Fake news

By that I don't just mean what most of us have come to know--that much of what we read and hear about from the news media is inaccurate. 

I mean the news organizations themselves are fake (this is also probably obvious). They are not what they purport to be. They exert very little effort to seek out and provide real, truthful news. 

Capitalism loves destruction, and this monolithic industry is priming itself for disruption. 

And we are beginning to see that disruption in the form of Substack (disclaimer: I am hoping to move to Substack eventually, I just need time). 

I am still endeavoring to find non-partisan, credible, independent journalists who are not part of the establishment media (and are probably not grifting one side). I think Michael Tracy is one of those, at least for now.

So, to provide a data point or two in support of my obvious thesis, please read part 1 and part 2 on the NATO summit from Mr. Tracy. It's pretty sad we have a government and media perfectly fine with shit transparency about an actual and ongoing war in Europe, of which there are profound global consequences. Not to mention the lives, billions of dollars, and great risk involved for NATO members and the region. 

Speculation on Russia

I had a random thought that in hindsight, seems rather obvious and somehow lazy. But I think I'll make a note of it here in the chance there is something to it.

I think Russia (or Russian intelligence), has something very sensitive on the American ruling political class, including some significant Democrats. And quite possibly many other Western leaders. Something big, and something worth holding on to. 

That theory would explain a lot, including the sudden and alarming rise in Western jingoism propagated by our media in lockstep with our uncharacteristically united political factions.

Even if it were true, and even if the Russians cashed in such a claim, I'd imagine it would take many years, possibly decades to confirm, especially in the face of the immense and inevitable push back from pretty much every Western media outlet.

A pattern of escalation

If you've been paying attention, it's patently obvious foreign involvement in the Ukraine-Russia (Russia-Ukraine?) war is on the rise. Rhetoric, sympathy, financial and humanitarian aid is all well and laudable. But then there were the sanctions against Russia, then small arms and intelligence for Ukraine, then drones, then howitzers, then Western government boots on Ukrainian soil (for help "training" Ukrainian forces), then tanks. And as this is a war, it would be weird if there weren't other forms of aid we didn't know about. 

Maybe the West has Russia figured out. Maybe they know something Russia doesn't. But I do know this, nothing goes according to plan, especially in war; and leaders have a tendency to be dumber than they appear. The West is gambling in a dangerous game. I obviously don't have the whole picture, but there is a line and given this sustained escalation, at some point it will be crossed. 

I guess we're doing this

With the retards in charge, I don't see how it's avoidable. If Russia doesn't back down soon, doesn't kneel to the Western pressure in short order, it is going to get worse before it gets better, and better is likely a long ways off.

Russia was and is stupid for invading Ukraine. Whether or not you think it was justified, it was a costly miscalculation. That being said, there is plenty more room for stupid, and the United States fills that vacuum.

Michael Tracy has been one of the few journalistic presences offering some much needed skepticism in response to the Western/U.S./Biden admin/establishment messaging. He doesn't get it right all the time but the above tweet is a mostly accurate summary of the belligerent, faux bravado foolhardiness of our nearly octogenarian president (with increasingly credible and concerning problems).

I'll take a sexist with mean tweets any day over a halfwit loudmouth who taunts nuclear adversaries, to say nothing of the concomitant inflation, empty shelves, and an even worse outlook.

I don't know if I was being paranoid enough a while back. Fill your larders and prepare for hard times. If I'm wrong, great--just be sure to eat the food before it expires. If I'm right and the idiots do lead us into dystopia, we're screwed but at least you will be a little more ready for it.

Biological weapons or biological research?

After Wuhan, the distinction between research and weapons development, while important, is effectively moot. Operating on the (reliably & repeatedly proven) assumption that most state actors will break virtually any law/norm/good sense to further secure themselves, I am just going to assume Russia's claim the U.S. was developing biological weapons in Ukraine is basically true. 

As Politifact might say, this unproven claim is 100% false!*

*technically possible--anthrax, small pox, super death virus, and maxplaguespreader2000, etc. could theoretically be used as biological weapons in the wrong hands.

Or the "research" can be leaked from a lab by a moron or spy, all while governments point fingers, raise taxes, and invade other countries.

I believe Russia as far as I can throw it, but I wouldn't put it past our government. There is no effective difference between biological research (for very, very dangerous and communicable diseases) and biological weapons development except on paper, they know this, they rely on it, and they exploit it. How do I know? Because if I were a jealous superpower, I would do the same damn thing. It doesn't excuse it. If not Ukraine, then somewhere else, but probably too many somewhere elses including Ukraine.

I'm pessimistic any country will own up to their wrongs or take a hard turn towards benevolence any time soon.

I'm realistic that questionable, potentially dangerous, and probably dubious "research" is taking place all over the world.

But I'm optimistic we will (if slowly) change things for the better. 

[Postscript: I get that we need research on deadly viruses, if we want to have a chance to understand and protect ourselves against them. I don't think that means we need 1000s of labs across the world operating with alarmingly low levels of transparency and security.]

No adults

I don't think I will be warblogging. Part of me wants to quit my job and report, opine, and highlight various things in the world today, especially big things like Russia invading Ukraine. 

But as we've seen, there is a lot of propaganda/fake news coming out daily, specifically designed to manipulate you. That is nothing new, and perhaps one of the few good things about this is how fast and clearly the propaganda is being debunked and shown for what it is. That is new. It should really give one pause when thinking about how things are really going over there.

I am rooting for Ukraine, and all nations should have an unimpeded right of self-determination and generally not be invaded. But I also understand how Russia would be freaking out about having a potential NATO member on their doorstep. It's like the adults in the world are AWOL. Things should have never gotten this far.

But they have and way too many people think it's fine to escalate and do whatever it takes to shut down Russia. Where are the adults? Seriously, where the hell are the adults? I hope it doesn't turn into that. You don't fight an injured and nuclear-armed bear into a corner and expect it to behave.

Edited to add: I understand Russia has an aggressive and oppressive history, particularly with regard to Eastern Europe. Russia is definitely not a benevolent actor in geopolitics and deserves to be humbled. But that doesn't mean we need another world war right now.

Update: We must protect the fragile Biden admin at all costs:

Seriously -- is fact-checking dead? pic.twitter.com/l4YTf86850

— David Martosko 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@dmartosko) March 1, 2022

Been busy

Life has been busy. I've been wanting to blog about many things, but just haven't found the time. I hope to change that this year. I plan on taking and making more me time, which means more family time, and a little more blogging time, hopefully.

Until then and as always, let's hope we don't stumble into another war.

Never forget

This post is a little late. But it feels like we've given up a lot of freedom the past 20 years, fought some questionable wars, shed irreplaceable blood, spent trillions, and I'm not sure we are any wiser for it, let alone better off.

A lot of the terrorists were beaten and beaten badly. But it was not without significant cost. In many ways the terrorists lost, but in some ways they won. The United States won in some ways and lost in others. 

I have no faith in our leadership. But I still have faith in the American people. 

Leaving Afghanistan

We should've left long ago. I'd say after about 6 (probably fewer) or so years of, ahem, occupying--or whatever word you want to use to indicate a sustained military presence in a foreign land--Afghanistan, most Americans wanted our troops to come home. 

Let's be honest with ourselves, we go to war with the intelligence services, generals and politicians we have, not the ones we want. Leaving Afghanistan would have always been messy, whether we left in 2001 or a few months ago.

Maybe Biden screwed up, I mean it'd be hard for a man that age to not screw something up. I don't think Trump would've fared better, but I know Trump's response would've differed, for good or ill.

This will probably come back to bite us, someday. "This" being staying way too long and leaving so hastily, with an intelligence service that couldn't see it coming after 20 years there. The whole situation oozes with complacency.

When the right-wing blames Biden, I'm not very swayed (even though the image above is rather cogent). But when they point at military and intelligence engaged in political and social activism while failing terribly in Afghanistan, it's rather persuasive. People need to be fired, and military and intelligence reforms are overdue.

Our nonchalant policy on nuclear proliferation

China has nukes, Israel has them, India and Pakistan have them, Iran has or will have them. North Korea has them. Not to mention Russia and several Western nations. Notice a trend here?

Perhaps we've slowed or stalled nuclear proliferation here and there, even dismantled a few of our own nukes. But if a country really wants it, they will get it.

When it comes to the more-or-less publicly known nuclear programs among adversarial, enemy, or rogue states, we have consistently taken a casual approach, up to and including acceptance. We talk tough, we apply the occasional sanction, and we vow to never let Elbonia go nuclear. But we let them, and they do.

Rumor has it the generals get a medal for every purge they survive

I don't know whether the casual approach is better than any other, I'm not even sure if acceptance of nuclear proliferation is a good or bad philosophy. But I do know that people are animals and tend to be scared of big sticks. When a frightened house cat puffs up its fur, hunches its back in the air, starts hissing, growling, and spitting it's usually enough to scare off much larger predators.

If you've spent some time watching nature documentaries, you know that most territorial fights end before they start. And even when it comes to violence, rarely is it fatal. The key to winning a fight with a big dumb animal is appearing to be more vicious and threatening than is worth the trouble. There are exceptions, of course. And those exceptions are bloody.

People are like this. I remember in high school, some punk got mad because I was dating his ex-girlfriend. He came up to me and started yelling and pushing. I yelled back. He threatened hell on earth, said he would put me in the hospital. I was no fighter, and his words were, to my inexperienced ears, a little frightening. I instinctively wanted to back down. For some reason I didn't. I called his bluff. I stood there and said stop talking and do something. He lobbed a few more insults and walked away.

Even though I always believed him to be an idiot, I thought even less of him after that. North Korea does this a lot. They threaten hell on earth, warning that they will put us in the figurative hospital. But they don't, and we know that.

But on the other hand, we are like that too. How many decades have we vowed to stop nuclear proliferation? To stop North Korea? To stop Iran? We are all talk. So are they, but their sticks are getting bigger and bigger relative to ours. The bluff game doesn't really work when players consistently and reliably bluff. The moment somebody catches on, they'll exploit the living shit out of it.

I don't know. Maybe one day the idiots will think they won't have to walk away; maybe they're already exploiting the living shit out of us.

Which brings me to this editorial by Sung-Yoon Lee:

For far too long, the United States has shied away from shutting off the Kim regime’s sources of money and matériel, let alone sanctioning its Chinese partners. This has been out of concern that Pyongyang might escalate its aggression or that Beijing would adopt retaliatory economic measures. These fears are unfounded: North Korea escalates tension according to its own timetable, while China shows restraint in the face of legitimate financial measures.

"SHIED AWAY!?" From stopping various Kim Jong-nutbags?? How does he know that? But you know what, my political cynicism tells me this version of geopolitical history is so pathetic it must be true.

Every fracking missile test we hear the hawkiest Republocrat say: "It's time to take the kid gloves off when dealing with Iran/North Korea/insert bad country." Apparently we've been putting those gloves back on prior to every missile test, lest we risk running out of symbolic tough-guy gestures and have to visibly back down. The rhetoric is puffed fur, the actual policy is face-saving nonchalance.

Like I said, I don't know if our apparent policy is better or worse than any other approach. I mean, we would actually have to go to war to stop this, or take Sung-Yoon Lee's optimistic advice and economically blockade North Korea. Which might start a war.

Maybe it's too late to stop North Korea, and perhaps even Iran. But I do know that the longer we wait, the more that becomes certain. Cheap talk I know, but all our options suck. Which is probably why we're doing nothing beyond puffing fur. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tyler Cowen, you're talking out of your ass

Read this:

3. There are the libertarians, who hate martial culture on the international scene, but who wish to allow it or maybe even encourage it (personally, not through the government) at home, through the medium of guns.  They are inconsistent, and they should consider being more pro-gun control than is currently the case.  But I don’t expect them to budge: they will see this issue only through the lens of liberty, rather than through the lens of culture as well.  They end up getting a lot of the gun liberties they wish to keep, but losing the broader cultural battle and somehow are perpetually surprised by this mix of outcomes.

Okay. There are so many assumptions and loaded concepts here and in the rest of his blog post, that if he unpacked it so as to minimize the risk of significantly different inputs--and therefore outcomes--from his many different readers, it would be dozens of pages long, if not more. Such is the semiotic nightmare of politics, but it should be avoided, even, I daresay, in extemporaneous and pithy blog posts.

This image sort of works. Can't find who to credit however.

Cowen is generalizing of course, but still, it's god damn lazy to throw around the term "culture" and "martial culture" only to mix it in with broad categories of political philosophies and movements and end up with 2+2=everybody's stupid.

Maybe it's not the point. Maybe there is enough truthiness to his argument to where it has value when considering future foreign and domestic policy. I mean, it rings true, kind of, but only because you or I agree with the implied stereotypes and our input into those loaded words and phrases closely resembles Cowen's meaning.

But what the fuck is "martial culture"? What the fuck is "martial culture on the international scene"? What the fuck is "the lens of culture"?

I identify with libertarians and consider myself to be one. But I could be wrong. It could be that most competently self-labeled libertarians would not label me such. I'm no anarchist. I'm not even really much of a minarchist if you want to quibble over the size of the state, or semantics, but I do favor a push in that direction... much smaller government and fewer, less cumbersome regulations. But that doesn't mean I don't want a powerful military. Or an "active foreign policy" whatever the fuck that means. Maybe that makes me a cardinal sinner of inconsistency. I'll see you in hell, pro-gay marriage, anti-drug war progressive nannystaters.

When I read words I try to avoid applying the simplest most idiotic meanings to and assumptions behind them. So when I read "active foreign policy" I think, well it could mean having diplomats all over the world, engaging with various other foreign officials, for whatever purpose, peaceful or otherwise.

When I read "active foreign policy" I don't think "GEORGE BUSH JINGOISTIC NEOCON INTERVENTIONIST IRAQ WAR FOR OIL JACKBOOTED RACIST IMPERIALISTIC FASCIST" nor do I read "martial culture" as "YEAH LETS BLOW SHIT UP! SEND OUR ENEMIES TO THE STONE AGE! TANKS AND FIGHTER JETS AND MACHINE GUNS WHOO 'MURICA!"

And then the politics are all wrong. Day-to-day politics doesn't mean anything, other than partisan hackery for the most part. Conservatives are winning Cowen says, because Obama wants to get all interventiony on Libya and Syria's asses. Obama must be a conservative and conservatives must like what Obama's doing overseas then, right? No that makes no sense. So lets ramp the complexity up to infinity by throwing in martial culture bullshit and tie it into relevant news by implying guns=martial culture.

For libertarians, Cowen is asserting that we can't have our cake and eat it too. With guns, comes jingoistic international militaristic adventurism (maybe imperialistic too?), or "martial culture" for short. Guns must be pretty powerful, so much so that they're indivisibly part and parcel of "martial culture" and perhaps only that culture. Can't get rid of one with out getting rid of the other. Which is utter crap.

Broadly or narrowly defined, culture is not a rigid, unmalleable artifact of humanity. Want proof? Try defining "American culture". Have fun and good luck. Even if Cowen is right, we can still have our cake and eat it too, even if that means we have to culturally appropriate and/or excise a few things.

I can look through the blurry cultural lens while still clinging to my guns and liberty. It's not hard; you should try it sometime Mr. Cowen.

On Syria: we're less than sheep

Democrats abandoned the anti-war movement when Obama was elected. Which is why the movement more or less fizzled out.

And now that Obama painted his red line into a corner, Democrat-friendly MSNBC is now the War Channel.

At least the hawks are taking this very seriously. But not really though.

Even when Sec. of State John Kerry isn't ruling out boots on the ground.

Kerry is saying we'd put boots on the ground in #Syria if we do the same thing we did in #Libya and get the same result. #wmd @AceofSpadesHQ
— Chip (@cyamas) September 3, 2013

Why the hell are we thinking about bombing (and potentially invading) Syria? Credibility? Purely humanitarian reasons? To give one side in their civil war a little help? None of those reasons are even remotely persuasive. Maybe it's all of the above or some combination. But that does not make it any wiser.

Image credit: Erika Simon

Count me among the thinking people, both right and left, whom are highly skeptical, and are leaning heavily toward opposition:

From Allahpundit at HotAir:

The fact that [Kerry], of all people, has ended up in the Colin Powell role of war salesman here is so ironic that the whole thing seems a touch surreal to me, like a “Twilight Zone” twist to repay all the liberals who posed as anti-war circa 2004 but who were really just anti-Bush and anti-GOP. All we need now is Joe Wilson making the case for intervention on the Sunday shows and we’ll be set.

From David Atkins at Daily Kos:

The idea behind a limited missile strike campaign is supposed to be to degrade Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons capability, purely as an effort to "enforce" chemical weapons law. But it's questionable whether such an action would actually constitute credible enforcement of the principle. Enforcement of the principle would involve punishing the actors involved, not limiting the ability to engage in the act again. And it goes without saying that limited strikes that might degrade his chemical weapons capability will do next to nothing to address the conventional weapons capability that is giving Bashar al-Assad the upper hand in the civil war.

Which leads to the second question: is the U.S. actually attempting to alter the balance of the Syrian civil war against Bashar al-Assad? Few in government are suggesting the sort of war footing that would be required to accomplish that goal, and for good reason. The cost would be astronomically high both in blood and treasure, it would likely bog the United States down in yet another quagmire, and it is quite likely to put theocrats in power who would be even worse for human rights in Syria and abroad. Even just destroying Assad's chemical weapons capacity might even embroil the United States in a bogged-down conflict without even the slimmest hope of a positive outcome.

It's cliche to say we're a nation of sheep, but I think it's worse than that. Sheep at least have a shepherd who is to some extent, responsive to them. We however, appear to be immaterial.

Update: A one-party system, two factions.