perfidy

Over at Yahoo, we hear that the RIAA is planning to sue another 261 music enthusiasts. The RIAA back in August said that it would only persecute the most egregious file sharers. In a further gracious move, the association offered an amnesty program - anyone afraid of being sued could admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, to never, ever do it again. Of course, the amnesty does not apply to anyone the RIAA already has subpoenaed for information regarding file swapping.

"We're willing to hold out our version of an olive branch," RIAA President Cary Sherman said. At least he noted that it was their version of an olive branch. About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services, according to Boston-based research firm the Yankee Group. We'll see how much of an olive branch the RIAA extends to them - they're only a fifth of the US population.

Watched a little of the Democratic Debate last night, while the NFL spewed forth a hideous spectacle of Britney, Aerosmith (who have long since transcended mere self-parody), and a cast of thousands to kick off what would be, with or without the help of this hoo-hah, an incredible NFL season. Go Browns.

Some thoughts.

Dennis the K looks like a Muppet and sounds like a LaRouche Democrat. It's so reasonable until you stop and think what demanding that all nations of the earth uphold US-style labor standards would do to our trade. It's a nice idea, but so is a manned mission to Jupiter.

Howard the Dean didn't have his best night. Latin America a "hemisphere"? Protectionist trade policy? Pulling out of Iraq ASAP? Guh? I've been a Dean supporter for months now, but if this is his new song, I'm not singing along.

John Edwards. Nice, but forgettable. A non-starter.

Dennis Leiberman. Could make the "toga party" speech from Animal House sound like a discussion of increasing the manufacturing capacity of all US bedsheet factories with assets totalling less than...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Bob Graham. Sounded great. Looked preserved. I forgot he was running.

Carolyn Moseley-Braun. Didn't get to hear her speak. Pity.

John Kerry. Forceful, focussed, articulate, on point, and totally full of shit. Highlights from his bits replayed on the news this morning had my wife, my sweet, intelligent, politically reserved and half-asleep wife screaming derision at the television.

Dickie G. Said something about legislation, then something about something else, and I just couldn't stop wondering if he picked out his tie himself. A non-starter's non-starter.

Good Christ... is the best they got?

I don't normally even notice when foreign and domestic media play up discontent in the ranks of US soldiers in Iraq. After all, they need to sell papers and gain ratings, and that's part of the game. The truth will out.

Besides, Lord knows the troops have plenty to complain about-- I will NEVER understand why the Army issues the same socks to troops in Labrador and Iraq.

But sometimes, you just have to shake your head in wonder. Like at this Reuters story.

If they had the chance, U.S. soldiers at a base in Iraq would have had one question for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- When are we going home?.

But Rumsfeld canceled a speech he was due to give on Friday to the troops at their base at the palace of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in his hometown of Tikrit.

"I don't give a damn about Rumsfeld. All I give a damn about is going home," Specialist Rue Gretton said, humping packs of water bottles on his shoulders from a truck.

"The only thing his visit meant for us was we had to clean up a lot of mess to make the place look pretty. And he didn't even look at it anyway," Gretton said after soldiers swept the dusty streets around the complex of lakes and mansions. . . .

Rumsfeld has been criticized for sending too few troops to Iraq leaving them stretched thin on extended deployments trying to help rebuild the country and fight a guerrilla war. He has urged allies to supply some 15,000 additional troops and hopes training Iraqi forces will ease the burden on U.S. troops.

When the Armed Forces Network showed earlier footage of Rumsfeld saying that fresh U.S. troops were unnecessary in Iraq, soldiers at the base threw their hands in the air and shouted "No way" at the television.

"I ain't happy. No way am I happy seeing that," said Specialist Devon Pierce, whose wife was due to give birth to his first son in two weeks. "This tour is hard, real hard. It's too much. It should be six months."

So the US military is a bunch of crybaby milquetoasts who can't stand a little sand in their shorts? Well, sandwiched down at the bottom is this closing nugget: "Many also said that while they wanted to be with their families at backyard barbecues or on trips to the baseball park, they knew what they signed up for by joining the army and were committed to stabilizing Iraq."

Goddamn it. Look, there is no way under the sun to stop soldiers bitching. Every workplace bitches, and when your workplace is an active combat zone in the desert, maybe you do a little more bitching. Rumsfeld is being proven wrong, or at least is losing the tug-of-war. It's just so. . . so. . . maddening that this is the image of our troops that the international press chooses to promulgate.

But I shouldn't be surprised. The lead story coughed up just now by Google News is an MSNBC bit titled "French suppress schadenfreude over U.S. Iraq woes," the gist of which is about how, now that the US is asking for UN support in Iraq, the Europeans get to jeer and point a little at our shattered cowboy hubris.

Well eff you effing bunch of bureaucrats and cowards. I seem to remember a long, long Kabuki dance some months ago, where resolution after resolution after resolution demanding prompt action by Iraq (or else suffer the consequences) was deemed empty of meaning by the very body that passed all eighteen of them. And when the US stepped up to act, the UN chose not to, out of protest for the US' percieved motives. Well, sorry, assholes, for trying to get something done.

I don't agree fully with President Bush's Iraq policy, which has proven disastrously short on the long-term planning and infrastructure management. (In fact, eff him too for putting us in this position!) Bush and his folks did bungle the presentation of case for libervading Iraq to the international community, and they have been less than forthcoming about long-term goals, but I can't stand to see the US as a whole indicted for trying to do something about "eeevil," whatever else is at stake. The US is arrogant, our system can be corrupt, venal, inward-looking, and sometimes cruel. But have these critics looked at what else is out there, at what we are struggling against?

I don't get it. I'm the KING of "yes...but..." and the Emperor of "but have you considered....", which should make me a natural ally of the UN, but FUCK! Have your little laugh at our expense, ha ha, yes thank you, and fucking LEND A FUCKING HAND ALREADY if we ask for it, why not?

God, I hope we don't need to ask for it.

Henry Brighous of Crooked Timber comments on (well... sort of Fisks) an Iain Murray post about a speech by British MP Roger Helmer (isn't the internet grand???).

Helmer claims that federalism in the European Union doesn't have much in common with its American equivalent; it isn't democratic, and it isn't really federalism either. He's trying to square a rather inconvenient circle for the righties - by and large, right-wingers in the UK and US approve of federalism in the US (more rights for the states), but disapprove of it in Europe. Helmer's basic argument is that federalism is only legitimate if it applies within a single nation-state, where people share a common national identity and common sympathies. Thus, EU federalism is Bad - there's no such thing as a European national identity. However, US federalism is Good - after all America is "One Nation under God."

There's one small problem with this argument. Any half-way intelligent reading of American history will tell you that it's utter nonsense. 150 years ago, the US bore a remarkable resemblance to the EU today; a scattering of loosely affiliated states without all that much of a shared national identity. Then, from the Civil War on, it began to centralize. If Helmer and Murray are right, then, the modern American political system is at best a massive mistake, and at worst, a democratically illegitimate usurpation of powers by a centralizing federal government.

I hadn't though of it this way. Very interesting. My main concern about the EU federalizing is the way they are going about it-- the proposed Constitution could have been written by the IRS's pointy-heads for all the clarity it offers. But I must admit that the notion of many disaggregate nations coming together under one roof seemed, well, alien to me (and I call myself a historian....). Moreover the main objection the American Right has had to the EU's proposed constitution and further consolidation has in fact been the decrease in individual national sovereignty (and they call themselves Conservatives....). I'm going to have to think deeply about Iain Murray's assertion that "Europe cannot be democratic without destroying old nation-states," and whether that is true and desirable. The USA needed a massive internal war to unify totally... Lord knows that Europe has had a few of those. The Spaniard in the works in Europe's case, however, is that the EU formed in part to specifically prevent such a war from happening again. I wonder if greater consolidation could happen anyway, if Europe continues down the internally pacifist, carefully modulated collectivist road it's on. Of course, a war isn't out of the question either.

In short, this is a lot of food for thought for historians, political scientists, and the chattering classes. This blog has all three, so we'll be busy.
 

Reuters is reporting that U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet has bounced the plaintiff's revised attempt to sue McDonald's for poisoning the wells and making Bic Macs from the blood of... I mean, sue for using misleading advertising to lure children into eating unhealthy foods that make them fat.

I don't know about you, but there was never any doubt in my mind what those fries and burgers were doing to me. Even after they switched to vegetable oil. McDonald's? Unhealthy? Retards. How could you appear in public, with your face hanging out, and claim that you were duped by the fiendish ad campaigns of a fast food restaurant? I would die of shame if I ever signed onto that lawsuit.

Thank God the judge has some connection to reality. We need more judges like that, and less assholes trying to game the system for easy money. 
 

Over in the comments to Johno's health care post, I started talking about poverty. I have been hit by the accelerating catastrophe machine in the past, and know what it feels like. The fear of acquiring lifelong debt for an injury. Having everything come due on the same day, and then have the car break down. But...

We are approaching something unprecedented in human history. A time when all but a very small fraction of Americans are poor not by any absolute standard - but only in relation to other Americans who have more money. It won't take anything miraculous, just the continued moderate growth of the economy. The poverty line in this country is orders of magnitudes larger than the per capita incomes of most nations. There is no starvation in this country. We are in the middle, if you will believe the media, of a nationwide epidemic of obesity. And there do seem to be an inordinate number of lardbodies out there. This is not the sign of a subsistance economy.

The people on the left end of the bell curve here have it hard, but only by comparison to richer Americans. Poverty in the traditional, historical sense is gone.

I think that in the future, when we are richer (and barring insane socialistic or Al Gore presidencies, we will be) we can afford more services for the poor. But on one condition - we don't do it the way we have for the last seventy years.

Instead of providing a nightmarish singlepayer system like in Canada, or nationalized health care like in Britain, why don't we just give insurance vouchers, to preserve the free side of the system? Why don't we give huge tax benefits to those who set up medical savings accounts? (Fuck you money immune from taxation.) Why don't we let people save the money that they pay in Social Security taxes? Benefits yes, but in every case the choice for how to use them should be in the hands of the citizen, and out of the hands of the government.

Over at the Spoons Experience, Spoons discusses some interesting news about GOP priorities. The Manchester Union Leader had a talk with Ed Gillespie, RNC Chairman, and described the result:

No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day.

No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want.

The party's unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They don’t think so.

This relates to another thing I read over at the National Review, by Jay Nordlinger, one of the few remaining good things at that online magazine:

I was saying to a friend the other day, "Look, I'm a partisan Republican — a terrible partisan. More partisan than I would like to be, really, or feel comfortable being. But I don't like it when an entire party, in our two-party system, goes wacko. It can't be good for the country... The Democratic party is in the grip of something sick."

And my wise friend responded, "Yes, and another problem is that, when the other party goes nuts, you have no leverage over your own party, or your own president. You certainly have no place else to go. You're stuck."

True.

That is true, indeed. With the Mudville Nine generally either off in lalaland, or unelectable, or both; the Republicans at the moment are on bedrock because they are doing something about the war on terror. No Democrat except Lieberman has any credibility on this issue, and he'll never make it through the primaries. Given this situation, conservatives have no leverage on the party.

We have seen spending skyrocket, and most of it is not for defense, where we most need it. The size and scope of government is increasing under Bush - from unfunded mandates in education, to prescription drug handouts for the old, to the Patriot and Victo acts, to damn near anything except more troops - the only government expansion I could conscience. The deficits are rising, which is not as bad as some claim, but not good either.

If the administration and the lickspittle Republicans in Congress think this will win them votes, well, okay it probably will. But, Jeebus, what do you think Republicans are here for, to be Democrats with the urge to kill foriegners? Conservatism, as I have tried to demonstrate here on this webthingy, is more than polldriven political tacking before the wind, and is more than rhetorical posturing on conservative issues.

Small government is good because it preserves liberty. If the government is not involved, then it is not infringing on your rights, or your freedom. It is not restricting your choices through hidden regulatory obstacles, tax incentives, or coercion. Small government does not consist of a balanced budget and ten percent less government employees. It is a state of mind, a principle that leads toward eliminating unnecessary government interference in our lives, while attending instead to the duties that are proper to a government - national defense, etc.

The Republicans don't have to listen to the conservatives, because the Democrats aren't even in the game.

The Onion interviews P.J. O'Rourke this week:

If there are three words that need to be used more in American journalism, commentary, politics, personal life... it's the magic words "I don't know."

I've been thinking about the prospects of the mudville nine, and wondering a bit about typical primary politics.

How often does the early frontrunner end up getting the nomination? Dean has taken a solid lead over his opponents - where is the juice coming from? He has raised a solid amount of cash, and his poll numbers are good in New Hampshire. (Compared to Dennis the Menace Kucinich, who is polling at 0%. Zero! Department of Peace, my ass. Sorry.)

I see Dean as benefitting from a sort of McCain effect. He is an outsider, of sorts. He seems plainspoken, a trait that most Americans admire. He talks tough, in a Democratic sort of way. But I think what's happening is that he has become the acceptable candidate for those who can't stand Bush. Large numbers in the Democratic Party want to oppose Bush, often from visceral dislike. It's not so much that Dean has a lot of inherent pull, but that the other candidates are in some way unacceptable as a focus point for their feelings.

• Kerry's credentials are soured because he voted for the war - and his later protestation that Bush lied to him hasn't garnered him a lot of credibility.
• Gephardt is a dry, colorless pol, and only name recognition is keeping him in the game. And, he's a loser in past presidential runs.
• Lieberman is still saying that the war was a good thing. At least he's consistent.
• Edwards is a slick trial lawyer. He does not come across as a man of the people, which you need in this race. And, he's so far behind in the polls that people don't want to back a loser.
• Brown, Kucinich and Sharpton are obvious wackos.

What I've read of Dean shows typical populist democratic nostrums for our ills. I don't agree with them when they come out of his mouth any more than I do when they come out of McCain, Buchanan or William Jennings Bryan.

It is typical for a party to tack to its base during the primaries, and toward the center in the general election. The trick is to go far enough out to lock in your support, but not so far that you become unelectable. Dean hasn't skirted the line yet, but his campaign has yet to face its first crisis. He may have peaked too soon. And despite what Democrats may believe, no one will beat Bush unless they are to the right of him on the war on terror, and there certainly is plenty of room over there.

Wow... that just trips gaily off the tongue.

I see that Reuters is reporting that the Government has revised the rules governing what patients may be turned away by hospital emergency rooms, making it easier for hospitals to deny care.

The idea is that many poor people, who don't have insurance, are using the Emergency Room as a primary-care facility, and these rule changes are meant to fix that loophole.

Well, thanks. On the face of it, that's fine and dandy, but it totally fails to address the underlying problem-- that there are as many as forty million people in the USA who don't have insurance and therefore need to rely on emergency medicine.

The problems with this?

• Emergency room visits are damn expensive. This is part of the larger economic trap that poor people get into where they cannot afford high monthly payments on furniture, COBRA, or car insurance, for example, and then get bit in the ass when disaster strikes. I've been in this position, and it's really, really easy to get sucked into a debt spiral as catastrophe costs mount.
• It's really hard to get good baseline health care if you only go to the hospital when you're sick. That means that the 40 million uninsured Americans are not getting the yearly physicals, breast exams, prostate exams, mole checks, and so forth that lawmakers take for granted.
• Clearly, emergency rooms are not the place for primary care, but in the absence of any other reasonable, affordable choice, . . . ?

Basically, I think a baseline national health care program is a pretty great idea. I'm not looking for a full-blown endless-referral system, but just some broken-bone and checkup system that gives economically marginal citizens a chance to stay both economically and physically healthy.

Dean in '04!

[moreover] Politicians and policymakers always seem to forget that most Americans don't have much in the way of "fuck-you" money, as we used to call it in the entertainment biz. That is, savings socked away that can get you through a few months without a job, or cover a disaster. A lot of conservative social policy seems predicated on the existence of such "fuck-you" funds, and it just ain't there. Therefore, economists and politicians tend to wildly overestimate the ability of people to move out of depressed regions or search for a new job if their current one doesn't pay well enough. Just my two cents.