, then the Presidency and probably the Senate in 2012? If he was intentionally wrecking the economy, he would have to know that there would be no economic recovery.

    No, your argument makes little sense to me, and ultimately comes down, again, to mindreading.

    My model of Obama is simpler. He is a fallible guy hungry for fame and adulation, who saw his route to fulfillment through the Left, took that path, and achieved astonishing success, but is now failing because he did not have the resources to back up his fantasies.

    Hardly anyone in the Democratic party seems understand how their policies affect the economy. It’s not odd that Obama doesn’t understand either.

  • No, the plan was to lay in as much damage as possible, as rapidly as possible, and that was accomplished. To risk not being re-elected president, but nonetheless still do everything¬†conceivable to get re-elected (that’s coming and it’s going to be vicious). The House Democrats knew all along that they were probably sacrificing themselves for The Agenda. That was being discussed out in the open as they passed ObamaCare. And Obama is not a Democrat in any normative sense. He trumps even the far left wing of the Party.

    And your model of Obama probably is simpler, because it does not take into account who Obama is and what he was *trained* to do. Your model assumes that he only inadvertently did what he was trained to do his entire adult life and only inadvertently acted on an ideology that he embraced througout as well.

    You are saying that he was so incompetent, so inexperienced, that he stumbled into doing what his real experience and commitment (largely unknown to the public) said he would do, *because* — you are in effect arguing — what he was trained to do and what he was committed to, which constitute malice toward the country he came to *power* in, falls outside the normative terms of American politics.

    And that’s exactly what I warned about going back at least two years at this very blog and elsewhere, that Obama cannot be grasped within the normative terms of American politics, and that any and every attempt to do so is to his advantage.

    I repeat: He is the best trained Marxist to come *to* *power* anywhere since Lenin.

  • It’s always easier to damage something than to improve it. Obama’s actions have been entirely in line with the rest of the Democratic leadership and much of the party’s history. That strikes me as an alternate and simpler explanation. Occam’s Razor.

    Obama was trained to do lots of things in his life. Marxism was one of them. To know that Marxism, and a variant of Cloward-Piven in particular, is his primary allegiance requires mindreading, and I don’t accept that you have that ability.

    If Obama is such a mastermind, why is he doing such a poor job of protecting his interests? When the choice comes down to incompetence and conspiracy, one is usually better off choosing incompetence.

  • In my version of Obama, he has such faith in his personal power and his crackpot leftist theories that he thinks that putting his ideas into practice would make everything better in America and in the rest of the world. He would be a hero and ride to even greater heights. The oceans would recede and the planet would start to heal, etc.
    It didn’t work out that way. Now Obama is blaming bad luck and bad opponents for his problems. It’s a classic story of hubris meets nemesis.

  • No, it does not require mindreading to know that the method (and the outfits that practiced it) that Obama adhered to and practiced and networked himself into is the method that he used when he became president. These are not just valid inferences, they are necessary inferences. You can argue that they are not analytically secure, but that is the nature of inductive reasoning. There is no argument that they are simply “mindreading.”

    And if Obama has faith in his “crackpot theories,” as *you* say, it could not have been to make things better, because those theories *require* that things be made worse. The better comes “later,” i.e. never.

    What *twenty* *years* in what¬†is essentially a Fanonist cult of the oppressed (Wright’s church), is that Obama understands, by the terms that he understands the world (from his ideological background and now his position as a world-historical figure, a status that he likely views as the result of his adherence to Marxist historical inevitability), that the United States is the problem to which he is the solution. “Better” for him is when the U.S. is a back alley of suffering, where the fat American is purged of his sins against the oppressed of the world.

    This suffering is not for him, of course, because he is a “citizen of the world.” He is Planetary Personality One. But he doesn’t care about his followers anymore than Wright cared about his. “This is the revolution, baby, and there ain’t no time for you.”

    Once he is done with America, Obama has better things to do. I think that you believe that he is some ordinary sort of person, a typical Lefty, having some ordinary set of fantasies about, for instance, being the most *powerful* person on the planet. This is not someone who is ordinary in any sense of the word. He successfully willed himself to where he is, and it wasn’t to be a hero to liberals.

  • These are not just valid inferences, they are necessary inferences.

    Now I feel like I’m arguing with a Marxist: The state will wither away based on valid, necessary inferences. Any counter-arguments that get in the way can always be explained in terms of exceptions or a longer view.

    People have been debating Obama’s true nature since he began running in 2007. It’s still not settled. Obama is an extraordinarily opaque individual in our history. I doubt it will be settled, if it can be settled, until the memoirs have been written and the record pored over in detail, and that will take decades.

  • No, they are inferences from the facts. Those facts are especially informative because of the enormous, and nearly successful, attempt to hide them and to also make them off limits. We were told that to discuss Obama’s church, for instance,¬†was racist or to drag religion into politics or to invade his privacy or to exaggerate things out of context. We were told that to identify him as a socialist was racist. We were told that he was above race, but that criticizing him was racist, because he was a racial reconciliationist who was a dedicated member of a racist chruch.

    We were presented with a man who had written two memoirs before he was fifty in which he selectively informed Americans about himself, evading the deep Marxist socialist underground that he had committed himself to by the very act of going to Chicago to become a part of it, where he joined the most radical Marxist and Fanonist church he could find. We were told that he was a community organizer in exactly the way that the Marxists behind that modality want people to see community organizing, as a benign, activist, and above all *generic* sort of do-gooderishness.

    So, we have the benefit of Stanley Kurtz’s research and collateral source to inform us of what the real facts are, and those facts lead to valid inferences, and those valid inferences¬†become necessary because one must come to a fixed and certain idea of who this man is. Why? Because he is the most *powerful* person in the world, and he is wrecking the greatest country in the world. The facts say that he is doing that intentionally, with malice.

  • Of course. I have opinions. You have the valid inferences from the facts. I still disagree.

    I don’t see anywhere to go here. How about you?

  • Well, I’m happy to have had the opportunity to develop the argument. My only regret is the typos I left behind.