The Weird Elections

Probably you have heard that in Italy once again a government fell and extraordinary elections are needed.

And these have got to be very weird ones.

See, most of the players from the last 20 or so years are still there, albeit if in reshuffled formations.
Even Berlusconi himself has come back, for god's sake. Probably not to try and win but just to mees things up enough that his former coalition mates will not win, but that's just a possible scenario.

Monti, the ex-Prime Minister if I'm not mistaken (things change quickly, and keeping track of all statements of politicians goes beyond what i'm inclined to do) may probably run again supported by some parties and some people loyal to him. Or try a shot at becoming President of the Republic, instead.

Are there new faces and forces? Yes, but for the most part bad news. Moonbats soaked in post-communism and a surreal coalition of wannabe rivolutionaries, conspiracy mongers and assorted fringe humanity, posing as agents for a real democracy in a movement which is ruled with an iron fist by a charismatic leader.

And in the mess hardcore catholics are regaining power and slowly, covertly (but not even too much) influencing institutions at all levels.

Ok, I am giving the extra-short version of it all, but really, why spend more words? On phenomena that people unfamiliar with Italian politics and society are almost unable to understand in any case?

Anyway, in all that political archeology and madness there is next to nothing that can be saved. It's not even a less-worse choice. It's different grades of fecal matter of pretty much the same depth, and they're all mixing up in a tsunami wave of mottled brown.

There is only one party worth voting, in my opinion. They ain't perfect but at least propose a decently (classic) liberal program with some ideas that could improve something. Of course, projections put them at around 4% these days, go figure. Italy ain't a country for liberals.

Jakarta's Elections

Why, you wonder, I'd want to talk about Indonesian politics?

Strange, but I just feel like it.

The latest election to Governor of the Province of Jakarta (DKI, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta - Jakarta Capital City Special Area) was won by the couple Joko Widodo (Jokowi) - Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok)* against the incumbent Fauzi Bowo (Foke) - Nachrowi Ramli.

Jokowi is a sort of newcomer even if he belongs to a political party tracing back to the Sukarno times. However, he came from a businessman background while Foke has been a political activist since his university years - in the Golkar party which instead dates back to Suharto.

The electoral campaign saw some very dirty moments, mostly between first and second round**, with the only argument against Jokowi - Ahok being that Jakartans should be ruled by Jakartans and Muslims by Muslims. Especially the second part is a nonsense because Jokowi is Muslim; only is running mate is of Chinese descent and a Protestant.

But that wasn't enough and Jokowi won by a significant majority across all areas of Jakarta (except the Thousand Islands¹) and across all religions - with an enormous majority among Protestants and a thin one among Muslims.

Jokowi comes from a story of considerable success as Major of Surakarta (or Solo) in Central Java; while Foke is seen as a failure regarding the improvement of the horrendous situation of road congestion in Jakarta and other parts of his program.

Probaly, Indonesian people are also fed up with the level of corruption among high-ranking officers² and preferred a fresh face and approach to a 100% establishment man.

Jokowi's policies would be seen as socialist by some, especially Americans, but one must keep in mind that being poor in America means not being able to afford organic vegetables in a posh store and aircon in the house; being poor in Jakarta means living in a rickety bamboo shed perched on the banks of a filthy river with no sanitation nor running water.

But in the end only time will tell if Jakartans have chosen well. For the time being, Jokowi started well obtaining the city government to slash the budget for his inauguration ceremony.


*For all positions from Head of Village to President of the Republic, there is a head and a deputy.

**No candidate won an absolute majority in the first round so a runoff was held, for reasons I do not know, a couple of months after the first round.

1-Kepulauan Seribu, literally Archipelago of a Thousand Islands.

2-While still practicing it at a low level.

They Do Not Believe It

Remember the Bush Doctrine?

The much-reviled doctrine postulating that in order to reduce the problem of islamic extremism the people of the Middle East should be given another choice instead of their two typical options: islamic theocracy or strong-man dictatorship.

The third option was intended to be, for lack of better terms, liberal democracy.

The experiment was tried in Iraq with mixed results, but the hoped-for domino effect, the extension of requests for change and revolts in other middle-East countries did not occur.

However, now middle-class revolts and protests are rocking the middle-East and Maghreb: the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt have stepped down* and the unrest may be spreading. These revolts have many agreeable characteristics: they come mostly from the middle-class, the class that historically can provide guidance for a better future; the role of islamic extremists in those is secondary at best; once ousted the dictator those countries became relatively calm. At least I have heard nothing of persecutions of the losers.

I do not think this is a consequence of the American intervention in Iraq; I think that the causes of these rebellions are much closer in time and space: But it is possible that the seeds spread back then have germinated just now.

In any case, for those who professed support for the Bush Doctrine, the actual situation in North Africa and the Middle East should be welcome. To be watched carefully, of course, but as a possibility for positive developments.

Not like Obama is doing, but that's a different story.

Instead, the most common reactions in the American right-wing blogosphere seems to be "Oh, Muslims. We'll see more theocracies in the Middle-east." That is, complete lack of trust. Or worse, considering Muslims as incapable of civilized behaviour.

So why did they support the Bush Doctrine in the first place? Maybe because saying that they just like to see dead Muslims seemed too much?

*The military cabinet ruling Egypt now is made up of Mubarak's men, so the change there may be very superficial after all.

More on the Italy of Berlusconi

I am not the only one trying to explain the Berlusconi phenomenon to Americans; also Maurizio Molinari does it from the lofty heights of the New York Times:

In trying to understand why Silvio Berlusconi is able to survive as Italian prime minister despite so many sexual scandals, we have to consider three different factors.

Now, the piece is not bad, but very polite. I, being a nobody of a blogger, can get more down and dirty with the opinion of the common people. I think my piece says things that would be very frowned upon in the NYT, in short.

And I can bash the idiocy of many commenters. Because stuff like this

Silvio Berlusconi is the leader of a nation where evading taxes is considered a smart thing to do, where to find a good job your father likely needs to know someone, where people vote a candidate that would ineligible in all western democracies

is only a massive case of Qod Erat Demonstrandum: attacks on Berlusconi and the Italian people (which magically become honest and righteous and virtuous when they vote for the Left, fancy that) without proposing any serious alternative. Only the usual, that when Berlusconi is gone virtue will spontaneously flourish.

This is also an example of the Perennially Indignant Italians Abroad, those ready to take the streets in protest (and publish the pics on Facebook) because the CO2 in Berlusconi's champagne is contributing to global warming.

Other comments are borderline insane:

Mr.Berlusconi owns or controls most of the media in Italy. There is another politician that comes to mind who controls what his fellow citizens see and hear - Kim Il Jong. Shame on Italy for letting this person abuse the image of Italy. This country's reputation has taken a beating.

Comparing Berlusconi's weight in the Italian media with the strict control of information flow enforced in North Korea is, shall we say, rather hyperbolic. Barking mad seems more appropriate, tho.

Google, if you please, Beppe Grillo, Marco Travaglio, Santoro and the newspaper La Repubblica to find plenty of opposing voices.

And no, Berlusconi does not control the courts: he only cunningly managed to stay one step ahead of them so far.

The Italy of Silvio Berlusconi

My blog-friend Kevin asked if I can provide a translation of the previous post. But I do not think that would be very interesting for foreign readers.

Rather, I'll try to provide a brief explanation of who Berlusconi is, why he rose to power and why he is at the same time so hated – to the point that serious rioting in Rome followed the government's victory in a no-confidence vote.

All the bad and weird things you have heard about Berlusconi are to a large extent true. He has parties with young prostitutes, yes. He went through a lot of shady business deals, yes. He is cunning and ruthless and his governments passed a few laws that helped him greatly with his judiciary adventures.

But the Italian people know that. In fact, all these facts and more fancyful flourish are shouted from the rooftops every day. Those who vote Berlusconi do not do so because they are misinformed, but because they still appreciate the man, at least in part.

Berlusconi is the expression of an unique social and political environment; there is no equivalent elsewhere in the world.

He is the expression of a part of the Italian society as it came to be since the end of WW2: the entrepreneurs, the artisans and traders. Which make up a majority of the middle-high class in Northern Italy.

Those are the people who struggle almost daily against restrictive laws, and even worse bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The ones who'd like less taxes, and less red tape, and less scraping and bowing in front of the local politicians only to obtain what should be theirs by right.

Berlusconi was one who overcame the odds and became rich and powerful from a rather humble start. He found ways to circumvent laws that prohibited private televisions from broadcasting all over the national territory; later he forged alliances with the politician Bettino Craxi but when his TVs where already up and running.

And Berlusconi managed AC Milan when it was one of the strongest football clubs in Europe, and won many important competitions.

Also a lot of the good things one can hear about Berlusconi are true: he is an excellent communicator, he's hospitable and entertaining (if in a lowbrow fashion) to foreign leaders; and he at least promised to cut statalism a little bit. Then he didn't deliver; that is the main reason his age is closing to an end, in my opinion.

But reducing the privileges and power of the ruling class is no easy task for anyone; despite his popularity Berlusconi did not have absolute power – far from it.

The success of Berlusconi is strictly linked to the rise of the Northern League (Lega Nord) party. That movement is also difficult to describe to foreigners: it is a nationalist party, but the nation the have in mind is not Italy; rather a poorly-defined entity composed of most of the northern regions.

In practice now Northern League is a federalist party asking for more local governance rather than a heavily centralized state; for tax money to remain where it is collected rather than to be amassed in the central coffers in Rome; for italian citizens to be given priority rather than immigrants, and for immigrants to integrate rather than Italian society to satisfy all their needs. Northern League is the main party of the mid-lower class, these days.

Some depict that party as a racist far-right movement, but that is not true; the ideology of Northern League has nothing to do with Nazism or Fascism; true racists there are few and far between – while they are common among the ranks of Forza Nuova (New Force) and other explicitly neo-fascist groups.

Now, for the opposition to Berlusconi. Those most adverse to him are generally public sector workers, students, intellectuals and members of the judiciary. And from the leftist political scene, yes.

Except for the judiciary, which is a case apart, all those categories above have something in common: they do not need to work hard, produce results and manage complex activities in order to survive. I won't call them all parasites because they are not, but it's clear that the life of an university student financed by parents and/or grants, or the life of a public-funded film director are way easier and secure than the life of a tradesman.

The judiciary is different. After the corruption scandals (complete with severe judicial abuses, but history is written by the winners so those are rarely mentioned) that brought the end of the traditional parties in the early 90's, the Italian judiciary disposed with idea of separation of power and started regarding itself as the supreme power with the right and duty to remake Italy into a Better Place. Of course, according to their own definition of it, and other opinions be damned.

The struggle between Berlusconi and the judiciary is about power, not rule of law or morality. But with a key difference between the two parties: Berlusconi is willing to let other people do as they please – at least as long as his own interests are not threatened; the judiciary instead is made of True Believers, and they allow no room for dissent.

The Italian left is in disarray. The far left is almost non-existent now; the mainstream, centre-left parties have been unable to produce a stable and charismatic leadership since 1994 and no improvement is in sight. The last center-left government was born dead, zombied around for a couple of years producing little more than a state of fiscal inquisition and fell miserably due to internal divisions and lack of a overarching strategy.

The left is still mired in ideologies from the 70's when they are recent; they keep offering the same old stuff which has produced nothing so far; yet they expect people to believe that this time it will work.

Berlusconi is running circles around the leftist leaders without any effort: one of his stupid jokes will make more headlines than the entire political program of the left.

For years, the only and entire message of the Left has been that Berlusconi and his cronies are ruining Italy and have to go – in a political sense, but some have admitted in public that they'd like to see a more physical destruction. And after that Italy will magically become a heavenly land, in which the cultural and systemic and institutional flaws will disappear leaving only the noblest Italian nature to triumph. What should happen to that tainted and wretched 50% at least of Italians who supported Berlusconi is not clear; they will either see the light or be ignored.

It is a fantasy, and many can see through right this bullshit. Berlusconi is the only one who tried to introduce at least a bit of meritocracy, to make superior instruction half-serious; to fight parasites in the public sector and to bring the judiciary back under control.
The age of Berlusconi may very well be near its end, but the left is not in the position to take power. Rather, the party poised to step in is Northern League: they are the second party at the national level and have absolute majority in vast areas of the North. And they will keep doing many of the same things this government has done, but a local rather than national level.

Now, despite twelve hundred words this post still gives only a very sketchy picture of the situation and how it came to be. Please bear with me if I didn't write a whole tome.

No Leader in the White House

Following the development of the Macondo Oil Spill, I have seen more or less what I expected.

The Right blaming Obama for everything except causing the disaster itself (but conspiracy theories surface here and there) and for trying to exploit it for his ends; the Left hoping for Obama to rally the nation around renewable energy, maybe even accept the peak oil view, and spank the oil companies for being naughty.

About the first point.
I have no time for conspiracy theorists, so that aspect is dealt with here and now. Blaming Obama for this disaster is as stupid as blaming Bush for the hurricane Katrina. On the other hand, the administration's response is less than brilliant. Although, some details are open to discussion: because of the massive use of dispersants, not much oil can be separated or recovered with skimmers. So, even if propmptly accepted the vessels offered by other nations may not have made any noticeable difference. But it would be nice at least to hear a cogent explanation for the refusal.

About the second point.
Nah, just go and read any of the right-wing blogs in my sidebar: there will be plenty of left-bashing there. Better leave that to the professionals.

My own point, now.
Obama is no leader.
And one should look no further than his long record of voting "present" in the Senate. See, leaders offer a vision and a path to that destination. They lead with example and with taking a stand on important issues; during a crisis they act and wait before blaming one or the other.

Ronald Reagan was a leader; Bush managed to be in the day immediately after 9/11. Obama? He's the postmodern president: he deftly marketed the hope and change image but he has no substance to back it up.

Fianlly, a few words about Peak Oil. There is no doubt that sooner or later oil will end. And it is likely that production will go through a peak. I think that we will recognize the peak only when we are past it, tho. And the Macondo Disaster does not prove much (other than screwups in deepwater drilling have gigantic consequences): a single data point does not make a statistics.

What troubles me is the quasi-religious fervor of many Peak Oil supporters. For them, that is an all-encompassing explanation, a light to shine upon the unbelievers and redeem them. They are true believers, and Peak Oil is their belief.

Words To Ponder

Be happy with some more recycled thoughts, for the moment.

This is from Ian B at the Devil's Knife:

John, I don't think the old government was marxist, and neither is the new one. They are radical puritans. Radical puritanism has been the driving force of anglosphere socialism for two hundred years. They went quite marxist for a while, but now they're back to their old roots.

Marxists, like capitalists, understood the economy in terms of production. Lenin said that socialism was the electrification of the USSR. They were obsessed with production statistics, the stereotypical tractor production figures. Their entire methodology was of course wrong, annd the results evil. But they at least understood the need to produce.

Anglo-socialists don't give a tinker's cuss about economic production. They measure the economy in terms of moral value. They care that a factory produces "jobs" (because work is good for the soul) but don't give a damn whether a complete tractor ever leaves it. Indeed, they would prefer that none ever did, because production produces wealth, which produces immoral gluttony. They deride production as "consumerism". They want to go back to poverty, because poor people don't have the wherewithall to be immoral. They're too busy struggling (and failing) to survive.

So, they measure economic success in terms of moral outputs, unlike Marxists who measure it in terms of economic outputs, like us free marketeers do as well. Marxists and marketeers are arguing about the best way to produce economic goods and services. The Puritans want to know how to produce the greatest morality. And from a puritan perspective, a person barely subsisting in the dark is more moral than a person living in- hated- "luxury".

They believe that shortage will lead us back to a more moral, frugal existence, like the Good Old Days. "Work" must be provided of course, but not economic production or expansion. All of our ruling class now believe these things at a gut level. They have done for a couple of centuries, to varying degrees. We are now in a new crescendo of puritanism, largely because the interfering marxists were pushed out of the way by the unfortunate collapse of communism.

Basically, the Puritan strategy is a kind of "managed decline". You don't build new power stations. You learn to live without. If we had a marxist government they'd be impressing us into slave gangs to build shiny new power stations. Which is not nice either, but is very different.

There are some interesting ideas, here. Ponder.

Salvation Is Worth That

LabRat writes:

The more they bang the “they’re actually all RACISTS so you should hate and shun them!” drum, the more it comes off sounding like “We suspect everybody not of our social and economic class of being racists- including you. And we hate you, too. Vote for us!”

And this made me think. Why someone would vote for a party being so condenscing and sanctimonious? Nobody would.

Unless...

The party is bringing salvation. I suspect that many on the left see themselves as saviors of humanity and the Earth and whatever else. And showing a man his evil ways is not thep rettiest of business; it may take some harsh words and deeds. But once that man will see the light, he will be saved and he'll relize that the harsh treatment was only for his own salvation.

So they don't see that as being insulting or hateful, but as showing someone's evil ways in the hope they will abandon those. What a mass movement craves the most is new members, and converts from the enemies' ranks are the most delightful.

Prophecy Is a Mean Job

More than one year ago in these very pages I wrote:

If these comments are indicative of any trend, we're seeing a new spin being put on current events. The achievements in Iraq cannot be ignored at this point, but they are not credited to George Bush. In fact, it is stated that those achievements came only when finally Bush left the helm to others.

Well, a few days ago - via The Rottweiler - I learned that:

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Prophetic indeed, I was.

The Return of Fascisms

Dennis the Peasant once wrote:

The bottom line is simple: Fascism never has been, and never was intended to be, a coherent political doctrine. Fascism has never been more than a resolute and unprincipled will to power. That Goldberg would not understand this - or choose to ignore this - puts his level of discourse and intellectualism about on par of that of Bill Maher's or George Carlin's. There is no such thing as "liberal fascism" - anymore than there is such a thing as "conservative fascism" - and there never has been, and Jonah Goldberg should know that.

On the other hand, until not long ago on LGF it was fashionable to say that Nazis were in reality socialists if not leftists, considering their stance on economics and environment etc. Then Charles changed his mind, and decided that right-wing extremists are Public Enemy Number One, so that position has suddenly become wrong, and moronic historical revisionism.

Both stances listed above are partly wrong, partly right. Despite what Dennis thinks, Fascism proper was a coherent political doctrine. As I pointed out already, there is a difference between Fascism as practiced by Mussolini's movement and what much of what is called fascism these days.

A good description of the characteristics of Fascism can be found in this article, I think*.

Despite what used to be common wisdom on LGF, fascists and nazis are not left-wingers either - in part by definition, because the "right-wing" label stuck, right or wrong.
Moreover, they share some foundations with the socialists - the primacy of the common good over individual freedom, and the cult of the leader's personality - but are also deeply different: ideologies of the fascist family are generally racist and nationalist, while those of the socialist family are more inclusive and transnational.

What is generally called the "extreme right-wing" in America is an extremely heterogeneous set made of Christian extremists, Nazis, anarco-capitalists and probably some other weirder group - in other words, "extreme right-wing" is little more than a label with no descriptive qualities.

The division between left and right was born at a specific point of the French revolution and it merely referred to the seating arrangement in some assembly, where the fervent revolutionaries sat on the left side and the royalists on the right. Trying to apply this scheme to other places and times results in failure.

In fact, one single axis is not sufficient to represent the entire political landscape and ends in paradox, such as fascist and socialist** militants campaigning for very similar economic policies but beating each other senseless when they come into contact on the streets (a not pretty but common sight in Italy).

Jerry Pournelle thinks that two axes are sufficient:

Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with one that made more sense. I studied a number of political philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts separated them from their political enemies. Eventually I came up with two variables. I didn't then and don't now suggest these two are all there is to political theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my two have this property: they map every major political philosophy and movement onto one unique place.

The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress".

The first is easy to understand: what think you of government? Is it an object of idolatry, a positive good, necessary evil, or unmitigated evil? Obviously that forms a spectrum, with various anarchists at the left end and reactionary monarchists at the right. The American political parties tend to fall toward the middle.

Note also that both Communists and Fascists are out at the right-hand end of the line; while American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism are in about the same place, somewhere to the right of center, definitely "statists." (One should not let modern anti-bureaucratic rhetoric fool you into thinking the US Conservative has really become anti-statist; he may want to dismantle a good part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but he would strengthen the police and army.) The ideological libertarian is of course left of center, some all the way over to the left with the anarchists.

That variable works; but it doesn't pull all the political theories each into a unique place. They overlap. Which means we need another variable.

"Attitude toward planned social progress" can be translated "rationalism"; it is the belief that society has "problems," and these can be "solved"; we can take arms against a sea of troubles.

Once again we can order the major political philosophies. Fascism is irrationalist; it says so in its theoretical treatises. It appeals to "the greatness of the nation" or to the volk, and also to the fuhrer-prinzip, i.e., hero worship.

Call that end (irrationalism) the "bottom" of the spectrum and place the continuum at right angles to the previous "statism" variable. Call the "top" the attitude that all social problems have findable solutions. Obviously Communism belongs there. Not far below it you find a number of American Welfare Liberals: the sort of people who say that crime is caused by poverty, and thus when we end poverty we'll end crime. Now note that the top end of the scale, extreme rationalism, may not mark a very rational position: "knowing" that all human problems can be "solved" by rational actions is an act of faith akin to the anarchist's belief that if we can just chop away the government, man truly free will no longer have problems. Obviously I think both top and bottom positions are whacky; but then one mark of Conservatism has always been distrust of highly rationalist schemes. Burke advocated that we draw "from the general bank of the ages, because he suspected that any particular person or generation has a rather small stock of reason; thus where the radical argues "we don't understand the purpose of this social custom; let's dismantle it," the conservative says "since we don't understand it, we'd better leave it alone."

Venerable Steven instead thinks a multi-dimensional space is required, and he lists at least five political axes:

Michael (Totten, ed.) continues to make various deductions from what he thinks of as his basic insight, and the mistakes cascade. He says, In other pieces I’ve noted an annoying equivalence between the far-left and far-right. And he lists several. But when you look at it from the point of view of multiple political dimensions, what you discover is that the people he refers to as "far-left" and "far-right" actually land on the same point on a lot of these scales, as I described above for Falwell and Chomsky.

* That website has some quite moonbattish/black-helicopters sections, but the article cited makes sense in light of the available evidence.

** The distinction between Socialism and Communism, pretty much as the one between Fascism and Nazism, is more one of degree than of kind.

Fascisms

A discussion that pops up from time to time on the internet is whether Bush/Obama/the USA/any other country or government is fascist. This kind of thing sometimes is just idiotic, other times it leads to pretty well-reasoned arguments.

Anyway, my take is that the only real and true fascism was the regime and ideology that ruled Italy or parts thereof from 1922 to 1945 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini aka Duce.

With the defeat of the Salò Republic and the execution of Mussolini, fascism proper ended (and then more than just a few people switched sides at blinding speed, but that's another story). A few diehard fascists remain in Italy, but they are confined to the fringes and have no power.

So anything else cannot be fascism proper; it can only have more or less in common with Mussolini's movement. I do not want, and neither can in fact, make a list of the peculiar carachteristics of fascism proper, tho.

However, with time the meaning of fascism has morphed and now it seems to mean any sort of dictatorial or authoritarian regime, especially one that is not appreciated by the left.

To reiterate a concept I have expressed several times already, there can not be a meaningful discussion if those taking part in it do not agree on the meaning of the words being used. And in this case even the famous book Liberal Fascism is perpetuating the error. Yes, I think I know the reasoning and intentions behind the title, and I admit it's succesful as a polemics generator.

Now, I read in today's news that the agreement being forced by Obama between Chrysler and Fiat will see trade unions acquiring a significant fraction of the stock. Fasci e corporazioni?

President Rockstar

So also this side of the Pond we are bombarded with the fawning reports of Obama's inauguration ceremony and pre-inauguration party.

Which was a concert of a number of music stars, including the usual progressive suspects such as Bono of U2. It is just fitting, in a way: the cult of personality surrounding Obama is the same of pop stars.

The best thing about the election of Obama is that from now on not only blacks but all non-whites will legitimately think that they, or their children can one day be President of the USA. And this is not bad.

I wish Obama to be a great president, but I think that on domestic matters he'll be as bad as his (sane) detractors fear. On the other hand, it is possible he'll be better than expected on international issues.

Another curious thing I noticed is that many here (including the ex-prime minister Walter Veltroni, a pathetic Obama wannabe) are already saying that Obama will have to face a difficult situation and considerable opposition, so there will be no miracles. Hope dashed and change postponed then? It sounds a lot like long-range ass-covering to me: he promised the moon, but if he cannot deliver it's Not His Fault.

But first of all, please, stop with this Obama everywhere, all the time thing. Jesus Christ, isn't there any other story worth reporting here in Italy?

Specifications For Politicians

In engineering, it is often necessary to choose the appropriate components for a complex system - where the system can be more or less anything.

Usually, the process begins with identifying the purpose of a particular component in the system, the loads and other forces/conditions it will be subjected to, and what can happen if the component fails (in various modes).

Only then it is possible to determine the specifications of the component, and either purchase one that meets or exceeds them or have a component purposely built (the third option is to revise system performance to meet the specifications of available components).

In less words, before looking at the specifications of a component one has to know what that component is required to do.

It makes no sense to use a computer optimized for gaming as network server, especially where sensitive data are treated; likewise there's no need for a high-strength transmission chain in something as trivial as a pedestal fan.

All the talking about who's got what it takes to be President or Vice-President of the USA (and much debating before about Italian elections) made me realize that often the process goes backwards (or, just across) with respect to the engineering field: the specifications of one politician and the other are discussed without much consideration for the requirements of the job.

So, decide what you want from your president first. Do you want him to be a leader, a ruler, one who does nothing? You want a conservative or a progressive? A guy who looks well in the company of effete intellectuals (maybe of the Euro-socialist variety) or one who'd fit better among farmers on the frontier?

Different requirements, differents specifications.

In Which I Occasionally Embrace Political Activism

The Emperor says:

But other than that (breaking the law, ed.), every last bit of smearing, lying, finger-pointing etc. will be the order of the day, on top of all of the true claims against him I can find, and they’re already piling up deep and high. Nothing will be too low, every slightest rumor will be picked up and broadcast with a spin that would make David Axelrod blush, and it will be a relentless barrage from the day he takes office ’till the day he leaves it. And I will enjoy every second of it. I will willfully and gleefully sabotage every single thing that he tries to achieve in any way that I can and when he fails, I’ll put all of the blame on him.

Him and his leftist brownshirt goons will get a heaping helping of the same bullshit that they’ve been flinging at us for the last 8 years, and they will get it with interest and then some. See how he likes it.

See, I am seriously worried, even from this other side of the Atlantic, by certain facts about Barack Obama. He's seen as a saintly, almost messianic figure, he who'll change America into a better place, accepted as peer by the international community, where the power of the state will be used to redistribute wealth, and where all races - except those whites who don't repent for the sins of their race - will proportionally share power, and the government will be your friend and help you from cradle to grave, even saving the fools from the consequences of their folly.

It looks more like a nightmare than a dream to me, even more so if I consider that America is today the only place left where a man can be minimally free in the true sense of the word (there are other places where life is good, but not as free).

Alas, despite the facade of working for a better America, more just and humane and pacific, it's the hard left - those who most support Obama, rather than the Clinton wing - that indulges in murderous fantasies and falls prey of a rabid, unhinged rage against their opponents.

I only wish death - or would like to deliver it myself - to a small number of truly barbarous and irredeemeable evildoers; to even my bitter political adversaries I wish no ill (well, I admit that a stubborn case of prostathitis is tempting, tho). And I surely am not of the peace-and-love kind.

I hoped the derangement was going to end with the Bush administration, and initially McCain didn't have to face it. But Sarah Palin became the new target of an even more furious and vile form of hatred - all because she's a gender apostate.

In any case, Michelle Malkin has a not pretty but instructive display of leftist rage - and these are not quotes susceptible of a "I say, you say" situation. No, it's actual videos and stickers and posters and all that.

In the meanwhile, Jeff Goldstein is simply fuming. Apart the (not so) occasional lies and distortions and hypocrisy of some Obama supporters, he is afraid that President Obama would mark the success of the grand plan, started by Gramsci, to take power by infiltration, slow erosion and indoctrination rather than armed revolution. And there's a good chance he is right.

Even many in the Italian media have accepted unquestioningly the Obama narrative, thus abdicating from their supposed role of suppliers of facts and informations, becoming accomplices in the struggle for control of the narrative, and ultimately of thought. And that has me fuming too.

The scariest part of 1984 is not the so popular telescreens, but Newspeak - control of the narrative on the biggest scale.

On the USA Presidential Race

Steven is incensed at the foreigners who want to have a say in the election of the President of the USA:

Mr. Freedland, you don't have to wait until November to get the finger. I've got one for you right here.

Go fuck yourself, and take the rest of the world with you. I don't give a tinker's damn who you think I should vote for.

And he's quite right. If I were an American citizen, I would vote for...

McCain/Palin, of course.
They are not my ideal candidates - although Palin added a breath of fresh air - but Obama/Biden is about as bad as a ticket can be.

Of the realistic alternatives (Ron Paul, despite the libertarian enthusiasm, isn't really viable), McCain/Palin are the ones who better (or less worse) represent the traditional American values. Obama instead represents very well the values of the tranzist movement - so I suppose, if that's your piece of cake, go and vote for him.

The Second Version Goes On Holiday

Which is not far away: in the mountains, where I can refresh my redneck skills. And escape the atrocious humidity of the lowlands.

It won't be a complete hiatus if the plan to install an used but working 56k modem (probably found in a Neolithic tomb) on my old machine works, but posting will be even more sparse, and hopefully more about fun than anything.

In any case, this is just creepy:

"Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama's nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future,"

Looming shadows of mass-movements aside, that salute looks like... well, a tunnel to a very dark and damp place...
Steven says: "I think that non-believers should respond with a single finger, indicating "He is the one!" (Guess which finger?)"

No Intervention

Fierce fighting has broken out between the ex-soviet republic of Georgia and the secessionist reagion of South Ossetia.

What should we - the West do?
I say, unless there are very important strategic interests at stake, just nothing. Let them slug it out and then deal with the winner.

That's better than the post-modern wars that never end because the "international community" keeps saving the loser's ass.

Of course, in the specific case the Bear isn't going to ignore the racket on its doorstep. Another factor to ponder before deciding for intervention.

Update 09/08: Not surpisingly, Russia has joined the fray. Georgia is pro-western and an USA ally; is it worth to support the republic as a proxy against the reborn Russian expansionism?

Tailspin In Slow-Motion

The latest post by Michael Totten at WoC has attracted a couple of interesting comments. The post itself deal with how the American forces in Iraq are succesfully managing to transform from combatants into peacekeepers - following for a great part the innovations introduced by General Petraeus.

However, comment #2 states:

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Left is utterly opposed to Petraeus' surge. We are utterly opposed to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld disaster. Some unwisely, I think) see the surge as a continuation of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policies, and oppose it for that reason. Others see it as the abandonment of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld approach, in favor of a more sensible way to dig ourselves out of this mess.

By letting the US Military become peacekeepers, policemen (and policewomen), and get on the with the essential job of nation-building (all formerly hated concepts on the Right), we might salvage something here.

And comment #4 piles upon:

But it seemed to me, and I imagine I'm not the only one on the left who thought so, that the war and diplomacy has been nearly lost by mismanagement of BCR - the hubristic diplomacy, Guantanamo, failure of intel.
I'm not defended (sic) leftists here - but if the war is to be ultimately successful, still a huge if, it will be because it went on long enough for the grownups to take over.

If these comments are indicative of any trend, we're seeing a new spin being put on current events. The achievements in Iraq cannot be ignored at this point, but they are not credited to George Bush. In fact, it is stated that those achievements came only when finally Bush left the helm to others.

Which is at the very least a curious position, because nation building has always been at the core of the Bush Doctrine and he has tenaciously stood the course, refusing to withdraw from Iraq - even if the strategy has been changed as to adapt to the conditions in the theater.

To me it seems that finally Bush has found or put the right people, in the cabinet and in the military, to put his doctrine into practice. Of course, this is from a pragmatic point of view: those who regard the actual President of the USA as evil and stupidity incarnate will be unable to agree with me.

Obamania Sweeps Italy

Or better, the radical-chic part of my country. Conservatives and most common folks just keep going about their business.

Anyway, the other day at the supermarket I glanced at the front pages of the newspapers, and the most progressive ones had a thinly-disguised severe case of hots for Obama the Messiah. I don't recall the exact words, but the general tone was one of dream coming true, after so long and hard a wait.

What dream? Of course, the one of a person-of-colour as President of the USA. And a rather hardcore tranzist for that matter, because a Republican female-person-of-colour like Condoleeza Rice never was the matter of dreams - even if she reached a position of absolute regard in the administration.

What remains between the lines in those rags is the position that only the election of Barack Obama can mean that America has finally overcome its congenital racism and embraced the light of Changiness, Hopeitude and the Hug of the Whole World.

And the corollary is that the victory of McCain will show that America is still the old racist, capitalist and arrogant behemoth it has always been.

The fact that reasonable, knowledgeable and color-blind people may have rationally decided that Obama wouldn't be a good President of the USA is not allowed to enter the picture. It cannot be, for cognitive dissonance must be kept at bay at any cost.

Tibetan Scenarios

How could Tibet regain if not indipendence at least real autonomy from China?

I don't think that international pressure is going to accomplish much; the Chinese regime has a way too thick skin for that. And they also wield considerable military power, and immense commercial power. No-one in the rest of the world can take China head on even in a commercial war at this point; even a strong gesture as boycotting the olympic games is pretty much going to remain just that - a gesture with little weight.

As a few millennia of human history teach, when non-violent methods fail, violent ones may work. However, for Tibet even that is not much of a solution, because China has both the capabilities and intentions to brutally crush any Tibetan rebellion - as it's happening now.

So what is left? The military doctrines developed to allow small and under-equipped forces to take on a much stronger enemy: guerrilla and terrorism. The Tibetan rebels don't have enough troops (if any) to reach the level of guerrilla, so terrorism is the only violent option they may have.

But terrorism as in attack on non-combatants works quite well against western democracies, where the life and well-being of citizens, and their opinions, are held in quite high regard and media remain free. In China, where massive social engineering, deportation, arbitrary imprisonment, mass executions (and mining disasters) and strict governmantal control on the media are the norm, civilian casualties will go almost unnoticed.

Back to Clausewitz then: what is most important issue for the Chinese regime? Not the well-being of its citizens, but rather the strength of the economy. An attack that forced the Shanghai stock exchange to close for one day would be first impossible to censor; and second, cause much more damage than the death of dozens of peasants. Targeting the central nodes of Chinese economy is the only way Tibetans may use to force China to compromise.

Problem is, someone would have to help the Tibetans with getting started, and any country doing so would be exposed to Chinese ire, which is something most countries want to avoid. Being no Communism or Islam involved from the Tibetan side, there are almost no chances of help (or meddling, if you like) from international, non-state actors.
Moreover, initially the Chinese reaction is bound to be exceedingly brutal and thorough; there is a definite chance that any Tibetan terrorist organization may be rendered ineffective. Only a prolonged campaign might succeed.

Another possibility is for the Dalai Lama to act like Gandhi in a non-violent uprising, and he himself become the target of the repression and brutality of the Chinese regime. However, I am highly skeptical: I think that Gandhi's success was due to an unique situation - first of all, a basically decent foe like the United Kingdom of 1930-40 - and is not going to be repeated anytime soon.

But while I can list scenarios, the decision of what course of action to take is definitely not in my hands. Oh, and strategic analysis is by its own nature cold and hearthless.