perfidy

I've been thinking about this for a bit, as I wrestle with my partially completed novel. In my world, genre killing is when an author (usually science fiction) writes a book that destroys a sub genre for every subsequent author. If you think of the realm of possible science fiction novels as a vast, unexplored continent - some writers are like explorers, their novels open up new territories for development. Their ideas create places where others can settle and develop. Heinlein was probably the biggest explorer in this sense. He wrote important early novels or stories that opened up new terrain for others.

But other authors don't just explore, they discover and lay waste to huge tracts of land, and no one but the insane would ever be able to live in the wasteland they leave behind. David Brin is like this, his Uplift series makes it almost impossible to think of writing stories about genetically engineered smart animals. Charles Pellegrino and George Zebroski leveled the once rich region of alien invasion novels by writing Killing Star. This novel debunks nearly every possible motivation for invasion, and then caps it off by introducing relativistic bombing. The only way that you can write about a topic in the wake of a genre killer is to devote extraordinary effort to overcoming, outthinking, and resisting the influence of your predecessor. And even if you succeed, your work will bear the stamp of the genre killer.

The interesting thing is that this process is not merely about writing, it is also largely about the ideas that are at the center of science fiction. Dune, by Frank Herbert, largely killed the interstellar empire sub genre by interweaving it with ecology, politics and religion (wrapped in superb writing) and the only survivors are barely literate pulp sf war porn novels.

This is a small version of the effect that great writers have on all who follow them. Harold Bloom, in The Western Canon talks about this in great depth. Bloom focuses on how Shakespeare, at the very center of Western Literature, put the thumb on every writer who followed him, and will do so to every writer for as long as we have an English language. Shakespeare, more than anyone, killed the Sonnet by perfecting and transcending it. After the Bard, who could even attempt to best Sonnet 130, or Sonnet 123, or whatever your favorite is?

Since I am writing a novel about war, set in the near future, I must wrestle with Tom Clancy. Happily, he isn't a genre killer, which means that I am not wasting my time. But I must be aware of him, always in the back of my mind, so that I don't end up writing a dull Clancy pastiche of a novel. Hopefully, that will make me a better writer.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled kvetching

Some of the things that NASA has resisted in the past forty years: 

Orion and NERVA 

Nucklear propulsion technologies that had successfully reached scale model tests for Orion, and static testing of a prototype for NERVA before being cancelled by NASA. The prototype NERVA (Nuclear Energy for Rocket Vehicle Applications) prototype was twice as efficient as the most advanced chemical rocket ever built, the SSME, or Space Shuttle Main Engine. With a little practice, this could have been improved. (BTW, my dad in his role as Air and Space Museum curator helped save the prototype, nicknamed kiwi.) 
Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory  

A small (mobile home-sized) space station that could have been launched in the mid sixties, and would have had a crew of two.

DynaSoar  

Short for dynamic soaring, the X-20 was the result of a different evolutionary line than the Apollo moon rockets. It evolved from the German Sanger-Bredt Silverbird intercontinental skip-glide rocket bomber from WWII, and was the first space vehicle ever actually constructed - back in the fifties. NASA cancelled it eight months before drop tests from a B-52 and a manned flight in '64. This spaceplane, launched atop a Titan II or other disposable rocket, would have led to a series of more advanced follow on vehicles. 

Skylab  

The Skylab program was cancelled by the ingenious expedient of having the space station fall from orbit on 11 July 1979. Although there were several proposals that might have saved America's first space station, the freeze on non shuttle launches left NASA with no means of getting there. 

NASP  

The National Aerospace Plane, a space plane that would take off and land horizontally, was unceremoniously cancelled in the early nineties. Granted, there were doubts whether the vehicle was feasible, and some research continues. 

DCX 

I've talked about this one before, on this site, though that week doesn't seem to be in the archive. 

NASA has also consistently resisted additional alternative methods of propulsion like solar sails and tethers, any use of Shuttle External Tanks other than throwing them into the Indian Ocean, going back to the moon for any reason, and any means of going to Mars that doesn't take fifteen years and sending Pittsburgh into orbit to supply the mission.

In response to the comments on my NASA post of yesterday, here are some extended thoughts on the situation. I do not think that the formula for success in NASA lies in control of spending. NASA wastes money, and this is a concern. It is also a concern that NASA has no real means for even determining how much money it spends, and on what. But this is the least of their problems. Overspending was the third and last problem that I mentioned, and in the interest of brevity I didn't explain what I meant by that. The overspending that I had in mind is a NASA-specific kind of waste. NASA wastes billions of dollars on designing, planning, redesigning and yet more redesigning. The ISS was redesigned, what, five times in the twenty years before it was built? NASA seems to have a distinct aversion to actually building things.

But this is really only a small part of the total problem that is NASA. There is nothing really that can be done to fix it, because NASA is a government bureaucracy and therefore largely immune to change. Further, even if the Public, the President and Congress gave NASA an inspiring, all-consuming mission, and a butload of cash to achieve it; they still would have all the same problems. Lack of vision is inherent in bureaucracy. Lack of innovation and NIMBYism is par for the course. People go on and on about what a stupendous success Apollo was, usually so they can set up a stunning indictment of the current NASA. But the history of Apollo was one of political motives, awkward technical and mission compromises, and general rhetorical grandstanding. (It was also a stupendous achievement, but all of the seeds of NASA's current problems began in the sixties.)

In the early days of aviation, NACA (The National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics) was a government body that published basic and practical research on aeronautics, and on aviation. Private firms hoping to get funding from banks and venture capitalists could point to a NACA study and say, "See, the government says it can be done, it's practical." Then they'd get their cash, and build an airplane or whatever. NASA needs to do this for all the companies that would dearly love to get into space transportation, rather than jealously guarding its space monopoly with the connivance of the FAA and the DOD.

NASA could quite successfully send out robotic probes, do solar and deep space astronomy, and publish bleeding edge research on aerospace science and engineering. Especially if they weren't saddled with the economic, budgetary and political albatross of running the space shuttle program. The only way to get around the deeply ingrained institutional problems of NASA is to, well, go around them.

The preverts are going to drag civilization down.

The two major touchstones I have in thinking about the role of government in our lives are 1) Is it Constitutional? and, more fundamentally, 2) Leave me the hell alone. #1 is the first line of defense, because many bad things are unconstitutional. But even if it passes that muster, the government must show a really compelling need to interfere with lives of citizens before a law is "good." I can see that laws against theft, which interferes with my desire to take things that I want, is good for society. Similar thoughts give a pass to many laws we have. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their boudoir is, properly, there concern and theirs alone. Therefore, sodomy statures and similar laws are bad.

Where Santorum is wrong is in positing a slippery slope between sodomy laws and the other things that he mentioned. Slippery slope arguments are overrated and overused, and inapplicable here. Bigamy, gay marriage and adultery are different issues. Regardless of what you feel about these, they are societal concerns, and in a different category. They may be "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," but overturning a sodomy statute won't make them legal. 

It is a huge question whether the government has a role in implementing "the Good Society." Some weep and gnash their teeth at government legislating morality - but that is certainly what the government does with murder and theft laws. I weep and gnash my teeth at the liberal attempts to legislate a good society with "risky schemes" like welfare and so on. All of these things infringe on our rights to do just what we please, or at least leave us less cash to fund doing just what we please. We need to look at these things somewhat pragmatically, and somewhat strict constructionistally. 

We need first off to pay more attention to the Constitution, as it is written, because it is the rule by which we live. Many, many bad things come from ignoring this. There are no umbras and penumbras and eclipses and occultations in the constitution. If you don't like what it says, what it allows and permits, there is a mechanism for changing it. The rule of law is the most fundamental requirement for civilization, and we ignore it at our peril. The RICO statutes, and the RIAA and the Patriot II that Johno has been exercised over recently are all the result of a failure on the part of our legislators to ask the question, what part of the constitution gives us permission to pass this law. Deferring that judgement to the courts results in many other evils, as the courts end legislators who cannot be voted out of office. While we may be happy with one decision or another, the situation is bad for us all. 

On the pragmatic side, we need to look at individual cases, and ask, "Is this law doing what we want it to?" When Congress passed the welfare reform act back in 96, the left was having fits of apoplexy, crying and whining that we would have children starving to death because of the callousness and heartlessness of Republicans. This was an ideological reaction. The result was much happier. Welfare rolls are down by almost half, and there are no children starving to death. This was a situation where someone took a long look at a program that was supposed to end or at least ameliorate poverty, but ended up institutionalizing it. The law of unintended circumstances hits government programs harder than anything else - largely because government programs are so hard to change, much less kill. Social Security is clearly heading for disaster unless something is done to fix it - yet many oppose any kind of reform because it offends their leftist aesthetic sensibilities to kick this particular sacred cow. There are other situations where conservative sacred cows could use some kicking as well, most notably the drug war nightmare. Instead of reducing the amount of drugs in use, it has lowered prices, increased purity, given billions of dollars to very bad people, ruined Columbia and is ruining Peru and Venezuela, savaged civil liberties in this country and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent on an all expense paid vacation for 12 on Mars. 

On some issues, my instincts say, "that shouldn't be allowed." Or, "Those greenpeace fucks should be in camps." Others will have similar thoughts with different targets. But my other instincts say, we live in a rather nifty Republic, with constitutional safeguards, and we shouldn't screw it up. We best avoid screwing things up by avoiding action. The best government governs least. Anyone who feels differently is invited to look at the former Soviet Union, or even France for a counterexample.

No, it's in the amendments (IV, IX, X), you sneaky semanticist you!

Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet that Ricky Santorum was not making a statement about the Bill of Rights when he made that speech, but was rather wringing his hands about how the preverts are going to drag civilization down. I dunno. That's just my sense.

[update] Santorum has a right to his opinion. I also have a right to know he's dead wrong.

[update] The big issue, in a legislative sense, isn't privacy at all, but whether the Feds have a right to regulate what consenting adults do with their own time. I'm inclined to think they don't.

Of course, he's right in saying that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

And to think, I have been invited to be in a wedding... Perhaps they should reconsider.

From Senator Rick Santorum:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," the Pennsylvania lawmaker said in a recent interview, fuming over a landmark gay rights case before the high court that pits a Texas sodomy law against equality and privacy rights.
"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum said. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

More information/insight/reaction/yammering at Instapundit, Light of Reason, and the Times-Leader, which is an actual news source.

Apparently,

I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent, you silly king-a?!

What Monty Python Character are you, you English pig-dog?

(brought to you by Quizilla)

From Geek Lethal, via coded private communique, comes this January 2001 article from the Onion, covering Bush's Inaugural Address. Read it.

For you lazies, here's excerpts:

"During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years. You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."

Yeesh. It's like they had a time machine or something.

Tomorrow, when (hopefully) I am not exhausted and sore, I have on tap: genre killing; the French (again); and James Madison and Valery Giscard d'Estaing: a comparative view of constitution building in America and Europe.

In the meantime, I am going to go home and take a nap.

Put the founder of the Mars Society at the helm of NASA, and give him two weeks worth of the Social Security budget, and we'll be on Mars in a few years, tops. Very smart guy. He has developed plans for getting to Mars far cheaper than the typical NASA baseline mission profile. Not only cheaper, but smarter. 

Even better, put Charles Pellegrino in charge, give him a month's worth of the SS budget, and he and his Brookhaven Lab physicist compatriots will have us on our way to Alpha Centauri in anti-matter powered Valkyrie starships in a decade or two. If you're gonna think, think big. Screw Mars, I want the stars. 
 

While I know little about the two men mentioned (do feminists insist on being womyntioned?) in the Globe article, promoting from within is rarely a good sign at NASA. It will probably lead to more bureaucratic inertia, lack of creative solutions, and overspending. I could be wrong. On a more positive note, But Rutan and the aerodynamic geniuses at Scaled Composites have unveiled their new spaceship.

As the space.com article mentions, Rutan is going for the X-prize. This ten million dollar award goes to the first group that takes passengers into space, returns safely, and then does it again with the same vehicle inside a week. The prize is consciously modeled after the prizes offered in the early days of aviation, which played a significant role in the development of the industry. It gives me some hope that Rutan is pursueing this vision - unlike most of the pie-in-the-sky "competitors", Rutan has a proven record of not merely designing; but building, flying and selling experimental aircraft.

Rutan designed Voyager, the plane that made the first unrefueled, non-stop, round the world flight. If anyone can do it, Burt can. And if someone can get into space without metric tons of government funding, it will be a wonderful thing. (And if Rutan wins the X Prize, he can get serious venture capital.)

Goodwife Two-Cents is certainly right about Jack Kennedy's appeal to the American public: his charisma, cultural stuff, etc. But, that is precisely why he is overrated - people dig him, but his consumate fugbuckery on matters of policy go largely ignored because he was witty, cool, and had chicks.

Side note: I am so tired today, that this is how that passage above was originally typed:

Goodwife tweo cents is certainly right about Jacj Kenenfy;s appeeal to the Ameican public, his cahrisma cltural styuff, etc. But, thatis preciedlety whyy he was ovvertated - people dig him, but his consemmate fugbuckery on matters of policy go largeyl ignored because he was witty, cool and thad chicks.

That is not an exageration. Of course, you will note that no matter how tired I am, I can always type "fugbuckery" and "matters of policy" correctly.

I think "Humility" would be a burdensome monicker for any child carrying my genes. Increase... hmmn. No, I think I'll stick with John Christian. Baby ETA now only 20 days away. Sheesh. At least the new house now has all of our stuff in it, and the furniture in more or less the proper orientation.

Many sources are reporting that Ron Dittemore is stepping down as head of NASA's Shuttle Program. It seems he was in the process of resigning when the most recent accident happened, and stayed on to deal with the aftermath. So, this isn't a drumming-out, or at least not a recent one.

Buckethead, what can you tell me about the people the Boston Globe report may take over-- "William Readdy, NASA's associate administrator for space flight, and his deputy, Michael Kostelnik"?

Here's hoping for a new direction in NASA space vehicle thinking. Rotsa ruck.

Goodwife Two-Cents, who is better than me in every way, had some insights about Jack Kennedy I think I should share. She contends that in decrying JFK as an overrated President, I missed important points. Well, I think she's right so I will air them here. 

First, John and Jackie Kennedy did a great deal to make the Presidency a cultural post. That was an important issue to pursue as President, and they did it with aplomb and flair. Moreover, what President has continued this work since? Jackie Kennedy on her own did a great deal to secure funding and support for the arts and non-war-based sciences during the slide-rule and crewcut era, and that deserves some propers. I can get behind that.

Not since Washington's administration did a President capture the hearts and minds of the nation like JFK. Quick - name three other Presidents who were assassinated. Um, Lincoln, that's easy, and McKinley, and ohhh, ummmm.... Geez. Mumbley-Joe? (It's Garfield). 

It's hard, isn't it? JFK's assassination shook the nation like Lincoln's did, and like McKinley's and Garfield's did not. Always catastrophic, Kennedy's shooting remains a watershed moment precisely because he stood for so much in the eyes of the country. Regardless of his merits or shortcomings, he was better-loved than any other President I can name in the twentieth century. 

Final note: JFK's cult of personality, besides being a boon to the nation in a dark time, was an important factor in why he wasn't strung up for sucking so mightily at politics and international affairs. 

Other final note: 50% of those Presidents who have been assassinated in office are from Ohio. WTF? 

Last final note. I share a common ancestor with all eight Ohio Presidents, plus both Bushes and JFK. That's not that great a feat, really. Mary Chilton must have been some ho. 

Truly final note too good to pass up: Those crazy Pilgrims! Among the Mayflower passengers, there was a little girl named Humility Cooper. Buckethead, is it too late to change your mind? I think you need a son named Increase.

Mickey Kaus has some insight, and a leaked memo, about the Iraqi National Museum thingy we've been yammering about. According to the Kaus-linked WaPo article, the museum was apparently #2 on the list of sites for the military to protect during and after the fighting-- the currently-intact Iraqi Oil Ministry was dead last on the list. Kaus:

I don't see why it gets the U.S. off the hook if the looting was an "inside job." You can protect against inside jobs too, by preventing things from leaving the building -- like priceless statues that take ten men to lift. The issue isn't who did the stealing, but whether or not we screwed up and failed to do what we could. To the extent that our forces were taking fire from the museum and unable to safely protect it, we obviously didn't screw up. To the extent our forces didn't even know for several days that there was a museum there to protect (but did know there was a bank), or to the extent they decided to protect water storage facilities and other infrastructure rather than art work, it was a screw-up. Islamic terrorists twenty years from now won't be wooing recruits with the story of how the evil Americans smashed a water storage facility. They will be telling them about how the Americans burned ancient copies of the Koran and destroyed the heritage of the Arab world. ...

Damn straight. Of course, choosing between defending drinking water for civilians and defending priceless art is a Hobson's choice, but once again, that's only part of an explanation, and not any kind of excuse. 

Kaus also has some thought-provoking stuff about winning the war/losing the peace. Me likey! 
 

As bad as President Clin-ton, Nixon, or Buchanan may have been, none of them were as bad as the tyrannical rule of President Kang.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

In chronological order: 

• Washington
• Jefferson
• Lincoln
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

I only relucantly put Jefferson up here, and would almost swap Adams in his place. However, Adams earns giant demerits for the Alien & Sedition Acts, which totally trump Jefferson's shortcomings. Reagan would make my top five, because his effect on the nation and the world was enormous. But as Mike points out, he has a formidible downside as well. 

All in all, a good group. Lincoln had that unfortunate prog-rock phase after his chart success, Jefferson had heroin problems late in his career (not to mention that awful on-stage meltdown in Mannheim), and it took Teddy three or four albums to find his sound, but in the end you just don't get better than these five here. 
 

This president stuff is DEFINITELY subjective. One man's Richard Nixon is another man's Millard Fillmore, figuratively speaking.

And ya better stop callin' me Welshy. Words like that really get my Irish up.

We forgot the Hitchhiker's Guide

Mike and Buckethead, I don't disagree with JFK's: Catholicism; Irishness; hawkishness; tax-cutting-ness; influence; sexual potence; or Democratic nature. Hell, every couple weekends on the way to the House of Blues I walk down John F. Kennedy Street, Past the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Just a few miles from there is the Kennedy Museum and Library, not to mention Ted Kennedy, who is visible from orbit as well as from my comfortable home on the distant rocky coast.

What I'm disagreeing with is a) Mike's favorable opinion of Kennedy as a president, and b) Buckethead's assertion that we need more like him. Now, there have been worse presidents, but Kennedy is way overrated. I take a dim view of his civil rights record, war record, indecisiveness, and ham-fisted management of the various Communist-related crises of his administration. Had he been more forceful, decisive, and competent in all arenas, I think that all the things LBJ gets credit for would have come to pass several years earlier, and we wouldn't have had that Bay of Pigs/11:59:59 on the Doomsday Clock funtime twofer, either. More Hawkish, Tax Cutting, Democrats? Well, Ok. More like Kennedy, no please. Just my two cents.

As for Reagan, I think you're both right, not wrong. Reagan can rightly be credited with amazing gains in foreign policy, helping to end the cold war, bringing the USA out of the stagflation doldrums of the Ford/Carter years. But at the same time his policies, like Thatcher's in Britain, could be stunningly callous. If he didn't care about it, or understand it, it may as well have not existed. So, while he was freeing the world from Communism and such, at home great cities slid into ruin. In terms of Greatness, Reagan had it. In terms of Goodness, he's a mixed bag. My bottom five include:

• Nixon, his lapdog Agnew, and his button-man, Kissinger. He was a paranoid, self-aggrandizing career buffoon whose ambitions amounted only to making Richard Nixon powerful. Don't try to tell me that KSU was solely an Ohio problem. That same year there were incidents in New York and Birmingham AL (where ELEVEN black students were killed, before the Kent State four, but since black southern teens weren't blue-collar rust-belt northern teens, nobody seemed to care). Nixon and Agnew: mastered the litany of superiority and exclusion ("Nattering Nabobs of Negativity," "Silent Majority, " Agnew on Kent State: "the powder keg exploded, resulting in tragedy that was predictable and avoidable," Nixon: "when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy"); utterly destroyed the last shred of Americans' trust in the Federal Government; and kept Vietnam burning. Special demerits to Nixon for allowing that ghoul Kissinger anywhere near a seat of power. A final note: If you scramble the letters in "Spiro Agnew," you get "grow a penis."
• Andrew Johnson. Rarely has history called on a person to give so much, and gotten so little in return. Presidential Reconstruction was a disaster.
• Hoover. Depression.
• Clin-ton. Also a self-aggrandizing career buffoon. History will show that our current problems, though not necessarily started by Clinton, are as bad as they are because Clinton chose to let them slide rather than risk his image in dealing with them. Also responsible for sucking the Democratic Party dry.
• James Buchanan. See Andrew Johnson above. Lacked the "vision thing," and utterly failed to understand that sectional tensions could not be papered over with words and a couple judicial appointments. Consequently, a shooting war over slavery and states' rights was made inevitable.

Similarly, I don't see how I was wrong on calling him a tax cutting hawkish democrat. 1) He cut taxes. 2) Vietnam 3) He was a Democrat.

If we we're both wrong on Reagan, I wonder what the truth is, as Mike and I covered pretty much all the options. Like Bush the Younger said, you're either with us or against us - there ain't no middle ground.

You welshman may not all be bastards, but most of you are.

Senor dos Pesetas, I'm curious as to how I'm wrong about Kennedy. Point 1, "the only Irish Catholic president of this great nation of ours?" was a quote from Edward Burns' The Brothers McMullen. How's that wrong? He wasn't Irish Catholic? Contest that one. The U.S. isn't a great nation? Sure, that one is up for debate. Point 2, good taste in women. What in the hell was wrong with Marilyn Monroe? You got something against Norma Jeane? Them's fightin' words, Welshy. Jacquelyn? Okay, up for debate, but she was hot. Point 3, voracious in his carnal appetites? He had so many notches in his bedpost it was a toothpick. Please explain where I went wrong. 

By the way, if you fellas haven't figured this one out already, and I would think you have, none of today's posts, from me, are to be taken too seriously. All the president stuff is very highly subjective anyway. 
 

We're not all bastards? SO GLAD TO HEAR IT.

*snicker*

Thank you both for weighing in. This has been excellent so far. I'm not going to offer my, erm, two cents yet. Time is short and intelligence is shorter. But I will say now I think you're both right about Reagan, and both wrong about Kennedy.

For Lloyd George not counting, read the previous sentence. Then read the Lloyd George sentence. It will all make sense. Not all Welshman are bastards. Little disclaimer. 

Bear in mind that the little excerpt from my journal was not edited, except for two words. It's a random thoughts thing. But I'll explain. Churchill made things worse prior to the actual Treaty negotiations because he was responsible for deploying the Black and Tans in Ireland. He made things worse during the Treaty negotiations by strong-arming Collins and Griffith, constantly using threats of force. The Civil War to which I refer is the Irish Civil War of 1922-23, between pro and anti-Treaty factions. Churchill, Lloyd George, Birkenhead, Chamberlain, the lot of them, made things worse with partition because a 32 County Ireland, with Free State as opposed to fully independent Republic status, probably would have seen only the Civil War of 1922-3. The hook comes with the Troubles. No partition, no Troubles. Best case scenario was a 32 county fully independent Republic. No Civil War, no Troubles either. But Churchill, et al wouldn't hear of it. 

Some would argue, but the Loyalist community in the north would have complained and, blah blah blah blah. It was complicated. We don't what might have happened. We only know what did happen. Partition made the Troubles. Churchill helped make partition, but one in a long line beginning with Henry VIII, as far as the north is concerned. 

So yeah. I hate Cromwell too. James VI and I, for that matter, plantations and all. Elizabeth I? Oh yeah. Constant campaigns in Ireland under her. They're like presidents. They all kinda suck somehow. 

Pol Pot was a history teacher. But Cambodia didn't have the wonderful governmental system you were snickering at. Intellectuals should never be let near the levers of power. Many politicians, for all their faults, think of people as people (or at least voters), rather than abstractions. 

Reagan had a bad effect on Pittsburgh - perhaps. There were many other problems with American heavy industry - complacency, aging infrastructure, poor management, etc. And you can't assess the man's contribution (or bad effect) on a whole nation by what happened to one city. 

Dick Cheney is not president. Read Woodward's book if you're not sure. 

Coolidge is not, repeat not, to blame for the Great Depression. What in all likelihood would have been a cyclical downturn in the economy - a recession - was made far worse by Hoover's and the Federal Reserve's idiotic response to the stock market crash. The crash was in 29, the depression didn't really get going until 31, after hoover and his administration mucked everything up. Hoover's on my list. 

Nixon, the prototypical intelligent jackass, was not responsible for Kent State. That was the fault of Gov. Rhodes, of Ohio. 

Andy Johnson nearly lost the war after we'd lost 600,000 winning it. Kennedy was a tax cutting hawkish democrat, we could use more of those. 

The Electoral College keeps the Green party from being a force in national politics. Good enough for me. 

I know you don't like Thatcher, but she isn't in the same category. No gulags, no death camps, and she was voted out of office - which no communist or fascist has ever allowed to happen. 

At least we agree on Wilson. What a schmuck.

BH: I'll gladly take Reagan and Coolidge out of the same category as Hitler, Himmler, and Stalin for the very reasons you describe. But Thatcher stays.

If there would have been a civil war regardless of whether or not Ireland was partitioned, why do you blame Churchill for making things worse? Certainly, the British record in Ireland is abominable - they treated every other colony, even the ones composed of the most primitive cultures, better than they did the Irish. In fact, it seemed that they were trying to make the Irish into a primitive colony so that they could justify treating it so badly. I would think that you would hate Cromwell more.

Another side note: Top Five Unlikely Military Geniuses:

Being the overly judgmental and critical person that I am, I'll start with the five presidents I like the least with a brief explanation as to why.

1) Woodrow Wilson. Hated the Irish, Catholics, the Chinese, probably anti-semitic as well, the list could go on and on. Having people as racist as this guy was in the White House is bad news. Loved the English at a time when the English were heinous. As I argued in my senior seminar at the dear old alma mater (snicker), let Irish rebel Roger Casement swing without lifting a finger. Thanks to this jackass, they'll never let another academic be president again. Wilson ruined it for me! Ruined it!

2) Ronald Reagan. When I was a little boy, I thought this guy was the anti-Christ. Now that I'm growed up, I see no reason to disagree with my former self. During his presidency, the mills in my hometown of Pittsburgh shut down, millions were out of work, and he was at least partly to blame. Laissez-faire economics, and breaking the Unions when firing all the air traffic controllers are little bits of evidence. Before Reagan was President, almost 2/3 of the world's steel was manufactured in Pittsburgh or near by. After he was President, about .00000000001% of the world's steel was manufactured in the region. Had a strong role in shutting down and emptying mental health hospitals.

3) George Washington. Back to the Western PA example, personally led 13,000 troops against the insurgents of the Whiskey Rebellion. First, only, and last president to lead troops personally against his own people. Hoover just had them attacked and hid in the White House. Nixon had the gestap- oh sorry, I mean the National Guard to take care of it without even waking him up. Owned slaves. Looked funny. Rich guy. Don't like him.

4) Teddy Roosevelt. Had a little cocktail weiner and overcompensated with imperialism and hunting. Freud musta loved this guy. I don't. He bugs me.

5) Dick Cheney. This guy is just totally out of control, as far as I'm concerned.

6) Nixon. Prick.

7) Collidge. Go play some golf while industry produces more goods than consumers can buy. Real good. When the bottom fell out, you were dead, so what do you care, you do-nothing laissez faire son of a bitch?

8) The rest of them. They all suck for some reason.

Oh yeah. Good presidents. Hmm. Jack Kennedy, "the only Irish Catholic president of this great country of ours." Had good taste in women, if a bit voracious in his appetites. Andrew Johnson, viz-a-viz the south and reconstruction? Sure! Stick it to those noose-swinging, sheet wearing, Jack drinkin', good old boys! "How you like me now, South Carolina? Try to pull that shit again with my presidential foot in your ass!"

Presidents in history are kinda like presidents in the past. They do things some people like and others don't. Bill Clinton tried to make everybody happy, Lyndon Johnson tried to use opinion polls too extensively. They did what they thought was best, like anyone else who held the office. So far, no president has actually sunk the country. I'm sure the Bucketman believes this is because of the brilliance of American governmental structure, so on, such forth. Okay. It seems to have worked to the point where the whole thing hasn't collapsed. Plenty of room for improvement on social and economic levels. Politcally ... 86 the electoral college and I like it a whole lot more. Stop fucking around with the Bill of Rights. Let it stand. It was a good idea.

Well, this could easily turn into something beyond wacky, cynical, slightly satirical rantings. I'll let it go at that.

I would, however, agree with your definition of greatness and infamy. I also tend to use a third category, importance. I think Wilson was a horrible president, who left the world worse than he found it. However, he is important. So, if I were to make a list of most important presidents, it might go: Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Jefferson, FDR. Happily, we have had no truly infamous presidents - at least not by world-historical standards. Even our worst presidents rank pretty well when compared to the average run of national leaders throughout the world, throughout history. We are very lucky. Even someone like Nixon seems downright wholesome when compared to most Roman Emperors, but especially Caligula, Nero and Commodus.

Mike said about FDR, "His infamy also lies in his role as the savior of American capitalism, and not taking the New Deal far enough to the left." You cannot possibly imagine what that sounds like to me. If you want to blame someone for saving capitalism (gack) then blame our second Irish-American president, Ronald Reagan. FDR was an attempt at socialism that thankfully was aborted by the common sense of the American people.

Also, I really must object to putting Reagan, Thatcher and Coolidge in the same category as Stalin, Hitler and Himmler. Certainly, your political beliefs will ensure that those three are not on your "favorite leaders" list. But Thatcher, Reagan and Coolidge were not responsible for the organized slaughter of millions of their fellow citizens. At absolute worst, they were (elected) misguided leaders of democratic nations, who were replaced by constitutional means. This is a far, far cry from genocidal maniac leader of a totalitarian police state.

A side note: in general, the Soviets who died in vast numbers in combat against the Nazis died to save civilization - although in the process they also preserved (temporarily) the unmitigated evil of communism. American and British troops made the Germans die to save civilization. Like Patton said, "Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his." This is, I think, largely a result of the total lack of concern for human life of the Soviet government.

Does Lloyd George not count because he is welsh, or is he welsh and doesn't count for some other reason?

Here is an excerpt from my journal, containing some of my thoughts on greatness and infamy. I wrote this about a year ago. 

I have devoted some thought to greatness, and what it is that makes someone great. I believe the first category of greatness is someone who leaves the world a better place than it was before their arrival and activities. Infamy, in contrast, is achieved when someone leaves the world in a worse position than it was before. Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Augusto Pinochet, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Heinrich Himmler are just a few political and military examples of infamy, in my opinion. I doubt, however, that Hitler, Himmler, Pinochet, and Stalin would generate much dissent from other voices. But what about greatness? Can greatness be tainted with infamy? Is there no clear good and evil at all? I would think that Himmler, Hitler, and Stalin were the face of evil without any redeeming characteristics whatever.

But sticking with twentieth century political examples, the great have a taint of infamy. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill have long been considered by some historians to be untouchable pillars of greatness. But Roosevelt was a racist who saved capitalism in the United States rather than overseeing its transition to a socially responsible welfare state. He fooled around on his wife too, but shit, most people do that, it's just normal. Roosevelt's greatness lies in his stewardship of the United States in its most dire economic times, and preventing a complete collapse and catastrophe. In addition his administration saw the United States mostly through the second World War and US assistance in the destruction of the aforementioned face of evil in Germany. His infamy does lie in racism and prejudice, for example the internment of Japanese American citizens under Executive Order 9066, as well as the racism inherent in several New Deal programs. His infamy also lies in his role as the savior of American capitalism, and not taking the New Deal far enough to the left. He is great for what he did. He is infamous both for what he did and what he did not. 

Churchill, don't get me started. He and Lord Birkenhead did more to condemn Ireland to partition and civil war than any other English bastard. Lloyd George was Welsh, he doesn't count. He did more to condemn Ireland to partition and civil war than any other Welsh bastard. Churchill was a wanton imperialist, a member of the Conservative party, and a fat fuck. But his infamy was balanced with greatness. Perhaps were it not for Churchill and the English people of World War II, this journal would be written in German and there would be only praise for Hitler and Himmler. A bit far fetched I agree, since the US was conventionally unconquerable in all likelihood, but the world would be a different and much worse place were it not for Churchill the fat English bastard. His greatness lies in keeping the world from getting worse, his infamy in making Ireland worse than it could have been. A 32 county republic would also have resulted in a civil war, but then so did partition. Consider the Troubles initiated in 1972, and the fact that they have yet to end entirely. 

But to move from political to social greatness and keeping with the twentieth century, an era of which I am fond, there are examples. The ordinary men in extraordinary times in the United States Army, Navy, and Marines who fought World War II achieved greatness in that they kept the world from getting worse. The Soviet people, the bulwark of resistance to German imperialism sacrificed their lives in the millions, but I would rather glorify their actions than their unnecessary deaths, because there simply is no glory in death. The English have already been mentioned, though I should add the British, northern Irish, and the Irish who crossed the border to serve in the English military to defeat the greater evil. 

But social greatness, of course, is not always so big. A few days ago I saw a program on the Animal Planet network that described a young girl's campaign to outfit the K-9 units of her suburban police department with kevlar jackets. She collected enough money to get a vest for each and every dog on the force, something like six. This could conceivably save the lives of those dogs serving on the force. Few people outside of her suburb who don't watch Animal Planet know this, and I confess that I cannot remember her name, but she is great. That's it. It goes without saying, so of course I'll say it, that greatness and infamy are highly subjective. Many seem to have a little of both.

It is interesting to note that almost all of Americas' good generals, and most generals in general, come from the south. True, Patton was from California, but his family raised him like he was from Virginia. He was steeped in that "War of Northern Aggression" ethos. Sherman, btw, was from Ohio. Some honorable mentions for the top five list: Francis Marion, MacArthur, and some Admirals - David Farragut, Raymond Spruance, Bull Halsey, and Chet Nimitz.

Also, a good one from Hanson.

Didn't say that Taft and Grant were great presidents. Just that you shouldn't pick on them. And as my friend Drew says, always be aware of when you're measuring on the "Bad" scale, which is certainly what I was doing with McKinley. You are certainly right about the Taft bloodline thinning, but really, it could hardly have done otherwise. Reports from my sources in Ohio, both Liberal and Conservative, say that the current incarnation of Taft is like number 4 in Multiplicity, a copy of a copy. While Grant's problems in office were serious, he was not coping with the Great War. (In fact, he might have done better with a war.) Greatness is a combination of ability and circumstance - as is the opposite. Grant really didn't have the opportunity to screw up that Wilson did. My mom and I have often had this discussion, so here is my top 5, with a brief indication of why they are there: 

• Washington - Founder of the Country, can't do more than that.
• Lincoln - Savior of the country - would be more important than Washington, except that without Geo., he wouldn't have had a country to save.
• Jefferson - First peaceful transfer of power between opposing parties. And he was a frickin genius.
• FDR - Arguably kept us from going completely south in the depression, and won the big game for us. Stumbled a bit at the end.
• Reagan - Won the cold war and restored American confidence after the whole Vietnam thingie. Plus, ended ridiculous things like price controls.

Honorable Mentions:

• Truman - start of the cold war, Korea
• Coolidge - 'cause he's really, really cool.
• TR - same

My list of most important would be subtly different. My bottom five, from worst to least worst, is:

• Wilson
• Nixon
• Buchanan or LBJ
• Hoover
• Clinton

I am judging by damage they did the country, rather than mere ineffectualism, incompetence, or corruption. Many presidents would score high on that basis. Added Bonus: Top Five Greatest American Generals

• Sherman
• Stonewall Jackson
• Patton
• Lee
• Andy Jackson or Nathan Bedford Forest - it's a toss up.

Taft may have been a man of many talents, but he wasn't a great president. Ditto Grant. He was masterful with a bottle, and masterful on the battlefield (though, more materiel and resources were a BIG help to him there), but as president, he, more than Wilson, was a disaster. McKinley was middling at best.

I think Wilson was better than you do, but reasonable people may differ.

Name your top five.

Addendum: Speaking of Ohio politicians, the Taft bloodline, whatever it may once have been, has inarguably grown very, very thin.

"You know, if you paw through the reams of resolutions put forth by the UN, I'm sure you'll find one that outlaws special jails for children, too. I'm no longer interested in reading the arguments of people who regard a war that empties the children's jails as a greater evil than the jails themselves. And I don't share their horror for the word "illegal," particularly in the context of international law. Is the worst thing about modern-day slavery its illegality? Or the fact that it's slavery?" 

The man has a real talent for the hammer-nail-hitting thingie. Read the whole article, its a good 'un. 
 

That almost half of the presidents come from just three states? And that Harding's middle name is Gamaliel? And that only one president was named Stephen? And that Grant was originally Hiram Simpson Grant? And that... *smack*

Before you go ripping on Ohio parsdents, remember that Garfield was assassinated before he got a chance to prove himself. And Taft was the only man in US history to be President, Speaker of the House and Supreme Court Chief Justice. And Mark Hanna, I mean McKinley, wasn't all that bad. And Grant was a decent genrul. (And his memoirs are one of the most interesting you'll ever read.) 

As a new Virginia resident, I am indeed proud of the Commonwealth's fine crop of presidents. Though to be honest, Madison really screwed the pooch on the whole declare war on Britain/get your capital burned concept. Johno is right on the lack of scintilating talent in Harrison, Taylor and Tyler, but completely missed the boat on Wilson. Wilson was a freakin' disaster, who, at every stage of America's involvement in the Great War and its aftermath, did exactly the wrong thing. 
 

Q: Look at this list of Presidents born in Ohio. What do you notice?

• Garfield, James Abram
• Grant, Ulysses Simpson
• Warren G. Harding
• Benjamin Harrison
• William Henry Harrison
• Rutherford B. Hayes
• William McKinley
• William Howard Taft

A: They suck. It seems that Ohio goes for quantity rather than quality. That's EIGHT Ohisian parsdents so far, and not a one among them was worth a damn. Now, look at this list of Presidents from Virginia:

• George Washington
• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• William Henry Harrison
• John Tyler
• Zachary Taylor
• Woodrow Wilson

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! Four of the first five Presidents, and Wilson to boot! Granted, Taylor, Tyler and Harrison aren't much to be proud of, but that's fairly impressive. 

Q: If Ohio's going to go for nine, is Kucinich really the guy?? 

A: No. 
 

Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Lack of adequate education is a weapon of mass destruction." I'm sick of Ohio politicians following me around the country. And that does include Voinovich. Though Daffy Denny is certainly the loopier politician

A welcome to the world of narcissistic pamphleteering to my brother in arms, Geek Lethal, who makes his blogging debut today.

If you will direct your attention to the blogroll on the side, you will also notice the presence of I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts, the home of another brilliant UMass-Amherst veteran. Finally, indie-rock queen Brdgt has a livejournal that serves as her forum for trenchant observation and cutting remarks. These folks are all wicked smart, and well worth your eyeball time. I believe this now means that 95% of the people I engage in email discussions with now have a public forum. History will never be the same, and my email account less active.

The Atlantic Monthly has posted Bernard Lewis' article from the most recent issue. I read it on dead tree, and now you can read it on line.

Hunter S. Thompson:

"The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

I'm just sayin'. That's all.

Via instapundit comes the news that Joe Biden is getting heat at home over his Rave Act shenanigans. Read the article-- very interesting. What I like best are the senators who voted for the bill, but now say they oppose the Biden Amendment. Way to have it both ways guys. Can't vote against a kiddie-protecting law, no matter who else it screws over! Why, that'd be political poison! I'll just vote for it, and then SAY I don't like it!

Well, hope you're happy. It'll be a law soon.

I'm gonna go smoke some grass in Pat Leahy's office on the day the bill becomes law, then call the cops on myself claiming Pat's having a wicked rager in heah, thus sending Pat to jail under the law he just voted for. He's from Vermont. He'll understand about the grass.

Some have advanced the theory that the Iraqi National Museum (INM) was robbed by a fanatical Amish sect, equipped and trained by the Illuminati-controlled Mossad. The Amish sect (known to opponents as the "Unpaved Amish," due to their resistance to such modern amenities as brick paved roads, but called Der Geheime, Heilige Auftrag des alten Erbrechenabschaums amongst themselves) has been gathering ancient artifacts for eons, even before they migrated to the new world. In a secret compound in Knox county, Ohio, (designed by Aleister Crowley) they store these artifacts, in the hopes of furthering their plans for total world domination by means of antediluvian thaumaturgy.

Or maybe it was the stinking, herring-eating Norwegians.