Akkam’s Razor

Would you believe me if I told  you that white supremacists and American Nazi’s were supporting Obama [Esquire via Political Irony]?

Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party:

White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals–basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women–when usually negroes who have ‘made it’ immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize — that’s the kind of negro that I can respect.

Popularity: 4% [?]

There’s a Democratic-sponsored attack ad that is somewhat unfair to Ridley Park native, University of Pennsylvania graduate, and Army veteran of both Iraq and Bosnia that makes somewhat unfair and groundless criticism of 26-year old baby-faced Miccarelli.

The ad, which I’ve only seen aired once on local (Delco) cable-TV hits Miccarelli for inaction regarding actions, both Congressional and Presidential that had effect on Delaware County.  The ad knocks Miccarelli for not taking action, either by advocating as leader of the College Republicans or as a campaign aid to intervene.  Of course, this is unfair.  In 2004, Miccarelli, although already a veteran, was merely 23, and serving on a variety of campaigns.  Although he made have had access to a handful of political decisionmakers, the influence of Miccarelli was essentially no more than that of the average Delco constituent.  Furthermore, the need to burnish his political resume and cultivate ideological bonafides means that he in no way could deviate from the company line.

Congress was shook to the bone by the Bald Banker and Bearded Professor:

Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill, and they were gathered around a conference table in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“When you listened to him describe it you gulped,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

Their reaction calls to mind the reaction to the Bush saber rattling over Iraq as well as this little bit of research:

…and if they did, they’d probably agree with it.

Many of us are making a big deal out of Sarah Palin’s inability to articulate the paramount legacy of this White House - The Bush Doctrine [wiki]. Here is a partial transcript and video of her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABCNEWS (more at HuffPo):

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

I’d like to make an effort to formally define the Bush Doctrine, to provide context for its existence, to examine its success, and to look at future challenges.

Regardless as to your political leanings, the Bush Doctrine exists for one reason and one reason only - to reinforce the Unitary Executive Theory, weakening what, to this point, had been the sole responsibility of Congress over the Executive Branch - the ability to declare war. Similarly, it seeks to remove any external, non-domestic restrictions by foreign bodies over US actions, including international agreements and treaties. In short, the US, as the sole remaining superpower (after the fall of the Soviet Union) would have the justification for acting unilaterally against any threat. This is further quantified by allowing the ability to wage preemptive war against perceived threats both in the near- and long-terms. In short, it means never having to say you are sorry.

Popularity: 9% [?]

• The Wars of John McCain - John McCain believes the Vietnam War was winnable. Now he argues that an Obama administration would accept defeat in Iraq, with grave costs to American honor and national security. Is McCain’s quest for victory a reflection of an antiquated pre-Vietnam mind-set? Or of a commitment to principles we abandon at our peril? Is there any war McCain thinks can’t be won?

A couple of semesters ago, I read a Businessweek article on Home Depot then-CEO Bob Nardelli’s plan to turn around Home Depot.  BW glowingly reported on Nardelli’s personnel changes and differing style, with his strong preference for hiring former-military persons in key rolls.  Anecdotally speaking, a masters program classmate who was also a Naval Academy graduate mentioned that Home Depot had indeed made a push for hiring employees who were formerly Officer Grade to run their stores, casting the opportunity as entrepreneurial.  Businessweek gave several hints as to what was coming in their description of Nardelli’s style:

Update: I wouldn’t even know about this story if it wasn’t for Phillybits.

It was probably 20-years ago, when I was a wee-lad at Northeast Catholic High School, that I first heard Gil Scott Heron.  Mind you, in my working class, nearly all-white neighborhood and school, there’s no way that Heron would come up in conversation or in academics.  No, I heard it on Howard Stern - who basically helped raise me.  Howard had a very race-centric shtick at that time (late 1980s), and Heron’s “Whiteys on the Moon” was exemplary of what my kind of white-folk grated against - being blamed for the wronging of blacks several generations ago, with a feeling that it was totally unwarranted.  Frustrations over crime, the Section-8′ing of the neighborhoods, and a decline in the comparative advantage for whites (particularly males) certainly enabled a hostile posture on race.

I have a hard time defending former Bush press secretary Scotty ‘Flounder’ McClellan, especially given his prior performances:

YouTube Direktvideo link

That said, he appears to be the latest of the loyal Bushies troubled by their consciences after leaving the administration.  So far, the book has delivered observations on wartime propaganda, an apology to Richard Clarke, the revelation Bush outed CIA-operative Valerie Plame via Scooter Libby, the non-suprise that the Administration has allies within FOXNEWS, that Bush similarly declassified National Secrets to advance a political agenda, warnings to be serious and skeptical regarding administration claims on Iran, and (of course) that propaganda and a media operating somewhere between lazy, incompetent, and compliant directly enabled the invasion and occupation of Iraq.