I got a name for these guys: SAM!

The BBC asks:

BBC NEWS | Americas | What do the pictures tell us?

Although we do not know the name of the recently discovered tribe in Brazil, or what language they speak, it is possible to tease out some clues as to their way of life from the aerial photographs taken by the Brazilian government.

OK, my first question viewing this AP photo is: Which civilization is lost? Sure, the guys in the plane capture the image. But the guys on the ground capture the spirit -- of self defense. Plus, they know where they are and where they don't want to go. Second: When will Greenpeace slip these guys some Stingers? The Boyos got the right idea, they are just in need of a technological fix -- a more up-to-date bow and arrow.

And we got to get to them before Bin Laden does. We don't want him infesting another "tribal area."

As for their names: I think they are called the Hunters. Carpenters? Jungle Smiths. Alright, the tropical rain forest Smiths.

Elites need the other sorts

I think we also see a rejection of free market capitalism and meritocracy in favor of a credentialed, aristocratic elite and priestly bureaucratic caste -- both in the third world and the "West."

The other night I watched "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS. I like the program for what it reveals about Western Intellectuals. One show all but concluded that it really was the Christians who burned down Rome (Christians who were at the same time Jews!).

This episode dealt with the encounter of "Cortes and the
Conquistadors" with the Aztec Empire. The program centered on some Spaniards (including women) who were captured -- along with some of the more unruly subjects of the Aztecs -- and sacrificed.

The ritual involved skillfully ripping the heart out of a living human; lifting said heart up to the sky while it is still beating; tossing the heartless (and maybe headless, I forgot to take notes) body down a steep flight of steps; butchering said heartless/headless/disgarded body.

Well, I thought we could all come together on this behavior and say "that is just wrong." Liberal and Conservative could finally agree. Marxist intellectual and capitalist Robber Baron, finally, in agreement.

OK, maybe we all know that one person -- or two or three -- where such treatment may be understandable (but not condoned!). But to do this by the thousands? Can't we say that you've gone from being a Civilization with a problem to being a Problem with a Civilization? I mean, talk about the church militant.

Gee, do I ever lack nuance. First, it was done to keep the sun in the sky and the sun is still up there so they must have done pretty good job. Plus the Aztecs lacked beasts of burden and their subject people kindda filled that role. And what do you do with an ornery beast of burden? Well, you turn him into a much needed protein supplement. And in a way to encourage the others. So. Sun in the sky. Work gettin' done. Times were good.

Then Cortes shows up -- a combination entrepreneur and labor organizing thug who's gonna steal your retirement. If only he weren't an entrepreneur but, alas!

At this point the Aztec Priestly caste became the "resistance." The same hat trick performed by the Baathist Party (caste) in Iraq. An idea promoted by pretty much the same people. How do we know the Aztec Priests turned into minutemen? There were Spanish heads on those skull racks. Along with the heads of them new fangled horses. I mean, they want to take our jobs!

Well, I concluded that one priestly caste (tenured academia) identifies strongly with another priestly caste -- who no doubt bathed more frequently than the on-the-make Spaniards and were more respecting of books and knew the value of a good protein supplement.

I, on the other hand, saw them as bitter men clinging to their religion and their razor sharp obsidian ceremonial blades and blaming foreigners while fearing change.

Meanwhile the Spaniards slip into the role of the Aztecs. And those who rule now can have a certain regard for the problems the Aztecs faced then. I mean, keeping the sun in the sky is thirsty work. And as the sun gets closer, the globe gets hotter.

Sorry, I think I've gone a little long.

Sen. Obama Soars with Soros.

According Bloomberg .com, Billionaire Investor Carl Icahn opposes Barack Obama while B. I. George Soros supports him. Here is Icahn's reason, as quoted in the piece: Coupled with the higher tax rates that the Illinois senator has already endorsed, ``you would have a loss of confidence in the dollar,'' leading to accelerating inflation and ``much higher interest rates,'' Icahn said.

In their story they should note that George Soros is a Currency Speculator. After all, he may be shorting the dollar. From Ivestopedia:

George Soros gained international notoriety when, in September of 1992, he risked $10 billion on a single currency speculation when he shorted the British pound. He turned out to be right, and in a single day the trade generated a profit of $1 billion – ultimately, it was reported that his profit on the transaction almost reached $2 billion. As a result, he is famously known as the "the man who broke the Bank of England.

This seems like a real conflict of interest where B.I. Soros is concerned.

Whatch that racism, racist!

After noting that one in five voters in the West Virginia Primary took race into consideration, Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown write in The Politico (Five things to watch in Kentucky):

And though Kentucky voters may also factor race into their votes, they also might be more reluctant to admit it to exit pollsters, said Laurie Rhodebeck, an associate political science professor at the University of Louisville.

“Voters get a little prickly here if you say race” drove their choice, she said. “They’ll say, ‘It’s more that we’re concerned about his church ties or his lack of military experience or that he seems so young and untested.’ Those may be socially acceptable ways of saying they’re uncomfortable with a black candidate.”

OK. And what are the Socially Acceptable ways of saying he's unqualified? Let me think. I guess there are none. Silly me.

It is interesting to see what Liberals think of their own voters. Are you a racist hick Democrat -- even more of a racist than you are a sexist? Or are you an elvan, Rivindale, temperate rain forest dwelling, Democrat? And where do you shop?

(via Pajamas Media)

A Rube addresses the Ruben

Here is my take on the Ruben Navarrette Jr. piece at Pajamas Media "Is Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America?" Of course "Racism" ranks with "Global Warming" and the "Evils of Capitalism" in contemporary media's TOE of what's wrong with America. I left these thoughts in the comment section.

OK, if you want to argue that the Clintons are racist, that’s one thing. But the vast majority of their voters? I don’t see it. The anecdotes you present (in a nation of 300 million) are not that persuasive. I’m sure some of it really happened. I’m also sure some of it was made-up (that happens, too). But why are you branding almost half of the Democratic party racist on the behavior of a few? Even if among those few are the candidates themselves and their highly paid, media connected and beltway dwelling operatives?

In fact before the Left Reverend Wright episode, Sen. Obama got the votes of many “white working class men.” The episode provided them with persuasive new information and many changed their minds. What do you do in those circumstances? Banish all doubt?

We should remember that most Americans do not trust “objective” media. So when the objective media portrays someone in Saintly terms and then a locked safe full of dirty laundry and a biography full of poetic license comes to light, what do they do? They decide the rest of the reporting is crap, which is a reasonable conclusion. But based on the “objective” medias prior behavior, do you suggest the media be taken at face value? Are you saying if we are not idiots and naive fools, we are racist? You pitch the guy as transcending race. He has a racist preacher and terrorist friends and corrupt money men supporters. And somehow his “typical white” grandmother or someone he met at school is their equivalent. You guys not only buy it, you sell it. Where you got your heads?

The media sells Barak Obama in a way that would make history’s most despicable used car salesman blush. No “truth in advertising” laws for you guys. You just shove your past distortions down the memory hole.

Them that Are Suck-up-ceptible to Diplomacy

Part of being a bureaucrat is identifying the real enemy.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses one Thomas "give Bush the" Fingar, the very model of the modern and methodical (and very much a prodigal) "impartial intelligence analyst." He's the fellow responsible for the NIE that determined Iran was no longer pursuing Nukes (as discussed in an LA Times piece). He claimed to be creating a "Just the facts, no matter where they lead" environment. They don't promote policy positions over at his place, you see. From the LA Times:

The draft concluded that Tehran was still pursuing a nuclear bomb, a finding that echoed previous assessments and would have bolstered Bush administration hawks. Then, just weeks before the report was to be delivered to the White House, new intelligence surfaced indicating that Tehran's nuclear weapons work had stopped.

New intelligence, eh? So you toss out the first report and quickly whip up a second one. No reason to suspect an ulterior motive there.

But did Mr. Fingar call the Iranians evil, thus compromising his "objectivity"? Let's see. It does sound like he is complaining.

"The unhappiness with the finding -- namely that the evil Iranians might be susceptible to diplomacy -- adroitly turned into an ad hominem assault," Fingar said.

Hmm. Or is that the clever use of irony by Mr. Fingar? Maybe the Iranians -- who've done him no harm -- are not the evil ones; maybe it is the unhappy ones, those who issue ad hominem assaults, who are evil. Perhaps he uses Sarcasm. Which means the Iranians, far from being evil, are susceptible to diplomacy. But this sounds like he is promoting a policy position through the adroit use of sarcasm. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should think of Mr. Fingar as the Shadow National Security Advisor.

Mr. Fingar sounds like a typical left intellectual. They don't have policy preferences, just superior insight and knowledge. They are "the reality based community" because they can make two plus two equal their preferred sum simply by using a clever retort and changing the subject.

Is Mr. Fingar advising the Obama campaign? We'll find out when he's fired for some politically off the mark remark. There will be no whining as he departs. And he certainly will not call Barak Obama a politician.

And now, allow me to flash forward: a year, more or less. I expect less.

In search of peace, President Obama goes to Tehran and says "You had me at 'screw you!'" The Mullahs coax him to wear his new gift: a diamond studded, "Death to America," lapel pin. Does he refuse to wear it because of the empty symbolism involved? Or does he put it on in the furtherance of world peace, the way he would wear any other bit of native costume?

He'll offer them the Zero option: "We'll gladly give up our 12,000 nukes today if you give up yours -- how many you guys got anyways? -- on Tuesday."

They say they will consider this if we give up our missile defense first, as a sign of good faith. He'll say, "Too late, already done that. What else can we do to show our good faith?" They will suggest we withdraw from Iraq. He'll say "Operation skedaddle is already in skedaddle mode. Sorry. Come up with something else." They'll say, give us time to think and we'll make a list. He'll say, can I make suggestions? They'll say, why not?

And he'll think, I cut my teeth facing down US auto executives, US Oil Companies, and US Presidents. These guys are nothing.

The most influential US political pundits

I thought if I made this list I might squeak in at number 50. But alas, that slot is occupied by Rachel Maddow, whoever she is. Apparently she got an evening radio show on Air America, whatever that is. I, at least, have a blog.