The airwaves and the internet are filled with hatred and spite against the President of the United States, and not just by hard-line conservatives. Islamic terrorist groups across the Muslim world are also spewing vitriolic accusations against President Obama, despite the assurance by American conservatives during the presidential election campaign that Obama was on the terrorists’ side!
But the hard-line American conservatives and the Islamic terrorists both hate President Obama for the same reason, his sheer popularity is costing them both dearly where it hurts the most: in the roll call, and in the coffers. Logistically speaking, President Obama's worldwide popularity has been equally disastrous for the Republican party as it has for al-Qaeda. Hard-line Islamists, at least, acknowledge the threat Obama poses, as illustrated in this AP story, datelined from Cairo, about reactions to the speech posted to a militant Islamic website and published in Pakistan's Daily Times:
The man (Obama) is manipulating the emotions of the people the same as a lute player does... He is undoubtedly a wise enemy compared with George Bush, the enemy known for his stupidity. Shehab said, “Obama is more capable of persuading Muslims than others because of his Muslim origin, yet this does not mean he is closer to Muslims or he loves them more than other leaders of infidelity... he is a renegade Muslim.”
So Obama is called a ‘wise enemy’ - a compliment indeed when it comes from the other side, but an enemy nonetheless. It is truly ironic that, while there is only hatred between American hard-line conservatives and Islamic terrorists, they both now face the same problem: fewer new people are joining their cause, and the donations are significantly diminishing.
Does this not exemplify the time-tested military maxim, “amateurs discuss firepower, but professionals discuss logistics”? In other words, the wise general does that which improves his own logistical position, while harming the enemy’s logistical position to the point where they are much less effective. Add to that Sun Tzu’s rule that “the acme of generalship is to defeat the enemy without resorting to combat,” and one has two of the greatest reasons that the asymmetrical warfare waged by the terrorists has cost us over four thousand troops and more than a half trillion dollars. For example, the 9/11 attacks cost the terrorists no more than half a million dollars, whereas the cost to New York’s economy alone was pegged at over a billion dollars - a return of over a thousand to one! Colin Powell also understands the importance of logistics: “For money is the oxygen of terrorism. Without the means to raise and move money around the world, terrorists cannot function." The RAND Corporation dissertation from which Powell’s quote was drawn makes another very interesting statement, that three crucial variables in one’s decision to donate to a terrorist group are, “risk, level of wealth, or sympathy for the terrorists’ cause. Unfortunately, the author of the article never addressed how to undercut the last of that triad of factors.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave and Clavos -
Thank you both for the edits - when I went back to the original this morning, I saw the several spelling and grammar mistakes I had made. While writers are supposed to hate editors, most of us understand how important your job is, and to do so even when the article you're editing is anathema to your own beliefs is an example of professionalism for all to follow.
Well done to both of you!
2 - zingzing
very nice article glenn, although the way the pages are split is kinda silly (editors?). the kennedy line at the end is a bit... i dunno. i'd bet most high school graduates know what that guy was talking about, but i'd bet fewer would be able to reference it in that way.
anyway, can't wait for the right wing attack dogs to come out on this one. "we're not falling apart, nooooo..."
3 - ed dickson
Thoughtful article.
4 - Clavos
Thanks for the attaboy, Glenn. Except for a change in the title by the Executive Editor, this one is mine, and I really appreciate your kind words.
zing, the page breaks are automatic; editors don't set 'em, but I'll pass your observation along to the techies.
5 - Zedd
Great article.
What is interesting about Obama is that he articulates simple common sense. What distinguishes him is the courage that he has in stating it.
It's not that what he said hasn't already been thought or said by most thinking people (who have a rational, non biased view of the world). Its that he says this stuff out loud, on camera and right on the world's stage. Nervy! He cant be naive. He articulates all of the complexities that are involved much too well to be that. He is simply a man with determination, on a mission to stamp out absurdity. The sort that diminishes the worth of other individuals.
Some of us are annoyed by the ridiculous, make a few comments about it and end up rolling our eyes in exasperation. This guy believes that if he says it plainly enough that people will get it and come along.
Regan was naive and idealistic. He was passionate but very narrow minded. He was a great orator but his narrow scope precluded him from being as affective as he could have been. As a result, he caused a lot of collateral damage along the way, most of which he was oblivious to.
6 - roger nowosielski
Hi, I hope you're not sore. I know I was obstinate. A peace pipe?
7 - Zedd
Clavos
You must be in nirvana. Big time Editor. Wow.... I'm sure your home right now on your big pipe organ cackling and howling "muwahhahahaaaa" over your new found power. "The world shall finally know the I -ninito- can spell and punctuate really well, MUWAHAHAHAHA"!!!!
8 - Zedd
Roger,
If that was addressed to me, no, not sore at all. Thought nothing of it after the dialouge.
No peace pipe needed. We're cool. Let's find someone double team on for old time sakes. Joking.
9 - Clavos
Actually, zedd, I've been an editor the whole time you've been flitting on and off the site, but since you've never written anything to be edited, you wouldn't know that, would you?
10 - roger nowosielski
By the way, Zedd, a great new addition to BC site - Jeannie Danna. And she writes like a dream. I am envious.
You can check her out in the Culture section. I'm certain you'll love it too.
11 - Clavos
Speaking of spelling and punctuation, zedd, I notice yours hasn't improved.
The word is effective.
12 - Zedd
I left that nugget just for you and wondered how long it would take for you to get on it. Good job. There are a couple more morsels for you that are scattered about. Tick tick tick go fetch! Oh how I've missed you.
By the way there was a short piece on you, and your kind on "Fresh Air", the Terri Gross show Wednesday. Made me proud. Linguist and frequent FA contributor Geoff Nunberg had some interesting things to say about folks who do what you do. Bless your heart. Listen to the broadcast your claim to fame is at around 17:56.
13 - Clavos
I left that nugget just for you...
Sure you did, zedd...
14 - Zedd
I missed you to.
15 - Jeannie Danna
I like this article! President Obama is not being run into the ground. Why do terrorists and people in other countries see what Conservatives and Republicans in America refuse to see? We have a great President! :)
16 - Arch Conservative
"What is interesting about Obama is that he articulates simple common sense. What distinguishes him is the courage that he has in stating it."
I see, common sense dictates that if you're already drowning in debt you should spend a few trillion dollars to solve the problem?
And do you really want to talk about irrational, unhinged hatred of a president? As I recall the left proved they were world class at that just a few short years ago when W. was in office.
It's really quite creepy how some of you are still falling all over this hack with praise and all but annointing him as humanity's savior. Oh well I guess in a little under four years you'll feel right at home when you guys have to go back to be the angry ones when the joke ends.
17 - Christopher Rose
Arch, you may well have a point but I don't understand why you always just slag off your President and those who support him, as opposed to actually making constructive criticism or even, you know, a positive suggestion or two.
I think it is really quite creepy that you keep coming back to Blogcritics and making essentially the same remarks over and over again. Don't you get as bored as I do with that?
18 - Arch Conservative
You want a positive suggestion?
OK...instead of spending trillions of dollars more howzabout we make huge cuts in both spending and taxes to get our economy back on it's feet....
How can any person not understand that the more you tax business the more business will either pass that cost onto the consumer and/or just stop doing as much business because they can't affford to. That leads to less supply and and demand which leads to less job creation hich leads to higher unemployment which makes everyone miserable.
But oh no....can't stop spending, no way no how, the tax dollars we American citizens pay is like heroin to both parties in Washington. It's what they live for and for some reason they feel entitled to keep taking more and more of it.
Now that we have this leftist fuck in office the uber liberal mantra of everyone's a victim and big brother must take care of everyone..........entitlements, handouts and taxes..........hip hip hooray.
I'm sorry Christopher, I know you're a cheeky socialist pom but frankly I find that leftish view of the world to be complete horseshit. If there's nothing wrong with you mentally or physically, get off your fucking ass and make your own way in the world!
BC is my therapy Christopher. It allows me to vent my frustrations in a safe, peaceful manner. Otherwise you might see me turn up on the six O'clock news. And it's free. You can't beat it with a stick!
19 - Jordan Richardson
Arch, there are some flaws with your reasoning.
First of all, businesses respond to higher taxes by laying off low-level workers and cutting corners. The CEOs are usually the last to take pay cuts, if they take pay cuts at all. They, by all rights, have more than enough money to survive (especially big businesses) and, in fact, thrive. Oil and energy companies are making record profits, for instance, and other companies are still paying out massive bonuses despite job losses at the bottom rung of the ladder.
When those job losses reach out into the markets, unemployment boosts considerably. Money poured into the system and not just blindly granted to companies in the form of tax breaks, cuts, or bailouts creates more jobs by providing more opportunities for companies and individuals to prove they can "get off their fucking asses," in your words, and operate in what is quickly becoming a new economy.
An infusion of money into the infrastructure is not uncommon in these situations. In fact, our Canadian Conservative government has responded to the recession by "spending," as they put it. It isn't that a government spends its way out of a recession that presents bad results; it's how a government does it.
When government money is given to generate new jobs, improve infrastructure, improve transportation, and so forth, that can help stimulate local economies and put people back to work. But it takes time and effort from society as a whole.
In order for a society operating in such an economic system to properly and efficiently generate more income and more jobs, there must be cash flow. Sometimes governments need to stimulate that cash flow in order to save jobs and economic opportunities.
A lot of the problem with why America is where it is (and a lot of the rest of us by default) relates to the consumerist culture. There is a lack of production in America's cities and states, for instance, and jobs are outsourced while products are imported by the crateload. America has stopped being a producer and started being open-mouthed consumers. A cash infusion can help boost production, especially when it is directed towards industry and job creation. Putting people back to work and putting people to work in new vocations, like green jobs, is how America gets back on its economic feet.
Simply providing blankets of tax cuts for those already churning out money is only going to boost their profit margin and put into effect the faulty economic theory known hilariously as "trickle down."
Why not sponsor a plan that gets more people back to work and renews the creative, productive spirit in America? Why not help one another out? Why not support the ability of everyone to make their own way in the world?
The leftist view of the world has nothing to do with a lack of personal responsibility or "making your own way in the world."
It has to do with people actually getting what they worked for instead of people having to shovel that off to the boss, the CEO, and those who sit around all day in suits at the top of the corporate ladder. It has to do with taking care of others and those less fortunate with the realization that we're all in this together. A society with support structures, health care, good and fair wages, and less corporate control isn't a bad thing.
20 - roger nowosielski
Cool assessment, Jordan. Unfortunately, even among the more reasonable left and the moderates, there is this growing apprehension that the much heralded stimulus package may not have worked.
Only last night, I was listening to George Noory (you must be able to get him too - it's a Coast-to-Coast AM program); a cool guy, really, if you don't know him, fair-minded and thoughtful.
He was reflecting on how all that money has already been dumped into big business - and it's gone. Pissed in the wind. Interestingly, he said if, say, a $25,000.00 check were to be send to each and every tax payer, it would not only stimulate the economy, boost consumption, avert business closures and layoffs, but most importantly perhaps - prevent mortgage defaults, instill hope in people and change lives. As it is, this money is as good and done. And it's in billions.
I'm not certain whether this thinking is air-tight and all those results would come about if the package were directed at the people, but it sure sound a helluva lot better than bailing our Morgan Stanley, BofA or GM.
And the funny part, Noory wasn't responding to any particular guest on his show (like Alex Jones or Jerome Corsi). There were his own reflections, unprompted and impromptu.
Instead, we just rushed into into it, and the sooner the better, because the impression that we're doing something was deemed more important than saving the country and the people.
For reasons like this, I'm not exactly unsympathetic with those who argue that we're entering the era of corporate statism. Notice, it's not the small or mid-size businesses that were helped but giants - too big to fail, was the mantra.
So what has changed?
21 - Jordan Richardson
I've been looking through a few resources like StimulusWatch, the Stimulus Wiki (they have a spreadsheet and some other documents that discuss where the money is going), and and others like it in order to get a sense for how things are working out. The main consensus appears to be that it may be too early to tell how effective the bill is or will be. It's also probably too early to say that the money's "gone" or whatever.
There's no question that the bill was far from perfect, but I'm not sure there's ever been a perfect bill. I do think that it is preferable to provide money to upgrade and revitalize industry, infrastructure, and the like. I do know that the science and tech investments are good, for instance.
I'd say you could be entering the area of corporate nationalism as opposed to corporate statism, but I'd be lying if I didn't think all of us in the Wild West were basically there already.
22 - Christopher Rose
Arch, I think you're fundamentally mistaken about your notion to cut taxes and spending. That is akin to companies that cut spending in a recession when innumerable studies have shown that keeping going as normally as possible is a more effective recovery strategy. Slashing and burning just leaves a wilderness in its wake.
I suspect that if you took the time to research the matter, you'd find that taxation is always oscillating around roughly the same levels regardless of the party in power. It is a bit of a lazy stereotype to say that the right is more efficient and the left not.
Higher taxation doesn't particularly reduce entrepreneurial activity, but it does stimulate tax evasion efforts so governments usually have no realistic choice but to keep taxation within certain levels.
As to myself, whilst I may be both cheeky and a pom, I am also a business person running several diverse and profitable businesses, so I would reject your lazy socialist tag.
I wpould in fact go so far as to say that your political views, polarized as they are along the hugely dated left-right spectrum, are simply old-fashioned and out of date.
In the real world, it is a matter of involving all interested parties around a particular issue, stakeholders is the fairly clunky term used, and then working towards a solution that works for everybody, rather than a top down command process that both the right and the left wings of politics often seem to prefer.
23 - Jeannie Danna
Saturday morning funnies-(Oh well I guess in a little under four years you'll feel right at home when you guys have to go back to be the angry ones when the joke ends.) Keep laughing Arch Because President Obama is serving TWO count em TWO terms....:)
24 - Jeannie Danna
Ouch-(In the real world, it is a matter of involving all interested parties around a particular issue, stakeholders is the fairly clunky term used, and then working towards a solution that works for everybody, rather than a top down command process that both the right and the left wings of politics often seem to prefer.)
Chris is right here! I guess I do rely on our government to help bring us back to prosperity. Not by trickling down on us but by offering us opportunities to prosper such as universal health care, better public education and jobs in a green environment.
Why don't we actually implement this plan instead of blowing it all to hell...:)
25 - roger nowosielski
"In the real world, it is a matter of involving all interested parties around a particular issue, stakeholders is the fairly clunky term used, and then working towards a solution that works for everybody, rather than a top down command process that both the right and the left wings of politics often seem to prefer."
Nice thought, Chris. I'm not optimistic, however, that we've reached that stage.