What’s interesting in the news today?
Open thread, you decide.
Here’s a few from me, and we have some doozies. 🙄
____________________________________________________
We’ll start with this one. The light bulb 💡 finally goes on over at the WaPo. Now they get it….. 🙄
From TheWashingtonPost
” The evidence was incontrovertible, captured on video and posted on YouTube for all the world to see. During a demonstration against the Syrian regime, Wael Ibrahim, a veteran activist, had tossed aside a banner inscribed with the Muslim declaration of faith.
And that, decreed the officers of the newly established Sharia Authority set up to administer rebel-held Aleppo, constitutes a crime under Islamic law, punishable in this instance by 10 strokes of a metal pipe.
The beating administered last month offered a vivid illustration of the extent to which the Syrian revolution has strayed from its roots as a largely spontaneous uprising against four decades of Assad family rule. After mutating last year into a full-scale war, it is moving toward what appears to be an organized effort to institute Islamic law in areas that have fallen under rebel control.”
Strayed? No. This is what it’s always been, you just ignored that aspect until now.
____________________________________________________
The Budget from Senate Dems has died in the House, as it should have.
From TheHill
“The House on Wednesday rejected the Senate Democratic budget in a 154-261 vote, with 35 Democrats voting against the blueprint from their upper chamber colleagues.
The Senate Democratic budget was one of three budgets cast aside in a series of votes Wednesday after a debate in which Republicans excoriated President Obama for failing to offer his own budget plan in time for the votes.
House Democrats were instructed to vote for the Senate Democratic budget, but 35 of them defected.”
____________________________________________________
Cuomo’s gun restrictions are off to a great start. First they had to re-write portions because they forgot to exempt police, now it’s got other issues. Not very well thought out, but then again, it was always emotion based with little to do with facts or common sense. But like ObamaCare, I guess they had to pass it to find out what was in it. 🙄
“Cuomo and legislative leaders in state budget talks plan to change the law that was passed in January before a provision kicks in banning the sale of 10-bullet magazines. The gun measure outlaws the purchase of any magazines that carry more than seven bullets, the nation’s most stringent limit. That would have put a severe limit on the sale of guns with industry standard 10-bullet magazines when the provision of the law went onto effect on April 15.
“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine. That doesn’t exist, so you really have no practical option,” Cuomo said. He told reporters that any suggestion this will be a rollback of the law is “wholly without basis.”
“Cuomo said the state needs to allow the sale of handguns and rifles with 10-shot magazines, but New Yorkers will still be required to keep no more than seven bullets in them, except at shooting ranges and competitions. Violating the seven-bullet limit is a misdemeanor, but a violation if the magazine was in the owner’s home.”
I need a head shaking, face-palm smiley. Sure 7 rounds. Got it. 🙄
____________________________________________________
And now it goes down hill. We have no money for tours for school kids, but we’ve got plenty to waste on garbage like this.
CONTENT WARNING!
I’m not sure if it’s for the duck anatomy references, or because it’s so offensive what they waste our money on. Maybe both.
From CNSNews
“The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded a $384,949 grant to Yale University for a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”, according to the recovery.gov website.
The grant description says,“The project examines how reproductive morphology covaries with season, age, and social environment in a diverse sample of duck species that differ in ecology, territoriality and breeding system.”
The grant was made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package.”
🙄 I’m just speechless here, which is probably for the best.
____________________________________________________
And PETA shows once again why many consider them to be frauds. It’s about the cash and the show, but not the animals.
CONTENT WARNING! because PETA likes to use scantily clad and naked people in their ads.
From TheDailyMail
“Animal rights charity PETA killed almost 90 per cent of dogs and cats placed in the care of the shelter at its Virginia headquarters last year, it has been revealed today.
The charity, well-known for attention grabbing publicity campaigns such as the ‘I’d rather go naked’ anti-fur campaign, euthanized 1,647 cats and dogs last year and only placed 19 in new homes according to the data submitted to the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services.
PETA told Mail Online that the animals they take in at the center are ‘unadoptable’, however 89.4 per cent of pets is much higher than their own approximation that half of animals taken to shelters end up being euthanized.”
Maybe they should protest their own headquarters.
____________________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Because I am married to a more left leaning person than I am I sometimes now have to fall asleep listening to Bill Maher or Jon Stewart. Over the last few weeks there has been a shift. While Republicans are still EVIL and the butt of most jokes they aren’t so happy with their President anymore and are starting to call him on the carpet about a few things. Could it be so???? Oh hope springs eternal that they are!
LikeLike
Concerning Syria, it’s about shariah. It always is.
No matter what they say, it’s about sharia in Damascus, and ultimately, in Washington.
As they used to say about communist domination, “The useful idiots in the university sociology departments will be the first to go”.
Likewise, the people who support Islamic revolution and homosexual marriage will discover what that means if Islamist ever get control.
LikeLike
Related to my comment above, I notice in The Washington Times that Danny Russel is to be nominated for the State Department’s assistant secretary for East Asia. Danny Russel is said to be “an advocate of soft power and adverse to hard power under the administration’s new Asia policy.”
Nobody explained what “soft power” is.
I’m a bit skeptical.
LikeLike
Chas, I think “soft power” means no power. That is where we are heading. Our military is in sharp decline as is our standing in the world.
LikeLike
I saw an interview the other day where the local sheriff’s in Colorado are refusing to enforce Colorado’s new attack on the 2nd Amendment.
LikeLike
Kim, I heard that Jon Stewart was going to take a hiatus. Where will they ever find another person who can show deceptively edited videos and make surprise faces at them?
LikeLike
I hear that Colorado is a very conservative state except for the Denver – Colorado Springs corridor.
LikeLike
Whether it’s soft or hard power or whatever, what’s the “proper” power we should be exerting in Asia? How would that be manifested? And does anyone remember Vietnam?
LikeLike
Sodom, Gomorrah and American cities, home of Democrats. In our own little county the city has the most liberal/Democratic supervisor.
I wonder why liberals/Democrats live in the cities?
LikeLike
Kim (gasp!) you mean that you (hyperventilating) married (say it isn’t so!) a – a – a Democrat???!!!
LikeLike
Of course, I was a Democrat for many years. 😉 And entirely well meaning, I was. Wrong-headed, often confused. But well-meaning. 🙂
LikeLike
Kim,
Have you thought of doing an intervention? 🙂
John Stewart I can live with, but Maher is a vile, foul, little weasel.
LikeLike
And it begins……
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-21/cyp-riots-begin
“Local TV station CYBC reports that police in the Cyprus’ capital are scuffling with protesters (including employees of Cyprus Popular Bank) outside the nation’s parliament:
•*CYPRUS POLICE CLASH WITH BANK EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT
•*CYPRUS SCUFFLES BROADCAST LIVE ON STATE-RUN CYBC
CYBC says more protesters gathering at Parliament House”
LikeLike
Hard power is about vigorously asserting America’s vital interests diplomatically with credible military threat behind it. For example, America has a quite vital interest in making sure Iran doesn’t acquire nuclear weapons; Obama has apparently decided to go beyond ineffectual sanctions with a demand that within a year Iran must end its nuclear weapons program or face devastating military retaliation from both America and Israel.
History makes clear that wars are often caused by vacillating diplomacy and lack of credible military threat. In the case of Iran, war will likely be prevented by hard not soft power. Soft power against rogue states like Iran is a rather romantic delusion, about as foolish as Randian isolationism. Chamberlain attempted soft power with Hitler, resulting in some fifty million deaths.
LikeLike
Soft power refers to economic strength, trade, multilateral pressure, military ability, culture and so forth — that is all of the elements that make a country’s prestige. Military ability is in that measure — the old TR idea of having a big stick. Having it doesn’t mean you have to use it. But it makes your country more attractive and hence able to co-opt and attract which is what the heart of soft power is about. The concept was initially iterated by Joseph Nye.
Sails — you’re incorrect to imply that soft power use is not about vigorously asserting national interests. It’s a technique of policy not a policy goal. Hard power is also a technique of policy, not a policy goal. That said, I definitely agree that soft power without a credible military threat on the table is ineffective in cases like Iran.
Chas
Is that another of saying Colorado is a conservative state, except for the areas where there is the highest degree of population? We could say that about practically any state if its urban areas were sculpted out.
Kim
Libs have long been unhappy with the Obama Admin on a range of issues — starting with not having single payer health care and not fully closing Gtmo. It’s hardly surprising to see and read criticism.
LikeLike
Solar
I like your question. I’d be interested in how you would answer it.
LikeLike
AJ, that Zero Hedge piece on the Cyprus crisis merely fans the flames with typically a mixture of populist insolence and paucity of understanding of the financial complexity involved.
The Cypriot government and the ECB have scuttled their mistaken attempt to milk the depositors, large and small; the European Central Bank is now necessarily demanding that the government find a credible way by Monday to share the financial pain of a largely illiquid and under capitalized banking system. Those Cypriot bank employees and other clueless demonstrators are now blaming Angela Merkel for this morass largely of their own making.
Among the better sources on this is an article today on the Open Europe Blog at:
http://www.openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/why-has-ecb-set-deadline-for-cypriot.html
LikeLike
CB,
Since you brought up GITMO…. 🙂
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17390274-pentagon-ponders-gitmo-overhaul-amid-growing-detainee-unrest?lite
“The Pentagon is considering plans for a $150 million overhaul of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — including building a new dining hall, hospital and barracks for the guards — as part of an ambitious project recommended by the top general in charge of its operations, officials tell NBC News.
The proposed spending spree comes amid mounting signs of unrest among Guantanamo detainees that lawyers say is threatening their lives. U.S. military officials confirmed Wednesday that the number of hunger strikers at Guantanamo has more than tripled in the last two weeks — from 7 to 25 — and that eight of them are being force fed through tubes. Defense lawyers said in a letter to Congress this week they have gotten reports that “over two dozen men have lost consciousness.”
U.S. military officials denied any lives were in danger but acknowledged that resistance and frustration among the detainees is growing, a development that a senior general said is because they are “devastated” that President Barack Obama’s pledge to shut down the facility has not been fulfilled.”
Reality’s bites. Campaign promises are nice, but it was never gonna happen.
LikeLike
AJ
All I can say to your last sentence is, yup. But I do think he had to be in office to understand that — any of the folks saying they could/would shutter the place needed the reality mugging.
LikeLike
CB, a country’s prestige is rather a bauble. People like Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Amadinejad, Chavez, Saddam Husssein, Castro, and Putin care little about prestige. What counts is the hard power of economic and military strength used wisely, as it was in the World and Cold wars. America has made amply clear that we are not interested in an empire of territory; rather that we are prepared to defend our vital interests with preferably hard diplomatic strength, though unrelenting war if necessary.
The modern president who best understood this was Eisenhower who with exceedingly tough diplomacy thoroughly intimitated Stalin and Mao. He ended the Korean War with a threat to use nuclear weapons. Stalin knew that he would use nuclear weapons should the Soviets attack Europe.
Evan Thomas has recently published an excellent book on this subject, Ike’s Bluff. He shows in spades that Ike’s exceedingly hard-power diplomacy succeded in making him the only Post WW II president not to engage in a war. He was urged by both State and Defense to fight in Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Lebanon, and Egypt; he told them he would fight an unlimited war if necessary, though he preferred tough-minded diplomacy. He told JFK that if he thought Vietnam was worth a fight, he should send a few divisions straight up tp Hanoi and stop dithering with a limited war in South Vietnam.
Soft power is not worth a bucket of spit.
LikeLike
Sails
Soft power is what gets you cooperation on a range of issues having to do with trade, economics and culture — it is not unimportant. Gen Eisenhower implementing the Marshall plan understood that. Use of soft power does not exclude the use of hard power. Rather the two go hand in hand.
LikeLike
Of course, Pres. Eisenhower implemented the Marshall plan, which in itself was an aggressive move against Soviet interests. His main thrust, however, was through tough diplomacy, credible military threat, and CIA covert action to defeat the Soviets. Underneath that warm Eisenhower smile was a backbone of steel. He would be appalled with the notion of soft power, particularly that of Obama’s predilection for speech-making as opposed to serious governing. He would, also, be appalled at Obama’s serial $trillion deficits. He regarded his 26 $biillion total deficit over eight years as a serious failure of his administration.
Obama of late is showing some understanding of hard power in relation to Iran, though most of our adversaries are delighted with his essential weakness in world affairs. He has somehow succeeded in making Jimmy Carter look like a statesman.
LikeLike
The combination of soft and hard power as described is exemplified by Eisenhower. I recently read Eisenhower in War and Peace and was impressed by Eisenhower’s pragmatism as president.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11958983-eisenhower-in-war-and-peace
LikeLike
The Syrian rebellions was spontaneous but in a power vacuum the best organized usually win and the Islamic parties are the best organized and most disciplined — they demonstrated that in Egypt and will do the same in Syria. Perhaps if the west had acted decisively and overthrew the Syrian regime, it could have given the secularists a chance but the longer this drags on the more likely the Islamist will win.
Obama has been criticized by the left for exactly the reasons CB outlines. Stewart and Colbert target anyone’s stupidity. Their favorite target is FOX news and the rest of the media but they are bipartisan in targeting politicians.
Democrats and liberals don’t move to cities. Urban areas turn people into liberals and Democrats. Its the most prevalent division in North American politics. Rural areas vote Republican/Conservative and urban areas vote Democrat/Liberal-NDP and the suburbs decide the election. America is the most rural of the western nations and thus it has a more conservative bent to its political spectrum.
When it comes to cutting spending, its far easier to shut down offices and lay hourly wage people off then to cancel contracts and grants already approved. It may appear to be skewed priorities but its actually a matter of ease and ability.
LikeLike
Sails
Eisenhower also stood by when the Brits and French wanted to go into Egypt over the Suez canal. He did not nakedly brandish military might.
You want to critique Obama, and that’s fine, but you might do so a bit differently. Drones are a use of military might, one might question whether it is an effective use or whether has Gen McCrystal has begun to note, a use that erodes overall US power and standing. Whatever critique one chooses, however, should not imply that the uses of hard and soft power are mutually exclusive.
HRW — on spending, there’s also the legal matter of breach of contract.
LikeLike
“Stewart and Colbert target anyone’s stupidity.”
They do go after the left on very rare occasions but the left has to be unbelievably stupid for them to be targeted. I mean so stupid they would look stupid ignoring it.
LikeLike
CB, the Brits and French as well as State and Defese wanted Ike to fight Egypt over the Suez Canal. He in a tough-minded way didn’t regard Egypt as worth a fight!, nor was he enamored of British and French colonial interests. From beginning to end, he exercised hard power on this matter. Britain, France, and Israel certainly knew they had been overwhelmed by America’s hard power.
LikeLike
So how should the U.S. exercise power in Asia? *Specifically.*
CB, good thoughts in here.
So the U.S. should flex and use its own muscle in its own interests–and some Christians would argue that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, as well as sacrificing hundreds of thousands of their own, is justified to that end–but are other countries allowed to act in a similar manner?
LikeLike
First, Iran is part of Asia.
America has extensive commercial interests in East Asia, as well as important allies including Japan, South Korea, and The Phillipines,
Second, no Christian favors killing in itself. That argument is a vicious smear. Most Christians favor America pursuing its interests strongly and wisely. Most Christians, also, are prepared if necessary to fight and die for their nation.
LikeLike
Sails
It’s unclear to me that you understand what hard power (the use of threats to induce or coerces an outcome) and soft power (the use of example and likeability, in essence example to co-opt or persuade an outcome). Eisenhower, a President who made significant investment in public diplomacy (VOA, e.g.) understood the uses of soft power. Telling France and Britain that the US would not militarily back their play and retake Suez fron Nassar the communist wasn’t a use of hard power. Eisenhower did not threaten or coerce France or Britain, he simply said no, not doing that.
LikeLike
Nobody has said Christians “favor killing in itself,” or that Christians don’t favor pursuing their nation’s interests “wisely”?
Nevertheless, it’s *extremely* disturbing that Christians justify (or would describe as “wise”) the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians for such things as “national security” and “commercial interests.”
LikeLike
Solar
Good questions — to cast the question another way, the issue is whether it is appropriate to intervene for humanitarian reasons. The genocide conventions are an agreement on intervening but no signatory nations have every actually cited genocide as the sole reason for intervening. The closest is Libya.
On your question, imo, yes, as an American I believe the U.S. should flex its muscle in pursuit of protecting its own interests. Other countries actually do do the same.
LikeLike
CB,
We have no consistent humanitarian justification for any of our military interventions; if we were being consistent, we’d be all over the map.
But we’re still all over the map! We’re everywhere only because we *can* be, not because it’s right or consistent. And of course, it’s beyond merely having troops stationed here and there; our interventions have gotten us (to say nothing of “enemy” (?) civilians) far more trouble than gain. We really need to do away with the notion we’re a global force for good. That’s not factually accurate.
No event or epoch justifies killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. That argument is a non-starter. Try making it “over there,” wherever that may be.
LikeLike
CB, while you tend to hazily meld soft with hard power, I favor sharply distinguishing them. Eisenhower didn’t simply say, “no not doing that”.He forced Britain, France, and Israel to cease the war against Egypt.
I will grant that “soft power” is a hazy term to begin with. Essentially it is a typical product of the do gooding Left.
SP, you certainly implied that some Christians favor killing in itself. You, also, attempt to cleverly elide the reality that serious wars often result in the unfortunate killing of large numbers of warriors and civilians. In fact, your moralism on the subject is unrealistic and rather insufferable.
What might your view be on the necessity of WW II ?
LikeLike
Sails
How did he force them? Did he threaten to attack France, the UK or Israel? Soft power is not a political position — it is a tactic and has been used by both the right and the left and by the center. Why does everything seem to have to have a right or left label?
LikeLike
Sails,
“[Y]ou certainly implied that some Christians favor killing in itself.”
Where? Whenever I’ve mentioned the bombing and killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, I’ve always included the proffered rational that the killing was justified due to this or that (lame) reason.
Heh heh. *You’re* one to preach about being insufferable.
I don’t “elide” the reality that wars result in killing civilians. It’s pretty clear that’s central fact to what I’ve been posting all along. I’m only stating my belief that there’s no justification for the great bulk of the bombing and killing we’ve done during war. Hundreds of thousands of civilians. Sheesh, and I’m the unrealistic one?
Our involvement in WWII could easily have been avoided; furthermore–and it’s mostly fruitless to make conjecture on these things regardless of what side of the argument you’re on–but American involvement in WWI exacerbated the harsh terms of Versailles, which fostered an environment in Germany for Nazism and Hitler.
Whatever the case, to suggest we make some show of force to spook Iran from pursuing nukes is just as inadvisable as the rest of the running blunders we’ve been making in the region. Will we ever learn? If Israel wants to do something about it, fine. It’s there fight.
LikeLike
Or “their” fight, as some would say.
LikeLike
SP, Churchill’s compelling view was that WW II, which he termed “unnecessary,” was caused mainly by the. tendency to pacifism and isolationism among the allies during the inter-war years. The predilection for heartland isolationism, euphemistically termed, “non engagement,” has been the cause of many wars in history. In virtually all periods there are rogue or bully nations that seriously disturb the peace. The Pax Romana, Britainnia, and at present, Americana, for all their faults, have been effective in preserving a reasonable peace, as well as serving their vital interests.
Your paleo-conservative view is both unrealistic and unpopular; The American people for the most part sensibly don’t buy it.
LikeLike