perfidy

Even the most keen and incisive of political minds can be wrong from time to time. It is with some embarrassment and considerable sadness that I report that my previous speculations on which country would next be invaded have proved tragically wrong. The next country is, in fact, us. In these troubled times, there is one source that all thinking observers of the world scene can turn to for completely honest and truthful reporting. That source has revealed that North Korea has, for some time, been planning an invasion of the United States. The Weekly World News has reported that even now, there are thousands of North Korean operatives on our West Coast, cunningly disguised as insurance salesmen and preparing the way for the invincible, 800,000 strong Korean Army that is making its way to California by way of Hawaii in hundreds of Korean Junks. After they seize ships from the American Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, they will be unstoppable. Mike, you will finally have the opportunity to live in a communist worker's paradise. I'm afraid that I will be interned in a reservation much like those used for Indians (sic), only harsher. Most tragically, life for our canine friends is destined to be short as they are destined for the tables of our new Korean overlords.

The WWN also reported that we have seized the Garden of Eden, and are protecting it from Saddam's Republican Guard; and that the CIA is breeding man-eating flies for the war on terror.

According to this story, the middle ages were much warmer than currently. This certainly jibes with my knowledge of history - the little ice age that happened right after the middle ages certainly wasn't the result of industrialization.

Almost 8000 words in three days.

I think we will put a lot more effort into reconstruction in Iraq. Although we have lots of money, it isn't infinite. As long as Afghanistan is not home to terror training camps, it will remain peripheral. Iraq is rather more important.

I think that there is little reason to fear that the new Iraqi government will be worse than Saddam's regime. The stories that are coming out, like the big CNN "we didn't tell you this when it mattered, but…" story, among others - prove that any new regime would have to go to extreme lengths to be worse.

Also, there are reports (sorry, can't find the link) that many of the more recent civilian casualties are the result of Republican guard and secret police pushing people in front, or threatening their families if they don not attack the Americans. I don't think the increase is particularly alarming, except perhaps to CNN.

?? They say, "Here's why we're going to war: WMD, 9/11, Saddam's a repugnant fuckwit." You say, "Why are you going to war?" There doesn't have to be some fevered conspiracy amongst Jewish Neocon Operatives, to set up worldwide American Hegemony. I think they have been straight with us - and are withholding only the plan for reconstruction, and any plans for other targets.

I was referring to the anti war protestors. You explicitly deny that you protest. Therefore my attack on filthy hippies does not apply to you. I think that if we got back to the ideals of 1776 and 1787 and 1865, we'd be a lot better off. For one thing, it would mean that we'd jettisoned all the bonehead Marxist economics that are provably unworkable. And postmodernism would be gone. But, it would mean that we could keep the cool computers and rockets and stuff. 

I never said that our course of action was historically inevitable. Justifiable in terms of a pursuit of liberty or justice, but not inevitable. One important thing to remember, that many don't, is that liberty applies to individuals, not nations. Saddam denies liberty to his subjects. The Iraqi government does not have any right of liberty, that we can never interfere. I don't think that this war is outside the "American Way of Doing Things" - we used similar justifications for the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. 

And yes, your fashion sense is empeccable. You're right, "To Hitler" should be a verb. 

On Trees: thank you very much. I should hope to be in that company. But, speaking of that tree, and of the value of sacrifice, I was moved to think this: (Mike can correct me on the details) The Marxist formulation of value is that only things that labor is the only source of value. Or something close to that. If you work, that produces value, no matter what it was. It seems to ignore a lot of things that truly have value, like liberty, that we should be ready to sacrifice for. Lives are worth that. Both ours, and the enemy's. 

Mike avoided calling a Bush a Hitler, but only by doing it to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sheesh. Saddam hitlered the Baath party, then hitlered the Iraqi people, then hitlered Kuwait. He may have Goeringed, in both senses, but I'm not sure. But I would argue that he is getting Churchilled right now, just like Hitler did. (More properly Roosevelted, I guess, but I like the sound of Churchilled better.) 

Mike, Federalism nowadays is not exactly like the party platform of our first two presidents. It is a euphemism for states rights (sullied by the unfortunate association with slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) with a bit of limited governmentism. You can be a hardcore modern Federalist without accepting any of those ideas - in fact, some of them are rather incompatible with modern federalism. However, #3 is a bit overstated, #4 is backwards, and Hamilton never aimed at Burr, so we never got to find out how dangerous dueling with a Federalist is. 

Johno, the rest of federalism is rendered silly? I should beat you over the head with my annotated Federalist papers. 

Hundreds Slaughtered: The only people around this sad little planet ending things like that over the last fifty years has been the United States. Too bad we couldn't help everyone. The UN is a useless sack of shit. 

The Rave act falls under the same category as Patriot II. Biden is also a useless sack of shit. 

We got 82% of Den Beste's average monthly output? Not bad at all, considering we all have jobs. 

Taliban and Afghanistan - it's a problem, but I think that they are a leetle too backward to easily make the jump to a sane government. Afghanistan has always been more of a geographical abstraction than a nation. Hopefully, though, we can get some more assistance to them. 

To Buckethead, on space exploration - perhaps I could have saved everyone some time and said that it's expensive, and the only way that will change is if it becomes less expensive. 

To Mike on cultural differences: this may all be true, but when a Marine hears someone say, "Allah bless George Bush," it probably means he's happy to see the Marine. 

To Johno on Jeffersonbait: The reason was that, despite posting some rather lengthy pieces, I haven't actually read the page for over a week.

Mike, you're right about Iraq and the British - but there were German troops in Vichy-run Syria, just not in significant enough numbers to affect the war in North Africa. A great fear of the allies was that the Germans would move East and take the Mosul oilfields. The Baath party was founded by Michel Aflaq, who was influenced by the Nazis. While the Ba'ath party was anti-colonialist, it was also Arab nationalist, and socialist. 

Yes, Syria still rules most of Lebanon. While the risk of more terrorist attacks may increase in the short term, bringing democracy and freedom to the middle east would dramatically decrease the risk of attacks in the long term. I don't believe we will need to invade Iran, because I think the large democracy movement there - with perhaps some aid and encouragement, will handle the job nicely. The people of Iran hate the mullahs, and its only a matter of time. 

As for Syria, it is a much more entrenched totalitarian state - much like the similar Ba'athist state that existed up 'til recently in Iraq. There is no organized resistance or opposition in Syria that we could negotiate with. BTW, we did make the Germans and the Japanese into democrats at the point of a gun. I think that the fact that Saudi Arabia is not on our list is merely a tactical move, until we have another secure base from which to operate, and another large, secure source of oil. They will appear on the list, the sooner the better. 

(I used Mohammedan because I was tired of writing Islam and Muslim. Poetic license. They can call me a white trash cracker in retaliation if they wish.) 

How free are the Germans with our planes and tanks in their country? I never suggested that we attack every repressive government in the world. But the fact that we don't attack that one is not a reason we can't attack this one. And, although given the current world situation, it might not be wise to attack our god friends the British; we're 1-1 against them so far. Everyone else on your list is open season as far as I'm concerned. Castro just sentenced another 75 journalists and dissidents to quarter century prison terms. Fucker. Who decides what is an oppressive regime? It's fairly obvious, unless your head is so full of ethical relativism that you can't tell the difference between a nation like, say Finland, and another like Cuba. 

Also, most slippery slopes aren't terribly slippery, at least in this country. It's the one thing that gives me hope in regards to the whole Patriot Act thingie. 

I did generalize about the left for the sake of brevity. But are you saying that there have been no communists since Engels died? Because every time someone who thought they were communist got power, millions of people died. The Black Book of Communism lays this out rather starkly. The central feature of every leftist regime is the total unconcern for the rights and lives of its citizens. No one has freedom, and those who argue become dead. 

Even among the socialists forced to work in societies like ours where there are inconvenient things like the Bill of Rights, the goal is regulation. Every liberal policy seems to center around restricting my freedom to act. Or at least taxing me so much that I can't afford to do anything. You cannot maintain liberty when you are restricting people's liberty - even when its for their own good. The regulatory state is just a watered down version of the ideas that led to five year plans, forced collectivization and the famine in the Ukraine. You suggest (hopefully jokingly) that we forbid capitalism to get a space program. But of course, we'd have to get everyone to do it. That scheme is more ambitious than my cunning little plan to take out a few odious fuckwit dictators. But yet, that is the communist world revolution. I can make many practical arguments for keeping capitalism around for a while longer. It has produced the economy of the United States, where even the poor live better than kings in almost any other country. Capitalism made that possible. But the key reason that I support Free Markets is that they are, well, Free. People choose - what they want to buy, and others choose to take risks forming companies that they think will supply consumer needs. 

The socialist economies of Europe are (slowly) going down the shitter, while despite war, terrorist attack, and cyclical downturn ours is still performing better. Because we are freer than they are.

Because I haven't commented on anyone else's posts for far too long, here are some thoughts, replies and comments on youse guys posts over the last couple weeks. 

To Mike's counterpoint to Mark Steyn: 

No one suggests that we should be giddy simply because civilian casualties are light. But, we should be happy that we can remove an evil dictator at so light a cost to his victims. Every death is a tragedy, but it is good that there are so few of them. Also, there is proof that there is a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq. Al Quaida operatives were given refuge in Iraq, and we have found (and destroyed) several large terror training camps. Also, the fact that the Baathists are secular and the Al Quaida fundamentalist is no barrier to their cooperation. Remember, Saddam's government has paid 35 million dollars to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank, many of whom were members of the very fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad. It is, after all, an old Islamic proverb, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Although it is too early to tell at this point, it doesn't look like we are radicalizing the Iraqi citizenry, who seem quite glad to have us there, and Saddam gone. 

Again on WCM: 

De Genova's comments were reprehensible, indeed. And kudos to Foner for actually calling him on it. But the whole thing made me think - this is an anti-war movement, but not a peace movement. They are against American involvement, but willing to countenance the brutality of the Saddam's regime. There was a German resistance movement in WWII, but could it have liberated the German people from Hitler's regime without outside help? Mike is certainly right that comments like those piss people off. Wishing for the deaths of Americans certainly makes his anti war stance seem rather less credible, as well. 

But is nothing served by death, anywhere? Are not some things worthy of sacrifice? Freedom is certainly worth sacrifice. Nothing of value is without cost. We have to always be deeply aware of the cost, and remember who paid. Freedom is one of those things. Many have and will continue to give cynical motives for our war in Iraq, but the real benefit will be to the Iraqis, who free of Saddam might be able to live ordinary lives, in liberty. 

To Johnny, on increasing dovishness: 

How do you feel now, now that we have found chemical weapons and terror training camps? And remember, Bush has been talking about regime change for over a year - regime change was only ever the means to eliminate the threat of terror, and WMD. 

To Johnny, on the "as in not funny" nature of the press: 

The media is a collection of old women, who flutter and shriek at the slightest change in temperature, conditions, or movement. So of course they would rave about the justthatbuilding bomb, and then the MOAB. And rave about blinding advances, then twenty minutes later cry "quagmire." Also, the reason you're gotten no firm news is because the military pulled the biggest snow job in military history. The embeds are like headlights to the media deer. Immediacy, vivid images, and "you're right there" reporting consume the media's attention, while the army is able to move whole divisions without anyone in the media noticing. Suckers - gotta hand to the military for cleverness on that one. 

To Johnny, on the media polls: 

Reminds me of a something that happened during a political discussion with our friend Burton. We was advocating some risky liberal scheme, one that would give decision making powers from the general citizenry and vest it in some government agency. His basic justification was, "75% of people are idiots." I argued with his plan, and Burton got the idea that I disagreed with assessment of the intelligence of the American populace. A day later, I was complaining to Mike about Washington drivers, and he expressed surprise - "Well, you disagreed with my 75% - why complain now?" I said, "Mike, if anything, I think the percentage is higher, but they still have the right to be stupid however they want. That's what liberty means." Hardesty's corollary to Voltaire's observation: the true test of someone's commitment to liberty is how stupid or offensive someone has to be before you want to start regulating their behavior. 

From everything I'm hearing, Patriot II is gonna be a nightmare. But then, I'm still complaining about RICO statutes and civil forfeiture. 

To Johnny on AA: 

The United States, as a whole, should never be color blind. The U.S. government, and the law, should. The only way to end discrimination is to well, end discrimination. The quote you added hits it right on the head - these are cultural and moral issues, not legal ones. Therefore, stop the legal wrangling so that we can deal with these issues where they should be dealt with. 

Patriot II needs to be killed dead. Here's something the liberals could actually be useful on - rather than waving puppetheads and smelling funny in public. Republicans are often too willing to sacrifice freedom for security in this realm. Economically, of course, it's the other way around. 

This is where limited government should really, really come into play. What part of the constitution, and I'd like an exact quote, does this bill get its authorization from? 

To Johnny on Forests and Trees: 

I would argue that the military plan we used did take the political goal into account. However, just like the military plan, you can't publish the political plan in advance, for fear of rendering it useless. n.b. I think this classifies as a world class cakewalk. 

To Mike on Patriot II: 

Like many conservatives (as opposed to mere Republicans) I worry a lot about civil liberties. I think the Drug War has been a civil liberties disaster. The erosion of our constitutional rights has been scary. This threatens further erosions. Like Franklin said, those who trade liberty for security will soon have neither. I would like to have our representatives see that it is our freedom and liberty that is the best defense against these threats (at least internally - the U.S. Army and Navy are better for overseas.) Perhaps the best example was the passengers on flight 93. While I might be safe under this administration, as time goes on, we would all be targets. How long would I last if Gore became president? We could have adjoining cells. 

To Johnny on RIAA: 

I think it falls into the same category as Patriot II. 

I have to pee. More later.

Here are a few thoughts on the Bucketman's most recent post. A horrific regime is on the ropes, not extinguished. The destruction of that regime is certainly in the offing, but the war is long from over. The issue is, what will follow that regime? Given Johno's attention to the Afghanistan situation, the United States should take care that they do not forget about or abandon or Iraq as it did with Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether the new Iraqi government is better or worse.

Casualties, in terms of numbers, have been extremely light compared to other armed conflicts. But this is a little too intellectual for me. Iraqi civilians have died, such as the three people who died when American troops opened fire on their car. I don't know what happened to the little girl. These are two incidents, not high numbers of civilian casualties, but it doesn't matter so much to me. People have died. Buckethead has argued that occasionally good people must be blown up to serve a greater good. The removal of Hussein will only serve a greater good if it does not result in leadership that's even worse. It's a wait and see. But nevertheless, if I was the father of the little girl who was shot by Marines, I wouldn't give a damn about the greater good. Civilian deaths have not been many, but they have been there. People aren't statisitics, they're people. That's stating the obvious, but sometimes it goes unrecognized.

You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that eliminating regimes would be good for the United States in general, provided those regimes are followed by a government that isn't hostile to the United States. A democratic government in those countries could just as easily be hostile to the U.S. as the current regimes. Just look at France and Germany. A puppet state is unlikely, given the fact that so many countries would scream bloody murder if the administration tried to pull that one. You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that elimination of regimes would be good for the people who live there. But it depends on what follows. It could be good for them, it could be just as bad, it could be worse. We just have to wait and see. The U.S. looks like it's already dropped the ball in Afghanistan. Maybe they'll pay more attention to what happens in post-war Iraq. Like everything else, it remains to be seen.

After three weeks, we have seen the complete destruction of all major Iraqi army formations, low casualties amongst both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians, minimal collateral damage to civilian infrastructure, including especially the oil fields in both north and south, and, once assured that Saddam was truly history, celebrations in the streets by joyous Iraqi civilians.

The doomsayers who cried quagmire on day five of the war, and those who predicted a Stalingrad (ve vill not haff much fun in Stalingrad, no.) when we moved into Baghdad were proved dramatically wrong. This war has, as much as any conflict in history, gone almost exactly according to plan, and met even the most optimistic goals of the planners.

A horrific regime has been extinguished, and without having to go through the trouble of annihilating the nation it rules in the process. The military has been talking about a revolution in military affairs for over a decade now, and it appears that they may be right. The advent of information age weaponry is transforming the way that the United States wages war. Our capabilities are increasing, even in an era when we are spending less, proportionally, on our military than we did throughout the course of the Cold War.

While the precision weapons that we have deployed have received the lion's share of media attention, it is important to remember what has really changed. The 2000 pond bombs that we drop our essentially the same as a 2000 pound blockbuster used in WWII - a metal casing surrounding a large lump of high explosive. What is different is the guidance package. The GPS guidance system used in the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) or Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); or the laser guidance system that was first used back in the '91 war are the real change - the thing that allows us to thread a needle with a bomb dropped from 20,000 ft. We have even started using concrete bombs - "inert" bombs that, when dropped from fifty thousand feet will utterly destroy a tank while leaving everything around it untouched. (These and other weapons systems are described here, at the Federation of American Scientist's webpage.)

These guidance systems are a product of the advanced technologies that our nation produces with no thought for military applicability. The computer systems developed for the civilian world are being adopted by the military wholesale, and this is where the true revolution is occurring. It is the communications and networking technologies that are making our military so effective, and so lethal. These communications systems disseminate intelligence throughout the entire armed forces - allowing a sergeant in an armor unit to directly call on artillery in his own unit, bombs from Air Force or Naval fighters, and cruise missiles from Navy subs or destroyers. It allows the military to rapidly coordinate fire from all branches on one spot for maximum effect, or on a thousand points at once for maximum enemy confusion.

The army has installed the IVIS system on its armored vehicles. This Inter Vehicular Information System instantly transmits intelligence gained by one vehicle to every other vehicle in the unit. What one tank crew knows, every tank crew knows. Initial tests at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin showed that units equipped with this system were five times more lethal than units equipped exactly the same in every other respect. This is because of the coordination that the system allows. No time is wasted by commanders explaining the situation - every one has the picture, and has probably already begun taking the correct action before the commander even gives the order.

This coordination and flexibility is what makes our military so effective. And over the next few years, similar systems, such as the Landwarrior system, will give the same capabilities to individual infantryman. New communication and reconnaissance systems will only increase the trend that we have seen in Iraq. The United States, without even really trying, is widening the gap between our military and the armed forces of even the other industrialized nations.

I think that this growing disparity between the effective combat power of the United States and that of the rest of the world will lead to more interventions. We will do it not only because we can, but because we can do it easily. This will no doubt bother many. But how many of those bothered are bothered by the application of American military power abroad itself, or rather because of who sits in the Oval Office? Many who complain about the current war had no problem with Kosovo, Serbia, Haiti, and any number of other interventions launched by the previous administration. Personally, I have no problem with America using its power to advance its interests in general, but in general we have used our power to bring freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. As long as we have an ethical basis for intervention, and the results of that intervention remain positive, I say keep going.

We can't bring peace, order and democracy to every nation on Earth. But for every one that we do, its that many millions more people who don't live in places where leaders personally feed dissidents into wood chippers feet first. This is a good thing to fight against. The nations that fall into this category are sadly numerous. But there is a subset of them that also pose a threat to us, personally. The top of that list is North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe I've gone off the deep end, but I think that eliminating these regimes in the same manner that we eliminated Saddam's would be good for us, and good for the citizens of those nations.

Mike, your mother was a hamster, and your father... 

well, you know. 

The Boston Phoenix, a newspaper whose reporting is always cutting-edge but often gratingly shrill, writes this week about reconstruction in Afghanistan. Taking a glass-half-empty approach to the issue that some may scoff at, the Phoenix nevertheless argues convincingly that Bush is abandoning any serious efforts to rebuild the nation, and wonders whether Iraq will follow a similar pattern of Reconstruction. 

White House officials apparently forgot to request funds to rebuild the country they bombed to such hoopla shortly after the September 11 attacks. Congressional staffers who caught the slip eventually requested $300 million for reconstructing Afghanistan. It's a lot more than [the 73 cents [I left the house with this morning], but less than a scratch on the bumper of the president's $75 billion initial request to fund a new war in Iraq. . . .  

At present, however, the only things that seem to be enduring in Afghanistan are the chaos and violence that have afflicted that country over the last 34 years, which have seen an invasion by the Soviet Union, bitter internecine warfare, brutal unification under the repressive Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban, and a US military campaign to oust that regime. To wit:

• Far from achieving a stable environment for reconstruction and democratization, US troops and international peacekeepers have come under increasing attack by remnants of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and disgruntled warlords. Tribal unrest and power struggles between warlords who have not declared outright opposition to the US or the Afghan central government have undermined the formation of even a loose central governmental structure.
• Due to the continuing instability and violence, much of Afghanistan is considered "unsafe" for the United Nations (UN), the International Commission of the Red Cross (ICRC), and other non-governmental aid agencies. On March 29, the ICRC shut down all its field operations after the execution-style killing of one of its employees by Taliban fighters who ambushed an ICRC convoy.
• If instability is leading to the possible reformation of terrorist cells, it's also aiding in the resurgence of Afghanistan's drug trade. In March, Afghanistan's finance minister warned a donor conference in March that a lack of "predictable finance" would lead the country to backslide into a "narco-mafia state."
• The much-vaunted goals of democratization, particularly enhancing the role of women in Afghan society, are also suffering as a result of continued instability in areas outside the Afghan capital of Kabul  - the only city with a strong international presence. As a March report by the International Crisis Group on "Women and Reconstruction" bluntly noted: "A renewed and expanded international commitment to security is urgently needed if the limited gains women have made in Kabul are to be institutionalized and emulated in other Afghan cities." . . . .

In short, Afghanistan may be largely free of the Taliban's iron-fisted repression, but that doesn't mean the country is secure. Rather, Islamic fanaticism has made way for a more traditional patchwork of violent and competing regional fiefdoms. At best, international forces maintain uneasy oversight of the country; at worst, they are ready targets for Afghan warlords.... The piece finishes up with a summations of the "lessons of Afghanistan" and how the administration has and has not applied them in Iraq that I find less meaty, but the article as a whole is an interesting read nonetheless. 

So, to sum up: Afghanistan is now resuming its historical patterns, the efforts to institute a strong free national government notwithstanding, and Iraq could go down the same road if help is not given in the mid- to long-term. Many would argue that now that the Taliban is mostly gone, it's up to Afghanistan to rebuild their own country. Well sure. The US isn't the boss of Afghanistan. But rebuilding would be an easier task, though, if the US and other coalition nations were to provide monetary and advisory aid to the struggling nation, as well as help in rebuilding national infrastructures. Without this kind of lasting assistance, the likelihood of a stable Afghanistan-- the showpiece of the new style of American foreign relations-- is ever more remote. Same goes for Iraq. I'm very very glad Hussein's power has been broken and the Iraqi people freed from his egomaniacal brutality. Now for the hard part. 

A last note: I see in the Phoenix that Sonic Youth are playing with Wilco later this spring in Manchester. Woo hoo!!

The good news: Congress has approved the Amber Alert Bill package.

The bad news: The RAVE Act, the tapeworm in the Amber Alert Bill's system, passed as an amendment to said bill.

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

Johno, telling someone to stick it up their ass in Arabic is not to be done lightly. It is reserved for family members and people you are willing to fight to the death. That may be redundant. But still, those are definitely fighting words. I cut off your hands! You are infidel! Your sheep gives bad milk that makes foul-smelling cheese!

Oh, come on. I couldn't possibly take that personally.

As to the question of thumbs-up intended as "Ayyy!" or "Up your ass," a friend of mine has advanced a third possiblity. It could be both. Iraqis might be giving American troops a thumbs-up, knowing full well what it means in American culture, while simultaneously covering their own tizuk. Should Iraqis face a return of Hussein's regime in some way, even if for a brief period, they can say that they did not celebrate American advances, but rather told the Americans to stick it up their asses.

On a very serious note, CNN has thus far reported alarming increases in the number of civilians wounded or killed by American troops, fearful of suicide attacks. In one incident, American troops manning a checkpoint shouted at a driver, in English, to move his vehicle in a different direction. When the driver was unable to follow commands in a language he didn't understand, the troops opened fire on a vehicle, a very contained space, for several minutes. All three occupants of the vehicle were killed, and the initial report was that they had no weapons. Troops claimed that they saw muzzle flashes.

In another CNN report, a little girl, found by a reporter who risked being shot himself, and a woman were seriously wounded by American Marines. The little girl sustained a severe head wound. A Marine medic treated the girl, but only after the reporter brought her to them. When Marines demanded that the cameras be turned off, the reporters pointed out that they had wounded the girl. The reporters were then permitted to film.

Finally, CNN has also reported that no so-called weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. We've had a few posts about just wars. I think just wars must have clear goals, not hidden agendas. Given the protean nature of reasons for war as advertised by the administration (1: Weapons of mass destruction 2: 11 September 2001 3: Liberate Iraq from Hussein), there has been no clear statement from the administration about exactly why this war is being fought. The administration does not have to divulge war plans or information that compromises the position of the military. But it could at least be straight with us as to why this is happening.

Aziz Poonawalla has a great post up about the war that also references Howard Dean* (thanks also to Instapundit for the pointer). From the post:

The images we all saw on television worldwide yesterday will be in our world history books as one of the defining moments of the 21st century. Alongside those of 9-11, yin and yang. I was and still am opposed to war on Iraq - not the idea of war per se, but like Howard Dean, by the route to which we justified and pursued war. But winning the war was never in doubt and my heart is is full of satisfaction at seeing the statues of Saddam fall at last.
I am however quite disappointed by the attitude of many who oppose the war - who seem to have a grudging attitude towards the liberation. IRAQ IS FREE. Regardless of your politics, your principles, your attitudes - this must be the shared event that we all celebrate.

I can't agree more. Read the whole post.

A side note. You know, yesterday I saw maybe the single most iconic moment I've ever seen happen, live, on TV. CNN was showing their standard montage of Iraqis dancing, Iraqis looting government buildings for office chairs and lamps, Iraqis beating pictures of Hussein with their shoes, and so forth. Once, just once, a five-second clip played of a grinning gentleman holding an American flag with a giant golden picture of Rocky Balboa emblazoned across the middle.

The Balboa Doctrine of foreign policy. Perfect. I love it.

* Dean's my big favorite for President in '04. He's not perfect, but he seems to be a thoughtful, honest, and principled Vermont Liberal. A VERMONT Liberal. They are different from Berkeley Liberals.

Because it's considered uncouth to have a post containing the word "douchebags" at the top of one's web log thingy, here's another post.

Windy City Mike, from what I understand it's a tough call whether Iraqis are saying "yay America!" or "up your ass" with their thumbs-up gesture. Surely many if not most Iraqis, especially in the cities, have come in contact with the Fonzie virus over the last couple decades, if only second-hand. Therefore, they must be aware that "thumbs up" means "ayyyy, Chachi!" outside the Arab world. I would direct you to our big empire/hegemony thread of a few weeks ago for supporting arguments.

On balance, many pundit-types believe it's likely that many Iraqis making the thumbs-up really are on the "Go, America!" side of the semiotic fence, but I'd like to think that Iraqis appreciate the delicious ambiguity.

"Yay America! Up your ass!"

For some reason my inner eight-year-old is really running wild today. Please excuse me with all the poopie and douchebag blather. Just think. You only read it here. Goodwife Two-Cents gets this behavior from me every single day. There's only one of her in the world!

Life sucks, rain is just God peeing on me, and the sun will give me skin cancer.

Yet, this site, The Rock And Roll Hall of Douchebags, which I found via Ted Barlow, makes me feel one hundred percent better. Thanks, Ted!!

Visit the site, click through, read the captions, and marvel at all the douchebags!!

So many douchebags! Hope none of my old band pics are in there!

Why?

Because it's been two full weeks since the sun shone where I live. Two DAMN weeks. Also, two weeks of temperatures below normal. It has snowed three days this week. So eff it all.

Because I'm tired. Time change. Guuh.

Because the RAVE Act, as part of the AMBER Alert package, has gone to the senate for a vote. It passed committee, and what senator is going to vote against the AMBER Alert system bill because of a pesky amendment like the RAVE Act? Buncha mendacious venal fuckwits. Thinking about that makes me tired too.

BECAUSE, THAT'S WHY! Now you kids shut up and count license plates or something. We'll be near a bathroom soon.

Two further notes:

Buckethead, I'm surprised the Thomas Jefferson bait I dangled as gone unlunched-upon.

WCM, hazut pu tizuk!

An interesting editorial from the Guardian Unlimited discussed the parallels between America and Britain's pending occupation of Iraq with the British military occupation of Ireland. According to this article, people in Northern Ireland also welcomed troops in the early Seventies. But before too long, those troops were firing indiscriminately at Irish peaceful protestors in Derry. The article also exposes Ari Fleischer's ignorance of Irish cities.

So I was listening to a brief story on NPR yesterday that identified a possible misinterpretation of Iraqi jubilance. It seems that looters in Iraq, as well as those who appear to be welcoming British and American troops, are giving a thumbs-up. According to NPR, however, that might mean "up your's" in Iraq, as opposed to the American positive conotation. I got to thinking. While growing up and beyond, my half-Lebanese mother would frequently tell me to "Stick it up your [my] ass!" when she was angry with me. She would also jerk her thumb in the air while telling me to stick it up my ass. I thought that my mother probably acquired this habit from her Lebanese-born aunt, who contributed significantly to my mother's upbringing. 

During a telephone conversation this evening, I asked my mother if her Lebanese-born aunt would indeed jerk her thumb in the air while stating angrily, "Hazut pi tizuk!" It translates from Arabic, directly into English, as "Up your ass!" My mother confirmed that a raised thumb gesture would accompany the verbal declaration. 

While Lebanon is a different country than Iraq, in so very many ways, it's quite possible that there are cultural consistencies throughout the Middle East that might well transcend political and (since my mother's aunt was a Maronite Christian) religious boundaries. It is thus possible that some of these looters, and people believed to be revelers, who are not kissing American troops or otherwise making it abundantly clear that they are receiving troops with a positive attitude, are in fact telling the troops, "Hazut pi Tizuk" with their thumb gesture. 
 

I see nothing wrong with space exploration. It seems to be a natural consequence of human technological evolution. I get the sense from the previous posts, however, that it would be quite expensive for the government, maybe too much so, and also private investors. 

So here's a possible solution. Perhaps if the government did not go to war every couple of years while simultaneously cutting taxes, it would have more money for space exploration. What if the government did away with capitalism altogether? Then money would be no object. Of course they'd have to convince all the other countries to get rid of capitalism as well. 
 

British fishermen had been working the Grand Banks off Newfoundland since the late middle ages. British explorers discovered the coast of North America in the early sixteenth century. The first successful colonies were planted in the seventeenth century. Only in the eighteenth century did those colonies become large, prosperous and self sufficient. Is this the kind of time frame that awaits us in space? Granted, things do move faster in this day than in centuries past. But when the only government on the planet that has the capacity to pursue a bold program of space development has no desire to do so, things seem rather grim. The British government similarly held back colonization of the Americas for over a century. 

There is a growing number of small companies eager to break into the space transportation industry. They have a limited amount of financing from venture capitalists, typically geeky software billionaires. One major aerospace company, Boeing, has an independent venture that is outside the typical close relationship with NASA and the DoD. Sea Launch is a company that has already successfully launched several satellites from its mobile launch pad, using a rocket derived from Russian designs. It promises to lower launch costs by as much as half, by avoiding the waste inherent in many government run launch programs.

But these efforts are nowhere close to actually moving mankind into space. Currently, the amount of money required to develop space technology is completely beyond the reach of any private group. There is no possibility that any latter day Puritans could gather the resources to establish a New Jerusalem on the Moon, or anywhere else in the Solar System. 

Yet, there is hope. Three things may bring about a new golden age to space exploration. First is technology. The incredible advances in computer, manufacturing and materials technology over the forty years since the Space Shuttle first took shape on a draftsman's table may soon make it possible for a well funded independent company to design and build a working rocket. And not merely a rocket like those that have gone before, disposable and wasteful, but a true rocket like those envisioned in the pulp science fiction novels of the fifties - a space ship that can take off, fly into space and return in one piece. Computer aided design, advanced composite materials and automated manufacturing could conceivably bring this within reach, by sharply lowering the cost of development and construction. 

Once the first Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) space ship flies, the door will open, at least somewhat. The cost per pound to orbit flying on an SSTO would be orders of magnitude less than on a traditional disposable roman candle. The company that builds it would be able to launch from simple space fields, with ground crews more like an airline's than NASA's. They would make a lot of money launching the world's backlog of satellites, and make affordable the launching of satellites for other purposes - those that didn't couldn't justify the vast expense of a current launch. 

Also, a working SSTO is also, by default, the fastest means of point to point travel on earth. No more than forty five minutes to anywhere on the planet. FedEx could certainly find a use for something like that, and likely Virgin Airlines as well. By creating a market for one SSTO, other companies will get in the game, and one would hope that the result would be something like the modern aircraft and airline industry after a little while. 

The second hope is that some other nation will launch an ambitious program of space exploration and colonization, prodding the American Government to get off its collective fundament and begin some exploring and settling of its own. The current world situation is not altogether favorable, what with Europe's economy on permanent hold, and Russia's in a death spiral. The only other potential is China, which is due to launch its first manned mission later this year, and has promised that they will go to the moon by the end of the decade. If the Chinese can pull this off, sheer embarrassment may force the U.S. into action. 

The third hope, and the most unlikely, is that strong leadership from the highest levels of government would create a drive to either go to Mars, or to privatize the space program. The first is extremely unlikely, but the second could happen if it turns out that the space shuttle is not safe to fly again. A decree that promises a large government purchase order to the company that first demonstrates a working SSTO would light a very large and hot fire under the aerospace industry, and thousands of dreamers on shoestring budgets as well. Remember that much of the development of the early aviation industry was motivated by government mail contracts and prize awards. Charles Lindbergh, the dark horse competitor for the Ortieg Prize, won $25,000 for crossing the Atlantic solo, non stop in 1927. But he beat several other competitors who were much better funded. 

People came to the America seeking gold and quick fortunes. In the process of not finding it, they created something as unlikely and wonderful as the United States. If, tomorrow, through some improbable convergence of events we find ourselves in possession of a working SSTO that can deliver cargo to orbit for a thousandth the cost of current launch vehicles; then the whole cornucopia of wonders promised by the space geeks might come true. But the invention of the caravel at the same time that Europe became politically capable of world wide exploration was unlikely, too. If we do go into space, the results will likely be stranger than we can imagine now.

So what does this mean for the frustrated space geek? Well, it's bad news all around. Not only is there no good reason for the government to undertake large scale space colonization, there are several reasons for them not to. 

Firstly, American military dominance is founded to an amazing degree on satellite technology. Our weapons systems use GPS satellites for guidance. Our weapons systems and soldiers communicate with satellites. Our commanders and planners depend on intelligence gathered by satellites. Our Air Forces depend on weather data gathered by satellites. Currently, no other nation has these capabilities.

The Air Force did a study back in the sixties, and realized that a small two man orbital station could do vastly better reconnaissance work with a small telescope than any conceivable (at the time) recon satellite. While computers have vastly increased the capabilities of our spy satellites, the fact remains that if people are up in orbit, a small telescope gives them powers comparable to the most sophisticated military and expensive military or CIA spysats. 

This concept has broad application. People do things better than robots. If people are in orbit, they can do many things that can currently only be done with expensive automated hardware that only the U.S. can afford. If the U.S. government makes it really cheap to get into space, then it will have given away one of the most incredible military advantages ever possessed by a nation. 

Also, when you drop things from very high up, they hit the ground very hard. This basic law of applied physics has already been proven by the use of Concrete bombs in the war in the gulf. Thanks to precision (satellite) guidance packages, a very large lump of concrete dropped from fifty thousand feet (about eight miles) can easily destroy a tank or APC. When you drop things from 150 miles up, in Low Earth Orbit, you can reach out and touch someone, anywhere on the globe, in less than half an hour, with the explosive force of a pony nuke. Access to space gives great power to anyone who can get into there. 

The U.S. Government does not want to lose these advantages. Nor would any sane government. Another reason that the government would be happy with status quo is simply to restrict access to space generally. In this way, only accredited commercial interests will be permitted launch slots. The other three nations that are space capable, China, Russia and France, follow the same restrictive policies. It is an exclusive club, and even run of the mill bureaucratic inertia and turf defense instincts would be enough to shape policy toward keeping things as they are. 

Then, there are all the commonly heard objections: "We need the money to give to crack mothers, or to fund Richard Maplethorpe." Or, "Space is a pristine environment, and we don't want to kill all the space otters with pollution from the combustion of Hydrogen and Oxygen." Or, "Exploiting space is a typical phallic dominance maneuver of the ruling political class, and only perpetuates the oppression inherent in the system." (Johno or Mike, you could probably do the academic bullshit speak better than me, you've been exposed to it more.) Or, "It will upset the French." 

These reasons, as ridiculous as they sound to the passionate space geek, are nevertheless politically potent objections. Along with the first two, they stand as a formidable bulwark against future space development. NASA may continue to design and redesign space vehicles so as to create an illusion of progress, but it truly is not in the government's interest to promote significant space activities. For the near term, government space activities will be limited to satellite deployment - the orbital equivalent of coastal navigation buoys; and the occasional deep space probe.

So what does all of this mean for space travel? Clearly, the American space program of the sixties was part of the larger Cold War. While Kennedy and his successors painted a lot of rhetoric on why we went into orbit or to the moon, the real reason was simply, and always, to beat the Russkies. Regardless of the hopes and dreams of the scientists and engineers working for NASA and the aerospace industry, they were engaged in the same kind of contest as Royal Navy Admiral Jackie Fisher had with his dreadnoughts sixty years earlier. 

Once Cold War political realities rendered the space race superfluous, it was promptly jettisoned. Of course, no bureaucracy ever truly dies; so NASA fought tenaciously to salvage some of its budget, and to come up with reasons for its continued existence. On their reduced budget, they achieved some rather remarkable things. What did they accomplish after the feverish race for the moon was over? Deep space robotic exploration and the shuttle/space station programs.

As we mentioned, exploration is cheap. For chump change in government revenue terms, we could toss out a Pioneer, Voyager, Pathfinder or Galileo probe every year for eternity and not feel the bite. And, like early sailing ship explorations they brought back fabulous images, scientific information, and a sense that we were engaging in something important. 

The Space Shuttle Program is a technological marvel, to be sure. But it is simultaneously a ridiculous compromise, a kludged up rube-goldbergesque vehicle that tries to be everything to everyone, while actually pleasing no one. So, the Space Shuttle is a shuttle. OK, fine, but don't shuttles shuttle back and forth between things? Oh yeah, well, we're building a space station for the shuttle to fly to. What does the Space Station do? Well, all kinds of nifty research, and it will embarrass the hell out of the commies. Didn't the Soviet Union collapse? Oh.

When you recall that the International Space Station, built with the help of every country in the world but North Korea, and cost two hundred trillion dollars because it was redesigned 8,000 times over twenty years, and in any event is smaller than the space station we let burn up and that was built out of spare parts left over from Apollo, having a shuttle to go to it doesn't seem so cool anymore. And then, after two tragic (not in the sense of aw, that's sad but in the original sense of inevitable doom) accidents, we don't even have a shuttle anymore. 

The Shuttle and ISS are the result of bureaucratic inertia, and the fact that the U.S. Government has an obscene amount of money. The exploratory probes are a result of the fact that NASA, in its spare time, is a jobs program for scientists, and the fact that the U.S. Government has an obscene amount of money. 

We should not be surprised that we do not have a space program, or at least a space program that space advocates would proudly call their own. There is absolutely no political reason to have one. The two reasons that governments fund anything beyond exploration of the most cursory nature is strategic competition with rival powers, or to gain control of vital resources or trade. 

But, the United States has no rivals, for we are a solitary superpower. We do not need to beat anyone to anywhere. The only possible rival is China, but this is not going to happen in the near term. There are no easily accessible resources in space. Most of space is, well, space. There is not only no "Gold in them thar hills," there mostly isn't really even a there there. The closest real estate to Earth, our Moon, is covered in Aluminum and Silicon based dirt. Aluminum and Silicon are hardly the most valuable of mineral resources on Earth. Add to that the fact that we would have to transport not merely miners and tools, but every drop of water, breath of air and crumb of food that the miners would consume during their entire Lunar sojourn, this becomes a undesirable investment option for government. Any other usable real estate is even further away. 

And, there are no friendly aliens to go out and trade with either, despite the fervent beliefs of many in this country. 

The final reason the government might agree to allow large scale efforts to colonize space doesn't apply to the United States either. By and large we are a fat, happy, prosperous people, and have no desire to move elsewhere. We've got it as good as any nation in the history of the world, so why should anyone want to leave? There are no Puritans, no Huguenots suffering from religious oppression, and even when things were much worse for blacks in this country, even when there was still slavery, they didn't want to go to Liberia. 

The only way that the U.S. Government will pay for a large scale space program in the absence of traditional motivations, is if we become so fantastically wealthy that a hundred billion dollars is pocket change..

There are many space exploration advocates who bemoan the fact that the American space program was a political entity, born of the cold war and dying with it. But this view is incorrect in that, historically, exploration has rarely if ever been anything but political. When John F. Kennedy launched the American half of the cold war space race, he followed a tradition of politically motivated exploration that stretches back half a millennium.

When Henry the Navigator organized the Portuguese exploration efforts in the late fifteenth century, he did it for an expressly political purpose - to find an alternate route to valuable commodities. The existing, and expensive trade route to the spices that Europe wanted went straight through the Islamic Ottoman Empire, which for reasons of religion, politics and greed restricted the flow of commerce to the Christian west.

When the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus convinced the Spanish to finance his expedition, the Spanish wanted an alternate route to the east as well - because the Ottomans and the Portuguese controlled the other two. French and British, Dutch and Swedish voyages of exploration over the next two centuries were the result of the desire of those governments to establish colonies in the new world, so as not to be totally left out of the game that was dominated by the first two exploring nations, Portugal and Spain. (And to discover new routes to the east, of course.)

While these explorations seemed to lead quite naturally to trade, colonies, empire and the like, it did not spring magically into existence, simply because new lands had been discovered. Gold inspired the Spanish conquistadors, and soon Spain was in possession of vast territories it didn’t know quite what to do with. The vast difference in military capability between the Castilian soldiers of Cortez and Pizarro meant that the Aztec and Incan empires could be conquered by small groups of adventurers, without constant support from the mother country.

But elsewhere in the world, progress toward empire was slow. In the early seventeenth century, the French government could barely convince a couple thousand of her citizens to settle in New France, and even by the time of the American Revolution a hundred and fifty years later, the population of Canada only amounted to tens of thousands. Even in the rich farm lands of what became the Thirteen Colonies, population growth was negative for decades - the colonies only grew through immigration. The first British colony died out altogether, and the second, third and fourth nearly did as well. Setting up colonies was a difficult business, and rarely profitable until decades later. State support for these ventures was minimal, unless placing a colony directly inconvenienced a rival power, or a valuable resource lay directly under it.

In Africa and in the East, outright empire building was slow to develop. The Portuguese, and later the Spanish, British, Dutch and French set up small outposts and forts to guard their trade routes. And even these were only viable because of the vast amounts of wealth that was easily obtained by trading with the nations of the east.

Governments financed exploration for political reasons - but exploration was cheap. A couple ships, crew and an overly brave explorer were easy to come by. Settlements and Empire were much more costly, and usually avoided, unless there was a compelling political or strategic gain to be had. Those colonies usually fell into one of two categories - securing land to prevent a rival power from getting it (usually sparsely inhabited or primitive areas), or smaller forts, treaty ports, and outposts used to secure trade routes to valuable commodities.

As Europe grew richer and more technologically advanced these networks of colonies, outposts and treaty ports eventually evolved into true empires; usually as the result of some ambitious Leftenant conquering or duping local rulers because the local customs offended his sense of propriety. But in the early stages, this process was expensive and run by the government for its own purposes. Merchants, colonists, traders and mechanics followed later, often much later.

Another factor to consider is that most of the early British colonies in America were self financed, and by groups that wanted desperately to leave England; or they were prison colonies. This pattern was also true, though to a lesser extent, in other British dominions, and in the territories of other powers. It was only after the colonies had become established over a period of decades or centuries, and became prosperous that the central government showed any interest in them at all.

Governments can finance exploration easily. Settlement is a tougher and more expensive endeavor, and only undertaken (by governments) when there is clear and immediate gain to be had.

The New York Times is reporting that the Taliban are consolidating their leadership and positions in Afghanistan with an eye to re-taking the country. The Times reports that police in Kandahar haven't been paid in months, that the foreign material and personnel support promised to maintain security has not materialized, and that the country is in danger of slipping into chaos. The article quotes an Afghani military leader: "'There is no real administration all over Afghanistan, no army, no police.... The people do not want the Taliban, but we have to unite and build, but we are not.'"

I've been reading stories like this for months. I realize that it's a bumpy road to freedom and democracy and cold beer for all, but if Afghani farmers must resort once again to opium production to survive, and the Taliban is able to harrass travellers, isn't that a bit more of a gaping, axle-eating pothole?

Tomorrow will mark the one-month anniversary of Johnny-Two Cents, The Weblog, as an idea. The real anniversary will fall on Saturday, but I'm busy tomorrow and Saturday (I do have a life outside the inter-web, you know!), so today is the day.

Forty-one thousand words in thirty days. Not too shabby. Of course, that's only 82% of One Standard Den Beste.

I still hold out hope that the UN or a similar body may be a vigorous force for justice and international stability. In fact, a strong and clear-headed UN ought to lead the way as international ties and international government become stronger. But, let's look at the Congo. Four years of civil war. Three million dead, mostly from starvation and disease. Now, a thousand civilians slaughtered by rebels during the drafting of the peace accords. The UN's response to this this humanitarian and military crisis? "We must form a committee to investigate!." In the meanwhile, Uganda is in charge of security in the Congo.

Patriot II, if it ever becomes a bill, will be the work of John Ashcroft and his team. Some of the statutes may have lived before in worst-case scenarios and blue-sky Justice pipe dreams, but I can't find any reference to them having appeared before in bill form. I welcome corrective evidence if it exists.

Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy has just published a very interesting working paper on internet surveillance titled "Internet Surveillance Law After the USA-PATRIOT Act: The Big Brother That Isn't". It's an enlightening read. You can get your copy from SSRN here. Please do. Kerr's previous job (before summer '01) was in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property division of the USDoJ, so I'm willing to stipulate that he knows his stuff. A lot. 

The upshot of Kerr's argument is that the alarm over the U-P Act's sections on internet surveillance is overwrought and founded in wrong principles. He argues that this section of the Act simply took a disparate patchwork of existing statutes, combined and rationalized them, and made internet surveillance work as telephone and mail surveillance do. As there were no prior statutes specifically governing internet surveillance, the U-P Act actually makes privacy abuses less likely by codifying how it's to be done. Therefore, on this issue at least, the U-P Act actually could strengthen privacy. He also argues that the flap over Carnivore is similarly grounded in wrong assumptions. 

If all this is true, and I have no reason to doubt Kerr substantially on this, then that is a good thing for 4th Amendment Chicken Littles like myself. At the very least, it makes me less totally pessimistic as regards privacy issues and the Patriot Act. 

Moreover, the article is a decent primer in privacy and the law, explaining such things as pen register statutes, the difference between envelope information and content information, and the evolution of privacy rights in intrapersonal communications. This is very handy, indeed, as it covers a lot of the vocabulary commonly used in electronic privacy legislation. Be aware, though, that Kerr confines his argument solely to the aspects of the U-P Act relating to Internet surveillance and privacy-- you can still find a lot not to like in it, if that's your inclination. 

Proving that you should always read the footnotes and expository paragraphs in any paper, Kerr puts some of the best bits in his. First among these is a fact that has become obscured in the current fashion for Ashcroft-bashing (not that he doesn't deserve some of that). Let me put this as simply as possible, and highlight it for you. 

Many elements of the USA-PATRIOT Act are a legacy of the Clinton administration, not of John Ashcroft. 

Granted, it was polished, tweaked, pulled together, revised, negotiated, and compromised before passage, and bears the name of AG Viet Dinh (who works under Ashcroft), but we presumably have the Clinton and Reno teams to thank for its origins, good bits and bad bits alike. 

This is an interesting train of thought which bears further investigation. Verrry interesting, yes indeedy. I shall dig on.

Apparently the Army are testing other sites for the presence of chemical weapons. Just the one site so far has been established to be pesticides (thanks, OxBlog!). Wow... the facts change so fast these days! It's hard to know which facts are the real facts!

In other news, Ed, I was on the phone just now and, I don' t know, maybe you called or something... I don't have call waiting or anything... so, if you called just now, I want you to know I'm here, I'm waiting, and I'm ready to hear anything you have to tell me.

Ed?

Ed?

No dice, folks. The exciting suspected chemical weapons cache found yesterday in Iraq turns out to be merely an innocent, quotidian, batch of pesticides.

In other news, I'm still waiting to hear from Ed McMahon.

Instapundit is reporting that Sen. Biden has snuck language from the "RAVE" Act into the National AMBER Alert Bill. Asshole. The AMBER alert system aids in the recovery of lost children. The "RAVE" Act would, to not stretch the truth too far, make it a crime for me to suck down bottled water in a quiet room at a party.

Full coverage of Biden, RAVE, and the current flapdoodle here. Read the disappointing saga.

If one of your senators is on the AMBER bill committee, write him or her. I did.

So NBC last night interrupted the end of my Third Watch program that I love to tell me that Saddam and his brood may be dead. Wow-ee! So many good things happened yesterday-- Let's review! 

1. Saddam Hussein might be dead
2. Coalition forces may have found chemical weapons
3. I got a thing in the mail from Ed McMahon that says I may already be a winner!! 
    

Ok, ok, ok, you got me. I'm a Cafeteria Federalist, to be sure! 

The goals of the Federalists are no longer valid-- history has moved along too far, and proven them wrong on many counts. I still think a national bank is and was a good idea, but the rest of it has been rendered silly by the passage of time, and don't agree with them. 

As for loose constructionism: the Constitution is full of compromises, some good, some not-so-good (the 3/5ths clause comes to mind). It is not the received word of God, handed down verbatim from His holy tongue, but rather a set of really good ideas the spirit of which must be respected while keeping in mind that we no longer live in 1787. That being said, phrases like "Congress shall make no law" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" are pretty unequivocal. 

As for Query number 9, of course I fear Aaron Burr. The descendents of Jonathan Edwards are not to be fucked with. In sum, I'm as much a Federalist as a Republican, by 1795 terms. But, since "Republican" now means its opposite, what the hell. I'll steal the definition of Federalist for myself, and start an Alexander Hamilton fan club! 

Senor dos Pesetas, 

Would you consider yourself a dyed in the wool hardcore Federalist who accepts all precepts of the Federalist party? Or, given your usual political makeup, would you call yourself a cafeteria Federalist? Do you accept or dismiss the following precepts? 

1. The wealthy are the natural rulers of society. Therefore suffrage must be restricted to those who own substantial property. Popular votes for the Presidency are utter foolishness.
2. The government should support and promote native commerce and industry through protectionist tariffs.
3. The government should protect the interests of the wealthy over the poor.
4. France sucks and England rocks.
5. A National Bank is a necessity for American financial stability.
6. The Bill of Rights is at best a necessary evil to placate our opponents, and at worst opens the door to mob rule.
7. Strong central government is an absolute necessity.
8. Loose constructionism of the Constitution.
9. Dueling with Aaron Burr is extremely dangerous. Duel at your own risk. 
    

Perhaps, "to Hitler" can be a sufficient infinitive form of the verb. A definition could go along the following lines:

Hitler, v. 1) To usurp a party and reconfigure it to suit the needs of the usurper. 2) To engage in the annexation of nearby sovereign nations on the pretext that they belonged to you in the first place, eg, "Hussein Hitlered Kuwait in 1990." 3) To engage in acts of genocide, eg, "Milosevic Hitlered the Kosovars." 4) To adorn oneself with strange facial hair. See also, Goering.

Goering, v. 1) To wear tutus and eat whole bakeries. 2) To blame acts of arson at important government buildings on rival political parties and make them illegal. See also Goebbels.

Goebbels, v. To prearrange an act of arson and then be lucky enough to find a rival party member has beaten you to it, then set up that rival party member. EG, "Cheney Goeringed the Capitol building and the Democratic party when, unbeknownst to him, Rumsfeld had Goebbelsed it already, and then they Hitlered Canada."

Buckethead, I may be wrong, but your post on civilian casualties as a regrettable though expected side-effect of the spread of liberty reminds me of someone. Hmmm.... He was a lot like you... a Founding Father... Virginian... tall... striking... redheaded... just loved the French... into home renovations...

Quoting Buckethead:

One thing is obvious about the anti-war protestors, aside from lack of a keen fashion sense. It is that they are far more anti-American than they are anti-war (let alone pro-peace.) Many freely admit that Saddam is a butchering fascist - but that doesn't stop them from opposing our own Hitler, George W. Bush. This is a complete divorce from any kind of moral reasoning. No sane person can claim that Bush is worse than Hussein, or that the American government is as repressive as Saddam's

Mister Bucket, with all due respect, although there are some anti-war protesters out there who genuinely hate our country, there are others who love it deeply, and your post conflates the two. You called me a federalist a few weeks ago-- and thanks for that. As implied, my love for our country goes all the way back to the ideals of 1776 and 1787, and for that matter to the first European immigrants to the coasts of Virginia and Massachusetts, filthy monarchists, Congregationalists, and venture capitalists they may have been. I am against the war in Iraq, but I wish for a speedy conclusion to it. These are not mutually exclusive, much less antithetical positions. In fact, they are perfectly reasonable, and moral. 

I am pro-American, but, like WCM still don't feel that the Iraq invasion was the liberty-sanctioned historical inevitability you believe it is. Is it an act of pure evil? No. Are slaughtering Iraqis left and right? From what I can see, just the opposite. But, the decisions underlying the Iraqi invasion stand outside what I believe to be "The American Way Of Doing Things." Period. Times are changing, and it is possible that history will prove me wrong, but this is they way I see it. I don't care for Bush, but I'm certainly not going to compare him to Hitler*, and for your information my fashion sense is impeccable. 

Your larger point is taken, but please take care to not paint people like me with the hippie-loving America-hating brush. It smells funny. 

[wik] Can "Hitler" be a verb, in English? "To Hittle?" In a sentence: "President Mugabe seems determined to Hittle his way into history." 
 

It seems that I have work to do. Is this why I have a job?! To WORK!?! Feh!

Bucketman, with all due respect, I feel it necessary to point out that the use of the term Mohammedan is archaic. More importantly, followers of Islam regard the use of the term as offensive. I do not seek to scold you for this. I recognize it is an oversight, and merely wish to indicate that the term Islamic, or better yet, Muslim, are the best ways to go. Perhaps it is silly, but your posts would indicate that the United States must enter this new terrain in Middle Eastern foreign policy in the spirit of cooperation with its people, especially Muslims. To that end, it's better to use the word Muslim as an adjective. 

Just who is next? And other tangents 

I believe that widening the war to Iran and Syria would be a tremendous mistake at this point. As someone whose maternal grandmother was Lebanese Maronite Christian, I have serious qualms about the rule of al Assad. His father occupied my grandmother's country, and to my knowledge, Syria maintains a military presence there. He has some nerve bragging about his campaigns in Lebanon. Al Assad is a bastard, like his dead father. Of course, the Israelis still have troops hanging around the south, and not long ago, seemed to think they could bomb Beirut whenever they felt like it. To be fair, within the Lebanese context, they both suck. 

But that's neither here nor there. I maintain that Hussein posed no significant threat to the United States, and that the war cannot be justified on those terms. The notion of liberating Iraq, the way I see it, only came after many people weren't buying the weapons and threat to the U.S. argument, so the administration changed its tune. It's an excuse, not a causal factor. Rumsfeld and Cheney had no problem with Hussein gassing Kurds before; I don't think they really have a problem with Hussein's treatment of his citizenry now. The administration has not really told the truth about why it is fighting this war. I don’t believe that it is about oil; it is political. But beyond that, the administration has not been forthcoming. 

But that is also beside the point. The war against Iraq has inflated the possibility of terrorist attacks. A war against Syria and Iran will inflate it further. I fail to understand how a war against Iraq, which created a greater possibility for further attacks, simultaneously lowered the likelihood of attacks. Oh, right, after Hussein was deposed, then the threat was lowered. But he didn't pose a threat in the first place. It's enough to give me motion sickness.

There are other ways to deal with Syria and Iran than war. Iran has a significant population of moderates. Why doesn't the United States attempt further dialogue with them? Why did our President just slap them with an axis of evil label, alienating moderates? Can't we work with those who would listen rather than calling them evil and shooting them? Steve, you indicate that the prospect of further war is dodgy, and that encouragement of democratization is possible. I couldn't agree more. But to make sure I'm clear, we can't make people be democratic or republican by holding a gun to their head, or shooting them. Dialogue and diplomacy with moderates and reformists is infinitely preferable to war. You also correctly point out that Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest problem. You bet it is. But the United States thus far has been committed to assisting the Saudi monarchy and helping to preserve a system that does everything you said it did, plus it stones women to death for adultery. The U.S. will have to withdraw its support for that monarchy? Is the administration willing to do that? I doubt it, but we'll see. 

Again with the Nazis?

Steve, Steve, Steve. First, Vichy administered Syria during World War II, not Germany. Vichy was a puppet state of Germany, but don’t you think if Germany ruled it directly the campaign in Egypt would have gone quite differently? Iraq was in the British sphere of influence during the war, not France. Any colonial administration of Iraq was performed by the British, not the French. 

The Ba'athist party thus did not stem from German influence during the war. It was an anti-colonial nationalist movement directed against British influence in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere. It was also an anti-colonial nationalist movement against French influence in Syria. If it was influenced by German nationalism, then it was also influenced by every other nationalist movement in history. 

Secondly, it was a pan-Arabist movement with the ultimate goal of uniting the Middle East under a single government. Egypt and Syria briefly played with that one, until they realized they couldn't get along. But how was that a product of German influence? I'll keep it short for now. Further discussion can be engaged at your discretion. 

Conclusion: on the left, Hussein's removal, and widening the war 

Steve, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were engaging in generalizations of the European and American left for purposes of brevity. But I will nevertheless weigh in with some of my own views. As a teacher of history, I have never hesitated to be honest with my students about Stalin. I give them the numbers. I mention Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, which argues that Stalin artificially engineered the Ukrainian famine. I do not excuse the mass slaughter of innocents under anyone just because they claimed to be Communist. I reiterate: it was only a claim because they never launched the global revolution of class war. Anything less was not Communism in the strict letter of Marxist/Engelsian prophecy. 

Some other people, who paint themselves as leftists, have excused Stalin, Mao, and others. I have argued with them, stating that there was no excuse. I can remember one jug-head at a conference a couple of years back who will remain nameless. He argued that the USSR could not be industrialized without mass slaughter. I asked, who gives a shit about industrialization if it has to be accomplished that way? The preservation of human life unfettered by oppressive government with a roof over every head, clothes on every back, and food on every plate are the goals, not lip service to bullshit, bastardized, half-baked, "I can't believe it's not Marxism" so-called falsely asserted Communism blown out the asses of functionally illiterate imbeciles like Stalin and Mao who looked at the pictures in the Classic Comics edition of The Communist Manifesto. But human life is the main thing for our purposes. 

To that end, is the removal of Saddam Hussein a good thing? Ultimately, probably, unless somebody worse comes along. But even with a more democratic government, how free will Iraqi citizens be with American tanks and troops occupying their country? Was it the place of the United States to remove him? You argue, yes, it is. I'm not so sure. Is the United States going to attack every oppressive regime? Will we fight Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, and Britain? The UK is still occupying the north of Ireland, and has engaged in human rights violations against Catholics there. Let's go to war with Britain. So what constitutes an oppressive regime? Who's going to decide that? Could we end up with a global witch hunt? We're on a slippery slope, and widening the war to Syria and Iran will only increase our velocity. Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other neo-Reaganites got their war. Enough.

...A: They both want a piece of your children! 

Haw! I thought of that one myself. I kill me, really. 

Please excuse me, I'm a little punchy. Here I am, knocking on the door of thirty years old, and Michael Jackson jokes, Weird Al Yankovic and Adam Sandler crack me up. My wife has a theory that my social development stopped very soon after my potty-training, and while I'm not one to argue with someone as smart and insightful as she, I would insist that I merely appreciate all kinds of humor. I mean, look at the Germans! Two hundred years and more of dour Prussian, Fascist, and European Collectivist rule, and their favorite humor is poopie jokes. Poopie! 

Really folks, mine is a dry wit. 

But enough of that. This morning, my pre-commute fatigue-haze was rudely interrupted by an item on the crawlbar of the New England Cable Network, enough that I flew without transition into a screeching hate-fit the likes of which I haven't had since I left my black rotten heart in New York and moved up here two years ago. 

I may not be a lawyer, or even know anything concrete about American law beyond that which I studied back in my halcyon graduate school days, but I do know a little about the music industry. The little item which so rudely interrupted the vague buzz of war news and Red Sox footage was this: 

RIAA arrest 4 college students for illegal file trading 

I don't know much about anything, but I know firsthand that the business of making music is about three things: money; big money; and covering your ass. The first two are self-evident. The industry is a high-risk business in which ninety-nine out of a hundred projects lose money and only that 1 percent succeed. But those wild successes ("hits" to you mortals) are enough to wipe out the failures and keep everyone's bright green eyes fixed on the shiny brass ring. The "covering your ass" is also pretty obvious. It comes down to the two major classes of music industry managers-- mercenaries, and accountants. The mercenaries are out to gain power and prestige, and also to get their hip ticket punched. The accountants are out to ensure that the quarterly balance sheets, which normally look like some horrifying EKG, smooth out into the reassuring always-ascending undulations that mean fat times and happy investors. Neither of these types give a tinker's cuss about the music or about the long-term health of the industry. The rare exceptions, like his majesty Clive Davis or that lovable bastid Jimmy Iovine, have merely managed to combine these two traits with a survivor instinct and an ear for hits. Others, like the heads of smaller independent labels, share these traits in greater or lesser measure, but sometimes they are even in it for the music! Nevertheless, the rarity of Clive Davises and the smallness of small labels make them the exceptions that prove the rule. 

Both industry types have in common an innate conservatism. The mercenaries are afraid to be the first ones to try anything new, as failure would spell both shame and the dimming of their careers. The accountants refuse to let anyone be the first to try anything new, because an unproven investment could spell financial disaster in the short-term. Therefore, as is well-documented, they try to kill or bury new things-- home taping, the walkman, DAT, cd's, DVD, cd burners, singer-songwriter music, and now file sharing. Predictably, this mindset also makes it very difficult for the industry as a whole to grasp the possibilities inherent in new technology. 

By now, it's clear to everyone that file-trading has utterly changed the way consumers value music. Unfortunately for the industry, apart from some desultory gestures such as BMG's purchasing Napster in order to kill it, the industry has thus far refused to adapt to this new reality The way they see it, file trading is the sole factor responsible for the dip in sales of recorded music (I disagree, but won't bore you with that here). There is no question that among the teenybopper and nu-metal teenage set, file sharing and cd burning has resulted in some loss of revenue for the major record labels. But, on the other side of the coin, there is a population of music fans who use file sharing and burning as ways to find new artists to support, by buying their records. I happen to be one of those. Is it worth alienating both groups, which between them comprise the entire avid music-buying public, just to crush the first? Um.....no. That's idiotic. 

Nevertheless, it seems the die has been cast. The RIAA is going to use lawsuits to stem the tide of illegal files. This follows attempts over the last year by the RIAA to: reserve the right to hack anyone's computer with impunity to search for purportedly illegal sound files; gain unfettered access to the IP logs of ISP's; and argue that cd sales operate on a license basis like software, meaning that one does not own the cd one buys. This lawsuit gambit is a brand new low and a possibly fatal . 

Since I can see the future with perfect clarity, I predict that prosecuting college students, even those deserving penii who trade thousands of songs they don't own on cd, will have four consequences.

• It will lead to a widespread backlash against the music industry, which could further erode sales. Since the major labels are already in trouble, and no longer the happy cash cows their parent companies want them to be, this could lead to either further consolidation among the majors, or to a general crash of the system.
• If the lawsuits are carried through to trial or settlement, it will create a precedent by which even traditionally protected uses of recorded music may be further attacked.
• It will create an effect similar to the encryption community, where the bleeding edge of decryption is always just one step behind the bleeding edge of encryption. This will cost lots of money that the industry doesn't have, and could have fallout legislative effects that could also erode fair-use rights.
• It will seal the major labels' doom. Thus far they have totally failed to find a way to generate revenue out of the new realities of file trading. By attempting to hold back the tide, they will render themselves less and less relevant to consumers. Public opinion is foursquare against the industry, and major-label music isn't exactly the very staff of life.

Granted, some of these predictions are fever-dreams. But I think I'm right. Already, some of the biggest stars in music came up through alternative means of distribution and scouting that the labels had nothing to do with. Take 50 Cent, for example. He built his name via self-produced cd's before making the jump to a major label. The label simply provided a bankroll, a volume discount with a pressing plant, and a better rolodex. These services that are available in some form to anyone with the money to pay for them, and are becoming more available as companies that cater to this population are founded. Many local artists have chosen to forego the label system entirely, and let their success be limited only by how much time they can devote to administrating their own careers. Because of the ill-will I believe will be generated toward the RIAA by these lawsuits and similar efforts, I expect this route to become more common regardless of how the lawsuits turn out. 

By choosing to stand firm behind old-media ideas of copyright and music marketing, the RIAA and the labels it speaks for have chosen to go down with the ship. 

Hey... where the hell are my pants??

The record setting rapid progress of American forces in Iraq is disconcerting to two groups of people. One, those who feel that they might be next on the list; and two, the American and European left. The fear of the first group is natural, their regimes are on our list. But the supporters of the oppressed and downtrodden workers of the world have no excuse to attack the United States for acting to liberate the oppressed of a fascist regime like Saddam's. All of the Left's favorite victims are especial targets of Saddam's dictatorship. Yet America is attacked as an imperialist. Is it worse that America should exercise her might, or that Iraqis continue to die, be tortured, raped, and brutalized?

One thing is obvious about the anti-war protestors, aside from lack of a keen fashion sense. It is that they are far more anti-American than they are anti-war (let alone pro-peace.) Many freely admit that Saddam is a butchering fascist - but that doesn't stop them from opposing our own Hitler, George W. Bush. This is a complete divorce from any kind of moral reasoning. No sane person can claim that Bush is worse than Hussein, or that the American government is as repressive as Saddam's. The left in Europe and America petulantly insist that America keep jumping through an infinite series of hoops, in the vain hope that this policy will prevent the exercise of American military power, than which nothing could be more evil. The exercise of American military force has been so terrible over the years that millions once enslaved by communism are now free. And South Korea is not in (literal) darkness like North Korea. And Germany isn't killing Jews by the millions. And Japan isn't enslaving all of East Asia. So terrible, in fact, that the one time in the last century that we failed to exercise our military power in full, a million South Vietnamese civilians were slaughtered by our opponents, the peaceful agrarian reformers of the north.

It seems that the only nation that isn't allowed to deal with the problem of Iraq is the one nation that can deal with the problem. The one nation that has proved that it uses force on the whole wisely - to oppose, for lack of a better word, evil. We should be proud that our nation is a natural wrecking ball for totalitarian regimes.

The tragic part of this is that innocents die in the process. Hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians died in our bombing campaigns over Germany, and likewise in Japan. Very few people argue that this price was not worth paying. When we analyse the moral pros and cons, civilian deaths are most certainly a factor. Miraculously, our technology has advanced to the point where we can utterly destroy a building and leave its neighbors unharmed. This precision allows us to greatly limit the harm to innocents. Our military has, for the last couple weeks been operating under the most extreme rules of engagement ever conceived for an army at war. We may not fire at the enemy if he is behind civilians. We may not destroy buildings if we are not sure that civilians have been evacuated. And so on. Nevertheless, we have conducted a war of unparalleled lethality. My back of the envelope calculations (and supported by the wink and nod from my Marine Major next door neighbor, who works for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) indicate that we are incurring kill ratios against the Iraqi army of 1000:1. (It seems that the Special Republican Guard is "special" in the short bus sense.)

This amazing care that the military shows for the people of Iraq is absolutely not mirrored by the left. The callous disregard for the fates of the people of a nation with an honest to god fascist dictatorship is remarkable - or rather not remarkable, as the press never reports on this. The United States must be the evil party, because, well, the United States is evil. Therefore, we will gloss over any minor shortcomings of people like Saddam, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. (The Baathist party grew from the influence of the Nazi party, from when Germany ruled Syria and Iraq during the Second World War, after the fall of France.) The ability of the left to fawn over any murderous (socialist) thug simply blows my mind.

As America works to liberate Iraq, a very small number of Iraqi citizens will die. That the war might make us safer is worth that cost. But the benefit to the Iraqis is far greater - they will be free.

The dictatorial leaders of Iran and Syria have both publically announced that they intend to do everything possible to prevent the emergence of a free and prosperous Iraq, and to attack the United States wherever their puny weapons can reach. Syria's Assad proclaimed that Lebanon would be the model for his nation's campaign against the coalition. Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei said that America's presence in Iraq would be even worse for Iran than Saddam, who waged a bloody decade long war against Iran. Iran has gathered terrorist and guerilla forces on its border, and Syria may already have sent terrorists across its border.

The threat of a free Iraq has led these two nations to move from rote propaganda condemnations of the "Great Satan" to the verge of actual hostilities. For those who are already uncomfortable with the fact that America is at war, this will be disturbing. But for a Jacksonian like myself, this is good news. America as a whole is slow to anger, and we have absorbed hundreds of small attacks with little or no reaction. (And, of course, this likely encouraged further attacks.) The attacks on the WTC and Pentagon finally woke people up to the fact that there is in fact a threat, and in fact a rather serious one.

Now that the war is started, I'd like to see it actually finished, not left festering like back in '91. And, as events unfold, "finished" might include Syria and Iran. Iran's population openly loaths the regime - it is likely that the mullahs will be toppled with only minimal effort on America's part. Syria, like Iraq a Baathist dictatorship, might require more effort. Once Iraq is settled, Syria is stuck between Iraq and US naval forces in the Med.

The prospect of further conflict in the Middle East is not something that should be approached recklessly or, god forbid, with glee. I do not relish the idea of more American casualties, or of more civilian casualties in Syria or Iran. Would we have stopped fighting Nazi Germany after liberating France? I think that a similar issue confronts us in the Middle East. The United States has reluctantly undertaken a War on Terror, not just against Al Quaida. We have declared that terrorism, of all kinds, is a target. Syria and Iran are the two largest state supporters of terrorism. When we consider the intersection of two things - direct threat to American citizens by way of Syrian and Iranian sponsored terrorism, and the plight of the citizens of these two repressive governments, I believe that we have an obligation to act, just as we did in Iraq.

We have liberated Afghanistan. Iraq is not far behind. If we can encourage the hundreds of thousands of democracy activists in Iran (brave, brave people - they protest in a nation where protests can get you killed.) to overthrow the mullahs, and depose Assad's facsist government, and encourage reform in Pakistan - we will have helped to create a stretch of free Islamic nations from the Europe to the Indus river. Coincidently, this is roughly the extent of Alexander's Empire. But unlike Alexander, the United States clearly has no imperial aims. We do not plan to incorporate these nations into a new American empire. The US has been taken up the mountain, but we have refused to be tempted. Now some might argue that these new regimes will be part of America's global hegemony - but no more so than France or Germany, who are world famous for toeing the American foriegn policy line. American (and British and Australian) companies will win contracts from the new governments. But is the fact that an American company can make some money dealing with a freely elected representative of the Iraqi people worse than the shady deals that TotalElFina made with Saddam with the collusion of bribed French officials?

If these experiments in liberty amongst the Mohammedans are as successful as Turkey, or South Korea, American national security will be enhanced. We will have helped make hundreds of millions of people citizens of responsible governments - similar to the effect on Eastern Europe after we won the cold war. (Sadly, Russia does not seem to be going far in that direction - perhaps that extra thirty years of communism was too much.) If they could be as successful as Japan, the example that these nations will set might set off reforms in other Islamic nations.

The most crucial of these will be Saudi Arabia. With the largest reserves of oil in the world, Saudi Arabia has a influence on the world economy all out of proportion to the skill or education of its people, its industry or economy, or its contribution to world civilization. Saudi Arabia is a primitive tribal culture sitting on top of a gold mine. It is a perverse welfare state for the rich. Despite the vast amounts of money that oil brought, the Saudis have made no effort to develop an economy. Since the Saudis don't work, over 70% of all jobs in the country are held by foriegners. That percentage jumps to 90% when private sector jobs are examined. And Saudi Arabia undergoing a demographic explosion - half of the population is under 18, and the nation has the highest birth rate of any country outside Africa.

This nation also supplies vast amounts of money to fundamentalist Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia and around the world. We all know that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Most of the detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi. These young Saudis, well educated, entering their twenties and entering an economy specifically designed to not provide jobs for them, are perfect targets for the Wahabbis. Somehow, this must be fixed. Hopefully, it can be fixed without further American intervention. But we won't really be safe from Islamic terrorism until the last sources of funding have been cut off. And that means Saudi Arabia.

More space stuff. Liberty and other family values. War Aims, or why good people sometimes need to be blown up. Fascism, Norwegians and communism, three things that I hate.

WEMU-FM host Terry Hughes was fired from Eastern Michigan Public Radio for repeatedly expressing his support for the War, President Bush and American soldiers. He also denigrated NPR news coverage, saying, "We know if you want a current assessment of what's going on, you're sure not listening to us... You'll be over at Fox TV where they're not bending the news. ... It ain't happening on NPR."

The station manager Art Timko said, "He was fired basically over philosophical differences," Timko said. "We have a policy that eliminates or restricts the expression of personal opinion on issues of controversy, and he didn't believe that applied to him."

Hughes plans to continue taping his vintage R&B and Soul program at home for syndication. "It wasn't my intention to mess with the station manager," he said. "It's only been my intent to do crazy cool radio in America."

The quote from the station manager seems to indicate that public radio has serious problems with traditional American values like free speech.

It is rumored around D.C. that the authoritarian Wet Dream of the " Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003", AKA Patriot II, is defunct for this year. Good news!!

However, celebrating its demise is less important than watching to make sure that little bits of it don't end up in other, more innocuous bills. The "RAVE Act" was apparently acceptable to many Congressmen, and its provisions are hardly less outrageous than those of Patriot II. I promise, dear reader (yes, you, the only reader), my sharp steely gaze is fixed firmly on this... ooh! Is Trading Spaces on?

A couple things. First. I sincerely doubt that the RIAA lawsuits named today (I really should provide links, so here you go. Here too. not bothering -ed.) will go to trial. I suspect that these are primarily a scare tactic aimed at curtailing trading through the simple threat of prosecution. And, they did choose their targets carefully-- people who maintained libraries of tens or hundreds of thousands of files. Not even I have bought that many albums. I could be wrong though. The RIAA's leadership seem to live in a dream-world where copyright law trumps individual privacy, so it is possible they could proceed, and even sue more people.

Next. I am fully aware that trading thousands of songs via peer-to-peer networks is mainifestly illegal. While I believe that suing people that engage in this behavior is offensive and wrongheaded, I also think that such people are ruining a good thing for the rest of us. So-called victimless crimes like going 70 in a 65-mile-per-hour zone, downloading a single track, like say the ? and the Mysterions klassic kut "96 Tears", or sneaking your recycling in with the neighbors, are fairly innocuous though nominally illegal. Much as I would be furious at all parties if a bunch of teens started drag-racing their riced-up shitmobiles down I-95 with the result that all speeders automatically recieved jail time, I am furious at all parties here, both defendants and plaintiffs.

There's a lot of us in the pool, folks. Stop dropping Baby Ruths in it.

This government web site here, counsels citizens on matters relating to terrorist attacks, and how Americans might be prepared in the event of an attack. Duck and cover! For a further explanation of the government's preparation advice, check out this site here. Be prepared. (Second link was dead. -ed.)

Matthew Yglesias has an insightful post up about that Iraq dealie we're in right now. In the interest of poking Buckethead with a sharp pointy stick, I'm just going to throw most of it up here verbatim.

". . .you can't just let a political process determine a military goal (remove Saddam Hussein from power) and then let the military pursue that goal by whatever means they deem appropriate and then declare victory when the war is over. Rather, you need to make sure that the way in which the war was conducted actually achieves your specific political goals rather than simply the broad task of defeating the other guy. 

One of the problematic elements of Operation Iraqi Freedom is that it was never really clear what these specific goals were. Instead you had lots of different people accepting different reasons for invading. On the assumption that the war would be a cakewalk, there was no problem with this, since folks could stay united around the military objective regime change and then continue the fight over political goals in the postwar period. Now that that scenario doesn't seem to be playing out, however, it seems to me that the administration is in danger of falling into the trap of redefining its political goals in purely military terms. Hence, our objectives now seem to be (a) capturing Baghdad, (b) destroying Republican Guard regiments, and (c) killing Saddam Hussein. Those are reasonable (and achievable) military objectives, but it's not clear to me that they're going to accomplish any important political goals at all."

While I think it's a little early to worry to seriously about the implementation of political goals (since we may be months from a military conclusion), it is a very real concern for this reason: nobody seems to know for sure what the political goals will even be. I've seen at least four different plans for post-war Iraq, all purportedly from gub'mint sources. Since I for one haven't seen a compelling, detailed, plan for reconstruction, my feeling is that that Matthew Y is right. Are we setting up a protectorate? A shadow government? A constitutional monarchy? An anarcho-syndiclast commune? Who gets the oil? Who develops Iraq's infrastructure? Who gets first crack at capital investment? What about trade arrangements for that same oil? What day is this? Is it dinnertime yet? Where are my pants? 

n.b. Historically, this war still definitely counts as a cakewalk. However, there are lesser and greater degrees of cakewalkitude, and my sense is that the needle is rolling over to the lesser side of the dial now. Just saying.

also n.b. Unlike my compatriots, I am not much of a political scientist. So, in choosing to separate military and political ends in my argument, I may have made a big mistake from a poli-sci standpoint. I realize that if we are at war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, then that matters now. But, we are also at war to create a new government in Iraq, and that doesn't so much matter until the shooting dies down. That seems to me to be the true political goal, hence my disconnecting the two. If I have in fact made a big mistake, well... nyah.

From The Morning News, this beautiful creed:

I believe in Iggy, Jimi, Chryssie, and Joe Strummer, the Parents Almighty, Creator of heaven on earth; I believe in Malcolm McClaren and Sid Vicious, His only Son. I believe in punk, lo-fi and gangsta, indie, post-punk, indie-pop, rock, singer-songwriter, and insurgent country, conceived by Uncle Tupelo, born of Jeff Tweedy who suffers, as does Lou Barlow. I believe in Squirrelbait and Johnny Cash. I believe in the Motor City. I will respectfully love and fear Tad. I believe in Superchunk and PJ Harvey. I believe in new bands and will never pretend to know music I have never heard, so my mind may stay open and I will sitteth at the right hand of Mission of Burma so I may one day ascend to heaven, where I will be greeted by Sonic Youth, Eazy-E, and Mike Watt. I will not listen to rock critics, but trust my own ears. I believe in DIY, zines, Yo La Tengo, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of Cobain, and rock everlasting. Amen.

-May the Rock be with you. 

-And also with you. 
 

This is indeed a serious problem. Unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do other than writing to people in Congress and voting against those who support it. The civil liberties of Americans and those residing in the U.S., as I stated in a previous post, have been consistently whittled away during my lifetime. Like all humans before us, however, we are all subject to injustices due to circumstances beyond our control. Once the reps have gotten their letters and the votes cast, it's just a matter of finger crossing and hopes for the best. Once again, I lack optimism on this, as well as most other issues. I, as Johno indicated, am the kind of person who contributed money to perhaps the sort of organization that would fall on the wrong side of things under Patriot II. 

Iraq and political goals 

A recent report on PBS Frontline outlined the causal factors and what political goals do exist for the Iraq war. According to the report, members of George Bush the elder's government, who referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites, wanted to seize Baghdad and eliminate Saddam Hussein in 1991. They were checked by Bush the elder, who pursued the limited goal of expulsion from Kuwait. Now, some people who sought the removal of Hussein, such as the current Vice President Richard Cheney and current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are back in power and employing the attacks of 11 September 2001 as an excuse to remove Hussein from power. I reiterate though, there are no real links between al Qaeda and Hussein. The Ansar camp recently taken is in Kurdish, nominally U.S. controlled territory, spitting distance from the Iranian border. It seems more likely that if any governments supported the Ansar camp, it was probably Iran and not Iraq. 

Maybe After the passage of Patriot II Johnny will have to put his two cents in from a cell. We can carry on discussions by tapping through the wall to each other in Morse code, as in Darkness at Noon. 

SARS, the Iraq war, Patriot II, it all makes things look pretty bleak these days.