perfidy

The good people over at Crooked Timber are all over the meltdown in the wake of David Kelly's suicide. More here and here.

All I can say is, I've seen this situation before. The hot potato drops because everyone is using both hands to cover their own ass. Shameful behavior all around, especially on the part of the drool-catchers at the BBC, but especially on the part of whoever let Blair and Bush run with this information.

The Lord's Prayer has been translated into many languages. Until five minutes ago, I was unaware that it had been translated into what Will Smith once referred to as, "The Ebonic Plague." The site that hosts this abomination (along with many, many other translations of the Lord's Prayer) describes Ebonics as a "slang dialect used by certain groups of the African-American community." Without further ado, the prayer:

Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this here hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
Sos I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don't be pushing me into no jive
Ang keep dem crips away
Cause you always be da man, G
Straight up.
Aa-men.

For some reason, I do not feel closer to God.

(thanks to Memepool for the tip.)

Ross (Loyal reader #0006) and I have talked about this a lot. The scary thing is not so much that the boomers are going to eat their young, but the absolute lack of compunction or restraint they show in pursuing their goals. They see no need to justify what they are doing, assume that it is right, and viciously attack any who even question it. "Do you want grandma to have to eat cat food because she can't afford her angina meds?" Well, no actually. But I would like to have an income in 2020.

They are going far beyond simply providing for the needs of the elderly. As a group, the old are the rich. Now they want our stuff too? This is greed, pure and simple. But we have always known that the boomers were greedy and selfish. What two words from american culture best capture self centeredness and avarice? Hippies and Yuppies. Remember, these two groups were the same people, separated only by the me decade.

Unless these new benefits are means tested, it is generational assault.

Reason has a good piece up on how old people are determined to loot the store before they die.

"We have been hearing for years about economic fallout that will surely result from the coming social security binge, but few could have anticipated the real threat baby boomers represent. Not content to suck resources from a dying system, the Me Generation has formed a massive voting bloc willing to grant itself one-size-fits all benefits. Last month, in an orgy of self-love, the 108th congress (average age: 55) helped itself to the one resource younger generations will always be good for: future earnings. Every great legislative push needs its welfare queen, and this time around the subject is a hypothetical elderly widow, forced to decide between food and pharmaceuticals. She exists, surely; the small segment of the population too wealthy for Medicaid yet too poor to make ends meet is more than a trick of rhetoric. Unfortunately, she is being used to extort benefits for everyone over 65, the vast majority of whom don't need them, many of whom are active voters. The elderly are easily the wealthiest segment of society, with a poverty rate little more than half that of the under 18-set who will help foot the bill."

This is deeply troubling, and totally outrageous. I'm beginning to think that the greatest legacy of the 'boomer generation was not social revolution, not civil rights, not orchestral Album Oriented Rock, but rather an overweening, nasty, vicious, grasping, deeply rooted sense of entitlement. 

The Baby Boom generation is the last generation of American citizens who can reliably claim that they have it better than their parents. They were raised in a time of unprecendented growth and plenty, and feel themselves to be both the heirs of greatness and the architects of the good aspects of today's America. 

Partly this circumstance can be attributed to the boomers' placement at the natural endings of a great number of intiatives, social changes, and economic successes. The greatness they think they chose was rather handed to them on a silver platter. That is beyond their control. What is not beyond their control, however, is the conscious choice to be generous, to leave a crumb for future generations. To, in short, live up to the rhetoric they invented. 

The exact same crowd that forty years ago wasn't trusting anyone over 30, who planned breakfast in bed for 400,000, and who wished to bring an Aquarian age of equality and love, are now a mass of bitter greedy Croesuses determined to have everything regardless of the consequences. They were the last generation to grow up in the true boom years, and they can't seem to let go of the idea that there will always be more, more, more. 

Has the hippie ethos-- always a minority view, though vocal-- permeated the 'boomers so thoroughly that they no longer care about consequences? It sure must feel good to have the power to pass laws! It sure must feel good to vote your way to comfort! 

The party ended thirty years ago, the money has run out, yet they don't seem to have noticed. Or maybe they just don't give a crap.

I was unaware that I was guilty of moral finger-pointing. I was careful to limit my comment to the pathetic leftist protestors, not merely leftists in general. I notice that you did not challenge the other parts of that sentence, so I assume that you agree with the fact that the UN is a cesspool, and world opinion is irrelevant in regard to the cynical European governments and third world dictators.

And, I was unaware that leftists had anything to do with all those liberties I like so much. Did socialists write the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I imagine it would read rather differently if they had. Socialists didn't exist until after Babeuf (and weren't even called that until Owen), and the left began with the French revolution. The Constitution was written two years before that began. The only significant "new" rights since then came out of the civil war, and that was hardly a leftist enterprise. Abolition and Civil Rights were largely Christian in their origins. And, it seems odd that all these people are mistakenly calling themselves leftists and communists despite your conviction that they are not.

As for Iraq, why did we ruthlessly invade Morocco in '42? They had never invaded us. As for Afghanistan, it was the home of all those Al Qaeda training camps, and the Taliban was in tight with bin Laden. Afghanistan did not attack us, true, but it harbored those who did. And I guess we were completely wrong to liberate Iraq. We should find Saddam, apologize, and reinstall him in Iraq, so his son can go back to feeding dissidents into wood chippers feet first. Is it impossible for you to imagine that there might be good in this, and that the effect on the Iraqi people is net positive?

Most of the hijackers were Saudis. And I think the time or reckoning for Saudi Arabia is long overdue.

Today is, of course, the French Equivalent of Independence Day. Of course, French Independence day should properly be celebrated on June 6th. Casual sniping aside, the French are a race of smelly perfidious backstabbers. Happy Bastille Day!

Just reading through all the blogging goodness that I missed while being exploited by my capitalist, uh, exploiters; and working hard to become a dirty capitalist landlord; I noticed Johno's post on whiteness studies.

That is the most asshatted, fuckwitted, nozzleheaded bugfuckery I have run across in a goodly long while. Although - just think if some sneaky bastard used the banner of whiteness studies to hide a return to the study of the classics? Just thinkin', is all...

...and he's been playing with toys. I would say that fatherhood has changed him, but that would be wrong. Bucket: Blogger looks different because while you've been away, they upgraded us to blogger-super-plus. Also, there is now a cure for cancer delivered in smokeable form, soccer is our new national pastime, dolphins and octopi have been discovered to be excellent at market analysis and are now the bulk of the staff at most large brokerages, and Vice President Daschle is standing by President Clinton's decision to use force against the Motie forces currently massing beyond Saturn.

"We wish the French the best. But their days as the moral avatar, the champion of humanity, are long gone. That reputation -- unearned for decades -- will die in the Congo, where French troops are behaving as effectively as, well, French troops. The painful fact is that no one expects much of them anymore beyond good food, bribery and honeyed hypocrisy.

One liberated Iraqi summed up the American promise like this: "Democracy, whiskey, sexy!" One could say that beats Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.

One might suggest that it already has."

just me, or has the National Review Online really gone to the dogs recently? It used to be that I could read (if not agree with) most of the pieces posted, and at least find substantive points to hang a rebuttal on. Recently, the editorial tone has become approximately 45% snarkier and 20% screedier, at the expense of substance, humor, and equanamity. It's too bad-- the NRO used to be how I took the measure of what intellectual neoconservatives were thinking.

In the meantime, check out this half-decent and well deserved parody of NRO's "The Corner" that got Jonah Goldberg all cheesed off.

Last week, I came across a story in the Wall Street Journal which referred to those very poor people who don't pay federal income tax as "Very Lucky Duckies." After windexing my monitor and calming myself down from a red rage, I was left to wonder if the author of said article found it painful to sit, seeing as his head seems permanently lodged in the intragluteal position. I mean, wow. You know what would be real great? To be homeless! Think about it... no job, no income, no obligations, no mortgage, no rent, no car payments, damn! No taxes at all! Now THAT'S a lucky ducky!! Yeeeeah!!! 

As an opinion, the Journal's assertion is monumentally retarded, and as a joke, it's not funny.

The New Republic reprints a letter to the WSJ which sums up the counter-argument better than my feeble gutter ranting ever could.

'LUCKY DUCKIE' INVITES EDITORS INTO HIS POND 

I am one of those lucky duckies, referred to in your June 3 editorial "Even Luckier Duckies" who pay little or nothing in federal income tax (at least by the standards of Wall Street Journal editors; $800 is more than a chunk of change to me). I am not, however, a stingy ducky, and I am willing to share my good fortune with others. 

In this spirit, I propose a trade. I will spend a year as a Wall Street Journal editor, while one lucky editor will spend a year in my underpaid shoes. I will receive an editor's salary, and suffer the outrage of paying federal income tax on that salary. The fortunate editor, on the other hand, will enjoy a relatively small federal income tax burden, as well as these other perks of near poverty: the gustatory delights of a diet rich in black beans, pinto beans, navy beans, chickpeas and, for a little variety, lentils; the thrill of scrambling to pay the rent or make the mortgage; the salutary effects of having no paid sick days; the slow satisfaction of saving up for months for a trip to the dentist; and the civic pride of knowing that, even as a lucky ducky, you still pay a third or more of your gross income in income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. 

I could go on and on, but I am sure your editors are already keen to jump at this opportunity to join the ranks of the undertaxed. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Pier Petersen Chicago

If I ever meet Pier Petersen, the (cheap) beer's on me! Although, I would point out that the occasional trip to the day-old-produce store does wonders to stave off the rickets.

Apparently Ross and I agree on something. (Actually, not as rare as our comments section would have you believe.) My dad (from the "Silent Generation") and I have discussed the failures of the boomers many times.

We have heard much of the greatest generation in recent years. By and large, this is a fair appraisal I think. That generation suffered through the Great Depression. (Caused by a Republican, prolonged by a Democrat; using exactly the same set of ideas.) After that, they shook the dust off and traveled all over the world to open a stupendous can of whoop ass on Japanese militarism and European fascism. After that, they came home and set about building our country into the most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

However, they fucked up in one crucial regard. They gave birth to the most self-absorbed, self righteous and deluded generation in our history. The progress of the boomers through recent history is a long tragedy. The unrest of the sixties, the indolence of the me generation, the abandonment of all their "ideals" in the eighties; and now as they approach retirement, they are proposing to screw every following generation to finance a comfortable and medically well supported retirement.

The boomers are by and large even wealthier as they approach retirement than their parents were. The average 50 year old boomer owns his home, has investments and a comfortable salary. Despite this, they want the government to provide health care, prescription drugs and social security benefits. How will these benefits be paid for? From taxes on the wages of the younger generations, or deficit spending on a scale that we have never seen in this country.

The only solution is means testing, and some sort of realistic benefit plan that takes into account the amount of money they paid in. And for the rest of us, something like the government workers' pension plan (they are exempt from social security taxes) for the rest of us so that this situation doesn't happen again.

Mike and I may differ on what services should be provided to the poor, but I think he'll agree that we should not be giving handouts to people who own their homes, have investment portfolios, and a pension. That really is theft. Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme, and our generation is on the bottom of the pyramid.

By way of Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, this quote from Michael McFaul, a poli-sci prof at Stanford, writing in the New York Times Review of Books. The book under review was Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History. Here is the beginning of the review:

In visiting Poland last month, President Bush took the time to go to Auschwitz and tour one of the most ghastly assaults to humanity in the history of mankind. After finishing his tour, he remarked: "And this site is also a strong reminder that the civilized world must never forget what took place on this site. May God bless the victims and the families of the victims, and may we always remember."

The next day, Mr. Bush was in St. Petersburg, Russia. While there, he did not make it up to the Solovetsky Islands, the site of the first camp of the gulag. Nor did he call upon the world to "always remember" the millions of people who perished in the Soviet concentration camps well before Auschwitz was constructed and well after Auschwitz was dismantled. The families of the victims of Soviet Communism — much more numerous than the families who lost loved ones in Hitler's camps — received no special blessing from the leader of the free world. Mr. Bush should not be singled out for failing to remember the innocents killed in the gulag. Rarely do visiting dignitaries take time to remember the tragedies of Soviet Communism.

I agree, wholeheartedly. Some of the nations of Eastern Europe are examining the crimes of their communist governments, like Hungary. Russia has not, and shows no sign of even thinking of it. And far too many people give the Communists a free pass on millions of deaths.

It is Buckethead's 34th birthday today. He is now solidly in his mid thirties.

Alright. We'll start with this electronic philosophy journal article. I found it to be highly politicized, though politics and economy are strongly related to one another. So let's look at a few statements from the article: 

The thinking seems to be that the profits of business should either be given directly to workers through pay raises or be taken by the government to be given to workers indirectly.

Wow! What a great idea! I'm all for it. Oh wait there's more:

Producing greater profits is thought of as useless and immoral.

Right again! What a great article! Oh, hang on: “

However, if Say's Law is correct, life improves through greater production, not through higher nominal wages. Greater production requires greater capitalization -- money invested in machinery and training -- and the capital for that must come out of profits.

Well, you lost me there. Okay, so to simplify, fuck the poor. Yeah. I've seen this movie. I'll quote myself from at least two lectures last spring, "Profits for the wealthy come with the exploitation of labor." 

Perhaps I shouldn't quote myself. I could go blind. Back to the subject at hand, so to speak (*ahem*), supply side economics, or free market capitalism, benefit ownership and management over labor. This will not change so long as the system is maintained. Tax cuts, especially capital gains, invariably benefit those with the most money. They do not benefit wage-workers (or adjunct profs) who have no investments, no savings, and literally hang by their fingernails in a free market capitalist system. 

Steve will undoubtedly launch a thousand counter-arguments, if history is any guide. I will only deal with ones that I make up, here and now. Counter: tax cuts make a good economy. A good economy means more workers are hired. 

Then exploited. The aforementioned article states that profits have to be reinvested, and not in the workers. To stay afloat, businesses have to maintain a healthy bottom line in the free market system. To do that, they pay their workers as little as possible. If they make lots of money, they keep it, or invest it, then get tax breaks on their investments. 

I previously asked for quantitative analysis on this subject. That was a trick question. Economic issues are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Why? It's a matter of faith. People believe that when they hand over green pieces of paper or shiny metal round things, they receive goods and services in exchange. If a majority of people changed their beliefs, and decided that the green paper is for the wiping of asses and the shiny round things are fun to eat, the whole deal collapses. Faith cannot be quantified. It cannot be quantitatively proven that God exists; it cannot be quantitatively proven that free market capitalism, or any of the economic systems attempted thus far, work. 

Free market capitalism creates a permanent underclass. The individual members of the underclass might ascend, but ultimately, there is always an underclass. Capitalism requires a large number of people to work for wages beneath a level of comfort. I'll anticipate another counter: the poor in America do better than the poor in other countries. They have material possessions. 

Do they? There are still people in this country who are homeless and hungry. There are people who have not been apportioned according to their need. This is not me. I'm discussing people with families below the poverty level, who try as they might, cannot get their heads above water. As to material possessions, can many people actually afford them, or do they go into debt to acquire them, invariably sinking into bankruptcy? Poverty has not been eliminated anywhere in the world. Free market capitalism will not eliminate poverty, nor have centrally planned economies, because they do not produce a sufficient number of consumer goods or provide decent standards of living. Nothing seems to work perfectly. 

Counter: perfection is unattainable. To quote Matt Groening, from School is Hell, "you'll never get anywhere with that defeatist attitude." 

The solution? I've said it before. I don't have the answers. I have ideas.

Ross is correct to demand means testing - but the reason that drugs are available for cheap in Canada is because patients in the United States paid for them (and the research that developed them) at much higher prices. Canada is getting a free ride. Ross' solution only spreads out the cost - but does not effect the calculations that drug companies will make on which drugs to develop. (A shorter patent period would mean more expensive drugs for a shorter time.) 

But the problem that he brings up: the older generation passing every law needed for a comfortable retirement - which can only screw our generation - is broader than merely prescription drug plans. It applies to Medicare, Social Security, and all the entitlement plans whose costs will spiral out of control once all the greedy self righteous boomers start retiring in large numbers. 

Who among us, under the age of forty, thinks that there will be any social security waiting for us? The Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not obligated to provide us with SS benefits. They can change the rules at any time. But will they change them before the system goes totally belly up? Probably not. 
 

Having as your target well paid educators seems a little off. Shouldn't we be trying to get compentant educators? In any event, increasing the quality of our educators is a laudable goal. However, education does not cure stupidity. At best, it ameliorates ignorance. Call me elitist, but the vast majority of people not merely in this country but around the world are not geniuses. Half the world is below average (well, below median) intelligence, by definition; and most of the rest are hovering close to the fat part of the bell curve. There is a limited pool of people who can fully benefit from a great education. It should be offered to all, of course, but it isn't going to help everyone. But even an ideal educational system would not stop bad reporting, lying, and stupid people making bad judgements on inaccurate data.

No matter what their intelligence or education levels, every American has the liberty to choose to think what they want. I may think its stupid, but hey, that's what freedom is.

Can you imagine what the founding fathers would think of federal taxation now. The taxes they saw as tyrannical were chump change compared to what we get saddled with. If someone lets you know a good work on that subject, pass it on to me. 

I am a law abiding citizen. Married, kid, dog cat, house, the very model of the upstanding citizen. (Now.) I have nothing to fear from the police. Yet every time I see a cop, I get a twinge of fear in the small of my back. Go figure.
 

People in my neighborhood are armed. To the teeth. That's why shootings happen so often, including in front of the door to my building. Relaxing gun restrictions will increase the number of armed gangbangers. There are already a lot of them. People are shooting each other every day in this and other cities. 

So the solution is to arm everybody? That's rich. American society is already one of the most violent in the world. This is easily one of the worst neighborhoods on the planet. The goal should be to make society less violent, not more. I'm not convinced, regardless of any studies or books published (frankly, as an academic, I can say from experience that books and studies are often, though not always, full of shit), that arming everyone is the solution. When people have guns, they use them. 

As you allude, I am familiar with violence. I have been both its victim and its perpetrator. When I was two years old someone held a shotgun in my face and might have killed me had I not been rescued. Thus, it is because I am familiar with violence that I dislike it. In my post-adolescent years, I have considered it an absolute last resort. Would I defend myself again if necessary and able? Absolutely. But 4 or 5 attackers is more than most mortals can handle, or 3, and even 2, unless you get off a good suckerpunch on the first one. I don't want to live in a world where I have the option to blow people's heads off if I feel threatened. Quite honestly, I think if someone is really serious about hurting another human being, might as well embrace the atavistic, savage, merciless, vicious beast that the human animal really is beneath the surface. If a person really wants to kill someone else and isn't bad enough to kill someone bare-handed, they're not bad. They're a punk. People who use guns to shoot other people are small men trying to make themselves feel big. 

I never wait for the police, or even bother to call 911 when I hear shots. The police don't do anything. The current situation is that every day I live in this crime infested sewer of a neighborhood, I'm rolling the dice. That's life. I won't arm myself with a gun to make myself feel safe, or big. Quite frankly, I don't think that people are safe even with guns. That just leads to exchanging shots in an attempt to kill the opponent before they kill you. In a lot of cases around here, I think people who fire, instead of anticipating that the othe person has a gun and avoiding them, just try to get off the first shot. There was a guy here who was walking down the street with a friend of his. In passing two other people on the sidewalk, he bumped shoulders with the other guy, who turned and shot the first guy to death. If the first guy had a gun on him, he still would have been shot. If the first guy had a gun and fired after bumping shoulders with the other, he would have been guilty, just that their positions were reversed. But what happened is that someone was shot to death by a total stranger for no reason. If the victims of John Lee Malvo and John Muhammad had been armed, would they have been able to defend themselves? They never saw it coming. I am shocked and saddened by the amount of random violence in this world. More guns means more violence, not less. 

I don't pretend to have the answers. I have ideas. I think that reducing poverty and unemployment will also reduce crime significantly. I also think that putting guns in people's hands gives them the means to kill people that they wouldn't otherwise have. I don't have the power to take your gun. I am not actively doing anything to take your gun. But I think if I ever made you mad enough to do me physical harm, you'd do me the courtesy of a straight fight where the odds are even instead of shooting me. The assholes in my neighborhood probably won't, but I'll just have to take my chances. 

Everybody has to die of something. If I get shot, which is a fairly strong possibility given the large numbers of people who get shot in this city, then, so be it. I'll have to either live in agony, bleeding on the sidewalk, or die with that decision. As you pointed out, I have no family. No one relies on me. The world will not be significantly different without me in it. That's my choice. It's a short life in a hard world, where life turns on a dime, and having a gun won't change that.