Shut up and start the bombing, they explained.

Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.

That's James Ceaser of the University of Virginia approvingly quoted by William Kristol.

Unsurprisingly, Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post is jonesing for just one more war.

We should fully understand what the isolationist right and left contemplate as ideal national security policy. According to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), we have no national security interests in Syria. When Bashar al-Assad began slaughtering his own people, if we said anything at all (and really what business is it of ours?) we should not have demanded Assad leave or face the consequences. When rebels asked for aid or arms or gas masks we should have denied them any support. When Assad used chemical weapons we might have said something, in the Rand Paul (R-Ky.)/Sarah Palin/Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) world view, but there should be no red lines threatening robust retaliation. After Assad killed over 1,400 people by chemical weapons we should take no action. In fact Paul seems sympathetic to Assad, saying Christians will be better off with him. (Why 1,400 gassed victims of unknown religious identity donÂ’t concern him is puzzling.)

In short, for isolationists, there is no amount of dead Syrians, refugees and WMD deaths that would justify us doing anything effective.

Is that the world we want to live in? Once Assad used chemical weapons, then all despots will feel free to do the same. And the green light would not entice merely rogue regimes in Syria and North Korea.

I'd prefer to live in a world where that didn't happen but my second choice is a world where America doesn't launch another war every time a two-bit dictator does what two-bit dictators have been doing for thousands of years...kill their own people.

Notice by the way the casual slur of "isolationist" Rubin throws around in her piece. Am I an "isolationist" because I don't want to start a war on the Korean Peninsular to stop the savages in the North from continuing their acts of barbarity? Am I an isolationist because I don't want to invade the Sudan to stop Islamist from killing innocent people in Darfur? There are plenty of places around the world where people are killing each other. That I don't think they all require US firepower doesn't make me or anyone else an isolationist.

Rubin argues that if we don't do something in Syria (her preference seems to be invasion) then no one will take us seriously on anything else.

To be blunt, the only deterrence that will matter and the only way to end the threat of more WMD attacks on Syrians is to destroy the chemical weapons caches or disable the military forces that will deliver them. And if our aim is to signal to Iran we wonÂ’t tolerate their acquiring a nuclear weapon, then anything short of driving Assad from office or significantly tipping the balance in favor of non-jihadists will be insufficient.

That's nonsense. Because the US Congress may decide that Syrians killing Syrians within Syria doesn't rise to the level of doesn't mean that it won't decide Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would. And don't let Team Intervention fool you, if Obama or any President wants to attack Iran's nuclear program it damn well will require authorization from Congress.

Interventionists like Kirstol, Rubin, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham either can not or will not, accept that not everything calls for a military response. Not every bad thing rises to the level of American national interest and that the US military is not the answer to every problem in the Muslim world.

Who exactly is attacking Syria going to deter? Iran has been living under the assumption that a US attack is possible for nearly a decade (while the US had well over one hundred thousand troops in neighboring countries). Are they going to see some cruise missiles being lobbed at Syria as the end of their dream for regional dominance through nuclear weapons? Would al-Qaeda leaders suddenly think, "Wow, did you see those missiles hit Damascus? We better give up our hunt for WMD we can use against America!"

Of course not.

Under the best of circumstances public support for military action is a precious asset not to be spent lightly. Instead of fact free exhortations like Ceaser's or the fields of burnt strawmen offered up by Rubin, be honest with the American people and admit there are real risks to the "Bombs away, invade" reflexes of the interventionist wing.

Americans are tired of war. You know how to ensure that they won't be there when you want their support to attack Iran? Make your answer to everything "Attack! Invade! War!". Like "the boy who cried wolf", they will stop listening to you and will ignore you when it really counts.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:02 AM | Comments (311)
Post contains 1016 words, total size 7 kb.

In Taiwan.

And the real headline video is below that. This Taiwan thing is kinda lame now that I look at the second video but there's no way I'm rewriting this post I spent two minutes on. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (233)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

She's made it less than 800 meters off Smather's Beach in Key West as I write this. Unless something goes badly wrong, its a done deal within the next hour.

Who is Diana Nyad you ask? She's a 64 year old long distance swimmer. She's doing a 100+ mile swim from Havana to Key West, without a shark cage. That has never been done before, prior attempts have all failed; this is a history maker.

The rules don't allow her to touch any of the support vessels tracking the swim. She's been in the water continuously for over 50 hours now. Pretty beat up, jellyfish stung, sunburned, etc.

I don't use the word epic here lightly -- this is the real deal -- Homeric freaking epicness. Triumph of human spirit stuff.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 09:29 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: CAC at 12:02 PM | Comments (121)
Post contains 2319 words, total size 16 kb.

Neat collection of documents and photographs here.

These are the leftover representatives of a defeated warring nation. I like the hats.

This happened over Tokyo bay while they were standing there.

And that's why they stopped fighting. Because we overwhelmed them until they said "no mas". Then we fixed them. We were that generous, after spilling so much of our blood.

So many of our fathers and grandfathers paid the price. They are leaving us now and I pray we remember their sacrifice.

All gave some. Some gave all.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:20 AM | Comments (167)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Today the Democrats are patting themselves on the back for supporting workers.

Happy Labor Day from the party that will continue to fight on behalf of our nation's workers. http://t.co/LrnDZ0FWFY pic.twitter.com/eiWjdJWT9G

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) September 2, 2013

Given that unemployment has been above 7% for all of Obama's presidency, that's a little hard to believe. Workers that the Democrats swear they love are still scared they will wind up unemployed in this terrible economy.

And of course there's amnesty. Democrats really show they love for American workers by promising to legalize millions and millions of low wage competitors for them. It's a tough love kind of thing I guess.

Instead of spending so much effort trying to get Republicans to not support the Democrat's dream of reducing wages and lowing employment opportunities for Americans, they should be doing what Senator Jeff Sessions is doing...going on the offensive.

“This is not a moral or sustainable economic policy: we cannot continue to have millions of Americans leave the workforce while providing businesses with a constantly-growing supply of workers from abroad to do the jobs instead. We need to help Americans get off of welfare, off of unemployment, and into good paying jobs that can support a family. Our first loyalty must be to US citizens,” he says.

Sessions fears that, if the economic situation isnÂ’t improved, we could face major ramifications.

“Chronic unemployment causes enormous social harm – to schools, to families, to communities. Do we really want a society with a large, growing block of Americans who are permanently out of work? A swift amnesty and a permanent surge in low-skill immigration may make sense for some business interests – but it makes no sense for a nation that is currently struggling with exploding welfare rolls, falling wages and chronic unemployment,” he writes.

One of the most striking numbers to come out of the 2012 campaign was how badly Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama when it came to the question of "which candidate cares more about people like me".

The pollsters asked voters which of four characteristics they most wanted to see in their president. Mitt Romney won among voters who chose three of those characteristics: shares my values, is a strong leader and has a vision for the future. WhatÂ’s more, he carried them heavily, by between nine and 23 points. In all, 79 percent of voters selected one of these characteristics.

Romney lost because he lost among those who chose the remaining characteristic — by 63 points, 81-18. That characteristic? Cares about people like me.

That doesn't necessarily mean "will give me free stuff" as Romney seemed to think. It's just really hard to get people to support you when they don't think you care about them.

A good way to win some of those voters back would be to the party of jobs and opportunity for average Americans while pointing out the Democrats, for all their professions of love for working class Americans are doing everything they can to undermine them.

Nah, that's crazy talk.

Instead, we get John McCain admitting that amnesty is literally anti-American.

Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Arizona Republicans, said they fear that foreign workers will be more attractive to hire than Americans for some companies because the foreigners wonÂ’t be eligible for the same health care benefits.

“I think it’s a problem. I don’t know what else to say,” Mr. McCain told a questioner at a forum on immigration sponsored by the Arizona Republic newspaper and KPNX-TV, both based in Phoenix.

Well Mav, if you can't figure out what to say, stop voting for garbage you can't defend.

The GOP would be in a lot better shape if it could just cut down the amount of time members had to spend trying to stop the party from doing dumb things.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:59 AM | Comments (158)
Post contains 655 words, total size 5 kb.

Obama's history-defying decision to seek congressional approval for war in Syria.

And the president, a former part-time constitutional law professor, may have also belatedly recalled the wording of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution that grants Congress the sole power “to declare war.”

But whatever ObamaÂ’s underlying motivations and however the Syrian vote plays out on Capitol Hill, the presidentÂ’s decision to go to Congress represents an historic turning point. It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek their backing to launch the Korean war.

HISTORIC!!!

Virtually no one in politics, the press or the academic community expected Obama to go to Congress for approval. That isnÂ’t the way the presidential power works in the modern era. It is a sad truth that whomever occupies the Oval Office invariably expands rather than trims back the Imperial Presidency.

Obama stands alone. Every President expands their authority, but not Obama, not when it comes to making war. He's a former part-time constitutional professor. He's principled and truly understands the precedent he may set by going at it alone in Syria without UN, NATO, or Congresses support. He's asking Congress to support a strike on Syria for the noblest of reasons.

The full reasoning behind the presidentÂ’s turnabout remains murky. He may have wanted to share responsibility for a risky strategy to punish the barbarous regime of Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people

You don't say.

I like how the author decides to go over the top in his description of Assad's regime. Do you remember the MSM using the same colorful language about Saddam Hussein in the run up to the Iraq War? I seem to recall Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 depicting Iraq as a kite-flying land of peace.

I should note, while I am glad Obama has asked Congress to vote on this, I'm not going to pretend that he's doing it for noble reasons. He wants someone to share blame with should this "intervention" backfire. Everything Obama does is political. He has no fidelity to the constitution.

[Obvious: Obama is having Congress vote on this, so now would be a good time to call your congress-critter's office and let them know how you feel they should vote. If you want to do something or have an impact, this is a decent opportunity. All it takes is an e-mail or phone call]

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:34 AM | Comments (242)
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

Get that white shoe wearing in, ladies. Clock's ticking.

Posted by: andy at 03:11 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Texas Does the Right Thing - Something the Federal Government Won't

Texas will treat the Ft. Hood victims as the combat deaths they were.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson announced Friday that the Texas Veterans Land Board, which provides loans and retirement home services to veterans and their families, will treat the spouses of those killed in the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting "as if they were killed in combat."

More than 150 victims and family members are suing the federal government seeking to have the attack classified as an act of war, which would lead to increased retirement, medical and disability benefits.

..."We're going to change the rules to give these families full access to VLB benefits," Patterson said in a statement. "We'll let the lawyers work out the details, but I intend to make sure we honor their sacrifice."

How To Cripple Your State in 5 Easy Steps

California may be in the lead but New York, Illinois and Maryland are right behind and closing fast. Because believe it or not California may be the saner state when it comes to cities going bankrupt.

And on the recent blog banning kerfuffle I offer 3 points:

1. This comment

2. This other comment

3. And this thought - I've been involved with online forums for over 30 years and I've seen some good ones fall apart and good ones thrive. The key difference was mainly having someone normal in charge who set boundaries and wasn't afraid to swiftly eject those who wouldn't respect them. It only takes a few persistent (and vocal) assholes to poison an entire community and drive away all the decent folk. Remove them and the problems generally go away.

Kurtz's patrols in the highlands coming under frequent ambush. The camp started falling apart...November: Kurtz orders the assassination of three Vietnamese men and one woman. Two of the men were Colonels in the South Vietnamese army. Enemy activity in his old sector dropped off to nothing. Guess he must have hit the right four people.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:24 PM | Comments (529)
Post contains 1434 words, total size 15 kb.

As I understand there are a lot of complaints about this.

Let me know.

I won't ban you here; you want an outlet, here it is. Rather than doing this silently let's do it openly.

Before going any further, one advisory: People who are on my side? Don't comment. Hold off for a while. I really want to engage my critics and they will not feel comfortable doing so if they don't have a safe place. And an avalanche of pro-Ace comments will make them feel unsafe about it.

My position is simple: This is my workplace. It is better to enjoy one's workplace than to not enjoy it.

I worked all day yesterday and I think I did a pretty good job with comedy. Some people apparently don't like that, and insist that this place be Free Republic, dedicated to "activism," and activism only, and feel the need to tell other people they're insufficiently dedicated to the cause and activism for their liking.

Let me clear this up for people. First of all, this blog is not Free Republic. Free Republic states at the top, and in its mission statement, that it is dedicated to activism. This blog is not, and has never made such a claim.

I like Free Republic. Some of you obviously like Free Republic. But if you want that Free Republic experience, of almost all activism, I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't simply go to Free Republic, rather than demanding a blog imitate Free Republic.

Incidentally Free Republic has plenty of fun stuff and chat too so I'm not quite sure what some are thinking of when they conceive of a blog that's literally dedicated to nothing but activism.

Let me clear up the next thing. I know some people Think they're making a difference when they comment? Like that commenting is itself activism?

It's actually not. Commenting, like almost everything else on the internet, is blow-off stuff. So is blogging. I'm not elevating myself about you; I am just attempting to disabuse people of this conceit that they're Doing Hard and Important Work by dropping a minor comment in a blog's comment areas.

I don't mind that conceit. But what I do mind is when that conceit gets Weaponized By Ego and is turned into an attack, to wit, "Why are you not Aiding the Cause more vigorously?"

For the same reason you're not. Because we're both online to have a bit of fun. Now, you may have convinced yourself that Commenting is Activism, but it's not, and I won't play into your miscategorization of play as "work," and I won't stand for telling me that I, unlike you, must spend every moment of my time Doing Important Work.

I think it requires a high level of self-righteousness and presumptuousness to do this sort of thing, to just blow into a place, to just walk into an active discussion, and to just start informing people of All The Ways In Which They Are Disappointing You. I think it requires a certain level of unwarranted Certainty of Purpose and Righteousness which gets translated, in the real world, into Rudeness and a rather casual attitude towards insults, negativity, and criticism.

I banned Billy Bob an hour ago. Billy Bob came into a thread and told me that I had to "choose" between Twitter and the blog, and also that the post in question was not up the level of quality he expected of me.

Note that he said this on a Sunday night, at 7:30 at night. 7:30 on a Sunday night on a day most people take off, because it's a three day weekend.

Well I didn't. I worked today. I also worked yesterday. But Billy Bob and others wish to tell me that my work was not up to the level they expected and also not in comportment with their current needs for All Syria All the Time.

Oh by the way: the big Syria news is that Obama is delaying a decision and punting to Congress for nine days. So no, I don't necessarily agree with the premise that we must Drop Everything to discuss a Nine Day Delay.

But anyway, point of the story, someone asked Billy Bob if, before venturing this opinion on my lackluster work ethic on a Sunday night at 7:30, he had perchance read the controversy about the last banning.

Billy Bob's answer was classic, and is seared, seared into my brain:

Nah, I was at the beach all day.

Oh that's just wonderful. I sure would have liked to have gone to the beach.

But I didn't. I worked. But not quite hard enough for Billy Bob the Beach-Goer.

Let me say this plainly:

Some of you have turned rather agitated over the current state of America. To some extent, I get this. But I do not except that I -- or frankly anyone else -- should be turned into your whipping boy because all you can do is scream but aren't quite sure who to scream at.

My head is full of plenty of bad chemicals-- anxiety, fear, upset, worry, anger. I do not need all of your bad chemicals as well.

Some people have told me that this blog helps them, because it's like therapy. That's a nice compliment. However, i think some people are taking this idea of a blog-as-therapy a bit too far.

No one is here to be your Anger Puppets as you work this shit out.

Work this shit out on your own. The world will not stop spinning on its axis, and this blog will not collapse, for want of yet another Henny Penny We Have to Do Something!!! Oh God I'm so ANGrY I don't know what to do! comment.

If you don't like comedy, you don't like pop culture, you don't like long riffs of jokes, then find another blog. Stop insisting that this blog be like your preferred blog.

It's not your preferred blog. It's my preferred blog.

90% of the posts here are in fact political. And if you have the mistaken belief that commenting on a political thread is somehow "activism" which somehow translates into real-world effect, 90% of the posts on this blog will permit you to entertain that mistaken belief.

But I'm afraid I must insist you shut up about the other 10%, or 15%. I don't want to hear it.

You visit here, yes. But I live here. You comment here. You come and go as you please. Some people take off months and months because, as they tell me, "I just couldn't take it anymore."

I understand that. Little secret: I feel that way too.

I have been rather depressed over the state of affairs and hating my job (because it makes me think about the state of affairs every day) for some time now.

But I can't just take off for months and months. I have to be here five days a week, and sometimes seven days a week.

Like this week.

So I guess what I'm saying is pretty simple: I know it's important for this to be the blog that you want, but I'm going to have to exercise executive privilege and insist that this has to be the kind of blog that I want, and if that means some funny posts that have nothing to do with activism or even this Fake Activism people think they're doing in comments, you're just going to have to let that slide.

And you can let that slide without telling me How Much You Don't Like It every time I do it.

I know you don't like it. You said so many times already.

Many, many, many times.

Kind of time to let this particular argument go.

I have to have fun here too. And it's not fun to get a facefull of kneejerk negativity every time I check the comments of a thread.

Some of you have become waaaaayyyy too comfortable expressing your Inner Nasty.

I know, I know: It's "Authentic." It's "How You Really Feel."

Yeah, on that point: New York City is known for being Authentic. And also Critical and Mean.

California is known for being Fake. Fake, and yet Nice and Polite.

People complain about California -- why, they smile at you and hardly even mean it!

Yeah, having lived in both places, I prefer California.

Your "real authentic self" may be quite critical and very eager to share with me all of your complaints about how I'm Doing It Wrong and also Ruining Everything.

But little secret: I don't really care to know such real authentic selves. I don't know where conservatives, of all people, got the idea that the world Just Can't Do Without the full expression of their real authentic selves.

Now, I'll turn this over for your POV.

I know I have fans out there-- and I appreciate it greatly. But for this one, just wait it out a bit until a conversation gets going.

Thanks for the support, but for this thread, just hold back on it. Please. I have to address my critics, and that means they have to get their words in.

Update: FenelonSpoke lodged a complaint I thought I should address.

He/she said that he didn't like the idea that people would just be banned "for criticism."

Let's be serious about what we're talking about here: We're not talking about criticism. At least we're not talking about the thoughtful kind. And when I say "thoughtful" I don't mean "nice;" no criticism is nice.

I mean "thoughtful" as in "you put some thought into it, wrote 100-200 words about it, and posted it."

See, that's a real criticism. I have to take that seriously because the writer himself took it seriously. And I would never ban someone for that.

What I'm talking about is YouTube Style "This sucks" micro-assholery.

If you don't like something, understand what your negative comment does. It does the following:

It makes the recipient feel worse about himself. If he was feeling good before, he's feeling less good now. In fact, he might even now be in a bad mood.

So if you're going to throw some negativity at someone -- and sometimes it's needed, let's stipulate that -- should you not at least have the decency to put some effort into it? To write more than the typical one or two sentence sneering dismissal, as some love to do?

You know my favorite?

I spend three hours on a long piece and then people start offering the five-character sneer "tl;dr."

That's wonderful. That's wonderful.

Now, I don't object to that too much because I think some of those people are joking around. But others aren't. I can't tell who is who, so I ignore it.

But yes, let me tell people something: If someone spends a fairly substantial amount of time writing an essay, he probably either deserves silence (if you didn't like it or didn't read it) or, if you read it and didn't like it, then some kind of thoughtful response where you actually justify the negative energy you're throwing out there by doing a little work yourself.

Not that much. But one can say a lot in 100-200 words. (I can't, but I'm told it can be done.)

But the YouTube Style Drive By Sneers? Yeah, about them: Fuck you. If you don't respect me enough to put some thought into your criticism of me, but will be content with a quickie, "No, this is not for me, it's not amusing and What About Syria," then I'm not going to respect you right back.

And I don't have to. Now, some people insist that I must respect their right to engage in this sort of thoughtless, I Just Wanted to Say Something Easy and Nasty "criticism," but why? I'm personally asking that if you have a criticism, you think about it, put it into Adult Words, and write it up in a mini-essay yourself. And my request isn't being respected.

People feel very empowered on the internet-- too empowered. The rules that get us through Real Life -- the life that's not pixels on the screen -- say that if you have something bad to say, you should keep it to yourself. And if you still must speak, if something is askew that you must point out, then you should offer it in the form of constructive criticism. Understanding that your criticism is about to make someone's day worse, you should probably put some actual thought and care into your expression of it, rather than "tl;dr" or "Not for me" or whatever else the 13-year-old anti-social types are doing on YouTube comments which we've apparently now all decided is the proper mode of conduct for ethical grown adults.

Posted by: Ace at 05:08 PM | Comments (1452)
Post contains 2169 words, total size 12 kb.