House of Eratosthenes

Oh boy howdee, does George Will ever know how to cut to the quick when he wants to. This one paragraph says as much as I think needs to be said, though:

Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs — someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

Shshshshshshshshshhhhhhhhh… Don’t tell him & his too much.

Obama is the comet that swings around our solar system every sixteen years without fail. Youngest out of everyone running, in fact, out of all who have been running; destined to win; talks about change a lot, with no details, or very few. Obama, Clinton, Carter, JFK.

But Obama stands alone in being a black box. No, I don’t mean that as a racist term. I mean that as a computer-technical term:

Black box is a technical term for a device or system or object when it is viewed primarily in terms of its input and output characteristics. Almost anything might occasionally be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, humans, the Internet.

The opposite of a black box is a system where the inner components or logic are available for inspection (such as a free software/open source program) which is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

• In computer programming and software engineering, black box testing is used to check that the output of a program is as expected, given certain inputs. The term “black box” is used because the actual program being executed is not examined.
• In computing in general, a black box program is one where the user cannot see its inner workings (perhaps because it is a closed source program) or one which has no side effects and the function of which need not be examined, a routine suitable for re-use.
• Also in computing, a Black Box refers to a piece of equipment provided by a vendor, for the purpose of using that vendor’s product. It is often the case that the vendor maintains and supports this equipment, and the company receiving the Black Box typically are hands-off.

Here is where Obama stands alone. Clinton/Carter/JFK sold themselves as populist democracy rising, like Phoenix out of the ashes, from the rubble of aged, wrinkled, rotten plutocracy. All of those gentlemen presented themselves as listeners…champions of the common man. And all of them presented an illusion, in this way, to some extent.

Obama stands alone in that his illusion is complete. His black-box-ness is unyielding. Obama gets an idea in his head…this is good…that’s bad…we need to do this…we have to get away from that. Did you have any input on that? Because I didn’t, and nobody else I know had any input on it.

The man scolds like a baby vomits. Every day, sometimes multiple times a day. This is good, that’s bad, these people are lying, those people are wonderful, blah blah blah blah blah. Like an involuntary reflex. Nothing, so far as I can recall, is ever reinforced by anything — and he changes his positions on a whim. That’s why I see Obama as a much more likely victor in this year’s election, if it was held tomorrow, compared to the way things exist in reality with the election held in November. Nothing that happens between this day and that one is going to significantly help him.

He’ll just change his positions a whole lot, and every time he does, a tiny smidgen of these populists who are starved for some representation in Washington that will earn their confidence, will say: What? What’s this? When did you decide this? Why didn’t you ask me?

And no, I don’t think he has any “adviser[s]…sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much.” I don’t think he has anyone like that. Not a single one.

That is the country’s only hope, when you get down to it. Quick, how many past presidents ran campaigns that could have been described as “overconfident” — and won? It seems humility is a prerequisite for this position. And Obama is completely missing it.

That’s my hope, anyway.

I’m saving the black box definition for later use.
- vanderleun | 08/08/2008 @ 00:34
At least JFK was a hawk who stood up to the Ruskies in Cuba and send in boots to Vietnam. Obama would curl up in a dark corner and weep faced with those decisions, Clinton would look for a Luwinski and Carter would do nothing.

Plus have you ever read Kennedy’s inaugural address? Dude sounds more war mongerish (yea, I just made that up) than Pres. Bush.
- tim | 08/08/2008 @ 08:56
Hawk is a bad term to describe JFK. So is Dove. Remember, he did not stand up to the Ruskies in Cuba, they stood up to us, and JFK backed down, pulling the missiles out of Turkey, because the Russians pegged him as weak after the Bay of Pigs. And he did not commit to war with North Vietnam, he sent “Advisers” and murdered the elected head of South Vietnam. Not a man who could grasp the nettle firmly. Better then any of the current Democrat lot, but still not fit to lick the boot of any serious Republican candidate I can think of.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/08/2008 @ 10:41
Obama’s game is the retread of every Democrat playbook for the last 30 years. Appeal To Emotion. Change change change was all we heard from Stephanapolous and Carville. Same tune, new dancer. Hell even Cliton’s hagiographic film was called “The Man From Hope”. (Yes they were talking about Geography but the double meaning was evident.) Lofty rhetoric is great but I don’t know if it’s enough to get him to the goal line. The shine is wearing off and people are asking, “yeah, ok, hope and change but what does that mean?”
- Duffy | 08/08/2008 @ 11:02
Robert,

“Remember, he did not stand up to the Ruskies in Cuba, they stood up to us, and JFK backed down, pulling the missiles out of Turkey, because the Russians pegged him as weak after the Bay of Pigs”

The Russians did indeed pull their missiles out of Cuba, weather it was because of the Turkey deal is debatable (Is it untrue they were obsolete and due to be pulled out soon anyways?), but using your own logic Khrushchev backed down and can be viewed just as weak. Call it a draw if you please, I see no need to cast Khrushchev as stronger of the two. He was indeed fearful of an invasion by us into Cuba. Do you deny that?

“And he did not commit to war with North Vietnam, he sent “Advisers”

There were 16,000 “advisors” in country when JFK was assassinated. Not exactly something a weak President would commit to. Debating weather the Vietnam War would have been the same with JFK as Commander in Chief is futile and is not my original point, that being JFK’s willingness to use our military as he felt necessary versus the other doves mentioned previously.

“but still not fit to lick the boot of any serious Republican candidate I can think of.”

As much as I loved Reagan, he did pull the Marines out of Lebanon, not exactly a proud moment when I was in the Marine Corps.
- tim | 08/08/2008 @ 13:22
Tim, thanks for writing. I am not saying Khrushchev was the stronger of the two, I am saying JFK’s weakness in the Bay of Pigs lead Khrushchev to think he could push JFK around. And he came out ahead in the deal. And yes, I do think 16000 “advisors” is something a weak President would do. It was not a commitment, that would have been going in from of Congress and declaring war. Instead of making the choice to stay out or go to war, he tried to split the difference. Not the act of a strong man. As to Reagan, Congress had something to say about Lebanon, as I recall.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/08/2008 @ 14:08
“And he came out ahead in the deal.”

Again, based on what? Taking his missiles out of Cuba? Huh?

“It was not a commitment, that would have been going in from of Congress and declaring war.”

Again, we’ll never know what JFK’s end game would have been, but considering he already committed 16,000 men one could assume a more robust military presence. I don’t view it the same way you do. Sending boots anywhere is not weak, no matter the official policy of naming them “advisors” or just admitted “we’re here and we’re not going anywhere soon, deal with it NV”.

As for Lebanon, I don’t recall Reagan screaming that pulling out was a huge mistake. Wars and the like fall on the CiC, the buck stops here and all that, as it should. Reagan was weak on that and it pains me to write that.

Good talking with ya’ though, it’s nice to have a friendly, adult debate for once.
- tim | 08/08/2008 @ 14:55
Thank you sir. I try to listen to other people. As to coming ahead in the deal, before JFK’s error at the bay there were US missiles in Turkey and no Soviet missile in Cuba. After the Crisis, there were no missiles in Turkey or Cuba. Point to the USSR.

Agreed, we don’t know what JFK would have done. I guess I am just jaded. When I hear “advisiors”, and not solders, I’m seeing a lack of commitment, the core of the idiot concept of “proportional response”.

As to Lebanon, I do recall Reagan saying that pulling out was a huge mistake. And of course, it was not a war on our side, it was a “peacekeeping” mission, much like the ones Congress is pushing for now(in Darfur, etc), and so, not just a matter for the CiC. As to Reagan being weak, a President can only do so much, and he was busy ending the Soviet Union. I think he made the right choice. I see people making the same complaint against W. “It’s good he dealt with the terrorists, but what about my issue?”. Remember, we have seen a President who tried to do it all. I don’t want to relive the Carter years…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/08/2008 @ 20:12

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

UnenthralledThursday, August 7th, 2008

Unenthralled
Thursday, August 7th, 2008