Okay, Robert Lindsay is the Third Coolest Commie*, ever

Alexander Cockburn is really the coolest commie after Limonov. Cockburn's end-0f-year retrospective on 07, has got me ready to storm the bastille.  On the bushes, the democrats, horowitz, dershowitz, chrisopher hitchens, imus, sharpton... down they go like ducks in a galley.

Surprising support for the second amendment, a most fair-minded (but wrong) defense of hucabee and two good Ron Paul plugs. Seriously, read the whole thing.

*living, Robert Lindsay is the third coolest living commie, ever. but only because he's temporarily sidetracked by some genome hair-splitting field trip, after which I'm sure he'll be rested up and ready to rrrawk!

update - he's back and battlin' (after the VA loan post) the bad guys.  Glad to see I'm not the only one with photo issues on blogger.

The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good Part.1

Regarding Ron Paul's Iowa Ad, and Justin Raimondo's complaint:

Steady on, guys. This is the first time I've disagreed with anything Justin said, and not on the merits, but the Silber-level cry of fire in the night. I'm sure it was a campaign blunder to go after the two dozen tancredo supporters that didn't swing to romney as directed. I bet Paul's views are closer to Vijay Boyapati's, and that Paul will handle this masterfully, if he doesn't take too much friendly fire. Geez

In Halo, when you accidently shoot you own guys, it means you're supposed to be in front of them!

Et tu, Pat?

The recent series of open letters to Ron Paul doubters on LewRockwell.com prompts me to write my own to Pat Buchanan.  I can't decide on what kind of tone I should take, though, so I'm just going to ask why he isn't loudly and enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul.

I saw him on CSPAN/Sirius's POTUS08 and he was given the opportunity to say who he favors and he did mention Ron Paul, although couched in typical "I disagree with some of his policies" tepid support.  This was after Pat explained that he (Buchanan) had left the Republican Party in 2000 and that they did not reward disloyalty.  He also said that it looks like the surge is working and we couldn't just pull out of Iraq.  He's carrying Bush's water after having opposed all of Bush's policies, when he just admitted that they never forget or forgive. 

What is Pat up to? The only thing that I can think is that he loves his present position as "cranky conservative elder" media guy and wants to maintain his credibility if Paul goes down in flames.  I don't want to believe that because the Paul candidacy IS the Buchanan revolution. I hope he's just keeping his powder dry, but c'mon eileen! I maxed my donations to the Buchanan campaign when he won NH and then the Republican establishment locked arms against him.  I remember quite clearly.  Why doesn't he?

 Pat - march toward the sound of the guns!

"The Admiral is Afraid that the Alliance knows about the Airshaft Flaw in the Deathstar"

r2d2-Justin Raimondo

c3po-Karen De Coster

Obi-Wan - Burt Blumert

(young Obi-Wan) Anthony Gregory

Laia - Karen Kwiotkowtski

Yoda - Paul Gottfried

Luke - Ron Paul

Han Solo - Lew Rockwell

Chewbacca - Pat Buchanan

Jaba - Ahmed Chalabi

Emperor - Rupert Murdoch

Darth Vader - Richard Pearl

Boba Fett - William Crystal

Darth Maul - Dick Cheney

Irritating Jaba-mascot muppet - George Junior

Stormtroopers - Free Republic

As if further proof were needed

The story was that the Army was beefing up its weapons distribution system, increasing the staff from six to seventy and bringing in a general from the Reserve. This could be for two reasons, either stuff was not properly accounted for, or it wasn't going out fast enough, or (probably) both. My theory, that nothing happens politically by accident, leads me to assert that the entire Iraq project was simply to introduce chaos to the region and to keep the military there until the chaos becomes self-sustaining. There is a plausible case to be made that circumstances were such that we needed to get cash in circulation so fast that we couldn't account for it; eight-to-twelve Billion is what I've heard. Occam's razor cuts away all but the most likely explanation, graft and corruption; however they were trying to bootstrap a dollar economy, and they needed to kill the native currency (or absorb it by favorable conversion rates). Okay, I don't like it, but I'll accept it.

It's a much different matter with weapons though. I'm assuming we're talking about small arms. If we're giving anyone heavy or sophisticated weapons, all bets are off, except it lends even more support for my diplomacy by arson theory. So we're giving arms and money to purchase arms to those we already know to be corrupt and/or infiltrated by those we're fighting before, now and in the future. The newly beefed-up supply operation is to try to direct the aid to approved individuals or groups and keep it out of the hands of all others. To me, especially considering the recent withdrawl of the British, the timing and apparent (oh, sorry Sen. McCain), the success of the surge, it looks like we're hurrying up arming the Sunnis, so that we can withdraw to the bases (or completely if President Paul takes over) and wait until the Iraqis sort things out. That is, completely destroy themselves and as many Kurds, Turks, Syrian, and Persians as possible, sign on oil deal with whoever's still standing, and start pumping! Who's your daddy?






http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/ap_weaponssales_071220w/

"This isn't about restricting freedom of opinion, it's about examining what the limits are."

Wikipedia Too Nazi - How much is just right? 

Maybe they can get Robert Lindsay to testify that the truth is what was edited by the last guy to shut off the computer and go to bed muttering to himself.

"Watch where you're pointing that thing, Ollie!"

Hoo boy, poor old Huckleberry! I'm surprised he didn't see that coming, considering other Arkansans who've been on both ends of the stick.  Maybe he didn't think they'd do it to a preacher, or he still hasn't figured out that it's the Republicans turn to take a dive like Kerry did. 

(btw- did anyone else pick up that kid that got tazed in Florida was asking Kerry why he didn't even try in '04, and the way Kerry just kept droning on his speech while the cops swarmed the screaming kid?)

 I think Kerry's trying to tell us that the worst part of surrender to the borg is having to fake enthusiasm, something Romney and Huck are going to have to figure out.  The other Republicans except Paul, are suitably grim visaged, as if they know they're the goat this time, "taking one for the team", remember Dole? 

 I wish I knew more sports terminology. What's the guy called that takes the dive in boxing?  Diver? Designated loser? Whatever, we're lucky the other Clinton isn't running again.

Robert Lindsay is the Coolest Commie Ever

I happened on Robert Lindsay's blog from a link on Entitled to an Opinion last night and then spent the next 4 or 5 hours reading fascinated until I had to knock off because my eyes hurt. I read about half of the site and I don't think I've ever been so excited about someone who's P.O.V I really can't determine.  He describes himself as "Independent Left journalist in California. Revolutionary, Christian, liberation theology, replacement theology, civil libertarian, mixed economy. BA Journalism, MA Linguistics, Green Party, Communist Party USA, Democratic Party. Generally, topics focused through a progressive (Old Left), though heterodox, lens. Pan-humanist universalist, yet despises the PC, Cultural Marxist, Identity Politics, Western New Left." Man, there sure are a lot of different flavors; sounds like a circular firing squad. 

   His stuff reads like a cross between Steve Sailor and Jared Taylor, but he is anti-racialist and considers Sailor a "lab-coat racist".  I used to read a lot of that sort of thing, but it mostly seems to go nowhere; on-the-one-hand-but-on-other-hand speculation, more Aristotle than Plato, but it's possible that its all just over my head.    His links list is broken down into a lot of categories, and he seems to hate the same people I do, such as Christopher Hitchens, whom he regards as a traitor to progressivism, rather than as traitor to the human race, as I believe.

Most importantly, he dislikes libertarians in the same way we're seeing the left attack Ron Paul; a gooey conglomerate of negative definitions of first principles (it's based on greed and fear), selective ignorance (e.g. Hayek couldn't get tenure in Germany) and guilt by association (many jerks and assholes are "libertarian-types"), circular reasoning and non-sequetor .  Since the guy is obviously smart, you have to believe, it's willful distortion, but in many other ways he's quite good and often hilarious.

   I was lucky I came to the site from a link, otherwise I would have not gotten beyond the "left journalist" description. I realize I'm somewhat closed-minded about it, but I lost interest in "the left" about 30 years ago when I finished college. I wasn't negative about it, just not willing to learn enough to challenge my own ignorance. Pre-internet, one had to actually work at research and it was difficult to find informed peers, especially among my lumpen associates drinking beer around the teevee.

I majored in poli sci so I had a rudimentary grasp of dialectics, but I never experienced anything close to the kind of thing that happens in an open internet thread where a thesis is kicked around in a multi-dimensional matrix of opinion and facts. Until recently I would form an opinion and hold it until something might dislodge it, which was unlikely since I would tend to filter out anything contrary to my half-formed view. I think most people do the same. I'm sure an informed Marxist would scorn the nebulous end-product as worse than simple ignorance, but I felt a need to stand somewhere, and wherever I was would have to do. Needless to say, this approach does not lead to setting the world on fire and I never even worked up to failure, but a middle-class white guy can usually muddle along if he doesn't make any major mistakes.

I think I consciously avoided exposure to Marxism out of fear that it might well lead to some sort of social awareness when I only wanted to preserve my self. This was strongly re-enforced when I became eligible for the draft after I dropped out in 1969 and moved to Boston, where the anti-war movement was very strong, to try to beat it. I lived with some movement people (Hi Jan and Carmen, wherever you are), but was never committed although I knew I was just a hippie parasite (as they constantly reminded me) but I also didn't want to risk going to jail to avoid going in the Army, where I would be more afraid of my compatriots than the Viet Cong. (see Full Metal Jacket - Pvt. Pyle) I just want you to know where I'm starting from.
.
Which brings me to his dismissal of Libertarianism (a word I hate because it sounds really dorky which I would prefer to be called Liberalism, but let it lie).

"Libertarianism is heavily made up of of healthy young men in the 20's and 30's making very good incomes."

Ignoring the income part he is generally correct, and we can stipulate that it is based on selfishness, but not affirmatively. It is generally defensive - we fear the government and will never trust it; if government is strong enough to give you what you want, it is strong enough to take it away, and it has reached the point where not only takes but can no longer deliver the services promised. I believe it now harms the vulnerable more than it helps them(e.g. Katrina), and at enormous cost in misallocated resources, corruption, and inefficiency. I think we can agree that what was sold with (possibly) good intentions, has degenerated into fascism; public means of control - private profit, and is actually destroying the very means of production to reward those best able to manipulate it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his rank". It's true that we may not care enough about the needy, but we should be able to work with progressives at least as far as ending this bullshit, and I think a lot of the left is coming around.

"Saying that almost all US racists and racialists are libertarian types is not the same as saying the obverse, and I would not be so wicked as to suggest that."

This was key for me in taking his arguments seriously on this subject, because, many on the left are saying that libertarians are objectively racist, and I just don't see it. I see an exact parallel in distinguishing between anti-semitic and anti-zionist. We would like to see an end to state support for the needy, principally because of moral hazard (the safety net was not meant to be a hammock), but we realize this may never come about; howevert we are determined to end welfare for the rich, whatever the consequences, because it never should have been allowed to begin in the first place and has become a runaway feedback loop, again due to moral hazard. The free market does not exist. When the wealthy make money, they keep it, when they lose money, we loan them more, and this is sold as protecting the vulnerable who would suffer in an economic downturn. "Give me money or I'll shoot this dog", it seems to me. This must end or there will literally be no wealth to redistribute, short of violent revolution, which tends to be a crapshoot for the aformentioned vulnerable.

It's funny that he mentions Steve Sailor, because before I got a good fix on his viewpoint, I thought the stuff on I.Q. and race was very similar to Sailors. I used to read him a lot, but got tired of it because I'm kind of skeptical of the whole I.Q. thing. Even if it's legitimate, which I doubt but am not qualified to argue about, it is only a matter of potential and most people don't use but some small fraction of it, and many bright people only use it to avoid being organized and hard-working; some even "too smart for their own good" or brought down by emotional problems of various sorts. I like Sailor's use of statistics, though, but I wish he'd move on to something less boring. In any case, there is no racial component to orthodox libertarianism that I've ever seen beyond "I am not my brother's keeper, nor is he mine". If someone wants to help Peter, that's great but don't use the government to rob Paul. I read libertarian stuff all day every day and I've never heard of Stastny or Lapite, and if they weren't squids I'm sure someone would have linked to them.  The only reason I even care about the racial aspect is because the Dems are going to try to paint Ron Paul as a racist when he runs against Hillary and I have to point out that it's not true. Ron Paul is bending over backwards (unnecessarily, imo) to assure people he will not destroy social programs; that his priority is ending the Empire. I hope progressives of good will (if there are any) will allow him to do that, and then fight him domestically, which shouldn't be too hard since the next congress should be almost 100% Dem (Inshallah). I have to say, I detested Bill, but Bush makes him seem like Thomas Jefferson.

"White Men Can't Bang"

You probably won't be surprised that I believe the questions posed in this piece are answerable by "It's the governments fault". Let me lay it out: To start with, there will never be full employment at the bottom of the ladder. With manufacturing gone from America there really isn't that much to be done anymore and almost all that's left are service jobs and mostly crappy low-paying ones at that. I can't find the quote but I think he said something like first generation immigrants are happy to have them compared to what was available at home. But second (I think he referred to them as anchor babies, but I still can't find the damned quote) and resident blacks have seen the good life and don't want the shit jobs, but do want the jack. Plus, one unintended consequence of welfare is that working for taxable income pays less than starting a family and living off of ADC moms, That leaves crime as the only alternative.

 Lumpen white guys are in the same situation, but really don't want to go to jail, which means selling powder or weed and being much more discrete, as I believe he pointed out. But minorities don't care as much, because they can survive in the joint much more easily if they're tuff enough and hang with their own. It's common to have the street dealers use newbies and kids do the hustling, because judges are more lenient on youthful first offenders. It's like apprenticing, and the older and/or previously convicted guys move up to management. Guns are just tools and the whole thing wouldn't happen if drugs weren't illegal, plus prisons are privatizing more and more and need clients. 

   On the other side is a similar hierarchy where lawyers start their careers as prosecutors and move into the big bucks as defense attorneys and only successful and organized dealers can afford them because their families sure can't. Most white families can afford these vultures one or two times after which the chump is on his own and better go hardcore and affiliate or do time solo, not a good choice. If prohibition were ended this whole sick system comes down, which is the main reason I'm a libertarian. Originally, I just wanted to smoke some weed without risking my world; now I want to jam a wrench in the wheels. That asshat William Bennett said that druggies would be criminals even if drugs were legal and now I kind of see his point, because the underlying poverty would still be there, but this little scam would end because the vertical monopoly would be broken.

This is a good explanation of the white crime in the 30's. Those guys got their start during prohibition and needed something to replace the liquor trade during the depression and the newly empowered FBI needed a new scam as well which Hoover cemented by PR campaign against the real but highly glorified wave of amateur bank robberies and kidnapping by Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde et.al. Not to mention Anslinger and the wholly fictitious evil marijuana curse. This tided all the parasites over until the mob moved into gambling and prostitution and the feds followed their PR noses into busting the dreaded communists and nazis. Symbiotic, symmetric consolidation of respective turfs.

Finally (you may hope), I have to say he totally convinced me about Mugabe. I don't pay much attention to Africa at all anymore. It's too depressing to contemplate. I think the original and on-going problem was tribalism, which was greatly responsible in allowing slavery and colonialism to flourish there, but the lingering damage from colonialism, and especially sanctions which always and only hurt the most vulnerable, can only be described as tragedy and a crime. It's difficult to think of whites as other than a malignant tumor on the earth.

Jeff Tucker on Manners

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker89.html
I was just dragged to a black-tie dinner for the induction of my father-in-law into some self-congratulatory Washington business group. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit I don't even know which group, but Vernon Jordan and the head of the Carlyle Group were also inducted so it must be a pretty big deal. There was a stand up reception before dinner where I noticed all the lesser fish "networking" and chatting, which I couldn't do because it was too noisy and my wife said no politics.
I actually overheard three different people ask someone else what they "do" and was encouraged to leave my "business card" for some raffle, and at dinner I listened to a developer and a lawyer talk shop the whole time except when someone on stage was talking about either how great their friend was or how much they loved their families and what a great country we live in. I did remember to put my napkin in my lap, although not immediately because it was folded up like a limp fan and at first I thought it was part of the table decoration or something, but I can only hope no one was watching me because, thanks to your piece, I'm sure I was holding my fork incorrectly. I certainly wouldn't want anyone in the Carlyle Group or Akin, Gump to think I was a pig!
I'm not sure this is a question of etiquette, but was it rude of me to wish that the waiters and bartenders were really al-quaida and on pre-arranged signal, jumped up and murdered everyone there except my family and the inarticulate little black Junior Achievement girls who were used as props to show what generous humanitarians were the Washington businessmen? Because, I really detest them on so may levels and I'm not sure I can wait for President Paul to send them all back to ambulance chasing and selling liquor to the Indians. But I don't want to be thought unsophisticated.

An interesting discussion of anti-anti-semitism at Taki's Top Drawer by my hero Paul Gottfried.  I'm sorry I can't feel any solidarity, racial or otherwise, with whites as such. Although I know very few non-"whites", white Americans in general seem mostly ignorant, often stupid, self-centered, lazy and undisciplined, and vaguely fearful of anything unfamiliar. Observing them shopping and dining in their sports clothes and running shoes, one thinks of cattle or sheep. Our education system produces employees of various levels of competence but almost zero culture or sophistication. Their music (especially Country) makes me wish I were deaf and most of their women make me wish I were blind. 

Sid Cundiff's (in the comments) view of Americans as debased Englishmen is spot on; whenever I hear some moron complain about "the jews" I mentally substitute "the British" and it generally makes more sense. The British have been the cause of more human misery by orders of magnitude than anything "the jews" could possibly gin up, and now we seek to inherit their empire and even outdo them in evil and cynicism. Fortunately for the rest of the world we're too lazy and incompetent to do it. The very white George W has undone in seven years what took the British five centuries to screw up. White pride? "Fech!"

“War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” Ambrose Bierce

From this old gringo concerning the present situation in Pakistan to Chapati Mystery.



This is really not covered by the American media, beyond “some things are happening to some people, blah blah, Musharref, blah blah, the army, blah blah Benazir Bhutto” (photo’s of whom invariably make her look like a hot Mother Teresa with a fashion consultant). I almost feel too ignorant to comment, but if you put what we’re seeing so far with the various color revolutions in eastern europe and eurasia, one sees rat tracks all over the place. My ignorance aside, I would like to submit this eye-opener, even considering the source obviously may have an axe to grind. Read the whole thing - I don’t know what to think of the death of her father, astounding if true.



Aunt Benazir’s false promises

Bhutto’s return bodes poorly for Pakistan — and for democracy there.
By Fatima Bhutto
November 14, 2007
KARACHI — “We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law — shutting down all private news channels — has been drafted.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she’s saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she’d like to make a deal with his opponents — but still, she says, she’s the savior of democracy.

The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)

Ms. Bhutto’s political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf’s regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship. …”

My hope is the internet can facilitate those Americans who want out of SE asia to see how much we have in common with the other neo-colonials of the world and more importantly how huge is our huge (even of relatively well-informed and educated) ignorance of the cultures and politics of the region.
“War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” Ambrose Bierce

british gopniks

Links are kind of lame but try this
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8736&IBLOCK_ID=35

Highlights;

"Britain is the land of the Chav. It's Chavland, Chavistan, Chavskaya Federatsiya, the United Chavdom. A land of cultureless, junkfood-eating, malnourished, pasty white trash scum that can barely speak, let alone read, and forms the basis of one of the most odious cultures in the world - modern Britain. The chav is the king of the Binge Britain jungle.

What, exactly, is a chav? Difficult question. The word itself is relatively new, appearing three or four years ago. Some claim it stands of "Council House Average", others that it was thought up by posh girls at Cheltenham Ladies College to talk about the locals - "Cheltenham Average". But, suddenly, in 2004, I got off the Aeroflot flight from Moscow after a six-month break from the UK, and Britain had gone chav crazy."


"Sometimes Chavs not only forget their manners, but how to flip people off in British
It's weird how something is so terribly wrong with drinking culture in England; part of a Northern European phenomenon that tends to affect places where it's too cold to sit out on your pleasant cobbled central square and quaff a glass of chilled white wine while discussing existentialist philosophy. Spaniards, French, Italians - they might drink a lot, but at least they do it in a civilized manner. Brits just down as much booze as they can, before lumbering out of the pub and vomiting in the street. Looking for a fight, or just the first opportunity to pull his flick-knife on any language student with a half-decent mobile phone."

I'm STILL feeling a draft

Since I was about eighteen I've wondered why the draft was limited to young men. In a real democracy at war, it seems everyone that was mentally and physically able should serve and that all defence industries would be nationalized for the duration. Aside from basic fairness it would be a powerful incentive to avoid unnecessary wars. A fifty-something overweight and out-of-shape person such as myself probably wouldn't do too well hiking around Afganistan with an eighty pound pack, but we could drive trucks and move supplies and such. A lot of people have commented that most Americans have not been at all inconvenienced by the Iraq police action and would tend to be much less aggressive if they knew they would be directly involved.
I've long been interested in how black people were treated in the Armed forces - how they could fight for "democracy" when they were systematically and offically segregated in civilian life and also in the services, for whatever reasons. I admit my original interest was racist - I noticed that we had not won a war since the services were integrated and I didn't believe it was coincidental, but I saw a teevee documentary recently about ww2 in Europe, that mentioned an all-black logistics unit supplying Patton, and the pieces started to come together. Patton was continuosly bogged down driving toward Germany by lack of fuel which fit well with my original, obviously racist, hypothesis that blacks may have been less than enthusiastic about getting killed rushing unarmed and probably lightly escorted tankers in service to the Man in a dangerously fluid and undefined front for two dollars a day. I'm sure there were many with a stong sense of duty that could overlook the irony in being essentially slaves fighting for democracy, but I would have had a strong attitude problem with segregation eighty years after the civil war. We were very fortunate that black people were so patient and forebearing for so long, and I believe that their experiences in the war contributed to the acceleration of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's.
Without a draft, logistics and support have become almost prohibitivly expensive. Soldiers still get paid diddly, but this helps explain why privatised war is ruinously expensive and inefficient and why we will never win another war bigger and more distant than Grenada.

Webb Amendment

Has anyone seen an explanation of the senate vote which was 55 to 45 (approx.) in favor but it didn’t “advance” Wtf?

[The 56-44 vote, “four short of reaching the 60 needed to advance — all but assured that Democrats would be unable to muster the support needed to pass tough anti-war legislation by year’s end.”] - AP

I’m guessing that it’s because it’s an amendment it needs 60 votes instead of 51. How about if it were a standalone Bill? At least send it to the chimp and make him veto troop support. Oh yeah, and once again John Warner sells out while posing as a patriot opposing the President’s war. I'm proud to say that I voted for Webb in the primary and general elections and if the Va Republicans don't get their shit together, the next Senator Warner might be 60th vote.

I should know more about the process of making law, because I have a degree in Political Science, but the only thing I carried away was that it was designed to eliminate non-serious legislation, normally a good thing. Since the founders could not have forseen giving so much power to the executive and the senate was supposed to represent the States' interests, I don't think the problem is procedural. The Congress is Plato's cave.

I’m proud to say that I voted for Webb in the primary and general elections and if the Va Republicans don’t get their act together, the next Senator Warner might be 60th vote. Plus, he’s a Dem that’s good on guns. Interesting times… I have no faith in our political system, but they somehow keep bringing me back in. Sucker.

Wouldn't it be nice...

If OJ and Britney got married and moved to Portugal to help the McCann's find the real killer.

The Fox Republican "debate" was somewhat surprising in that, aside from the expected ill-treatment of Ron Paul, they also ripped Romney for his past remarks, already retracted and apologized for, and didn't give the any of the others a clear win. I suspect that the tactics are still evolving on the best way to dispose of Dr. Paul. (full disclosure - I love conspiracy theories, but only for speculative exercise). In one of the previous debates, I first thought ABC made a mistake by giving RP as much rope as they did in the "debate" with Stephanopolos, but I came to think that they were allowing him to make the other Republicans look bad, which he did. If they had completely ignored him which I had assumed they would do, it would have allowed the others to coast on their strengths while ignoring the war.

I think Fox is doing something similar. I also noticed them dumping on Romney, but I felt they were also letting Guiliani and McCain hoist themselves with their respective prissy and robot personnae. They(Rudy McRomney) got the word not to shoot down at RP and leave it to the other dwarves to handle him. I'm surprised that the hit man wasn't Duncan Hunter, but he probably doesn't have the mental horsepower to go toe-to-toe with Paul, ditto Tancredo. The mini-debate was also a big surprise to me, especially on Fox, because, as you noted, they can just leave the slime to the moderators.

Bottom line, Fox is also trying to weaken the Republican side, for Fred (who I think will be the designated loser [think Bob Dole] in the general election to Hillary), or ultimately, for Hillary, when the neocons jump the Republican ship. Here's why I love conspiracies; Fred has lymphoma, so his VP will be important - they can get someone smart to balance Fred, in which case they can keep their war going for at least 4 more years, or worst case Hillary wins and they can keep their war going indefinitely.

So far, they've all underestimated Dr. Paul, I hope they have underestimated the People as badly.

First Let's Stop Killing People

The new Machiavellism, the manipulation of ethnic religious and nationalist groups for long-range strategic advantage, as illustrated in the Balkans and Iraq can also be seen at work in American domestic politics. The puzzling, yet undeniable split (although never joined) in the anti-war "movement", is such a case; the attitudes of the various sub-groupings, especially the leadership contribute substantially to it's ineffectiveness. "Divide and conquer" would seem to be the prime directive and Agency the primary method. Of whom, it doesn't really matter; supply your own villain, let's say The Devil uses some quirk of human nature to invariably cause human differences to outweigh similarities.

The divide in the anti-war camp is curious, in that it seems to be caused more by mutual blind spots rather than overt hostilities. Small-l libertarians are used to this, having been ignored for so long. We like to think it's because we're too difficult to defeat intellectually, rather than being numerically not worth the effort, but if libertarians have a blind spot it's occupied by the left, whose many, many species and sub-species, that for us share one characteristic; good or bad, their ideas won't work because people suck. I love the ideals of the left up to when they need to start cracking eggs to make omelets, because I see myself as more likely brunch than bruncher. My job as a citizen is to try and prevent collateral damage from programs undertaken in my name, precisely because I can't control these programs. A pro-active golden rule;
do not allow others to do unto you that which would be undesirable if done unto them.


Backing Democrats Has Pulled the Anti-War Movement to the Right
Why "Inside-Out" is a Dead End
By ELIZABETH SCHULTE
http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte04232005.html

This is the second article I've read referring to "the anti-war movement" as being a subset of progressives who have been ignored by the Democratic Party. As she puts it
"We have to build an antiwar movement that not only recognizes the Democratic Party’s shortcomings, but understands that it is part of the problem."

Hey!Elizabeth! Get a clue; there are a whole bunch of non-progressives who are anti-war and understand that the DP is part of the problem. Ya'll can't see us, but we're here. We also recognize that the UN is part of the problem, and every other organization that uses our taxes to work against out interests, but we will work with you in anyway to end USG imperialism. It's not so much we are unconcerned about the third world and don't want to help, but that we have no control over what's done in our name with the taxes that are coerced from us. We, though invisible, were here first, and may be forgiven for thinking that progressives helped enable Bush when they allowed Clinton to "save" the Bosnians and Kosovars. If that was okay, then you're not anti-war, you're anti-Republican war, but we say Welcome Aboard, let's do this thing!

From Pullo to Pullet

It's ironic that as I get older and inevitably more conservative, I am much more cautious in my personal habits. When I was twenty-five I would routinely pound as six pack and race my motorcycle through heavy traffic to get to the next party. Thirty years later I don't party at all, and drive an SUV at legal rates. Even my father in law thinks I'm boring. This is pretty much par as we get older, but how as a nation did we get to be such pussies? The descendants of the hardy and brave pioneers seem to have become solely concerned with comfort, health and security.

On tv today I see a clip of what looks to be about 15 cops, all with weapons drawn, nervously encircling a large black man waving a knife. I understand that they shot and killed him, although this wasn't shown, probably in the “hail of bullets” mode. I can only conclude that the cops must be really, really afraid of black guys with knives. I have to think it was “suicide by cop” but I don't see how dangerous the guy would have been with a couple of 9mm's in his knees. It's got to be a result of the training police get to shock and awe perps by screaming and trying to intimidate them; the cops end up scaring themselves. Pussies. Dirty Harry never even broke a sweat.

This is one reason we're going to lose in Iraq. We are a nation of paranoid pussies that has to use excessive force in every situation. Our soldiers are brave and tough enough, but the home front is not behind them; as a whole people, we don't have the balls. I'm embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with such a lame bunch.

I'm Still feeling a Draft

I lost my student deferment in 1969 when I quit college after one year. At that time (before the lottery) I knew I would be drafted and soon was ordered to undergo a "pre-induction" physical, which I easily passed. I was determined not to be drafted (as an immature, self-centered and spoiled baby-boomer, I was more afraid of DI's than combat itself - think Pvt. Pyle in Full Metal Jacket). I had heard that there were shrinks in Boston that would certify one as mentally unfit, so I hitched up there and enrolled in group-therapy sessions after being certified as paranoid (ha!) and delusional. I knew the important thing was documentation, but I was determined to use any means necessary including going to jail, as I figured civilian jail would be better than military.

Fortunately for me, they came up with the lottery system in 1970, and I returned to normal life, albeit with a large and permanent chip on my shoulder towards involuntary servitude. I did not and do not see any reason for the War but I didn't really care about it as long as I was not involved directly. Obviously, this selfishness is not something that a good father would promote in his children, but I feel that the social contract is nullified if society allows what is in effect slavery. I do support a strong military and think the answer to manpower problems is better pay, period. If they would have fewer unnecessary wars, it would also be helpful.

The tricky part of getting a mental deferment is being convincing without actually going nuts. I'm not sure that I was completely successful; I maybe somewhat paranoid and even delusional, but compared to some vets I've known I'm Dr. Phil. Also, I don't really know what metric would be used in determining unsuitability; if one was really psychotic, one might make an excellent soldier, for all I know. However, society has become much more attentive to individual problems than in my day, although the army is still going to take whatever it can get and round off the square pegs as necessary. There's also the whole issue of sexuality. I say that I would have done anything to avoid service, but in fact I did not check the homosexual tendencies box out of actual fear that they might make me prove it somehow. Like Dick Cheney, I had better things to do...

The bottom line is every kid (but especially boys) should have a long and well-documented medical impairment of some sort, mental or physical that would preclude military service. This is long-standing practice; I remember how everyone of the doomed on the bus back from Richmond felt about the loud-mouth college boy waving his TB x-ray around. I turned out to be lucky in the lottery, but if they're really after grunts, luck won't cut it. If they restart the draft, resistance will build quickly, but each individual needs to have a personal resistance plan in reserve. Again, I'm not saying that military service is evil in itself, and for some guys, maybe most, it can be a good thing, but for some it is devastating. These guys need to plan ahead, and a parent can help.

I'm sure they will try to resurrect the draft, probably under a "national service" rubric to which I still object. Involuntary servitude is slavery, before and after the 13th amendment, despite what courts may hold.









Anti-Semitism

I don't know if anti-Semitism is the correct term for hating Arabs, although they are said to be Semitic. For the purposes of this discussion I will use it to mean hatred of stereotypical Arabs by, especially ignorant American jerks, but my thesis is that much of Jewish hatred for Arabs is indistinguishable from this vulgar, “mountain grown” if you will, racism. This is an old and accepted stereotype in America; I remember seeing a Porky Pig cartoon from the '30's where he defended a foreign legion post under assault by hook-nosed, sneaky Bedouins. This cartoon was drawing on older, probably ancient, views of Arabs as slave-traders and smugglers, and were still current until very recently, even well after such views of Africans and Asians were no longer generally acceptable.

My own view is that a racist is one who expresses any of the dark thoughts that are resident in most, if not all, sane minds; racism as a mild form of Tourettes. I'm sorry to say that I instantly tag everyone I meet by their most obvious characteristics and will instantly align my behaviour and attitude to these tags, very like the inheritance model in programming, where the new object inherits it's properties and methods from it's class (stereotype). I might think “fat slob” when meeting someone overweight and poorly dressed, but I don't say it, if only to avoid being labled with “stupid fool”. I suspect most other people objectify in much the same way, although their tags may be more sophisticated or polite. My own struggle is with my internal Archie Bunker, sorry to say, but it forces me to control my behaviour and modify the object as evidence requires.

It may be that everyone shares the same well of prejudices and is simply able to exempt himself and others like him. I've often wondered why there doesn't seem to be effective epithet for white person. Cracker, red-neck, ofay, even if said with heartfelt hatred, just don't sting (although I've never been called a Republican; that might hurt). I can only assume that I am able to somehow psychologically deny that I am that objectional thing, and I think this works for most people. I once told my friend Hari that Indians seemed to believe they were the best people in the world, and he told me that they indeed think they are superior, contrary to historical evidence, and I would assume Arabs reserve similar sentiments for themselves or at least their tribes. Having been forever under foreign occupation and rule, craftiness, cynicsm and self-interest are primary virtues. I don't think they hate us because we are greedy; that they understand. It's our uncanny success in spite of our laxness and ignorance of history and culture that's got to irritate. They know we can't stick it out.

A man, a plan, a canolli

"Don't just stand there, do something!" Although sometimes handy in emergencies, this is not really a way to order your life. Even in emergencies it's best to have at least a rudimentary plan and consider potential consequences of action. Sometimes just standing there is the best course, or at least I tell myself going into my fourth year of unemployment. How can a bum help? you might well arsk.

Although each person has some degree of thought and action, we artificially divide people into doers and thinkers, but each group needs the other. Where would nascar be without spectators? Most nascar drivers don't finish in the top ranks and know they never will but are important to the enterprise. In this sense, even the last guy is a winner. American society has internalized this enterprise ethic.

There are some doers who are regarded as losers, but not by me, because anyone who is trying but not suceeding is still a winner compared to a thinker who does nothing but observe [and make a lot of sarcastic remarks, but this isn't just about me].