perfidy

No one's perfect, sure. And you know that despite my anglophilia, I have always said that British policy in Ireland has been reprehensible for 800 straight years. It is the primary exception to Britain's largely positive impact on history in general. It is a black stain, in fact. No British leader, it seems, from the Plantagenets, to Cromwell, to Churchill, to Thatcher can ever think clearly or morally about Ireland. Granted. 

But as for her activities outside Ireland, I must disagree. Britain's economy in the seventies was in even worse shape than in the United States. Industries nationalized by Labor governments after the Second World War were hemorrhaging taxpayer money, unemployment was high, inflation was high, things were generally shitty. The worst offender of the nationalized industries was the coal industry. The government was throwing hundreds of millions of pounds down the hole every year, maintaining mines and pits that could not ever make money. If you owned something that was losing you a third of your income a year, would you want to keep it? Thatcher's government closed unprofitable mills. What any sensible business owner would do. And, they sold off all the other industries - rail, steel, oil, the lot of them. It isn't government's job to run businesses. 

As in the United States, changing economies meant that some industries would be harder hit than others. Like the steel workers in Pittsburgh, the mine workers in England lost their jobs. But, it is not the government's responsibility to maintain unprofitable mines at the cost of the rest of the nation. If you lose your job, get another one. It happens to most people. You don't have a god given right to a job in the pits, or at the foundry. If the government provides unemployment benefits, and maybe some job training, that is appropriate. But it is not obligated to pay them to do a useless job. 

The mine unions violently opposed this plan - understandably, perhaps. Organized labor is far less important or needful today, or twenty years ago, than it was a hundred years ago. In our country, the federal workers' and teacher's unions are far more powerful than they should be. 

Dislocation happens to economies. Sometimes some bits get hit harder than others. But in a healthy system, like ours or Britain's, new things come along. Over the last twenty years, we have developed several whole new industries that didn't even exist in 1980. There are more jobs now than before. Unemployment has been very low in this country for most of the last two decades, thanks largely to the efforts of Reagan, and the British economy has been strong, thanks to Thatcher. While the mine workers lost their jobs, the rest of the economy benefited enormously, and in time, the unemployed mine workers joined the rest of the economy. 

On the war angle, if Hawaii was invaded, I think we'd take it back. The Argentineans invaded the Mavinas to detract from the baleful effects of their socialistic economic program. The inhabitants of the Falklands were British, and didn't want to be Argentine. The British went to war only after Argentina invaded - they did not provoke that war, as you imply. (Granted, she did use the big win for political purposes, but that was after the fact.) 

Further, the Soviets were a threat. And Cold War strategy was rather more complicated than you state it. Deterrence may have prevented a full nuclear exchange - but it almost didn't on at least two occasions. But the reason that we formed NATO, and had our troops right on the line, was so that any attack on Western Europe would be considered an attack on us. The reason for that was that if the Soviets, with their advantage in conventional weaponry in the fifties, sixties and seventies, had invaded, we would have lost. And losing Europe to communism would have meant that North America would be pretty much all that was left of the free world. From that position, it would be harder and harder for the United States to fight off the Soviet Union. That would be bad. Our nuclear arsenal kept that at bay. Also, building lots of nukes assured that he Soviets would not try a sneak attack - they were much more sanguine at the thought of losing a few million citizens, and might consider the losses if they could take us out completely. 

By finally driving the stake into the heart of Communism, Reagan and Thatcher removed that threat. Now, millions who lived under totalitarian communist regimes are now free, and some are even becoming prosperous. 

I don't know about the poll tax. I'll look into it. 

No leader or nation, is perfect - but I don't know that Roosevelt did a great deal to limit freedom in this country (though I could lose my membership in the vast right wing conspiracy for saying that.) Or Churchill either. The internment of the Japanese was wrong, certainly, as were the other things. But he did not leave this country substantially less free than when he found it. And some of those problems were solved later. The British lost much more of their freedom under Atlee than Churchill. Reagan did nothing that I can think of that reduced anyone's liberty in this country. Pissed people off, sure, but not limit their freedom. 

Defeating the Soviet Union and Communism was at least as important as defeating Germany and Nazism. The ones who finally managed it deserve credit for achieving it.

When the vaguard of the proletariat is doing the fighting? The masses don't seem very interested. And, what is this class structure you speak of? We have a capitalist economy, true (yea capitalism!) but there are no permanent classes. The vast majority of millionaires in this country are nouveau riche, from working or middle class families, not from the already rich. My grandfather's family was dirt poor, he hunted squirrels to put meat on the table, and was a hobo in the thirties. But he went into real estate, got reasonably rich, and retired to a brick Georgian mansion in Guernsey county, Ohio. His wife's father was a union organizer, worked with the commie John L. Lewis. Most of the poor in this country (lowest quintile of earnings) are not poor ten years later. Poverty in this country is more a matter of timing than anything else. I was poor, now I'm not. I hope to be rich. I am not the member of any permanent class. Nor is anyone else. We have no landed aristocracy, or hereditary rulers. Anyone can become rich, or president.

Johno, $4.50 x 280,000,000 = 1.26 billion dollars. That is a lot. The thing is, when you leave the money in the pockets of the people that earned it, instead of giving it to Ted Kennedy, they will use it for many different things. Some will buy beer and pizza. Some will collect stamps. Some will go out for cheap hookers. Others will save it, and invest it. Still other people will take the money that was invested, and give it to some yahoo with a too-clever idea for vacuum-powered hair cutting devices. That guy will hire people to manufacture and sell it. If some money is left over from beer and pizza, stamps or hookers, they will buy it. The economy has just grown. There is more wealth in the system. The new company will pay taxes. So will the formerly unemployed welfare mothers making the doohickeys, and the sleazeballs hawking them on infomercials at three in the morning. So revenue goes up. And as long as we maintain a sound fiscal policy, a low rate of inflation will be the result. This is a good thing. If some people aren't as rich as the new Vacuum Hair Cutter magnate, that's because they didn't go out and found their own company, which anybody with sufficient gumption can do. It's all about liberty. 

This kind of thinking is generally associated with the Chicago school - Hayek, Friedman, and that crowd. Historically, when taxes go down, revenue and the economy go up. Post WWII, post Kennedy, Reagan. When taxes went up in the sixties, by the seventies, the economy was a wreck. (Of course it is more complicated than that. But measures that limit the economy generally go hand in hand with higher taxes. So it evens out.) 

And the real problem with deficit spending is not the military - which is a legitimate function of government constitutionally, but entitlement programs that inexorably spiral upwards in cost. There is no conceivable tax increase that would pay for what's going to happen to Social Security and Medicare. If the economy grows fast enough, we'll have more money for warm fuzzy programs, and for things that kill little brown people. Liberals and Conservatives will live together. Mass hysteria. 

(Considering the vast expansion of the investor class, ironically one of Marx' dearest hope - that the proletariat would own the means of production, has kind of happened.)

Some people are waking up to two things: that the Chinese are serious in their space aims, and that the private drive for space is stronger than it has ever been. Within a year, we will almost certainly see the Chinese become the third nation to send a man into space, and also a winner of the x-prize for the first civilian team to fly twice above the atmosphere in the same vehicle in a week's time. 

The Washington Times has a new report on Chinese space activities. Some time ago, the Chinese announced their plan to set up a Lunar outpost within a decade. As the article relates, the Chinese are moving steadily towards their goal. EVA Training and dependable, simple Russian space technology indicate that they are intending more than simple orbital publicity stunts. In response, India has also announced a Lunar program, and the Japanese may follow. Remarkably, the Japanese source believes that the Chinese will be on the moon within three or four years.

So far, the Chinese have successfully launched four test vehicles. The last, in November of 2002, was considered to be a full on test run that will lead directly to the first Chinese manned flight, probably before the end of the year. Once in space, very few missions could prepare a lunar mission. The United States did its moon missions all in one shot. However, a more cautious Chinese strategy might be to assemble a lunar vehicle in Earth orbit from two or three launches. A lunar shuttle could fly repeatedly between Earth and Lunar orbit, requiring only refueling. It would never need to land on Earth. A lunar shuttle could travel between the Lunar surface and orbit - again requiring only refueling. This strategy would give the Chinese a permanent capability to travel back and forth to the moon. 

A Chinese presence in space, let alone on the Moon, would drastically alter the global strategic situation. Capabilities, rather than intentions are the key factor in military planning - and a space capable Chinese nation is an enormous threat to the United States that depends on space resources for military dominance here on Earth. 

The flip side of this equation is the increasing investment in private space programs in the United States. Many computer industry billionaires are funding private space companies - including Jeff Bezos of Amazon, John Carmack of Id software (of Doom and Quake fame) and the inventor of Paypal, Elon Musk. As I have reported here, Burt Rutan has already flight tested an x-prize competitor, and hopes to take the prize on the centennial of the Wright brother's flight. Rumor is that he has deep pocketed computer industry funding as well, to the tune of over $20 million. 

If we just stand back from this burgeoning industry, and not let NASA or the FAA interfere, we will have an answer for any Chinese strategic challenge. There is no way that the Chinese government effort could compete with an unleashed American civilian effort. Once the door is kicked open - and the X-Prize will go a long way toward achieving that - it could explode; much like the computer industry did.

Have to hate America, or at least agitate for its overthrow?

The working classes that you correctly say constitute the majority of the military are also reliably the most patriotic segment of American society, and have always been. The academic and chattering classes are the only ones liable, as a group, to throw down their rifles like the French. The aims of actual members of the working class have rarely been what leftists always insist that they have to be.

I wasn't imputing that you said Anti-Irishism was widespread, merely saying that that was the first I've heard of it.

To go a little further on the tax issue, here it is: 

• Axiom A: The current tax code is a kafkian horror.
• Axiom Two: People should be treated equally and fairly under the law.
• Axiom III: a taxation scheme should have only two objects, to provide reasonable revenue for government functions, and not to impede the functioning of the economy or for social engineering.
• Axiom N: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. 

The current tax system runs to seventeen thousand pages of regulations. It is, literally, impossible for anyone to understand it. With even a moderately complex financial situation, there is no way to be assured that you are in compliance with the law. Every year, journalists will create a fictional family of four, with a reasonable spread of investments and assets, and earning something in the comfortable middle of the income spectrum. They will send this hypothetical tax picture to several IRS functionaries, tax accountants, and HR Block type tax preparers. No return will match any of the others. Better to spend your time figuring how many conflicted, compulsive centrists can agonize on the head of a pin. 

On general principle, the current scheme should be completely scrapped. Vague and conflicting regulations make enforcement arbitrary and predatory. When you speak of fear of the government, most people don't think Big Brother, they think the IRS. There is absolutely no need for a tax system this Byzantine, this elephantine, this cruel; especially in a republic with pretensions to liberty and justice. And beyond the costs of shoveling an average of a third of our income onto the IRS fire, there is the cost of preparing the tax returns themselves. Millions of man hours for the general public, billions spent by businesses and individuals to tax accountants and tax preparers that could be spent more profitably elsewhere. Further, there is the uncalculated effect of tax law on how businesses change practices to avoid punitive tax liabilities, like delaying replacement of aging capital equipment (a factor in the industrial decline in the Midwest), avoiding investment, delaying capitalization and a hundred other things to obscure for me to comprehend. 

But what to replace it with? Conceivably, we could replace the current nightmare with something simpler that worked in largely the same way - tax brackets, deductions, credits - but easier to cope with. But if we are going to go to the effort to replace it, it ought to be something better. 

I feel that the current tax system makes a mockery of our commitment to justice and equality before the law. If it is illegal to discriminate against someone for reasons of creed, color or gender, why is it kosher that a one set of tax laws applies to Mike, completely different set of laws applies to Mr. and Mrs. Two-Cents, and yet a third and even harsher set of laws applies to the Buckethead clan? If Mike were white, and Johnny Hispanic and me black, legions of the unwashed would rise up in protest. Yet, there is not a murmur of discontent when it is shown that these three have different incomes. 

We should always be treated the same before the law. If I kill someone, the same law should apply to me as when Johno kills someone. Even if I did because they deserved it and Johno kills merely because they have bad taste in music. Similarly, the same tax laws should apply to everyone, even if one of us makes more money than the other. This is the primary moral argument for a flat tax. 

If we assume that the current level of revenue is adequate for government needs (sharp internal wrenching pain) we could structure a new tax system that would generate that much money. One of the reasons that our tax system is so complicated is that all the many special interests, over decades, slowly weaved a web of exemptions, shelters, credits and what-have-you into the tax code. Most of these complications have no positive effect on the economy as a whole, and many are probably very negative. One way to eliminate unfairness is to completely eliminate all the complications. If every person, and every corporation, paid 10% of income to the government everyone would be on the same level. No industry would have special sanctions, or considerations. It would limit the government's meddling in the economy. (Tax law is a great sub rosa way to meddle, because it is less obvious.) 

The thing is, if I pay 10%, and Mike pays 10%, that's fair - even though I will pay more in absolute terms. If it's that simple, I can compute my tax return in seconds. Even corporations would have a simpler time of it. In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation had high taxes. But almost no revenue, because the government was largely incapable of collecting it. When they switched to a flat tax, their revenue skyrocketed. One, because the lower tax rate was fair enough that many who had not paid taxes now paid them, and two, because it stimulated the economy. And if I know every corporation and rich person is paying ten percent, I'm much less likely to think that the fat cats are getting away with murder, because there would be no loopholes or tax shelters. 

While I said earlier that the government shouldn't use the tax system to meddle with the economy, or use it for social engineering, that is only generally true. While staying within the flat tax format - so that the same laws apply to everyone, we can fudge it a bit to have beneficent effects. For example, a certain standard set of deductions would apply to everyone's income. A personal deduction, child deductions, mortgage interest, marriage deduction are all good candidates. These deductions would be set amounts, so the effect on someone with a low income would be proportionally much larger than for someone with a large income. You could finagle these deductions so that someone or a family at the poverty level would pay no tax. Then, as income increases, taxes would increase. By the time income got to a couple hundred thousand, it would look more and more like 10% as the deductions became a smaller and smaller proportion of the total income. This would help the poor, encourage marriage and children - but the same law would still apply to everyone. A similar situation could be imagined for businesses. 

A flat tax of 15 to 17 percent would probably generate about the same revenue as the current system. And the rich would pay more taxes than they do now (though Democrats would still claim that it's a tax cut for the rich.) But everyone would have the same, understandable law.

John writes, "I still want to know how Mike resolves Marxist orthodoxy with an evident love of the United States and its ways ..."

Easy. I'm not an Orthodox Marxist. I'm not really a Marxist for that matter. I use it when applicable to historical circumstances.

Buckethead writes,

"If American historians hate and villify the Irish Americans, they are the only ones doing it. I haven't noticed any anti-Irish bigotry in the wider world."

Yeah. No shit. I never accused the wider world of anti-Irish bigotry. I wrote precisely: "That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years." This is an old ethnic animosity maintained exclusively within the Ivory Tower.

As to the rich man's war/poor man's fight issue, your argument is that that's the way those things are done. Sure, it's the way of the world. But if we all collectively shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well that's how it is," we'll never see any changes. No, we can't put old rich men in trenches. But how about their children? They don't serve. What if they had to? What if the working class, that has historically constituted much of the American military, threw down their rifles and said, "fight your own damn war."

Of course this is an historical issue as opposed to a present issue. With the professionalization of the American military class issues are becoming less acute. The military itself is becoming an opportunity for upward mobility once service is complete. They aren't paid very much while serving, but there are opportunities for education and the acquisition of skills. So the rich man's war and poor man's fight might be evolving into a non-issue.

Buckethead, dude, I think he's got you on Thatcher. Whatta beast.

Mike is correct in pointing out that all heroes have feet of clay, but I'm gonna poke, poke, poke, at the hornets' nest by claiming that Reagan and Thatcher won the cold war exactly because they forced the USSR to stop, think, check their wallets, and put the brakes to what Stalin had set rolling. Also, it doesn't hurt that Gorbachev was a second-generation Party member, the first Premier without direct ties to the Revolution.

But let's not bicker and argue about who killed who! I still want to know how Mike resolves Marxist orthodoxy with an evident love of the United States and its ways, and what sages Buckethead is consulting to assert that tax cuts dependably spur the economy (you're not allowed to mention Larry Kudlow).

On that last point, I'm not sure that an extra $4.50 in people's pockets is particularly meaningful for the economy, except for convenience stores, pizza shops and breweries. I'd like to think that the Average American does think of tax cuts as something they can count on, but I'm not so sure. That presupposes that the Average American acts rationally in economic matters, and I have always found that assumption laughable.

Finally, the discussion of the current tax cuts has to eventually come around to the question of massive deficit spending. Where's the wall, how fast are we going, and how long til we hit it? There's a war on, you know.

Steve, I'm going to quibble with your statement that Reagan, Thatcher, Roosevelt, and Churchill were superhero defenders of freedom. Emphasis on the hero with Thatcher if you know what I mean. Roosevelt and his administration I'll grant you conditionally, aside from racism in the New Deal, ignoring the Holocaust, denying European Jews access to the United States, Executive Order 9066 that interned Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, etc. But he qualifies as a defender of freedom in that he led the United States through most of the second World War and did a lot to bring down Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Mistakes were made, but challenges also met. 

I could say much the same about Churchill. His actions while in the Imperial office, unleashing the Black and Tans on Ireland, and in negotiating the 1921 Treaty with Ireland significantly limited the freedom of subject peoples. But for two years, he and Britain stood alone against Germany. Like Roosevelt in the U.S., he led Britain through the second World War and also did a lot to bring down Nazi Germany. 

I'll leave alone the Reagan issue, and will offer to agree to disagree on that score. On Thatcher, however, I will make a few remarks. Thatcher did a great deal to limit the freedom of British workers and engaged in the most brutal campaign against Catholics in the north of Ireland since her Tory predecessor Edward Heath's government sanctioned the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry. Under Thatcher and her own orders, rather than permitting the Blanketmen to wear their own clothes with prisoner of war status, many of the Blanketmen starved to death. In other words, Thatcher preferred that northern Irish Catholic insurgent prisoners starve rather than allowing them to wear civilian clothes. 

Thatcher refused to negotiate with anyone. She would not negotiate with Irish insurgents, she would not negotiate with striking workers. She responded to strikes by closing factories and collieries, and putting thousands of British workers out on the street. She and her administration virtually liquidated the TUC, the cornerstone of British organized labor. She went to war with Argentina over the Falkland islands, a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica, in an archaic colonial war specifically designed to drum up reactionary patriotism. Thus, Thatcher beat up sixth graders as an adult. In the last year of her administration, Thatcher introduced a poll tax. Poll taxes are a tremendous limitation on freedom. 

As to preserving the freedom of America by winning the Cold War, at what point could the Soviets have conquered the United States? The strategy was they nuke us, then we nuke them, and it's all over. Cold War brinksmanship could have gotten us all killed. And I haven't admitted that Reagan and Thatcher won the Cold War. I still adhere to my thesis that the Soviets simply couldn't maintain the House that Stalin built and I'm not convinced that it was because they got into a spending arms race with the U.S. But we've had this discussion before, and it will remain forever unresolved and disagreed upon between you and I. 

That aside, the above League of Superheros members Churchill and Roosevelt did lead the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and Reagan and Thatcher won the Cold War, according to you, not me, but all of them did a great deal to limit the freedom of their own and subject peoples in various ways.

I thought of something smart to say, and it's pithy, too!

Liberals are sanctimonious, and conservatives are condescending.

Too bad for both of 'em, I say.

[moreover] Present company excepted, needless to say. I'm thinking of Chomsky, Moore, Coulter, and O'Reilly, among many others.

Johno, I agree that the sending rebate checks is fairly ridiculous. But probably not for the same reason. While a rebate check sent to every tax payer might provide a transitory boost to the economy, it is at best a short term solution. The way to effect the economy with tax cuts is to, well, cut taxes. When people know that their taxes are lower, then they will change their behavior in a way that could effect the economy. This applies to regular income taxes, which might affect consumer confidence, consumer spending, housing starts and the like. Lowering, permanently, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes would increase investment and capital development. It has been shown that lowering taxes increases revenue - because the larger economy that is spurred by lower taxes yields more money in absolute terms, even though percentage of the government's take of the total economy is smaller. These rebates will not have this effect, because people - individuals and businesses - have no confidence that taxes will remain low. The economic picture is indeed muddled. Lowering tax rates would be a solid thing that people could count on.

While even full production from the Iraqi oil fields would remain a relatively small part of the total oil production (even the Saudi's immense reserves are only a quarter of total proven reserves) the effect of that production would be to drive down oil prices. And oil prices are one of the key factors in the world economy, because in some way or other, almost every business and industry is affected by oil prices. Shipping, energy, heating, plastics - the costs of all of these are all directly dependent on oil. Every other industry uses these services. When oil prices went up by 50%, it had the effect of a tax increase, because it increased the cost of doing business, or the cost of living. When they go down, it will act like a tax cut. And it won't effect the government's budget. 

As the effects of this percolate through the economy, eventually the job market will catch up with the growing economy. Jobless rates are always a trailing indicator. If the economy is already recovering, great. The lowered oil prices will be a shot in the arm, revving up the recovery.

Mike, the reason I asked you that is so that I could ask you this:

So what?

Young men fight in wars, and older men are usually at the head of governments. This has always been the case. Despite the whines of pollyannas, putting old men in the firing line would not really change things. What matters is why wars are fought, and what the result is (who wins.) The Civil War was won by the right side. Slavery died. This is good. WWII was fought by young, often poor, men while the Rockefellers, Fords, Kaisers and Roosevelts stayed at home and ran the government and industry. But we kicked Nazi ass, and that is good. American wars have (largely) been for good reasons, against bad people.

If American historians hate and villify the Irish Americans, they are the only ones doing it. I haven't noticed any anti-Irish bigotry in the wider world.

Ladies: I think I'm gonna stay out of the political debate until I think of something smart to say. Should be a while.

Buckethead, as for your post on Iran, I'd say there's a heck of a lot disturbing about the very idea of libervading Iran. I totally agree that, should the time come to pass, we should not rely on mercenaries and former enemies to wage a proxy war on our behalf. I think I'm on safe ground in asserting that it's never a good idea. But I would go one step farther and ask why it's necessary to head into Iran to begin with. By your own lights, all signs suggest that it's not a stable state to begin with. Why not give the situation some time to marinate and see if the mullahs' power crumbles all on its own? It would be much, much easier, cheaper, and dignified to be able to sweep into Iran because a popular revolution started rolling on its own. (And hey, if that happened, maybe for once we won't be decried as the A-holes of the world! (Yeah... right.))

Your (admittedly rhetorical) argument that we're in the neighborhood anyway is lightweight--about the same as my wanting to finish the last two beers in the twelve-pack because they look so lonely in there without their friends. Goodwife Two-Cents always pulls me back from that brink, and with good cause. Convenience is not an excuse for a hangover, much less a war. And although I totally agree with you about the perfidy of the mullahs and the USAity of some of the Iranian population, that doesn't sell me on a war either. And payback? Are we Bruce Willis? (Or Mel Gibson, but that was one crappy movie so I'm disqualifying him.)

We should not be too quick to jump into another conflict until it's proven that we are in fact ably committed to helping Iraq rebuild, until the same can be said for Afghanistan, until the Palestinian 'situation' (as you say) is resolved, until diplomacy has had time to work, until the waiting game is doing more harm than good (to Americans and Iranians alike), and until it's proven that our armed forces, economy, and national creed can handle it. That, and I still oppose such hijinks on principle anyway.

Or, we could just (as you say) nuke 'em.

Mike, you should get a pat on the back for winning fights. They probably deserved it. But you lost fights? What a wuss...

heh.

full disclosure: I have never won a schoolyard fight. I might be able to now, if I picked on a sixth grader.

Let's talk about why that was a good thing. BFD, you say? The two stage world war defined the first half of the twentieth century, and the cold war defined the second. On that basis alone, winning that schoolyard fight must be a big fucking deal. And the people that won it should get medals - because they won it, people like us aren't in gulags. And Mike, you would probably be in their ahead of me, because the communists always purged heretics before they purged the infidel. 

The Cold War was a ideological contest between, not to put to fine a point on it, freedom / goodness / light and enslavement / evil / darkness. On any given Sunday, the Communist empire was every bit as evil as the Nazi one, but it lasted for seven times as long, and killed at least three times as many people. If we had rolled over for the Soviets, or allowed ourselves to become like them, we would not be living in our peachy keen, if imperfect, republic of liberty. Secret police, reeducation camps, show trials, total state control of every aspect of your life: this is what we avoided. And Reagan and Thatcher, by resisting it, and calling it what it was, (and by shoveling money into the fire faster than the Russkies could ever dream of hoping to do) drove the beast over the cliff. Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents, told of the way that the Evil Empire speech heartened them in their resistance to the Soviet state. 

I know you don't like Churchill, either, Mike; but Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and Thatcher were the four greatest defenders of liberty and the free world of the last century. 
 

Some in the Pentagon are saying that Iran is the proper target, and are proposing the use of covert operations to engineer the collapse of the Iranian fundamentalist theocracy. Those pushing this plan feel that the collapse of the Iranian government is the only way to forestall the development of nuclear weapons which could be used against American targets. 

One disturbing aspect of the plan is that it would include the use of a group currently classified as a terrorist organization by the US government. The MEK was a group sponsored by Saddam's regime in an attempt to destabilize it's rival neighbor. After the fall of the Baathist government in the wake of the American libervation, the American government and the MEK agreed to a ceasefire, and the MEK disarmed. However, MEK forces are still in existence and the weapons are in storage. 

Many of the arguments for regime change in Iraq apply equally well to Iran - a government resolutely inimical to American interests, state support of terrorist groups, development of WMD, and oppression and brutalization of their own population. With Iran, we get the added bonus of payback for the hostage crisis. Where the population of Iraq seems genuinely happy to be rid of Saddam, but lukewarm about the American presence; word is that the Iranian people are very much pro-American. Numerous articles by Michael Ledeen of the National Review, among others, have told the story of the widespread protests against the regime in Tehran and Qum, as well as many other regions. The people of Iran, I think would greatly support any effort by the US to overthrow the Mullahs. 

As a charter member of the Axis of Evil, Iran should certainly be on our list. And given the new strategic situation, we are in a prime position to move on Iran - we have them bracketed on two sides - Iraq and Afghanistan - three, really, if you count the Persian Gulf. I don't think we need to use some of Saddam's thugs to achieve our goals, however. We should be working with the Poles, the Australians and the Brits if we choose to go down that path. 

But we should not be too quick to jump into another conflict while we are still committed to Iraq, and while the Palestinian situation is still unresolved. We should give the UN time to work the diplomacy angle, and see if... Aw, fuck it, let's just nuke 'em. 
 

Buckethead, there are two points I will concede, IE your promotion of debate, and knowing a lefty to see one, but others I will concede partially, or not at all. I'm not convinced that racism has been reduced quite to the extent that you argue. Anecdotally, the example of the people you work with would indicate a reduction, and it does. But what is the overall and broad extent to which racism has been reduced? Difficult to tell, and I will gladly admit that I don't know the answer. So, point partially conceded. Next, calling for a million Mogadishus and the deaths of American soldiers might very well indicate a hatred for America, or it can be an exaggeration device to oppose the war in the most brutal and shocking terms possible. It could be shock value. While I do not advocate the death of anyone, as I said before, others did say that, and maybe it's out of hatred for America. Point partially conceded. 

As to Reagan and Thatcher winning the Cold War, this is inflammatory and I'm indulging myself, but I'll write it anyway. Big Fucking Deal. What do they want, medals? I won a bunch of schoolyard fights during my adolescence and I'm not looking for a pat on the back. I lost a couple, too, but we won't talk about that. 

Finally, do I hate America? No. There are many things to like about America at the present time. Unlike most European countries, Britain, and Ireland, we have bars open until four, at least in Chicago and Peoria, IL, and elsewhere I'm sure. I haven't been compelled to serve in the military, auto fuel is cheap (compared to Europe/Britain/Ireland), I can vote, the grocery stores have lots of good stuff to eat, I can participate in cultural activities related to both my ethnic groups as opposed to just one, and the list goes on. Are there things I don't like about America? Why, yes. Yes, there are. But back to things I like, and to tie it all together, here's a final question. Do I believe in the necessity of revolution in the United States? No. The system of which you are so fond makes it possible to solve problems constitutionally rather than violent means. It favors the wealthy over the poor in many cases (a thing I don't like), it's slow, and it takes a long time, but patience is a virtue I possess. Otherwise, I couldn't be an effective teacher. Violent revolution would be looking for the quick fix, but there are no quick fixes or easy solutions to societal problems. Another point partially conceded to the Buckethead. 

So there you have it. As my own little post-script, was the American Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? It was. People in the Union could pay money to the government, or hire substitutes to serve in their stead. All the bullshit the postmodernist historians have been spouting lately about how that really wasn't the case, well, hazut! That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years. But I'll veer away from the conspiratorial rant. In the Confederacy, poor men from the backcountry served in the infantry to preserve the Confederacy, slavery, and the state's rights backdoor to the preservation of slavery for the benefit of large plantation owners who were rich, while women on the home front starved. In both cases, poor men died to do the will of wealthy, powerful men.

Buckethead, I think you may be mischaracterizing matters somewhat. Many people (who are not all Democrats) are rather cynically expecting the economy to tank once again, which would result in a very welcome Presidential pie-in-face moment. While not devoid of schadenfreude, it's a long way from hoping the economy stays torpid. I'd LOVE the economy to improve, but if it doesn't, I'll find my silver lining somehow. 

Funny thing is, the experts say the economy has recovered. The Wall Street Journal ran an article today (no link...subscription only) on the muddled signals the economy is sending. Some economists point to the slow but definite expansion of production, productivity, consumer spending, and GDP as a sign that the economy has entered a healthy phase. But others point to the continued downturn in the job market (the Journal cites 525,000 nonfarm jobs disappearing in the last three months) as a sign that we're instead in a difficult transitional stage*. Even though productivity is rising, corporations are using the higher productivity rates as an excuse to cut jobs and thereby reduce operating budgets-- not the behavior of corporations in the midst of a growth cycle. As a consequence, regardless of the state of the economy, times remain hard for those workers who either aren't working or who are just getting by. Raises don't happen, wages don't rise, savings don't accumulate, and people don't feel secure.

Am I speaking partially autobiographically? Um... perhaps. I can definitely tell you that in Massachusetts, the worst-hit state in the recent recession, times are still bad for everyone. Although the economy as a whole may still be healthy, budgets at the places my friends work-- libraries, higher ed, museums, nonprofits, entertainment-- are still cut beyond tolerance, and professional jobs are just not appearing in any field except nursing. When they do appear, a scrum develops as two hundred people compete for the same one opening. I could go tomorrow and get a gig at Dunkin Donuts, but I know some seasoned professionals who have been out of steady work for more than a year while still looking, all in an economy which the signs say is recovering. 

What I'm getting at is, even if Iraqi oil surges into the world market in two weeks, that won't have much of an effect on the job market as long as corporations don't feel like they should expand their payrolls. Also, Iraq has just one slice of the world oil-producing capacity, and unlike you I'm not confident it will come anywhere near full capacity soon. 

And the tax cut? While I'm overjoyed to have an extra three damn dollars in my paycheck each pay period, I'd rather see the money go toward the unfunded education mandates the President has handed down. Or the insultingly underfunded AIDS initative he heralded back in January. Or perhaps to train and retain the airport security screeners who are being laid off. This is the SECOND time this President has written checks to Americans, and it's starting to come across like a parent who doesn't know any way besides money to keep the kids quiet. 

*Source: Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2003. A1, A14

Many Democrats seem to be hoping that the economy tanks, or at the very least fails to improve, in order that they may regain power. That hope may be misplaced, in addition to being reprehensible. When the Iraqi oil fields come back on line in the next couple weeks, I think that they will be running full tilt. All the money will go into the Iraqi college fund, or whatever they're calling it. But the real benefit will be plummeting oil prices, and sticking a knife in OPEC. If Iraqi oil production maxes out, oil prices will be sub $20/barrel in a matter or weeks. This will be a massive shot in the arm for the American (and world) economy, equivalent to a tax cut much bigger than the one we actually got. Between the low oil prices, and the tax cut, I think we will see real improvement.

Post removed. I'm done taking shots at the easy targets. Stay tuned for my closely-reasoned epistemological critique of why Buckethead's ontological assumptions about life in these here United States...er...umm... Oh, forget it. Stay tuned for fart jokes and more carefully moderate politics.

I do not support, as a rhetorical device, the shouting down of one's opponents and describing what they think without asking them. I am all about reasoned discourse. When I hear people on the left whining of the perfidy of American aims and actions; ascribing almost every conceivable ill in the world to American behavior (global warming, poverty, species extinction, you name it); and attacking American institutions as racist, bigoted, and generally inherently oppressive; these things make me consider the possibility that they really don't like America, and what it stands for. I can provide examples of all of these things. Noam Chomsky embodies all of them, and is apparently well respected on the left. 

Saying that the left "hates America" is certainly a broad brush. But there is a large element of truth to it, and it is for some conservatives a convenient shorthand to describe behavior that they see in the left. I do not have to take polls to notice these things in the media, in the words of actual leftists. When I fail to see other leftists castigating them, I presume that these beliefs are commonly held. While the left is no more unitary than the right, there is a core of beliefs that are generally held by most people on the left. And just as with conservatives, leftists are self-identified. When I hear some one describing himself as a liberal, or leftist, I take them at their word. Mike, don't pretend that this isn't the case. "What left?" We both know what it is. 

I do not believe that saying there are significant injustices in America means that the speaker is un-American, or hates America. I have said this myself. But where does that statement lead? Do you condemn the institutions of our nation, and advocate their replacement entire through revolution? Or do you think that reform of our oppressive society is impossible? Do you think that things are as bad as they have ever been? These seem to be typical attitudes on the left. What solutions do you propose for these problems - do you propose more liberty, or less? More state control, or less? More personal responsibility or less? Do you ascribe blame to groups or individuals? Do you believe more in equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? What follows the first question indicates what the speaker thinks of America. 

When I see the left, embodied in the Stalinist group International ANSWER, (but certainly represented elsewhere) protesting the war - making the most outrageous claims about America, and openly supporting a murderous thug over our liberal, tolerant nation, I am outraged. When leftists openly wish for a thousand Mogadishus, and for the death of American soldiers, I begin to think that the speakers hate America. We have found mass graves with thousands of victims in Iraq, but we were evil to remove Saddam's regime? Supporting the enemies of America must mean that you don't care too much for America. 

So, why don't we take a poll? Mike, you're a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Do you hate America? I know that you hold socialist beliefs that are completely at odds with the ideals of the founding fathers. No problem. Part of my belief structure insists that I accept that. I oppose it, but I do not deny your right to hold those beliefs. But do you think that revolution is necessary here, as Marxist orthodoxy would insist it is? I never got the sense that you hated America, even if you have rather more issues with things as they are than I do. 

For many of your fellow leftists, it goes further. I see contempt for everything that America stands for, for patriotism, and for the choices of actual individual Americans, when they disagree with leftists. Calling Michael Moore a liar is not name calling, because he is. Saying that Noam Chomsky hates America is not name calling, because it's true. Saying that I think someone's entire political belief structure is inimical to the ideals and history of our nation is not necessarily hateful. Sometimes it's just fact. When I see many, many leftists offering the same viewpoints, it is not so unreasonable to say, in general, that the left hates America. It is ridiculous to complain endlessly of "negative campaigning" when what you're complaining about is your opponent pointing out your voting record, or saying he disagrees with you. Negative campaigning is saying your opponent's wife is a whore. 

But as I have said before, on this site and elsewhere, America is unlike every other nation on earth. We were founded on the most perfect set of ideals ever conceived, and we come closer to the realization of those ideals every day. Slavery is gone. Institutional racism is gone. Racism in public discourse is gone. Racism in general is in rapid retreat. This is the progress we have made on one issue. The office I sit in right now has four white men, two black men and a Hispanic woman. Out of seven random people in the tech industry, this sample shows no evidence of the racism that the left insists is still dominant in our culture. 

As a conservative, I am conserving the ideals of the founding fathers. I feel confident enough in my arguments about any issue - taxes, the war, welfare reform, affirmative action, anything - to win debates. And if you convince me, I'll change my mind. I am not dogmatic. But it is the left seems to go out of its way to avoid debate - on college campuses, by invoking racism whenever a conservative questions affirmative action, by calling conservatives "mean-spirited" when they advocate change in welfare or social security, by calling conservatives Hitler, etc. When you have been called a racist, a bigot, a fascist, and worse as much as I have, because I am a conservative, the temptation to rochambeaux my political opponents is strong. Conservatives, with the exception of Anne Coulter, almost universally stipulate the good intentions of their left leaning opponents - while disagreeing with their policy solutions. But the reverse is not the case. 

PS. Reagan (and Thatcher) did win the cold war. And, I don't fear the French, I hate them - very, very different. And was the Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? 

PPS. The Democratic Party will discredit itself. Over the last decade, it has proved that it is a tired dinosaur. The ideas come from the conservative side, and the Democrats define themselves in opposition. The democrats are not as conservative as I am. They do not approve of tax cuts. (by the by, the poor don't pay income taxes, so by definition any tax cut is for the middle and wealthy classes.) Lieberman was the only significant Democrat who supported the war. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. (Johno is both of those categories.) But the parties are different, and have a different outlook on what is best for our nation. Compromise means that the actual policies implemented by either party will be closer to the mean than people like me (or you) would like.

From DailyPundit: Bill Clinton has mentioned that he'd like to see the 22nd Amendment overturned. Well, of course he would. Not that the he's sayin' anything about wanting to be President again, you see, (see the original WaPo article), but, ya know.... 

DailyPundit says what we're all thinking: "Man, what an idiot he is. I thought he was supposed to be a political genius, but all it would take is for the GOP to put this quote on every Congressional and Senatorial fundraiser they send out. If they didn't raise five billion dollars in campaign money overnight to keep BJ from creeping back from the political graveyard, I'd eat my shorts." 

Erm, indeed. The Democratic Party has a whole passel of problems to deal with, but one of the greatest is that Bill Clinton is still the best thing they have going, and he's a sex-addicted pathological liar with a jive so potent even Jesse Jackson takes off his hat in awe. As long as he is still around making all the other Democrats look like even bigger chuckleheads then they are, the Dems are screwed. The worst part for them is that Bill is out for himself alone, and will let the party crumble into ruins around him as long as he remains the Respected Public Figure We All Adore. If they were smart, they'd cut him loose, just disown him, and figure out a way to win without his fat ass dragging them down. But that would be if they were smart. 
 

Is it just me, or does Lyndon LaRouche remind anybody else of Jack Chick?

Folks, Lyndon LaRouche has entered the 2004 Presidential Race. Woo-HOO!!

Recently I have sighted numerous flocks of LaRouche supporters around Boston, waving pamphlets and shouting about Gauss' First Theorem, dead babies, and the price of oil. It's all very touching. I love a good clown-show.

A side note. Every supporter of Old Man LaRouche I've ever seen is from the same demographic: middle-aged, white-haired white guys with bellies, pocket protectors, and a chilly relationship with personal sanitiation. If that's not an advertisement for your candidate, I don't know WHAT is! Now... if only Howard Dean would staff his campaign teams with bikini models, he'd have this thing all sewn up by September!

[moreover] Check out Lyndon's website for his latest batch of crazy.

Mmmmmm... that's good crazy!

The Washington post reports today that Bush administration officials are now conceding that " it may take a long time, if ever, before they are able to prove the expansive case they made to justify the war." 

Glad they made it to the party. I'm not quite sure what to make of this admission by the Bush camp that their Weapons! Of! Mass! Destruction! are currently nothing but VaporWare. I see three possibilities.

• The WMD's exist, but in the run-up to the war, Iraq had time to sell, hide, or export them. If this is the case, both the US and its erstwhile opponents (France et. al) will blame the other side for allowing this to happen. The US will claim that the delays they conceded to while the Weapons Inspectors did their thing allowed Iraq the time to play their shell game, and the US' opponents will claim that if said Inspectors had been given just one more day we'd now know where the 120 tons of Anthrax have gone.
• There never were any WMD's. Whatever!
• Hussein is wilier than we thought, and as we ruminate, the chemical weapons are now in various undisclosed locations on the Syrian border, in bunkers deep underground, defended by the Elite Republican Guard, and a big robot Saddam Clone at the end. Jeez, where's Sgt. BJ Blazcowicz* when you need him? 

In my unprofessional and uninformed opinion, I'd lay 3:2 odds the first is true, 100:1 on the second, and 5:1 on the third, except the Robot Saddam part. 

EVERYBODY knows Hussein had ridiculous amounts of biological and nerve agents after the end of Gulf War I: First Blood. He proved that when he gassed the Kurds. But, in the eleven years since, isn't it possible that every two-bit terrorist who could put together a suitcase of nonconsecutive bills came away from a visit with Saddam with a couple armloads of Sarin and a bag o' Anthrax? Granted, we haven't seen these weapons used by any Islamic terrorists, but there's a LOT of caves we haven't looked in yet, and the War! On! Terror! will never be over. 

*I can see the ad now: "He vanquished the Nazis, he destroyed the Zombies, now Sergeant BJ Blazcowicz faces his most dangerous assignment ever. WOLFENSTEIN III: IRAQ & ROLL!" Now THAT would be a game I would play. 

[moreover] Calpundit links to a loooong list of quotes from the Bush administration about WMD's, saying, "So please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that WMD wasn't the main selling point of the war. We all know it was." Yup.

Oh, now this is just too much! A pregnant woman in New York was fined for loitering, because she got tired coming up out of the subway and sat down on the steps for a breather. No kidding. "A spokesman for the police union says cops on the beat are being pressured to generate cash for the financially strapped city....The Bloomberg Administration says there is no ticket quota for police." Gee, it's almost as if the NYPD wanted Mayor Bloomberg to seem like a giant flaming A-hole or something. In-teresting.

It occurs to me that New York is a very different place today than it was even when I lived there three years ago. That was the Late Rudy Years and the city was still pretty damn cool. The no-dancing law was a pain in the butt, as was the no-nudie-bar law, and you'd periodically hear about some poor homeless guys getting kicked off the steps of a church, but overall the city experience was fabulous. The Upper East Side was tony, the Lower East Side was gritty without any menace, the subway was cheap, Queens was nice (for me!), one could still enjoy a beer and a cig, and any minor city-as-nagging-mother statutes were just that, minor drawbacks to a good quality of life.

Not so much anymore, it seems. The Nagging Mother State is fully in charge, and it sucks worse than a lunchtime show at Score's with the pasties on. I was thinking about a trip to New York in a couple months to revisit my old stomping ground, but now I'm gonna forget it and just read "Naked Lunch" instead. For no good reason, a rather lengthy excerpt follows here:

BENWAY

Dr. Benway had been called in as advisor to the Freeland Republic, a place given over to free love and continual bathing. The citizens are well adjusted, co-operatives, honest, tolerant and above all clean. But the invoking of Benway indicates all is not well behind that hygienic facade: Benway is a manipulator and coordinator of symbol systems, an expert on all phases of interrogation, brainwashing and control. I have not seen Benway since his precipitate departure from Annexia, where his assignment had been T.D.-- Total Demoralization. Benway's first act was to abolish concentration camps, mass arrest and, except under certain limited and special circumstances, the use of torture.

"I deplore brutality," he said. "It's not efficient. On the other hand, prolonged mistreatment, short of physical violence, gives rise, when skillfully applied, to anxiety and a feeling of special guilt. A few rules or rather guiding principles are to be borne in mind. The subject must not realize that the mistreatment is a deliberate attack of an anti-human enemy on his personal identity. He must be made to feel that he deserves any treatment he receives because there is something (never specified) horribly wrong with him. The naked need of the control addicts must be decently covered by an arbitrary and intricate bureaucracy so that the subject cannot contact his enemy direct."

Every citizen of Annexia was required to apply for and carry on his person at all times a whole portfolio of documents. Citizens were subject to be stopped in the street at any time; and the Examiner, who might be in plain clothes, in various uniforms, often in a bathing suit or pyjamas, sometimes stark naked except for a badge pinned to his left nipple, after checking each paper, would stamp it. On subsequent inspection the citizen was required to show the properly entered stamps of the last inspection. The Examiner, when he stopped a large group, would only examine and stamp the cards of a few. The others were then subject to arrest because their cards were not properly stamped. Arrest meant "provisional detention"; that is, the prisoner would be released if and when his Affidavit of Explanation, properly signed and stamped, was approved by the Assistant Arbiter of explanations. Since this official hardly ever came to his office, and the Affidavit of Explanation had to be presented in person, the explainers spent weeks and months waiting around in unheated offices with no chairs and no toilet facilities.

Documents issued in vanishing ink faded into old pawn tickets. New documents were constantly required. The citizens rushed from one bureau to another in a frenzied attempt to meet impossible deadlines.

All benches were removed from the city, all fountains turned off, all flowers and trees destroyed. Huge electric buzzers on the top of every apartment house (everyone lived in apartments) rang the quarter hour. Often the vibrations would throw people out of bed. Searchlights played over the town all night (no one was permitted to use shades, curtains, shutters or blinds).

No one ever looked at anyone else because of the strict law against importuning, with or without verbal approach, anyone for any purpose, sexual or otherwise. All cafes and bars were closed. Liquor could only be obtained with a special permit, and the liquor so obtained could not be sold or given or in any way transferred to anyone else, and the presence of anyone else in the room was considered prima facie evidence of
conspiracy to transfer liquor.

No one was permitted to bolt his door, and the police had pass keys to every room in the city. Accompanied by a mentalist they rush into someone's quarters and start "looking for it."

The mentalist guides them to whatever the man wishes to hide: a tube of vaseline, an enema, a hand-
kerchief with come on it, a weapon, unlicensed alcohol. And they always submitted the suspect to the most humiliating search of his naked person on which they make sneering and derogatory comments. Many a latent homosexual was carried out in a straitjacket when they planted vaseline in his ass. Or they pounce on any object. A pen wiper or a shoe tree.

"And what is this supposed to be for?"
"It's a pen wiper."
"A pen wiper, he says."
"I've heard everything now."
"I guess this is all we need. Come on, you."

After a few months of this the citizens cowered in corners like neurotic cats.

Mnnnn, sounds like my kinda place! While making a comparison between Annexia and modern New York is a bit of a stretch, it doesn't seem like much of one when pregnant women are fined for the express purpose of raising money for the state. (Not to mention cops dressing up like homeless people and standing in intersections keeping an eye out for seat belt violators. Isn't there a murder somewhere to investigate? My mom can take care of wiping my face, thank you very much!)

Recently, I have observed a great deal of rhetoric from various pundits such as those on the Fox News Channel, the Weekly Standard, this little banner above our blog, and other media outlets that profess to be conservative, right of center, what have you, about how "the left hates America." I have some observations and questions in regard to this assertion. 

First, an observation. The aforementioned pundits have a little song with a good beat and you can dance to it. The little song begins with how Reagan won the Cold War. The next line is some sort of attempt at name-calling, IE "I think liberals [MADL] are a bunch of whiners," from Anne Coulter, for example, or Michael Moore is telling lies, from Fox News. The next line has something to do with support for the troops or war is good or something to that effect, and this often comes from people who have never served in the military nor would they allow their children to do so (I believe that it is because American wars are usually, if not always, a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, but this is beside the current point). A recently added line dealt with Francophobia. The new line in this ditty is how "the left hates America."

A second observation. As I have mentioned before, debate in this country typically involves an attempt to shout the other side down and describe what their opponents think without actually consulting them. Buckethead indicated that this rhetorical methodology is acceptable; I believe it is not. But disagreements between the two of us are frequent to say the least. Be that as it may, arguing that "the left hates America" falls into the category I have described in the current paragraph. 

Now for the questions. What is this left of which you (aforementioned pundits) speak? Who is this enigmatic left that you are pointing your fingers at and shouting, "J'accuse!" Oh, pardon me. In their language it is, "I freedom-accuse you!" But still, who are you talking about? At least Fox News singled out Michael Moore to provide something other than a broad stroke. But I can remember my early teen years, when I would describe myself as a leftist, my Dad challenged me to think about what that means. Similarly, I challenge the pundits, who and what are you talking about when you say, "the left?" 

Second question. How do you know this left of which you speak hates America? Have you asked them? Have you polled urban areas, started with a question about their political orientation and then proceeded to ask them what they think? "Do you hate America?" the pollster asks a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Has that been done? Or, do you simply glance at what has been written, taking a statement such as, "There are significant inequities and injustices in American society," and shout, "Freedom-accuse!" Such a statement as that indicates that you hate America!” 

Third question. If this left does indeed hate America, what are you going to do about it? May I make a suggestion? Perhaps you could use this to discredit a political party. But hmmm, what oh what party could that be? Perhaps one that is part of this left? Maybe the SWP? The SDP? The Green party (though I take some issue with their inclusion into a left camp, but others see it that way). No, no, those parties are insignificant. Perhaps you could set your sights on the Democratic Party! Why yes! Never mind the fact that the Democrats are capitalists and just as conservative as you, still in favor of tax cuts for the rich, just at a reduced rate! Never mind the fact that the Democrats didn't oppose the war as much as you made them out to oppose the war, who cares? There are two parties defined by their opposition to each other who really think pretty much the same thing, and this country ain't big enough for the both of them. So go ahead, hurl insults and engage in name-calling to discredit the other party who thinks the same thing as you just has a different lever on election day! Make wild broad stroke accusations about people you haven't even spoken to! So who cares if we're lying or telling the truth! If we say that this one group hates America, we discredit the party that pretends to represent them only really doesn't! 

My last questions. Why do these pundits feel the need to do this sort of thing? It strikes me as dirty pool. Maybe they don't feel confident enough in their arguments or beliefs to win debates solely on the basis of those arguments. Or maybe it's just quicker and easier to throw sand in a man's eyes and kick him in the balls instead of a straight fight. So I'll ask, either rhetorically or prevailing on Buckethead to pose the response on behalf of those who might or might not be his ideological brethren. Why the name-calling? Why are you insisting that the left (whatever that is) hates America? On what do you base your opinions? What are you trying to achieve? "I hate you and you hate me and you hate America." What does this accomplish?

Why else are we doing what we do here? 

A Canadian commentator, David Warren, makes a valid point here. Especially this:

It is the American way to stress optimism, and to be extremely empirical. They learn by doing, and did not have much experience governing demolished Arab countries. They make ghastly mistakes, and as often as not, turn around and fix them. They have, if I may make one of those generalizations about national character that aren't all the rage, a national disinclination to panic. The media are delegated to do the panicking on their behalf, the American people are fairly hard to scare.

While carping about mistakes is valuable, in that it calls attention to them; the real important thing is that they get fixed. We are making the attempt to fix things, and the constant whining of "blood for oil" and other canards is truly off base. If you judge a nation by its enemies, we are doing pretty well. 
 

Burt Rutan, founder of Scaled Composites and designer of many a cool aircraft, has made the first test flight of the SpaceShipOne, their entry into the X-Prize Contest. Apparently, they are shooting for a suborbital flight by Dec 17, the centenary of the Wright Brother's first powered flight. That would be very, very cool.
 

Useless movie quotes, from all your favorite movies. While the selection of quotes is not as thorough as I would like for some of the movies, it is a fun little website. For instance, I found this quote:

I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel. You lousy cork-suckers. You have violated my fargin' rights. This suminonbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens, like me, could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin' ice holes, like yourselves.

He basically fisks the movie, though I think he is a little tooo critical. Of course, he is characteristically witty as he goes about his business. I grant a lot of his points, especially about Zion, but hey, I dug the movie. 
 

And I hope Johno feels better soon. Though likely, he will pretend to be ill for longer than strictly necessary, if only to get more attention from Goody Two-Cents.

Mike, you raised an interesting point - it is really the elephant in the refrigerator of this whole issue. Oil is why we are interested in the Middle East, but not, say, Burkina Faso. Oil is the corrupting influence throughout the region. We, and some other parts of the world, are wealthy. We got this way not because we were sitting on enormous goldmines of strategic and valuable resources. We got wealthy through industry, trade, and work. These nations fell into staggering amounts of cash through no effort of their own, and like the white trash lottery winner, it has done nothing to improve their lives beyond making possible a lenghty drunken bender. When the cash runs out, they will be worse off than before. The presence of billions of dollars in easy money is a vast temptation, especially in areas that don't have our traditions of rule of law and so on.

If it is the case that representative government is impossible in the corrupting presence of oil wealth, then the Middle East is screwed for the foreseeable future. Hybrid cars reduce the need for oil, but do not eliminate it. Electric or fuel cell vehicles only change the way oil is used - instead of burning it in your car directly, oil is burned in power plants. Germany used synthetic fuels in the second world war, but only because they had no other choice. They are, and are likely to remain very expensive. Also, oil is used for plastics and many other things besides fuel. Unless fusion power becomes magically available, or the left stops opposing fission power, oil and coal remain the only viable sources of energy.

But Arab totalitarianism is not co-extensive with oil wealth. Egypt has no appreciable oil reserves, nor does Syria. Libya has some, but Algeria doesn't. Lebanon, Tunisia and Jordan seem somewhat freer and to our eyes better. While forming a republican government in Iraq may be difficult, it is worth the effort.

To move on to Johno's question, the only way to foster republican ideals is to begin at the lowest level. Touqueville observed that the root of the American experience with democracy was that we practiced it at every level, both by electing city councils, mayors, sherriffs, and dogcatchers; and by participating in civic organizations that elect leadership. These everyday experiences give us the confidence to believe that when we vote for and elect leaders on the national level, the system is working the same way that we experience it on the local level. Totalitarian regimes try to extinguish all relationships except that between the individual and the state. Iraq has little in the way of civic life. The only way to start the process is to - before allowing any national elections - give the Iraqis control over their local affairs. Set up a system of munipal government where the people elect their city councils, mayors, sherriffs and dog catchers. Then, when they have some experience, move on to regional and then national elections. This could work.

And as for Mike's comment on end results of democracy - we can interfere if they don't get it right. Do you think we wouldn't have intervened in Germany if there had been a communist takeover from within, in 1950? We will not allow a fundamentalist theocracy to take power, and hopefully not another authoritarian state either. We have a responsibility, now that we have libervated Iraq, to give them a responsible government. They don't have experience with that, so we can provide training wheels for the early stages, until they have more skill and confidence.

To respond, albeit a bit late, to John's big question, how oh how shall the United States foster republican government in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll offer my thoughts. First, this begs the question, is it the place of the United States to foster any sort of government in those countries? Well, we broke it so we'd better buy it. At this point it does seem irresponsible not to lend a hand, seeing as we're pretty much the folks that punched them in the nose. I'm uncomfortable with American conduct viz-a-viz those countries, but what's done is done, and I admit that fostering republican governments is probably the way to proceed at the moment.

The thing is, if those republican governments should return a majority of anti-republican parties who want to remake the political structure of their own country, then tough. We can't say, "You can have a representative government, provided they play ball on our field by our rules." We used to say, "You can have a repressive dictatorship (and we said this to Hussein as well) provided you play ball," so no more of that shit. Pays your money, takes your chances.

But cliches aside, how to foster republican government in Afghanistan? No idea. That's a tough one. As to Iraq, the answer, though this might seem strange, could very well lie in Europe.

European states rely heavily on the near east for oil. The United States relies more on its own resources and South America, but we're talking about Europe and the near east. Oil producing countries tend to lean toward the repressive dictatorship side of things, as those who control the oil tend to control the country. Take Saudi Arabia for instance. On the other hand, as a friend of mine not long ago pointed out, in a strange reversal of fortune, my grandmother's country, Lebanon, has a significantly more representative government than other near eastern states at this point. Despite the civil war of the 1970s and 1980s, and a complete collapse of governance, as well as the personal loss of family members and possibly a legitimate claim on an olive tree farm, Lebanon has nonetheless risen from the ashes like the proverbial phoenix. It may be that it is because Lebanon has no oil.

Therefore, remove the oil from the equation, and possibly pave the way for representative government in Iraq. If the Europeans switch to synthetic/alternative fuels when they become available, or start driving hybrids, it could eliminate the he-who-controls-the-oil-controls-the-government-in-a-non-representative-fashion factor. If that is the case, the answer to Iraqi representative government lies not in Baghdad, but in Paris.

Just a quick note that I have been temporarily felled by a mysterious illness that I first mistook for allergies, then for a hangover, then for the SARS. It's just a nasty, wicked, evil cold. But it hurts. I am in the loving care of Goodwife Two-Cents until I am better. I am also barred from watching or talking any politics, as Tom Daschle is starting to look like my daddy. I hope I feel better soon.

Crackheads

Kaus says:

It turns out we weren't reading the reporting of the famous, cream-of-the-profession Times employees, but the reporting of unidentified "stringers" we've never heard of. ... Conventional journalists sometimes sneer at blogs because there's no way for a reader to know whether what a random, unknown person says on his Web site is true. But it sounds as if the Times is not so different from a blog after all--what you are reading is really the work of random, unknown "legs" and stringers. ... 

Of course, in other ways the Times and the typical blog are very different forms of journalism. One obsessively reflects the personal biases, enthusiasms and grudges of a single individual. The other is just an online diary! ...

I don't quite understand his motivation - working at the Times in his twenties, great job prestige, etc. And he goes and makes shit up. Journalism is not hard. I am doing something like journalism right now, in my underwear. It would really be journalism if I called someone and interviewed them. But he was getting paid real money to write for a living. Didn't he realize that when you plagiarize, and put the results in the most important and widely read paper in the country, someone will notice? Holy Jeebus, what dimwitted jackassery. 

Blair is pathetic. The real shame falls on the editorial staff and their meese stuffed animals, who should have applied some standards and integrity to the "Paper of Record." 
 

10. War and Peace and Steve
9. The Seven Habits of Highly Successful Steves
8. The Grapes of Steve
7. The Steves of Wrath
6. Steve Grapes Steve Wrath Steve Steve
5. Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, Steve is From Cleveland
4. Where's Waldo? Is He With Steve?
3. Time Life Mysteries of the Unknown, Volume VIII: "Mysterious Guys Named Steve"
2. The Joy of Sex with Steve
1. The Bible (King Steve Version)

From David Letterman, by way of the dusty corners of my hard drive. I think this is from the last millenium. The Cleveland bit was actually in the original. Go figure.

High speed internet at last, High speed internet at last, thank God Almighty, High speed internet at last.

[Update] Now I can download artistic photographs (of a completely morally uplifting and non-prurient nature, of course) 50 times faster!

And get drunk on Marion Barry's. Then I'm going to send Cox Communication an invoice for the hours I spent on the phone getting them to do the obvious. ("hmmn. the work order says 'cable modem,' maybe we should leave one for the nice customer.") I bill at $120/hour. They wasted two and one quarter hours of my precious time. That's four months free cable. 

What is a Marion Berry you ask? This drink, invented by the estimable Jonah Goldberg and his cohorts, is "a concoction of Jagermeister, Kahlua, bourbon and Coke. Why this collection? Because we wanted a drink "so black not even the man could keep it down." 

[Update] And, yes, I do have the necessary ingredients. Getting the wife's permission is a different matter. 
 

And hopefully the fucktards at Cox Communications will actually have made the leap to competence and delivered the cable modem they should have left in my office when they ran the cable. "We can't promise to have it there by this evening. But we have scheduled a service call for tomorrow between 8:00 and 1:00. You'll definitely have it by tomorrow." Jeebus. I should have had it Wednesday, jackass. Three years of excellent service from DirecTV made me forget the thumb-fingered, stumbling fuckwittery of the cable industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damn. Pretty exceptional, alright.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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