Keep the Customer Happy

“There has been class warfare going on. It’s just that my class is winning. And my class isn’t just winning, I mean we’re killing them.” Warren Buffett

Have you seen this We are the 53 percent website yet? The hard-working 53% sticking it to the 47% “whiners”? Somehow, in this country, it’s considered a badge of honor to suffer, to work oneself to the bone, to work two jobs and call those who are not “ok” with such a state of affairs “whiners”. These 53% are completely missing the point. The point is: it’s ok to work hard and make sacrifices in order to succeed not in order to get by. From those pictures I can tell that they are just scraping by, barely holding their head above water, and proud of it. Look, they are good folks, no doubt, but just because they are ok with being abused doesn’t mean all others should do the same. What about the disabled, elderly, single mothers? How are they supposed to work two jobs without health insurance? The 53% percent are looking for the culprit in all the wrong places. Somehow they think that the 47% are lazy bums on welfare who refuse to work. The 53% are either blissfully or willfully unaware that what keeps them from joining the 47% is one injury, one pink slip, one accident. Adversity is no doubt good for building a character but not everybody is Napoleon. And what do they have to show for such hard work that they’re doing? Guys, you’re on a treadmill that keeps going faster and faster and one day you won’t be able to keep up. I appreciate your fighting spirit, but you’re fighting the wrong war! The source of your suffering is not the unemployed, they are merely a symptom, it’s the rigged game that you play against the house. The 47% or the 99% of the OWS are simply saying: we refuse to play that game.

A few words about the house. I think the most honest business nowadays is a casino. Let me elaborate. First of all, they do not hide under the false façade: you know how their business model works. They do not pretend that your well-being is important to them, they are there to assist you in having a good time. When you’re a client of the casino they hold their promise: you get free drinks, you get comped, sometimes you get a free room. If you’re elderly or disabled you get an oxygen mask and an electric cart. And they take your money. Yes, it’s a fleecing business, but 1. You’re fully aware of this 2. You’re  having a good time. Wall Street and corporations have thus violated the most important principle of the system they themselves built: keep the customer happy. And by customer I mean taxpayer. If they insist on running the country, if they insist on controlling government (read: taxpayers) resources then the first rule they should have upheld is keep the customer happy. Imagine if the casino gambled with your money, lost it and then had the chutzpah to call you a welfare bum. That would piss you off. But would you be pissed off at your fellow customers or at the casino? Wall Street fucked it up spectacularly! They would have never drawn so much attention to themselves and would continue to run this shop if only they adhere to some simple rules and knew when to stop. Everything was going in their favor. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision granting corporations a personhood, politicians in their pocket, oblivious populace immersed in Jersey Shore and the belief that hard work pays off. It is those customers, the golden goose, the sacred cow that should have been cared for, not slaughtered; it’s them that Wall Street needs, not the other way around. Nowhere in the world can you find such premium clients as American taxpayer. What more did they want? The conditions were ripe to once and for all to cement the corporate world domination (cue in Dr. Evil’s laugh here), but then they handed the reins to a few self-assured frat boys. Very imprudent! So, Wall Street really have no one to blame but themselves for the current predicament. Not the customers. Customers played by the rules.

Wall Street Protests

Remember how in the first Wall Street movie Michael Douglas, while riding in a limo with Charlie Sheen, describes to him what it means to be rich. “I’m not talking about $400K working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable. I’m talking about being rich enough not to waste time” and then points a finger at a bum and a man in a suit on the sidewalk and says something like: there’s no difference between the two. I agree. There’s no difference between the current day protesters and most of the suits who’s commute the protesters are obstructing. Sure, one has a job, a house in New Jersey, health insurance, wife and 3 kids, the other – a sublet with roommates in Williamsburg, no job, no prospects and crushing student loans. What they don’t realize is that socially they are on the same side of the barricades, although the former associates oneself with his bosses rather than with those proletariats on the street. Our Wall Street Working Stiff (WSWS) is right to be upset and unhappy: he wakes up at 5, takes a long commute to work, takes shit from his boss, fends off vultures, pleases clients, worries about bonus and how not to get fired, goes home, takes shit from his wife, worries about mortgage and kids’ college fund and if he’s lucky he falls asleep without medicine. Day in and day out, year after year. And then to pile up on his already miserable existence he gets painted by all kinds of bums as being the culprit. That’ll make you angry.

You see “Wall Street” as a composite is about 99% guys like WSWS. They are the accountants, the compliance officers, the programmers, the analysts, the back office, the middle office and most of them wear suits to work. But the majority of them never had the imagination and the aptitude to come up with the stuff that brought this economy down. Those who did are long gone with nice packages. There are some still left but they don’t walk past the crowds downtown. They have limos waiting in the garage. But for the protesters every guy in a suit is a villain. They can’t tell a difference. I can. Only wannabes wear pinstripe suits and carry a briefcase. Whenever I see a guy like this I smell stiffness, platitudes and fear. The real rainmakers wear shirts with rolled-up sleeves and cheap shoes. And the “Wall Street” has long moved to midtown. Only the Fed and the Goldman is downtown now.

Now that I have defended, to the best of my abilities, Wall Street Working Stiffs I should say I support the protesters for finally channeling the anger of many to the right place. The “Wall Street” as an idea is still there and any attempts by politicians to rein it in so far have failed. Dodd-Frank, already toothless enough at the inception in order to be passed, has been made into a joke with amendments that favor the wrong guys. The bad guys will never go to jail as it’s almost impossible to indict them. Who? On what grounds? Creating mortgage-backed securities, while abominable, wasn’t illegal, selling them to “qualified” customers wasn’t either. Knowingly misleading the clients is such a weak case and everybody knows Goldman was doing it and yet Lloyd Blankfein still has his job.

The only thing clear now is that we’re all in this together. WSWS and hippie protesters are the 99%. Each group’s existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to the other, is a natural result of flawed policies. Both played by the rules and both feel, rightly, shortchanged. But instead of blaming each other they should turn their gaze and anger upwards. The kids occupying Wall Street seem to understand it. The WSWS – not yet.

Thoughts on Republican presidential field.

You gotta feel sorry for Republicans. I do. Now that Christie is out it comes down to Romney vs. Cain. To a collective gasp for both moderate Republicans and Tea Partiers. I think it’s time for us on the left to stop calling Tea Parties racist, since from the copious, albeit unsatisfactory, field they ended up preferring a black guy. I also look in amazement at how much they must hate Romney! Losing Christie has deprived us from a promise of a good fight. He would be a formidable opponent to Obama. I guess Tea Partiers like Christie because he’s always angry and moderates like him because, anger aside, he’s rather middle of the road in his views on guns, gay marriage, and in general he errs on the side of getting things done rather than sticking to rigid principles. Not that I’d root for him, but he seemed like the most decent, honest and straightforward guy among the roster.

I also have a few words on Rick Perry. In my view, he showed his human side when he called those who want to deny illegal immigrant’s children a chance at education “heartless” only to be quickly brought down from the pedestal by the same people who elevated him there just a few weeks ago. They certainly didn’t like to hear the truth about themselves even coming from a gun-toting, death-penalty loving Texan. I’m afraid that with so many requirements for a perfect candidate and unwilling to compromise on any of them the Tea Party will never get laid.

From my partisan standpoint I like what I see in the opposition camp. But from the broader and more significant perspective I weep together with and for moderate Republicans for what the party of Lincoln and Regan has become. That’s the best you’ve got? In the whole South and the Midwest, from the plethora of Republican governors and senators, you’re down to flip-flopping guy from Massachussetts and a black guy who has never held a public office (the last one is particularly ironic). You refuse to even give a good look to Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson or even to Ron Paul, for Christ sake, who loves your Ayn Rand so much as to name his son after her. Btw, since I mentioned Jesus and Ayn Rand in the same sentence let me expand on it: if Jesus and Ayn Rand married and had a child together the Tea Partiers would still be unsatisfied: Atheist who loves the poor, what a nightmare!

The best thing for Romney, should he get the nomination, would be to pick Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, for VP spot. Tea Partiers love him, he can attract the Hispanic vote that went overwhelmingly for Obama last time and they will have groomed the next GOP presidential contender for 2018 or beyond.

Obama – a star in conservative cartoons.

Many conservatives like to create a caricature of a liberal in their heads and blogs and then proceed to successfully assassinate that made up character. They imagine liberals as weak-minded hippies who don’t know math and want everyone to drive Prius and eat vegetables at best, and who’re lazy, unemployed parasites who demand handouts at worst. That’s why it’s so upsetting for the conservatives when the exemplary members of our society, self-made true capitalists like Warren Buffett as a recent example, come out and disprove their case. There was no shortage of right-wing hacks trying to point out to Buffett why being socially responsible is an abhorrent human trait! It is customary for one to ascribe negative qualities to a person he already doesn’t like, to project qualities that subject loathes and the object doesn’t possess. That’s the case between conservatives and Obama – they award him qualities he doesn’t have and then hate him for it.

The fact is that Obama is center, even center-right. But nothing can placate the right, even if Obama brings Reagan from the dead on national TV, cuts all the taxes and drowns the government in the tub. They see an untrustworthy black man, burdened, in their imagination, with centuries old generational grievances that he wants to redress at the expense of a white man, thus they look at him, watch his every move and find evidence that he is the man that they have drawn in their minds. It reminds me of deeply religious people seeing Jesus face or Virgin Mary in inanimate objects like toasts and rocks. They see it because they want to see it. Except in Obama they see a socialist dictator or a petty criminal depending on the depth of one’s imagination.

Many believe first and foremost that Obama is going to take their hard-earned money away from them by raising taxes. Jokes about being robbed by Obama as a thuggish black man are abound. Oh, how I wish sometimes that he was indeed from the ghetto! Here mine and the Right’s wishes converge at last. They would thus get confirmation of their theories and someone who fits their narrative; and I and the lefties would get someone who punches back at them.

He won as a liberal but governs as a moderate Republican, but to acknowledge that for the Conservatives is harder than to cut off their arm. Careers have been built on hating Obama. Even Reagan raised taxes at some point but Obama went out of his way not to, where does that put him – to the right of Reagan? It is offensive for conservative to even think such thoughts. He’s supposed to be tax and spend liberal, he has to be, otherwise the case that was carefully being built against him for the last 3 years should be tossed! So they pile on.

Obama is a human receptacle of some sorts, a blessing for conservatives on whom they can project their darkest human qualities. That’s why there’s no lack of conservatives rushing, elbowing each other to the microphone or the TV screen to insult Obama in the most innovative and creative ways and high-fiving each other for daring and originality. Bashing Obama has become a crowded trade, a bubble even, to use market terms. He is a gift, he’s that vagabond black man passing through the town on whom all the unsolved murders can be pinned by a local police chief. If only Obama’s coke dealer or an intern under the table were found to complete the picture – imagine such luck!

Republican Congressman Joe Wilson infamously cried “Liar” at Obama when the latter said that no illegal immigrants will be covered in the health bill. And the facts confirm it. But that would mean that Obama does not wantonly spend taxpayers’ dollars on illegal immigrants – a notion that belies the entire carefully built narrative around Obama’s personality. He stubbornly fails to be reckless and hasty with other people’s money. To once and for all quell the issue of what taxes Obama raised  here\’s Heritage foundation’s page (a right-wing enclave, so that there’s no accusations of liberal bias) with list of taxes that he did raise (the best they could find was cigarette tax and tanning salon tax, proceeds of which go to children’s health insurance programs. Clearly a path to socialism!). Obama never has raised any income taxes, which are the taxes conservatives have in mind every time they talk about them.

I fault Obama for not shifting the tax debate on our turf. We’re not demanding the conservatives to show how trickle-down economics and lower taxes benefit the economy. The income tax rate is the lowest in decades, but all this time it’s been a downhill for the middle class. The argument that lower taxes make businesses hire people doesn’t stand a simple test: the corporations are awash with cash right now and they continue to lay people off.

Having this discussion would be such a winning issue for the Democrats and yet they reduced themselves to placating the anti-tax Republicans and teapartiers by demonstrating that Obama is really a fiscal conservative. What do they expect conservatives faced with evidence to say – “Oh, ok then!”? We’re at the point where it is taboo to even talk about tax increases. Grover Norquist may not have succeeded yet in reducing the government to a bathtub size, but he succeeded in shaping the debate we’re having now. Obama is unable to govern as a Democrat. That’s his tragedy.

Poker in Macau

The stories that I heard about the game in Macau made me salivate. “Imagine a table full of people with top pair disease” – one story went, referencing the hand in which a person who has a top pair will stay in the pot till the end and will pay you dearly. The stories turned out somewhat true, but one little nuance was omitted: Chinese are gamblers by nature and they have limitless pockets. (Don’t ask me how, US Treasuries don’t pay much these days). Because the amount of money in the pot, odds and the size of their stack is not the issue for them – poker in Macau is a pure gamble.

There are no structured limit games in Macau – only no limit. I think they have no notion of a limit game – if I was to tell them that such games exist they would probably laugh at it, what do you mean I can’t go all in? Who plays such a game? Another factor that unpleasantly surprised me is that they all smoke at the table. The stench was unbearable for me the first few days and I covered up my nose with the scarf. Then I got used to it.

 In the first few days I played at the Wynn and the Venetian. Because I was completely unaccustomed to the way the game is played there and because of a few unfortunate hands that I pushed all-in with I ended up in a deep hole. In AC and in Vegas the prudent way of playing for me is to be as tight as a virgin. I thought that the correct response to a super-loose game in Macau is to tighten up even more. I was wrong, but it took me 4 days and several grand to reexamine and adjust my game. In AC I fold suited connectors and pat myself on the back for the correct play, here I should have raised with them, especially in the position. Sure, Chinese will nonchalantly call your raise, but if you flop something good it will be completely undetected and then you come and collect.

 The next five days I spent at the Grand Lisboa Casino where incidentally they also had a tournament going. I haven’t had a single losing session there as I somehow got into the swing of things, which enabled me to dig out of the hole and even make some money that I ran away with. In the morning of the last day however, I decided to stop by the Wynn where I left my money earlier in a week and exorcise my demons. I succeeded with just a couple of good hands – that’s all you need in a no limit game. I keep making a distinction between limit and no limit because I’m a recent convert to a no-limit game. I don’t think I want to go back to limit – way too timid for my tastes.

 The level of looseness is unbelievable – nowhere have I seen such a reckless, cavalier game. One loose guy at my table kept going all in and losing, and kept reaching into his pocket again and again for a $10,000 chip. He raised every hand he was in, which means every time because no hand was bad for him.  

 Some of my most memorable hands:

 KQ suited – I would never allow myself such frivolity in any game on the American soil. But this was different. The previously described loose guy makes a big raise preflop as usual, and everybody folds to me. I had about $2500 in front of me and thought for a long time. Usually I’m rather quick to make a decision, but this time I took my time. He can raise with 5-7 for all I know. I figured it was very possible that just my king alone would play as I did not put him on pocket pair. So I pushed, hoping he would either fold or that I still had a better hand if he calls. He calls. The flop comes K, blank, blank to my relief. He said to have pocket 10s and mucked, showing only one. I doubled up. I know I rolled the dice with this hand, but it worked. I played the guy, not his cards. Some of my much stronger hands didn’t hold up in earlier game so it was a gamble. After such a hand I couldn’t resist the “squeezing the balls” gesture with both of my hands to the delight of locals at the table. I guess it’s international!

 The two painful hands I had that set me into a deep hole in the beginning – I flopped two top pair both times. And both times I had somebody with an ace call and catch an ace on the turn and paired board on the river – counterfeiting my two pair. Same thing two times, both times I was all-in! Going all-in rarely scares a guy with an ace, and it just so happens he catches it when I’m in a hand. Another time I slowplayed my KJ with KK4 on the flop, almost celebrating my certain victory, when it was the guy who slowplayed me with pocket 4s flopping a full house. When someone flops a set – you rarely have any idea or any recourse against it. It’s undetectable!

 But the most stunning hand I saw I didn’t participate in. The board on the river had no straits, no flushes, no pairs – nothing. One guy pushes all in with maybe $2-3K in front of him. The girl thinks for a while and calls. As she calls, the guy mucks his hand face down (!) and says something like “it’s yours”. The girl shows ace high (what a gutsy call in itself!) and the guy in panic reaches for his mucked cards, probably having folded a small pair, but it’s too late. He folded a winning hand without even showing it after pushing all in! Such reckless, stupid play!

 One time I got a pair of black pocket kings. A preflop raise of $600 comes to me, I make it $1200. There’s another guy left in the pot and he’s thinking and thinking. A few times he made a gesture as if to fold his cards, a few times he pretended he wants to go all in, asking me how many chips I have, looking at my reaction. Because he hesitates, I know my hand is the best. He obviously thinks I have AA, as I count my chips in a way that says I want him to call. The guy really takes his time as I’m becoming annoyed: he’s either indecisive or he’s acting – either way I don’t appreciate it, so I called time. Patience is not my virtue, besides I don’t appreciate the theatrics. Btw, acting is big in Macau. He shoves his entire stack. The first raiser wisely folds and I, of course, call. The flop comes A, rag, rag – all hearts. Remember, my kings are black, besides the ace made me very nervous. Since we’re both all-in we turn our cards over. He has the same hand I do – only reds! Thank God no ace, but he has a flush draw, which didn’t materialize to my relief. The guy who folded had QQ. So we split his money.

 All in all, Macau is a curious place to play, but poker is not the predominant game in the local casinos – they have much fewer tables than an average American casino and a poorer choice of games. They prefer baccarat and some unknown to me games involving dice. Like I said – they are gamblers.

Obama has to use the 14th Amendment.

Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that states the following: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

 First of all it will force the party of “personal responsibility” to pay their debts. Let me remind you that the debt ceiling needs to be raised not to expand government spending in the future as our far right folks think, but to pay for bills that already have been incurred in the past, mostly by the same personally responsible, fiscally conservative party, like paying for wars, Bush’s tax cuts, and interest on the existing debt. (Obamacare has not kicked in yet, just so you know).

 Second, if someone will still question the legality of the move, he or she can take it to court. I can’t wait to see what sort of personal injury or loss of property they will claim to suffer from the event of NON-default. Well, I can imagine PIMCO folks or others who shorted Treasuries counting on default to have a monetary loss, but just picture them in front of US Supreme Court with this!

 Third, I don’t think the Tea Partiers in Congress understand the whole seriousness of the situation. They are looking at the default as if it’s a tool to use against Obama and not something that will hurt them or their constituents in the end. Politicians who engage in political posturing to placate their caucus is one thing, everyone does it, but Tea Party block are true believers – they really do want US to default, all be damned. “That’ll show’em!” – they think. They need to get some education from some wily lawyers who used to run the show in Congress, but who also know what a compromise is. When grandma or some average Joe investor or some contractor doesn’t get paid – who cares! But when Wall Street gets nervous and when Tea Party financial spigots are scratching their heads at a bunch of hillbillies they sent to Congress – that’s a wake-up call. When Wall Street feels like it won’t get paid – they will make sure their message gets through. And that’s where, with all my antipathy towards lawmakers, I would prefer crafty lawyers to uneducated hacks. The hacks that love the Constitution so much they want to amend it. The same hacks that love America so much they want her to default.

 And lastly, Bill Clinton says he would use this amendment “without hesitation” and “let them challenge me in court”. This alone would be enough for me!

Adults in the room

I always wondered at the ability of some, mostly on the right, to twist the meaning of words. Today the word is seriousness. John Boehner while abandoning the debt ceiling talks last night issued the following statement: “The White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future.”  Of course! Destroying jobs and endangering children. When you’re painted into a corner and ran out of meaningful words to say you resort to “The American people”, “Our childrens future”, “Taxing the job creators” and other platitudes. All that in addition to not returning President’s phone calls! Contrast that with what Obama said last night: The deal is extraordinarily fair, I’m taking heat from my own party for this, I have been left at the altar a couple of times, Can they say yes to anything? Obama is like a superintendent in a crumbling apartment complex, who is figuring out how to fix the plumbing, repair leaking roof, get new washer/dryer while Boehner spends his time spreading rumors that increasing the maintenance fee will hurt those living in the penthouse. He doesn’t tell them, however, that when the roof collapses there will be no penthouse! So who’s serious here?

I’m also a little puzzled by those who see what’s unraveling and take the position of “the pox on both of your houses”. Both of your houses?! Obama, in his attempt to make a deal has moved so far to the right that pissed of his base and even prompted calls from senator Bernie Sanders to “primary” him. That’s leadership! That’s putting country before politics. He knows that this might make him a one-term president, but he’s doing what’s right. And what did Boehner do? He can’t deliver his caucus to do anything, thus to save face, he shows us some theatrics by walking out. I cut him some slack and will not accuse him for genuinely NOT wanting to make a deal, it is possible he really might want to make it, I accuse him for not having a hold on his own people. (Funny, how this used to be a problem on the left, liberals are notorious for being difficult to take marching orders). Why would Obama want to negotiate with the leader who does not lead? It’s like playing poker with the guy who doesn’t have the cash to pay up at the end of the day. Boehner ultimately can not make a deal even if he wants to. Serious people come to the negotiations with the readiness to back up their words with actions. Unserious people just have a lot of things to say and a lot of excuses to give. Like children who get caught stealing a cookie. They’re sending a boy to do a man’s job. Unfortunately that’s what Republican party has become now – a party of capricious little boys, not serious adults.

Obama’s Bet

I always knew that Obama was a gambling man. I respect people who make bets for a living. Not maniacs in search of quick riches, not self-important high-rollers hell-bend on proving something to those at the table, not drifters thinking that today is their lucky day, attributing a small victory to their wits. No. I mean gambling men – the ones who make calculated bets when opportunity calls for it and sit quiet when it doesn’t.

What a stunning high-stakes poker we have witnessed on Sunday! And it wasn’t chips Obama was playing with. For those who don’t make bets for a living, let me describe to you what one feels when putting on a position or putting chips on the table. After you weighed all of the evidence and calculated all the odds you pull the trigger and step into the unknown. At that moment you let it go – the time to worry ends the moment you put chips on the table. Obama is proving to be a master at the art of stepping into the unknown – from the moment of announcing his candidacy to Sunday’s events. Please don’t confuse this with rushing to take the position based on the way you imagine or desire things to be – a classic Republican trait. The chances of the man hiding in the compound being Bin Laden were estimated by experts to be in the 60-80%. Such chance of success calls for a huge bet in poker or a massive position in a security. However, in this particular juncture the chance of this being Bin Laden had to be taken together with the logistical considerations: it’s a sovereign country, bombing it will be counterproductive, there’s hundreds of other logistical nuances to consider and everything can go wrong. When you take all of the above into considerations, the chances of success are minimized precipitously. Now let’s imagine for a moment if the operation has gone wrong, if it wasn’t Bin Laden hiding there or if there were massive US and civilian casualties in addition to diplomatic scandal for US forces crossing unauthorized into Pakistan. Think of the ramifications for Obama, already weakened by economic problems and distracted by numerous clowns that demand their non-issues to be addressed in the most serious manner. Think for a moment what he was risking, what was at stake for him, his Presidency, his credibility. This was a bet of his life! If I was a Republican I would seriously considered taking the other side of this bet. Speaking in Wall Street lingo it was a cheap option for the country (we as a nation would have survived the loss of life and the damaged relationship with Pakistan, Obama would not) and an expensive one for Obama albeit with an enormous payoff. I can’t refuse myself the pleasure of extrapolating the events to Republican actions: Bush with his Iraq war has made a safe bet for himself and an expensive one for the country. He was also quick to take the credit where none was due.

This is the kind of victory that would have the Right salivating if it was their guy. Short of the real deal, fair and square military success to show for the last 10 years that is as straightforward as the one we witnesses on Sunday, the right nonetheless was fond of putting on a show for made up victories. Obama outplayed them in their game in the most skillful and spectacular fashion while sparing us the show of himself in the military fatigues landing on the aircraft carrier, but rather releasing (calculatedly, I’m sure, but that’s part of the game) the picture of him and his staff watching the operation unravel with the genuinely grim expression on their faces. He was lost in the moment, he didn’t care to pose for the camera and look presidential. Losing oneself in an activity or action is a sign of mastery. He’s the guy who does his job and is immersed in the task at hand. This is pure substance vs the Republicans Rovian preoccupation with appearance, image, looking tough, innuendoes and smoke and mirrors. There’s only one activity that I can think of for Bush losing himself in– cutting brush. Bush, like any generic Republican (please prove me wrong with examples!)  was more worried about looking presidential than being presidential. It’s a trait of a bad poker player – caring more about not looking like a sucker than about getting the results. This preoccupation with image draws them into making bets they shouldn’t be making.

Now, the task of the propagandists on the right will be much tougher. It will be harder to claim that he’s a Muslim who is weak on defense at best and in cahoots with the terrorists at worst and doesn’t care about the country. And in the meantime I’ll be anticipating the confirmation of my theory that political spectrum is a circle, not a line, watching our own right-wing nuts on one side and Muslim extremists around the world on the other wallowing together in conspiracy theories questioning Bin Laden’s death.

A job well done, Mr. President!