Interesting times: Pakistan

Rogue nukes! Perhaps Obama will get his wish and have a shot at his own invasion. But will he choose Pakistan, Somalia, or Thailand?

PAKISTAN could collapse within months, one of the more influential counter-insurgency voices in Washington says. The warning comes as the US scrambles to redeploy its military forces and diplomats in an attempt to stem rising violence and anarchy in Afghanistan and Pakistan….

As the US implements a new strategy in Central Asia so comprehensive that some analysts now dub the cross-border conflict “Obama’s war”, Dr Kilcullen said time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink.

Given that Thailand is engulfed in chaos, I won’t be surprised to see several national governments collapse before the end of the year. And the more Washington insists on involving itself in these situations, the more likely additional forms of blowback will become.

‘Ware the next Waco

It’s Clinton redux. Federal agencies appear to be gunning for the right-wing militias again:

“The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” Nonetheless, it states that “right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about … the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American President …”

I don’t think anyone has fears about election of the first African-American president. I think, on the other hand, they wish they could be certain that Obama actually was African-American. The fear is more centered around the possibility that the man is the first Kenyan-Muslim socialist to hold the office. It’s not so much that Obama’s middle name is Hussein as the fact that he has “mistakenly” referred to “his Muslim faith” and bowed in public to the King of Saudi Arabia.

What’s he going to do next for an encore, get caught on film praying to Mecca? No doubt the mainstream media would attempt to explain it away as a misunderstood yoga session. Anyhow, what happened to all those green shoots we were hearing about last week? If the recovery is just around the corner, then one would assume that any concerns driven by the economic downturn have already been rendered moot.

The liberal line on tea

Paul Krugman attempts to further the astroturfing meme:

[I]t turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

As usual, Democrats are engaging in nothing more than projection here. I appreciate the sentiments of the Tea Party movement more than I expect any results out of their actions, but aside from the fact that they’re not permitting the usual suspects – including Newt Gingrich and the Chairman of the RNC – to hijack their efforts, the sheer size and scope of their activities demonstrates quite conclusively that they cannot be dismissed as mere astroturfing.

Of course, Krugman is a neo-Keynesian, so it should come as little surprise that reaching a logical conclusion from the observable numbers is beyond him. I have no affiliation with nor affection for the Republican Party, but to repeatedly dismiss it as “crazy” is a remarkably stupid thing to do, even for a New York Times columnist.

WND column

The Answer of Evil:

For more than 2,000 years, men have wrestled with the so-called problem of evil. Presumed to have first been formulated by the Greek philosopher Epicurus and also known as the Epicurean Paradox, the problem concerns balancing the obvious existence of evil with belief in the existence of God. How, Epicurus wondered, could evil and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exist simultaneously? Centuries later, the problem was addressed by the Scottish historian and philosopher David Hume, who considered the matter in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” Hume wrote:

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?