President Obama – Lay Off Our British Friends
I’ve never understood the fascination of this administration with our nation’s enemies. It started early, with the “reset button” with Russia, the speech in Cairo, and the sanctions against Honduras after the President attempted to take a 2nd term – an action that is illegal according to the Honduran constitution. The administration has gone out of its way to woo Syria and Iran, and completely ignored the attempt by the Iranian people to rise up against a rigged election just as it is ignoring the Syrians as Bashar al-Assad’s snipers pick off people like rabbits. The converse of this has been the administration never missing an opportunity to treat a true friend of our country like dirt. I haven’t forgotten the way the Israeli prime minister was treated upon his first visit to the Obama White House, nor its treatment of Honduras when the administration sided with Bolivia and Venezuela, two countries that have drifted into dictatorship. Even the Dalai Lama was forced out the backdoor of the White House for fear of upsetting the Chinese.
Only one nation has put up with more dissing from this administration than the Israelis – and that’s the British. The Daily Telegraph has separate 2010 and 2011 editions for the insults the Obama administration has visited upon one of three nation’s in this world that we can say “has got our back” (Australia and Canada are the other two). This administration is at it again, siding with Venezuela and Nicaragua against Britain over the disputed Falkland Islands.
Immediately after 9-11 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the United States and said that the attacks exposed the truth that the Jihadis wouldn’t stop until they killed every single one of us. Similarly the Obama administration just can’t accept that states like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela will never like us – no matter how contrite we appear or how many mea culpas and bows the president makes. These nations want to destroy us and will do everything they can to achieve this end.
It’s like the classic difference between a mugger and a murderer. One can negotiate with a mugger – “Here take the cash and cards but let me keep my kids pictures” – but no such negotiation is possible with a killer (with the possible exception of the manner of your death perhaps). He will not stop until someone prevents him from killing you or you are dead. The trouble, as anyone who has been mugged will tell you, is not knowing which you are dealing with when you are on the other side of the gun.
The Obama administration fails to distinguish between muggers and murderers. In fact I suspect that it does not view any nation in this world as anything more troubling than a mugger. Bashar Assad? We can negotiate peace with him; after all, didn’t Nancy Pelosi say the road to Damascus is a road to peace? Iran? We will talk. Venezuela? We’ll show them we aren’t such bad guys.
And the administration then turns on its friends and abuses them – for absolutely no gain. Russia is more paranoid than ever. Hugo Chavez now hates Obama almost as much as he hated Bush. And Iran is closer to gaining the nuclear weapon it so desires.
What has beating up Britain gained us? What has punching the Israelis gotten us in the Middle East? To use one of my favorite Yiddish words, bupkis. Absolutely nothing.
timothy:
As Ayn Rand said, “check your premises.”
You are assuming Obama s an honest, good man; your assumptions about how things should be are falling apart.
Now, assume he is evil.
9 June 2011, 8:19 pmAyn Rand: examine your premises. « simplytimothy:
[...] posted the following as a comment at The Razor As Ayn Rand said, “check your [...]
9 June 2011, 8:23 pmJack:
Ayn Rand also said, “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”
I don’t think we need to stray too far from Ayn, herself, to find evil.
9 June 2011, 10:44 pmtimothy:
Jack:
By your “reasoning” the phrase “check your premises” is dependent on who spoke it.
Refute the idea, please.
10 June 2011, 6:26 pmJack:
Timothy,
I never even commented on your idea now, did I? That’s an assumption on your part. My comment was on the person you quoted and your conclusive assumption on Obama being evil by his actions or inactions. Another assumption on your part.
You have so far made 3 assumptions. Your first assumption was on what Scott was assuming. You said, “You are assuming Obama’s an honest, good man…” Nothing in what Scott wrote in his essay states his assumptions about Obama. That’s just you assuming it.
Then to correct your perceived flaw in his reasoning you make a second assumption. You try to steer him to a faulty conclusive assumption to explain Obama’s behavior; that he is evil. I find this conclusion deliciously ironic since you posted it on a blog titled “The Razor”. Scott is referencing Occam’s Razor which is (to quote Wikipedia though there are other ways to word the precept) “a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.” (There’s that word, assumption, again. Interesting.) To state it another way: “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is generally the correct one.”
With that in mind, let’s get back to your assumption of Obama being evil. Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, that is an extreme assumption? Evil? Really? Couldn’t there be many assumptions one can conclude without jumping all the way to “evil”?
Let me introduce you to another “razor”. This one is called Hanlon’s Razor. Again, to quote Wikipedia, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Interestingly enough, Hanlon’s Razor is a wonderful corollary to Occam’s Razor. It is simplifying an explanation.
I would find it more fitting that the president is being stupid over evil. At the end of the day, none of us (you, me, or Scott) are in any of the president’s closed door meetings. We can certainly question (and should) the behavior and results of actions by our elected officials. But we should tread lightly before making assumptions as to the “why” certain things are happening. We don’t have enough data to determine, with any reasonable level of certitude, why our officials are doing everything they do.
Your final assumption was assuming what I was thinking when I wrote my comment. As I previously stated, I was not questioning your idea, I was questioning your choice of people to quote and your assumption (in your own words) that Obama is evil.
We should all try not to ‘assume’ (though we all do). I’m sure you know what they say about assuming.
11 June 2011, 3:03 pmtimothy:
Jack,
Your first sentence is nonsense.
Regarding your point of assuming he is evil or stupid, I have considered the latter and rejected it. It is a valid point, however and Rand’s maxim would still apply.
Having taken the measure of Obama, I find him evil.
Having taken the measure of you, I find you pedantic and not worth considering.
12 June 2011, 10:19 amScott Kirwin:
I am a big fan of Hanlon’s Razor, having witnessed it directly in 14 years of working for large corporations, the majority of that in large banks. This puts me at odds with many of my libertarian friends – most recently regarding the introduction of GM foods (I support it with reservations, they oppose it – believing it is part of a plan to benefit large corporations and individual stockholders at the expense of the food safety and security of millions).
In the case of the current administration, I believe that Hanlon’s Razor explains many aspects of its policies – especially when the naivete cultured behind the mononcultural walls of Academia is factored in. This administration lacks significant real world experience; even the Clintons brought in more experienced political appointees than this admin. It’s interesting to note that where the administration has been most successful – managing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has placed the most experience people (Sec of Defense Gates, Gen. Petraeus, and even Clinton’s chief of staff Leon Panetta). In areas where it has struggled – job growth, economics, and foreign policy – it has placed academics or those with least experience (like Hillary herself – First Lady does not qualify one to be Sec of State). Obama himself is terribly inexperienced and although he is learning at the job, I still question the beliefs that guide him, e.g. that Islam is religion of peace, that all problems can be settled through negotiation, and especially that Israel is the stumbling block to achieving peace in the Middle East.
There is no doubt that the outcome of this incompetence can be Evil – such as Iran possessing a nuclear weapon or that Israel can be wiped out – which is why I understand why some view him and his administration as evil. But I personally do not view him as such – yet. I do think his supporters like George Soros, Noam Chomsky and former President Jimmy Carter are though. Carter himself started off like Obama, but it’s only been since he left office that I believe he overcame his naivete to understand the consequences of his beliefs and actions, and that they have been consistently to support dictatorships around the world.
Timothy, I’ve known Jack for a very long time, and while he may be a liberal, he’s not stupid nor closed-minded. Consequently he has played an important role as a check on my own beliefs.
Jack, Timothy has commented here many times and offered some very insightful arguments. Please understand that it’s not easy holding beliefs that are unpopular in the mainstream media and on the Internet – the last statistic I saw had Left-wing blogs outnumbering Right-wing by 10-1.
12 June 2011, 1:22 pmtimothy:
Scott Kirwin.
Very civil of you. Thank you.
My reply was to our host who’s confusion was evident and Rand’s maxim—”when your reasoning does not support the facts, examine your premises”—is a useful tool.. Her maxim could also support different starting points: “Assume Obama is stupid” being another of them.
Pace Jack, my point holds and Rand’s “evilness” is neither here-nor-there.
Our confusion about the results many see is a result of something. What exactly?
Per Occam, I believe that “Obama is evil” is the simplest explanation. I could be wrong, I do not think so. I do not think Obama is stupid.
I believe Obama hates the West and is out to destroy it. (Which is evil in my book)
Start with that and our hosts opening paragraph ….
“I’ve never understood the fascination of this administration with our nation’s enemies. It started early, with the “reset button” with Russia, the speech in Cairo, and the sanctions against Honduras after the President attempted to take a 2nd term – an action that is illegal according to the Honduran constitution. The administration has gone out of its way to woo Syria and Iran, and completely ignored the attempt by the Iranian people to rise up against a rigged election just as it is ignoring the Syrians as Bashar al-Assad’s snipers pick off people like rabbits. The converse of this has been the administration never missing an opportunity to treat a true friend of our country like dirt. I haven’t forgotten the way the Israeli prime minister was treated upon his first visit to the Obama White House, nor its treatment of Honduras when the administration sided with Bolivia and Venezuela, two countries that have drifted into dictatorship. Even the Dalai Lama was forced out the backdoor of the White House for fear of upsetting the Chinese.”
...has an easy answer.
It cannot be he is stupid—it is he who is doing these things.
It cannot be that he is inconsistent (per the example given)
Now, assume he is evil. Now, things fall into place nicely.
That was the only point I was making.
Your ideas in your second paragraph) have merit. Notice though that you assume Obama is of good will.
I hope he is merely stupid or insipid (like James Earl Carter) , but I don’t think so.
He is too consistent. His ties to radical leftists—Alinsky, et-all—too deep and his actions so consistent with what those Marxists want—the end of America.
Thank you again for your civil reply.
Timothy
“Obama is evil” assumes a definition of evil that I doubt Jack and I share.
12 June 2011, 6:13 pmWatcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Almost Summer Edition:
[...] The Razor – President Obama, Lay Off Our British Friends [...]
15 June 2011, 2:15 amWatcher’s Council Nominations – Almost Summer Edition 6-15-2011 | Virginia Right!:
[...] The Razor ‘ President Obama, Lay Off Our British Friends [...]
15 June 2011, 5:38 amTrevorLoudon.com: New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Almost Summer Edition:
[...] The Razor – President Obama, Lay Off Our British Friends [...]
15 June 2011, 11:59 amBookworm Room » From the Watcher’s Council:
[...] The Razor – President Obama, Lay Off Our British Friends [...]
16 June 2011, 7:44 pmtimothy:
Back on the subject of evil. Other bloggers are picking up on it.
Paul Gable at http://www.brushfires-of-freedom.com/malevolence.html
The Anchoress: http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/06/27/not-incompetence-planned-chaos/
This is not a ‘rational’ thing—its a gut thing and others are picking up on it as well.
27 June 2011, 6:30 pm