perfidy

I meant that in the sense that those who freak over nukes have a problem with nukes over and above any real concern about the destructive power or utility of explosives of a given size. This is sentimentality, rather than a rational appraisal of the utility of a given weapon. Fallout is bad, but very limited. A 1/100 Hiroshima nuke (150 tons, far bigger than any practical conventional explosive, and twenty times more powerful than the Daisy Cutter.) would probably release less radioactivity than a coal fired powerplant. And radioactivity, while sometimes dangerous, has no supernatural power to harm, especially when compared to the chemical by-products of a conventional explosive.

In any event, we would almost certainly never use them. The threat would probably be sufficient for most purposes.

As is your agreement re: the government's creative use of the Patriot Act &c &c. As I said earlier today-- is it sadder that it happens, or that we all expected it? 

[moreover] Also, regarding hate crime and terror legislation, right on! 

[moreover, once over] Regarding "Purity *Of Essence* of Our Precious Bodily Fluids," good catch. Sheesh. 
 

That some government entities are using their police powers in ways not envisioned by the authors of the Patriot act. Of course they are using that authority against non terrorists. Just as the RICO statutes were used to persecute people who weren't racketeers. And a thousand other examples. There is a certain set of activities that are obviously criminal. Killing, stealing, etc. There is some value in breaking down a category of crime - fraud, counterfeiting, false advertising, insider trading, etc. But there is no sense in making terrorism a crime. I apply the same logic that I apply to hate crimes. Did you kill someone? Well, that's murder. Intent is necessary to prove murder - but what kind of intent shouldn't matter. We already have crimes for these things. Leave it be. Our police agencies are more than capable of tracking down criminals inside the United States, and they don't need new powers to do so. 

The Supreme court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect us. They investigate, and prosecute after the fact. They also serve a deterrent function. They do, and certainly should, try to foil criminal plots. They should share information with the public (the general militia) so that we can more capably provide for our own defense, which is our responsibility as free citizens. 

The only changes I would have made in the wake of 9/11 would have been to take the leash off our foreign intelligence apparatus. The homeland security department is ridiculous. Restrictions on our freedoms to protect our freedom is ridiculous. Taking out terrorists overseas with hellfire missiles before they can do us harm is logical. Homeland security starts with putting the fear of god into those who would harm us, not by giving the FBI and the entire alphabet soup of federal agencies the power to violate my privacy and civil liberties. 
 

It has been pointed out to me that people can vote multiple times for American Idol (not that they can't for the presidency, too), making a cafeteria estimate of the real number of people who voted for President:AI more like 4:1 or 5:1.

Still... while I stand gape-mouthed at your most recent post, Buckethead (zing! bam! pow!), I can't shake a nagging worry. The very complacency which is an American's birthright is still a double-edged sword.

Ahhh, screw it. It's probably just the weather. It's been raining for five days and the weathermen predict another solid week. Tomorrow is "Wind And Rain Saturday" which is unfortunately going to make my planned "Red Sox vs. Indians Beer And Sunburn Saturday" much less enjoyable, as my seats are on the roof of Fenway Pahk. I repeat. Screw it. I'm going to go home, clean the house, and get half-numb on Midnight Vultures. (What's a Midnight Vulture? I made it up! It's a dirty vodka martini made with black olives & black olive juice in place of the standard green, with optional lemon peel and bitters.)

No president has recieved a majority of the popular vote in the last three elections. Percentage of registered voters actually voting is low. Registered voters are an ever smaller fraction of eligible voters. There are two sides to this comparison that you make. On the one hand, you can say that you are shocked, shocked to find that more Americans are interested in the vapid American Idol competition than in who will head up the executive branch of our government. And in many senses this is disturbing. The peeple, the unwashed masses, have no conception of civic duty, of the intelligent exercise of the right of franchise, or the like. They are more concerned with which bubble-head, asshatted, no talent publicity seeker wins a contest. Holy jeebus. I do wish more of my fellow citizens took their responsibilities more seriously. On the other hand, it is simply miraculous and largely unprecedented in history that so large a population is so insulated from the often pernicious consequences of politics that they can safely ignore them. Throughout the world and throughout history, choosing sides in politics is a life and death decision. 

I often weep or gnash my teeth at the most recent outrage. Some of them are the same things that outrage Johno. Less frequently, they are the things that exercise Mike. I think these things are important. I think about them, discuss them, and write about them on this blog. I am a (very small) part of the national discourse on the crucial issues facing our nation. But I could tune out the whole thing, and lead my life without any great fear that the fortunes of my family would be direly affected. Affected, yes, but not in the same sense as choosing the wrong side, or staying neutral too long in France in 1790, Germany in 1848, Russia in 1920, or China in 1950, or Iraq just recently. 

Some people seem to think that American Exceptionalism means that we are better than anyone else at everything. This is not true. (Lots of things, not everything.) The reason that the United States is exceptional is not that our government is so capable, often it is the exact opposite. But our system allows all quarter+ billion of us to use (or not use) our abilities to the fullest. However we choose. The governent, by and large, stays out of the way. We panic whenever it encroaches on some aspect of our life. But we choose our jobs, where to live, how to live. We don't need passports to leave the state. We don't need a governent permit to set up a seditios weblog. We don't need a bureaucrat's blessing to try and build a working space ship in our garage as a hobby. (Which thousands of people do.) That is exceptional. Regardless of the fact that 58 million found time to vote for Kelly Clarkson, you can't compete with a nation whose populace builds spaceships for fun. Or invents whole new industries that change the way the entire world operates out of a garage, for fun. (Personal computers.) To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the Liberty, stupid." 

And liberty means that people can vote for Kelly Clarkson, and not for president. 
 

Buckethead, you think bumfights.com is horrigreat? (Greatifying?) Check this on for size:

Number of votes cast in 2000 Presidental election: 101.5 Million
Number of votes cast in 2002 American Idol competition: 100 Million

Kelly Clarkson received 58% of the vote in her competition. George W. Bush received 48%. That means:

Number of votes cast for George W. Bush: approximately 50.46 Million
Number of votes cast for Kelly Clarkson: approximately 58 Million.

Damn. Pretty exceptional, alright.

The FCC is set to vote next week in a closed session on whether to allow further deregulation of the media market. Large companies like Viacom, Fox, and ClearChannel stand to benefit heavily at the expense of what few smaller media corporations are left. I oppose this strenuously. There is already too much centralization in the media.

For once, William Safire and I agree, and his writing is pungent. Check it out.

[moreover]: A recent poll conducted in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco revealed that very few Americans trust news sources, taking a "hey, whaddaya gonna do?" attitude to what they see as inevitable distortions, lies, and covert biases on the part of news providers. Even Jessica Lynch's father, upon reading the Jayson Blair story about his family which contained blatant fabrications, declined to mention it to the Times, on the grounds that he pretty much expected such behavior from reporters. Why do I bring this up in this post? No reason.

...that is, legislators. Sorry. Joshua Micah Marshall has the latest on this incident, which I referenced a few days ago. CalPundit and Marshall both see a criminal investigation in the future for Tom DeLay as the result of his role in calling in Homeland Security and participating in the cover-up. Ho-ly crap. 

Is there something in the water in the Beltway? There seem to be more than the usual share of Captain Insano moves recently. Not least of which is this roundup by TalkLeft (via Instapundit) of uses of the USA Patriot act against non-terrorists. Is it sadder that this is happening, or that everyone seemed to expect it? I

 thought the Republicans were the party of limited government interference and small spending. Where do I go now if I believe in these things? The Greens?? 

[ed] not going to include links on 8/7/03.
 

James Lileks writes today about Star Trek serieseses as commentaries on the times in which they were made. Hardly a new observation, but it's Lileks and therefore done with unusual grace, elegance, and insight. I suggest you read it.

Buckethead, I respectfully think you're dead wrong on nukes. I would assign a far greater seriousness to the "sentimentality" you so laughingly brush aside. Is (even a tiny amount of devastating) fallout merely sentimental? We can already do 1/100 a Hiroshima, with conventional weapons. Why unearth the revenant that's been so dangerous and troublesome in the past?