It was not “implemented poorly”
But bankrupt as begun,
And though the recognition sorely
Must come so it was done.

It was not “noble aims corrupt”
That somehow took a fumble–
But with lies was the ante upped,
Deception, not a stumble.

In war, by all the evidence
We have found nothing noble,
And the war-fervor´s prevalence
Did nothing but cause trouble.

In bankruptcy begun and so
In bankruptcy it ends–
A course in lies which all did know
Untruthful, never friends.

The truth of it no one befriended,
To tell that which it was,
And devious aims which it intended–
So let illusions pass.

.

“I thought the piece was considered in advance should Obama win.”

It wasn’t.

As I have said many times.

Fact is, I haven’t had the time to premeditate that kind of action lately. I’ve been a little busy.

When someone tells you that flat-out, and you continue to assert it, I start thinking you’re acting like a dick. You don’t want to accept something I tell you flat-out, time and time again, then fine. Then you’re calling me a liar.

I think I’m capable of “interpreting” that. And I’ll guide my future actions accordingly.

I judge a man by his actions. Someone who takes a hit when he has done wrong by accepting sole responsibility. Not someone who was comfortable sitting in a church for 20 years, manned with an anti-American, anti-white, pro-Hamas preacher only to throw his own grandmother under the bus to excuse his own actions (the story of his grandmother being afraid of a black man ‘passing her on the street’ is quite different in his own book).

I judge a man on his friends and associates. A person picks their friends for one of two reasons; they are like minded or the friendship is advantagous for financial, political or social reasons. Now, it is up to us to decide why Obama chose such friends. Any of those reasons speak to the “goodness” of the man. While a “good” man may have occassion to say “Hi” to the man who beats his wife on a regular basis at the golf course, the “good” man doesn’t associate with the wife beater. They have nothing in common. It is commonality that causes us to create friendships.

Barack Obama is now President Elect. I have no option but to accept that. No one is offering a do-over. So for four years I will have to tolerate a POTUS that thinks the Constitution is a “flawed” document and realize that the damage he will have the ability to do, cheered on by the most far left Congress and Senate in our history, will take decades to undo.
The mistakes of FDR are still being paid for 70 years later.

He will attempt to take this nation as far left as he can. You see, it is imperfect, and it is, in his mind, his duty to create that socialistic utopia that he believes he has the ability to acheive. Never mind that socialism has never worked, no matter who was running it.

In my mind, it is amazing that the race was as close as it was. McCain ran the-worst-campaign-ever. Where was his opposition research? Add to that the kneepad wearing, fawning media, an economy that has never tanked so badly in the last days of an existing administration, the war in Iraq basically won and delegated to page 10A, and Obama should have been 20 points ahead. He was not. I think a lot of people wondered if he was really a “good” man while they knew that “First in, first out” McCain was. But in the end, the “no more Bush” mentality won the day.

Will I give Obama the benefit of doubt, hoping for the best? No more than I give any person who had shown me that he has a history of “boneheaded” decisions and whose judgement seems to be less that stellar.

That’s something I get exclusively from the right. Nowhere else am I mocked and belittled for saying that I use the opinions and experiences of Nobel Prize winning scientists to help formulate my own. Your entire rant is a logical fallacy. I said none of that; only that it helped me make up my mind. There are countless other sources and personal experiences that also helped me decide. Don’t put words in my mouth. It’s not nice.

Nagarajan : “Can you explain to me WHAT exactly the Chief Technology officer for the United States does?”

The position isn’t fully defined, but some of the responsibilities will include helping to ensure more open government through use of web technology. Helping to formulate intelligent broadband policy for service carriers, especially to rural areas. Helping to produce more competition in the wireless arena by allowing smaller companies to lease spectrum on the 700Mhz band if larger companies do nothing. Supporting, and this is very important to me, network neutrality. Plus there are a myriad of privacy issues that need an advocate.
I see having a CTO on the cabinet as nothing but a positive thing for the country. That’s not to say that the person filling the position is going to be amazing, but the existence of the position at all is a huge step in the right direction.

Nagarajan : “Here, you have a candidate who disabled the Address Verification System while accepting credit card donations to his campaign. No private enterprise can get away with such FRAUD and the President elect of the USA just did.”

This sounds like a terrible injustice. Where are the lawsuits? And if you think for a heartbeat that private enterprise doesn’t get away with fraud, you’re fooling yourself.

Nagarajan : “Wonder what the CTO of the Government has to say about, you know blase’ issues like website security and criminal violations of FEC regulations?”

I’m sure he/she would feel strongly about such things.

Nagarajan :”And who exactly are you or for that matter any one lesle to say that ? What experience/authority in hi-tech do you have to spout off such incredible ignorance and nonsense. Where is the proof exactly for these matter of fact statements ?”

I work in the hi-tech world. I’m spouting off my personal observations based on years of experience. I’m calling it like I’m seeing it right now. There has been a transition of tech innovation out of this country, in favor of a more middle management role. I think this is pathetic.

Nagarajan : “It is one thing to be ignorant of facts – and its another thing to open your mouth and show it on the Internet.”

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Nagarajan : “Who in hell came up with Google, Amazon, iPhone and iPod ? Would that be the Germans? Japanese? no it should be those genius Chinese guys right ??”

Well, I guess your handful of examples beats my argument. You win.

Nagarajan : “Name me ONE hi-tech invention/innovation – ONE that Europeans/Asians have come up with in the last 15 years. ONE invention that hit the market and customers went crazy.”

Blue LED’s.

Nagarajan : “The facts are plain to see – America is still the greatest magnet in the world for the best talent.”

As I understand, you’re an example of this, right?

Nagarajan : “ It STILL has the most innovative thinkers, researchers AND business people who can bring these ideas to the free market. There are people of all nationalities that work in the hi-tech industry in the US. Thanks to that CURSED H1-B visa.”

Sure, I just see it slowly slipping away, and while a CTO isn’t the cure, intelligent tech policy will go a long way to ensuring the United States remains on top, which is right where I want it.

Nagarajan : “And yes, it all happened without the blessings of a Chief TEchnology Officer !!”

Nobody ever said that a CTO is a god who can bestow blessings. I simply think that having a CTO as a cabinet position is a very very good idea. It’s nice to know that someone on the cabinet is advocating for positions I strongly believe in.

Nagarajan : “I wonder how many people who have no experience and background in matters like technology are spouting their profound thoughts with no relevance to the simple, plain old fricking facts.”

I’ve been working in the tech industry for quite a while. Simply because my observations do not mirror your own doesn’t mean I have no experience or less legitimacy in commenting on tech matters. I have seen large scale shifts in product innovation in everything from consumer electronics to factory automation to pcb design to wireless technology.

Nagarajan : “Throw in some good old “national security” fear mongering/protectionist nonsense at the end. Geez,I guess this country needs to stop accepting Chinese manufactured PCs in the market.”

I don’t consider being concerned about the decline of tech innovation and its relationship to national security in my country fear mongering. You mocking me does not change this.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/newt-gingrich-for-rnc-chair.html

“Good man” types get people killed, jobs lost, businesses bankrupted, and makes the misery index rocket. If Obama is indeed a “good man” then God help us all.

I find the question of Obama’s intent no more than a back-story. Goldstein is probably more correct on who Obama really is, but intentions never matter - results do. It’s his agenda and policies that will harm us, and THAT’S where we need to go hammer and tong. Attacking Obama personally will send the Obamanuts on hunts to call the critics racists, etc. So let us be smart in our critiques.

My honest fear is that obama will surpass the horrible Carter, due to Obama’s ever more radical/left-liberal impulses, combined with an arrogance that surpasses any President in our lifetimes. Am I to stand mute while our property is plundered, our freedom threatened, our prosperity turned to dust, and our children sucked into creepy semi-totalitarian Obama Youth Corps programs?!? I think not!

Let’s lay aside any aspersions on Obama’s character for now, but focus on Obama’s already discreditable policies. In 2 days the stock market dropped 10% and lost $1 trillion - a huge vote of NO CONFIDENCE in Obama’s economic plans. Who will stand up with me and say “STOP OBAMA’S SOCIALISM” to oppose bailouts without end, tax increases without purpose and spending without accountability?

Obama put forth in his change.gov the nutty idea of a Federal community service requirement for K-12. Against federalism, and indentured community servitude - no thanks, I will oppose this and defend against the oxymoronic forced-service.

He is putting the hyper-partisan Rahm Emanuel as COS, sending a clear signal to the Republicans “Screw you, get to the back of the bus.”
And he put a pro-fairness-doctrine liberal on the FCC transition - Our First Amendment right to listen to unrestricted political programming is under direct threat!

At this time, we now hear that Obama will reverse drilling policies and restrict domestic drilling further. At a time when we NEED MORE DOMESTIC ENERGY, he is deliberating harming our ability to produce it (and windfall profits tax will make it worse too). Obama’s policies means a higher energy trade deficit and higher energy prices.

And so it goes, barely a few days into transition, and the word “SOCIALISM” is clearly and sadly becoming *NOT* a hyperbole when describing the Pelosi/Reid/Obama planned future.

We do the country a grave disservice if we stay mum while the worst policies of this Obama administration are proposed and enacted. I protested the Bush policies that I thought were wrong even though I voted for him, and I will protest every Obama policy I think is wrong. Remember, he ran for the job - he serves us, not us serving him, so anyone who suggests that is ‘unfair’ or ‘not giving him a chance’ I say this: If he cant stand the heat, he shouldnt have run for head chef of the kitchen.

Don’t forget - the libs told us - DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!

In questioning Pat’s intentions and motives in writing the post, Goldstein goes too far. Unless he has been vouchsafed the ability to peer into the souls of men and glean intent, I would suggest he stick with what he recommends and fights for so tirelessly – a literal interpretation of what is written.

Actually, that would make me a New Critic, and I’m anything but.

When we read to interpret, we read with an eye to intent. And given that we CAN’T peer into people’s souls in order to be sure, we are left to do our best in reconstructing intent from textual (inter, intra-, meta-, etc) clues, context, and a host of other things, including convention, biography, and on and on.

In literature, we can extrapolate intent from what we know about the author and his times. Can we not grant the same courtesy to Mr. Frey? Pat has not shown himself to be a link whore in the past nor has he necessarily proven to be the kind of blogger who sets himself up as the conscience of the right. (That job is taken and I will not, under any circumstances, give it up.)

What we know of an author doesn’t guarantee a proper reading, or else Wifey would be a children’s story.

I am perfectly willing to grant Patterico any courtesy. But I read his post with an eye toward intent.

My interpretation relied upon the timing of the piece, the way it deviated from Pat’s prior take on Obama (”pond scum” — but suddenly “good” pond scum), my belief that Patterico is too smart to conflate promises with actions, and my feeling that the piece was written with a political purpose in mind, namely, to pointedly distance itself from the kinds of posts written after the 2004 elections.

I thought the piece was considered in advance should Obama win.

Subsequently, Patterico has done nothing to disabuse me of those beliefs. He has talked much of lessons and “how we are being watched” for our reactions. These kinds of defenses only deepen my conviction in that initial reading.

Where this has all been blown out of proportion, however, is the idea that I think Pat somehow fundamentally dishonest. I don’t. Nor do I think he was looking for links.

Suffice to say I just thought his post engaged in precisely the kind of political pragmatism that has a tendency to debase language and lends itself to moral equivalence, and I wanted to point that out in a way that caused a bit of a ripple.

Mission Accomplished, I guess.

You remind me of an event I observed in my neighborhood some years ago. A neighbor on one side had a two+ year old little girl and our neighbor on the other side had twin two+ year old little boys. They frequently met in our yard to play so both sets of parents could watch them. The girl, Megan, was quite a bit bigger than the boys and tended to physically dominate them. One weekend I heard a huge commotion and looked out our kitchen window. It seems Megan had both boys in a head lock, one under each arm, and was alternately punching each one in the head. The boys, of course, were screaming and crying. From her porch Megan’s mother called out, “Now Megan, you make nice!” Megan stopped (but still held each boy’s head under her arms), smiled the sweetest smile a two year old girl ever smiled and called back, “Yes Mommy”. Then she turned back to the boys and continued punching them.

I hope your head gets better after you get out of the hospital.

That said, every president deserves a chance to make his case. You are right, though: there is nothing noble in a failure to rebut a bad case and oppose it vigorously. Quite the opposite, I would think.

ed.

Ed. Okay, touche, that’s not what I thought it said, but to get out of Obama’s background that he’s even a “quasi” Marxist, it still delusional!

Obama IS an Anti-American Marxist, through and through; there is no “quasi” about it!