Two weeks…Two gaffs.  Well, gaff would be to put it lightly.  A gaff is mispronouncing a dignitary’s name…a gaff is kissing the Queen of England when you shouldn’t.  What Janet Napolitano has done these past two weeks is nothing short of awe-inspiring shortsightedness, and irresposibility.

Phase 1 in the Janet Napolitano fail train…first stop, disgrace veterans:  Allowing the reporting of a private internal memo that should have never been comissioned in the first place is the first sign you are doing something wrong.  Last week Napolitano released a memo about possible right wing extremist groups.  Returning war veterans, the memo said, may become part of these supposed “possible” right wing extremist groups because of the current climate of the nation.  It was not more then a few hours before veterans and current military were asking how in the hell they came to be profiled as possible recruits for extremist groups that are refered to in hypotheticals.  If nothing else, this can be called the hallmark of irresonsibility.  Naming our military and veterans as possible recruits for extremist groups who aren’t even refered to as existing in this rediculious memo really makes you feel great about this administration’s stance towards the armed forces

Phase 2…forget we are friends with Canada…really really good friends:  This is like talking shit about your good friend and forgetting he is standing in the room…right next to you…and everyone else in the world is not only there but watching you too.  Napolitano said this week that the 9/11 hijackers came through the canada border, when speaking in the context of border security between canada and the US.  Everyone, including Canada, immediately asked why the Secretary conviently changed history and what this modern iterpretation of history meant for the border relations between US and Canada.

Our Homeland Security Secretary doesn’t know where the 9/11 hijackers came from, and for all we know, was planning border policy on this failed knowledge.  Our Homeland Security Secretary thinks our military may return from battle, fighting for their country, only to promply begin plans to bring it down.  Is Janet Napolitano Kidding? [faceplam]

*for those of you who do not know what the face palm is, enjoy and use liberally

Yes I am still alive

No I don’t have a real good reason for why I haven’t been posting other then the ambigious “Life” answer

Sorry, this is gonna be a short one

Wanted to get some feet under somthing I just learned about, hopefully to get some movement on message dissemination about this quite odd, somewhat scary report I just read from DHS

Granted I have not read the entire thing yet (you can only multi-task so much in an econ class) so i may be posting a giant redaction later but I really don’t see that as likely.  Anyways…down to buscuits.  DHS just came with a report intitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

The reason why this is both odd and scary is because it cites no specific groups.  The argument goes like this.  I’ll try not to make it sounds like a bitchy conservative.

• The Government is singling out the republican party by citing “right-wing” groups as a national security threat
  • Well no that is not the case because DHS has done reports on “left-wing” groups as well
• In that case, argument over…bitter conservative shut down
  • Well no that is not the case, because when DHS made reports on “left-wing” groups, it was just that; a report on groups.  Groups such as ELF, ALF, and other eco-terrorist groups who have been documented and charged with vandalization, destruction of porperty and inciting violence were written about.  The reports on the left-wing threats were actual terrorists…people who went as far as to call THEMSELVES eco-terrorists.
  • The Right-Wing report is simply about the danger of the growing radicalization of the right-wing movement in the US.  The problem with this arises from the fact that “terrorists” groups are not cited for specific acts, the percieved threat comes from an interpretation of “radicalization”.  The “danger” we face from these groups is being defined by a department’s interpretation of the dissenting minority.

Bonus recipients were taxed 91% because of a pitchfork mob in congress using passion over reason, a CEO was effectively fired by the government because it did not like the job he was doing, the voice of the dissenting minority is being labled as “radicalized” and “potentially dangerous”.  This is like calling all muslim’s terrorists (and if I am not misaken it was the democratic party who led the charge on raising that distinction)  I am no conspiracy theorist but 2 points make a line…I just gave you three.

Wasn’t it the liberals who were burning effigies of the president in the street during the bush years?  Chanting down with the president?  Don’t think I have seen anyone burn a stuffed Obama yet.  But alas I am wrong…a forlorn conservative jaded by the bitterness which comes with assuming the minority position.  Hypocrisy and double standards do not exist in the new era of government…CHANGE!

Link to DHS report .pdf

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

Ok, first post back after a short hiatus.  Going to keep this one somewhat short so forgive the lack of meticulous citation that usually graces my pages.

Wanted to take a second to reflect on what is going on this week in the Auto industry.  Earlier this week Obama asked GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down as a part of his new sweeping plan to breath life back into the auto industry.  Wagoner accepted and resigned.  I think this act alone is one of the most absurd breaches of government into private sector we have seen as of late.  Never before in the history of America has a president asked a private corporation’s employee to quit.  The government is setting a very dangerous precedent by making it ok for the government to step in and dictate affairs of private business whenever they see fit.  Whatever happened to the market influencing business.  If a business tanks, it is up to the board and stock holders to vote that CEO out of office and hire a new one.  According to Politico,

“Wagoner has been CEO for 8 years and at GM for more than 30. It is not yet clear who would replace him, or what role the administration would play in that process.”

The government stepped in to make a statement out of this CEO and in the mean time destabilized the leadership of one of the most ailing car companies in America.  I am no idealist and my naiveté is not so great that I do not believe extraordinary measures must, at times, be taken by the government, but this action has no endgame.  If the overarching point was to clear out this cancerous CEO from the company, then insert a healthy competent leader at the helm…maybe my response would be different (I still do not see that happening though)  However, there is nothing left in the wake of this debacle other then questions and possible insane executive power precedents.

To anybody that says Obama is not for larger government, I would say take a look around.  If you truly believe this is the best route for the country, you are entitled to your opinion as wrong as it may be, but at least acknowledge what you purport to stand for.  Welcome to the generation of government dictating what you can/cant do based on drummed up fervor of the masses.  I’m ready for some chaos…you?

I have been brainstorming with the guys over at TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) for a few days now on how to leverage the power of twitter into political mainstream, and how to get more elected officials on twitter.  I thought I would share my email and see if it sparked any more ideas or interest.  Stay Classy…

As I see it conservatives now more then ever want/need a more defined 
issue base to refer to.  I have been watching the political debate 
scene for about two months now, and especially on twitter it seems 
like people people jump on a 1 day story, ride it into the ground, but 
its effectively just noise.  Twitter can first be used for getting out 
talking points.  Make the TCOT community a thinktank where once a week 
a think-piece is opened for people to debate.  The feedback from 
@replies can be compiled into an RSS feeding blog, or responses can be 
combed and best ideas can be thrown onto the blog to increase 
dialectus on a issue.  Live debates can even be run through uStream, 
or interviews with political officials can be shown live or in vlog 
form.  I have even seen this done with skype over uStream so 
integration with even the most non tech-savvy CRP member or elected 
official would take just a phone on their part.  Overall though all of 
these measures would help message dissemination, definition, and 
direct contact.

As i see it, elected officials will be a challenge because they do not 
believe the opportunity cost of the time it would take v.s the benifit 
it would bring is worth it.  This is namely because they are not aware 
of how great the benifits could be for how little time is required.  
Twitter allows a direct link between constituent and elected 
official.  At very least, in policy meetings, committee hearings, or 
especially votes, a official could twitter out their thoughts.  This 
process could begin with following/working for/volunteering for a 
small amount of officials as a pilot program of sorts, leverage the 
success of that into momentum in gaining legitimate place for this 
sort of activity.  Again, a service like ustream could be used to hold 
interviews where people can directly ask questions, or the top 
questions twittered in will be taken.

The main leverage twitter has in all aspects is bringing power to the 
people.  Started as bringing blogging to the masses by putting it on 
micro scale, now it allows anyone to follow anyone else big or small 
effectively bringing the distance (be it social or physical) between 
people down to essentially nothing.  This same concept can be 
interpolated into politics bringing the politician home to the 
people.  In such an era of “change” the main thing people want is the 
“un-washingtonized” politician.  Giving people a link to talk or 
listen directly to their representative, or member of their party, 
even if it is just a small semblance or notion of that, will increase 
confidence, increase political activism most of all because people 
will feel like they actually have a say.

This is part of a different email talking about ustream…one of the biggest tools for politics I believe that is currently absolutely untapped

Also, another thought I had which could be implemented now or in the very near future is an idea from the campaign last year; the conference call.  Only, update it for web 2.0 and start having weekly uStream broadcasts where an issue is talked about, elected official interviewed, or collective debate held on key talking points.  This will start getting the community to talk about a more clear message, and also unify the TCOT community, or whoever else for that matter, in mobilizing towards focused issues rather than the scatter shot approach.

So I promised some quality material a few days ago but things have been summarily delayed, namely because of a trip to Vegas.  Alas, I am in Vegas now…blogging (ya i know lame give me a break).

Anyways I have something which has been bugging me, and has been for the past week or so.  I touched on it last post but I would like to take the time to expound on what I was talking about when I said the fight/argument over who is or isn’t the Republican party leader is, well, stupid.

To begin, it is a admitted white house political move to turn attention to Rush Limbaugh.  As I said before, this is a great political play because it starts a pseudo civil war within a party which was not warring to begin with.  Now you may say Alex, hold on a second.  After the loss of both houses and the presidency the Republicans were akin to floundering fish on the banks of the political tide pool, of course they were fighting.  Your retort my fellow interlocutor would be correct, Republicans were lost, stunned, and incapacitated after the loss of near all political capital.  But in that statement you have your answer.  The party was not warring with itself, it was lost.  Why was it lost?  It had strayed away from its original conservative ideology and lost its definition.  The Republicans, after being in such control for so long, forgot how to define themselves, and in-so-far as that, forgot how to hold true to a set of values or a definition of what they were.

Now, this loss of focus can be seen many different ways.  It is naturally organic for anyone to lose their way, or get off mission, and then let the draw towards structure bring them back to some set of values or path.  Whenever anyone loses their way it is natural instinct to find your way back to the path you were on.  This does the same for political parties.  Whenever suffering a great loss or a ideological disconnect with core values, those such core values are reassessed and taken stock of; at which time a new and improved set of core values is rallied around.  This same process can be seen with the democratic party, their move towards moderate center of the political spectrum, and after such a long time out of power, a reassessment and rallying around strong liberal principles which got them re-elected this recent year.  The white house has effectively stopped this process of organic growth and redefinition and has turned it on its head.

Enter Act 2 of the beautiful greek tragedy.  Can you hear Robert Gibbs singing the greek response Choir while David Axlerod narrates the stage movements (sorry you’d have to know greek plays to get that reference.  I have no idea why I am trying to be smart referencing greek plays…)

The organic and possibly volatile rebirth of the party has been circumvented and made into a pissing match between a who’s who of the republican party.  Rather then allowing for Republicans to gather together and enter into a meaningful dialectus, the White House has told people there is a power vacuum in the party…and oh by the way this so called vacuum is devastating to the party and must be filled right now (even though nearest elections are over a year away, and presidential elections are in 2012).  There is no need to feel such a apocalyptic urgency to fill this phantom chasm the White House has supposedly imposed upon the Republican party.  As I said before, the organic process of redefinition and re-assessment of values has to occur and out of that will a leader emerge…Not out of some false time constraints the other party has set on us.  Has everyone lost their minds.  It is so vitally important to be talking about IDEOLOGIES not people.  What IS the republican party?  What is Conservatism?  Why is Obama’s plan to get us out of this recession bad, or good for that matter?  These are the kind of questions that must be asked, not ignorant squabble I hear being asked of every congressman the news media can get its hands on “do you agree with Rush that he said the party should fail?”…”do you believe Rush is the leader of the party or is Mike Steele?”…”why did you apologize to Rush?”  You have to be kidding me.  Is it any wonder why we are at a political/cultural state such as this now?  Do people not talk about issues…let me re-phrase…do people not give a crap about what ideology they falsely claim to embody?  We are as much to blame as the news media, take a look online at some blogs, social news websites etc…we drink this crap in like its honey.  I think if I asked a 5yr old what would happen if all he ate was sweets…your teeth would fall out and you wouldn’t feel too hot.

I would like to leave you with a quote I made up last night…yes I made this up while I was in a club in Vegas at about 4am, yes that does make me weird.  Anyways, that aside, lets see if this dog can hunt.

We must have IDEOLOGIES dictate our LEADER, not a LEADER dictate our IDEOLOGIES

It is so vitally important in this day and age, when it seems like the sky is falling around us, to engage as a nation in tough debates about the issues.  I truly believe that the Hegelian dialectical process.  Posit a thesis, engage with an antithesis, and through that forms a synthesis.  What we are doing now as a nation, right and left, is a collective staring at the wall.  Walls don’t talk back, but the louder you yell at them, the louder your own dumb voice is thrown back at you.

Does the tail wag the dog?  Well it seems as if the White House is dictating the terms of the argument surrounding Republicans right now.  Even in the days of, and after CPAC, the White House formed the debate which carries on still involving the future of the republican party.  Firstly, The Rham Emmanuel comment about the “leader” if the party had driven a phatom wedge in the middle of the party.  I say ‘phantom’ because the argument of the leader of the party is frankly irrelivant.  This inturn caused Michael Steele to make comments (then appologies) to Limbaugh…again a completely irrelivant argument that even Rush acknowledges.

Secondly is the question of whether or not the Republican party should expand its base or entrench itself in the conservative ideology of the party of old (ie: Regan, Lincoln etc…).  Even in this argument, the democrats and white house frame the argument in terms of different leaders of the party.  This issue of entrenchment v.s expanding is completely missing the point, something which I want to and will make a post about either tonight or tomorrow, but it again is an example of the other party forming our own party’s debate.  The tail definitely seems to be wagging the dog in this case

To see I can not make something this outlandish up:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

I had a big blog post before but in my haste, I button smashed and erased it all in three key strokes.  So, this is abridged version_

Any sane thinking person must stand at awe in front of the giant chasm which is the ideological disjunct of having rapist, murderers, and extortionists (i am not talking about “Bush lied, people died” type stuff, I am talking about leaders sending people to death in mass graves, defrauding humanitarian programs, and sponsoring jails with documented rape rooms in them).  I could go on and on with links, quotes and investigative type journalism stuff but (which I still may if I get bored one afternoon or someone asks me to) I am going to stop at this and make your own minds up.  The UN passed last year as non-binding, but this year going for binding, on the Combating Defamation of Religions bill.  This would make it illegal on punishment of arrest if you speak negatively about religion, namely Islam.  Why do I say namely Islam?  Well the 57 country Organization of Islamic Conference stated this as a goal in their 10 year plan to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.  Please tell me how Islam and Muslims have any right to dictate the free speech, thought and opinions expressed by anyone?  Maybe it is Islam who should be taking a look at how they react in the realm of religions conversation.  There is nothing but example, after example, after example of Muslims turning directly towards violent and rage filled protest ending in numerous deaths when presented with anything less then complementary to their religion (over 100 people died as a result of a comic posted in a dutch news paper).  Who is Islam kidding…a protective measure dictating blatant anti-free speech laws internationally?  Legitimizing politically motivated arrests of people speaking out against Islam?  The UN is not only allowing this, they are fostering it and pulling for this to get passed as a binding resolution.  Better yet, this is all happening in the US.  Ideological Disjunct…?  Things are becoming UN-done

There is something seriously wrong with the culture of political correctness in this world. (I know I am getting greedy with my gross over generalizations now, making global comments rather than just national, but hey its the truth)

For me, this came to a head this week with the New York Post cartoon of “Travis” the chimp.  We all remember the crazed chimp who ripped the face off a lady before being dropped in the face by a cop when trying to get in his cruiser (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvlkKth37Fp__GL6KYdl2b1s6dBgD96DNV5G0 in case you ‘)

Well Sean Delonas, cartoonist for NYP made a pretty funny cartoon involving two officers, after shooting the chimp saying “Well, I guess we have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill…”. 

Well, it was not a couple of hours after this went to press that the all righteous NAACP cried outrage.  Apparently, they cleverly put 2 and 2 together, seeing the reference to government and seeing a monkey, and uncovered one of the most racist cartoons of our time…uhh

The NAACP was infuriated that the Post would dare allow its cartoonist to publish a drawing calling the president a 60’s era racial slur for black person…monkey.  What the hell NAACP, are you kidding?  Well sadly I know the answer to that rhetorical question, and the answer is unequivocally no.  You are nothing but serious in your misguided outrage.  The NAACP got their panties into such a big knot (i think they are just self-conscious at having such a long acronym), and made such a big fuss that they got Rupert Murdoch to publicly apologize.  That obviously was not enough so they are asking for the job, and head on a sharpened stake if possible, of the evil cartoonist Delonas.  I think Delonas’s words pretty accurately sum up this situation

Delonas called the controversy “absolutely friggin’ ridiculous”

This is one absurd example of the systemic problem of extreme political correctness.  The cartoon was referring to people who wrote the stimulus bill, which would be the congress not Obama.  There was nothing what-so-ever inciting a racial tirade against Obama, but obviously those who appreciate humor or political satire have a very un-trained eye to subliminal racism.  As absurd as this instance is, thankfully it was not violent.

In Sept of 2005, 12 cartoons of Muhammed were published in a Dutch news paper.  These cartoons set off a series of riots around the world resulting in more then 100 deaths, and the fire bombing of the Dutch embassy.  The main cartoonist had to go into hiding for drawing the images.  Evidently, free speech is ok unless talking about Islam (satirical images of other religions were regularly printed in the newspaper).  The main point of protest was not the message of the cartoons, but the fact that the prophet Muhammed was depicted at all.  The western world did nothing to stand up to this asinine argument, which was one of many blows extremist ideology has struck against modern ideology.  Sharia, as much as I ardently and wholly disagree with it, can be enacted in private (or now in north Pakistan) so long as it does not interfere with laws of the state.  Unfortunately, the western world forgot how to say, the minority’s laws and rules are not primary to the BLOODY COUNTRY you are a citizen of.  Political correctness won out, God forbid we make anyone angry.  And insofar as you are not trying to anger anyone, you yourself as being made to look like a fool because the pure fact of holding a position or taking opinion, even making a decision, means you exclude options, hence exclude those people who align themselves with the excluded options.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#cite_note-6 enjoy reading that if you really want to get hot between the eyes.

Last example I want to bring up is Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was critical of Islam.  He made a short documentary about Muslim women “who are physically/emotionally abused due to the male empowerment given in the Koran”.  The man who killed Van Gogh (a Muslim extremist), out of outrage for the making of this film, shot, stabbed, then cut the throat of this filmmaker.  Outrage was not immediately lain at the feet of Muslim extremism and the extreme, anti-dissention violence shown by them to the Dutch who speak out against them (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1971423.stm and the sad story of politician Pim Fortuyn), instead restraint was called for and “outrage” from Muslim groups about the movie were allowed to freely propagate.  Any mention of free-speech was like chum in the water of international Muslim community who all felt more entitled to look down on Van Gogh for his “insensitive movie” rather than one of their own who “insensitively hacked up” the body of Van Gogh.  The prime minister even said, after learning the killing was perpetrated by a Muslim extremist said

In a written statement, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said “Nothing is known about the motive”

Again, easier to say nothing is wrong, don’t anger the minority by possibly connecting the dots saying a Muslim extremist killed a filmmaker for making a film about Muslim extremists…no motive at all right?

This is not a new problem.  There is no great answer to this problem but I think it can start with this.  If you are “tolerant” you, by definition, must be tolerant of the “intolerant”.  Don’t get it yet?  If you are a tolerant person you must be tolerant of all people, even those who don’t agree with your position of tolerance…otherwise you are, you guessed it, intolerant.  None of the examples above were intolerant things, all of the cartoons were in obvious jest, and the movie was a documentary, not an insult. (go ahead and argue that with me, to make my argument you don’t even have to take this as a given).  The real intolerance comes from the protesters to these cartoons/films.  It is not about taking a joke, its about not being a hippocrate.  If you want the freedom to say what you want, and do things like, uhhh I don’t know…protest and speak out against things? you must be ready and willing to afford others those rights.  If you don’t like that idea, be ready to be called a ignorant hippocrate or shut the hell up. Personal opinion/expression has proceeded you and will succeed you.

Ya NAACP I’m talking to you.

Let me start off this post with saying, this is not a bash Obama blog.  I’m sure every post will not be negative but that is just what seems to be happening right now.  Obama is my president too and I pray for the best, but expect anything.

Ok not that totally pointless and probably unnecessary preface/disclaimer is out of the way lets continue.  Gotta be PC ;)

Foreign policy under the Obama regime has been…well…hard to say because it has been pretty damn non existent. Lets take some recent happenings in the past week, some of which occurring this week or yesterday. In case you don’t want to read to the bottom I’ll go ahead and let the cat out of the bag and give you my conclusion I’m working towards.  Obama is more concerned about the country being loved by the rest of the world, then what is in the best interest of the country (or the rest of the world for that matter).

Lets Begin:

Iran launches first satellite into successful orbit:  Why is this bad?  Well first off Obama a few days before Obama went on Al Arabiya to give his first interview to an Arab news station.  This was an outreach of the olive branch to countries like Iran with phrases like “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” promising a new offer of engagement as never seen in the Bush administration.  **Everyone wave your Obama Flags yeah!!**.  Still can’t see why this is bad.  Not even a few days after this interview, Iran launches a missile.  Not just any missile, one that carried a satellite into successful orbit.  This is a clear message that says ‘we can hit any continent that we want with a missle’

Was this missle launch Obama’s fault.  Well, hard to draw any real line of causation so lets move on

Hugo Chavez declares foiling a coup from within his own military.  Two officers were arrested, crisis averted.  A few days later, Hugo Chavez voted in as life time president:  Why is this bad?  Obama again, like with Iran offered an olive branch of diplomatic engagement not seen before in the Bush administration.  **Everyone get your flags ready…** But with that declaration, Uncle Hugo saw fit a great time to pull off one of the oldest, and frankly most cliche, political power-grabs in the Latin American handbook, the autocoup or “self-coup”.  Here’s how it goes, in case you ever want to pull off your own power grab in an impoverished country.  You say the whole government/military is out to throw a coup.  You show moderately weak proof of your accusation, and before anyone can say Chavez, you dissolve your government/take complete power as a pre-emptive measure to keep the stability of the dear country you love so much.  If there really was a great military coup going on, I’m going to go ahead and assume there are more then 2 officers involved.  Still don’t believe me something smells like rotten pesco, there has not been 1 story in the media, international or state run, after this one incident.  So Hugo Chavez consolidates power as a life dictator, America does nothing.

Is this Obama’s fault a crazy leader sitting on massive oil reserves, advising Brazil, who recently discovered some of the largest oil reserves under their land making them an incredibly powerful world player…well I guess not directly, I’ll write off two things but are there more?

Yes

Pakistan, long time US ally decided to stop playing nice with the US.  Pakistan Says Will Ask IMF to Ease Bailout Conditions. Mind you they are asking for an extra 4.5 billion on top of the 7.3 bil they already got from IMF to fight the Taliban.  Well fighting the Taliban sounds good right, give Pakistan a break, they are fighting the bad guys

Pakistani govt. reaches deal with Taliban on sharia law. Umm…So Pakistan is wanting relaxing on regulations to pay back money to fight the Taliban, who they just signed over the north part of their country to 100miles away from the capital.  By the way sharia isnt really the prettiest or most modern way of going about peace keeping…look it up

Damn these things are really starting to pile up

WTA Fines Dubai Tournament Record $300000 for Blocking Peer. After saying any and all players were allowed to participate the UAE said they would block the entry of an Israeli tennis pro.  The UAE is a friend of the US’s and we are letting them get away with this behavior.  *Correction, to say friend is light…this is where we have CENTCOM

Stop the bleeding

Kyrgyzstan President Signs Law to Close US Base.  One of our more important hubs into Afghanistan and largest special operations base in the area.  Why is this bad? “President Bakiyev recently announced plans to close the base - the only one in the region open to U.S. forces - after Russia pledged to give Kyrgyzstan about $2 billion in loans and aid.”…holy shit.  We just lost one of our closest allies through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to a 2 billion dollar bribe from the Russians.

Still think our Foreign non-policy is a good idea.  We have had nothing the past few weeks but the rest of the world walking all over us.  I am not trying to sound like a xenophobic nut, or rally ‘round your family with a pocket full of shells (RATM reference, sorry), but this is absolutely absurd.  None of these moves, not one of them was good for the rest of the world.  America’s ass is getting sore from the kick-me sign someone has seemed to sneak onto our backs (I don’t know how they got past Hillary).  Can someone please stand up for our country in government, or at least take this damn sign off our back, it makes us look like a freshman.

Item 2…The new American Foreign Policy

Since Jan 18th, the rest of the world has been treating America like the big new kid in school.  Too nice to say anything to his face, but just enough of a dope to sneak a “Kick Me” sign onto his back and proceed with wholesale behind-the-back mocking.

…Global Econ sounds like a great place to write this post, more to come soon