Warning:
I just returned from my next-door neighbor's home, and he is not happy unless his guests have partaken generously of certain libations. If this post seems a bit disorganized, it is Chuck's fault....
________________________________________________________
While at Hillsdale College, I had the opportunity to study under a bona fide intellectual. Dr. Alexandras Shtromas not only possessed an elevated mind, he had experience in the world outside the ivory tower.
I still remember being a freshman: young--so wonderfully young--confident, and eager. Before classes even resumed, my roommate's sister--a sophomore--, informed me that this particular professor of political science did not give A's. Dr. Shtromas was from Eastern Europe, and he thought that American youths were raised on little more than MTV.
I took that as a challenge.
On the first day of class--a Tuesday--I met my friend, Bob Murphy (author of the blog "Free Advice,"--among other things--and one of the few people of whom I will admit is probably smarter than me--that's right, Bob, laugh it up. I admitted it--though only as "probably." Now it's your turn to admit that I have more hair on my head, can eat more tacos than you, and kick your ass in a fight. "Come on, bitch!"--inside joke).
I remember listening through Dr. Shtromas's thick Lithuanian accent and thinking, "I can do this." However, it would take some time for any confirmation.
Those of you who have been through college know that the bulk of any given class is just listening, taking notes on lectures, reading, taking notes on readings, and studying notes from lectures and readings.
Our first reading was the first few books of Aristotle's Politics. I read the first paragraph and thought, "Oh shit. I'm not getting an A in this class." In all sincerity, I knew the meaning of every one of Aristotle's words (as translated into English), but the style and construction was so unfamiliar to me that I despaired.
I even called my mom to tell her that I was in trouble. I read aloud to her the paragraph, and she also thought that I was in trouble. However, after reading the words aloud, something started to click. I told her to hold on, and I re-read it silently, and it clicked even more. Now excited, I told my mom that I was ok, I loved her (and that I needed some money), but that I needed to get back to work.
Many of the assigned readings were difficult. I remember wading through Kant's "Treatise on Perpetual Peace" and being struck by the two possible scenarios for peace: If men will not find a true avenue to live together peacefully, then we will all rest together in the peace of the graveyard.
Our mid-term essay had something to do with the legitimacy of Lycurgus's regime in Sparta. It was assigned on a Thursday and due to following Tuesday. I worked my butt off on it until I was certain that it was probably the most insightful essay written about Lycurgus's regime.
A week later, we received our papers. I earned a true A, and I was beaming with pride. However, it was of Bob's paper that the professor spoke: "If you wish to write a good essay, then talk to Bob Murphy."
"Holy crap!" I thought. How good was Bob's essay?
It turns out that Bob's essay was an A-. That's right, an A freaking minus. I earned a higher grade (on that one, at least--nothing was said of subsequent tests or papers), but Bob received all of the honors. It's kind of like how his blog has so many readers and receives such insightful comments from intellectuals such as some brilliant and sexy guy who calls himself Aristos, but my blog is stuck with comments from BAR and "Howling Mad" Murdock (Golf Guy has, apparently, left the building).
But in the end, all of that whining represents nothing more than the recollections of a bruised ego that desperately wanted recognition. Everything of Bob's that I've ever read has been excellent, so he indeed deserved to be noted. I've played way too many video games over the past decade to pull of some kind of rightly-slighted academic attitude. Besides, I ended up with an A in the class--despite the warning that it was virtually impossible--and that alone was reward enough. (Though when I think of it I still give a good Stephen Colbert-esque "BOB!!!!!")
It was in Dr. Shtromas's class that I first read George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984. For a few years, my insights made me into a monarchist--according to the model of Plato's standards for philosopher-kingship--for I could not accept that democracy would find its way through the darkness (I just knew that Federalist #10 was wrong).
To support this monarchical fancy, I grew fond of Machiavelli's writings. I especially related to the idea that one must set aside ideals in favor of the present reality (as if ideals and not the present reality were the problem). My thinking was that people were too damn stupid to figure out how things should be done, so a good leader needed to stoop to a low level, seize control, and gradually show what should be done.
Yeah, I was a retard for a brief period.
If you are offended by my use of the word "retard" (literally meaning "slow"), then substitute either Democrat or Republican. However, if that confuses your understanding of "corrupt" or "evil," then just grow up and get over the semantics--unless you're retarded.
In more recent years, I have realized that the problem isn't the kind of government. The real problem is that some people assume that they have some kind of natural right/ability to govern everyone else (e.g. because they have money, military power, or the support of enough to call "the masses"). History proves that Plato's philosopher-king is humanly impossible. The only king who ever lived on this planet and didn't tyrannize anyone was Jesus of Nazareth--and look at what people did to him. (How's that for a model-king. Let your people murder you in a fashion so terrible that only Mel Gibson could imagine it, then forgive them for so doing).
Over time I began to realize that left alone, human beings act according to their own interests, and that it is in human beings' interest to act in a way that leads to the natural formation of mutually beneficial societies. That's right. Peaceful, social interaction is natural.
You might know some fool who says something like, "If there was no government, then everyone would run around shooting each other!"
Ask yourself, is the government the only thing that keeps you from running around and shooting everyone in sight? Of course not. You don't do that because it is not in your interest to do that. You know by (natural) instinct that, if you want to accomplish much of anything, you need the support and consent of your neighbors.
The greatest government, then, isn't the one that takes people's money, but the one that leaves people to spend their own money. A truly good government doesn't tell people what to do, but makes sure that people are free to do what they wish to do.
Paine was almost right when he said, "The government is best which governs least."
But Thoreau was dead-on right when he said, "That government is best which governs not at all."
The vast bulk of my significant political insights began in that class, and so sad I am to remember that Dr. Alexandras Shtromas is dead. He--so intimidating, so willing to call his classes a bunch of stupid Americans who only knew how to watch MTV--was the first of the stepping-stones upon which I lit upon from Hades, across the river Styx, and into the place of real sunlight described by Plato in Socrates's Allegory of the Cave.
I know that this was a rather "round-about" way to give tribute to the late Dr. Shtromas, but I've had a few "beverages," and I just read a eulogizing article by one of his friends.
Call me sentimental, but it made me think about the man who once made me feel so small, then made me feel so grand--not as grand as, say, Bob Murphy, but screw him: I earned a full A on that mid-term and for the class!
I know that this tribute is several years late, but nonetheless I am compelled to say thank you, Dr. Shtromas, and rest in peace.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Economic AIDS
In George Orwell's 1984, a disturbing--inasmuch as it seems prophetic--novel depicting the logical end of socialism, the government is able to harness its people's misery and frustrations and direct them away on a scapegoat: Emmanuel Goldstein.
Non-fictional governments have learned this lesson from 1984--always have an enemy. So long as there is an enemy, he can be blamed for all that is wrong with the world--his presence-at-large also serves as a justification for otherwise blatantly tyrannical actions by the state.
Think about it. The U.S. government used Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for this purpose. Every few months, an Osama tape emerges to remind us that we need to support a foreign policy that tarnishes our reputation, spits upon our principles, and is leading us nowhere except bankruptcy and death.
Today, the two minutes of hate are directed at the CEOs of the failed Wall Street firms. The line seems to be that their reckless investing/swindling caused the whole bubble to burst, and the fact that these CEOs can leave their posts and retire in comfort is an affront to our senses--seeing as how we, the taxpayers, are about to get stuck with the bill.
However, I would like to offer a different perspective.
The "bubble" that the CEOs "burst" was created by the federal reserve. For several years, Alan Greenspan opened the floodgates of cheap, accessable money. This encouraged consumption, not savings; and progress is built upon the latter, not the former.
Human beings respond predictably to incentives, so shouting at mortgage firms and the like for taking unnecessary risks is like shouting at a dog for grabbing a t-bone steak that you'd carelessly left in his food bowl. Considering the dog grabbing a t-bone scenario, you would call the person who put the steak in the dog's bowl the real moron.
Seriously, it's like those parents who let their kids sleep over at the Neverland Ranch. What did you think might happen?
Indeed, bad federal money policy has been at the root of every major economic depression in American history (see the Panic of 1837 and the Great Depression). "Recessions" (which seem to be lower calorie depressions) tend to be caused similarly by bad policy. History lesson: The economy sucked in the 1780's because we had just finished fighting a war that our government had financed by loans backed by credit that was negligible. The economic problems of the 1780s had nothing to do with a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. It had everything to do with the fact that the Continental Congress had spent millions of dollars that didn't really exist.
The real enemy, proper target for today's "Two Minutes of Hate" should be the federal reserve and Secretary Paulson. The Secretary's economic theory seems to be that the best way to cure the economy is to weaken the dollar.
Let's think about that for a minute. A weaker dollar means a weaker economy. So we're going to cure our weaker economy by making it even weaker?
Imagine a doctor who saw that his patient was dying of systemic lupus erythematosus--an autoimmune disease that causes the body's own immune system to attack its own organs. Next, imagine that this doctor reasoned that the pesky immune system itself is the problem. No immune system, no problem--right? So this doctor injects the patient with the human immunodeficiency virus. With a little luck--actually, just a little time--the HIV will infect enough t-cells to bring upon the collapse of the entire immune system. Once the HIV has caused AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome), that troublesome immune system is gone. Hell yes, that lupus is cured!
So when the president talks about how necessary his proposed bailout is, just remember that he's curing lupus with AIDS.
Non-fictional governments have learned this lesson from 1984--always have an enemy. So long as there is an enemy, he can be blamed for all that is wrong with the world--his presence-at-large also serves as a justification for otherwise blatantly tyrannical actions by the state.
Think about it. The U.S. government used Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for this purpose. Every few months, an Osama tape emerges to remind us that we need to support a foreign policy that tarnishes our reputation, spits upon our principles, and is leading us nowhere except bankruptcy and death.
Today, the two minutes of hate are directed at the CEOs of the failed Wall Street firms. The line seems to be that their reckless investing/swindling caused the whole bubble to burst, and the fact that these CEOs can leave their posts and retire in comfort is an affront to our senses--seeing as how we, the taxpayers, are about to get stuck with the bill.
However, I would like to offer a different perspective.
The "bubble" that the CEOs "burst" was created by the federal reserve. For several years, Alan Greenspan opened the floodgates of cheap, accessable money. This encouraged consumption, not savings; and progress is built upon the latter, not the former.
Human beings respond predictably to incentives, so shouting at mortgage firms and the like for taking unnecessary risks is like shouting at a dog for grabbing a t-bone steak that you'd carelessly left in his food bowl. Considering the dog grabbing a t-bone scenario, you would call the person who put the steak in the dog's bowl the real moron.
Seriously, it's like those parents who let their kids sleep over at the Neverland Ranch. What did you think might happen?
Indeed, bad federal money policy has been at the root of every major economic depression in American history (see the Panic of 1837 and the Great Depression). "Recessions" (which seem to be lower calorie depressions) tend to be caused similarly by bad policy. History lesson: The economy sucked in the 1780's because we had just finished fighting a war that our government had financed by loans backed by credit that was negligible. The economic problems of the 1780s had nothing to do with a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. It had everything to do with the fact that the Continental Congress had spent millions of dollars that didn't really exist.
The real enemy, proper target for today's "Two Minutes of Hate" should be the federal reserve and Secretary Paulson. The Secretary's economic theory seems to be that the best way to cure the economy is to weaken the dollar.
Let's think about that for a minute. A weaker dollar means a weaker economy. So we're going to cure our weaker economy by making it even weaker?
Imagine a doctor who saw that his patient was dying of systemic lupus erythematosus--an autoimmune disease that causes the body's own immune system to attack its own organs. Next, imagine that this doctor reasoned that the pesky immune system itself is the problem. No immune system, no problem--right? So this doctor injects the patient with the human immunodeficiency virus. With a little luck--actually, just a little time--the HIV will infect enough t-cells to bring upon the collapse of the entire immune system. Once the HIV has caused AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome), that troublesome immune system is gone. Hell yes, that lupus is cured!
So when the president talks about how necessary his proposed bailout is, just remember that he's curing lupus with AIDS.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Hockey Mom's Speak Out--Against Sarah Palin
Holy snap, to nerds like me it's like the election of 1800 all over again!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Unconstitutional Bail Outs
Who else cares that the federal government lacks the constitutional power to "bail out" failing companies?
Congress's powers are established by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for a list of these powers.
It doesn't matter if you think--however erroneously--that such "bail outs" are a good idea. If you support such action from Congress, then you support unconstitutional government. Tyranny is the historical consequence of unconstitutional government, so, if you support the "bail outs," then you support tyranny.
Congress's powers are established by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for a list of these powers.
It doesn't matter if you think--however erroneously--that such "bail outs" are a good idea. If you support such action from Congress, then you support unconstitutional government. Tyranny is the historical consequence of unconstitutional government, so, if you support the "bail outs," then you support tyranny.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Voting Strategy
Kid Rock recently stated that his voting record is informed by who Hollywood supports--meaning if Hollywood's elite supports major candidate A, then Kid Rock votes for major candidate B.
The only real problem with this is ignoring candidates C, D, E, and so on.
However, it's not unlike my own sentiments. Whomever the unions support, I tend to oppose. It doesn't mean that I will vote for major candidate B, but it does mean that I know fully well that candidate A (the union's man) is a piece of crap who would sell his soul for a vote.
The only real problem with this is ignoring candidates C, D, E, and so on.
However, it's not unlike my own sentiments. Whomever the unions support, I tend to oppose. It doesn't mean that I will vote for major candidate B, but it does mean that I know fully well that candidate A (the union's man) is a piece of crap who would sell his soul for a vote.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
New Posts
I'm adding a bunch of new funny posts to The Laughter Room. Check them out, if you want to laugh.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Chocolate Jesus
If you listen to the songs on my playlist.com widget, then click on "Chocolate Jesus," and tell me what you think.
The song is about little Jesus candies--or, as Waits claims, for those who simply have trouble waking up on Sunday morning.
My favorite verse from it is
When the weather is rough
And it's whiskey in the shade
It's best to wrap your savior
Up in cellophane.
He flows like the big muddy
But that's OK
Pour him over ice cream
For a nice parfait.
For those of you too lazy to search on my playlist, here's a link to Waits on Letterman.
It goes without saying that if you don't appreciate Waits, then it's probably because you're stupid (which is not the same as saying "If you don't like Waits, then you're stupid."--think on that before you're offended).
What the heck, click here to see Waits on Letterman.
The song is about little Jesus candies--or, as Waits claims, for those who simply have trouble waking up on Sunday morning.
My favorite verse from it is
When the weather is rough
And it's whiskey in the shade
It's best to wrap your savior
Up in cellophane.
He flows like the big muddy
But that's OK
Pour him over ice cream
For a nice parfait.
For those of you too lazy to search on my playlist, here's a link to Waits on Letterman.
It goes without saying that if you don't appreciate Waits, then it's probably because you're stupid (which is not the same as saying "If you don't like Waits, then you're stupid."--think on that before you're offended).
What the heck, click here to see Waits on Letterman.
Obama, McCain, Hope, and Crap
Obama claims to be the candidate for hope, so here it goes.
I hope that people finally read Article II of the Constitution and realize that you cannot F-up the country as much as you promise to do (if elected).
I hope that neither you (Obama) nor McCain wins the presidency.
The moral of the story is that you can hope in one hand and crap in the next.
See what you get first.
Come November 4, I can make an educated guess.
I hope that people finally read Article II of the Constitution and realize that you cannot F-up the country as much as you promise to do (if elected).
I hope that neither you (Obama) nor McCain wins the presidency.
The moral of the story is that you can hope in one hand and crap in the next.
See what you get first.
Come November 4, I can make an educated guess.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Mark and the Evil Demon
My five-year-old son, Mark, is an interesting fellow.
He is very stubborn at times, to the extent that I occasionally wonder if there isn't something wrong with him (he gets this from his mother... trust me).
However, he frequently reasons at levels well beyond his age--to the extent that he rather amazes me at times.
For example I will cite an event of last Sunday.
Natalie, aged 8, was invited to a birthday party at Jeepers (it's a kids place, not unlike Chuck-E-Cheese--you know, nasty but overpriced pizza, games, and rides). The party was scheduled for 1 PM, and Mark was devastated upon receiving the news that he would not be joining her.
I felt bad for the kid, for he has only just entered kindergarten, and he hasn't yet cultivated the kinds of temporal friendships that lead to such opportunities. Therefore, I resolved to take him to a movie during a time that would have him out of the house when Natalie was leaving.
I fully intended upon taking him to see the new (and awful) George Lucas production Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
At the same time, I like to mess with the kid for fun. So when, in transit to the theater, he asked me, "Dad, what movie are we going to see?" I told him, as sincerely as possible, that we were going to see a new, scary movie called Evil Demon.
"What's that movie about?" he asked with a daunted tone.
I proceeded to weave together the plots of several horror movies, but principally the concept of A Nightmare on Elm Street (which had so terrified me as a youth).
"I'm not gonna watch that movie," he stated. "It's probably rated R."
"Yes," I confessed, "it's rated R; but you're allowed into the movie since I will be there with you."
For the next several minutes, Mark proceeded to tell me that a good dad wouldn't take his little boy to a scary movie like Evil Demon, that he wanted to see Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and if I didn't want to get into trouble with mom, then I'd better take him to Star Wars.
Upon arriving at the theater and finding a parking place, Mark assured me that he would not get out of the car if we were going to see a movie called Evil Demon.
"Listen, buddy," I assured him, "just give the movie a few minutes. If at any time you are too scared than just let me know, and we'll leave."
That got him out of the car. However, his uneasiness was evident in that each of his steps consisted of a stride of about three centimeters.
Finally we arrived at the ticket counter, and I purchased the tickets for Star Wars in a voice low and quiet enough for him not to hear.
In the concession-stand line, Mark told me that if I took him to see a grown-up movie like Evil Demon, then the police would probably throw me in jail. I quickly produced my CPR card from my wallet and told him that this was a "Get out of jail free" card, so I wasn't worried.
At that he made a kind of grunting moan that reminded me of Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade.
Again with the short steps, we made our way to the theater, and brave but wary little Mark followed into the screen-room occupied by about two dozen others.
Once we were in our seats, I noticed that Mark turned around in his chair and started counting.
When he finished, he turned to me and said, "We're not seeing a movie called Evil Demon. We're seeing a movie called Star Wars: The Clone Wars."
"What makes you say that?" I asked.
He replied, "There's too many little kids here for such a scary movie."
Upon this observation, I let the cat out of the bag. I told him that he had reasoned well, and that I was proud of him for following me anyway--knowing somehow that I wouldn't take him to such a movie--but even more proud of how he figured out my ruse.
He is very stubborn at times, to the extent that I occasionally wonder if there isn't something wrong with him (he gets this from his mother... trust me).
However, he frequently reasons at levels well beyond his age--to the extent that he rather amazes me at times.
For example I will cite an event of last Sunday.
Natalie, aged 8, was invited to a birthday party at Jeepers (it's a kids place, not unlike Chuck-E-Cheese--you know, nasty but overpriced pizza, games, and rides). The party was scheduled for 1 PM, and Mark was devastated upon receiving the news that he would not be joining her.
I felt bad for the kid, for he has only just entered kindergarten, and he hasn't yet cultivated the kinds of temporal friendships that lead to such opportunities. Therefore, I resolved to take him to a movie during a time that would have him out of the house when Natalie was leaving.
I fully intended upon taking him to see the new (and awful) George Lucas production Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
At the same time, I like to mess with the kid for fun. So when, in transit to the theater, he asked me, "Dad, what movie are we going to see?" I told him, as sincerely as possible, that we were going to see a new, scary movie called Evil Demon.
"What's that movie about?" he asked with a daunted tone.
I proceeded to weave together the plots of several horror movies, but principally the concept of A Nightmare on Elm Street (which had so terrified me as a youth).
"I'm not gonna watch that movie," he stated. "It's probably rated R."
"Yes," I confessed, "it's rated R; but you're allowed into the movie since I will be there with you."
For the next several minutes, Mark proceeded to tell me that a good dad wouldn't take his little boy to a scary movie like Evil Demon, that he wanted to see Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and if I didn't want to get into trouble with mom, then I'd better take him to Star Wars.
Upon arriving at the theater and finding a parking place, Mark assured me that he would not get out of the car if we were going to see a movie called Evil Demon.
"Listen, buddy," I assured him, "just give the movie a few minutes. If at any time you are too scared than just let me know, and we'll leave."
That got him out of the car. However, his uneasiness was evident in that each of his steps consisted of a stride of about three centimeters.
Finally we arrived at the ticket counter, and I purchased the tickets for Star Wars in a voice low and quiet enough for him not to hear.
In the concession-stand line, Mark told me that if I took him to see a grown-up movie like Evil Demon, then the police would probably throw me in jail. I quickly produced my CPR card from my wallet and told him that this was a "Get out of jail free" card, so I wasn't worried.
At that he made a kind of grunting moan that reminded me of Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade.
Again with the short steps, we made our way to the theater, and brave but wary little Mark followed into the screen-room occupied by about two dozen others.
Once we were in our seats, I noticed that Mark turned around in his chair and started counting.
When he finished, he turned to me and said, "We're not seeing a movie called Evil Demon. We're seeing a movie called Star Wars: The Clone Wars."
"What makes you say that?" I asked.
He replied, "There's too many little kids here for such a scary movie."
Upon this observation, I let the cat out of the bag. I told him that he had reasoned well, and that I was proud of him for following me anyway--knowing somehow that I wouldn't take him to such a movie--but even more proud of how he figured out my ruse.
Monday, September 08, 2008
A Future Regret
Over the past five years, I have noticed a distinct decline in my hearing ability. When there is background noise especially, I cannot accurately make out what is being said by someone even just a few feet away from me.
I have seen a specialist, and he has confirmed a hearing impairment. However, it is not so bad as to require any kind of hearing aid. Instead, I just have to look the part of an idiot when I need to ask people to repeat themselves three or four times.
Alas, at least Beethoven could hear the symphony in his head well enough to put it to paper. Even while I hear yet, I cannot write even a ditty worthy of an Enzyte commercial (by the way, how's it working, Biobandit?).
Now when I hear fate knocking at the beginning of Beethoven's fifth, it takes on a whole new meaning. I fear that I am destined to bid adieu to music; decir vaya con dios a el sonido de mis ninos.
In the end, I will have no Ode to Joy of my own.
I say again, alas.
I have seen a specialist, and he has confirmed a hearing impairment. However, it is not so bad as to require any kind of hearing aid. Instead, I just have to look the part of an idiot when I need to ask people to repeat themselves three or four times.
Alas, at least Beethoven could hear the symphony in his head well enough to put it to paper. Even while I hear yet, I cannot write even a ditty worthy of an Enzyte commercial (by the way, how's it working, Biobandit?).
Now when I hear fate knocking at the beginning of Beethoven's fifth, it takes on a whole new meaning. I fear that I am destined to bid adieu to music; decir vaya con dios a el sonido de mis ninos.
In the end, I will have no Ode to Joy of my own.
I say again, alas.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Nectar, if not Ambriosia
John McCain's cola has passed its expiration date.
Barack Obama's cola tastes like almonds (probably from all the cyanide).
It's time to quench your thirst with a little pure cane sweetened Americana--the only cola that never violated Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution....
Barack Obama's cola tastes like almonds (probably from all the cyanide).
It's time to quench your thirst with a little pure cane sweetened Americana--the only cola that never violated Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution....
Thursday, September 04, 2008
A Lofty Thought
Much has been said about getting the "young people" to vote. "Young people" typically refers to those in the range of 18 to 25 years old.
Me, I would prefer that no one voted until the age of at least 25. On top of that, I would ask that they not receive government subsidies (e.g. welfare) of any kind. I would also suggest that only property owners should vote, for such people tend to protect property rights. Furthermore, I would suggest that anyone not vote whose "political knowledge" consists of crap that they've seen on television--an education in the true liberal arts tradition would be preferable.
Then again, what if no one voted? What if everyone just minded his or her own business (say a teacher and parent of three just said, "I'm going to teach students and raise my family)? What if there was no government to steal people's property and wage wars?
Let's not forget that governments have killed more people than smallpox, AIDS, cancer, and a myriad of other plagues combined.
Wouldn't it be grand if we all just took care of ourselves?
Me, I would prefer that no one voted until the age of at least 25. On top of that, I would ask that they not receive government subsidies (e.g. welfare) of any kind. I would also suggest that only property owners should vote, for such people tend to protect property rights. Furthermore, I would suggest that anyone not vote whose "political knowledge" consists of crap that they've seen on television--an education in the true liberal arts tradition would be preferable.
Then again, what if no one voted? What if everyone just minded his or her own business (say a teacher and parent of three just said, "I'm going to teach students and raise my family)? What if there was no government to steal people's property and wage wars?
Let's not forget that governments have killed more people than smallpox, AIDS, cancer, and a myriad of other plagues combined.
Wouldn't it be grand if we all just took care of ourselves?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Mitch Hedberg Insight
Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having.
Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic.
Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupus...
One of those two doesn't sound right.
--Comedian Mitch Hedberg
Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic.
Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupus...
One of those two doesn't sound right.
--Comedian Mitch Hedberg
Monday, September 01, 2008
Hurricane Gustav and Hope
Perhaps the most wonderful thing about Hurricane Gustav was that this time so many people left the area. Far fewer stayed under the assumption that Uncle Sam would, could, or should come down to save them.
Tropic Thunder
See Tropic Thunder. It's the funniest movie that I've seen in at least a decade. Both Robert Downy, Jr. and Tom Cruise deserve Oscar nods--and it pains me to say so because I so loathe Tom Cruise.
Mark on Presidential Politics
This is just me tinkering with the video from my cell phone and seeing if I could easily post it.
The clip is of Mark as he devours a giant ice cream cone. If you notice how much ice cream is on it, consider that he's already eaten at least a third of it by the time of video.
The clip is of Mark as he devours a giant ice cream cone. If you notice how much ice cream is on it, consider that he's already eaten at least a third of it by the time of video.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Union Graft
My mentor for my MA in American history is not a union member. In fact, he was involved in a lawsuit years ago over the fact that the equivalent of union dues were subtracted from his wages due to the fact that the union negotiated the contracts for all professors, including him, regardless of his position on unions.
He and his compatriots won the lawsuit, and he no longer sees money stolen by the union.
The reason that he won is interesting. Apparently, the court ruled that he did indeed owe the union money for negotiating the contract. However, what the union was taking was the same amount as its regular dues for union members--presumably this includes monies allocated for an assortment of other union functions (e.g. grievances, newsletters, red shirts, etc.).
The court instructed the union to deduct from non-union members' wages only the amount necessary for contract negotiations.
But he pays nothing to the union. Why? Because the union does not want its members to know how much/little is actually required to negotiate their contracts.
Unions are run by crooks, which is why it was so easy for the mafia to infiltrate them decades ago and why unions are among the most ardent supporters of the democratic party.
He and his compatriots won the lawsuit, and he no longer sees money stolen by the union.
The reason that he won is interesting. Apparently, the court ruled that he did indeed owe the union money for negotiating the contract. However, what the union was taking was the same amount as its regular dues for union members--presumably this includes monies allocated for an assortment of other union functions (e.g. grievances, newsletters, red shirts, etc.).
The court instructed the union to deduct from non-union members' wages only the amount necessary for contract negotiations.
But he pays nothing to the union. Why? Because the union does not want its members to know how much/little is actually required to negotiate their contracts.
Unions are run by crooks, which is why it was so easy for the mafia to infiltrate them decades ago and why unions are among the most ardent supporters of the democratic party.
Obama and Change
Obama is not the candidate for change. He is the candidate for more of the same kind of socialist evil that has come to define the populist side of the democratic party since even before FDR.
When you tell a crack addict that he needs to change, you don't mean that he should smoke more crack.
When you tell a crack addict that he needs to change, you don't mean that he should smoke more crack.
Monday, August 25, 2008
In God We Trust
I just received an email from someone begging me to vote on an msnbc poll regarding the presence of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.
The person who sent it to me assumed that I would "vote" to keep the motto on the currency since I believe in God.
However, if my faith hinges upon U.S. currency, how weak must my faith be? Our money is based upon nothing--not gold, not silver, not cow manure. Its value declines every year. Do I really wish such a thing to represent my faith?
If the U.S. were to stop using the words "In God We Trust" on its currency, would my faith decline? Of course it wouldn't, which is why this whole thing is ridiculous.
No one has been made a believer by those words on a quarter, and no one will be made a non-believer if those words are not on a quarter.
I'm so tired of this kind of symbolic crap. This is almost as annoying as when those people gather thinking that making giant quilts will cure AIDS, or that walking a modest distance will cure breast cancer or diabetes.
I honestly couldn't vote on the poll because I think (and let us not forget that this blog is called "What I Think") that all U.S. currency should be destroyed and replaced with something valuable. The most logical replacement would be something backed by gold or at least by silver.
Besides, if our money so trusted in God, then the Federal Reserve wouldn't have so much damn control over it.
The person who sent it to me assumed that I would "vote" to keep the motto on the currency since I believe in God.
However, if my faith hinges upon U.S. currency, how weak must my faith be? Our money is based upon nothing--not gold, not silver, not cow manure. Its value declines every year. Do I really wish such a thing to represent my faith?
If the U.S. were to stop using the words "In God We Trust" on its currency, would my faith decline? Of course it wouldn't, which is why this whole thing is ridiculous.
No one has been made a believer by those words on a quarter, and no one will be made a non-believer if those words are not on a quarter.
I'm so tired of this kind of symbolic crap. This is almost as annoying as when those people gather thinking that making giant quilts will cure AIDS, or that walking a modest distance will cure breast cancer or diabetes.
I honestly couldn't vote on the poll because I think (and let us not forget that this blog is called "What I Think") that all U.S. currency should be destroyed and replaced with something valuable. The most logical replacement would be something backed by gold or at least by silver.
Besides, if our money so trusted in God, then the Federal Reserve wouldn't have so much damn control over it.
Stop-Loss Final
I think that the ending of the movie is one of hopelessness.
To the government that was instituted to protect your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean jack squat.
To the government that was instituted to protect your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean jack squat.
Stop-Loss
I am presently watching the film Stop-Loss. I haven't finished it yet--I'm little more than 1/4 through it--so I might alter my opinion on this. Nonetheless, I'm going to shoot from the hip on this one.
The story seems to be that a distinguished soldier is about to be discharged from service, but is instead set to redeploy to Iraq due to a clause in his contract known colloquially as "stop-loss"--to stop too many able soldiers from leaving during a time of war. He protests, saying that since the president declared the war over (I presume this is a reference to Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" fiasco), the clause is invalid as it is no longer a time of war.
Since the president cannot declare war (read the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11?--it's Congress's power), he cannot end it. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that the president has the power to make treaties "with the advise and consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."
Based upon what I've seen so far, I sympathize with the soldier, but his legal/constitutional argument is not valid.
The moral of this story--based upon the 39 minutes that I have thus watched--is that the government should not be trusted.
By the way, that's the moral of the story in the history of every government that has ever existed and will ever exist.
The story seems to be that a distinguished soldier is about to be discharged from service, but is instead set to redeploy to Iraq due to a clause in his contract known colloquially as "stop-loss"--to stop too many able soldiers from leaving during a time of war. He protests, saying that since the president declared the war over (I presume this is a reference to Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" fiasco), the clause is invalid as it is no longer a time of war.
Since the president cannot declare war (read the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11?--it's Congress's power), he cannot end it. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that the president has the power to make treaties "with the advise and consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."
Based upon what I've seen so far, I sympathize with the soldier, but his legal/constitutional argument is not valid.
The moral of this story--based upon the 39 minutes that I have thus watched--is that the government should not be trusted.
By the way, that's the moral of the story in the history of every government that has ever existed and will ever exist.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Mike the Headless Chicken
Here's an interesting story that I caught on msn.com. The beheaded beast survived for a year and a half!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Lower the Drinking Age
In an article on www.msn.com, those who support lowering the drinking age to 18--among these supporters are many college presidents--were criticized by "a wave of criticism from health experts, transportation officials, government leaders and opponents of drunken driving."
So an 18 year old cannot decide for him or herself whether or not to have a beer/shot/glass, etc. because an 18 year old is not responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to know when he or she has had enough.
Is that it?
How absurd, then.
At age 18, a person is responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to vote in any public election--playing an important role in who controls the largest nuclear arsenal on the Earth.
But an 18 year old cannot be trusted with fermented beverages!
At age 18, a person can enlist in the military, be trained and equipped to kill (or die--though the training tries to minimize the latter and maximize the former)
, deployed in a foreign land--let's say Iraq or Afghanistan (just for shits and giggles)--but he or she is not old enough to order a glass of chianti (with faver beans) at the freaking Olive Garden?
Either raise the voting age and the minimum age for enlistment in the military, or drop the drinking age. I don't care how many mom's with too much time on their hands (and lonely and desperate for some kind of attention) stand in the way.
So an 18 year old cannot decide for him or herself whether or not to have a beer/shot/glass, etc. because an 18 year old is not responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to know when he or she has had enough.
Is that it?
How absurd, then.
At age 18, a person is responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to vote in any public election--playing an important role in who controls the largest nuclear arsenal on the Earth.
But an 18 year old cannot be trusted with fermented beverages!
At age 18, a person can enlist in the military, be trained and equipped to kill (or die--though the training tries to minimize the latter and maximize the former)
, deployed in a foreign land--let's say Iraq or Afghanistan (just for shits and giggles)--but he or she is not old enough to order a glass of chianti (with faver beans) at the freaking Olive Garden?
Either raise the voting age and the minimum age for enlistment in the military, or drop the drinking age. I don't care how many mom's with too much time on their hands (and lonely and desperate for some kind of attention) stand in the way.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Music
In case some of you have noticed, I have a music player installed on the site. To disable it--which you'll need to do in order to enjoy any video clips--just go to the bottom of the page and click on the pause button.
I'll try to change the position of the player to facilitate this a bit.
I'll try to change the position of the player to facilitate this a bit.
Clarification
In my previous post I noted that India had more billionaires in the top ten--not more billionaires total. And India's population doesn't account for this, otherwise there's be more billionaires in Bangladesh than Texas.
Monday, August 18, 2008
America and the Global Economy
Here's something that's bothering me:
Everyone is worried that the United States seems to be losing its position as the leader in global in economics.
To me this sounds more like xenophobia than anything.
So what if a few years down the road China outproduces the United States in its industrial output? This doesn't mean that the United States becomes poorer. It just means that more goods are being produced in China than in the United States.
If athlete A can run a mile in 4:45 min., but athlete B can run the mile in only 4:50 min., does that mean that athlete B is a pathetic loser? No, it just means that A can run a mile a little bit faster than B. An even better comparison, is that athlete A improves his mile time by 4 seconds, but athlete B improves his by only 2. The way that people are talking about global economics, it sounds more like athlete B had actually gotten slower, that athlete B is getting fat and lazy, that athlete B is liable to suffer cardiac arrest due to his lack of fitness.
Truly, if American-owned company X makes a 250 million dollar profit on a given year, it's considered by many to be a tragedy if Japanese/Chinese/Korean/non-Anglo-Saxon company Y makes a 350 million dollar profit.
The Dark Knight just recently surpassed Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on the all time highest grossing films list. This must mean that Star Wars sucks.
Weightlifter A bench pressed 600 pounds, but weightlifter B bench pressed 640 pounds. Hey weightlifter A, you're a wussy!
It's time to dispense with this mercantilist nonsense that economics is a competition between countries. The most recent article that I read regarding this issue bemoaned that there are only four American billionaires in the world's top 20 list of billionaires--and then a point was made that India (gasp!) had four in the top 10. Why is it an issue which country has the most wealthy billionaires? Are we afraid that these new Hindu billionaires will use their newly found wealth and power to replace our meat and potatoes with curry vegetables?
Friday, August 08, 2008
Fishing
For my birthday (today), my uncle, his friend, and my cousin took me salmon fishing in the San Juan's.
We caught no salmon, but I managed to reel in a rockfish--think really ugly fish with bulging eyes and spiney fins--and a dogfish--a small shark, about 2 1/2 feet long.
We also pulled up three crabs, two of which were keepers.
On top of this, I managed to catch a few too many rays. My face, forearms, and knees are bright red.
I'm not really that much into fishing, but I had a good time. It makes me think of the Brad Paisley song, 'I'm Gonna Miss Her," known to most as "The Fishing Song."
We caught no salmon, but I managed to reel in a rockfish--think really ugly fish with bulging eyes and spiney fins--and a dogfish--a small shark, about 2 1/2 feet long.
We also pulled up three crabs, two of which were keepers.
On top of this, I managed to catch a few too many rays. My face, forearms, and knees are bright red.
I'm not really that much into fishing, but I had a good time. It makes me think of the Brad Paisley song, 'I'm Gonna Miss Her," known to most as "The Fishing Song."
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Trailer
Rarely--very, very, very, very rarely--is a movie as good as the book upon which it was based.
This looks like it might be.
This looks like it might be.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
On Vacation But Still Working (Sorta)
Don't expect much of substance. I am in Seattle or Los Angeles until August 21st (we're going to both--the Seattle or Los Angeles isn't meant as a riddle).
However, I might be good for an occasional observation or mere youtube posting.
For example:
However, I might be good for an occasional observation or mere youtube posting.
For example:
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Idle Talk
Among the several minuscule things about me that my wife does not like, supreme among them is my general unwillingness to be dragged along somewhere just "to visit" someone, usually one of her relatives.
She accuses me of being "anti-social," but I protest. You see, these visits turn out to be the most mundane experiences known to man. They make the narration of a Dostoevsky novel look like the screenplay to a James Bond flick.
The worst part about these visits is that she springs them on me by surprise. We'll be out at Wall-Mart, so--just before I turn in the direction homeward--she says something like, "Well, since we're out here, let's visit so-and-so."
Now so-and-so are very nice, friendly, charming, all that good stuff kind of folks. However, to me, such a suggestion is like the sound of nails on the chalkboard. They're not going to talk with me about anything that I find interesting. If I'm going to have to spend a good two to three hours chatting with them, then I need time to consider material such as "So, I hear that Rossetti is coming out with a new accordion," or "I hear what you're saying, but I still think that Kristalnacht was unjustified to its core and essentially evil in every way."
I just can't make idle chat with people, no matter who they are. It's not that I don't like them or love them. It's that I am unequipped to engage in conversations about nothing.
She accuses me of being "anti-social," but I protest. You see, these visits turn out to be the most mundane experiences known to man. They make the narration of a Dostoevsky novel look like the screenplay to a James Bond flick.
The worst part about these visits is that she springs them on me by surprise. We'll be out at Wall-Mart, so--just before I turn in the direction homeward--she says something like, "Well, since we're out here, let's visit so-and-so."
Now so-and-so are very nice, friendly, charming, all that good stuff kind of folks. However, to me, such a suggestion is like the sound of nails on the chalkboard. They're not going to talk with me about anything that I find interesting. If I'm going to have to spend a good two to three hours chatting with them, then I need time to consider material such as "So, I hear that Rossetti is coming out with a new accordion," or "I hear what you're saying, but I still think that Kristalnacht was unjustified to its core and essentially evil in every way."
I just can't make idle chat with people, no matter who they are. It's not that I don't like them or love them. It's that I am unequipped to engage in conversations about nothing.
Monday, August 04, 2008
How The United States Embraced a Standing Army
Standing armies are not--no matter how loud the neo-cons shout--necessary to the preservation of a free people. In fact, they are the enemy of free people. The following is an essay that I wrote on how Americans moved from fearing a standing army to embracing one.
That totalitarian states such as Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should possess massive standing armies surprises no keen observer. Governments based purely upon coercion—and bent ultimately upon territorial expansion—require a permanent military presence. Furthermore, under such governments, military life often echoes civilian life. The very trademarks of a good soldier—obedience, regimentation, and non-egoism—become the ethos of the people in general. However, democracies are purportedly different. The United States’ military machine of World War II was the product of necessity.
According to tradition, after vanquishing its German and Japanese enemies, the United States should have returned to a very small and internationally insignificant size and potency. However, the threat of communist expansion in Europe and Asia forced many Americans to reconsider the need for a ready and effectual military force at all times [2]. Basically, from an American military perspective, although World War II ended in peace between the Allies and the Axis, events soon unfolded to demonstrate that the U.S.S.R, while not engaged in full scale combat with the United States, posed a significant enough threat to declare the existence of a “Cold War.” Thus, the danger of communist expansion meant that the United States needed to maintain a standing army. However, to do so the United States government needed to change the military’s public image, “to make the army more compatible with a democratic nation.” [3] To this effect, the United States military embarked upon an extensive marketing campaign to alter its image, instituted a series of reforms to blur the dissimilarities between military service and democratic ideals, and ultimately achieved the blessing of popular opinion. These efforts were the culmination of the war effort, for they sought to secure the democracy of the United States, its allies, and ultimately the world entire.
Because a large standing army had no precedent in American history, military leaders such as General Dwight Eisenhower recognized the need for “public understanding, public support, and public action.” [4] This meant bolstering public opinion of the military in order that productive members of society would enroll in the armed forces or accept conscription. [5] To attract middle and upper-class Americans, advertisers marketed the military as an institution capable of instilling core democratic values and providing “educational and promotion opportunities, good pay, fringe benefits, and retirement pensions.” [6] As a cross between the Boy Scouts and corporate America, the military made itself less threatening and more respectable to middle Americans. As such, it became an acceptable vehicle to defend the Christian values, capitalist economy, and limited government of the United States against the atheistic, communist totalitarians.
The promotion of the military would most likely have been largely ineffectual had it not been for a series of major reforms aimed at realizing its proclaimed image. Among these reforms were tying promotion to merit rather than seniority, housing personnel off-base so as not to alienate them from civilians, offering wages competitive with private industry, abolishing racial segregation, and enhancing the rights of servicemen. [7] The military enacted many other reforms, but the ones listed presently demonstrate how the military actually sought to achieve its image rather than simply to declare it. Basing promotion upon merit echoed the ethos of the Protestant work ethic. Permitting military men to live amongst civilians announced that servicemen are no different from those not enlisted. Making military pay competitive with civilian wages and establishing an attractive retirement plan reflected capitalist profit-incentive. Eradicating Jim Crow practices finally assured that the United States was quite different in its racial policies than the Axis. Moreover, codifying new “standardized penalties imposed by commanders and court-martial boards” avowed that enlisted men would not have to live without the democratic values they served to defend. [8]
Opinion polls of the middle 1950s verify that the military succeeded in its wish to vaunt itself as an organization “to strengthen good citizenship in every military man, and to preserve within the military as much of his civilian life as possible.” [9] However, the real fear of communist aggression accounts for another reason people acquiesced to a standing army. Shortly after the war, the Soviets closed East Germany and, according to Churchill’s metaphor, an “iron curtain” had descended upon Soviet conquests in Eastern Europe. By 1949, the Soviets acquired atomic weapons of their own, communists triumphed in China, and North Korean communists invaded South Korea. In a way, the communists proved the United States’ need for a standing army as much as did the propagandists employed by the Pentagon. Americans soon realized that Stalin endangered the world as much as did Hitler and Hirohito.
In conclusion, the United States needed to maintain a large standing military in spite of the Axis’ cession, so the Department of Defense, advised by Major General James H. Doolittle sought to change the military in such a way as to make it “more compatible with a democratic nation.” The government succeeded in its endeavor to sway public opinion through a campaign of marketing and reform, bolstered by the real threat of communism. Historically, this represents a massive shift in American mentality, but the events of and following World War II were historic themselves. However, the changes in public opinion and military policy do not reflect a new post-war understanding of a democratic society, for the military portrayed its new image as the fulfillment of traditional American values. In essence, Americans did not become more militaristic, but the military became more American. In this way, it was a culmination of the Allied war effort to stamp out fascism and secure its social, political and economic ways of life.
Hear Them Calling, You and Me, Every Son of Liberty [1]:
The Democratization of American Military in the Decade Following World War II
The Democratization of American Military in the Decade Following World War II
That totalitarian states such as Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should possess massive standing armies surprises no keen observer. Governments based purely upon coercion—and bent ultimately upon territorial expansion—require a permanent military presence. Furthermore, under such governments, military life often echoes civilian life. The very trademarks of a good soldier—obedience, regimentation, and non-egoism—become the ethos of the people in general. However, democracies are purportedly different. The United States’ military machine of World War II was the product of necessity.
According to tradition, after vanquishing its German and Japanese enemies, the United States should have returned to a very small and internationally insignificant size and potency. However, the threat of communist expansion in Europe and Asia forced many Americans to reconsider the need for a ready and effectual military force at all times [2]. Basically, from an American military perspective, although World War II ended in peace between the Allies and the Axis, events soon unfolded to demonstrate that the U.S.S.R, while not engaged in full scale combat with the United States, posed a significant enough threat to declare the existence of a “Cold War.” Thus, the danger of communist expansion meant that the United States needed to maintain a standing army. However, to do so the United States government needed to change the military’s public image, “to make the army more compatible with a democratic nation.” [3] To this effect, the United States military embarked upon an extensive marketing campaign to alter its image, instituted a series of reforms to blur the dissimilarities between military service and democratic ideals, and ultimately achieved the blessing of popular opinion. These efforts were the culmination of the war effort, for they sought to secure the democracy of the United States, its allies, and ultimately the world entire.
Because a large standing army had no precedent in American history, military leaders such as General Dwight Eisenhower recognized the need for “public understanding, public support, and public action.” [4] This meant bolstering public opinion of the military in order that productive members of society would enroll in the armed forces or accept conscription. [5] To attract middle and upper-class Americans, advertisers marketed the military as an institution capable of instilling core democratic values and providing “educational and promotion opportunities, good pay, fringe benefits, and retirement pensions.” [6] As a cross between the Boy Scouts and corporate America, the military made itself less threatening and more respectable to middle Americans. As such, it became an acceptable vehicle to defend the Christian values, capitalist economy, and limited government of the United States against the atheistic, communist totalitarians.
The promotion of the military would most likely have been largely ineffectual had it not been for a series of major reforms aimed at realizing its proclaimed image. Among these reforms were tying promotion to merit rather than seniority, housing personnel off-base so as not to alienate them from civilians, offering wages competitive with private industry, abolishing racial segregation, and enhancing the rights of servicemen. [7] The military enacted many other reforms, but the ones listed presently demonstrate how the military actually sought to achieve its image rather than simply to declare it. Basing promotion upon merit echoed the ethos of the Protestant work ethic. Permitting military men to live amongst civilians announced that servicemen are no different from those not enlisted. Making military pay competitive with civilian wages and establishing an attractive retirement plan reflected capitalist profit-incentive. Eradicating Jim Crow practices finally assured that the United States was quite different in its racial policies than the Axis. Moreover, codifying new “standardized penalties imposed by commanders and court-martial boards” avowed that enlisted men would not have to live without the democratic values they served to defend. [8]
Opinion polls of the middle 1950s verify that the military succeeded in its wish to vaunt itself as an organization “to strengthen good citizenship in every military man, and to preserve within the military as much of his civilian life as possible.” [9] However, the real fear of communist aggression accounts for another reason people acquiesced to a standing army. Shortly after the war, the Soviets closed East Germany and, according to Churchill’s metaphor, an “iron curtain” had descended upon Soviet conquests in Eastern Europe. By 1949, the Soviets acquired atomic weapons of their own, communists triumphed in China, and North Korean communists invaded South Korea. In a way, the communists proved the United States’ need for a standing army as much as did the propagandists employed by the Pentagon. Americans soon realized that Stalin endangered the world as much as did Hitler and Hirohito.
In conclusion, the United States needed to maintain a large standing military in spite of the Axis’ cession, so the Department of Defense, advised by Major General James H. Doolittle sought to change the military in such a way as to make it “more compatible with a democratic nation.” The government succeeded in its endeavor to sway public opinion through a campaign of marketing and reform, bolstered by the real threat of communism. Historically, this represents a massive shift in American mentality, but the events of and following World War II were historic themselves. However, the changes in public opinion and military policy do not reflect a new post-war understanding of a democratic society, for the military portrayed its new image as the fulfillment of traditional American values. In essence, Americans did not become more militaristic, but the military became more American. In this way, it was a culmination of the Allied war effort to stamp out fascism and secure its social, political and economic ways of life.
[1] Lyrics from George M. Cohen’s “Over There!”
[2] Grandstaff, Mark. Making the Military American: Advertising, Reform, and the Demise of an Antistanding Military Tradition, 1945-1955, p. 299.
[3] Major General James H. Doolittle. Quoted from Ibid., 306.
[4] Quoted from Ibid., 301.
[5] Ibid., 302.
[6] Ibid., 304, 315.
[7] Ibid., 307.
[8] The quoted material is from Ibid., 308. The interpretation is mine.
[9] The quote is from the President’s Committee on Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces, Ibid., 316. The information on opinion polls is from Ibid., 321-323.
A Conversation With Mark
Mark is five years old. The following is a mostly verbatim account of a conversation that he and I had earlier today. He is a very curious, albeit stubborn fellow, who is quietly brilliant in his own way. He's a difficult kid to teach on most occasions, but he has a cache of knowledge that he delves into at times to produce questions and express ideas that are well beyond his age.
Mark: "Dad, are Americans in a war right now?"
Me: "Yeah. What made you ask that"
Mark: "Are we fighting the Germans again?"
Me: "No, Germany's our friend now."
Mark: "But they weren't are friends in Call of Duty 2 and 3."
(The Call of Duty game series is a first-person war simulation that, much to my wife's chagrin, Mark enjoys watching me play)
Me: "No, they weren't our friends in World War II, but the Germans are different now. They like us, and we like them."
Mark: "Then are we fighting the Russians?"
Me: "Nope."
Mark: "Are we fighting communists?"
Me: "No, we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mark: "I don't know any of those places. Are they far away?"
Me: "Yes, they're very far away."
Mark: "Are they on Earth?"
Me: "Yes. Would you like to see them on the globe?"
Mark: "Oh yes."
Me: "There's Iraq, and Afghanistan is right by it."
Mark: "Wow that's on the other side of the Earth!"
Me: "I know."
Mark: "Why are we fighting them?"
Me: "Well, the government in Afghanistan helped some people kill a lot of Americans, so we invaded and overthrew their government. We invaded Iraq because George Bush wanted to."
Mark: "George Bush is the president, right?"
Me: "Yes."
Mark: "Did a lot of people get killed in that war?"
Me: "Yes."
Mark: "Then why did George Bush want to fight that war?"
Me: "Good question."
Mark: "Is George Bush a bad president?"
Me: "I think so, yes."
Mark: "Do you still want Ron Poop to be president?"
(He calls Ron Paul "Ron Poop" just to bug me).
Me: "Yes, but he isn't going to be president."
Mark: "Why not?"
Me: "Because not enough people support him."
Mark: "But you do."
Me: "Yes, that's true. But I'm only one person, and it takes tens of millions of people to decide who the president is going to be."
Mark: "Well, I think that Ron Poop should be president too."
Me: "Why is that?"
Mark: "Because you like him so much."
Me: "But why do I like him so much?"
Mark: "I dunno, but it has something to do about freedom, you always say."
Me: "That's right, buddy. Hey, do you want a cookie?"
Mark: "Ooo yes!"
Me: "And I'll let you have a glass of Dr. Pepper if you tell me who the best president was."
Mark: "Ron Paul?"
Me: "Nice try, but he hasn't ever been President."
Mark: "Then I dunno. It's not Lincoln because you hate Lincoln."
Me: "But whom do I like?"
Mark: "None of them?"
Me: "Close, but come on. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"
Mark: "Thomas Jefferson!"
Me: "Yes, and in the Declaration of Independence, he said that we are born with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of what?"
Mark: "I dunno. Just give me my Dr. Pepper, please."
Me: "OK, buddy. Just tell me who we're fighting in a war right now."
Mark: "I already told you that I don't know those places. I just know that they're on the other side of the Earth and they're not Germans, Russians, or Communists."
Me: "Good enough, Captain."
Mark: "Don't call me that. My name's Mark."
Mark: "Dad, are Americans in a war right now?"
Me: "Yeah. What made you ask that"
Mark: "Are we fighting the Germans again?"
Me: "No, Germany's our friend now."
Mark: "But they weren't are friends in Call of Duty 2 and 3."
(The Call of Duty game series is a first-person war simulation that, much to my wife's chagrin, Mark enjoys watching me play)
Me: "No, they weren't our friends in World War II, but the Germans are different now. They like us, and we like them."
Mark: "Then are we fighting the Russians?"
Me: "Nope."
Mark: "Are we fighting communists?"
Me: "No, we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mark: "I don't know any of those places. Are they far away?"
Me: "Yes, they're very far away."
Mark: "Are they on Earth?"
Me: "Yes. Would you like to see them on the globe?"
Mark: "Oh yes."
Me: "There's Iraq, and Afghanistan is right by it."
Mark: "Wow that's on the other side of the Earth!"
Me: "I know."
Mark: "Why are we fighting them?"
Me: "Well, the government in Afghanistan helped some people kill a lot of Americans, so we invaded and overthrew their government. We invaded Iraq because George Bush wanted to."
Mark: "George Bush is the president, right?"
Me: "Yes."
Mark: "Did a lot of people get killed in that war?"
Me: "Yes."
Mark: "Then why did George Bush want to fight that war?"
Me: "Good question."
Mark: "Is George Bush a bad president?"
Me: "I think so, yes."
Mark: "Do you still want Ron Poop to be president?"
(He calls Ron Paul "Ron Poop" just to bug me).
Me: "Yes, but he isn't going to be president."
Mark: "Why not?"
Me: "Because not enough people support him."
Mark: "But you do."
Me: "Yes, that's true. But I'm only one person, and it takes tens of millions of people to decide who the president is going to be."
Mark: "Well, I think that Ron Poop should be president too."
Me: "Why is that?"
Mark: "Because you like him so much."
Me: "But why do I like him so much?"
Mark: "I dunno, but it has something to do about freedom, you always say."
Me: "That's right, buddy. Hey, do you want a cookie?"
Mark: "Ooo yes!"
Me: "And I'll let you have a glass of Dr. Pepper if you tell me who the best president was."
Mark: "Ron Paul?"
Me: "Nice try, but he hasn't ever been President."
Mark: "Then I dunno. It's not Lincoln because you hate Lincoln."
Me: "But whom do I like?"
Mark: "None of them?"
Me: "Close, but come on. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"
Mark: "Thomas Jefferson!"
Me: "Yes, and in the Declaration of Independence, he said that we are born with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of what?"
Mark: "I dunno. Just give me my Dr. Pepper, please."
Me: "OK, buddy. Just tell me who we're fighting in a war right now."
Mark: "I already told you that I don't know those places. I just know that they're on the other side of the Earth and they're not Germans, Russians, or Communists."
Me: "Good enough, Captain."
Mark: "Don't call me that. My name's Mark."
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Sohlzenitsysn
Alexander Sohlzenitsyn is dead. Alas, a mere forty-six years too late--otherwise, he would have died a great man.
Instead of dying as the tyrant Stalin's enemy, he died the tyrant Putin's ally.
As I said, alas.
Instead of dying as the tyrant Stalin's enemy, he died the tyrant Putin's ally.
As I said, alas.
Johnny Horton
My great-grandmother had two Johnny Horton LPs, and I used to listen to them before the days of cable TV. They were instrumental in developing my youthful interest in history. I'd listen to a song like "Sink the Bismarck," and then go to her set of encyclopedias and look up Bismarck (so I learned about the ship, the city, and the Prussian chancellor). Then I'd look up The Battle of New Orleans, and learn about the battle, the city, Andrew Jackson, etc. In retrospect, I wonder if there's anything released as "popular" music today that can lead young people to a valuable education.
I doubt it.
Some accuse Johnny Horton's songs of being corny. I accuse those who say so of being pretentious.
And if Biobandit has any criticisms,just beware that I am willing to document how many Tori Amos tracks you have in iTunes.
I doubt it.
Some accuse Johnny Horton's songs of being corny. I accuse those who say so of being pretentious.
And if Biobandit has any criticisms,just beware that I am willing to document how many Tori Amos tracks you have in iTunes.
Bridge Over Troubled Water
Not everything ages poorly, eh Golf Guy? Still, I think that Simon ought to have let Garfunkel do the whole song by himself, as originally recorded.
I am nearly thirty-two years old, and these guys stopped recording as a band years before I was born. However, they are to this day my favorite still.
When I saw them in concert five (I think) years ago, it was the opportunity of a lifetime. I had long bemoaned that my favorites were out of commission (e.g. Elvis, Frank Sinatra, The Beatles, Beethoven). When they announced their reunion tour (from which this clip was taken), I was overwhelmed with anticipation and not disappointed when I saw them perform.
I am nearly thirty-two years old, and these guys stopped recording as a band years before I was born. However, they are to this day my favorite still.
When I saw them in concert five (I think) years ago, it was the opportunity of a lifetime. I had long bemoaned that my favorites were out of commission (e.g. Elvis, Frank Sinatra, The Beatles, Beethoven). When they announced their reunion tour (from which this clip was taken), I was overwhelmed with anticipation and not disappointed when I saw them perform.
Funny Clips from The Onion
The following clips are from The Onion. The satire is brilliant, and often offensive.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Poll Results
My "Who Would Make the Better President" poll is within a day of completion. Given the relatively few readers of this blog, I am pleased with the turnout.
Ron Paul clearly won, which means that most people who read this blog see things the way that I do.
John McCain came in tied at second, with three votes, which means that Golf Guy voted two times after his initial vote--next stop, Florida!
Adolf Hitler came in tied at second with McCain, and this disappoints me. For as much as I dislike McCain, he is no Hitler; and the idiot(s) who voted for Hitler were (I pray) merely fudging up the poll.
Barrack Obama came in third, with only two votes.
Any suggestions for the next poll?
Ron Paul clearly won, which means that most people who read this blog see things the way that I do.
John McCain came in tied at second, with three votes, which means that Golf Guy voted two times after his initial vote--next stop, Florida!
Adolf Hitler came in tied at second with McCain, and this disappoints me. For as much as I dislike McCain, he is no Hitler; and the idiot(s) who voted for Hitler were (I pray) merely fudging up the poll.
Barrack Obama came in third, with only two votes.
Any suggestions for the next poll?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
A Good Point to My Anti-California Rant
My friend Bob pointed out something so obvious that I am ashamed (only slightly) to admit it.
It has to do with Los Angeles banning the installation of new fast-food restaurants in its impoverished southern area.
He points out that the people of southern L.A. don't buy fast-food because they are too poor for other types of food, rather they do so because they are impatient. It's essentially the same reason why we middle-class suburbanites eat so much fast-food: we're hungry; we want food now; and we don't want to wait for it.
The main argument against the legislation still stands--that the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot consume for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
Do the meddling legislators even realize that fast-food restaurants are only built in an area where people want to buy fast-food? In essence, the government is using its coercive powers to prevent people from getting what they want. While this argument might hold for most if, say, the people of southern Los Angeles were trying to procure nuclear weapons, the truth is that the government its using its coercive powers to stop people from getting cheeseburgers, tacos, and fried chicken.
In closing, Bob added that there could easily be a string of healthy fast-food restaurants "where you could get carrot sticks for $1." However, as he correctly pointed out, these restaurants would speed towards bankruptcy because they wouldn't be offering what people want.
This is an excellent point. The government is looking to squash businesses that profit by giving people what they want, while at the same time the government is promoting businesses that are destined for insolvency because they don't give people what they want.
And we let the government make our laws?
The question of who's stupider, the people or the state elected by the people, is so much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Alas.
It has to do with Los Angeles banning the installation of new fast-food restaurants in its impoverished southern area.
He points out that the people of southern L.A. don't buy fast-food because they are too poor for other types of food, rather they do so because they are impatient. It's essentially the same reason why we middle-class suburbanites eat so much fast-food: we're hungry; we want food now; and we don't want to wait for it.
The main argument against the legislation still stands--that the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot consume for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
Do the meddling legislators even realize that fast-food restaurants are only built in an area where people want to buy fast-food? In essence, the government is using its coercive powers to prevent people from getting what they want. While this argument might hold for most if, say, the people of southern Los Angeles were trying to procure nuclear weapons, the truth is that the government its using its coercive powers to stop people from getting cheeseburgers, tacos, and fried chicken.
In closing, Bob added that there could easily be a string of healthy fast-food restaurants "where you could get carrot sticks for $1." However, as he correctly pointed out, these restaurants would speed towards bankruptcy because they wouldn't be offering what people want.
This is an excellent point. The government is looking to squash businesses that profit by giving people what they want, while at the same time the government is promoting businesses that are destined for insolvency because they don't give people what they want.
And we let the government make our laws?
The question of who's stupider, the people or the state elected by the people, is so much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Alas.
Brett Favre
Favre blew it. He should not come back to the league, but he just asked the commissioner for reinstatement.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Californidefication
New England, specifically Massachusetts Bay, was once the seat of colonial puritanism. There a bunch of meddling busybodies and hypocrites--each calling himself "Goodman" or herself "Goody" as evidence of their Christian humility--utilized the coercive powers of government to injure and all to often kill anyone who chose to live according to a different set of precepts.
Let's see, there's the "pressing" death of Giles Cory, who was unjustly accused of witchcraft by a defendant hoping for mercy. Cory refused to enter a plea, which according to common law at the time meant that he could not be charged formally with witchcraft. In an attempt to force a plea, the court ordered that Cory be laid upon his back with a wooden palette upon his chest. Every time they asked him to cooperate and he refused, heavy stones were placed upon the palette until finally, after the application of hundreds of pounds of weight (all distributed on Corey's chest and stomach), Cory defiantly requested "More weight," and died.
Flogging was common for people who either skipped church or dared to conduct business on the Sabbath.
Roger Williams was banished--often an indirect death sentence given the wilderness surrounding the colonies--for having such crazy notions that an individual's relationship with God was something that neither the community nor government could mitigate. Luckily for Williams, he befriended the Narragansett's and negotiated with them to build his own settlement, which he called Providence--and which later became the colony of Rhode Island, a religious colony that was "radical" in its tolerance of other faiths and denominations.
In 1660, Mary Dyer was hanged for being a Quaker, this following a year that saw similar fates for at least six other Quakers.
Catholic priests were officially banned from even entering the colony, lest they be hanged (yes, that was the law).
The first execution in Massachusetts was of a teenager for a sexual act involving a farm animal (yes, that's disgusting, but it's pretty much the description of a victimless crime--besides, I heard that the sheep was into it).
The list goes on and on.
While there are still many puritans in Massachusetts, they aren't the Christian kind; they're of the socialist (or as they call themselves "liberal") ilk.
However, I think that California has surpassed Massachusetts in modern-day puritanism.
It seems that there is nothing that California's politicians think is outside of their jurisdiction. Trans-fats, while clearly unhealthy (or so I've been told) are now illegal in California. The people don't even have the choice. More recently, Los Angeles is looking into banning new fast food restaurants in the impoverished, southern part of the city. Apparently, obesity is a problem in this area, and politicians have blamed this on the number of fast-food joints there established.
Hell yes, California! These folks eat fast-food because its cheap, and they're too poor for much else. The solution: get rid of the fast food-joints. This will surely solve the obesity problem. Just ask any anorexic person. When you don't eat, you lose weight.
Bravo, California!
It's just like the meddling SOB's who rail against countries in which children work in factories. These children work because without their wages, however meager, their families will starve. Which is better: a child who works but eats, or a child who doesn't work and doesn't eat? Who's really the compassionate one here, Bono?
Seriously, have you heard about Bono's textile factories in Lesotho, Africa? He pays salaries, not hourly wages. When you do the math, if his employees' salaries were measured according to hours worked, his employees work for below Lesotho's minimum wage. But don't blame Bono. Everyone knows that he moves in mysterious ways.
What people need is more freedom, not less. At any given moment, people are doing what they have deemed for themselves as what is best for them at the time. Whether or not the people are correct, it's their lives. Besides, history does not demonstrate any government's ability to do better for it's people.
Hey, California! Water can lead to death both by over-hydration and drowning. Water is also a key component in urine (ugh, how gross!).Why don't you save your citizens by banning water?
Let's see, there's the "pressing" death of Giles Cory, who was unjustly accused of witchcraft by a defendant hoping for mercy. Cory refused to enter a plea, which according to common law at the time meant that he could not be charged formally with witchcraft. In an attempt to force a plea, the court ordered that Cory be laid upon his back with a wooden palette upon his chest. Every time they asked him to cooperate and he refused, heavy stones were placed upon the palette until finally, after the application of hundreds of pounds of weight (all distributed on Corey's chest and stomach), Cory defiantly requested "More weight," and died.
Flogging was common for people who either skipped church or dared to conduct business on the Sabbath.
Roger Williams was banished--often an indirect death sentence given the wilderness surrounding the colonies--for having such crazy notions that an individual's relationship with God was something that neither the community nor government could mitigate. Luckily for Williams, he befriended the Narragansett's and negotiated with them to build his own settlement, which he called Providence--and which later became the colony of Rhode Island, a religious colony that was "radical" in its tolerance of other faiths and denominations.
In 1660, Mary Dyer was hanged for being a Quaker, this following a year that saw similar fates for at least six other Quakers.
Catholic priests were officially banned from even entering the colony, lest they be hanged (yes, that was the law).
The first execution in Massachusetts was of a teenager for a sexual act involving a farm animal (yes, that's disgusting, but it's pretty much the description of a victimless crime--besides, I heard that the sheep was into it).
The list goes on and on.
While there are still many puritans in Massachusetts, they aren't the Christian kind; they're of the socialist (or as they call themselves "liberal") ilk.
However, I think that California has surpassed Massachusetts in modern-day puritanism.
It seems that there is nothing that California's politicians think is outside of their jurisdiction. Trans-fats, while clearly unhealthy (or so I've been told) are now illegal in California. The people don't even have the choice. More recently, Los Angeles is looking into banning new fast food restaurants in the impoverished, southern part of the city. Apparently, obesity is a problem in this area, and politicians have blamed this on the number of fast-food joints there established.
Hell yes, California! These folks eat fast-food because its cheap, and they're too poor for much else. The solution: get rid of the fast food-joints. This will surely solve the obesity problem. Just ask any anorexic person. When you don't eat, you lose weight.
Bravo, California!
It's just like the meddling SOB's who rail against countries in which children work in factories. These children work because without their wages, however meager, their families will starve. Which is better: a child who works but eats, or a child who doesn't work and doesn't eat? Who's really the compassionate one here, Bono?
Seriously, have you heard about Bono's textile factories in Lesotho, Africa? He pays salaries, not hourly wages. When you do the math, if his employees' salaries were measured according to hours worked, his employees work for below Lesotho's minimum wage. But don't blame Bono. Everyone knows that he moves in mysterious ways.
What people need is more freedom, not less. At any given moment, people are doing what they have deemed for themselves as what is best for them at the time. Whether or not the people are correct, it's their lives. Besides, history does not demonstrate any government's ability to do better for it's people.
Hey, California! Water can lead to death both by over-hydration and drowning. Water is also a key component in urine (ugh, how gross!).Why don't you save your citizens by banning water?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Flight of the Conchords "Jenny"
Thank you so much, KV for introducing me to this duo. Biobandit is hooked on them as well.
The Right to BEAR Arms
While the picture below is clearly a hoax, I think it's important enough to point out that it's in-line with what governments recommend. They recommend that you carry pepper spray rather than a gun to fight grizzlies.
And when you're dead, they authorize the park service to send a guy in with a gun to dispatch of the bear.
And when you're dead, they authorize the park service to send a guy in with a gun to dispatch of the bear.
Monday, July 21, 2008
He Stopped Loving Her Today
I rank this as one of the saddest songs ever written. No one has done it better than George Jones.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Think back to when Paul Simon wrote "Mrs. Robinson" (1966--The Graduate was released in 1967, so I'm just guessing).
From that song, my favorite line is
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you."
Suppose that Simon was writing the song now. Who would he choose for today's ubi sunt?
Are there any sports heroes of more recent decades who simply played for the game? To me, Michael Jordan was too commercial, too into being Michael Jordan. Maybe Brett Farve will be a candidate in ten or so years, but not unless this whole "comeback" thing turns out just to be a rumor--unless he comes back and wins the Super Bowl, that is.
In all honest, I don't think that the 1970's, 1980's, or 1990's produced anyone who could be substituted for Joe DiMaggio.
Reply with any candidates.
Here's some audio of "Mrs. Robinson."
From that song, my favorite line is
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you."
Suppose that Simon was writing the song now. Who would he choose for today's ubi sunt?
Are there any sports heroes of more recent decades who simply played for the game? To me, Michael Jordan was too commercial, too into being Michael Jordan. Maybe Brett Farve will be a candidate in ten or so years, but not unless this whole "comeback" thing turns out just to be a rumor--unless he comes back and wins the Super Bowl, that is.
In all honest, I don't think that the 1970's, 1980's, or 1990's produced anyone who could be substituted for Joe DiMaggio.
Reply with any candidates.
Here's some audio of "Mrs. Robinson."
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Retraction (a rarity)
On my most recent post, I apologized if I offended anyone with my rhetoric. I would like to retract that apology.
You are the problem so long as you support injustice. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and if you support it than you are nonetheless a supporter of evil.
The crap of the deal is that I will have to endure whatever the majority decides. I am at the mercy of millions of minions. How's that for a political system? I am not a free man. I am a slave to both the government and the majority that elected it.
This is not the land of the free, nor is it the home of the brave (and you can check all of your Johnny Horton mock-patriotism at the door).
Now I know why the South seceded, and why they fought so hard and tragically for secession.
Damn you, Lee. Why didn't you listen to Longstreet?
You are the problem so long as you support injustice. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and if you support it than you are nonetheless a supporter of evil.
The crap of the deal is that I will have to endure whatever the majority decides. I am at the mercy of millions of minions. How's that for a political system? I am not a free man. I am a slave to both the government and the majority that elected it.
This is not the land of the free, nor is it the home of the brave (and you can check all of your Johnny Horton mock-patriotism at the door).
Now I know why the South seceded, and why they fought so hard and tragically for secession.
Damn you, Lee. Why didn't you listen to Longstreet?
Offensive Lecture on Executive Privilege Et Alia
Bush has once again claimed "Executive Privilege" as an excuse to avoid being checked by the legislative branch.
Let me be clear: there is no such thing as "Executive Privilege." Read the damn Constitution (Article II is on the Executive Branch).
The whole thing comes--I think--from Marbury v. Madison (1803), when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall declared that a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I think) was unconstitutional. This part would have enabled the court to issue a writ of mandamus to require the executive branch to submit to legislative authority. Writing for the majority, Marshall explained that such a power would violate the separation of powers.
The issue was whether or not the Court could force President Thomas Jefferson to require Secretary of State James Madison to deliver a commission as Justice of the Peace of the District of Columbia to one William Marbury.
What happened was when John Adams (the first and only Federalist president) lost the election of 1800 to his Democratic-Republican rival--Jefferson--he (Adams) began to issue appointments to stout federalists who would maintain office long after the party had declined into the pit of hell that it deserved (it has since been resurrected--first by the Republicans under Abraham Lincon--but now it is the backbone of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, that is that government is better than the people, the free market, and basic axioms of logic).
Adams made such unethical appointments to the last minute of his administration. Marbury was one of the so-called "Midnight Judges," in that Adams drafted the commission in the very moments before his term expired.
However, for Marbury, his commission came too late. Adams and his cronies had to leave, and it was up to Jefferson to order the delivery of the remaining commissions, of which Marbury's was one.
The duty to deliver such commissions fell to the Secretary of State, so Jefferson simply told Madison (the Sec. of State) to ignore the commissions--for if undelivered, the commissions were invalid.
At the Federalist Party's behest, Marbury sued. His argument was to envoke the writ of mandamus that would empower the Supreme Court to require Madison to deliver the commission.
Jefferson and Madison stood fast, and they prevailed.
This is the context from which Bush claims his "Executive Privilege" to deny Congress access to information.
It's a load of horse manure. That's what it is.
Marshall ruled because he feared that such a power would enable a separate (but equal) branch to usurp the authority of another branch. That is perfectly rational. The writ of mandamus, as it was worded in the Judiciary Act, was unwise.
However, Marshall's decision in no way made the executive branch immune from legislative scrutiny. Look at the damn case, and see for yourself.
But Bush thinks that anytime anyone wants to examine his administrations actions, he can just claim "Executive Privilege."
Here's a pasting of Article II of the Constitution. This article defines the executive branch and its limits by stating what its powers are. Nowhere is there a word of anything akin to "Executive Privilege":
Section 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
Section 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Not only is there no mention of anything resembling what Bush calls "Executive Privilege," consider how much is not constitutionally within the President's power. Look at all promised by McCain and Obama. Virtually none of it is within their constitutional jurisdiction.
Jesus, people, learn the Constitution. See what frauds are these sonsofbitches that are funning for office. You blew your most recent opportunity with Ron Paul. For the next few years you (and I, unfortunately--because you a-holes drag me down)will suffer both unnatural inflation and/or increased taxation. All because you couldn't lend your support to the one man who stood up and said, "No more."
God damn it, you all are harder than the Berlin Wall to break.
If you're offended by that, then it's your own fault.
Let me be clear: there is no such thing as "Executive Privilege." Read the damn Constitution (Article II is on the Executive Branch).
The whole thing comes--I think--from Marbury v. Madison (1803), when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall declared that a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I think) was unconstitutional. This part would have enabled the court to issue a writ of mandamus to require the executive branch to submit to legislative authority. Writing for the majority, Marshall explained that such a power would violate the separation of powers.
The issue was whether or not the Court could force President Thomas Jefferson to require Secretary of State James Madison to deliver a commission as Justice of the Peace of the District of Columbia to one William Marbury.
What happened was when John Adams (the first and only Federalist president) lost the election of 1800 to his Democratic-Republican rival--Jefferson--he (Adams) began to issue appointments to stout federalists who would maintain office long after the party had declined into the pit of hell that it deserved (it has since been resurrected--first by the Republicans under Abraham Lincon--but now it is the backbone of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, that is that government is better than the people, the free market, and basic axioms of logic).
Adams made such unethical appointments to the last minute of his administration. Marbury was one of the so-called "Midnight Judges," in that Adams drafted the commission in the very moments before his term expired.
However, for Marbury, his commission came too late. Adams and his cronies had to leave, and it was up to Jefferson to order the delivery of the remaining commissions, of which Marbury's was one.
The duty to deliver such commissions fell to the Secretary of State, so Jefferson simply told Madison (the Sec. of State) to ignore the commissions--for if undelivered, the commissions were invalid.
At the Federalist Party's behest, Marbury sued. His argument was to envoke the writ of mandamus that would empower the Supreme Court to require Madison to deliver the commission.
Jefferson and Madison stood fast, and they prevailed.
This is the context from which Bush claims his "Executive Privilege" to deny Congress access to information.
It's a load of horse manure. That's what it is.
Marshall ruled because he feared that such a power would enable a separate (but equal) branch to usurp the authority of another branch. That is perfectly rational. The writ of mandamus, as it was worded in the Judiciary Act, was unwise.
However, Marshall's decision in no way made the executive branch immune from legislative scrutiny. Look at the damn case, and see for yourself.
But Bush thinks that anytime anyone wants to examine his administrations actions, he can just claim "Executive Privilege."
Here's a pasting of Article II of the Constitution. This article defines the executive branch and its limits by stating what its powers are. Nowhere is there a word of anything akin to "Executive Privilege":
Section 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
Section 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Not only is there no mention of anything resembling what Bush calls "Executive Privilege," consider how much is not constitutionally within the President's power. Look at all promised by McCain and Obama. Virtually none of it is within their constitutional jurisdiction.
Jesus, people, learn the Constitution. See what frauds are these sonsofbitches that are funning for office. You blew your most recent opportunity with Ron Paul. For the next few years you (and I, unfortunately--because you a-holes drag me down)will suffer both unnatural inflation and/or increased taxation. All because you couldn't lend your support to the one man who stood up and said, "No more."
God damn it, you all are harder than the Berlin Wall to break.
If you're offended by that, then it's your own fault.
To My Wife on Her Birthday
Today my wife turned 33 years old.
For slightly less than a month, I remain 31.
Therefore, I dedicate this to my dear wife--the mother of my children, lover of my dreams, and best friend.
For slightly less than a month, I remain 31.
Therefore, I dedicate this to my dear wife--the mother of my children, lover of my dreams, and best friend.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Sammy
Everyone in my family always hated Sammy Davis, Jr. I learned this when I was very young and trying out impersonations of Billy Crystal impersonating Sammy (though my grandfather said that I sounded more like a gay Ed Sullivan--which meant nothing to me in the mid-1980's).
I will probably always enjoy Frank Sinatra's and Dean Martin's material more (as a whole), but Sammy had a presence that cannot be rejected--to the extent that he probably put on a better solo show.
Here are a few clips of some of my favorite Sammy Davis, Jr. songs. It is an incomplete presentation, for some of the choice ones are not posted to youtube.
I will probably always enjoy Frank Sinatra's and Dean Martin's material more (as a whole), but Sammy had a presence that cannot be rejected--to the extent that he probably put on a better solo show.
Here are a few clips of some of my favorite Sammy Davis, Jr. songs. It is an incomplete presentation, for some of the choice ones are not posted to youtube.
Friday, July 11, 2008
"Cotton Fields" Multiple Covers
Below are some interpretations of the same tune, "Cotton Fields," by blues singer "Lead Belly" Huddie Ledbetter. For my money, The Beach Boys, under Brian Wilson's genius, covered it best.
There's just something about listening to different versions of the same tune.
There's just something about listening to different versions of the same tune.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Turkey Attack!
The headline read "Four Held in Turkey Attack."
My first thought was, "A group of guys attacked a turkey?" Then, as the page was quickly loading, I realized that it meant Turkey the country.
"Hell, there's nothing novel about that," I thought, so I closed the page.
I need to remember this story before I get all intrigued by a successor: "Turkey Fights Back."
My first thought was, "A group of guys attacked a turkey?" Then, as the page was quickly loading, I realized that it meant Turkey the country.
"Hell, there's nothing novel about that," I thought, so I closed the page.
I need to remember this story before I get all intrigued by a successor: "Turkey Fights Back."
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Candidates and Religion
Many people will argue in defense of candidates that neither a candidate's race, gender, nor religion matters.
I agree that race and gender do not matter. In some contexts, perhaps they may--at least a little. However, in the context of the United States, I suggest that they matter as much as if a candidate enjoys boxers or briefs--of course if gender is the issue, then that may very well be an interesting (perhaps even significant) issue.
Religion, on the other hand, matters. A religious man (or woman) can be good. Indeed, a religious man or woman should be good.
That said, there is also a danger inherent in powerful and religious people. Need I list the examples?
Of course nonreligious people also have accounted for much grief to this world's history, but look closely at them. Hitler's Nazism was essentially religious, as was Lenin and Stalin's Bolshevism.
Blind devotion to anything and a willingness to destroy all opposition is dangerous in all forms, whether it wears a cross, a yamaka, orange robes, paramilitary tunics, or suicide bombs.
Let's look a Barack Obama. For twenty years, he belonged to Jeremiah Wright's congregation (I decline to call him a reverend). Now either Obama believes in Wright's outrageousness, or he doesn't.
If Obama is truly a follower of Wright (and is only distancing himself from the false prophet for political reasons), then Obama is a dangerous man.
If Obama doesn't really believe the kind of things that Wright utters, then why was he a parishioner for so long? The only good answer is that Obama doesn't really believe anything in terms of religion, and that he only went to church to make himself appear a religious man so that he could one day run for president.
The latter may actually make Obama even more dangerous than the former.
As for McCain, he's just useless. Not dangerous, just useless. Enough said.
I agree that race and gender do not matter. In some contexts, perhaps they may--at least a little. However, in the context of the United States, I suggest that they matter as much as if a candidate enjoys boxers or briefs--of course if gender is the issue, then that may very well be an interesting (perhaps even significant) issue.
Religion, on the other hand, matters. A religious man (or woman) can be good. Indeed, a religious man or woman should be good.
That said, there is also a danger inherent in powerful and religious people. Need I list the examples?
Of course nonreligious people also have accounted for much grief to this world's history, but look closely at them. Hitler's Nazism was essentially religious, as was Lenin and Stalin's Bolshevism.
Blind devotion to anything and a willingness to destroy all opposition is dangerous in all forms, whether it wears a cross, a yamaka, orange robes, paramilitary tunics, or suicide bombs.
Let's look a Barack Obama. For twenty years, he belonged to Jeremiah Wright's congregation (I decline to call him a reverend). Now either Obama believes in Wright's outrageousness, or he doesn't.
If Obama is truly a follower of Wright (and is only distancing himself from the false prophet for political reasons), then Obama is a dangerous man.
If Obama doesn't really believe the kind of things that Wright utters, then why was he a parishioner for so long? The only good answer is that Obama doesn't really believe anything in terms of religion, and that he only went to church to make himself appear a religious man so that he could one day run for president.
The latter may actually make Obama even more dangerous than the former.
As for McCain, he's just useless. Not dangerous, just useless. Enough said.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Two Things
Two things.
If you like good drama and writing, then see There Will Be Blood. The ending is not startling. It's perfect.
Also, my son wants to take Karate. What kind of man would stand in the way of that? I not only enjoyed my training in Chinese Kenpo and Tae Kwan Do (the latter was far more useful, even though I progressed two belts farther on the other), but it gave me a confidence that exceeds my physical appearance.
Initially, I look like a fat, soft guy (the baby face that hasn't aged since I was sixteen doesn't help either). However, I can carry myself with the knowledge that I can defend myself.
The irony is that all three of my "bloody"/"punching" fights occurred before my martial arts training (of the three, I clearly won two, and the third was a draw).
I've never had the opportunity to misdirect an opponent's attack, break his arm at the elbow, break his nose with my knee, and explain to the authorities why I had to do what I did. However, I know how to do this, and I can envision it perfectly. I'm not bragging here. Indeed, anyone with more than three years of martial arts training is likely to hand me my teeth in a handbag. I'm just saying that I feel that, under normal circumstance (i.e. against an average Joe Blow, no matter how big) I have a good chance of prevailing.
My daughter also wants to take karate, and when I think of how predatory young boys can be (and how malicious other young girls can be), I cannot help but think that such training will be an invaluable asset.
Call me antiquated (i.e. "old school"), but I think that young ones need the confidence to carry themselves on the schoolyard and beyond.
If you like good drama and writing, then see There Will Be Blood. The ending is not startling. It's perfect.
Also, my son wants to take Karate. What kind of man would stand in the way of that? I not only enjoyed my training in Chinese Kenpo and Tae Kwan Do (the latter was far more useful, even though I progressed two belts farther on the other), but it gave me a confidence that exceeds my physical appearance.
Initially, I look like a fat, soft guy (the baby face that hasn't aged since I was sixteen doesn't help either). However, I can carry myself with the knowledge that I can defend myself.
The irony is that all three of my "bloody"/"punching" fights occurred before my martial arts training (of the three, I clearly won two, and the third was a draw).
I've never had the opportunity to misdirect an opponent's attack, break his arm at the elbow, break his nose with my knee, and explain to the authorities why I had to do what I did. However, I know how to do this, and I can envision it perfectly. I'm not bragging here. Indeed, anyone with more than three years of martial arts training is likely to hand me my teeth in a handbag. I'm just saying that I feel that, under normal circumstance (i.e. against an average Joe Blow, no matter how big) I have a good chance of prevailing.
My daughter also wants to take karate, and when I think of how predatory young boys can be (and how malicious other young girls can be), I cannot help but think that such training will be an invaluable asset.
Call me antiquated (i.e. "old school"), but I think that young ones need the confidence to carry themselves on the schoolyard and beyond.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Choice
It seems that most of Hollywood's elite (i.e. rather uneducated--but pretty) support Barack Obama for president.
There's one reason (among many others) to oppose the senator from Illinois.
Unfortunately, there are many who think that opposition to Obama must mean support for McCain.
Tsk tsk.
Let's say that you want to bake cookies.
Some a-hole from Hollywood says, "You know what would make these cookies great? Try some cyanide."
Then there's some other a-hole from, lets just say Arizona, who says, "No, what these cookies need is some arsenic."
In both of these cases, you would (I hope) be keen enough to tell both the person from Hollywood and Arizona to eat feces and expire (I edited my choice words because I knew that Golf Guy would object).
And yet, the two candidates for this country's major (but not only--dammit) political parties are Obama and McCain.
There's one reason (among many others) to oppose the senator from Illinois.
Unfortunately, there are many who think that opposition to Obama must mean support for McCain.
Tsk tsk.
Let's say that you want to bake cookies.
Some a-hole from Hollywood says, "You know what would make these cookies great? Try some cyanide."
Then there's some other a-hole from, lets just say Arizona, who says, "No, what these cookies need is some arsenic."
In both of these cases, you would (I hope) be keen enough to tell both the person from Hollywood and Arizona to eat feces and expire (I edited my choice words because I knew that Golf Guy would object).
And yet, the two candidates for this country's major (but not only--dammit) political parties are Obama and McCain.
Anti-Climax
His son had been missing for six weeks in the Amazon rain forest.
After the government called of the search, he continued.
He searched far and wide, saving little time for rest.
He found his boy, alive--but barely. The young man was lying beside a riverbed. He was dehydrated, starving, and covered in insects and insect bites.
When the father brushed the insects aside and tried to revive his offspring, the young man simply "[g]ritted his teeth, and died."
How's that for an un-Hollywood ending?
After the government called of the search, he continued.
He searched far and wide, saving little time for rest.
He found his boy, alive--but barely. The young man was lying beside a riverbed. He was dehydrated, starving, and covered in insects and insect bites.
When the father brushed the insects aside and tried to revive his offspring, the young man simply "[g]ritted his teeth, and died."
How's that for an un-Hollywood ending?
Patriots
Right now, one of the big questions to McCain and Obama refers to the meaning of patriotism.
The word "patriotism" is rooted in "patriot," further rooted in "patria"--Latin for "father," but in this context meaning "fatherland."
There are two basic kinds of patriotism. One says, "My country, right or wrong." It is this kind of patriotism that follows the government in war against southern states that would have otherwise coexisted peacefully alongside the northern ones.
Such is the kind of patriotism that waged an unjust war against Spain because our imperialism was so much better than Spanish imperialism (ours doesn't have accent marks, you see).
We're talking about the kind of patriotism that said to throw Japanese-Americans into concentration camps because they just might be allied with Hirohito (however, if these same Japs want to join the army, navy, or marines--then they're more than welcome).
This, the patriotism that said more dying in Vietnam was better than admitting the mistake of Vietnam.
The very same patriotism led us into Iraq, and might well lead us into Iran.
Then there's the other kind of patriotism.
This other patriotism respects the ideals upon which the fatherland is founded. Government exists only to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I italicized "pursuit" because too many sub-literate people think that they are entitled to happiness itself), that any action the government takes beyond that sacred charge is essentially tyranny, and that tyranny in all forms, great and small, must be opposed--and violently if necessary.
This other patriotism will not follow its flag into an unjust war. It will not accept the degradation of an entire minority because it suits the national majority.
This other patriotism will stand up to the fatherland and say, "Enough, God damn you," and it will shake its fists and threaten reaction to injustice.
Most ignorant people perceive this latter kind of patriotism as closer to treason.
I disagree.
The fool who follows his country's flag without a second thought might as well be clothed in a Waffen SS uniform.
We desecrate the memory of those Germans who stood silent while their government perpetrated one of the greatest evils of the modern era. However, if you follow the first kind of patriotism, then to look upon such Germans as so you are a hypocrite.
The word "patriotism" is rooted in "patriot," further rooted in "patria"--Latin for "father," but in this context meaning "fatherland."
There are two basic kinds of patriotism. One says, "My country, right or wrong." It is this kind of patriotism that follows the government in war against southern states that would have otherwise coexisted peacefully alongside the northern ones.
Such is the kind of patriotism that waged an unjust war against Spain because our imperialism was so much better than Spanish imperialism (ours doesn't have accent marks, you see).
We're talking about the kind of patriotism that said to throw Japanese-Americans into concentration camps because they just might be allied with Hirohito (however, if these same Japs want to join the army, navy, or marines--then they're more than welcome).
This, the patriotism that said more dying in Vietnam was better than admitting the mistake of Vietnam.
The very same patriotism led us into Iraq, and might well lead us into Iran.
Then there's the other kind of patriotism.
This other patriotism respects the ideals upon which the fatherland is founded. Government exists only to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I italicized "pursuit" because too many sub-literate people think that they are entitled to happiness itself), that any action the government takes beyond that sacred charge is essentially tyranny, and that tyranny in all forms, great and small, must be opposed--and violently if necessary.
This other patriotism will not follow its flag into an unjust war. It will not accept the degradation of an entire minority because it suits the national majority.
This other patriotism will stand up to the fatherland and say, "Enough, God damn you," and it will shake its fists and threaten reaction to injustice.
Most ignorant people perceive this latter kind of patriotism as closer to treason.
I disagree.
The fool who follows his country's flag without a second thought might as well be clothed in a Waffen SS uniform.
We desecrate the memory of those Germans who stood silent while their government perpetrated one of the greatest evils of the modern era. However, if you follow the first kind of patriotism, then to look upon such Germans as so you are a hypocrite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)