The People vs. Obama

Here's something to consider, the distilled wisdom of the Obama administration, in the form of a quote from its prodigy Benjamin Rhodes as he makes the pitch to Congress to authorize military force against Syria:

“One thing for Congress to consider,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, his deputy national security adviser, “is the message that this debate sends about U.S. leadership around the world — that the U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.”

This from Peter Baker's "White House Looks to Syria Vote as Rudder for Rest of Term." Needless to say, this is exactly the message the voters are sending to Congressional Representatives, "Get us out of the business of being the world police." You hear it time and again. "Let's spend the money here at home." It's so obvious and sensible, it requires an immense perversity to try to persuade people otherwise. Obama's electoral success was largely due to his ability to convince people that he felt as they did; he campaigned as a leader who would do some "nation building here at home."

But now what's on display is the polar opposite. According to Peter Baker's story, the administration is relying on a version of the domino theory to rally Congressional support for the authority to strike Syria. The argument goes something like, "If you don't show we mean business on Syria then Iran will start pumping out nuclear bombs and Israel will be imperiled." It's the Sunday funnies version of reality; it has held sway with Congress before, but now times are different.

To get a snapshot of the anti-war mindset that dominates the country today, read Michael Wines' dispatch from Waynesburg, PA, "Skepticism and Wariness in Talk of Syria Attack":

Jennifer Taylor said that she was managing the officers’ club at the Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, N.C., and cheering on Mr. Bush when American forces invaded Iraq. But this week, from her spot tending bar at Hot Rod’s, she was decidedly against the use of force in Syria and questioned Mr. Obama’s motivations in proposing it. 

“Obama was against” the invasion of Iraq, Ms. Taylor noted, “and I don’t understand why he’s changed his stance.” Seconds later, she offered an explanation: “He’s having trouble keeping his popularity up; this war on guns has made him unpopular. And this is his way of getting back up.” 

Indeed, her customer, Mr. Tripp, suggested that the use of chemical weapons was actually a plot by Al Qaeda to lure the United States into toppling the Syrian government, and that Mr. Obama was falling for it. Terrorists will rush into the vacuum once Mr. Assad is gone, he warned.

You won't find any in-depth coverage by the Gray Lady of a false flag attack being at the center of what happened in East Ghouta on August 21, but there are plenty of voters who are willing to consider the possibility.

No, Obama still has a steep climb ahead of him. It's a classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington showdown. The people -- represented by who? -- against the institutional power structure represented by Obama and the fourth estate and D.C. beltway neoliberal elites.

No one should believe Obama that the bombing of Syria will be limited and surgical. David Sanger and Eric Schmitt have a story this morning, "Pentagon Is Ordered to Expand Potential Targets in Syria With a Focus on Forces," that puts that lie to rest.

The Rapture + Disappearing Monarchs

Yesterday I discussed "the Rapture" with a coworker. He believes that the new pope could be the false prophet mentioned in the Book of Revelation, though he incorrectly predicted his name to be "Peter the Roman." I don't know if it's a mark of end times; but, according to an article today by Michael Wines, "Monarch Migration Plunges to Lowest Levels in Decades," maybe we should assign Monsanto the role of false prophet, the beast from the earth. According to Wines,

The latest decline was hastened by drought and record-breaking heat in North America when the monarchs arrived last spring to reproduce. Warmer than usual conditions led the insects to arrive early and to nest farther north than is typical, Chip Taylor, director of the conservation group Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas, said in an interview. The early arrival disrupted the monarchs’ breeding cycle, he said, and the hot weather dried insect eggs and lowered the nectar content of the milkweed on which they feed. 

That in turn weakened the butterflies and lowered the number of eggs laid. 

But an equally alarming source of the decline, both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Vidal said, is the explosive increase in American farmland planted in soybean and corn genetically modified to tolerate herbicides. 

The American Midwest’s corn belt is a critical feeding ground for monarchs, which once found a ready source of milkweed growing between the rows of millions of acres of soybean and corn. But the ubiquitous use of herbicide-tolerant crops has enabled farmers to wipe out the milkweed, and with it much of the butterflies’ food supply. 

“That habitat is virtually gone. We’ve lost well over 120 million acres, and probably closer to 150 million acres,” Mr. Taylor said. 

A rapid expansion of farmland — more than 25 million new acres in the United States since 2007 — has eaten away grasslands and conservation reserves that supplied the monarchs with milkweed, he said. 

The monarchs’ migration is seen as a natural marvel and, for Mexico, a huge tourist attraction. But naturalists regard the butterflies as a forward indicator of the health of the food chain. Fewer butterflies probably means there are fewer other insects that are food for birds, and fewer birds for larger predators.

I dreamed a disturbing dream this morning. I was being interviewed for a job at a financial consulting firm owned by a husband and wife. Apparently I had done some volunteer work with the wife years before -- phone banking for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. They put me up in a private suite with bed and bath and provided me with new slacks, shirts and ties. The waist size of the pants was 34; this concerned me that they would be an inch or two too big. I was unsure if they wanted me to change right there in front of them while they conducted the interview. I decided against it. My problem was that I couldn't keep my eyes open; I kept falling asleep in the middle of their questions; then I'd wake up and apologize. It was stressful.