Security?
OK, last hijack post. BBC has what looks to be the full story. And it raises a few questions. How the heck does a guy with a history of hijacking get onto an airplane in the first place? And this guy has so little upstairs that he once tried to hijack a TRAIN! What was he planning to do with it, tell the engineer to drive to Cuba? Also, the story says he got into the cockpit with his box that he claimed was a weapon. How in the world did he make it past the security door? What is going through the minds of the Europeans? Will anyone really be surprised if someone DOES take out the Eiffel Tower? Don't you think maybe bin Laden has been reading the same stories I have? Another point. BBC says the plane was a 737. The other stories had been calling it an MD80. So, how did they get that detail wrong? All in all, this story has been quite an education in the incompetence of reportage these days. And it makes one tremble to take an airplane originating from Europe. They haven't got a clue.
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
Bush invades the AARP
FoxNews is reporting that the AARP, bastion of Boomer orthodoxy, is getting behind the President's prescription drug proposal. Is that a good thing? Politically, it's a disaster for the Dems, who now have one issue fewer to rant about in 2004. But if the program can satisfy the AARP can it possibly be good for the taxpayer and the economy? It would be typical for the libs to make sure the slippery slope to universal coverage was well-greased and steep. If Bush really does tie the measure to Medicare reform, though, I might not be too afraid of it. Heck, just reducing the fraud committed in the name of Medicare by ten percent would save enough money to pay for drugs for all seniors who really need them. Which is probably far fewer than anyone thinks. But that's another story. I'm reading a book right now that's making me rethink the usefulness of medicines in general. Combined with my personal experience with gout medications, skepticism is the mildest term I can come up with for my attitude toward paying doctors to prescribe anything they want.
FoxNews is reporting that the AARP, bastion of Boomer orthodoxy, is getting behind the President's prescription drug proposal. Is that a good thing? Politically, it's a disaster for the Dems, who now have one issue fewer to rant about in 2004. But if the program can satisfy the AARP can it possibly be good for the taxpayer and the economy? It would be typical for the libs to make sure the slippery slope to universal coverage was well-greased and steep. If Bush really does tie the measure to Medicare reform, though, I might not be too afraid of it. Heck, just reducing the fraud committed in the name of Medicare by ten percent would save enough money to pay for drugs for all seniors who really need them. Which is probably far fewer than anyone thinks. But that's another story. I'm reading a book right now that's making me rethink the usefulness of medicines in general. Combined with my personal experience with gout medications, skepticism is the mildest term I can come up with for my attitude toward paying doctors to prescribe anything they want.
Finally!
The New York Post has a "breaking news" story, calling the incident an "apparent hijacking". Why did it take them half an hour after Bloomberg had the story? Don't they watch each other? No injuries, fortunately.
Update
NewsForum now has the hijack story. They label it "first reports". Hah! Not hardly. But they did come up with some funny comments, not the usual shrillness entirely.
The New York Post has a "breaking news" story, calling the incident an "apparent hijacking". Why did it take them half an hour after Bloomberg had the story? Don't they watch each other? No injuries, fortunately.
Update
NewsForum now has the hijack story. They label it "first reports". Hah! Not hardly. But they did come up with some funny comments, not the usual shrillness entirely.
Bloomberg scoop
Why does Bloomberg have this story about a Bologna-Paris flight being hijacked and no one else does? Interesting how some outlets get news that others don't. Let's see, has Drudge got it yet? Back in a moment. Nope. NewsForum? Nope. Google News (auto-generated fifteen minutes ago!)? Nope. Hmm. Maybe it has something to do with corroboration. But does Drudge really bother with that? He could at least go with the "paper says" ploy. Wow. Now Bloomberg has taken the story down. The link still works, though. Hope the hijackers aren't headed for the Eiffel Tower.
Why does Bloomberg have this story about a Bologna-Paris flight being hijacked and no one else does? Interesting how some outlets get news that others don't. Let's see, has Drudge got it yet? Back in a moment. Nope. NewsForum? Nope. Google News (auto-generated fifteen minutes ago!)? Nope. Hmm. Maybe it has something to do with corroboration. But does Drudge really bother with that? He could at least go with the "paper says" ploy. Wow. Now Bloomberg has taken the story down. The link still works, though. Hope the hijackers aren't headed for the Eiffel Tower.
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Plague on both your houses
A poll on the front page of the New York Times is analyzed by David Frum of NRO. It purports to show that the public doesn't trust the Republicans on the environment, taxes or Social Security. It's a bit odd, though, that nowhere in the NYT article does it say that the people would trust the Democrats to take care of these matters either. Frum concludes that voters were mainly motivated by the war in voting predominantly for Republicans, and would have voted for the Democrats if the war hadn't been an issue. But couldn't it be that the voters weren't enthusiastic about either party's way of running the country? In that case, any small positive effect from the war on terror would be enough to impel voters toward the Republican side of the ballot. This view is buttressed in my mind by the reflection that if the NYT had found that people were as positive about the Democrats as they were negative about the Republicans, they wouldn't have hesitated to publish those numbers, up front and in BIG TYPE.
A poll on the front page of the New York Times is analyzed by David Frum of NRO. It purports to show that the public doesn't trust the Republicans on the environment, taxes or Social Security. It's a bit odd, though, that nowhere in the NYT article does it say that the people would trust the Democrats to take care of these matters either. Frum concludes that voters were mainly motivated by the war in voting predominantly for Republicans, and would have voted for the Democrats if the war hadn't been an issue. But couldn't it be that the voters weren't enthusiastic about either party's way of running the country? In that case, any small positive effect from the war on terror would be enough to impel voters toward the Republican side of the ballot. This view is buttressed in my mind by the reflection that if the NYT had found that people were as positive about the Democrats as they were negative about the Republicans, they wouldn't have hesitated to publish those numbers, up front and in BIG TYPE.
Cold War II
I've been struck lately by how much the War against Terror is like the Cold War. We face in Islamofascism an ideological foe that, like Communism, is intent on conquering the world, that insists on governing every aspect of man's thoughts and actions, that paints freedom as irrelevant and dangerous, that allows any means to gain its ends. Like Al Qaeda, the international Communist Party favored infiltration, subversion of the young and exploitation of racial and class hatreds to advance its agenda. It claimed the right to the body and property of every member of society. Refusal to serve the interests of "the People" was punished as harshly by the Communists as refusal to serve Allah is by the Islamofascists.
The Communists, before 1917, had no country to serve as a base from which to run their campaign of subversion and terror. But they claimed to have a natural base in the working class of every (industrialized) nation. Al Qaeda claims to have a natural constituency in every believer in Islam, spread through dozens of states, including large populations in Europe and the US. When they acquired power in Russia, the Communists immediately set out to use the power of the nation-state to spread Communism, perpetrating the myth that history inevitably would bring about the collapse of capitalism. When Al Qaeda established a base in Afghanistan, they immediately launched attacks throughout the world to fire the imagination of every Muslim with dreams of world domination and the inevitable collapse of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and secularism of every sort. They would dearly like to have control of another country, Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, for example, to use as a base.
The accomplishment of the Bush 43 administration in destroying the power of the Taliban emerges as much more significant than any editorialist whom I've read has yet admitted. Imagine if in 1917 the Western powers had managed to crush the Bolsheviks (hey, they tried) and propped up the Kerensky quasi-democratic government until it was viable. Chances are good the Second World War could have been avoided, since Stalin's accomodationist policies toward Hitler would not have been necessary. Russia in 1917, despite the destruction caused by the war, had all the elements necessary to put together a strong capitalist economy. With wise policies, it could have been much stronger in the Thirties than Stalin's USSR was. Also, presumably, half the officers in the Red Army would not have been purged and shot. So Hitler in 1939 might have been forced to postpone indefinitely his plans to invade Poland. Such are the stakes involved in denying Al Qaeda a nation-state to use as a base. Perhaps a hundred years from now someone on that era's version of a blog will comment about how fortunate the world was to have a George W. Bush in 2002 to take the appropriate actions to forestall the triumph of Islamic fundamentalism. I hope.
I've been struck lately by how much the War against Terror is like the Cold War. We face in Islamofascism an ideological foe that, like Communism, is intent on conquering the world, that insists on governing every aspect of man's thoughts and actions, that paints freedom as irrelevant and dangerous, that allows any means to gain its ends. Like Al Qaeda, the international Communist Party favored infiltration, subversion of the young and exploitation of racial and class hatreds to advance its agenda. It claimed the right to the body and property of every member of society. Refusal to serve the interests of "the People" was punished as harshly by the Communists as refusal to serve Allah is by the Islamofascists.
The Communists, before 1917, had no country to serve as a base from which to run their campaign of subversion and terror. But they claimed to have a natural base in the working class of every (industrialized) nation. Al Qaeda claims to have a natural constituency in every believer in Islam, spread through dozens of states, including large populations in Europe and the US. When they acquired power in Russia, the Communists immediately set out to use the power of the nation-state to spread Communism, perpetrating the myth that history inevitably would bring about the collapse of capitalism. When Al Qaeda established a base in Afghanistan, they immediately launched attacks throughout the world to fire the imagination of every Muslim with dreams of world domination and the inevitable collapse of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and secularism of every sort. They would dearly like to have control of another country, Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, for example, to use as a base.
The accomplishment of the Bush 43 administration in destroying the power of the Taliban emerges as much more significant than any editorialist whom I've read has yet admitted. Imagine if in 1917 the Western powers had managed to crush the Bolsheviks (hey, they tried) and propped up the Kerensky quasi-democratic government until it was viable. Chances are good the Second World War could have been avoided, since Stalin's accomodationist policies toward Hitler would not have been necessary. Russia in 1917, despite the destruction caused by the war, had all the elements necessary to put together a strong capitalist economy. With wise policies, it could have been much stronger in the Thirties than Stalin's USSR was. Also, presumably, half the officers in the Red Army would not have been purged and shot. So Hitler in 1939 might have been forced to postpone indefinitely his plans to invade Poland. Such are the stakes involved in denying Al Qaeda a nation-state to use as a base. Perhaps a hundred years from now someone on that era's version of a blog will comment about how fortunate the world was to have a George W. Bush in 2002 to take the appropriate actions to forestall the triumph of Islamic fundamentalism. I hope.
Advantage Conundrum!
John O'Sullivan, in the Chicago Sun-Times, has a suggestion that looks a lot like mine in my last post. You don't think he's been reading Conundrum, do you? I like his idea of including Norway and Switzerland. The ultimate goal is to absorb the EU completely, reducing the influence of France and Germany to levels commensurate with their production and the strength of their political and economic systems. They would be free to impose thirty-five hour work weeks and six weeks of paid vacation for part-time workers on their economies if they wanted to, but they should be aware no one would rescue them from the consequences of these insanities. A free-trade zone should be just that. No "sharing of the pain" so as to subsidize idiotic economic regimes with the productivity of hard-working free men will be countenanced. But new techniques and technology will be available, for appropriate compensation. I disagree in principle with his refusal to allow free movement of labor. That would be the best feature. Assuming reasonable immigration controls could be worked out to exclude terrorists and other criminals, why would we not want to open our job market to millions of hard-working and ambitious immigrants, and what Eastern European, Turk, even Schweizer, would not want to try working in America? Of course, no social welfare benefits would be available to such economic migrants. Also, American investment in member countries would be unimpeded, making it likely, after a reasonable time, that workers could find good jobs at home. Competition among countries for investment dollars would soon reduce and could eliminate the subsidies and foreign ownership restrictions that have handicapped so many of the world's economies. Win/Win!
John O'Sullivan, in the Chicago Sun-Times, has a suggestion that looks a lot like mine in my last post. You don't think he's been reading Conundrum, do you? I like his idea of including Norway and Switzerland. The ultimate goal is to absorb the EU completely, reducing the influence of France and Germany to levels commensurate with their production and the strength of their political and economic systems. They would be free to impose thirty-five hour work weeks and six weeks of paid vacation for part-time workers on their economies if they wanted to, but they should be aware no one would rescue them from the consequences of these insanities. A free-trade zone should be just that. No "sharing of the pain" so as to subsidize idiotic economic regimes with the productivity of hard-working free men will be countenanced. But new techniques and technology will be available, for appropriate compensation. I disagree in principle with his refusal to allow free movement of labor. That would be the best feature. Assuming reasonable immigration controls could be worked out to exclude terrorists and other criminals, why would we not want to open our job market to millions of hard-working and ambitious immigrants, and what Eastern European, Turk, even Schweizer, would not want to try working in America? Of course, no social welfare benefits would be available to such economic migrants. Also, American investment in member countries would be unimpeded, making it likely, after a reasonable time, that workers could find good jobs at home. Competition among countries for investment dollars would soon reduce and could eliminate the subsidies and foreign ownership restrictions that have handicapped so many of the world's economies. Win/Win!
Friday, November 22, 2002
I have a suggestion
The New Republic is bemoaning the EU's reluctance to let Turkey in. As I mentioned a few posts below, we could offer Turkey a clear alternative: Join an expanded NAFTA that would include a large swath of Eastern Europe. As a further inducement, the Turks would not have to be in the same economic community as Greece, their historic rival and enemy. Hmm. Then what would we do with Cyprus? Hey, it's not bigger than many of our states. It even looks a lot like West Virginia. I'm sure neither Greece nor Turkey would mind if we took Cyprus on as a new state, or, rather, two states. It's only been trouble for them. We could immediately resolve the Greek/Turkish split by having North Cyprus and South Cyprus, each with its set of politicians. After all, the Crusaders in the twelfth century used Cyprus as a base. Why can't we?
The New Republic is bemoaning the EU's reluctance to let Turkey in. As I mentioned a few posts below, we could offer Turkey a clear alternative: Join an expanded NAFTA that would include a large swath of Eastern Europe. As a further inducement, the Turks would not have to be in the same economic community as Greece, their historic rival and enemy. Hmm. Then what would we do with Cyprus? Hey, it's not bigger than many of our states. It even looks a lot like West Virginia. I'm sure neither Greece nor Turkey would mind if we took Cyprus on as a new state, or, rather, two states. It's only been trouble for them. We could immediately resolve the Greek/Turkish split by having North Cyprus and South Cyprus, each with its set of politicians. After all, the Crusaders in the twelfth century used Cyprus as a base. Why can't we?
European deathwatch - or is Chirac smartening up?
In this Bloomberg article, the decline of France is chronicled, so I blithely linked to it, chortling internally about the firesale prices I would soon be able to get Beaujolais and Brie for. But, wonder of wonders, it looks like Chirac is actually trying to lower taxes and back off on that stupid 35-hour work week regulation. I don't have much hope he'll get past the collectivists' roadblocks. But at least he's looking at the right moves. Next, he should try a full scale assault on "La Zone", those largely Arab areas around the big cities where police fear to go. That might put some backbone into the average Froggie.
In this Bloomberg article, the decline of France is chronicled, so I blithely linked to it, chortling internally about the firesale prices I would soon be able to get Beaujolais and Brie for. But, wonder of wonders, it looks like Chirac is actually trying to lower taxes and back off on that stupid 35-hour work week regulation. I don't have much hope he'll get past the collectivists' roadblocks. But at least he's looking at the right moves. Next, he should try a full scale assault on "La Zone", those largely Arab areas around the big cities where police fear to go. That might put some backbone into the average Froggie.
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Biting the hand that feeds you, and brings you modern medical care
Maybe this will demonstrate to those who wish to see the futility of trying to help people who hate your guts and want so much to kill you and all people like you out of sheer spite and bitterness that they will keep themselves in poverty and disease rather than let you help. The murderous fool who did this is now, no doubt, passing out candy to Arab children. If he's caught and killed, he surely will have a great memorial service at which modern rational thinking will be blamed for his bloody-mindedness. Too bad his murderous hatred couldn't have been directed at someone who had actually done something to deserve it, like Robert Fisk.
Maybe this will demonstrate to those who wish to see the futility of trying to help people who hate your guts and want so much to kill you and all people like you out of sheer spite and bitterness that they will keep themselves in poverty and disease rather than let you help. The murderous fool who did this is now, no doubt, passing out candy to Arab children. If he's caught and killed, he surely will have a great memorial service at which modern rational thinking will be blamed for his bloody-mindedness. Too bad his murderous hatred couldn't have been directed at someone who had actually done something to deserve it, like Robert Fisk.
Powell and Bush win again
William Safire and Newsday (via Realclearpolitics) agree that the inclusion, without conditions, of the Baltic trio of nations in NATO is a coup for the administration. The Russian Bear, as James Klurfeld of Newsday said, did not growl. Unbelievable, is it not, also, that Bulgaria, for decades the hardest of hard-line Soviet client states (remember Bulgarians Georgi Markov, killed by ricin and Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot the Pope?) is now a full military partner of the United States of America? And these countries joined NATO before the European Union would let them in! Maybe, as I mentioned in a comment on Sofia Sideshow, we should undercut the Common Market and induct Eastern Europe as a whole into NAFTA. And, what the heck, let's get Russia, Ukraine, everyone else, surround the darn Euroweenies. We could change the name to NAEEFTA. That would assure our supply of Russian oil and diamonds and gold. Maybe Putin would get some help resolving the Chechnya - and Georgian and Ossetian and Abkhazian - situations. Win/win!
Seriously, this is history.
Update
Charles Krauthammer, in WaPo, lays out the changed strategic situation. In short, America dominates. We can look forward to a future where Bulgaria and Rumania have larger, more efficient and better led military forces than France, Germany or Canada. Call me old-fashioned, but history still tells us that those with credible military options get respect. The American target for Islamofascist wrath has hardened considerably. So where will the bin Ladens of the world turn their attention? "Boom! goes London, boom! Paree," to quote Randy Newman. After all, we've got a lot of new friends who, unlike the Western Europeans, will put up with little nonsense from violent fundamentalists. Now THAT's "multilateralism"!
William Safire and Newsday (via Realclearpolitics) agree that the inclusion, without conditions, of the Baltic trio of nations in NATO is a coup for the administration. The Russian Bear, as James Klurfeld of Newsday said, did not growl. Unbelievable, is it not, also, that Bulgaria, for decades the hardest of hard-line Soviet client states (remember Bulgarians Georgi Markov, killed by ricin and Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot the Pope?) is now a full military partner of the United States of America? And these countries joined NATO before the European Union would let them in! Maybe, as I mentioned in a comment on Sofia Sideshow, we should undercut the Common Market and induct Eastern Europe as a whole into NAFTA. And, what the heck, let's get Russia, Ukraine, everyone else, surround the darn Euroweenies. We could change the name to NAEEFTA. That would assure our supply of Russian oil and diamonds and gold. Maybe Putin would get some help resolving the Chechnya - and Georgian and Ossetian and Abkhazian - situations. Win/win!
Seriously, this is history.
Update
Charles Krauthammer, in WaPo, lays out the changed strategic situation. In short, America dominates. We can look forward to a future where Bulgaria and Rumania have larger, more efficient and better led military forces than France, Germany or Canada. Call me old-fashioned, but history still tells us that those with credible military options get respect. The American target for Islamofascist wrath has hardened considerably. So where will the bin Ladens of the world turn their attention? "Boom! goes London, boom! Paree," to quote Randy Newman. After all, we've got a lot of new friends who, unlike the Western Europeans, will put up with little nonsense from violent fundamentalists. Now THAT's "multilateralism"!
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Hope
Perhaps we aren't fated to a future that includes a Canadian-style health care system. God knows our present system is riddled with enough government-induced inefficiencies already. This article relates the heartwarming story of how even in liberal Oregon the voters rejected totalitarian health care by a 79% to 21% margin. The big mistake the referendum pushers made was to try to do too much at one time. The real cost of the program was obvious. It would have bankrupted Oregon. And, of course, anyone in any other state who had a health problem and hadn't provided for his health care would up and move to Oregon to get his share of the goodies before it all went bust. Sometimes I am impressed by the wisdom of the people. Maybe voting's not such a bad thing after all.
Perhaps we aren't fated to a future that includes a Canadian-style health care system. God knows our present system is riddled with enough government-induced inefficiencies already. This article relates the heartwarming story of how even in liberal Oregon the voters rejected totalitarian health care by a 79% to 21% margin. The big mistake the referendum pushers made was to try to do too much at one time. The real cost of the program was obvious. It would have bankrupted Oregon. And, of course, anyone in any other state who had a health problem and hadn't provided for his health care would up and move to Oregon to get his share of the goodies before it all went bust. Sometimes I am impressed by the wisdom of the people. Maybe voting's not such a bad thing after all.
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Another memorial
You don't have to be a crypto-Communist Senator to get a big fancy memorial event. You can just murder innocent people who are waiting in their cars to go in to work, as this barbarian did. The only good thing is that now millions of Pakis know the penalty for killing people in Virginia is death. If that deters one or two from committing more acts of savagery, I'll put up with the stupidity of having the media treat the memorial polemics as news instead of senseless ravings. I hope Muhammad and Malvo were watching.
You don't have to be a crypto-Communist Senator to get a big fancy memorial event. You can just murder innocent people who are waiting in their cars to go in to work, as this barbarian did. The only good thing is that now millions of Pakis know the penalty for killing people in Virginia is death. If that deters one or two from committing more acts of savagery, I'll put up with the stupidity of having the media treat the memorial polemics as news instead of senseless ravings. I hope Muhammad and Malvo were watching.
Perfidy
How long will it take the Republicans to realize that it is useless to be nice to Democrats? In the lame-duck session under way right now, the Republicans did not force a struggle on taking over full control of all committees immediately, which they could have done. They were being collegial and gracious, or maybe just plain stupid. And the Dems have now done their best to hold up the Homeland Security Bill, the passage of which was the whole point of the session. When are Republicans going to learn that politics is just war by other means? And that if you don't finish off your enemy (1991 in Baghdad, anyone?) he will just obstruct you any way he can? Who can remember the Wellstone "memorial service" without being absolutely enlightened about the way the Democrats approach politics?
Sure, I know, the bill's full of pork. Duh. They all are, especially any as assured of eventual passage as this one. Would that stop even one Democrat if it was pork sponsored by them? Duh.
How long will it take the Republicans to realize that it is useless to be nice to Democrats? In the lame-duck session under way right now, the Republicans did not force a struggle on taking over full control of all committees immediately, which they could have done. They were being collegial and gracious, or maybe just plain stupid. And the Dems have now done their best to hold up the Homeland Security Bill, the passage of which was the whole point of the session. When are Republicans going to learn that politics is just war by other means? And that if you don't finish off your enemy (1991 in Baghdad, anyone?) he will just obstruct you any way he can? Who can remember the Wellstone "memorial service" without being absolutely enlightened about the way the Democrats approach politics?
Sure, I know, the bill's full of pork. Duh. They all are, especially any as assured of eventual passage as this one. Would that stop even one Democrat if it was pork sponsored by them? Duh.
Monday, November 18, 2002
Europe is doomed
So, growth is down to one percent or less, unemployment is at long-time highs, what does your government do? Get out of the way of the producers? Not if you’re a German, whose economy represents one-third of the Euro-area economy. You introduce a capital-gains tax and eliminate “tax breaks” and increase “social insurance” contributions – yep, that means taxes, too. Am I missing something, or is Al Qaeda now in control of the German government? Now if the US withdraws its troops from Germany, wouldn’t that just push the Bundeswimps into a spiralling recessionary downturn? And wouldn’t we just be so sorry to hear about that?
And Japan isn’t any better off.
Update
Gerhard Schroder's (sorry, I haven't figured out where the umlaut is hiding on this machine) hand on the tiller of the German ship of state is a tad wobbly, according to the Economist(via Instapundit). He apparently had made a campaign promise not to do anything really stupid, like, for instance, raise taxes or "social insurance contributions". Why that would be "economically absurd" during a downturn. Why does anyone listen to what a politician says during a campaign?
So, growth is down to one percent or less, unemployment is at long-time highs, what does your government do? Get out of the way of the producers? Not if you’re a German, whose economy represents one-third of the Euro-area economy. You introduce a capital-gains tax and eliminate “tax breaks” and increase “social insurance” contributions – yep, that means taxes, too. Am I missing something, or is Al Qaeda now in control of the German government? Now if the US withdraws its troops from Germany, wouldn’t that just push the Bundeswimps into a spiralling recessionary downturn? And wouldn’t we just be so sorry to hear about that?
And Japan isn’t any better off.
Update
Gerhard Schroder's (sorry, I haven't figured out where the umlaut is hiding on this machine) hand on the tiller of the German ship of state is a tad wobbly, according to the Economist(via Instapundit). He apparently had made a campaign promise not to do anything really stupid, like, for instance, raise taxes or "social insurance contributions". Why that would be "economically absurd" during a downturn. Why does anyone listen to what a politician says during a campaign?
Friday, November 08, 2002
Synthesis
David Brooks has a great article in the Weekly Standard, via Little Green Footballs, about the ultimate collectivist regime, merging Lenin and Hitler, Trotsky and Goebbels. Surprise! It's Iraq! Historical inevitability and all. It only makes sense, then, that they should be crushed by the two hundred ton historical gorilla that is Capitalism, as exemplified by the United States Armed Forces, George W. Bush and Israel! Gotterdammerung time! Twinkle, twinkle!
David Brooks has a great article in the Weekly Standard, via Little Green Footballs, about the ultimate collectivist regime, merging Lenin and Hitler, Trotsky and Goebbels. Surprise! It's Iraq! Historical inevitability and all. It only makes sense, then, that they should be crushed by the two hundred ton historical gorilla that is Capitalism, as exemplified by the United States Armed Forces, George W. Bush and Israel! Gotterdammerung time! Twinkle, twinkle!
We win - again!!
And this is better than the election. Robert Fisk is blowing his top, beside himself (no, not two of them!!) that the US has had its way with the UN Security Council. Maybe now the conservatives will concede that Colin Powell has some real skills - and some political instincts! I'm jumping to conclusions there. He may not get credit for the new resolution that in every way surpasses anything the US was able to get out of the UN about the Iraq mess in the last eleven years. But what the heck? He's Secretary of State. The combination of Powell and Bush has turned the world upside down. Does everybody realize that the vote for the Iraq war powers resolution was considerably more lopsided than the one Bush 41 got in 1990? That the unanimous Security Council resolution (including SYRIA!! I'm still boggled) was more unexpected than Max Cleland losing his Senate seat in Georgia, less probable than Walter Mondale losing an election in Minnesota? What a week. I need a bourbon. Wild Turkey 101.
And this is better than the election. Robert Fisk is blowing his top, beside himself (no, not two of them!!) that the US has had its way with the UN Security Council. Maybe now the conservatives will concede that Colin Powell has some real skills - and some political instincts! I'm jumping to conclusions there. He may not get credit for the new resolution that in every way surpasses anything the US was able to get out of the UN about the Iraq mess in the last eleven years. But what the heck? He's Secretary of State. The combination of Powell and Bush has turned the world upside down. Does everybody realize that the vote for the Iraq war powers resolution was considerably more lopsided than the one Bush 41 got in 1990? That the unanimous Security Council resolution (including SYRIA!! I'm still boggled) was more unexpected than Max Cleland losing his Senate seat in Georgia, less probable than Walter Mondale losing an election in Minnesota? What a week. I need a bourbon. Wild Turkey 101.
Wednesday, November 06, 2002
We win!! - or something
Despite my inability to figure out a reason to vote, I still get that glow of satisfaction when the candidates I have backed publicly and secretly cheered for win. I found a fascinating bunch of comments on a Democratic-leaning website that give a well-rounded idea of the mess the Democratic party is in this morning. They literally haven't a clue. I'm not sure yesterday's results will make a difference, but at least it diminishes the possibility that I'll have to look at Al Gore or Hillary Clinton in the White House two years from the coming January 20.
Despite my inability to figure out a reason to vote, I still get that glow of satisfaction when the candidates I have backed publicly and secretly cheered for win. I found a fascinating bunch of comments on a Democratic-leaning website that give a well-rounded idea of the mess the Democratic party is in this morning. They literally haven't a clue. I'm not sure yesterday's results will make a difference, but at least it diminishes the possibility that I'll have to look at Al Gore or Hillary Clinton in the White House two years from the coming January 20.
Tuesday, November 05, 2002
Double Delusion
Despite all the ranting and threats from the pro-delusion factor, I persist in laying out my analysis of voting as a rational pursuit. Majoritarian democracy consists of two interwoven delusions. The first, as I have been saying, is the delusion that one vote counts. It doesn't. End of story. Oh, all right, if you want to go beyond that, if you are determined not to think about that topic, if you insist on taking the leap of faith and voting, because of stupidity or emotional fragility or fear of social disapproval or greed for power, let's pretend. Let's pretend you have enough political influence to sway the vote one way or the other. Should you vote Democrat or Republican? Does anyone delude himself to the extent that he thinks his political influence can make the Libertarians or the Greens or the Independents into a majority party? Let's ignore him. Does a vote - no, ok, we're pretending you've got thousands, what, maybe millions of votes? Does going for the Donks or Pachyderms make any real difference?
So now we get to the issues. What we care about:
Drug war. Democrats have to be better on this, right? The Republicans are the "social conservatives". Wrong. Bill Clinton doubled the number of people in jail for marijuana crimes. No powerful politician supports drug rights. Chucky Schumer and Joe Biden are some of the most ferocious drug totalitarians. Putting Dems into power would not change the drug war perceptibly. After all, it got going under Roosevelt - a Dem - and was cranked up tremendously under Kennedy and Johnson. The neo-Puritan consciousness purses its lips with disapproval at those skanky heroin addicts and tries to forget its hash parties in the Sixties.
Taxes Republicans, right? Sure. Under Reagan the government expanded as much as it did under any two-term Democrat. Whenever a Democrat tries to crank up taxes, as Clinton did in 1993, he gets hammered at the polls. But our wonderful democratic system allows a slow, inexorable increase in the money going to government, and therefore its power.
Political correctness Republicans will take care of this, right? Sure, they'll prevent the drift toward neo-Puritanism? They wouldn't , for instance, let a bill go through that mandates tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money for "disabled rights". Wrong. Bush 41 did, and he lent his support to the ridiculous Rio Summit. And the notion of "family leave" under penalty of law? Wrong again. Bush 41. The idiocies of recycling and wetlands confiscation and pollution controls never seem to get better no matter who's in power. They just keep ratcheting up, choking entrepreneurship and property rights. The present regime has not done anything to stop the war on smokers or the racism of "affirmative action".
Defense Well, surely, the Republicans will go after those Islamofascists like the Dems never would, right? Sure. Like Reagan did anything about the blowing up of the Beirut US embassy and the Marine Barracks. Like Bush 41 knocked off Saddam. Like Nixon crushed the North Vietnamese. Even Bush 43 has been hogtied by the hysterical UN-lovers and those in his own party who don't want to make the French or the Germans or the Mauritians mad. Oh, yes, Mauritius is on the Security Council this year. It's an island group in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar with fewer than one million people. Think Orlando without Disneyworld. I have no confidence at all in the Republican vision of national defense. The Republicans are cheap isolationists. The Democrats are wimpy appeasers. Neither way works very well.
Abortion Now if abortion rights are your hot button, you'd have to vote for the Dems, right? Hmm. Roe v. Wade happened under Nixon. Since 1972 Republicans have had the White House for eighteen of thirty years. The result? No change at all in abortion rights. Anti-abortion terrorism has arisen and has not been dealt with any better by Democrats than Republicans.
Crime Both Dems and Repubs have fumbled around trying to blame crime on drugs, poverty or social incivility. The improvements of late haven't had much to do with either party's policies. The bipartisan impulse, also known as the bandwagon effect, makes sure that any effective measure is trumpeted by pols of both parties. Perhaps only capital punishment is identified more closely with the Republicans than the Democrats. And capital punishment is inflicted on so few of the monsters our wonderful system has produced that it's less than a joke.
I can find no key issue on which either party would be markedly better than the other, even in the vanishingly unlikely event that one party controlled the Presidency and the House and two-thirds of the Senate. And even if I could, that issue would no doubt be balanced by another just as important that the other party dealt with better.
There's another problem. Politicians lie for a living. Even if I could doubly delude myself into accepting the system as it is, I would not vote for a pack of liars. But go ahead, delusionists, vote away. It's your "right", after all. It makes you feel good. Just keep telling yourself, "It's only a game. It's only a game!"
Despite all the ranting and threats from the pro-delusion factor, I persist in laying out my analysis of voting as a rational pursuit. Majoritarian democracy consists of two interwoven delusions. The first, as I have been saying, is the delusion that one vote counts. It doesn't. End of story. Oh, all right, if you want to go beyond that, if you are determined not to think about that topic, if you insist on taking the leap of faith and voting, because of stupidity or emotional fragility or fear of social disapproval or greed for power, let's pretend. Let's pretend you have enough political influence to sway the vote one way or the other. Should you vote Democrat or Republican? Does anyone delude himself to the extent that he thinks his political influence can make the Libertarians or the Greens or the Independents into a majority party? Let's ignore him. Does a vote - no, ok, we're pretending you've got thousands, what, maybe millions of votes? Does going for the Donks or Pachyderms make any real difference?
So now we get to the issues. What we care about:
Drug war. Democrats have to be better on this, right? The Republicans are the "social conservatives". Wrong. Bill Clinton doubled the number of people in jail for marijuana crimes. No powerful politician supports drug rights. Chucky Schumer and Joe Biden are some of the most ferocious drug totalitarians. Putting Dems into power would not change the drug war perceptibly. After all, it got going under Roosevelt - a Dem - and was cranked up tremendously under Kennedy and Johnson. The neo-Puritan consciousness purses its lips with disapproval at those skanky heroin addicts and tries to forget its hash parties in the Sixties.
Taxes Republicans, right? Sure. Under Reagan the government expanded as much as it did under any two-term Democrat. Whenever a Democrat tries to crank up taxes, as Clinton did in 1993, he gets hammered at the polls. But our wonderful democratic system allows a slow, inexorable increase in the money going to government, and therefore its power.
Political correctness Republicans will take care of this, right? Sure, they'll prevent the drift toward neo-Puritanism? They wouldn't , for instance, let a bill go through that mandates tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money for "disabled rights". Wrong. Bush 41 did, and he lent his support to the ridiculous Rio Summit. And the notion of "family leave" under penalty of law? Wrong again. Bush 41. The idiocies of recycling and wetlands confiscation and pollution controls never seem to get better no matter who's in power. They just keep ratcheting up, choking entrepreneurship and property rights. The present regime has not done anything to stop the war on smokers or the racism of "affirmative action".
Defense Well, surely, the Republicans will go after those Islamofascists like the Dems never would, right? Sure. Like Reagan did anything about the blowing up of the Beirut US embassy and the Marine Barracks. Like Bush 41 knocked off Saddam. Like Nixon crushed the North Vietnamese. Even Bush 43 has been hogtied by the hysterical UN-lovers and those in his own party who don't want to make the French or the Germans or the Mauritians mad. Oh, yes, Mauritius is on the Security Council this year. It's an island group in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar with fewer than one million people. Think Orlando without Disneyworld. I have no confidence at all in the Republican vision of national defense. The Republicans are cheap isolationists. The Democrats are wimpy appeasers. Neither way works very well.
Abortion Now if abortion rights are your hot button, you'd have to vote for the Dems, right? Hmm. Roe v. Wade happened under Nixon. Since 1972 Republicans have had the White House for eighteen of thirty years. The result? No change at all in abortion rights. Anti-abortion terrorism has arisen and has not been dealt with any better by Democrats than Republicans.
Crime Both Dems and Repubs have fumbled around trying to blame crime on drugs, poverty or social incivility. The improvements of late haven't had much to do with either party's policies. The bipartisan impulse, also known as the bandwagon effect, makes sure that any effective measure is trumpeted by pols of both parties. Perhaps only capital punishment is identified more closely with the Republicans than the Democrats. And capital punishment is inflicted on so few of the monsters our wonderful system has produced that it's less than a joke.
I can find no key issue on which either party would be markedly better than the other, even in the vanishingly unlikely event that one party controlled the Presidency and the House and two-thirds of the Senate. And even if I could, that issue would no doubt be balanced by another just as important that the other party dealt with better.
There's another problem. Politicians lie for a living. Even if I could doubly delude myself into accepting the system as it is, I would not vote for a pack of liars. But go ahead, delusionists, vote away. It's your "right", after all. It makes you feel good. Just keep telling yourself, "It's only a game. It's only a game!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)