Scary thought - Putin and I think along the same lines.

At the risk of becoming the "Russia guy" (we have/had contributors who are more experienced on the subject):

Vladimir Putin made explicit what I have implied many times before (albeit I implied that the Russians were motivated, as they seemingly escalated this conflict).

I think it is obvious, though CNN did a good job of not assigning one candidate or another to Putin's remarks, that the candidate this helps is John McCain. It is clearly a bold statement for someone of his position to make, and smacks of conspiracy theorism.

On the smart/stupid scale (1 = smart, 10=stupid), where does this rank amongst diplomatic statements? I say six, if only because its interesting and even though one is 95% certain its not true, you still have a ridiculously high percentage (5%) that thinks, 'Well, maybe...'

Means Testing

Tammy Duckworth just made some comments at the DNC against how great it is that Obama rejects means testing in veterans benefits, as opposed to John McCain. She emotionally pointed out that no one asked us how much soldiers made before they bled for the country, and no one should ask them that afterwards.

I'm trying to parse that emotionally loaded plea, but it seems devoid of actual content. I can't actually figure out why the left is against means testing. If you have a billion dollars in benefits, why wouldn't you want to get those funds to those who need them? Why would you want poor veterans to suffer so that you can provide benefits to rich veterans?

I'm surprised the health care proposals aren't means tested either. Why am I being asked to help pay for health care for someone who makes more than I do?

The left mystifies me on other rationing and economic issues as well (well, in some sense, all economics is rationing). If the overwhelming consensus of economic research suggests that the minimum wage hurts the working poor (it does), you'd expect a pro-working-poor left to oppose the minimum wage (they don't).

Is the left trying to cut off the poor to spite the right?

Manifest Destiny for Caucasians

A recent election map from CNN.com has Obama and McCain in a relatively tight race with multiple states displaying 'swing' status. There are multiple opportunities for the map to change in the coming 2.5 months, from Vice Presidential selections, to blunders, but I want to focus on one issue that seems to be deteriorating - the power struggle with Russia.

MSN is reporting that Russia is canceling all military cooperation with NATO, and Yahoo! News reported that the White House is 'demanding' that Russian forces leave Georgia 'now'. I only point this out to stress the point that while this current issue may be solved diplomatically in the coming months, it may not, and regardless of the outcome with Georgia, Russia is emphatically declaring that it intends to be a thorn in the foreign policy side of the next U.S. President.

Two points:
1. Russian motives?
2. Thoughts of U.S. citizens?

1. One can only speculate as to what the motives of Russia could be. I have probably watched too many Tom Clancy movies, but I can't shake the feeling that this brusque type of diplomacy is meant to destabilize the race for the U.S. presidency. It may be nothing more than an attempt at Russian manifest destiny, but if it is, I feel it could have been done more gracefully.

2. How will this affect the average U.S. citizen. I think the average citizen will probably place foreign policy higher up the list of issues in terms of importance. From media reporting on the two candidates, they can (fairly or not) be pared down to McCain = no nonsense, tough talking, Obama = all options, diplomatic. The question is, does Russia have a stake in one candidate winning over the other? Do they believe by starting (and possibly stringing out) the conflict with Georgia so close to an election cycle, that they might hold an advantage in geopolitical negotiations throughout the Caucasus?

-5 CHA from the Bloc GM!

Well, I have played McCain apologist for awhile here and will continue to do so (because no one else will), but now he has gone after my people.

The one thing that always frustrated me more than anything about John McCain was his inability to keep his stories straight. He claimed in his book to recite members of the Green Bay Packers' linemen names to confuse Viet Cong prison guards, only to switch it to the Pittsburgh Steelers' linemen when in Pennsylvania. Also, while "(speaking) to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, John McCain said the 21st Century GI Bill was 'the result' of his efforts, although he had opposed it and didn’t vote on it." (Kansas City Star, 8/20/2008).

He is probably not attempting to be dishonest, but anytime someone questions his perception or memory regarding previous quotes/issues, he throws the POW card on the table. Memo to John: I know you were a POW. I respect you were a POW. Find another defense mechanism/comeback. You can still use it. But for goodness sakes, mix it up a little!

The Empire Strikes Back

Are we seeing a return of the Iron Curtain? While Russia may have had every right to respond (even with force) to Georgia's attempt to bring South Ossetia back into its national borders, it brought nearly unanimous scorn upon itself with the amount of force it decided to deploy. Thousands of innocent civilians in Georgia have been killed with rampaging Ossetians (technically Russian citizens if using the "Russia was defending its citizens" argument) even reportedly pouring gasoline on cattle and other livestock and setting them on fire (NPR - 8/14/2008).

Even if a military response was warranted/justified, the Russian military has a duty to protect the non-combatants (within reason), but the opposite appears to be true. Add to this the report from the AP that Poland stands to be at risk due to their support of an American backed missile defense system, and the Russians appear to be speaking very loudly and carrying a very big stick.

The question is why? What happens to make this the ideal time for this brand of diplomacy? The conflict with Georgia was started by Georgia, but do the comments by General Nogovitsyn do anything but create a further air of distrust between the two superpowers? A spokesman for the Pentagon has already stated "earlier U.S. offers for broad cooperation with Moscow on the missile defense program may be reevaluated considering the latest developments". That wouldn't appear to work in Russia's favor, unless the Medvedev/Putin pairing believes that it is time to remove the concepts of glasnost and perestroika from the Russian diplomatic vocabulary.

On Thursday, August 14th, Toomas Hendrik Ilves (president of Estonia) noted on NPR that the paradigm of Russia staying at bay and not attacking its neighbors had been in place since 1991, and is now shattered. It may be time to reconsider this thought geopolitically.

Obama on Language

Barack Obama recently misused "nonplussed", prompting buzz about his supposed elitism.

But like the loss of a Muslim outreach director, it's hard to fit this into the bigger picture. What does it mean when he uses college words, but in the wrong sense? Is that elitist, or plebian?

Me, I'm just smart enough to use words like "nonplussed" incorrectly, so I'm starting to really identify with Barack. I just feel like he's the only candidate I could kick back and enjoy a fancy import with at some obscure microbrewery.

The Energy Independence Myth

Speaking about the folly of ethanol recently, someone responded, "Well, we need to get off foreign oil."

Really?

Robert Bryce put together a list of myths about energy independence a few months back, it's worth mentioning again as we head towards the election.

My favorite: "[T]he two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly known as a belligerent terrorist haven."