atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#1488: Boss Tweek now MC Sleepy?

Obama was "too tired" to give "a proper welcome" to a foreign head of state?

I'm really stunned by this. I'm stunned because if George W. Bush--in the opening days of his administration--had muffed a foreign policy move in so spectacular a fashion and claimed it was because he was "tired" we would still be hearing screaming from the Democrats about it.

Maybe if Boss Tweek gave up working out two hours per day he might have a little more energy for being President. Start working out every other day. Stop the late-night parties at the White House. You know, what most people do when they have to work: give up the fun things and do your fucking job.

And this:
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
I wonder who the "State Department official" is? Because I'll tell you what, to me that quote sounds like it came from Hillary Clinton.

I really hate to break it to the MC Sleepy administration, but you don't get to put things on the back burner: you have to multitask. As the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet you have to be "on" whenever you're performing any public function whatsoever, and that includes greeting the head of a "not-special" country like Britain.

Like it or not, Britain is special to us. It is more special to us than Zimbabwe or Iran or Pakistan or Libya or scores of other pissant little countries. From the beginning of the 20th century onward--and possibly earlier--Britain and the US have been very close allies, because we have many of the same interests. A strong relationship with Great Britain is an extremely desirable thing for the United States, which is why we can't afford to treat them like one of any 190 countries.

The Obama administration stepped on its genitals with this, and there is no way to sugar-coat it. With the treatment of Prime Minister Brown, giving him a box of commonly-available DVDs he can't even play, and passing it all off as, "Sorry, he's just tired!" we now see what "amateur hour" in the Oval Office looks like.

<* * *>

And it comes at a time when we can scarcely afford that. It must be said that the Chinese are not fools--they know that a Democrat in the White House works in their favor.

This is icing on the cake for them: a terror attack on an ally and the White House hasn't bothered to condemn it.

Communist China wants Taiwan back. They have wanted it back since 1950, and they aim to get it, and they won't let anyone--least of all the US--stand in the way. This military buildup that China is involved in is aimed squarely at reacquiring Taiwan.

I honestly don't see China and the US at war for any other reason. If China makes its move during the Obama administration they probably will meet only token resistance from the US, and after a sufficient face-saving interval normal relations can resume and US citizens can continue to buy cheap "made in China" goods.

Assuming they could take Taiwan more-or-less intact, China would get a huge infusion of cash and capital. A lot of the computer components we use come from Taiwan in one form or another. You do the math.

Boss Tweek doesn't seem interested in foreign policy. Democrats rarely are; they're more concerned with seizing and concentrating their political power over the US.

* * *

There is no freedom of expression in Iran. Which means that if you make a porno, you can expect to be arrested and executed for it.

But when the president of the New York chapter of NOW decries this sort of thing she is making a "damaging" statement.

The responses from other leftist groups are typical, and the statement from the "Network of Religious Communities" is ludicrous:
We must all unite in condemning anyone, of any faith or culture, who harms the innocent and recognize that the causes of domestic violence are not limited to any religion or culture.
"We must all unite in condemning", it says, but it doesn't actually condemn this "honor killing".

It's an important distinction. The blanket statement is intended to look as if it's condemning the murder of this woman, but it doesn't. In fact the first sentence condemns a person "who harms the innocent".

According to Sha'ria, the woman in question was not "innocent"--she was an adulterer, and deserving of death. That's why her husband killed her!

The facts speak for themselves; islam is violent and barbaric. The man may have only been using it as an excuse to rid himself of his wife, but the fact that he did kill her in accordance with muslim law itself is an indictment against the religion.

I'll say it again: if muslims start actually decrying violence in the name of their religion it will do a lot to foster greater acceptance of their beliefs. But they're not doing that; they're using mealy-mouthed language to avoid doing so.

* * *

I can't believe that liberals defend islam the way they do when islam is so antithetical to everything liberals like. But, liberals are hypocrites, so it's to be expected.

* * *

How much mention will this story get in the mainstream media? Nutjob throws shoe at Bush, Bush ducks, it's all over the place. Nutjob throws shoe at Iranian President Nutjob...we'll see.

* * *

Another story about Maria Conchita Alonso telling Sean Penn to STFU. "He should shut up about what he doesn't know." The problem is, Ms. Alonso, is that if Sean Penn stopped talking about subject on which he was ignorant, the only time he would talk would be when he was on the set.

* * *

Like any machine, nuclear-tipped ICBMs must be refurbished from time to time. Unfortunately, the US has apparently forgotten how to make some components of the warheads of Trident missiles.

A huge government bureaucracy losing paperwork. Whoa, what a surprise.

You can't just build a nuclear warhead, put it on a shelf for a few decades, and expect everything to be fine. The nuclear material will degrade due to spontaneous low-level fission, and the radiation emitted by the nuclear material will degrate other components. So you need to periodically reprocess the fuel and replace other components.

But what if you forget how to make some of the stuff? The highly classified nature of the material in question means that only a few people will know anything about making it, and the stuff was developed in the 1980s--how many of them are even still alive?

Whatever "Fogbank" is--it's almost certain that the code name has nothing whatsoever to do with the material's actual function--if we can't make it, the lifespan of Trident warheads is certainly going to be diminished, and their value as a deterrent is therefore equally diminished.

Bad guy: "There's a good chance those nukes don't even work any more. Let's try it."

Yeah. No thank you.

...and in the grand scheme of things a $69 million cost overrun is nothing. With all the stimulus and porkulus that the MC Sleepy administration is trying to ram through Congress, the current federal budget is over the $3 trillion mark--$69 million is pocket change.

* * *

Someone had a non-obvious idea. It's something that should have been obvious, but which apparently wasn't: a nuclear reactor is a source of heat and can be used for a bunch of things not necessarily related to the generation of power.

It's actually quite brilliant: use a reactor to generate the gobs of heat you need to crack hydrocarbons or speed other chemical reactions, or to facilitate a myriad of other industrial processes that--as of now--require that we burn megatons of fossil fuels to accomplish.

* * *

Soundtrack suggestion: open another tab, click this link and then come back to view this picture.


"Juvenile"? You bet. But at least it's more sophisticated than "Chimpy McBushitler".)

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.