Speaches don’t make history like they used to

It’s probably a safe bet you’re not going to hear anything new tomorrow.  It’s not like Obama’s going to announce a paratrooper assault on Mosul has occurred, or that he’s nuked Damascus.  Although both acts might be productive. 

Whatever he says, its mostly noise.  The audience is not the world to outline a plan, but the voter to influence an election.  Which makes it essentially worthless toward the overall outcome of the crisis at hand.  Or maybe I’m just being too damn cynical, and he’s actually making a go of it.  Shit man, I sure hope so.

Hey remember when presidents used to start wars with glowing speeches that made history.  You read about them decades or hundreds of years later.  Will anybody remember what Obama says tomorrow in say, one year?  Probably not.  But don’t blame him too much.  Nobody on the other side of the political equation is saying anything relevant either.

The opposition (a term not applicable to the Republicans) is currently entertaining lunatic ideas from the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.  Two guys who apparently don’t realize that the galaxy’s moved on from reasonable militant isolationist views since, oh, 1939.

I don’t envy Obama, he’s in an impossible situation.  No matter what he says, just about everybody’s going to hate him.  But nobody has a better answer than he does.  Because, I fear, there is no answer.  It’s lose, lose.

So given that, my guests and I are going to answer this tomorrow before the speech.  Because we help people with problems.  It’s what we do.  Which is bad.  Because we have a lot of problems.

Either way, here’s hoping for all our sakes that the Prez makes this one count.  We and history need a win.

desk

Temporary holder of the second hardest job on the planet after Bear Baiter (to be returned to Ukraine upon conclusion of tomorrow’s speech)

Don’t make promises you can’t keep

It’s generally a good idea for the world’s leaders to do what they say.  I mean, since they’re in politics, they’re all liars to a certain extent.  But if you make it a point to promise death to your enemies, it’s probably best to make sure you’re serious.  Especially before you go shouting revenge in front of, oh, say the family of a man who got murdered.

Don’t get me wrong, I like what Biden’s saying.  I’m all about it.  I wish our leaders talked like this every day.  The problem is that I think he’s made a promise he can’t keep.  Following ISIS to the “gates of hell” requires a level of effort the public is not prepared to currently accept.

For example:

– Dude on Street:  I hate ISIS, let’s kill them all.

– Reality:  Doing that might require 50 thousand American troops back in Iraq, at least for a while.  Are you in?

– Dude on Street:  Whoa there, let’s not get carried away.

– Reality:  Do you want to win or not?

– Dude on Street:  Well, yeah, let’s kick ass, but like, whoa, that sounds kinda extreme.

Everybody’s favorite polished weakling in David Cameron has made similarly belligerent claims.  And yet at this point I don’t think the British military (yes, there apparently still is one) has fired a shot.

There’s a case to be made for caving in the skulls of every ISIS member.  There’s also a case for doing nothing.  There’s no case for saying you’re going to kill them all, and then effectively doing next to nothing.

They’re just spouting generalities, idle threats, or incomprehensible garbage.  No wonder nobody in the West is interested in a real war in the cause of good.  Their leaders can’t even articulate a decent plan to battle evil.

Yet, Joe just made a promise.  Sadly, if I had to bet, I figure he can’t/won’t back it up.  This doesn’t say much for the West’s credibility, again.  This is beyond a trend now, or just a recent theme.  It’s becoming a way of life.  Inaction, empty words, and irrelevance.  Don’t think ISIS hasn’t noticed.  It’s why they feel they can saw a man’s head off, and get away with it._77372315_77355933

Oh Joe, if you actually could back this up you’d be one of history’s greatest orators instead of a joke

Don’t demand folks do stupid things just because other people are stupid

As you read modern news, more and more you’re confronted with the irrational. Things that just make no sense. Yesterday we confronted humanity’s downfall via the weirdo act of dumping liquid life over your skull. Now let’s dance the arts of demanding upon pain of torture that folks do stupid things.

So Burger King (home of the whopper) intends to buy Tim Hortons (home of the benign) for a ton of molten gold. This would create the planet’s third largest fast food giant behind Subway, McDonalds, and your local zoo’s cafeteria.

As is now common in massive mergers, the bigger company (Burger King) plans to move its combined headquarters to Canada where corporate taxes are lower. This tactic is called a number of things, but “tax inversion” seems the most common term. In other news, Burger King also announced they’d be passing their future corporate tax cost savings onto the average consumer by lowering their prices [insert appropriate laugh track].

The concept is simple. America’s corporate tax is 35%, depending on where you are in Canada, it could be almost 10% lower. So naturally Burger King wants to exist where they pay less tax. And so naturally the applicable politicians are demanding that the CEO of Burger King be strapped to a chair and fed burgers until he expires.

Fleeing your home country to pay less tax is either greedy (Democrats) or unpatriotic (Republicans). Or maybe your opinion of tax inversion depends on what you personally think of Obama or Boehner or Hollywood or falconry. Or maybe your opinion of tax inversion depends on how many episodes of Ellen you watch every week.

Now the federal government has decided that tax inversion must stop. So they’re looking at steps to end it while simultaneously demonizing the companies that engage in it. Some corporations are clearly beginning to feel the heat.

Walgreens just announced that their merger with Boots won’t involve them leaving the country for Switzerland. Probably because leaving the country for Switzerland for tax purposes is just about the worst public relations move you can make.

It’d be like broadcasting to the planet that you want to funnel your tax funds from the taxpayer and directly into some Iranian cleric’s stripper account. For a small fee, of course.

But what’s this really about? Well, like most things nowadays, you can’t talk about this issue without being labeled a Saint or Satan. So we’ll start with facts.

Facts:

– The corporate tax rate for Burger King at its Florida headquarters is 35%

– The corporate tax rate for Tim Hortons at its Ontario headquarters is 26.5%

– Both Burger King and Tim Hortons are public companies

– As public companies they have an obligation to make money for their shareholders

– Both Burger King and Tim Hortons had their stocks skyrocket yesterday upon news of the deal

– People like money

– Folks will follow the path of least resistance to acquire money

– If you try and fight the prior two bullets, expect to encounter problems

But wait, what’s this really about? Well, like most things nowadays, you can’t talk about this issue without being labeled a Saint or Satan. So we’ll also include a story:

Story:

– Like this blog’s degenerate author, you may have spent a significant portion of your childhood getting subjected to mental and physical torture by bigger or wiser kids

– You have one dollar provided to you each day

– You are a part of the hyper-nerd click

– As part of the hyper-nerd click, the bullies charge you a tax rate of 35¢ before lunch

– The boys in the uber-nerd click are charged a bully tax rate of 25¢

– You’re thinking of joining the uber-nerd click so you can keep that extra dime

– But if you do that, the hyper-nerd click will consider you greedy or a turncoat

– What do you do?

If you said you’d stay with the hyper-nerd click and pay the extra dime you’re a liar or a fool.

Oh, the hyper-nerd folks are pissed off at you? Who cares. They’re not your real friends. Why? Because if they were your real friends they’d help you gang up on the bullies to the point that your lunch tax rate was reduced to 25¢.

If they were your friends, they’d help you work the problem. They would not do nothing. And they certainly wouldn’t call you a traitor or a money hound for leaving them.

Think tax inversion is a coincidence? That corporations are just rotten? Things generally don’t just happen. Canada’s corporate tax rate was reduced 13% by Harper’s administration since it took office in 2006. This merger is exactly why they did it. To steal business and tax dollars from America.

What’s that, you think business can be tamed? That you can construct laws and enforcement mechanisms to the point that a company will willingly pay a higher tax because you made it so? Yeah, good luck with that.

Politicians have tried that since Rome. It never works. Why? See our example above. You can’t fight human nature. Folks will follow the path of least resistance to acquire money. It’s in our blood. Sorry.

America’s politicians can whine all they want. They can shout to the heavens in a cynical attempt to grab your vote in November. But the reality is that they are to blame for this. America doesn’t have a tax inversion problem. America has a leadership problem.

America’s corporate tax rate, structure, and implementation are a mess and have been for decades. This is not news to anybody with a brain in Washington. What have they done to fix it? Nothing. And now they want to demand, yes demand, that Burger King do something against its own self-interest to compensate for their failed political leadership? Apologies, I don’t buy it.

If you personally think Burger King is evil for doing this? Fine, I understand, no worries. Go protest outside your local franchise or eat only at McDonalds. That’s your right.

But don’t buy into the trash that’s spoon fed to you buy the morons who want your vote in two months. It’s their fault. 

It’s not effective leadership to demand folks do stupid things just because you’re stupid. Instead, Washington should either do its job or close its mouth. But I suspect it will continue to do neither.

Burger_King

Good morning, one safe, benign Canadian cup of coffee please. Milk and sugar, oh, no thanks, that’s too fierce for me, eh.

The West continues to show how unreliable & uncaring it is

I want to you wander down the streets of New York or Paris or Amsterdam and ask a handful of folks whether they know or care what’s happening in Iraq. I’d reckon you’d get one of two responses:

a) An incomprehensible answer not grounded in fact

b) The person would in so many words kindly inform you that they don’t care

When the people of an entire culture aren’t interested in a problem, it creates a break in thought that is almost impossible to fix. The West must do something about ISIS because if given the chance they’d kill everybody on the planet who disagrees with them. Plus, by any reasonable standard of humanity, they’ve got to go.

However, the people of the West aren’t interested in confronting the problem and would prefer to ignore it. So the leaders of the West have to do what little they can to battle the forces of darkness, without actually saying they’re doing anything.

Thus, you get Britain (a country that used to matter) emphatically stating in the strongest possible terms that they won’t engage in combat operations to stop ISIS. That they’ll just drop humanitarian aid. Because anything more than that would cost David Cameron two percentage points in the upcoming general election.

And then we get this from Obama:

“We’re not going to let them create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq,” he said. “But we can only do that if we know that we have got partners on the ground who are capable of filling the void.”

Uh, okay.

1) The only way to stop ISIS from creating a Caliphate through Syria and Iraq is to deploy Western ground troops to kill them all.

2) Since (1) won’t happen, he seems to think they can still destroy ISIS if the West has partners. By partners I suppose he means an effective multi-ethnic government in Baghdad and a non-murderous government in Damascus.

3) Since (2) is impossible, what’s he actually saying? He’s saying the United States and the West will do the bare minimum because that’s all he’s got to work with.

Don’t get me wrong on what I’m saying. There’s no right answer here. You can’t ask a democracy to go to war when something like three-quarters of the population would oppose it. On the other hand, sometimes true leaders need to tell a country exactly what they don’t want to hear. What if Cameron or Obama said something like this:

“We’re not going to let them create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq. These monsters go against all our values, liberty, and morals. If necessary, hopefully without ground forces, but however it needs to happen, we’ll annihilate their evil from the planet.”

No Western leader will ever say this today. I suspect though, that fifty years ago or even thirty years ago, that they would have. In the meantime if you are a moderate Sunni, a Kurd, a displaced Iraqi Christian, or an ISIS foot soldier? What’s been said in the last three days that gives you any confidence that the West is reliable and generally does what is promises?

Instead, I suspect all of them are making their own plans, good or bad to address the situation without the West’s serious involvement. Maybe you think that’s a good thing? That they’ll figure it out on their own. And then the West can get back to the mall. But I’m certain you won’t like the result when you see it.

2

You can bet that whatever these folks are thinking, that nowhere in their brains are they counting upon the free world to save them.

A template for how to fail

This twisted creature is Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, three decades Overlord & Dictator of Equatorial Guinea.  He’s one of history’s most successful patrons of the arts of human torture and life extinguishment.  So you’ll understand I really, really mean it when I say that even if the soldiers depicted in this photo had gone off script and bayoneted him in the kidneys, this US-Africa 2014 Summit would still have been a failure.

goon

In 2012, China hosted 50 African leaders in Beijing.  Then President Hu Jintao made it a point to play the gilded host as if he was a Ming Dynasty autocrat reborn.  Maybe Hu actually thinks this?  Who knows.  The Reds even somehow conned Mr Ineffective himself, Ban Ki-moon, to make an appearance.

I wonder what they offered Ban for his services?  He doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who’s into loose women or rock.  Maybe booze?  A chance to be ambassador to Seoul for the New Chinese Empire after East Asia is conquered by the Red Army?  Eh, maybe Ban just let himself get swindled into showing up as a hack pawn of the Reds internal self-interest by accident.  I guess.

Anyways, China offered billions in loose (dirty) loans, pledged solidarity with Africa against the world’s evildoers (the West), and generally made it a point to inform those present that China was serious.  Today, China does $200B in annual business with Africa.  Expect this number to climb exponentially for the foreseeable future.  Thus, the Chinese summit succeeded.  Why?  For two reasons, knowing your audience, and then delivering.

Hu knew enough to understand the gentlemen (and two women, I think) in that 2012 room.  The message was quite clear:

We China, want cash, so do you, we’ll help you get that cash, and you’ll help us get that cash too.  We do not care about anything else.

Are you an oil baron strongman who favors money, power, and widespread execution?  The West won’t always do business with you.  Or if they do, they’ll be difficult with you about silly values.  But China will do the same business with you, and not ask any annoying questions.

Are you a kleptocrat so craven you’d rob gold from your grandmother’s tomb?  China will bottom line the deal.  And help you locate your great-grandmother’s tomb, and provide you with the necessary earthmoving equipment.  For a price.

And what did China do?  They backed it up.  They made it happen.  They haven’t significantly altered this policy since 2012.  So effective has this been that the increasingly crucial power broker in Africa is China.  Once upon a time the United States was the middleman between Sudan and South Sudan.

Yet when they needed a guy with leverage to pursue peace from the current South Sudanese civil war, they began to reach for China and not America.  Why?  Because China buys all their oil and doesn’t ask foolish questions like where does all the money go.  They couldn’t care less how evil these guys are.  They’re a customer.  End of story.

This policy model works rather well for China.  It fits their mindset and objectives to make China a world player both in politics and economics regardless of the damage done to the human race.  But China is not the United States.  So it begs the question:

Why did the United States essentially copy China’s model for an African summit?  When the United States is not China?

It’s like a twelve year old got up in class, angry that the kid writing on the blackboard (do they even have those anymore) got all the attention, ran up there and stole the chalk and screamed, “me too teacher, me too!”.

Independent thought?  Coherent policy objectives?  Unique ideas to achieve them?  No, that weak stuff is for amateur losers like your idiot blog author.

And before you one sided goons start to blame Bush & Cheney (valid) or Obama & Kerry (also valid) please don’t forget that this African process is run not by the temporary occupants of power inside the Beltway, but by the everlasting foreign policy establishment of Washington DC.  Your average State Department thug will outlive like five administrations, of both parties, and maintains continuity of said policies.  In theory.

The scum Obiang was brought back into the United States’ arms by the Bush administration.  Now the Obama administration is still kissing his private parts.  Why?  Because apparently the United States needs Equatorial Guinea’s oil to keep the price of gas at the pump from rising three whole cents.  The level of fail is pervasive and systematic.

Now there’s an argument to be made that the United States must live in the brutal world of national self-interest and realpolitik.  That you have to do business with horrible human beings because it’s in the best interests of a country.  Agree or disagree, there’s a legitimate argument in that worldview.

Okay.  But there is not a legitimate argument that backs blatant incompetence and a complete lack of vision.  By any definition, moral, rational, whatever, this summit is a failure.  Why?  Well, let’s have at it.

1)  Failure of values

What is the United States?  I have my ideas.  I’m sure you do too.  But what does the foreign policy establishment of Washington DC (hereafter Morons) want the United States to be in the eyes of Africans?  Well, I guess the answer’s China.  The Morons want Africa’s leaders (and people) to think America is like China.  Thus, they invited most of Africa’s leaders as equals.

In other words, dictators, murderers, and goons were placed equivalently alongside legitimate democrats and freedom lovers.  The United States’ intended message was thus the same as China’s.  The United States doesn’t care who you are, we just love cash.  Now is that really the message the United States wants to send?  Well, I guess so.  I guess the Morons want Africans to believe that the United States will do business with Satan.  As long as the price is right.

2)  Failure of delivery

So now that we’ve established that the United States is only interested in gold.  The Morons figured they needed to do what China did and back it up.  Thus we hear the oft mentioned figure of about $30B-$40B in business investment by American firms promised at this summit.  But please observe how the American $40B is not a signed deal, but is “pledged”.  Oh, and don’t forget that this investment is spread out over years if not decades depending upon the whims of individual American firms.

You see, the Morons seem to have forgotten (or actually hate) the idea that American companies are not instructed by bureaucratic government remote control.  When Beijing says $200B a year, you’d better believe they mean $200B a year.  When Barack Obama says $40B, he means nothing.  He doesn’t have that power.  You’d better believe that every single African leader in the room knows that.  If they want actual cash, they have to talk to the CEOs of Exxon or Walmart.  So the Morons structured a summit that at its base level cannot deliver upon the promises made.

And just so we’re clear, $40B, this is what China burns on Africa every two and a half months.  So now the United States has sold out its morals in order to one up China for the equivalent of less than three month’s business.

3)  Failure of vision

Apparently the Morons are stuck in a mindset that was already irrelevant by 1992.  The overall purpose of this summit, I think, was to get African cash in American pockets and to increase United States influence on the continent.  I think.  With these Morons you can never be sure.  So how did the Morons decide to achieve that?  By inviting heads of states.  In other words, by inviting the ole Big Men of Africa to help solve the problem.

But in case the Morons haven’t been paying attention, with some rare and awesome exceptions, the Big Men are the problem.  The Morons completely left aside any vision of how they were going to achieve their objectives, other than the same fossilized tired diplomatic grip-and-grin.  Where poor Obama and Kerry have to legitimize and stand side-by-side with disgusting men in the mere hopes that it’ll build the kind of influence America requires.

But why would a bad dude African leader choose America over China?  Take the likes of Obiang.  He’ll eat tasty White House food any day.  And still sell America a lot of oil.  But do you think he’s ever going to trust America.  Why would he?  He’s probably smart enough to know that in the crunch of darkness, that China will back him and America won’t.

I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that it seems the Morons tried to copy China’s summit model, when it simply does not apply.  It’s like the Morons don’t even understand their own nation let alone the world.  They’re trying to beat China at a game where the rules were written by China.  How do they possibly expect to succeed under such a construct?

– Lady Obama and Lady Bush promoted girl’s education, to a bunch of guys who rob the educational ministries to buy their new boats.  Or sit back and drink $300 a bottle whiskey while their armies fail at their mission to protect their people from lunatics.

– President Obama mocked China for being interested only in Africa’s resources, while his subordinate Morons did everything in their power to put on a summit that expressed America’s desire to do just that.

– The President expressed a hope to tap Africa’s “talents and its potential” by inviting a bunch of guys whose talents include human misery, incompetence, and playing the world’s biggest leaders for fools.

The way I see it, there are two ways you could have made this summit a success:

1)  Only invite the African leaders who aren’t children of Satan

I’ve generalized in the negative sense above, referring to the leaders who showed up with blood & dirt on their hands and cash in their pockets.  Certainly, not all of Africa’s leaders are like that.  I won’t hazard to guess on a percentage because everybody would disagree with my methodology anyways.  But they still should have cut down the list and invited only the good guys.

It seems the Morons tried to do this, for instance Mugabe wasn’t invited.  But their methodology fell short.  A whole slew of evil dudes were invited.  They didn’t move the bar far enough.  Everybody can’t be Ghana or Senegal or Mauritius.  But this is just ridiculous.  Obiang?  Kabila?  [shakes head]

2)  Hold an African summit with people who actually matter

What portion of Africa’s Big Men made sure that millions of Africans can do all their banking on mobile phones?  Did Africa’s overlords bring high speed internet to some of the world’s most remote places by command orders?  The wrong audience was invited and the wrong message was sent to them.

Instead, they should have invited thousands of successful small, medium, and large African businessmen.  Then put them in a room with American businessmen.  You build relationships, exchange ideas, network, and build slowly for the long run.

–  Put the CEOs of Safaricom & Apple in the same room to talk about how they’re going to make machines our masters.  They can bring their staffs and some bright, young underlings to learn from each other.  Then they’ll go hit the bar, get drunk, and Tim Cook can clobber a teenage waitress in the forehead with his new iPhone 5s.

–  Put the gang from SABMiller in the room with a few dozen American microbrewers so they can hash out ideas, concepts, and good times.  SAB can explain how they conquered the planet’s beer market and pitch ideas for how they’re cornering small emerging markets with Africa’s growing number of beer drinkers. The Americans can sample some of SAB’s new sorghum brew.  Then SAB can sample a California micro’s blueberry and pear brew and the SAB guy will viciously break the bottle over the Cali’s head as an insult to beer being beer.

–  Put teenage coding freaks from Nairobi and Silicon Valley together so they can talk about what it’s like to be a loser in their own independent cultures.  And then how they’ll be the ones laughing when they’re all billionaires and those who beat them up when they were younger are pumping their gas.

–  And so on.

Now the Morons would instruct you that my ideas would not accomplish the objectives of the United States.  That I’m just a creepy, ranting jerk who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Maybe.  My way sucks if you’re a Moron because it’s slow, doesn’t have any sexy diplomatic grip-and-grins, and generally can’t make an immediate splash.

But at least my way the United States gets to keep its honor.  And I contend my way would at least ensure the summit didn’t fail up front, before it’s even finished.  Plus, at least by trying my way you’d have a chance at not failing.  Fail.

[unintelligible muttering]  Yeah, I’m done.  I guess.  [unintelligible muttering]  What do you mean?  [unintelligible muttering]  The State Dinner?  [unintelligible muttering]  White House.  Yeah?  [unintelligible muttering]  African ingredients?  [unintelligible snickering]  Really?  [unintelligible snickering]  Really?!  They used African ingredients?  [throws chair]  You’ve got to be .  Idiots!  [unintelligible snickering]    That’d be like Obama showing up to Kampala and they shove a burger in his face and call it classy!  [unintelligible snickering]  What kind of dirt bag patronizing move is that?  You fly them out here and then get your million dollar chef to use their native ingredients for dinner?  Who’s running this derailment?!  [unintelligible profanity]  [unintelligible profanity]  [unintelligible profanity]

goon

Uh, Mr Dictator, Sir, you’re invited over to my place.  My guests want to have a chat with you about some things.  Please don’t refuse.  Unlike you, we desire to keep liquidation to an absolute minimum.