nudge, shove, shoot

Your post got me thinking Titus. Thinking about the very nature of Western governments, ours in particular... grow, grow, grow. Now understand something - I am going to put forth an idea that in passing seems like "conspiracy" talk. But these are real books, real positions in the White House, and real people with real power. Not to mention, we now live in a world - ala the NSA & DEA - where today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's headline.

We all agree that we are heading towards greater and greater government paternalism. And it shocks us. The people in command and control of the federal government define freedom differently. They encourage freedom from worry, from want, from mistakes. That thinking isn't new, it has reared its' ugly head before. One notable example is New Deal. "Safety Nets", baseline here and no further catch-alls for people whom just can't make it. They are sold as temporary, or emergency, if all else fails stop gaps (like Social Security) that we must enact out of "compassion."

Ok. We're compassionate. We care. Fine. Good. The problem is "temporary" and emergency fail safes become the new norm. They never go away. And what's worse, they grow exponentially. So then the next administration or congress, or three later, or five, looks around and says "hey! What the hell are all these poor doing among us? We have to do something!" So we enact the Great Society. SSI is sold as insurance incase you can't retire "in dignity" in old age, and now Great Society is incase you can't live "in dignity" during middle age, via public housing and medical care (as a side bar, I am in no way indicting those rank and file whom legitimately participated in or utilized these programs, no more than I fault the average computer programmer at the NSA for this nation's spy policy). And why do we do this? Because our "new normal" seemed insufficient, there were still poor among us after all.

So for decades we had Medicaid for the poor, and Medicare for the elderly, and after passing it we felt good as a nation because, we care. Awesome. Go us.

A couple three decades later and what's this? Why do we have all these poor among us whom can't afford health insurance? The new "normal" isn't sufficient, there are still all these damned poor! We have to do something. Obamacare. Now we not only have government subsidized insurance available, it is mandatory - under punishment of law - that you sign up. Medicare's original fiscal projection - in the 1960's - accounting for population growth and inflation was set never to exceed an expense of $80 billion annually. In 2011 just the two prescription drug plans (part C and D) cost $84.7 billion. In addition, it is by law - if he wants it - available to Bill Gates (whom ironically is worth about $80 billion). Obamacare's estimate is $1 Trillion annually... for now.

And you can take this graph line and apply it to any sector of the public domain, not just fiscal policy. Surveillance for instance. What is described as the "new temporary emergency measure" for us, is the "norm" for our children. And since there will always be poor among us, and one Hannibal or another at the gates, our children will build upon us because as a people we are inclined to improve on what our predecessors built. Here's the problem - we never say, "well that didn't work" and repeal it then start over, build something new. No, we add to whatever exists, as a "fix." And the architects justify the authority to implement that fix by pointing to what we have all accepted as "normal." Well of course they can force your 401k to buy government bonds, you already acquiesced government mandated savings authority via Social Security. Of course we must provide prescription drugs in Medicare, we already provide the procedures. Well of course we must provide a public "option" insurance provider, too many slip through the cracks of Medicaid and Medicare, the government has to fix that. Well of course we can mandate your enrollment in health insurance, your non compliance raises the medical costs of your neighbor - whom the government is subsidizing - and you can't burden the collective... and on and on and on.

One "compassionate" policy begats another. And another. And another. Until you wake up one day to find that through inaction - INaction - you are noncompliant. And at that point, resistance is futile.

The title... It's not my theory, but I've co-opted it for my own purposes. Each of the wealthy Western nations I have in mind start out, and rises to preeminence, due to an emphasis on the individual. Each fall from that preeminence based on a shift in emphasis to the collective. That "shift"occurs, I believe, through the progression of nudge, shove, shoot. And by the way, "shoot" doesn't have to literally mean at the end of a barrel. I'll explain...

There's a book titled "Nudge." It was written by two professors whom broke down effective psycho-analytic ways of influencing the population into "good" choices. From healthcare to savings, you name it. It's based on an "opt-out" model, rather than opt-in. For example, from the book: "One change is creating better default [retirement] plans for employees. Employees would be able to adopt any plan they like, but, if no action is taken, they would automatically be enrolled in an expertly designed program." They go on... "On some dimensions Bush was on the right track with the plan [prescription drugs], but that, as a piece of choice architecture, suffered from a cumbersome design that impeded good decision making...Specifically, default choices for programs should not have been random... Seniors who did not sign up for a program should have one assigned to them."

"Choice Architects." There's a nice Orwellian phrase, don't ya' think? It's subtle. And note they said "Seniors", not "Seniors already enrolled in the program." They know starting with a mandate on Americans is like a direct assault on a Roman garrison - suicide.So they start, for instance, with simply insisting healthy food be offered along side pizza in school cafeterias (and this example is right from the book). That's the nudge. Then the healthy food is placed at the line of sight for the average height student, where the pizza is now relocated behind the healthy food and just above the line of sight. That's the shove (according to me, not the book, they would contend this is all "nudge"). Then finally - as some kids still don't make the healthy choice - the pizza is removed entirely, because we still have unhealthy eaters among us. They've shot the pizza. Get it?

Healthcare, retirement, schooling... they have "Nudge Policy" for all of this, yet they are not demanding flat out that you must do this one thing or that without first laying the groundwork. They just keep eliminating choices until there is a new normal. Then they don't care what you choose, so long as the choice is compulsory. And you may say, ok, one Ivy League professor puts out a psycho-political policy book, it doesn't make it so. However, this author was Cass Sunstein. And the entire book laid out various effective tools for manipulation of the masses not by direct order, but by slowly, and permanently, removing the "bad" options from your life. And so long as choosing is compulsory, they have forced you into a "good" situation (if you don't want to choose, see the Borg declaration, page 1, section 1, paragraph 1).

So what does a Harvard professor's book have to do with any real world affect on government, or the current administration? Well not only was the good author, Professor Cass Sunstein, consulted in the crafting of Obamacare, but he served as President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009-2012. He described this as his "dream job." By the way, his wife is Samantha Powers, the current US ambassador to the UN. Sunstein literally coined the phrase "choice architect." The man wields real power and influence. Two of his other books, "Republic 2.0", and "Radicals in Robes." Get where this is going? This is the "fundamental transformation" Yoda. And less you think I'm just bashing some "liberal" Obama acolyte, this same man adamantly defended Bush's right to conduct military commissions in the war on terror. Is there any doubt on how he feels about five presidencies' authority to use the NSA, on everyone? In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to "reformulate First Amendment law." Reformulate? Wanna get even scarier? The purpose of this reformulation would be to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,” and thinks that“in light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” He proposes a “New Deal for speech that would draw on Justice Bradeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.” Well, that's not creepy. I'm thinking of being Cass Sunstein for Halloween! And not only do serious people take his advice, not only did he direct that Orwellian sounding office, but he currently is instructing at America's most elite university. Now I'm sure this guy is considered by normal standards and political affiliations a "leftist", but I don't see it that way (how many leftists were defending W on the war on terror?). This guy has a single allegiance - POWER. To authority. To ensuring compliance. This man's ideology and formulations permeates both parties, one's just on a bullet train to mandating earthly nirvana and the other is riding the Union Pacific (first class no doubt). And they have BOTH made it their mission to crush this Tea Party rebellion.

Now back to the big picture point of my post. What makes this man's ideology (and that creepy sounding position in the administration) possible? A government's very nature is to expand. No one gets elected by promising to keep the status quo, or why else elect someone new, right? And even that would be fine if not for one crucial element - the nature of law makers is to do, not to undo. It is by far easier to pass a fix than repeal a problem. And each succeeding generation of law makers builds on the precedent of the last. Social Security sets the precedent for mandatory bond purchases. Medicaid sets the precedent for Obamacare. DEA mass surveillance sets the precedent for complete NSA authority. We have "always" voted YES to raise the debt ceiling, so we can't stop now. Mandated seat belts later allows cell phones while driving laws. Registering your firearm leads to city-wide bans. Just a little here, just a little there, for your safety of course. It's why fighting these smaller measures is so crucial, once you allow a new normal to develop, its too late.

So is it too late now? I see that Titus is qualifying his "back nine" admission with "my own personal back nine." Uh huh. I'm curious. Did you ever ask yourself "why?" Why do people from Wilson, to FDR, to Johnson to Sunstein and Obama - and all the less notable but equally dedicated "choice architects" in between - push these means? What is their end? What do they think will happen? After all, this top-down central planning of every aspect of life has never succeeded before, so what do they hope to achieve? I'll give you my answer. I truly think they believe utopia can be achieved in this life. In this world. If just the right people were in charge, with the right motivations, with the right authority we can actually eliminate all poverty, all suffering and set you "free" from worry, free from risk, and if individuals have to give up an archaic Right or two, so be it, we're trying to fundamentally transform here... after all, Vader only wanted the power to save his wife, but these pesky rebels kept upping the ante. 

So here we sit... 50% show up to vote, and most of them are too distracted to notice what's going on. They simply don't realize that you cannot eliminate risk without first eliminating the freedom to choose that risk. And once you start eliminating freedoms, you've entered the back nine. So its' nice to see you here Titus... the club house is nice, the beer is wicked expensive, no mulligans, and the hangman will clean your ball on the 18th... he has the time, he's already set up.

"The back nine"...

Yes, Ryan, I am on my own, personal "back nine" when it comes to the state of this nation.

I don't think there is a single, solitary man or woman in the entire United States Congress that will actually do ANYTHING to change the current paradigm or spend, spend, spend.  The only question on any of their minds is how to spend the most tax-payer money they possibly can on the special "interests" that best represent their lobbyists and supporters.

No man or woman that is in any way a "contender" to the White House will do ANYTHING to change the fact that the President of the United States is a spokesman for those same special interests.  Once the word was out that every President since Reagan... and I am curious to hear someone (ahem) defend Ronnie now that it is common knowledge that he was fully aware and condoned the warrant-less collection of phone records by the DEA, and that every single President since has done the same or expanded the program... has completely ignored the limitations and protections promised by the Constitution, I really can't imagine what it is going to take to get me to trust someone in that office ever again.

There was a time when I was upset over the fact that I had to dip into my 401k retirement account to finish repairing and then selling my home in MS after Katrina.  Time was, I was worried that I didn't have a 401k plan in place since that time, either.  Now, I'm actually thankful that I don't have any of my money in an account where the Fed can simply force my provider to invest in government bonds rather than cash funds, practically forcing Americans to invest trillions more into already overblown government debt.  I have since used my earnings to pay down my own debt and live a much more sustainable lifestyle.  With any luck, my family will be able to support ourselves with only a fraction of the money that I was spending on daily living costs only 6 years ago.

Our government seems hell-bent on perpetuating what I consider to be a lie of horrific magnitude... that the United States is the "leader" and "peacekeeper" of the world.  We have (and still do) lead the world in many areas... the average standard of living being the most obvious... but the cost is unsustainable in the extreme.  The greatest generation that Ryan described in his last post was exactly that, not because they won WWII or survived the greatest global economic crisis in the last century, but because they learned (through necessity) that what was going to get them through the "crisis" (whatever it might have been) was individual effort and sacrifice, not government intervention and support.

What gave us all that universal "warm and fuzzy" feeling after we all witnessed the tragedies of 9-11, or Katrina, or Sandy, or any other disaster in the last 20 years?  It wasn't "government"... it was individual efforts and sacrifice.  That gives us faith in our country and our fellow man... not images of the Boston police breaking into private homes after the marathon bombing in search of a suspect.  Not news that every single email-text-cell call-blog post-URL visit is being recorded and saved by the NSA in an effort to win the War on Terror.

War on Poverty.  War on Drugs.  War on Terror.  In this regard, Ron Paul is 100% correct:  there is no winning this sort of war, and watching our freedoms and liberties slowly but surely disappear in the effort to win these un-winnable "conflicts" is the exact same was watching the slow and agonizing death of the United States itself.

As Ryan put it so well, I'll repeat what he said:

I will not comply!

I will not comply.

You don't recover from this. And I don't just mean $17,000,000,000,000,000 in debt or perverse government corruption by what is in every sense of the phrase, a permanent "ruling class" (30-40 years in DC and you're supposed to maintain your connection to reality? Right). It's all that, true, but it is more. We now live in a country where the average person can name more members of the Kardashian family than liberties in the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of distraction. From devices to sports to movies, we want or bread and circus, not civil responsibility. Elections are now - unquestionably - identity politics. We elect whomever seems "cooler." We have successfully American idolized politics, and that's for the 50% who bother to vote.

Now my dear friend will argue (and has on many occasions) that we've gotten through worse as a nation. The Civil War with 600,000 dead, half the nation in ruin; the Great Depression; WWII, these are the familiar refrains offered to combat my pessimism. As of today I officially reject those examples, and I do so based on a simple question...  are we still those people? The Civil War generation, who buried their dead and turned right around and laid track and built great metal beasts into the mountains and hostile territories of the West. Are we them? How about the Greatest Generation, who literally saved the world and ruled the NIRA unconstitutional 9-0, are we as solid, as grounded, as those people?

Give me a break. We freak out if a cable dispute removes the Cartoon Network.

I'm not giving up on America. I'm simply noting our course direction - suicide. Need further proof? There were a hand full of congressman & senators, most notably represented in Ted Cruz, who filibustered while offering fiscal compromises. Men who want to balance the budget, who want to not spend more than we take in, and THEY are widely considered the extremists, even by the elders in their own party. Think about that - we are 17.4 Trillion dollars in debt and the ones considered MODERATES are insisting we raise our debt ceiling. THAT is the "sensible" position while those insisting we stop spending are called economic terrorists (literally, on msnbc). Allan Greyson (D) FL sent out a mailer after the (17% of) government shutdown ended. It read "tea party" across the front with a large burning cross serving as the lower case "t." Did his party excoriate him? No. Of course not. In 08' Obama himself repeatedly attacked Hillary's insistence that there be an individual mandate in any future healthcare law, saying quote "If that was the solution we could solve homelessness by mandating that everyone by a house." He even went on to say that if you install a fine for non compliance people whom can't afford healthcare will be worse off because they'd be stuck with a fine and still no insurance. But does the press call him on the fact that he refuses to negotiate on a one year delay of a mandate he once opposed? No. Of course not. The PoTUS actually stood before the American people yesterday and said the healthcare exchanges were still a good product, despite the foul ups with the website, and insisted there were still lots of way to enroll - mail in an application, in person, and over the phone. But did even ONE member of the press ask the most obvious question of all - "Doesn't the information still have to be entered into that same website, by someone?" No. Of course not. Yet Ted Cruz is a "wacko bird" according to John McCain, because he wants to delay it for a year. We are officially down the rabbit hole Alice.

Make no mistake, as men aligned with Tea Party ideology - formerly known as balancing your check book - we will not survive with our reputation intact. Not within this lifetime. Whether its standing in your church, in your town hall meeting, or standing for office, understand that WE are now the crazy ones once we speak up. You now have two national political organizations hell bent on destroying us and unless we can figure out how to get those indians to come over the hill one at a time, we damned sure better unite. And as one who detests platitudes, let me be specific - support Cruz and all those offering primary challenges within the GOP. That party either has to be fumigated or dismissed.

Can we do it? Lets put it this way - Luke had a much better shot at landing that one laser torpedo to destroy the Death Star, and we don't even have the Force. But WWII you'll cry, the Civil War you'll say, the colonial Revolution! We did all that! No. WE didn't. THEY did. Here's the problem - as a nation we simply have not cultivated and prized what made the generations before us "great." As for me, I'll still try, because what America was is worth restoring, and I'd like future historians to be able to say "well, at least they weren't ALL insane" before they turn the page. But as former and current casino men lets not kid ourselves, we're betting on a long shot. And "you WILL comply", is the house.

My thoughts....

I haven't posted in ages... I know.

I've been watching the national news quite closely, and I have to admit that at no point in my adult past have I been SO disgusted with the government.  Republican and Democrat alike are as useless as tits on a boar pig, each and every one of them.

As the shutdown, the Ed Snowden scandal, the IRS debacle, the latest DEA disaster all unfold before us, I am rapidly... and possibly irrevocably... losing all hope for finding a functional solution to this nation's woes.

I mean, honestly.  The government of this country has been gathering phone and communication records on any (and possibly ALL) of us (probably illegally, certainly unethically) since 1987... and all we are worried about as a nation is national park access and EBT balance availability?  A sitting President gets flack for demanding that Federal employees working in the public sector do ALL THEY CAN to make the "shutdown" as painful and visible as possible... but every President since Reagan has known about warrant-less record grabbing by the DEA (that's five Presidents over twenty six years, people) and that is dismissed as "paranoia from the alternative media"???

I don't know what to say... I'm so utterly disgusted I can't even keep typing.

On Dan Carlin...

Under our "favorites" section, you will find a link to a podcaster named Dan Carlin.  This is MUST HAVE ear candy for anyone associated with the Driveway Bund... period.

This is the most in-depth, well-researched look at current affairs (the Common Sense podcasts) and historical reviews (Hardcore History) available to anyone willing to listen to podcasts at all.  I have done more deep-thinking while listening to his shows then I have since the last face-to-face meeting of the Bund in 2008.

I am particularly driven to think of the Bund when I hear his comments on the impossibility of divorcing any single facet of history in favor of all other facets.  In other words, you cannot allow the "good" side of an historical situation to counter or off-set the "bad" side of an historical situation.

We have done this countless times, and (according to Carlin) this is nothing short of pure, revisionist history... something we have all voiced our collective and individual abhorrence to.

Example:  One cannot separate the tactics, strategies and actions of the Wehrmacht in WWII from those of the Nazis and their goals regarding the "Final Solution".  Were there no Wehrmacht, there would have been no opportunity to attempt the "Final Solution" by the Nazi elite.

Example:  How many times have I taken a pro-Confederate position in discussions about the American Civil War?  I routinely put aside the "question" of slavery in favor of the CSA's policies and positions regarding States rights vs Federal authority.  According to Carlin, I cannot do this without taking a revisionist position, because I cannot rationally divorce slavery from the Confederate side of the debate simply because I don't want to try and make that objectionable part of history fit into my view.

Example:  How many times have I argued with Ryan about some obscure facet of Reagan's foreign policy agenda that didn't mesh with the "constitutionalist-ideal" that Ryan and others so want Reagan to fit?  By arguing that any wrongs done or questionable policies applied were easily over-looked in the long term view is "revisionist" and not only rhetorically in error, but morally objectionable to boot.

Please, give the guy a listen at the earliest opportunity, and let me know what you think.

On Ryan's last...

I had actually stopped checking the Bund for new posts... its been THAT long.  Had you not sent me the text, I'd still not have read it.

I think I see your point... but let me make mine and you can tell me if I do or don't.

The US has its "bread and butter" in FREEDOM, and we advocate representative democracy as the means by which all nations and states can gain what we have.  Tyranny and despotism are BAD, democracy and republicanism are GOOD.

However, this "bread and butter" foundation to our foreign policy framework has some HUGE drawbacks...

If the despotic tyrants are "over-thrown" and a new, democratically elected government is set up and operating, what happens when that elected representative system goes against American interests?  Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon... all now function as "legitimate" political bodies within their respective governments (or maintain outright elected control, as in Palestine).  Suddenly, we are faced with the prospect of preferring the former despot to the elected government.  As despotic and tyrannical as the Shah of Iran was in 1978... surely, we preferred him to the Revolutionary Council that kept Americans hostage for 444 days, right?  Arafat was bad as a terrorist leader... but wasn't he worse for American foreign policy as an elected official in the Palestinian government?

The failing in American foreign policy right now is that it is still entrenched in the dogmatic paradigm of the Cold War... we support those that are "with us" and oppose those that are "against us", regardless of the means or manner in which that government takes and maintains power over its people.

Our formative years as a nation were spent almost entirely in an "isolationist" mentality.  Unless attacked by outside forces (War of 1812), fighting in the US of A was a strictly internal, "domestic" sort of fighting and expansion.  We crushed the Native Americans, fought a small war with Mexico, and nearly tore ourselves apart during the Civil War.  On a "global scale" though, we did nothing until the imperialistic nationalism of a very select few took us to war with Spain over a few island territories.

In the last 25 years of American foreign policy, we seem to have forgotten that "all men are created equal" and that all people have the right to determine their own means of government.  Tragic as the Syrian war is... it is up to the Syrians to determine their future.  We should be supporting relief efforts to refugees in other nations, rather than picking sides and giving material support that WILL lead to more death and destruction.

I am rapidly losing faith in our government's ability to safely determine what is in the best "interests" of this nation... and that loss of faith has NOTHING to do with the party affiliation of the majority in Washington.  Democrat or Republican... I think they are ALL idiots.

Six of one may not be a half dozen of the other...

Bolsheviks. French Jacobins. Nazis. What do they all have in common with Syria?

I'm going to give you my take on US intervention within Syria, Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Near East, but this entire debacle known as "The Arab Spring" must be seen within a certain context. During a time of revolution, upheaval, turmoil -insert your favorite platitude here- nation state after nation state all fall victim to one overriding truism. Organized minorities can corral unorganized majorities. The question for the US, regarding the Near East, is which organized minority group is preferable? The militaristic dictatorships of the Mubarak and Assad variety, or the Jihadists? Because what is clear, what is undeniable, is that at this point in world history stable democracies In the Middle East (and I use both terms loosely) must be enforced at the end of a US Marine rifle to have any chance of survival. And given 12 years of doing just that in two nations has soured the American electorate on attempting this enforcement on yet a third country, we are left with a very difficult, and tasteless choice. Difficult because "freedom" is our bread and butter, so backing despots - despite their secular/friendly nature to us - doesn't sit right. And tasteless because in either choice, innocent "live and let live" Muslims will have rights trampled and lives lost. However, it is imperative that we look at Syria through the lense of this very dark choice.

Assad. I saw a instant gram message picture online that sent me down a trail of thought. The message included a photo of his wife in Nike workout gear, expensive running shoes, the works. And it occurred to me that this is one despot that has secular skin in the game. He has palaces to lose, expense accounts to consider, gold necklaces and silver plated pistols to keep dust free (or is it silver necklaces and gold plated pistols?). Plus, he has a military stranglehold. A military that is winning, more than not, this bloody little civil conflict in which 100,000+ have lost their lives. So if you are Assad you're in your late 40's. You have a sweet life. Ya, Tehran treats you like their lap dog, but you like the palaces and women, so it's all good. And this bothersome rebel group, consisting more often then not of those damned no fun having Jihadists, have given you a good scare but you have tanks, Russian ones, and in the end you know that "tanks" beat "no tanks." So you look around and you're fairly confident that you're going to come out of this much better than Mubarak, or that dog Qaddafi. So you say to yourself, what is the one thing I could do to give the Americans an excuse to lunch two million dollar missiles at my ten dollar barracks? I know! I'll gas 1,400 people. That way I can get some tomahawks slammed right into my tanks, and screw this whole thing up.

Is this what happened?

Let's set aside our odd obsession with what I call our "moral math." I mean, 1,400 dead by chemicals is enough to wage war, based on our WWI treaties (yes, World War ONE), but 100,000 dead by Ak's and machetes, that's no violation of "international norms." Something seems off there to me. And instead lets focus on whether the above scenario is the most plausible. Not "possible", which of course it is because when gaming the Middle East one must always leave room for crazy, but is it plausible? In case my sarcasm left room for ambiguity, I have my doubts. Then there's the Russian bear. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust ol' Vlad Putin with an unloaded gun, but he now flatly claims that our SoS is lying and says he has proof that it was in fact the rebels who gassed their own people in order to play the only strategic card available to them - get us to destroy Assad's tanks (read: heavy weapon advantage).

This introduces the other angle... if you are a hardened Jihadist, and you see the various despotic regimes within the 22 Arab states as apostates, then you have to figure out how to depose them. You're organized and devoted, but despite the Imam's fiery rhetoric ginning up the 19 year old Saudis trying to "find themselves" at the underground Mosque, you have seen real battle and you also know that in the end tanks beat no tanks. So what would be even better than destroying those tanks yourself? Why getting the great satan to do it for you! In fact, manipulate them into thinking it is their duty. And there was that "red line" statement of the president, that could be useful. So you murder...err...martyr 1,400 souls to further the greater goal of a united PanArab caliphate, and just like that the American president lines up to slice your opponent's throat with those damned Tomahawk missiles... maybe cruise.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I'm not quite there yet, despite my commentary above, but I'm damn close.

Of course it is possible some rogue Syrian general ordered a chemical strike. Again though, we must weigh possible against probable. What is clear to me is that unless we are willing to put boots on the ground, we really have only those two original choices - militaristic despots, or Jihadist theocracies. Left to their own devices the Middle East seems - at this point in history - capable of producing only those two forms of government (and for you sticklers out there, the Saudi and Jordanian monarchs exercise control because they can afford to pay the military apparatus). It may be awful to contemplate, but if you are an official charged with the responsibility to safeguard American lives, clearly a Mubarak is safer than a Muslim Brotherhood, and a Sha is safer than an Ayatollah. Which brings me back to Assad. If you are Bashir (his first name), the best "strike" you can make right now is to release a YouTube video addressing the West, and America in specific (and I mean the average Joe American, not the National Security Council), and say, "Look, I am the stop gap between you guys and these Jihadists. I will deal with the radicals whom want to bring down two more of your towers. I will lend stability to your oil markets, and I will do my best to avoid civilian casualties, but understand you are about to arm and aide Al Qeda in Syria. The same men killing your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not always agree, but right now we have the same enemy." Then make sure those photos of your wife in work out gear get out there. Along with you in a suit and tie eating dinner with Kerry in a nice restaurant (from some years back), juxtaposed against the picture of that rebel eating a man's heart on the battlefield. By the way, that's not hyperbole. That is an authenticated video on the web.

Just to be clear - far be it from me to "advise" a despot and butcher like Assad. I'm simply trying to wargame this thing out. The administration keeps talking about what will happen if we don't strike, and few are talking about what will happen if we do. Russia has a warm water port in Syria, and Assad is their man. Will Putin sit on his hands? What if Iran set up that chemical strike and as soon as we launch our missles the Iranians arrange to kill 10,000 this time with chem weapons, baiting us into boots on the ground in a third nation? Not to mention going into Syria hot may reignite the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya is still a mess and Egypt is one battle away from full out civil war. The Egyptian military is considering making the Muslim Brotherhood illegal as an institution after winning an election eight months ago. Think about that rallying cry - "We tried democracy, it's a joke, Allah Uh Akbar!" Does anyone think the brotherhood will simply disband and open up a fried date stand?

What is clear to me is the Arab Spring has become a debacle for both the entire region and the West. And the one place where it could have proven useful to the West, Iran, we refused to back the revolutionaries. So again I say if the American electorate feels the end of a Marine rifle is no longer an acceptable mechanism for enforcement of a democratic regime (an oxymoronic phrase if I've ever written one), than we must make our dark choice. Which organized minority will we back? The theocracy or the despot? Despite who we invite, they are the only two guests showing up at this party.

To be honest, what scares me more than anything at this moment is our president is just vain enough to delude himself into thinking he, through the power of his will, can forge some third option. Men like that have started world wars.