Posted On: Friday - October 19th 2018 10:42AM MST
In Topics:   Global Climate Stupidity  Global Financial Stupidity  The Neocons  ctrl-left  Deep State
Lieawatha speakum great bull! White man have to listen!
I'd gone kinda of roundabout on the unz site via the comments section (it's very good for this) to this interesting article, Unsolicited Advice for an Undeclared Presidential Candidate. I'll give this guy, Andrew Bacevich, credit right away. He knows that the Honorable Senator representing the nations of the upper Massachusetts didn't ask for his advice, and I doubt he thinks she's gonna read it either. That's the thing with these "open letters" or smoke signals, if you're that inclined: I don't think they usually get to the receipient. When these types of high-level intended-recipients actually read letters, they are usually have return addresses with the words "Deep State" in them, and some cash or pictures inside.
That aside, I'd been ready to write an ENTIRELY different post this morning, as I'd gotten to the comment section of this article haphazardly, as I mentioned above. The comments, including some by Mr. Ron Unz himself, were on the "banksters" and the housing crash (part 2 of that coming soon to a neighborhood near you). Now, Mrs. Warren here has actually said some reasonable things on the financial aspects of the housing bubble/crash/bailouts. The fact is though, as I'll put in the subsequent posts on this, Socialism is NOT THE SOLUTION, as Capitalism was NOT THE PROBLEM. Your intended recipieint, Andrew Bacevich, is another Socialist. So, I need to address the topic in the comment section - it's worth doing, as Peak Stupidity has not really addressed the root causes of that stuff yet under the Global Financial Stupidity topic key. That's coming, but I'll address this actual article for a bit, since I read it.
Mr. Bacevich implores the Senator (not using any Faux names for now, because there are too many, and I just haven't homed in on the best yet!) to implement a foreign policy, were she elected president, of withdrawal from the foreign entanglements, rational dealings with Russia and China, etc. I have no problem with any of what he wrote on that. I agree wholeheartedly on this advice to any American president, but man, then the idiocy of this writer come out in spades:
You are an exceedingly smart and gifted politician, so I’m confident that you have accurately gauged the obstacles ahead. Preeminent among them is the challenge of persuading citizens beyond the confines of New England, where you are known and respected, to cast their ballot for a Massachusetts liberal who possesses neither executive nor military experience and is a woman to boot.Hahaaa... OK...
Without possessing the most minimal of qualifications to serve as commander-in-chief, Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016. Who can doubt that gender and race played a role?Yes, Mr. Trump played the trump card - that one with the white male joker. That got him well over 50% of the male vote, even slightly over 50% of the (white!) female vote, while blacks vote 90% for the democrat every time. Yeah, something played a role (immigration stupidity, perhaps?) Here's the thing, Bacevich - real conservatives and libertarians, and some of the few that call themselves "liberal" (though not when their own guy is in office) understand the stupidity of this "invade-the-world" neocon business. They have since the end of the Cold War. That is indeed a good starting point of the rise of the Neocons (Part 2) and since I've excerpted 2nd-to worst stupidity of this writer of unsolicited advice, here's a very much smarter excerpt:
The Cold War ended three decades ago in what was ostensibly a decisive victory for the United States. History itself had seemingly anointed us as the “indispensable nation.”Indeed! [/Instapundit] It's still kind of hard to read alternating rationality and stupidity in one article. It gets worse again, though:
Yet here we are, all these years later, gearing up again to duel our old Cold War adversaries, the Ruskies and ChiComs. How, in the intervening decades, did the United States manage to squander the benefits of coming out on top in that “long twilight struggle”? Few members of the foreign policy establishment venture to explain how or why things so quickly went awry. Fewer still are willing to consider the possibility that our own folly offers the principal explanation.
By the time you are elected, the 20th anniversary of 9/11 will be just around the corner, and with it the 20th anniversary of the Global War on Terrorism. Who can doubt that when you are inaugurated on January 20, 2021, U.S. forces will still be engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and various other places across the Greater Middle East and Africa? Yet in present-day Washington, the purpose and prospects of those campaigns elude serious discussion. Does global leadership necessarily entail being permanently at war? In Washington, the question goes not only unanswered, but essentially unasked.
That reordering ought to begin with three neglected developments that should be at the forefront of a Warren Doctrine. The first is a warming planet.OK, that was about it. At that point, upon writing this guy off as anyone to listen to (whether you're the intended recipient or not), I accidentally scanned to the next paragraph unfortunately:
Climate change poses a looming national security threat with existential implications. With this summer’s heat waves and recent staggering storms, evidence of this threat has become incontrovertible. Its adverse consequences have already ruined thousands of American lives as evidenced by Hurricanes Katrina (2005), Irma (2017), Harvey (2017), Maria (2017), and Michael(2018), along with Superstorm Sandy (2013), not to mention pervasive drought and increasingly destructive wildfires in a fire season that seems hardly to end. It no longer suffices to categorize these as Acts of God.First, I have to mention the skip between '05 and '17 on the hurricanes, just because it was exactly in 2005 when the Global Climate DisruptionTM crowd came out with their biggest prediction (aside from the
Man, I can really get off topic, as I read some bullshitter who's sucked me in with a snippet of truth, can't I? This became a "fisking" of just one random article on unz, so I apologize on behalf of the entire Peak Stupidity staff, but here's the point of this post: There may be, and have been, open letters, smoke signals, TV pundits, blogs, and all other manner of attempted influence on people running for US President. Is this writer not aware that the same suggestions (the good ones, on foreign policy) were made to the Clintons, Bushes, Øb☭mas, and Trumps*?! What difference did it make? The same Neocon policies HAVE been going on since the end of the Cold War, as the author wrote correctly. It's not just that none of these people make an effort to listen to you and your unsolicited open letter of advice to candidate Dances-with-Banksters.** They have other people that pay a lot more money than our tiny bit of taxes that pay the Presidential salary. Those folks have been having their way for 3 decades and it won't change without a lot more than one squaw reading your smoke signals.
* At least in this case, Candidate Trump was a listener to, and a DRIVER of the discussion on ending the Neocon's war on the world. He's still trying to work on it, against his Generals and whole Deep State apparatus, Yet, the big vitriol is directed at him, because he wasn't "qualified". Ha!
** That'll be used in the later post, as, again, the comments under this unz article have got me in a mood to attempt to explain that stuff why socialism sure won't put a stop to the financial stupidity.