Archive for the ‘History’ Category

January 16, 1919

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

ProhibitionProhibition went into effect.

Today, we have federal regulations against possessing, consuming or selling drugs. I think Ron Paul’s stated position is the most sensible one here…

…his stated position. This is true of all of Dr. Paul’s positions all across the board. As stated, they are very nearly always correct. The problem is that he’s crazy.

But the federal government has no role here.

Mind you, that isn’t what the cokeheads and the potheads and the meth-heads are screaming about when they whine away about the “war on drugs.” They don’t want the states to be put in charge of it, they want it to be legal. And if it isn’t legal, they want to be able to puff and snort away anyway, and if they can’t they feel their “civil liberties” have been trampled.

Getting back to the subject of alcohol —

It’s okay, potheads and cokeheads. It’s perfectly alright. Your hard drugs are illegal, alcohol is not. That is FINE. And no, I don’t have to explain why.

Prohibition on alcohol was doomed to failure from the very start.

Although womens’ suffrage would not take effect until the following year, this was undeniably a play on the emerging female vote. Which has obvious implications about what should be done next — but no, I am steadfastly opposed to revoking the female right to vote.

We have a lot of wonderful things because we have allowed women to do stuff. Sooner or later…maybe in my lifetime…we’ll have something wonderful because we allowed them to vote. Someday. Right now, it’s just JFK, Bill Clinton, Prohibition — and maybe Clinton’s wife, who knows. That’s the bad stuff. The gals are going to give us something good to even it all out. Real soon now.

So don’t revoke that suffrage.

The Second Most Important Issue IV

Tuesday, December 4th, 2007

As I’ve stated repeatedly, the most important issue of the elections next year, by far, is which candidate is going to bring me the biggest pile of crispy fried dirty dead terrorists each month of their administration if elected. There really is no more important issue than that. However you feel about — for example — abortion…if you think the candidate who agrees with you about that, will bring us 500 dead terrorists each month, and the candidate that disagrees with you on that issue will bring a thousand, you really do have a moral obligation to drop your favorite pet peeve in favor of killing more terrorists.

Because we’re talking about bringing the fight to people who want to destroy us. How much is your peeve really worth?

And the second most important issue is a question…it is made important because of the fact that, although a lot of people won’t admit it, many of us are wondering if democrats are simply ignorant & easily fooled…or full blown knock-down drag-out wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy. I think even the voters who sympathize with the silly donks — even if the silly donks don’t carry away the White House when it’s all said and done — would like to know this. To whom did their votes go? An imbecile, or a freakin’ whack-job?

All of us who have the means to do so, really should be gathering whatever evidence can be gathered in order to figure this out. This is a long-lived issue. Regardless of how the elections go next year, it is relevant to the future of our country to get an answer to that question. Unless we can send the donk party the way of the Whig party…which, although hope springs eternal, may not happen for a decade or two.

The latest exhibit, courtesy of Hot Air, is here. This has profound implications upon the first issue as well as the second one: None of these guys sound ready to bring us any crispy fried dirty dead terrorist bodies anytime soon.

This clip is further proof of what we already know, although fewer and fewer of us have the plain old-fashioned balls to admit it. Real life presents us with one scenario after another, in which the willingness to wage war equals life — and a stubborn reluctance to do so equals death. And “peace” is a word often synonymous with oppression.

If this comes as a huge shock to you, the muse that is History is wondering if you’ve got peanut butter packed in your ears or something. Woodstock is over, hippy. Come home.

Chickenhawk on the Battlefield of Truth

Saturday, November 24th, 2007

I think I just saw something remarkable on Google. I was up rattling around between 4:30 and 5:30 this morning, and I hit the search engine to find some news about T. Boone Pickens’ million-dollar challenge to disprove anything in the Swift Boat ads from three years ago, and Sen. Kerry’s acceptance of same. Then, now, 7:30 to 8:00, I did it again. I’m seeing in the first two pages of results, not less than six or seven entries are worded exactly the same: “Pickens ‘backtracks’ on SBVT dare” — I don’t think it looked like that two hours ago.

Maybe, earlier, I just went straight to the “News” link with that search term. And maybe it’s just my imagination. But the replication of this one headline is interesting. Clearly, there’s a hierarchy involved in distributing these, and clearly that hierarchy works to the benefit of The Left. It’s not news to anyone who’s been watching this kind of thing for awhile, but strangers to it might find it enlightening. And if those strangers do find it that way, they certainly need to.

But to zero in on this challenge: I was pretty intrigued when I heard about it. To refresh your memory, I’ll just dial up a news website, that polishes over the recent history with the now-customary cliches, at random

Obama’s response accused Clinton of “Swift Boat politics” — a reference to the 2004 attacks on Kerry’s military record by a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry stayed quiet, a decision that some advisers fought at the time and that in retrospect turned out to have devastating consequences for his image in some swing states. [emphasis mine]

The SBVT group is a 527 non-profit. What tends to be lost in the news filter is that the more controversial claims by the SBVT have to do with Sen. Kerry’s war record, and the circumstances under which he won his medals…issues which the Senator brought up in the first place when running for President.

Also lost in the mix is that there very well may be no way to prove one way or the other what actually happened, since the argument deteriorated clear back in 2004 into a he-said-she-said. It could very well be a case of Rashomon syndrome. In fact, it very well may be that among the real veterans who were actually there, everyone is being a hundred percent truthful about their recollections of events even as those various recollections conflict with each other directly.

But the SBVT used their 527 money to get the word out that Sen. Kerry’s recollection of events, was not by any means uncontested. I could be wrong, but to the extent of my knowledge that’s just about the most unkind word they had to say about him…which is a stark contrast to the Senator’s now-infamous 1971 testimony before Congress, the one where he mispronounced the name of Genghis Kahn.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry’s testimony-about-testimony shocked a nation back in 1971, and again, in quite a different way in 2004.

But of course, the real issue isn’t whether or not words can be used to hurt or shock people. The issue is truth. We were reminded of this with the phone-testicle-taping testimony after it was thoroughly discredited…although a lot of people, still just as passionate about that issue as they ever were, have yet to know about that. But back to the subject at hand, and the truth involved in that subject: How did John Kerry win his medals? And what did he personally know about wires from portable telephones taped to prisoners’ nut-sacks? What did he personally verify about blowing up bodies and razing villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn? In fact, what does he personally know about Genghis Kahn?

What I found intriguing about Pickens’ challenge was that it dealt in this truth. Enough with the cheerleading; enough with the fanfare and the name-calling and the cherry-picked “eyewitnesses.” Once such an issue has deteriorated to he-said-she-said, cherry-picked witnesses bring very little value to the table. Just prove stuff. I know it’s tempting to read one’s own motives into the players who are more central to the drama one is watching, but I would like to think Mr. Pickens grew just as weary of the group-cheering and the holding-of-court as I did. Just stop appealing to emotions and prove what you’re trying to prove.

Now, that was earlier this month. A week ago Sen. Kerry made some real headlines by accepting the challenge.

No, he didn’t supply the proof Pickens demanded. That would come later. He made a show of accepting the challenge, and then he was heralded with great fanfare as if he already presented the proof.

In other words, he appealed to emotion yet again.

This is not the way I would have handled things. If someone challenges me to prove something, and I accept the challenge, I’m offering the proof. Especially if the proof exonerates me from being a purple-heart showboater and short-timer. If such an accusation was made, and I knew it to be false, that would strike me as a very personal offense — whether I was running for President or not.

I would never have dreamed of “announcing” I was accepting the challenge. I’d swat it down on the spot.

Now, I don’t know what exactly I was expecting when I heard that Pickens issued this challenge. Part of me was wishing that after spending an entire election campaign season AWOL from the battlefield of truth, in which facts actually matter more than grandstanding, and things formerly wondered about are proven — or refuted — Kerry would finally “enlist” and be seen in action on that battlefield.

Perhaps I should have known better. It’s time to prove things, and all we see out of him is more showing-off. More speeches. More aren’t I wonderful and aren’t they rotten.

I would request that your check be made payable to the Paralyzed Veterans of America which is doing incredible work every day to meet the needs of veterans returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan. My hope is that by sending this money to such a dedicated organization – founded for veterans, by veterans – some good can come out of the ugly smears and lies of the orchestrated campaign you bankrolled in 2004 in an attempt to discredit my military record and the record of the men who served alongside me on the Swift Boats of the Mekong Delta.

I would be more than happy to travel to Dallas to meet with you in a mutually agreed upon public forum, or would invite you to join me in Massachusetts for a public dialogue and then together we could visit the Paralyzed Veterans of America in Norwood and see firsthand how we can put your money to good work for our veterans.

I look forward to setting up a visit at the earliest possible, mutually convenient time. I trust that you are a man of your word, having made a very public challenge at a major Washington dinner, and look forward to taking you up on this challenge.

Yes, Kerry was in Vietnam. Yes, a lot of Republicans were not. But if he’s that stoic and fearless about running on to battlefields, I’d sure like to see him storm this one. Whatever the outcome. Just see him step onto it — for a change of pace. So far, he’s proven to be just as talented in staying out of that kind of “combat,” as anyone else, anywhere.

What do the facts actually say, Sen. Kerry? And if this isn’t the time to be answering that question, when is? Do you even have it in you?

I don’t think so. I think on the battlefield of facts and evidence and proof and disproof, Kerry has always been, and always will be, a chickenhawk. He goes through the motions of pretending to use logic and common sense and “nuanced” thinking, but I had an entire year to watch him try to persuade myself and others with his rhetoric, and he stayed on the emotional plane the entire time. Every single minute. And I should have realized this from the get-go — Sen. Kerry will throw a lot of stuff at Pickens’ challenge, but none of it is going to have any more to do with proving or refuting anything, according to reason or logic, than a day-old box of donuts.

He simply doesn’t work that way. He’s AWOL.

Memo For File XLIX

Wednesday, November 21st, 2007

Thanksgiving TurkeyEvery year Rush Limbaugh reads over the air, a portion of the sixth chapter of his second book in which he recounts the first Thanksgiving (membership required). The book in question was published in 1993. Wouldn’t it be a devastating broadside to Mr. Limbaugh if someone could take one of his many assertions, and prove it false — or, at the very least, demonstrate his fact-checking to have performed beneath par.

After fourteen years, I know of no such rebuttal having been advanced, let alone having been successful. I’ve been trying to attack this myself here & there, and the only problem I see is that the circumstances surrounding the death of William Bradford’s wife, Dorothy, seem to have been lost to history. The date of the demise is in December, which is compatible with what I assume is Limbaugh’s conjecture. There are alleged to be some bits of semi-contemporary documentation suggesting she died from drowning and not starvation.

My tentative conclusion is that the telling by Limbaugh, and the more conventional Thanksgiving chronicling he attacks, are BOTH guilty of dredging up whatever hard facts may be found and using personal leanings to fill in the blanks. But his overall point is that the conventional chronicling is ripe for revisiting, and that does seem to be the case…and that the revisiting will yield a hearty argument for capitalism and free markets, which also seems to be the case.

The Ludwig von Mises institute has a less entertaining, but perhaps more clinical, essay as of three years ago that inspects the episode and this ends up supporting Limbaugh’s telling of the story, if not of the specific events involved:

The fruits of each person’s efforts went to the community, and each received a share from the common wealth. This caused severe strains among the members, as Colony Governor William Bradford recorded:

” . . . the young men . . . did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong . . . had not more in division . . . than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes, etc . . . thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And the men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

Bradford summarized the effects of their common property system:

“For this community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontentment and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort . . . all being to have alike, and all to do alike . . . if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.”

How did the Pilgrims move from this dysfunctional system to the situation we try to emulate in our family gatherings? In the spring of 1623, they decided to let people produce for their own benefit:

“All their victuals were spent . . . no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length . . . the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . “

The results were dramatic:

“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

Now, if you are within ten years of my age you probably went to school to learn all about how the Pilgrims sat and gave thanks to Squanto for teaching them how to plant corn and catch fish. There may be some truth in this, and to be fair about it it’s not realistic to expect capitalism to be championed over collectivism in a union environment, which after all is what a public school is. Even if the facts would support it. But since Limbaugh’s book came out all those years ago, I’ve been surprised at how little we actually know about the first Thanksgiving, and how much mythology has been inserted where hard facts have been lost.

But from what little we do know, it seems Limbaugh’s right — the original settlers tried a collective economy, it failed, they replaced it with an individualist-based economy, that was a stunning success and then they had their first Thanksgiving. To envision this holiday as a celebration of the wonderful things free markets can accomplish, INCLUDING the feeding of the hungry, would be quite appropriate.

I’ve been wrestling for years now about the whole idea of leaving my son in a public school, and whether I should start going into hock to get him into a private one. I expect many parents are in a similar situation. Whatever is to be decided from one year to the next, this is definitely something that should be evaluated as part of the decision. Intentionally or otherwise, the events from the first Thanksgiving have been distorted by the public school system somethin’ fierce.

Twenty-First Century Split

Saturday, October 13th, 2007

The post previous to this one undertakes a daunting task, which is to find a definition for the slang term “neocon.”

The incentive is personal. My surname is “Freeberg,” which sounds Jewish. I’m not Jewish. But I delight in picking up newspapers and occasionally reading about terrorists getting fried by bombs. Such stories make my day, and I wish I could read about such things more often. In that sense, I’m a warmonger and I’m a sadist. But I’m not Jewish…so…am I a neocon?

The post linked above is quite lengthy. It gets into the grit of my informal research project, explores every nook & cranny of what I’ve been able to find, and the thoughts that trickle through my neocon brain once I find these things out. I’ll summarize it here for the benefit of those whose time is at a premium.

Unlike most things we call “words,” the term “neocon” doesn’t really define much of anything.

Like tapping your toes in a toilet stall a la Larry Craig, by using the term, you’re saying something about yourself. And that is the whole point of using the term. Or most of it.

When you use the word “neocon” what you’re saying about yourself is…

1. You are a socialist. You want a one-world government. You want everyone on the planet to have the same amount of stuff.

2. Because of #1, you are engaged in an eternal war against capitalism.

3. You hate Jews.

4. You would like people who vote for Republicans, to be lined up against a wall and executed.

5. You’re opposed to the death penalty.

6. You are opposed to the U.S.-led coalition invading Iraq in 2003.

7. You think socialism is wonderful, and the only reason it has not yet worked is because the right people weren’t in charge.

8. If any country has what is called a “military,” and that military has any reason for existence at all whatsoever, it is to provide higher-level education at a reduced cost. War is purely a thing of the past…which means, necessarily, the “boss” of any international dispute should be whoever can command the most formidable “consensus” among diplomats.

9. What we call “money” should be the property of whatever national government dishes it out. Individual achievement should have nothing to do with it at all.

10. There is no God.

11. You people doing a lot of thinking for yourselves, represent a great big problem and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

12. It is vastly more important that the next generation be taught how to follow instructions, than that they be taught how to read with optimal comprehension, to write with optimal literacy, to reason with coherence and adaptability, and to perform arithmetic computations with competence, reliability and efficiency.

There’s a butt-load of other things I could tack on to that list if I really tried. What’s on the list isn’t the point. The point is, the list stays consistent…decade after decade…across international borders.

A “socialist” is someone who accepts all those things.

A “neocon” is a derogatory term flung around by a socialist. It really doesn’t have any intrinsic meaning, or very little. To the extent it does have an actual definition, it is used to refer to someone who isn’t a socialist. A “neocon” is someone who is a “hold-out,” as the entire planet continues to be lowered into the roaring bonfire of socialism.

So here’s my proposal: How about we get rid of democrats and Republicans entirely? When I was a little boy, the split was very, very clean: democrats wanted to expand government spending, Republicans wanted to reduce it. All tangential issues were spin-offs from that central definition.

It doesn’t apply anymore. President George W. Bush has the letter “R” after his name and he’s spending money like it’s water.

As a result of that, the Republicans have a deep split. So do the democrats. They trudged off to the polls to vote for democrat politicans so that we’d yank our troops out of Iraq and impeach President Bush…and then the democrat politicians said, thanks, now screw you. So the democrats really don’t stand for much now. You tell me you’re a Republican…or a democrat…and I really don’t know anything, or nothing at all, about you.

Let’s just scrap them both.

We’re socialists and neocons. The symbol of the neocon could be — the pig. A pig with a yarmulke on it’s head. This has a problem or two because yarmulkes are worn by Jews, and Jews don’t eat pork. But I notice that people who criticize “neocons” are, with very few exceptions, socialists. Socialists or radical Islamic muslim terrorists. Or both. They want capitalism to be abolished. Or they want the nation of Israel to be swept into the sea. Or both.

Socialists could be represented by the watermelon. Everyone’s heard this joke by now…the watermelon is green on the outside, red to the core. That’s the twenty-first century socialist for you. He pretends to be all about trees, and snail darters, and spotted owls and what-not…but he really wants to destroy capitalism because he doesn’t like it. The environment is simply an excuse.

My point is — if you spend a day reading lots of blogs, on the “right” and on the “left,” you’ll see that this is our modern split. On October 13, 2007, this is how we are split now. The “right” and the “left” don’t have much to do with anything.

It’s all about watermelons and pigs.

Socialists…and “neocons.” Which are people who aren’t adapting to socialism, as quickly as the socialists would like.

I think, now, today, that’s how our political parties really need to be split. If I’m right, then yes, I’m a “neocon” (even though “Freeberg” isn’t nearly as Jewish as it might sound, to some). I think that’s what’s happening. It’s all about the new-world-order, and how some of us are socialists — too timid to admit that’s what they are, but nevertheless, it’s true — and some of us are simply not ready to adapt to the new-world-order. And so we’re just like those hated Jews.

Update 10/14/07: Okay, I got it. The animal representing the “neocon” should be…the Eagle. An independent, majestic creature. Yes, it is the symbol of the country. That is the point. There are reasons this animal was selected as our country’s symbol. It forages for food in a harsh territory, but does so without complaint because that is it’s destiny. And that environment is a beautiful place. The bird’s eyes are open all the time. It sees far. It takes care of it’s young.

The socialists can be represented by the carpenter ant.

I think this accurately reflects how these two “virtual parties” work. It reflects how their members think. The eagle glides above the domain, it’s keen eyes looking for movement, it’s tiny but powerful bird-brain engaged in a continuous cycle neatly lapping the First Triad…FACT…OPINION…THING TO DO…FACT…OPINION…THING TO DO. The carpenter ant doesn’t do this and cannot do this. Ants can’t draw inferences from facts, outside of their primitive design. They follow trails of spit left by other ants. I’M SUPPOSED TO GO HERE…I’M SUPPOSED TO GO THERE.

I say, let’s split it that way. Just continue Kristol’s idea of taking the epithet that is used to describe you, and making it your own. On both sides. Neocon, socialist.

And then, issue by issue, both sides would go at it. Just like now, but now they’d define themselves the way they want to; the way they really intend to. The democrat/Republican thing dates back to the Civil War, and just a little bit before that. It’s out of date.

Media Dishonesty Matters

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

I was skimming over this great list of lying liars that was linked from Tom the Impaler, and strangely, it was in that exact instant that #24 began to be interviewed by my local radio guys.

No, I didn’t call. A pirhana might think a prairie dog a tasty treat, but predators should stick to their chosen territory. A liar our thirty-ninth President may be, but he’s still a smart man, and the Lord of the Sound Bite which I’m not.

But I would love to see something done to take this guy down. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a class of sixth- or seventh-graders was assigned to study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for two solid weeks…and then on Friday, sit down as a group and come up with twenty-five phrases that have something to do with what America is all about. With the text of those two documents fresh in their minds, get a good list of twenty-five things going.

And then, that Friday afternoon, Jimmy Carter is invited to address the class — and is presented with this question. You’ve said repeatedly that the current President is a disaster for the country. What do you, President Carter, envision as the ideals of that country?

Monday morning, the class cross-references the terms Carter used in his answer, against the list they drew up. Come up with an overlap. Make it a percentage. The results go on the innernets.

I venture to say we’d never hear from the windbag again.

He’s just not talking about what we call “America.” He’s talking about something else.

Year of the Sham

Wednesday, October 10th, 2007

I remember when the Clarence Thomas confirmations hearings were on the radio and I made a point of listening to them. Well a lot of other folks were paying attention too, and some of them decided to run for Congress. The result is yet another situation where two people can look at exactly the same thing and come away with wildly different interpretations of what happened.

Let’s start with the most popular interpretation: A routine confirmation hearing was unexpectedly plunged into the issues surrounding sexual harrassment, and the nation woke up to the sudden realization that women were under-represented in the Senate. Thus we had the “Year of the Woman,” 1992, in which a zillion women were elected and most of those women are still serving today.

What’s wrong with that? Well, more than just a few things. The notion that a male representative is completely and automatically bereft of any ability to represent or service his lady constituents in the chamber where he serves, brings it’s own mess of logical wrinkles. If cross-gender representation has a possibility of working, but is cumulatively ineffective, us California gentlemen must really be laboring under a senatorial slight that is building up over the passage of time. No serious challenge has been made to either one of our oh-so-trendy liberal female senators since that Womanly Year…for sake of consistency, wouldn’t one have to concede that we’re struggling without our due representation?

Also, the number of women in the Senate remains well below fifty. If women are being handed some kind of a raw deal because there aren’t “enough” women in the Senate, one would have to conclude this primitive and oppressive state of affairs continues to this very day. Which would reduce the “Year of the Woman” to a blip on the radar, just the first swipe of the cleaning pad against the wall of a sower stall caked thick with mold and mildew. It’s reduced to something of a non-event, by anyone simply taking the premise seriously.

And then there is the performance of the ladies after the event, during their subsequent service. I slid into California just as it was taking place, and have lived here ever since, while the two chickies have stayed in the whole time. Nobody’s stopped by to ask me if I can feel the energy cackling through the air now that the people are finally being heard in the nation’s upper chamber. They shouldn’t ask. They shouldn’t even ask a California citizen whose personal leanings are more compatible with the lady senators’ politics; that citizen’s take on things, if they’re fair, would agree with mine. The senate-ladies are a couple of party hacks, and have never pretended to be anything but.

It’s become something of a circus, kind of a predictable lap on a merry-go-round. A contentious issue comes up, and I write to Boxer or Feinstein to let them know of my concerns. Back comes a computer-generated printout thanking me for inquiring of the Senator’s position on the matter…which isn’t what I did at all…and courteously letting me know what it is. Huh. Guess the decision was made already, before I wrote in. Feinstein adds an adorable little variation to this theme by going on-the-record in the days before the vote is conducted, to state that she hasn’t yet made up her mind. If you take this seriously, it logically excludes the “Morgan just wrote too late” theory because DiFi is really takikng her sweet time on this thing to make the right decision. But I don’t take it seriously. She’s a puppet. She represents by clique. She’s got a short list of folks she needs to consult in making decisions, and us voters aren’t on that list. She tells us what to do, not the other way ’round.

Boxer’s no more connected to The People than Feinstein is, nor do I gather are Murray or Cantwell. As an epochal event by which a disenfranchised portion of the electorate finally found representation, the “Year of the Woman” is a joke.

Which brings us to my interpretation of the event…

Politicians found a new angle. It is that simple, no more complicated than that. It was a sales gimmick, to be piled high upon other sales gimmicks, as if the product being sold was a defective used car. We were having our biannual electioneering, and some hucksters found a new way to sell a pig-in-a-poke. Which worked great, as it turns out.

What was their angle? They were able to address anyone who bothered to tune in to the Thomas hearings, which included myself, and say — change is needed. Just look at this circus going on here. That is what we saw and what we heard…a circus. But the system was broken then, and is broken now, you see. The politicians who made the Thomas hearings into a circus, had a lot in common with the politicians who won election into that chamber, on the strength that we needed them so badly because the Thomas hearings were a circus. In short, we tuned in, saw a bunch of crooks and liars, and were convinced to vote for more crooks and liars.

This is where American politics break down. It’s got to do with the money angle. Like any business proposition, running for elective office takes on appeal for the person considering it, when it is detected there is little to no potential resistance. And that’s what “Year of the Woman” really did — it ensured that if you were female, and you were running for office in 1992 to avenge poor Anita, why, anyone who’d dare breathe a word of opposition or challenge to you would be some kind of cad. And so nobody, or very few, so opposed. That’s the natural incentive, even today — you look for statements to make that won’t be opposed. That means less money is spent “getting the message out.” It’s a business enterprise, just like any other; the successful opportunist will find ways to reduce expenses.

And so the system is structured to sell us messages that we receive naturally. Messages that involve minimal communication. Cheap messages. Threadbare messages. Messages possessing only tangential connection with truth.

The message that female senators will more effectively represent female constituents, has turned out to be completely severed from truth. Our “new” senators don’t represent women; they represent democrats.

As for the “truth” that energized the Year of the Woman in the first place, Thomas Sowell has some interesting points to offer in defense of his friend, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. The hearings have often been characterized, during as well as in hindsight, as a case of “He Said, She Said”; you just have to make up your mind which side to believe, and go with it. Liberals like that a lot — they’re big fans of making up your own mind about what’s true, giving special weight to evidence arriving subsequently that lends strength to their opinion, ignoring evidence that does not. But as Dr. Sowell points out, this was not a he-said-she-said case.

There were ways in which different versions of events by Hill and Thomas were quite capable of being checked — but were not checked.

That failure to check the facts was very strange in a situation where so much depended on the credibility of the two people. Here are the two versions.

According to Clarence Thomas, he hired Anita Hill at the urging of a friend because an official of the law firm at which she worked had advised her to leave.

According to Ms. Hill — both then and now — she was not “asked to leave” the law firm but was “in good standing” at the time.

This too was not just a question of “he said” and “she said.” An affidavit sworn by a former partner in that law firm supported Clarence Thomas’s version. That was ignored by most of the media.

Since the Senate has the power of subpoena, it was suggested that they issue a subpoena to get the law firm’s records, since that could provide a clue as to the credibility of the two people.

Senators opposed to the nomination of Judge Thomas voted down that request for the issuance of a subpoena.

After Anita Hill’s accusations, a group of female members of Congress staged a melodramatic march up the Capitol steps, with the TV cameras rolling, demanding that the Senate “get to the bottom of this.”

But “getting to the bottom of this” apparently did not include issuing a subpoena that could have shown conclusively who was truthful and who was not.

In another instance, there was already hard evidence but it too was ignored. Clarence Thomas said that Anita Hill had initiated a number of phone calls to him, over the years, after she had left the agency where they both worked. She said otherwise. But a phone log from the agency showed that he was right.

The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present.

If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.

Hey, as constituents we’re not perfect. We’ll continue to try to keep an eye on the shenanigans our elected representatives try to pull on us, and sometimes we’ll catch them in the act, sometimes we won’t. Sometimes we’ll go ahead and gobble up the crap they sell us, and demand seconds.

In the history of The People keeping tabs on the Congress crooks, holding them accountable, the Year of the Woman is a low ebb. It is bedrock. We’ve been had.

Memo For File XLVIII

Sunday, October 7th, 2007

Smart money is saying that someday soon, thanks to Hillary or thanks to someone else entirely, we are definitely going to have some sort of nationalized health care system in the United States. This would be a messy hodge-podge between blazing a completely new trail, and traipsing over old ground. For the better part of a century, America has been the sole hold-out in some socialist exercises, and partaken grudgingly in others. The best comparison for purposes of precedent, would no doubt be Social Security. Health care is simply the next step; like retirement, it enjoys a certain urgency in availability, purely psychological in nature. All who doubt that may ponder the list of goods and services people “need,” which nobody’s talking about nationalizing just yet. Gasoline. Childcare. Food and baby formula. Delivery services for the sick and infirm.

No, nationalizing health care is not about giving people things they need. It’s about controlling people. Once we are so controlled, what would life be like? Well, like everyone else, I didn’t start pondering this just yesterday. Nor are we the first country to start nationalizing things that people supposedly need. I grew up within just a handful of miles from Canada, which is very proud of it’s own nationalized health care system, and whose subjects brag about it frequently. That is probably the least draconian of all the socialist utopian enclaves we can study, with the failed USSR experiment being on the other end of the scale. I’ve been making an informal study of these for decades, and I’ve noticed there is a list of surprises they offer for their subjects once the socialized delivery system is turned over and throttled up. These surprises, for the most part, are unpleasant. They always seem to arrive in the same sequence, more or less, and they apply to any enclave, nationalist or otherwise, that becomes collectivist in nature when providing something. The first handful of them are very subtle; the others, not so much. And so I’ve identified these unpleasant surprises and given them numbers and names. When the American universal health care system is in full force, it seems to me, we can count on each and every single one of these surprises. We should prepare for them now.

Surprise Number One is the Surprise of the Mommy. There is someone getting concerned when you run out of stuff, whose job it is to make sure you don’t. This is not really a surprise, because it was the objective under which the package was originally sold in the first place, and of course it isn’t unpleasant at all except to those who never wanted such a thing. Collectivist administrations almost always arrive by way of democracy, so usually those people are far-and-away in the minority.

Surprise Number Two is the Surprise of Perversion of Thought. People become unmotivated, uninspired, and depressed; much of the necessity involved in jumping out of bed in the morning, tackling life, was a knowledge that there was a pressing material need to get life tackled. With that gone, life is diminished to a ritual of motions whose executions are supposed to be performed in sequence, at certain times. Like a dance that never changes. Not only that, but critical thinking becomes labored and difficult; subjectivity and objectivity to change places. It’s a subjective thing to say a person or household’s standard of existence has descended to the point that “something must be done.” In order to build machinery dedicated to doing that something, you have to define a way of measuring the necessity of doing it, so the subjective is now objective. On the other hand, when people have opportunities taken from them, and choices made on their behalf that used to be theirs to decide, that is an objective thing. It is measurable. The bureaucrats and administrators and spokespeople will re-define this as subjective, so they can place it into doubt. “We’re doing it for the children” or “It’s for the common good.” The Surprise of the Mommy made the thought process less urgent; now it is pointless. This is the first of the unpleasant surprises, and by far the most subtle. It has meaning only to those who think for themselves.

Surprise Number Three is the Surprise of Micromanagement: People realize the Surprise of the Mommy isn’t always helpful to them. The people who worry about you running out of stuff, don’t work for you. They write you up for failing to put your kid in the kind of car seat they think you should be putting him in, for having a gun, for eating saturated fats, for owning a Bible and for smoking at home. Also, if the bureaucracy has figured out some of your habits do, or simply might, increase the costs of providing for you, you will be required to discontinue those habits whatever they are. In short, everyone has to live life the same way. This is almost as subtle as Surprise Number Two, but not quite so much. It has meaning to those who wanted to nurture dreams, and couldn’t nurture them because they were too worried about starving. Some of those dreams — most of them — depended on the liberty to live life differently. So the dream that was on a deathbed, on life-support, terminally ill, that was supposed to be medicated and healed, is in fact being euthanized.

Surprise Number Four is the Penny-Ante Surprise, and like the Surprise of Micromanagement, it consists of another unpleasant revelation of the Surprise of the Mommy. This is where the people who supported the utopia out of pure jealousy, get their come-uppins. You work harder than I do, but make twenty thousand dollars fewer per year. Equalizing this seems like the most desirable thing, and it seems at first that the equalization wouldn’t affect you in any way. But it turns out this equalizing is never done in terms of tens of thousands of dollars; it’s done in fractions of pennies, which means nobody escapes scrutiny. Also, nobody escapes the chasing-of-pennies, which for many of the supporters was the point of the whole exercise. As free but impoverished people, they added and subtracted from sunup to sundown and got sick and tired of doing it. Now, they’re still adding and subtracting, and someone is forcing them to.

Surprise Number Five is the Surprise of the Union, which is produced from the Surprises of Micromanagement and the Penny-Ante Surprise. We are a union shop now, and as such we are all expected to follow rules. These aren’t like ordinary rules. Nobody debates these rules. People who have been known, all their lives, for flouting rules for the sake of flouting rules, or priding themselves on their diligence in questioning the rules, tremble in fear at these. Hardened men known for thumbing their noses at the law, for fearing no authority figure, police included, accustomed to swimming through life like sharks grabbing what they want, once told what’s expected of them comply without a peep of protest. This is the final irony. A people liberated from concern over empty stewpots and empty plates and empty wallets and empty bellies, will now never be liberated from anything else; and not from those concerns either. You are expected not only to follow the right rules; you are further expected to have the correct opinions about things. Talk about health care with a Canadian citizen sometime. Notice the predictability with which he props up the glorious Canadian health administration. But also take note of the lack of genuine passion in his remarks. He has to pretend to be describing how he feels about it, but he’s just running through talking points. This is true of all socialized countries; people have the opinions they’re supposed to have, and they will have those opinions without feeling too strongly about them. Opposing opinions are things strange and foreign to them, because they haven’t heard too much of those opposing viewpoints. They haven’t been allowed to hear them.

Surprise Number Six is the Surprise of the Killjoy. The people whose job it is to make sure you don’t run out of stuff, also have to make sure you don’t get too much. This is the really big shocker, because this is where the dreams-on-deathbeds that were supposed to be medicated and to blossom once starvation was rendered impossible, but were then euthanized, flatline for the last time. People realize there’s a limit to what they can have this year, and the next year, and the year after that. This is the least subtle of all the surprises. Whoever doesn’t get depressed about the whole utopian experiment at this point, never will.

Surprise Number Seven is the Surprise of the Idiot Administrator. Political leaders become unimpressive, mediocre people engaged in unimpressive, mediocre things. That’s ignoring, for the moment, graft and corruption which are also inevitable. The unimpressive, mediocre idiot leaders are taking responsibility for very little when all’s said and done. They see their job as one of distributing assets once the assets have been accumulated, not one of making sure adequate assets are there. And in distributing the assets, all they do is follow rules that they themselves write. One has to struggle to think of any occupation, in any type of enclave, that demands less out of the person engaged in it, or invests more authority or material reward.

Surprise Number Eight is the most painful one, it is the Surprise of the Empty Pot. With the passage of time, the Surprise of the Killjoy becomes a crushing, constricting death grip as the standard of living diminishes. Fortunately, life is “fair” so everybody’s standard of living diminishes equally, in tandem and in perfect rhythm. This is because the disbursement allocated for one is based on the wealth to be distributed amongst all, and there is less and less wealth gathered because the people with energy and talent are disappearing. Their fortunes have been welded and riveted to the fortunes of those who like to goof off, and when the talented and energetic find an opportunity to sever this relationship they will take it. The human spirit will compel them to leave if they can. Which brings us to…

Surprise Number Nine, the Surprise of the Bars in the Window. Simply put, you can’t leave. Whether the Utopian enclave is physical or simply administrative, there are rules in place to keep you from stepping out of it. If this is a country, you cannot exit, and if it’s just a system, you must enroll. Freedom is a muse that stays as long as she is appreciated, and leaves in the dead of night without ever looking back once she is rejected. So off she toodles.

Surprise Number Ten is the Surprise of Sprawl. Your collectivist Utopian enclave having reached maturity, it demands respect for it’s razor-wire and iron-bar borders, has wonderful things to say about itself, but can’t leave well enough alone outside the razor-wire borders. Those who speak for it, whose job it is to say what’s wonderful about it, are occasionally heard to mutter things about expansion. They do not scold the neighboring individualist enclave with “if you don’t like it, don’t practice it but let us do what we want,” or anything of the sort. That is never good enough. The neighboring individualist enclave is scolded, rather, that it is about to be swallowed up like a guppy. And there is more than a kernel of truth to this. With this surprise realized, socialism is now complete; it is what must constantly engulf others. It must force itself onto people who don’t want it.

I do not know of any example in which a nation has nationalized something, in which some of these unpleasant surprises were, or even just one was, somehow skipped. So far as I know, all ten of them are inevitable, unavoidable, and will arrive in the order listed here. To say America is going to be the first to disrupt the pattern, based on whatever faux-logical cosmetic justification, is patently absurd.

Life is a struggle. To remove the struggle, you must remove life.

Repeal the Seventeenth

Saturday, September 1st, 2007

Hell, yeah.

CEH +145

Thursday, April 12th, 2007

Charles Evans Hughes was born on April 11, 1862. He was the eleventh Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was responsible for laying the cornerstone of the current Supreme Court building, in 1936.

HughesHe passed the bar with an unheard-of score of 99+1/2. He was the Governor of New York, and then President Taft nominated him as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He quit that post in 1916 to campaign against Woodrow Wilson. He went to bed on Election Day thinking he was going to be the nation’s next President; it seems President Wilson retired the same night with the same thought. It was not to be.

He was appointed Secretary of State by President Harding. He served with distinction in that office into President Coolidge’s adminstration, and then retired to private life.

President Hoover nominated him for Chief Justice in 1930. When the Senate met to consider his confirmation, it was much more contentious than his elevation to Associate Justice in 1910. The Great Depression was in full swing by then, and the interests of The Poor were already stacked up against the interests of The Rich. Mr. Hughes was thought by the Democrats to be aligned with the second of those two, and they caused a lot of grief about this. Nevertheless, his commission was confirmed.

Years later into the first term of Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court struck down the American Caesar. In Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. U.S. (1935), Hughes delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to the President.

The Court Packing Scandal of 1937 followed. Roosevelt, accustomed to being given whatever he requested from Congress, approached them demanding the authority to expand the Supreme Court. His court-packing plan was based on a big fat red-herring, that anyone on the Supreme Court over 70 years of age was a doddering old fool and needed an assistant lest the nation’s judicial business be clogged up by the gray-hairs. At the time of the court-packing plan, six Supreme Court justices achieved this level of maturity including Hughes. So FDR, embittered at finishing his first term without a single Supreme Court appointment, was demanding the authority to expand the Court to 15 seats.

He lost that battle. But he won the war.

The crisis was averted when Justice Willis Van Devanter changed his vote in the “Switch In Time That Saved Nine” case of 1937, the West Coast Hotels vs. Parrish decision. Van Devanter sided with the President…and Chief Justice Hughes…ruling that the executive branch had the authority to enforce a minimum wage. A Supreme Court decision made purely out of political expediency.

Hughes said at the time that Justice Van Devanter “saved the court.” He was probably right.

Chief Justice Hughes stands alone in history. He is both the savior of the delicate balance of powers in the American Republic…and it’s traitor. In fairness to him, however, it should be pointed out that this tiny civil war between 1935 and 1937 was all-important. It was an Alamo. We did lose a lot of our liberties by the time FDR came to dominate the judicial branch, but if we had lost those liberties in 1935 instead we would surely have lost a lot more of them.

How did he do as an officer of the court? Surely, he was less influential than Chief Justice John Marshall. However, interestingly, Charles E. Hughes was way out in front of the great Federalist when measured according to the attribute that is supposed to matter the most: impartiality. Chief Justice Hughes sided with FDR when the Constitution sided with FDR; he went against the administration when the Constitution was being assaulted by the administration (which was far more often). Until the switch-in-time fiasco of ’37, at least, Hughes lived up to his oath. Against insurmountable and unprecedented odds.

He was a true American patriot, and in spite of his winter-season weakness he is well deserving of our gratitude and respect. He didn’t start out trying to oppose the most prestigious liberal Democrat presidential administration in history — he just ended up doing that, by having more respect for the rules than what President Roosevelt had. This is exactly what judicial officers are supposed to do.

Yeah, he was inconsistent. He is guilty of abandoning his post. But only when the judicial branch had been shaken to its very core; by which time, the case can certainly be made that sticking by the post was a pointless exercise. Until that point, he stood firm…loyal not to Republicans or Democrats, but to the document he swore to uphold. Furthermore — sometime, when you have time to spare, just gather up some of his opinions and read them. They are works of art, models for how Supreme Court decisions should be written — and decided — indeed, for how all important thinking should be done. I wish I could say that about a majority of our current justices.

How They Went

Wednesday, March 21st, 2007

Could be nothing more than rumor-mongering.

But as the story goes, George Washington left us not because of a bad case of pneumonia brought on by riding around too long at too advanced an age during too harsh of a winter…but because he jumped out his paramour’s second-story window when the hubby came home.

And FDR expired during a BJ.

Draw your own conclusions.

What Hillary Left Out

Tuesday, March 13th, 2007

Cannot findPriceless.

Sen. Hillary Clinton presumed the other day to give a think-tank audience a history lesson. But it turns out that the would-be president is herself in need of some tutoring.

Appearing before the Center for American Progress, Clinton quoted extensively from President Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to the nation two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“We are now in this war. We are all in it, all the way. Every man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history,” FDR told an anxious nation that had just entered World War II.

Added Clinton: “That was presidential leadership that understood that when American soldiers are in harm’s way, we are all at war.”

Of course, there was something else Roosevelt understood about war and presidential leadership – as does the current commander-in-chief, George W. Bush: When you find yourself in a war, you fight to win.

As FDR put it in that same speech: “The United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete . . . The sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken . . . We’re going to fight it with everything we got.”

Hillary conveniently chose not to quote from that part of the speech.

Then When Did This Begin?

Saturday, March 10th, 2007

“If nothing is worth dying for, then when did this begin?”

How would you word that to address, as directly as possible, the threats we face today. You wouldn’t have to change it very much. At all.

“If our best response to evil is ignorance and apathy, then when did this begin?”

Pillorying

Friday, March 9th, 2007

Blogger friend Bullwinkle takes down E. J. Dionne, who in turn claims to be giving former President Clinton some harsh treatment. Bullwinkle finds this questionable. Decide for yourself.

Irony

Saturday, March 3rd, 2007

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

Indeed it is, Upton. Yes indeed. Especially those novelists.

The integrity of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Upton Sinclair has been called into question after the discovery of a letter he wrote about the case of two men convicted of murder in 1927.

Sinclair, a crusading journalist, wrote a fictionalized account of the murder case of two Italian anarchists, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, called Boston, published in 1928. The two were convicted of the deaths of a shoe factory executive and a security guard as well as taking more than $15,000 US from the factory’s payroll. They were electrocuted in 1927.

Their execution galvanized the Left, protests erupted across Europe and the U.S. and Josef Stalin denounced it.

Sinclair’s novel paints the pair as innocent and victims of political persecution. But the recent discovery of a letter dated Sept. 12, 1929 from Sinclair to his attorney friend, John Beardsley, indicates the author may have known the two were guilty at the time he wrote the novel.

In the letter, Sinclair describes a meeting he had with Fred Moore, lawyer for the two men: “He … told me that the men were guilty, and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them … I faced the most difficult ethical problem of my life at that point, I had come to Boston with the announcement that I was going to write the truth about the case.”

What The Record Says

Wednesday, February 21st, 2007

Now that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the summary of it’s fourth assessment report, we’re all back to arguing about global warming. Just when everyone coast-to-coast is freezing their asses off. But of course an isolated weather pattern has nothing to do with global climate change. Really, it doesn’t. Except…six months from now when it’s too hot to go outside and do anything, and you’re tempted to connect your local discomfort to “global warming,” your nearest global-warming alarmist will utter nary a peep of scientific protest about this false connection you’ll be making. He’ll just rock back on his heels, smile, and whistle a happy tune.

But for now, they’re right. Global climate change is something you can’t see or feel for yourself.

Well while we’re back to arguing about it constantly, I can’t help but notice something. When we talk about long-past records, global warming skeptics would like to discuss temperature. Global warming alarmists, on the other hand, would like to talk about carbon dioxide. Because of this, for the most part neither one of the two camps will introduce any evidence that actually contradicts anything introduced by the other camp. And if you’re willing to accept what they both have to say, then this utterly devastates the connection made between carbon dioxide and the earth’s mean temperature.

Anyway. The article that appeared this morning by Pete du Pont in Opinion Journal nicely summarizes the argument for skepticism. It starts off with a rough overview of the history of earthly climate, at least what we know about it, but you should really go read the whole thing. Not a demanding reading assignment by any standard.

…looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm–by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Another thing I like about this article is it nicely summarizes the (uncontested) facts about Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring and the DDT scare it caused. I found out during an impromptu horseshoe-arrangement water-cooler debate that Silent Spring has not lost any of its luster over the years as a golden calf among the environmentalists, and those inclined to give radical environmentalist causes undue amounts of attention and reverence. There are a lot of fairly intelligent and well-read folks walking around who don’t realize there’s even any disagreement about it.

Well look…it’s understandable that when half of us think the world is in imminent danger, and the other half of us do not, the half of us that are fearful are going to react emotionally. Fear is the most powerful emotion there is, and the quickest one to derail logic and common sense. So I don’t begrudge them that. But I’m awfully concerned about this new debate-within-the-debate about whether “the science is settled” or not.

It’s silly just on the face of it. Here we are debating about whether something’s unanimous. Now if we’re debating, that contradicts unanimity. A second-grader should be able to understand that.

And the other thing is this whole thing about science. Scientific methods are being claimed as the exclusive domain of those among us who do our arguing out of fear.

Most disturbing of all…those who come to the conclusion that the earth is in some kind of danger, and claim to have used scientific methods in arriving at that conclusion…if they find out about someone else who agrees with them, I notice they figure that person must have also used scientific methods in reaching his conclusion. Just because it’s the same one. The newcomer might have decided to agree just because the tea leaves told him to…and they don’t even consider this as a possibility. The conclusion reached, is being used as a litmus test for determining what methods were used, and the soundness of same.

Is that science? Hmmm?

The Top Three, Huh?

Monday, February 19th, 2007

The United States stands opposed to racism, so I’m told.

According to Wikipedia, whenever we sit down to figure out who the best Presidents were, this asshole consistently ends up in the top three.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt—are consistently ranked at the top of the lists.

This makes no sense to me. None at all. For two reasons.

1. We don’t give a flying crap who our best Presidents were at any other time of year, except for “Prexie’s Day”, which is very close to today, if not on it — February 19;
2. February 19, 1942, is the day Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of Japanese-American citizens … for…being…Japanese.

Does the United States stand united against racism? Or doesn’t it? Roosevelt’s face is on our money.

We could remove his face from the dime, any time we choose.

Why don’t we?

Helping Howard

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007

Last year I registered to receive updates from the Democratic National Committee. Yesterday morning, I received this.

Dear Friends,

I want your help.

My friend, Senator Jim Webb, has the honor of giving the nationally televised response to the president’s State of the Union speech tomorrow night.

He’ll be preparing his remarks tonight and tomorrow, and I want you to make your hopes, your dreams, and your thoughts about the state of our union part of our Democratic message.

Please take a moment to make your input part of the process by sending a note to Senator Webb as he prepares his remarks — we’ll deliver your message:

http://www.democrats.org/stateoftheunion
:
Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

My response:

Dear Dr. Dean,

Without regard to who belongs to what party, just speaking as an American I’m awfully tired of debating whether our current President is bad, or inarticulate, or stupid, or laboring under a delusion that he’s Chosen By God. When he’s going home in two years no matter what, we cross the point of diminishing returns awfully quick when we go down the “slander George Bush and everything will all work out” bunny trail. You’ve beaten that dead horse into a crater full o’jello. Enough. The man is a non sequitur. I suggest you treat him like one, or else you risk becoming one yourself.

Psychopaths are out there trying to kill Americans. That’s the Number One issue. What is the Democratic Congress going to do about it?

In answering that, I would start with the seven hundred mile fence. What is our new Congress going to do to actually get it built? What is our new Congress going to do to make it into a twenty-one-hundred-mile fence?

How about the student visas the nineteen hijackers used to get into the country? What will the 110th do to make that more difficult? How about an end to “random screening” at the airports? The potential for authoritarian abuse is obvious…will the 110th look out for the interests of everyday Americans, by standing up to this potential for authoritarian abuse?

Your party has a history of demanding fidelity over principle, as the nation saw in the last election with the Lieberman/Lamont debacle. That didn’t work out so well for you. How about a nice, symbolic resolution from the 110th Congress apologizing for the internment of Japanese-American citizens, calling out Franklin Delano Roosevelt by name? For FDR’s legacy to stand unblemished, America has to approve of what he did. This is unacceptable. For the good of the country, acknowledge the blemish is there. Stop hiding it. Show us you have what it takes, to recognize something putrid when it’s within your own tent.

May I suggest February 19, the 65th anniversary of Executive Order 9066, as an appropriate date to pass the resolution?

While you’re at it, deliver a good scolding to former President Carter. This country needs a lot of things right now, but “outspoken” ex-Presidents seeking to divide us — nobody with any intelligence at all thinks that’s one of them.

Americans desire representation by a legislature that truly represents them. I like the Democrats’ idea of demanding “paper trails” at the ballot box, eschewing electronic voting mechanisms that apparently cannot be audited in case of dispute. I suggest a “Paper Trails All Around!” campaign — demand paper trails at the ballot box, AND identification from those who come out to vote. No I.D., no ballot. Make the Democratic Party, into the sound-and-accountable-elections party.

Americans desire accountability from their elected officials. “I was snookered into voting for Iraq” is just a way of avoiding accountability, and everybody knows it. Drop it. Just…drop it. If you haven’t got the brains to avoid being snookered, you haven’t got the brains to serve. Here’s an idea. Make it the position of the Democratic Party, that Saddam was a good start. You’re supposed to be dedicated to making life safer. Obviously, there are a lot of dangerous people on the world stage. Round ’em up. Stretch some necks. If you must show us how bad the current administration is, show us how it doesn’t move fast enough.

Americans desire a position from the Democratic Party on the United Nations. Something possessing certainty. Not mealy-mouthed. Find something good to say about how the U.N. has handled this whole Iraq business…which I doubt you can do. Or else, kick ’em out of Manhattan for good. I hear there is a campaign to make the Democrats look like “real men.” Be manly. Make a decision.

Some people are under the impression the Democrats want to punish rich people just for being rich. They think the Democrats are a bunch of rich people themselves, a money-saturated hodge-podge of hypocrites who want a different set of rules for other rich people, and attention-span-disabled drunkards who don’t know or care how many digits are in their net worth, happy so long as there’s enough loot for the next bottle of scotch. Disabuse us of that notion. Stand firm against the death tax. Keep the Bush tax cuts in place — since they’ve worked.

Drop the “For The Children” cliche. Anyone who’s been paying attention knows it’s seasoning used to disguise the taste of something that is thoroughly rotten.

Beyond that, I hesitate to add any more. Two years isn’t that long, after all. You have your work cut out for you; if I round up a hundred people who like Democrats, and ask them what you’ll do about the terrorist threat, nobody’s ready to advance the notion I’ll get back one single solid answer. So change that. Tell us your plan.

I do have one thing Sen. Webb can do right before his rebuttal. He could print out this excellent prepared speech by Jules Crittenden, and in the course of the State of the Union speech, cross out whatever overlaps with what President Bush is saying. Then, in the rebuttal, simply read what’s left over. http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/01/the_state_of_the_union_is_a_di.php. Hopefully, President Bush picked it up himself, and will leave little-to-nothing behind for you. If that’s the case, assure us that you’re going to stand with him.

Hey, a guy can dream.

Remember: Bellyaching about the President is SO last year. Sen. Web says “this admini-” — and I’m going to change channels before he gets to the “-stration.” He says “Halli-” and I’m gone before he gets to “-burton.” In saying that, I speak for millions. You know it to be true. Get with it.

Thank you for soliciting my opinion, congratulations on your victory, and best wishes in your efforts to legislate for this great nation.

Morgan K Freeberg
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog

We’ll just have to see what happens.

Long Drop

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, half-brother of Saddam Hussein, was executed by hanging Monday. He shared an inglorious fate with legendary cowboy/outlaw Tom Ketchum, in that his rope was too long and as a result his head was snapped from his body.

There’s some stuff Barzan did to end up at the end of a long rope, though. Among other things, he Irreversibled a guy. Yeah, if I’m going to try to rabble-rouse people into some frothy panic about “oh, that is SUCH a barbaric way to execute somebody, I’m oh so outraged blah blah blah,” that’s a detail I’m going to leave out. In fact I’m not even going to say what it means to Irreversible someone. Rent the movie and fast-forward to ten, fifteen minutes into it. Listen to the crunching sound of someone’s sinus cavity. You’ll get it.

You can get the lowdown on what all those skull-fuckingly screwed-up guys did over there, here.

We’re All Such Independent Thinkers V

Sunday, December 3rd, 2006

If you could bring John F. Kennedy back from the dead, what would he say about our current happenings? The author of this video would have you believe our only Catholic President would be horrified at the actions of the Bush administration, based on a speech he gave in the spring of 1961.

Seems like an open and shut case, right?

Not so fast. This summer, in response to the video above someone on LibertyForum named HolyKnight was able to find this complete transcript.

Some parts of it which I’ve highlighted in light blue made it into the YouTube clip. Some parts which I’ve highlighted in red, did not. That might be because where the font is red, John Fitzgerald Kennedy is talking an awful lot like John Fitzgerald Bush.

I

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self- discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions- -by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

That’s your First Instinct Fallacy playing out in the YouTube clip above, right there. You have a first-instinct, and subsequently all evidence that becomes available to you is filtered according to whether it fits the instinct.

The fact is, Kennedy was walking a pretty thin line here. He had just botched the Bay of Pigs invasion and three of his officials had to resign over the failure. The best information we have today, is that his administration was planning the invasion to a depth of detail he was still dodging at the time of this speech, and at the same time he was tut-tutting the press for being too diligent in exploring the matter that was an embarrassment to him. But he also wanted to extoll the virtues of leaders in democratic societies welcoming criticism of their errors…and exploration of what those errors may be.

But genuinely welcoming such inspection? Really? History doesn’t support this.

And here it is 45 years later, the speech is hauled out and put on YouTube — just carefully cherry-picked pieces of it, though — to make the current presidency look bad. Yet in the final analysis, what JFK had to say about the communists, is fundamentally no different from what GWB has to say about the Islamo-fascists. It’s exactly the same argument. Our enemy is “monolithic” in all the ways that matter; our enemy is controlled, and therefore has a cosmetic advantage over our own society, which is free; we will ultimately prevail because our society works in greater harmony with the human spirit; but victory is only possible if we respect transparency and, at the same time, national security.

Neither President, when you parse the words all the way down, is supporting an idea that transparency should be absolute. The 35th and the 43rd have it in common that they’d like to keep some things under wraps.

And the secrecy carefully embraced by the Bay State President, as it relates to the matter he was addressing in his speech, was needed to protect his image and not to protect national security. Is the same true of our current President? Time will tell. Meanwhile, the clip is just so much bull. The words are correct. To suppose Kennedy would approve of the way it is shown, depends on how sincere, and intellectually honest, our former President would want to be. He had no standing to criticize our government as it operates today. Not as far as the secrecy-vs.-transparency issue.

What’s sad is people take this kind of thing at face value. There’s actually a frame in the movie that says “GOOGLE MUTHAFUCKA, DO YA USE IT??” And if you really do use it, before you find something that embarrasses the White House, you find other things that embarrass the video…so the author of the clip better hope the answer is “no.” But in most cases, that’s the correct answer. People see images, they presume the Government is out to get ’em with every little thing it does, they find a couple quotes by Thomas Paine telling them this is what they’re supposed to be thinking, and they then labor under the belief that they must have noodled this through with some good mind-sweat, spent some good mental elbow-grease on it. All they’ve done is watch a five-minute video and believed every word in it without question.

And then if/when a Democrat takes the White House, they’ll stop being suspicious. They won’t outwardly admit that’s the process…but they’ll drop the “Big Brother’s Out To Get Me” act for forty-eight to ninety-six months straight. You won’t hear a peep out of ’em about it.

And then they’ll watch a made-for-TV movie about the Kennedy family, watch a few scenes with touch-football, Jackie in her pillbox hat, Bobbie courageously mouthing off at J. Edgar, and they’ll think they’ve become authorities on “Camelot.” Oh, I do hope people are better informed than that…before receding again into the world of Starbuck’s and Blockbuster and Krispy Kreme. I hope so. I doubt it.