gdp's Comments

Commentary Magazine : The Age of Invective

Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:46:58 +0000

Loved your comment. I only think we shold note that "insidious" usually implies subtle working of harm--and there is nothing subtle about our Republicans' workings today. That critique I think significant enough to show Mr. Sullivan in diction untethered.

Commentary Magazine : Presidential Delusion

Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:09:07 +0000

"[N]ormal and proper legislative means" gave us Obamacare (reconciliation), the arbitrary (beyond who knows what calculations of PO) delay of the employer mandate, Obamacare exclusions to congressmen and their aides, and many more things besides such as various fiat-appointments. And if the 2011 debt ceiling standoff is the best evidence you can muster for Obama being correct (I'm so accommodating, I'm so tempered, I'm so calm), you're nuts. You're only proof that Obama has a leftward ear. "Sometimes people think I'm too calm" indeed.

Commentary Magazine : Why Harry Reid Lost His Temper

Thu, 3 Oct 2013 01:29:42 +0000

"They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose." I don't know if Harry Reid's conclusion flows logically from his premises, but his premised analysis and predictions of Obamacare are faulty. And maybe that's why Harry Reid lost his temper--because he's tied to the wounded pony that is Obamacare. The shutdown is the sequester but better, for there is nothing so elementary in the shutdown specifically designed to hurt Republicans or their ends as was in the sequester. (That would be the severe and untargeted defense cuts.) The politics is much the same: Obama will attempt to make a public show of what negative effect the cutoff of government money can have. Republicans should be cautious though. Anything they can do, if it's drastic... nothing stops Democrats from doing such a thing in the future. Democrats will indeed only look to such things, if they prove effective.

Commentary Magazine : The Government Shutdown: The Sky is Falling! (Or Maybe Not)

Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:18:18 +0000

"Perhaps that’s why Obama, Harry Reid, etc., are being so intransigent and refusing to negotiate. They know they can’t lose the public opinion battle." At best they think they know. But it's not so certain a thing. I've come to agree to believe that the politics of shutdown are not (necessarily) so devastating. The politics of shutdown are similar to the one-time politics (with similar ramifications) of the sequester. Democrats face the same dilemna here as then: they can't allow the visible parts of our domestic federal government to function and function well at a less than current level, for such undermines them overwhelmingly. Democrats may hold the MSM--but the influence of it has only been in decline from at least as early as the mid '90's. And, really, only the already-convinced can be convinced by something abstract to and distant from them. Reporting on how the shutdown is a disaster while shutdown is underway--and not so evidently a disaster--will not really convince most independents.

Commentary Magazine : Syria and the Perils of Partisanship

Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:50:32 +0000

I think that's a worthy question, one you should not be marked down for. Libya was not some ideal state beforehand with Qaddafi and, at any rate, Obama was never inclined to be smart, either in attack or in attack's aftermath. That is to say that having not conducted attack smartly (recall that "leading from behind" rose up as a phrase in this event) means that we don't know whether attack conducted more smartly would or would have not reached the "smart" threshold. However and furthermore, we can't state that the mess of Libya is such due to our (**participation in**) attack--for such is really due our followup.

Commentary Magazine : Syria and the Perils of Partisanship

Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:43:09 +0000

You're right that it's burdensome to be the adult among so many so constantly childish and political--who, when abandoning childish politics when in power, then implement upon the country their often simple and childish ideology. (All your typing is quite right by the way.) Obama, being so childish and throwing the ball at Congress, in this one instance actually enabled the adults to overrule his childishness--and I think that he so did this because the one thing he does not want to do is strike Syria, while yet sounding hawkish. (I think that he issued his red line because he never thought Assad would've had to cross it. It was issued in the context of a campaign--and, at any rate, before his last election, before he was flexible.) He (so is my thesis) correctly estimates that politics as a matter makes Congress not inclined to issue its symbolic authorization. If Obama is blind to the perception he is creating by having issued his red line (and by now asserting it to be the red line of Congress, the American people, and the world) and not now enforcing it or enforcing it meaningfully--or if he doesn't at all care--well, that is for now for adults to see to and care for, as they must with all facts and all matters else. Congress must define the mission for Obama, and not let his strikes be symbolical. They must variously put among the targets the housing elements of Syrian airpower. If they do this, the Syrian matter is largely settled. (This is ideal mostly because it's not a significant and uncritical bolstering of the Syrian rebels. Mandel has made points along these lines.) Obama and the US (for, really, we are unfortunately now one) can then sell our action to the nations as being limited in initiative, mission, and severity. Yet, when Assad is overthrown, we can go to the rebels, and (rightly) claim that we were integral to their success. We must, after all (as adults), consider all possible ends, and what we want and can have in each end. Assad can remain in power; Assad can be overthrown; or this conflict can perhaps (this is too improbable, for one, and, for the US, simply too unworkable, to be a desired end of policy*) go on indefinitely. The US can only really prepare to gain in one of those scenarios with limited action, and that's the one where Assad is overthrown. The US can't gain with an emboldened Assad over a [forcefully] united Syria.

Commentary Magazine : Al-Qaeda’s Willing Idiots in the Media

Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:46:38 +0000

I am the chief offender in replying to such offenses, but thanks for being on topic. News organizations don't have to quote the steamy portions of documents that list our vulnerabilities--they only have to reference them to give our enemies direction in our world of clutter. I think you're right about the left having a fixation with drones--I saw The Bourne Legacy a few months ago, and I have a point somewhere. But see my lengthy reply above--personalities of the right have gone into odd tirades about them as well.

Commentary Magazine : Al-Qaeda’s Willing Idiots in the Media

Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:12:55 +0000

I'm sorry ajwpip and _whatthedickens, but I have turned you (much like Obama in his memoirs with his various girlfriends) into a composite poster. Various parts of below reply are to just one of you. I'm quite sure in other contexts that your opinions are even as mine--you're just not thinking in my terms. You might, for instance, think that the Democrats took a scandalously demagogic and hypocritical position in 2004 abandoning (all for the sake of politics) the war that was unanimously authorized by, notably, themselves. You might otherwise be annoyed or more at Obama's grandstanding and (as President) non-reversal on several things Bush--the lists go on and on. The simple truth is that a great portion of the GOP is not inclined to the truth. Yes, I linked to Wehner--who himself referred to another, Elizabeth O'Bagy, who has done actual reporting on the ground in Syria, and states that the FSA is from foreign, pragmatic (propaganda-adept) extremists quite distinct. (They hold different territories, differing control demarcated by checkpoints--and, if you read the piece, the FSA has contended with a few such groups [and defended Alawite and Christian populations], these such groups opportunisticly coming in behind fights by the by, and not spearheading them.) It is now for time for the GOP to discard the premises that were accepted as fact in the last few years of media clutter, if it can. But I say that the GOP is not inclined to the truth because such sentiments as "Let Allah sort it out" will be heard and defended--when we are very humanly capable of sorting it out. Ambition is a dangerous thing when not paired with principle. If Ted Cruz is principled (and, by the way, he really isn't), then he is not all-principled, as much of the meat of the argument for our inaction has simply disappeared with the publication of a few facts. (I say that Ted Cruz isn't principled because his various stances are not best explained by principle [and, really, logic is the first principle], but by a showy kind of grandstanding and confrontation [in both rhetoric and gesture] that simple Republicans are inclined to.) If Ted Cruz were principled, then he'd use the arguments as are proper against courses of action he disagrees with. But almost none of his arguments meet this standard. Take his carefully (politically) weighed line against the activities of the NSA, the data-collection of which, although potentially frightening, is yet valid on constitutional grounds. Or take his bogus argument (or buying [or utilization] of the argument) that Obama doesn't have respect for the Fifth Amendment [though he may actually not] because he may [eventually?--unclear] end up "with drone policy targeting Americans." (Both here.) The tendency of Cruz to grandstand and confront that I posit however explains more than the virtue you say I should see in him. (Even if you think [and here is where I am a little unsure] that the budget process is where Republicans ought to take a stand and draw their line against Obamacare, surely you must still be capable of admitting that this is the confrontational way--you may even like such because it is the confrontational way. And I don't dislike and propose against such action just because it is confrontational. However, the arguments the by-various dubbed "suicide caucus" is much in line with the effective theoretical line Ted Cruz usually takes, that against the authority of courses he takes stance against. [For he contends that, if Republicans don't here contend with Obamacare, that there will be no more opportunity in the future to again contend. I think that otherwise is quite the case, but I digress.]) I happen to agree with the WSJ board that, because Obama has so graciously deigned to throw his red line and posited responsibility at Congress, that it is time for "the adults in Congress" to properly define for him the US objectives, mission, and role in Syria. I was never for any limited strike on only chemical weapons sites and depots. (I don't believe any strike on Syrian airpower to be in line with "limited" though, as such is heavy assistance to the rebels, regardless of what grounds we undertake such action on.) A quick note, I emphasize the O'Bagy article heavily partially because its facts are key--prior to, my prescriptions are in line with "the old facts"--if you were to look at my comments on the matter of Syria prior, you wouldn't see the same prescriptions.

Commentary Magazine : Al-Qaeda’s Willing Idiots in the Media

Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:31:33 +0000

But such wouldn't be the practical result (*necessarily--US action is a complex event that influences others depending on the manner in which it is underwent--this is put in parentheses because you're greatly wrong if you think Ted Cruz's logic gains the greater points, although there are cases where he might [blunderously] become correct), for the FSA and the jihadists in Syria are quite distinct. As well, if that's the mode of logic you and Ted Cruz wish to pursue, then I will likewise pursue it for the opposite end. The President is transforming the U.S. Armed Forces into the Israeli Defense Forces, because he is striking what Iran will use as its foremost retaliatory launchpad should Israel strike it.

Commentary Magazine : Al-Qaeda’s Willing Idiots in the Media

Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:22:41 +0000

Except the rebels aren't jihadis, and "our" policy is only what it is because Obama is in the White House. Obama likely only issued his red line because he never thought Assad might resort to crossing it. And neither does anything about Obama's actions in the current day indicate that he is determined to topple Assad. The "establishment" is hardly the noxious entity you posit it is, and there is almost certainly no Republican "establishment" consensus on Syria. And Ted Cruz is highly dangerous, for he is highly ambitious. And ambitious people have to be feared when they speak on matters that, in principles-utopia, would be a matter of unanimity even in politics.

Commentary Magazine : Assessing the Facts on the Ground in Syria

Wed, 4 Sep 2013 04:10:04 +0000

Well, conventional media is usually honed to one or two general talking points and messages due to able message discipline; alternative media as a whole usually will have one or two investigative elements (that is to say, that alternative media is not wholly itself investigative). In the prior at the very least, there is intense pressure to accept certain supposed basic facts as premise. Really the political landscape in any situation covered by any and all kinds of media is always unclear. If someone offers a clear picture about an element in a situation immediately (as might often be the case), then it's only because large numbers of people are all offering their analysis. Few people who are right once are right many times more than once. Our own political landscape is interesting, and determines much of the input that will then become opinion. The chief characteristic of Democrats and conventional media is message discipline; the chief characteristic of [conservative and all] alternative media is politically-conventional polemicism against generally-defined political correctness. Only add in the fact that few people in the media are qualified foreign policy voices, and only add in the fact further that few people are investigative even when being so would not endanger their lives, and you have the current reporting on Syria. I might only add that it is still relatively early--the reporting early on in the time when Russia invaded Georgia was similarly shabby.

Commentary Magazine : The South Carolina Test Case

Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:25:54 +0000

Yeah, I'm for a better if one can be found among his contenders. But I want an elitist (really, a neocon of some sort) to replace him, which is why I like Liz Cheney's candidacy where she's running. I don't like the one lady I saw on the news who is challenging Graham, but apparently he has many more challenges besides. But most must be sharks smelling blood in the water, and not creatures of noble kind. I will actually take up minor issue (as have several other commenters here more majorly) with some of Tobin's wording and infusions. While it is true that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and others have been stoking paranoia about the NSA, I do think doubt about it--after many a defense of it on my part, read my many comments--is now quite warranted (only look up "LOVEINT" and see). (That said, the legally-enabling rationale for the program is still there, and I still hate the supposed argument of those who repeat "4th Amendment" over and over. I only dislike the powers that our unguarded guards are wielding for their own interests--it's quite abominable, really. Y'know, one thing neat about Israel is that it soundly and morally draws morally sound [or, at least, neutral] people into its services. People with bloodlust or combat eagerness, for instance, will often be barred from serving.)

Commentary Magazine : Obama's Three Options in Syria

Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:01:55 +0000

Assad already has WMD's, if he is using them. The refugee influx into their countries is what concerns our allies--and so what concerns us concerning strategic balance. (Concerning strategic gain, I still believe an revolution-surviving Assad will be the worst-possible devil; and yet he was worth opposing earlier.) It should have been obvious to me earlier, but the humanitarian crisis is the strategic crisis. Anyway, the ideal is obviously to have these fleeing Syrians stay in Syria--somehow (i.e., that's to be the end of policy, the nature of the policy that achieves this not yet disclosed). I like the idea of carving out a portion of Syria and cutting it from Assad's grasp, into which refugees can flee in which anything under the control of Assad that fires will be destroyed. This leaves an Assad, but not an emboldened Assad. This leave a rebelry indebted to the US and the West, but not a rebelry uncritically bolstered to reigning in Syria. (And, at that, not a rebelry indebted to other Middle East nations.) This leaves Tartus to the Russians. The option is somewhere between the "medium" and "heavy" options. The West keeps its face (and, really, gains); the Russians their base.

Commentary Magazine : Jody Bottum’s World-Weariness

Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:00:11 +0000

K2K, your evidence only contradicts your statement.

Commentary Magazine : Rohrbacher Is Hurting the Intellectual Credibility of Conservatism

Tue, 13 Aug 2013 04:36:02 +0000

Well, liberals also have infatuations more, like grievance (no matter how expired) and a kind of baseline anti-industrialism. So Rohrabacher is somewhat intellectually wrong, in that he has not given the best answer, the summary one. He is also tactically wrong, in that he has not given the most defensible answer. He could have made a cursory attack on liberal pseudo-science; but, if he weren't expert on that, he could have attacked their scientists--the incidents are there for their tarnish, East Anglia et al. I don't know how much conservatives are to be commended for their traits. "Conservatives" broadly at best [at best] have an 80% instinctive intellectual success rate. I suppose with honing you can work your way up to being about 98% right. But asking for Wehner to call out liberal inanity on the matter isn't too much to ask. A conservative who has bit the worm can surely still see how over the top it is to regard all unfavorable natural events as consequent of global warming / climate change. (Wehner is privy to the logic of C.S. Lewis--well, C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity [and this is quite, quite the paraphrase, and change of form] that the thing he had just posited explained a lot--so he had to be cautious to show that it did not explain too much.)

Commentary Magazine : The Ambivalent Commander in Chief

Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:44:55 +0000

I think his NSA answers--aside, of course, from his posturing as to having actually been reformist when he entered office, which was for the most part terrible--were for the most part good. His rhetoric about bin Laden was of course silly--you can't conflate the terrorist mastermind hiding away in a nuclear state with small-time terrorist activists who we could have killed on the same day their plot was underway. (And it took less than 11 months to get the Tsarnaev boy.) His Obamacare rhetoric otherwise was by far the worst part of that conference. It's only that Obama didn't do what he would never do. He would never name names when it comes to human rights abuses if the names were Russia or China--never, unless he could do so from a profoundly left angle. Part of putting Snowden in the proper light and indeed even the NSA activities is noting just where he has taken refuge. This is one of the most politically defensible defenses the defender of the NSA can muster. Obama did note though that he staked refuge elsewhere, and not in the whistleblower's safeguards. His posturing about his "reform" measures in "the war on terror can't go on forever" speech being actual was somewhat silly, but on that issue I don't care to inform the simple--if you believe that, then its re-positing is actually a good argument. Well, it's also that Obama did what he always does, approach an issue in the fifth year of his Presidency as though he isn't late to it. But that's more Tobin's point. (Although, Obama can here at least politically be given more credit, if he at least again says the context that necessitates these measures is dissipating. But that's again Tobin's point.) As for me, despite me making the legal and technical defenses (see my last few comments), I might prefer Obama making the vaguely philosophic and highly postured one. Beyond that, some of his few honest statements dovetail with my argument--the NSA programs are indeed programs utilizing great powers (as he has said on Jay Leno), but there aren't certifiable instances of their abuse.**

Commentary Magazine : Israel and the Stakes in Egypt

Fri, 9 Aug 2013 21:54:57 +0000

Things between Mizraim and Jacob can really be peachy keen. Until the king arises who knows not Joseph, that is. (Mohammed?) All this (non-substance) said, was it ever just Sinai on which the two cooperated? Egypt was/is a partner in the blockade of Gaza.

Commentary Magazine : NSA Leaks Continue to Feed Paranoia

Fri, 9 Aug 2013 21:33:17 +0000

The Fourth Amendment itself has it terms, despite whatever interpretations have followed and been adopted. Originalism is one of the most faithful interpretations of the Constitution, and one I generally adhere to. (Hence my statement on "privacy.") Now, despite me saying all that, the interpretive approach that has generally been in effect is that the 4th Amendment, more broadly than its terms, broadly protects privacy--but also that it has a means test of intrusion, where anything especially intrusive requires a warrant. You can see my comment below to the fascinatingly-named "S" where I link to Smith v. Maryland and argue what I would. (Anyway, the portion most pertinent most readily seeming is II-B.) I too don't know how the Patriot Act protects us. (Although, surely no act [in the sense of legislative enumeration] itself can protect us; only an action or agency created that otherwise wouldn't be can.) I have managed to chronologically escape the furor over it the first time around. I'm fine without knowing, though. If I knew, foreign intelligence agencies would probably know, for intelligence is their raison d'etre. Frankly, I'm content with the agreement our political elites have had, and the agreement our three branches of government have been in. I do not think that this agreement I state exists exists only because any (branch) has been kept especially in the dark. As well, I think a credible and adequate legal rationale has been put forward. I do not have the primary item that would make me discontent: an egregious instance of abuse. Capabilities do not upset me, because other countries and even terrorist groups will all develop capabilities as they can. (A warrant is the same as an act: technically, nearly any human can search your property. A warrant only gives a legitimized authorization.) I find it an esoteric reference that John Sensenbrenner thinks the NSA programs have gone too far. He didn't so far as I know push the envelope (as I've said above, I've chronologically escaped the furor over the Patriot Act); he just happens to be the author of a liberal-libertarian demon. I think most evidence points in the direction that the program is largely overseen. I'll lastly only point out that I roughly stated that I think I've already imagined the worst that can happen, all things taken together. But, taken individually, the programs making the news? Not too pernicious.

Commentary Magazine : NSA Leaks Continue to Feed Paranoia

Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:53:28 +0000

That's really not my reading, see II-B here. Such at the least suffices for metadata collection. Content-collection (dealing more with what regards PRISM) can probably be justified with a similar justification, if it isn't looked at. Users of Facebook and Google are after all submitting their communications to these servers. The government is after all approaching these companies and their servers, and not us. Moreover, the government is entering into deals with these companies to obtain such information--it is not obtaining things first by warrant. Twitter I have read has historically resisted such government overture-approach; it noticeably wasn't one of the companies named in the Snowden-brouhaha.

Commentary Magazine : NSA Leaks Continue to Feed Paranoia

Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:51:29 +0000

I think your penultimate paragraph has value. But such fallout has to do with damage due Snowden, and not Obama, the NSA, George W. Bush, or whoever else you would blame. Your last paragraph has a perverse value: you say "privacy and 4th Amendment rights" separately. If you perhaps see them as separate, then I might find where you might be in part converted. I don't see anything in the 4th Amendment that limits anything the NSA conducts. The 4th Amendment refers to the person of persons and what they might have; their communications escapes shared grouping with these item due to both immateriality and the fact that it is another party that holds it. This is practically the effect of "Smith v. Maryland" which is as (somewhat astutely) I had somewhat predicted priorly was the case--the intelligence community found a domestic ruling pertinent, and built doctrine upon it. It's very easy to see how the privacy of some can be encroached upon--perhaps counter-terrorism enthusiasts among the citizenry and cooks who are inquiring about pressure cookers will have their emails read. (Frankly, it was when PRISM was most fresh that I was on most defensible ground concerning red flags.) But, simply and frankly, privacy does not have the letter in the Constitution you think it does. Moreover, the word of Obama has been good of late in this one instance: he has admitted on Jay Leno that these powers are vast. But we don't have an instance of their misuse. And they're brought to bear for us and us generally, not for any special interest or fanciful ideology. That said, this in conjunction with the DEA and the hiding of where tips and charges came from is the making of a nightmare. The practice there we must stop. And, really, one supposed lesson of the IRS scandal that Rush Limbaugh has enumerated and that I find compelling is the "smoking gun" element--that those Obama appoints are appointed because they know his will, and will so enact it. These three things in combination all and you have a potential persecution that can't be met.