August 30th, 2013

#3953: Syria, the new hot topic

There's a bunch of stuff going on with regard to Syria as we head into the holiday weekend, so I suppose I'd best just get it started.

By now, we know that Obama is intending to hit Syria, because WMDs, and he's not bothering with any pesky "declarations of war" or "congressional approval" or anything beforehand.

In 2002 Obama was against going into Iraq. But that was 2002, you know, when an icky Republican was in the White House.

Who knows what Bush was going to do if he went into Iraq? We had to oppose that cowboy because he's a Republican, for crying out loud, and you know how they run wars! They actually kill people and break things, you know, and try to win! That's why the war in Iraq had to be stopped even after Bush got a declaration of war and international approval!

But Obama can be trusted with this awesome new power that he's arrogated for himself, because he's a Democrat and he cares and will never do anything illegal or ethically questionable, and Assad Used Nerve Gas!

And so here we are: the very people who were against a consitutionally declared war in 2002 are now speaking in approving terms of an unconstitutional, undeclared war against a country which has not attacked the US nor its interests abroad, over a conflict which has absolutely nothing to do with us whatsoever.

I really like how it's vital that we do something about Syria, which has nothing to do with the US, while it's equally vital that we not do anything about Iran's nuclear aspirations when Iran has said repeatedly they wish great harm upon the United States. Then again, expecting rational behavior from a Democrat--particularly when it comes to national security!--is like expecting poetry from a frog.

The quote from Obama in 2002 could easily be reworked with details from the current situation, but for the bit about the stock market.

But France is on board! That's why we must do it! Cowboy Bush couldn't get France to agree, but they're all up ons for this!

Parliament said "no" to a PM's request for war for the first time since 1782. What is that, 231 years?

The US media is not bothering to report on that, though because it might make Obama look bad.

Karl Denninger takes down the people arguing that we must get involved in Syria because Obama ran his fat, stupid mouth last year, and now we must go in lest the US look bad.

Gee, suddenly these patriots are telling us that when our President talks the talk, we must walk the walk? How much difference a few years (and a different party in control of the White House) make!

...and that one is simply a must-read, by the way.

I'm going to wrap this up with today's post from Alan Caruba:
If Obama decides not to proceed he will confirm what everyone in diplomatic and military circles worldwide already knows. He is a moron. Because only a moron would do nothing for two years while 100,000 Syrians are killed and then have a snit when a few hundred more die by another means.
Regardless of what Obama does. Regardless of what he does, his actions will confirm (have already!) that he's dumb as a box of rocks. He's clever, he has street smarts, he's got a high social quotient...but he's stupid, and running his gums about "red lines" has now led to him being stuck; either he attacks Assad's forces in Syria or he does not.

Attacking Assad is a bad move, as it helps Al Qaeda and his advisors must know that even if he himself does not). Failing to take action--after saying he would--makes him look weak.

I'd submit that Obama is weak, though. His weakness shows in his response to criticism; if you're strong and confident a few naysayers don't get under your skin. And so he must attack Syria, if only to demonstrate that he's really not weak, that he's strong, that he's smart and confident, that he can run with the big boys, that he really is more than a stuffed shirt who needs a teleprompter when he gives a press conference. I think it very likely that we will get involved in the war in Syria, but our involvement is going to be as tepid and incoherent as our President is. If Obama manages everything just right--and I believe he'll manage it!--maybe we can have a full-on shooting war with a major opponent, and then we can all have fun. Right? Crank up the draft, lock down the country (all in the name of "national security", of course!) and perhaps even have some kind of nuclear exchange! Why not? The feds have very nice bomb shelters for the important people!


#3954: You people are in an UNAUTHORIZED line!

So today I had to go to the DMV to get the Jeep's plates renewed.

That's why I did an "all-Syria" post; there's more Fungus coming but I had to GTFO and get that done. Now it is; and now, for my troubles, I have a marvelous story of the bureaucracy!

Today is the last business day of the month. Naturally the DMV is mobbed with people who are trying to get their plates renewed before the new month begins, because it costs more and because you don't want to get ticketed for expired plates. Because of this, the special waiting area for plate renewals had nary an empty seat, so people simply stood in line.

Then a DMV employee came out, figured out which was the last number called, and then told everyone in line behind that person to sit down. A scant three minutes later, a different DMV employee came out and started calling numbers, rapid-fire: "802! 803! 804! 805! 806! 807! 808," and so on.

...with the result that there was soon a line just about as long as had been there before anyone said anything.

Because the bureaucracy has a procedure, and that procedure must be followed. You are not permitted to get into line until your number is called, and that's that. Everyone sit down until your number is called, and then you may get into line.



Another story from my trip to the DMV: while waiting to be pre-screened, I heard a woman behind me talking with a friend of hers on her cell phone. Almost the entire conversation occurred on speakerphone. I don't know if that's more rude than people who have loud phone conversations in public places, or less, because at least this way we all could hear the entire conversation.

If we'd wanted to, that is, considering it was all about how she's not going anywhere special this weekend, because of work. Not exactly salacious or scandalous, you know.

But she did say something I found interesting: "The kids, they all party and drink, and then can't get up the next day, so I'd be called in anyway. It's easier just to schedule myself to be in."

...and had I been a bit less of a spastic nervebag, and possessed of quicker wit, I might have said--once her conversation was over--"Where do you work? I neither drink nor party, and I really need a job." But it also seems likely that she's not in a position to get rid of nonperforming employees, since her discussion was more in the tone of a grunt than a supervisor.

The curse of a slow brain. *sigh*

And it doesn't look to get any better any time soon. The problem is, when personal income and spending remain stagnant (or decline) it means the economy is heading towards the shitter. Denninger says the report means the economy has stalled, which is not a surprising conclusion considering that the numbers are perilously close to zero.

Service spending is down and since the US is primarily a service economy--well, you do the math on that one, because I'm finding it too depressing to contemplate.

Teen employment hits record lows because THERE ARE NO FUCKING JOBS.
“We have never had anything this low in our lives. This is a Great Depression for teens, and no time in history have we encountered anything like that,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. “That’s why it’s such an important story.”
It's not just "a Great Depression for teens" you liberal asshat. It's a Great Depression, period. Just because the aristocracy has an extremely low unemployment rate doesn't mean that the entire rest of the fucking country isn't struggling with high unemployment, wage stagnation, rising food and energy costs, and a government full of shitheads who don't give a rat's ass--

* * *

Okay, just gonna cut the mike there and move on.

* * *

Borepatch asks if the NSA is incompetent or feral, and I fail to see how it cannot be both. I would have left that as a comment at his place rather than mentioned it here, but I can never seem to get through their anti-spam screen.

* * *

"Today, my boyfriend told me that he would leave me if I didn't seek help for my eating disorder. The eating disorder in question? Vegetarianism. FML"

Your boyfriend is right. Trust me.