Everyone in Sweden loves Obama. That is, everyone except me. One of my favorite trolls is to suggest Obama is a phony clown in politics. I pulled this one yesterday on a girl:

Girl: Have you read Obama's biography?
Me: Nope.
Girl: It's really good.
Me: I'm not a big fan of Obama.
Girl, slightly stunned: You don't like Obama?
Me: Nah, I think John McCain looks far more cozy and nice.
Girl remains silent.

I pull this one a lot, with different variants such as "McCain believes in peace," "McCain's daughter is good-looking," and "McCain represents the good in mankind."

Latest news say Obama pulled out on the missile shield project in Poland. Victory or defeat? First, let's look at what Alfred wrote yesterday:

Perhaps it is just a coincidence: now that Russia has come to agree that some form of action against Iran is necessary, the missile shield has been scrapped.

Was the shield merely a pawn, the eventual discard of which was always intended to be offered to the Russians, in exchange for implicit support for America's much more important foreign policy towards the Middle East?

This perspective essentially seems to say Obama did US-Russian relations a favor by scrapping the missile shield, and at the same time gained a friend in the struggle against Iran. This is basically what Joshua Tucker at the Monkey Cage also argues:

So the bottom line is: (1) it is unclear how these interceptors would have improved US national security; (2) it is unclear how the interceptors would have improved the security of US allies in Eastern Europe; (3) they would have been expensive (note Obama’s mention of “cost-effectiveness” in his speech this morning); (4) we don’t know if they would have worked (note Obama’s emphasis on the effectiveness of his proposed alternative, stating in this morning’s statement that “This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against missile threats than the 2007 missile defense program.”); and (5) they would have continued to provide a serious impediment to improving US-Russian relations. All in all, this does not seem like a program worth going forward with simply because people in the previous administration saw fit to initialize it. When you are the president, you ultimately need to take decision that will improve the national security of your nation, and, in my opinion, on balance the proposed missile shield would not have done so.

Tucker adds that we don't seem to know what the shield's really for, and adding its expensive costs plus an angry Russia, Obama did the right thing. That's not what Brett Stevens over at Amerika.org thinks. He provides commentary supporting a standpoint that suggests America needed the shield to fend off a Russian attack:

This missile shield was never about Iran. It was about using the one advantage the USA has over Russia, which is advanced technology, to remove the Russian ability to have a guaranteed first strike nuclear attack on the USA. The missile shield would have kept Russia in check because if Russia did anything untoward, the Americans could counter her militarily without being worried that the conflict would escalate to a nuclear level.

So: (a) America wants to stop Russia from nuclear bombing the White House, (b) Bush wanted to set up a missile shield in Poland to counter such an attack, (c) but now Obama wants to make friends with Russia instead. A win-win situation. Is all of this true? Let's debunk some common myths once and for all, so that all Russophobes and Neocons can share sweet dreams tonight.

Myth 1: Bush wanted the missile shield to protect America from a Russian nuclear attack

This is nonsense for two main reasons:

(1) The missile shield wouldn't be able to defer any Russian nuclear attack:

Let me begin by stating that the author’s suggestion that Russia’s defense against a US first strike would somehow be undermined by the presence of a missile shield in Eastern Europe is patently absurd. Russia’s ability to launch a counterstrike in such an unlikely event cannot be undermined by the existence of an ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) system in one small country. A US counter-force First strike would definitely incur a counter strike by surviving Russian forces. The small-scale system they are contemplating for the Czechs cannot possibly provide even a low-grade defense for US missiles. The reasons are simple: The US itself currently has no missiles in Eastern Europe, period. And, US intermediate-range missiles have been eliminated from Western Europe as a result of the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty that was signed back in the 80s.

(2) Russian missiles wouldn't even pass through European air space:

And Russian missiles targeting US forces take the shortest possible trajectory, meaning across the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, from their own sub-based platforms and bomber forces. Their trajectory does not pass through European air space.

Myth 2: The missile shield would threaten Russian national security

As we've seen, Russian missiles wouldn't be deferred by the shield if it was ever built. On the contrary, Russia's fears have instead come true thanks to its own paranoia:

Nobody on the Russian side could explain how a handful of interceptor rockets in Poland would hamper a nuclear superpower that can launch weapons from anywhere on the planet.

America is now committed to boosting Poland’s defences. The paradox is that Russia complained loudly about something that did not matter, but by doing so it has got America to do something that does: beef up its security relationship with Poland. This will include more training and equipment (including such sought-after kit as armoured Humvees) as well as high-tech air-defence systems for Warsaw. Even if missile defences are delayed, officials say, these promises will be kept.

As I reported earlier this week, no missile shield means the Baltic States, including Poland, most likely will want to increase NATO presence to raise the security against the Russians. So while Russia complained about a non-existent problem, it can now count on more Western intervention in its backyard.

Myth 3: The missile shield was pointless from the beginning

Not at all. Besides intercepting any nuclear strike from Iran, which America stated was its main purpose, the shield would ensure great security for several European countries:

Such an ABM system as that planned for the Czech Republic provides zero force protection to US subs, bombers or ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles). The only possible protection such a system can provide against Russian-launched weapons would be for the Czechs, the Poles and perhaps some of the other European countries, including former members of the Warsaw Pact. If intermediate-range nuclear missiles have largely been scrapped from Europe, then what is so terribly wrong with the Europeans having something, however small, to protect Europe from a nuclear attack? The European Union currently poses no threat to Russia’s defense, period.

And Europe has a right to defend itself also, even if it's not as handsome and intelligent as it used to be, right?

Myth 4: Pulling the missile shield helps American-Russian relations

This is, as you probably could guess, is a lot of fancy Obamarama talk. Russian foreign policy doesn't work that way:

Moscow is unlikely to interpret a repositioning of missile defense the way Obama hopes -- as a trust-building measure to incentivize Russian cooperation on other fronts. Instead, Russian leaders will learn a simple lesson: that when America and its allies are threatened, Washington backs down. Already, Russia has watched as the Obama administration has softened U.S. support for Georgia and backed off the push for Ukrainian membership in NATO. A third retreat in less than a year would likely trigger the typical Russian response to retreat: additional aggression. A Moscow that sees its repeated demands for a sphere of influence met tacitly today will be bolder in pushing for recognition of that sphere explicitly tomorrow.

The more room you give the Russians, the more they take, as we saw during the war in Georgia, where a paralyzed European Union left the Russians free to roam through Georgia,refusing to leave the land.

Knowing Putin has threatened to target Europe with nuclear missiles before, I believe most of us Europeans would sleep better at night knowing that America still is watching our sorry backs, because we're too meek and disorganized to do it ourselves. This despite the fact that any nuclear war, especially between America and Russia, would be a highly unlikely event.

Reality: Pulling the missile shield was one of Obama's biggest mistakes

Obama has now weakened Western and Eastern European security, displayed profound American weakness, and sent entirely the wrong signals to both Russia and Iran. Brett Stevens correctly identifies the fallacy: Obama thinks US passivity will reduce Russia's aggression. That's probably the biggest flaw in the Obama Administration's current foreign policy paradigm--one that has already embarrassed America in Venezuela and Turkey.

People who still worry about Russia's security after reading this should keep the following in mind: military might is useless unless you're willing to use it. America has during its war on terror proven it will defend itself at all costs. Europe has proven it's a disorganized collection of old medieval kingdoms too dysfunctional to stop a war in a country that begs for NATO membership. Europe is indeed powerful, maybe more so than Russia, but it's too meek to use that power. Strong horse, weak horse. What would you choose?

Barack Obama today reversed almost a decade of Pentagon strategy in Europe, scrapping plans to deploy key elements of a US missile defence shield.

Instead, he said, a more flexible defence would be introduced, allowing for a more effective response to any threat from Iranian missiles.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence: now that Russia has come to agree that some form of action against Iran is necessary, the missile shield has been scrapped.

Was the shield merely a pawn, the eventual discard of which was always intended to be offered to the Russians, in exchange for implicit support for America's much more important foreign policy towards the Middle East?

Someone commented on Alex's recent post re: conservatism and poses the question: how do you support modern day Conservatism with lower-case-"c" conservatism - meaning, how does Corrupt support some elements of free market ideology while simultaneously advocating that people contribute to and help revive organic culture in their own towns? The two seemingly are at odds, but we like to look at history, learn from it, and propose solutions that would work for people who care about a sustainable future.

Since we have history to fall back on, we realize that, for example, in the European model, talented young folks would leave small towns and make their way into cities so they could indulge in culture, arts, science, etc. In the US, though we started out with cities (colonies) and spread into farmland instead of the other way around, our talented folks have the same tendencies - to migrate to cities where they have more resources with which to realize their full potential. So the commenter is asking, what's the solution to this - we need to keep a mobile labor force as America has to support some of the free market ideology, while simultaenously encouraging most people to stay in the towns in which they grew up - or at least find a place where their values are shared with most other members of the community. For example, if you love sodomy, maybe you can enjoy a community of people who are open about their love for sodomy, and so forth. For those who love math and science, there would be communities undoubtedly built with many labs and universities.

I think Michael Arth may have found a good start to a compromise between the two seemingly conflicting ideas. In his model, you're certainly not forced to stay in one place, but if more of our towns and cities looked like his pedestrian villages and you add the element of people living with others who share their values, people wouldn't need to always be on the go because everything they need would mostly be within walking distance. I understand this would require huge amounts of rebuilding within our existing infrastructure, but it's crumbling anyway, so why not rebuild it properly? A movement toward a better, more sustainable culture will be gradual, and what we propose in part are the first steps toward combining the best elements of our existing society and balancing them out with necessary, functional elements like the free market.

Just when you thought you had a reason to feel depressed about the world, it turned out to be far more promising. Conservatism is now winning ground, even in traditionally socialist nations:

"The last 50 years have shown that private farmers are more socialist than the state. State farms are antisocialist. The only thing they socialized is loss-making," said Oscar Espinosa Chepe, a former state economic adviser who is now a vocal critic of the government.

"There is too much control and bureaucracy that hinders everything," Espinosa Chepe said. "It's impregnated with a 50-year-old operating method that is built on taking orders and is not used to decentralization.

Such quasi-free-market language wasn't heard much in Cuba until recently. But Rául Castro has shown a pragmatic streak on economic matters, trying to improve state efficiency. In July 2008 he surprised many by advocating a shift away from the orthodox socialist concept of equal pay, arguing that those who were more productive should be paid more.

Less bureaucracy and State intervention, more competition, and more incentives to ensure that harder work leads to a greater pay off--that's the private market proving its simplicity and efficiency. Even hardcore socialists like Raul Castro understand this, which is why he's cutting back on government programs and is instead trying to motivate his socialist army of workers to do their part for the national economy.

I bet he'll see clear improvements over time, unlike the Obamaramafied Amerika, which attempts to softly emulate the European model. Naturally, with historical proof in mind, we know that the European socialist model of society is inferior to a deregulated market where individuals are forced to take personal responsibility and work together for their communities. Sweden is an excellent example of how a society can improve - and degrade - depending on whether it chooses the Right or Left path:

Beginning in the 1870s, however, Sweden created the conditions for developing a high-growth, free-market economy with a slowly growing government sector. As a result, Sweden for many years had the world's fastest-growing economy, ultimately producing the third-highest per capita income, almost equaling that in the United States by the late 1960s. Sweden became a rich country before becoming a welfare state.

Sweden began its movement toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was about equal to that in the United States. By the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP.

These policies and outcomes greatly diminished the incentives to work, save and invest. Economic growth slowed to a crawl. Other countries that avoided the excess spending, taxing and regulation of Sweden grew more rapidly, leaving Sweden in the dust. Sweden is still a prosperous country, but far from the top, and its per capita income has fallen to just about 80 percent of that in the United States.

So the short story is that Sweden came out of deep poverty around the late 1800s by embracing Conservative solutions, but entered a decline during the 1960s when the Social Democratic (center-leftist) hegemony took over, and today Sweden has entered a post-welfare phase where welfare reforms are embracing more and more market solutions instead of government take-overs. As a result, we're rapidly taking back what we lost during the 60s.

There is no doubt that a form of sound Conservatism, preferably similar to the one Corrupt advocates, will lead to greater prosperity and positive hope for the future of Europe, but where or who is the voice to carry this message around in the otherwise politically stalled Europe? Here is one prominent figure Alfred and I approve of:

Until recently, Daniel Hannan's political career appeared to be in rude health. After ten years as a Conservative MEP he had become the darling of the party's libertarian right, acquiring a large following among grass-roots Tories. His speech in the European Parliament denouncing Gordon Brown as a "Brezhnev-era apparatchik" was watched by thousands on YouTube, earning him a prominent slot at the Conservatives' spring conference. His passionate Atlanticism and his stylish turn of phrase had made him a staple of America's conservative talk shows.

But after using a succession of US television appearances to attack Britain's National Health Service, Hannan stands accused of undermining David Cameron's modernising mission and of handing Labour cheap ammunition for a spring election campaign. Hannan has made his views on health care clear for some time - in his most recent book, The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain, published last year, he advocates the introduction of a Singapore-style system of personal accounts - but it took the increasingly fractious debate over President Obama's health-care reforms to bring them to public prominence.

Like John Redwood during the mid-1990s - a man Hannan hails as an "Old Testament prophet" - he could become the standard-bearer of the Thatcherite right, those who continue to believe in Conservatism as a transformative project. Hannan's brand of Conservatism, advocating a profound rupture with New Labour, exhilarates those activists privately disquieted by Cameron's more evolutionary approach.

What we have predicted before can, and will, come true:

After the speech, a generic mob of fork-wielding peasants bursts into the chamber and carries Gordon Brown to the nearest guillotine. Daniel Hannan MEP duly receives an important government posting.

And so victory is ours, if we dare to seize it.

Usually when you visit the gym, you don't expect to get shot at by an armed maniac. Well, people at the LA Fitness gym learned their lesson after George Sodini stormed in and began shooting women down at a Latino dance lesson. Just like with the Jokela and Kauhajoki school shootings, liberals remain silent instead of pointing to the core reasons of why fragile individuals today feel the urge to commit massacres. As always, we've got the story, straight out of Sodini's own personal diary:

No girlfriend since 1984, last Christmas with Pam was in 1983. Who knows why. I am not ugly or too weird. No sex since July 1990 either (I was 29). No shit! Over eighteen years ago. And did it maybe only 50-75 times in my life.

…I masturbate. Frequently.

April 24, 2009:
Early last month, we had our second general layoff. I survived. First one was in November. When I began 10 years ago, that used to be a nice place to work. I understand the need to reduce staff when times sour, but this is out of proportion to the economic problems at this time. The economy is shrinking by about 4-5%. They decided not to pay Christmas bonus - for staff that amounts to about 8% of yearly pay. Well, OK. Plus no yearly “merit” raise, another 3.5%. That totals to about 11% cut. Plus two layoffs of 5% staff in each case. Do the math. I know this firm is using this downturn as an excuse to take advanage of a bad situation and kill jobs UNNECESSARILY. The second layoff people who actually did work were let go. We all need to pick up the slack so the company can cut beyond what is necesary. Wasn’t going to mention it, because of all this shit, it is K&L Gates, the large law firm headquartered here in Pittsburgh. Just call it K&L Gates Corporation. Most people there are OK and I would never have a shoot ‘em up there. They paid me for 10 years, so far!

I predict I won’t survive the next layoff. That is when there is no point to continue. RIght now, life is bearable and I can get by indefinitely. Something bad must happen. The paycheck is all I have left. The future holds nothing for me. Twenty five years of nothing fun. I never even spent one weekend with a girl in my life, even at my own place. Also unlikely to find another similar job. I guess then is when I take care of things. I don’t have kids, close friends or anything. Just me here. If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.

Lonely, afraid to get sacked, and disillusioned by the new liberal age in America, Sodoni eventually began turning all his hate inwards. Like Pekka-Eric Auvinen, Matti Saari and Cho Seung Hoi, Sodini was personally affected by the decay of our society. He failed to communicate with women, he felt close to losing his job, and he watched while all the other losers went from paycheck to paycheck, praising the new President as the great hope of his country. Naturally, he eventually came to a point where he couldn't take it anymore:

August 3, 2009:
I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something before I can be successful. I haven't had a drink since Friday at about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.

His day came, which spelled death for three women and injuries for nine more, before he committed suicide. Another wasted life symbolizing a civilization no longer making new victories, but instead sinking inwards with hate, resentment, fear and weakness. The West suffers from civilization exhaustion, and George Sodini's act is just another symptom of that illness. Some suggest Sodini should have learned to break his negative patterns with women and bang some chicks, but even if that may have postponed the tragedy, liberal America's class warfare, race conflicts, corrupt upper class and debt-ridden economic decline remain a super recipe for yet another massacre in the future.

Corrupt's advice to people angry at society

Avoid becoming another Sodini. Arm yourself with positive goals, self-discipline, a good job, a stable relationship/family, a healthy physique, and the spirit of a compassionate warrior. Life is constant challenge and you were put on this earth to commit yourself to great things, having fun, and then die quietly but happy. The adventure begins where you take off and ends where you give up. To succeed, always live to express victory, not vengeance.

What we already knew is now confirmed by analysts: We cannot pay for a national health care program by simply taxing the rich.

“This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5 percent, that’s a basically unstable way of governing,” Mr. Burman said.

That position, analysts predict, cannot hold over time.

“There is no way we can pay for health care and the rest of the Obama agenda, plus get our long-term deficits under control, simply by raising taxes on the wealthy,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, a former Clinton administration budget official. “The middle class is going to have to contribute as well.”

Obama isn't budging on this issue, so we'll eventually have to face the deficit problem anyhow, with the curious result that the middle class will find it even harder to survive the economic downturn. But while the Obamarama crowd is completely focused on its European-modeled solutions, the true socialists over at Cuba seem to know better:

Raul Castro announced Saturday that Cuba will cut spending on education and health care, potentially weakening the building blocks of its communist system in a bid to revive a foundering economy.

The former defense minister who took over the presidency last year called state spending "simply unsustainable" and said the cash-strapped government would reorganize rural schools and scrutinize its free health care system in search of ways to save money.

He also said cuts were in store for the universal health care system, which, along with free education through college, subsidized housing and food provided on a monthly ration system, forms the basis of the communist way of life that the Castro brothers have spent 50 years building.

Like the true socialist he is, Raul Castro ain't budging either, although he at least recognizes the importance of cutting government spending to pay off debt and get the economy going again. Hey, isn't this what Conservatives all across the board in the West have been saying all the time? But dread not, for it seems like the confused melting pot of voters are finally waking up to smell the coffee, e.g. they're turning increasingly Conservative:

Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

How about that? Seems like the Obamarama high is wearing off, like the bong hit on a drug addict. Question is if people are going to quit their smoking habits on the political scene or continue dealing the happy dough that every day brings us one inch closer to societal collapse. As always, be joyful, but never trust the crowd.

What you learn early in life is that nothing comes free, and if it does, it's probably crap anyway. Yet, people insist on upholding free-isms as some kind of salvation from the pre-WWII order. Unsurprisingly, they're often dead wrong. Take the ObamaCare for instance, which is everything but "free":

The $1 trillion number doesn’t even tickle the meter, and that’s a big problem for Democrats. They argue that the reforms will save a trillion dollars, making ObamaCare deficit-neutral over ten years, but none of the plans come in under that price. Just to move 30% net of the uninsured onto health plans will take more that $300 billion above that ceiling, making it an addition to an already astronomical deficit pattern.

What exactly does $4 trillion and a public plan buy us, besides even higher deficits over the next ten years? A “medium” level of generosity for the Silver plan, with an “average” level of access to physicians and hospitals. On top of that, the plan still underpays providers with even the 10% boost over Medicare payments, which no one is suggesting will remain permanent. And that will only still cover “nearly everyone,” a measure Dr. Parente doesn’t explain in his statement.

In other words, almost a third of all covered Americans would get thrown out of their current plans and onto government-paid care.

$4 trillion of dazzling debt and the beginning of the end for the private health care sector? That is starting to sound like European-modeled socialism to me. I know, because I live in one of the most tax-burdened and socialist nations in the whole of Europe. Although Obama claims he's not trying to implement our system, let's review some of the negative consequences of systems close to the one he has in mind:

In Britain, France, Switzerland and elsewhere, public health systems have become political punching bags for opposition parties, costs have skyrocketed and in some cases, patients have needlessly suffered and died.

"I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.

"The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it," said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland's Institut Constant de Rebecque. "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium."

All of this really goes down to the inherent problems with socialism: although a pleasant idea (?), it usually doesn't work out in the end, because:

(1) It speeds up costs, raises taxes and slowly turns everyone, including the productive middle class, into welfare-addicts.

(2) It generates insane amounts of bureaucracy that handle most issues very poorly.

(3) It reduces individual freedom for the sake of government-sponsored cohesion, effectively replacing social community culture with carrot-stick incentives like lobbying and entertainment.

(4) It reduces individual creativity and innovation within most fields of culture, science and business.

(5) During economic meltdowns, the quality of state-run services drop drastically, slowly wiping out the middle class.

Sweden has currently got a high-quality health care system, but what's the point of having it if it only lasts for a few generations? Signs are already awash that we don't have any money left to finance it, and patients suffer because there's nowhere else to go (only the rich can afford advanced operations at private clinics). The system is slowly collapsing in under its own weight, despite these insane tax rates:

A system like that cannot be sustained by a people going through a severe demographic change, which is why Europe is hot for immigration, illegal or legal. It knows it cannot finance that health care empire unless there are young people bringing in taxes. Unfortunately for Europe, the assimilation record is dangerously unimpressive, and the system keeps growing more and more expensive along with the rest of the state-run services.

This is not a sustainable way of ensuring that citizens have access to high-quality health care, no matter what the Obamarama crowd pretends.

EU and Russia never came to any vital agreement during the recent summit, despite strengthening formal ties:

Tension over energy supplies and EU overtures to Russia's neighbors was palpable. Medvedev warned that the EU's strengthening ties with former Soviet states must not turn into an anti-Russian coalition.

While the tone was warmer than during edgy EU summits with Medvedev's predecessor, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president sparred with the EU leaders over energy — a sensitive issue because Europe relies on Russia for a quarter of its natural gas imports.

Medvedev insisted that only Ukraine was to blame for the two-week cutoff that left millions in Europe without heat in January, and warned that further disruptions are possible if Ukraine cannot pay. Russia turned off the taps to Ukraine during a dispute over pricing and payments, prompting angry EU questions about Moscow's reliability as a supplier.

Quick summary of what you need to know about the progress of EU-Russian energy relations:

(a) Russia wants European and NATO interests out of what it regards as its "backyard."

(b) Since the Putin era, Russia has been boosting its economy thanks to a spike in oil prices, on which it still thrives and, along with gas supremacy, fights to protect at all costs.

(c) EU is wary of putting pressure on Russia due to an internal split of interests, most notably due to friendly alliances between Russia and Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

While it's true that Russia is able to demand any price on its gas to Ukraine, a reliable energy partner doesn't immediately and with short notice raise prices to a customer, and then turn off the tap when the customer is unable to pay. There's no real master plan behind all of this controversy: Russia is trying to keep its nation together despite demographic and national health problems, saving whatever's left of its former Soviet blocs from Western influence.

The West, on the other hand, is looking after its own interests and wants to secure geopolitical points in the region (Kosovoan independence and the war in Georgia are just two examples). What role Obama will play in this game is pretty apparent to all players involved. While trying to establish friendly relations with Turkey, a nation crucial to the Nabucco pipeline project, he's got a real nightmare to tackle with the Europeans:

The map illustrates the ways in which the new American presidential administration will have to strike up relationships with Europe. The most worrying element is the increasing Russian influence in the "old continent" because of its role as major gas supplier to the European countries. Putin and Medvedev are elaborating a plan called "Russia Project" aiming to reintegrate some territories in the Russian Federation and the creation of a Russian Union. Russia can rely on a "Friendly Club" led by Germany. In order to face this strategical threat, the United States can rely on the enemies of EuRussia for support, notably Great Britain and some of the Baltic nations.

Although this paints a pretty simplified picture of the larger strategic game going on right now (Sweden and Great Britain are hardly "enemies" of Russia in any political sense, but there are growing tensions and old suspicions resurfacing), it's a rough estimate of the geopolitical nightmare facing the West, in which the Obama Administration will play a key role. As you can see on the map, the West has already attempted to secure a free path through the Caspian and Black Sea, but the involved countries are not yet ready to strike a gas deal. Most likely, neither Russia's Nord and South Stream projects, nor the Western Nabucco project will become a reality.

The main problem is a divided Europe, fueled by Leftist anti-Americanism after the end of the Bush Administration, and lack of unified energy policies with regards to Russia. The Russians know this and play freely with the EU as often as it can to expose Western impotence. But America is awake and has been for a long time. The question is whether they’re going to bail out Europe again, or leave it to its own fate while the American empire slowly crumbles under foreign debt, shattered public consensus and wars abroad that are hard to win. A nightmare for the West, indeed.

As I've said before, most people need to be told what to do in some way or another. This includes when and how to be gentlemanly to your fellow man, or the virtue to be polite and respectful, which has been hijacked and distorted by the ruling class, including the media, who by necessity in our modern western democracy must constantly cultivate their popular image. This development eventually led us to what is now referred to as "political correctness".

Wherever there are those flawed people for whom the doctrine was designed, one can find cracks around the edges of political correctness. In other words, rigorous political correctness is not really necessary for those who are already virtuous; but it can make finding idiot behaviour harder. The concept in this sense is counter-intuitive, kind of like how the idea of the welfare-state initially sounds nicely benevolent, before you realise it helps to punish the best among us and also encourages laziness.

Case in point:

When Silvio Berlusconi made a light-hearted joke last year about the new president's 'suntan' the Obama-besotted American press corps expressed outrage at what they tried to blow-up to be a racist remark from a right-wing politician.

Yet last Saturday night, when Obama made a joke about the skin colour of John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives -- the president said it was 'not a colour that appears in the natural world' -- the journalists thought it was frightfully witty.

And when a performer called Wanda Sykes stood up at the dinner to do what was supposed to be a comedy turn, she attacked the Conservative radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, one of Obama's most on-target critics. She said Limbaugh's opinions were treason and that he was no better than Osama bin Laden. There were big grins from the president through all of this. Then Sykes said she wished Limbaugh's kidneys would fail. The president laughed through it all.

I guess it makes finding their hypocrisy easier.

We need someone with the intellect, strength and moral courage of Ronald Reagan to lead America.

HT: Patriot Room

The flu frenzy in the media is back:

The outbreak of swine flu should be renamed "Mexican" influenza in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork, said an Israeli health official Monday.

Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman said the reference to pigs is offensive to both religions and "we should call this Mexican flu and not swine flu," he told a news conference at a hospital in central Israel.

Swine flu, Mexican flu - who cares? Some hundred people died in Mexico, and we care why? Remember the bird flu (H5N1) that everyone thought was going to kill us all? That turned out to be pure media frenzy. Even our government in Sweden freaked out after some people found a few birds who had caught the flu, and parents were told not to let their children even touch birds. Nanny State paranoia, pure and simple.

Even Conservatives seem to buy into this, some only to take a shot at Obama:

U.S. President Barack Obama was exposed to swine flu on his trip to Mexico last week. Obama was greeted by archeologist Felipe Solis at a museum in Mexico City where they warmly embraced. Felipe Solis was dead the next day from what was described then as swine flu symptoms, although local health officials changed the diagnosis to non-descriptive “pneumonia” for apparent diplomatic reasons.

Reports are that Obama knew about the outbreak three days before his visit but decided to go anyway. His imprudence may have been pushed by criticism for having never visited Mexico during his short lifetime before the presidency.

Obama may never feel the symptoms of the bug but because of his exposure he may have been a contagious carrier of the deadly disease back into the United States. There is a chance he infected others. Do not expect the White House to confirm such an interesting scenario even if true.

The same Conservative blog debates Obama's status as a Jesus figure. I think all of this comes down to a few simple facts:

(1) People love to freak out over something on a national scale, because it gives them the illusion that they share a common goal (or enemy, hence 9/11 worship).

(2) Conservatives realize Obama is all talk and no walk.

(3) The GOP is divided and tries to score points by side-tracking into anti-Obama propaganda and libertarianism (FAILURE).

My message, as always: Ever onward into countless battles.

And so even Obama, thanks to his apologetic foreign policy, has kindly been rewarded a bedtime story: a complete Latin American Commie guide on how to predict the future. But will he sleep at night after reading this?

A decade ago, I and the other two co-authors of the "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" devoted a chapter to refuting the historical and ideological fallacies contained in Galeano's tract, which we called the "idiot's bible." Everything that has happened in the Western Hemisphere since the book appeared in 1971 has belied Galeano's arguments and predictions. But I guess Chavez has given it the kiss of life and, since people are asking, here I go again.

The author claims that relations between Latin America and rich countries have been so pernicious that "everything ... has always been transmuted into European--and later United States--capital." Actually, for years that relationship has transmuted into the exact opposite: Latin American capital. In the last seven years alone, Latin America has benefited from $300 billion in net capital flows. In other words, a lot more capital came in than went out.

The book claims that for years "the endless chain of dependency has been endlessly extended." The story now is that the rich depend on the poor. That is why the Chinese have $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds! The book's jeremiad goes on to say that "the well-being of our dominant classes ... is the curse of our multitudes condemned to exist as beasts of burden." One of the few countries that exemplifies that curse is the author's beloved Cuba, where a worker cannot be paid directly by a foreign company employing him or her; the money goes to the government, which in turn pays the worker one-tenth of the salary--in nonconvertible local currency.

There's nothing like a really good socialist bedtime story when you feel distressed and want to immerse yourself in the world of fantasy. Of course, for someone like Obama, who has so far devoted his Presidential career to upholding fantasy as reality, the distinction between the two now must seem awfully blurry. "Yes, this is certainly Change," he reasons next to Michelle while reading the first chapter, "but can we believe in it? Yes, I guess we can."