April 14th, 2012

Mr Hand

Obama the Coward or How Obama Shrewdly Attacks his Opponents While Keeping his Hands Clean

Well, it's that time of year again where an Obama friend and ally makes an attack only to get rebuffed mildly by Obama and pretended as if they never had a role in his life.
[Spoiler (click to open)]

First we saw it in Chicago when Obama's opponent for a Senate seat had his sealed divorce records unsealed so embarrassing personal details could be leaked. Obama said he opposed it but he still benefited from the drop in support for Ryan.

Then we saw the pastor for a church Obama attended for decades get called to the carpet for his rhetoric only for Obama to act surprised that Jeremiah Wright was a vocal critic of America.

Almost at the same instant we saw Obama discover that his support from Bill Ayers, the former head of the most well known left-wing terror group in America, would receive criticism. So Ayers joined what would soon become a growing group of people thrown under the bus.

Shortly after getting elected president, Obama then throws Van Jones under the bus. After all, how was he supposed to know that a guy who openly espouses angry racial rhetoric and Marxist pleas for a strong government would actually believe in that stuff.

But the fun didn't end there. You see, Obama appointed Eric Holder as his attorney general and tasked him with ensuring the Department of Justice did it's job. It's job apparently being to ensure that Mexican drug dealers get all the guns they want and making sure that the violence in Mexico gets pinned on legitimate gun dealers and owners in America. So there's really little wonder why before Operation Fast and the Furious became public the DOJ was talking about how we needed to crack down on gun crimes by banning guns.

Of course, Eric Holder played a crucial part in all of this. As a hatcheman he could get out in front of the issue and make things happen while Obama sits back and pretends as if his condemning it or disowning Holder's actions is as good as firing him. After all, Obama supports gun rights... it's his subordinates that unfairly and arguably illegally attacked them. Hardly Obama's fault, right?

And that leads us to this week. Near the start of this year the DNC started firing off their election year rhetoric. This year the big talking point is that Republicans hate women. That Republicans were waging a WAR ON WOMEN. Suddenly routine spending bills that had provisions that didn't include contraception were now attacks directly on contraception. A provision that exempted employers from having to pay for contraception (while still mandating hormonal treatment) became akin to denying women birth control.

Hilary Rosen, a long time DNC operative, moved to the forefront of the talking point this week in an attempt to act the hatchet man (hatchet woman?) by ridiculing Romney for his statement saying he looks to his wife for women's issues. Normally this would be an easy attack but Rosen fumbled it.=. Rosen clumsily insulted a mother of five who is dealing with MS and breast cancer as not knowing what it's like to "work". This fumble gave the Republicans an opening with which to shift the focus on the attack. And seize it they did.

But that leads us back to the main issue.

Obama came out condemning the attack (naturally) and stated that "women are not an interest group". True... to a degree. He's pushing for those votes still and treating them like an interest group. Really it's typical bad cop/good cop. Obama gets his cronies to make the attack so he can come in and condemn the attack while still benefiting from the advances in debate his side has made. Normally it's sly enough that the meme get's built while not becoming obvious it's a forced meme but he really bungled it this time.

As it's been made clear, Obama's primary tactic is not to fight himself. He knows he can disassociate himself enough from his allies while still benefiting from their attacks and denying his opponents the sound bites they want. However, it comes off as cowardly. He doesn't engage in an argument seeking only to let his followers "fight and die" for him.

It raises the question. Is Obama a coward, or just a shrewd tactician?

Cracking down on piracy, and what's the result?


So... apparently France is now claiming the title of standard-bearer of anti-piracy legislation. A recent law has resulted in a 66% reduction of piracy in the country, BUT! Maybe surprisingly (to some), the sales haven't improved any.

Perhaps it is time to reassess the correlation between tougher anti-piracy legislation and the effects on the industry? To get real and "face the music", so to speak? As it turns out, people download pirated stuff that they would not otherwise buy. Or am I getting this wrong and there is some other factor that I am missing?

Of course the failure of this legislation to bring the desired effect still does not erase the other question: Just because piracy doesn't necessarily directly correlate to lost sales, still does that make it OK? From an ethical POV? In other words, does there have to be a victim for there to be a crime?

Collapse )