Comments and Submissions
Comments are welcome so please don't be shy!!! I would love to hear what you have to say even if it is in disagreement with me. Perhaps particularly if it in disagreement with me. However, all comments made here are part of a public blog so you shouldn't expect a right of privacy. Also, there is an interesting function called the Karma rating which allows you to vote on whether or not you liked the article without having to post a comment yourself.
If you would like to become an author and gain permission to submit articles to the blog you must first be approved. In order to be an approved author you must submit at least one (1) proposed article of between 1000 to 2000 words to herodotus@herodotus.memebot.com. If accepted, the proposed author will be given an access name and password, an email forwarding address (username@herodotus.memebot.com), and will need to submit articles on a "regular" basis.
The owner of the blog has complete and total discretion to remove and/or edit any posts and/or comments as he deems appropriate.
herodotus on 09.17.06 @ 07:37 PM CST [link]
Saturday, August 16, 2008
On Russia and Georgia
Everyone is talking about how brutal and unfair the Russians are acting in regards to Georgia. But the Russians have reasons for this invasion. One is probably a tit-for-tat response to Kosovo (which is something I still don't get -- why did we go out of our way to antagonize the Russians over Kosovo????). The Russians made it very clear that if Kosovo was allowed to secede from Serbia, it would signal the right of every minority who forms a local regional majority to demand secession. I find the nasty and brutish bullying of the Russians horrible, but it is very difficult to see how the issue of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are that much different than Kosovo. So now the shoe is on the other foot, and we are finding it very uncomfortable to accept that Georgia should be forced to allow the surgical removal of important parts of its historical territory because of unhappy minorities who form majorities in these areas.
There is also the issue of history gone wrong. Georgia and the other break away Republics of the former Soviet Union were once former imperial conquests of Czarist Russia. These territories were briefly stripped from Russia after WWI, and were soon returned to the Soviet Empire by conquest. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992, these same states became independent again. And they seem to be doing quite nicely without the Soviet Union or the Russians, Thank You Very Much! But many Russian nationalists view these former Soviet Republics as rightful property of the Russian Empire. Property that was stolen from it by unreasonable Western powers trying to hobble Russia and make it weak.
These reasons are totally unacceptable. Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Central Asian Republics are free nations, and must remain so unless they voluntarily choose to reintegrate themselves into the Novo Russian Empire. And perhaps we will need to make it clear that Kosovo was an error that should not be allowed to be used as a precedent in regards to other ethnic minority issues. I suspect it is only a matter of time before Kosovo is resolved through war and the land that has been the historical homeland of Serbians will be returned to them.
All that aside, what was Georgia thinking about starting a confrontation with Russia???? Georgia has adopted the European military policy: Spend nothing on your defense and rely/depend upon the USA to get you out of trouble if there is a problem. This is acceptable for Belgium or Luxembourg, but is completely unacceptable for a nation with a hostile border with Russia.
The Swiss or Israeli model would have been preferred. The Georgian army has/had around 15,000 poorly armed troops with virtually no air support. This is less than 1% of the national populations. They probably spent no more on defense spending. The Georgian standing forces should have been larger in number, say 50,000, and with a higher proportion of air power and air defense. They should have been able to call up another 100,000 well armed and prepared troops within 24 hours of an alert, with another 100,000 to 200,00 available within 7 days. They should have been able to have their entire nation on a war footing within 30 days of an alert. Only then could they have been able to look abroad for help in the face of a Russian aggression.
In 1973 the Arabs under Sadat brilliantly surprised and overwhelmed the Israeli defenses. The US responded by massive airlifts of war material. The state of Israel would probably have been destroyed but for this airlift of supplies. But the supplies would have been useless if the Israelis had not taken the effort to maximize their defense capacities well in advance.
This should be a lesson to the neighbors of Imperial Russia. Either submit to the yoke of Russian Imperialism, or be prepared to fight effectively against it, even if this means merely being able to hold the line long enough for your Western Allies to come to your aid.
herodotus on 08.16.08 @ 09:39 PM CST [link] [Karma: 7 (+/-)] [4 Comments]
Friday, February 22, 2008
Obama's Rhetoric Regarding "Hope" and "Change" is not EMPTY!!!
Quite to the contrary, it is full of danger!
When you listen and review the rhetoric of Barack Obama, many people suggest that he is simply spouting meaningless syllogisms with no substance or meaning that feed on people’s frustration and confusion. However, I would posit that Obama’s rhetoric is far from empty, and is in fact very dangerous. When we look back over the centuries to other political animals who used this particular form of rhetoric, we see an ugly picture of demagogues and dictators.
There seems to be a three step program for politicians who use this particular rhetorical strategy to obtain power:
1. You must begin by promoting, perhaps even provoking, an emotional sense of despair, doubt and desperation in the hearts and minds of your listeners.
2. Then you must use meaningless energetic language to encourage people to back your bid for political power. Utilizing a cult of personality helps to avoid the messy issues of means and methods, let alone ultimate goals. In this way you can convince people that the situation is dire, and that you are the only one capable of fixing the situation, without ever offering any concrete proposals.
3. Finally, once you have acquired political power, you must seize as much power as possible in order to achieve you ultimate objectives, whether they be nationalistic, fascistic, communistic, religious, etc.
Now in regards to Barack Obama number one and number two seem to being going according to the script. Every speech starts off with an emotional tear-jerker story about how horrible it is to live in America or be an American. Next he does a fine job of reading his speech filled with meaningless references to “hope” and “change” without ever giving any particular reason for people to be hopeful, and without providing any description of what he intends to do differently to effect change.
But what about number three? What does Barack Obama intend to do? What are his ultimate objectives? Most of the great demagogues of the world have had ultimate objectives, even if they refused to clearly state them. Power was often seen as means of achieving those goals, not an end in themselves. What is Barack Obama’s ultimate goal? No one knows. His supporters are made to look like fools whenever this question is asked of them (or even when they are asked what "change" in particular they are for).
A short list of demagogues who at one point in their careers utilized the rhetorical strategy described above: Hitler, Pol Pot, all the other Fascist dictators, most of the early Communist dictators, most of the ancient dictators of Greece and Rome. Will we give Barack Obama the privilege of being added to this list?
Over the past 20 years the United States of America has become a much less "free" place to live. The Federal Government has grown to encompass virtually every aspect of American life. Do we want to give such ultimate and awesome state power to an unknown someone who uses the lowest of rhetorical means, refuses to explain his proposed means and methods, and who even refuses to provide a glimpse as to his final goals?
herodotus on 02.22.08 @ 09:21 AM CST [link] [Karma: 4 (+/-)] [2 Comments]
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The American Dream Revisited
I am writing to communicate a sudden epiphany I had recently. Although my realization of the situation was only recent, in truth the awareness was digging at me for a long time. The issue is this: I may have been operating my whole life under a delusional understanding of what the "American Dream" really means.
My parents can be forgiven for failing to properly inculcate me into true meaning of the “American Dream” due to the fact that they were both immigrants. My father only became a US citizen when he volunteered for the US army during World War II and spent almost four years fighting the Japanese in the Pacific (under US law an alien serving in the US military during wartime automatically becomes a US citizen). My mother was born in the US but she did not speak English until she entered first grade. As such, they simply did not know any better. They taught me a meaning of the "American Dream" that I now realize was totally false.
What the "American Dream" meant to my poor benighted parents was summed up in three simple rules: 1. Find something you are good at, 2. Play by the rules of the game, and 3. Work very hard to be the best that you can possibly be. That was it. For my parents that was what the "American Dream" meant. They would often tell me that if I followed these rules I would be a winner even if I never became wealthy, or even came in first.
I must admit to you that when it finally dawned on me that my parents were completely wrong, I was a bit angry at them. How could they so lead me astray. Now I am not angry since I am not sure that they were wrong about the issue so much as the definition may have changed over time. If there is fault it probably lies with me. I was educated in the old fashioned method of rote memorization. This produces positive results only as long as the information being drummed into your head is correct, and stays correct.
Now for most of you the proper definition of the “American Dream” will seem quite obvious, and you will think I am the most foolish person in the world to believe in the three rules my parents pounded into my thick skull, but I think the real issue is not so much understanding as “accepting”. Until recently, I simply could not accept that the entire meaning of the “American Dream” could be boiled down to one word: WINNING.
Now by no means was I taught that losing was a good thing. Winning was the goal in any competition, and was highly prized. However, losing in a competition where there could be only one winner was not seen as a particularly shameful situation, as long as you did your best. Just as you had to play and fight as hard as you possibly could while following the rules, you had to be able to step away from the game and realize that winning and losing the game was not the entire goal. You had to be able to realize that in life there can be more than one winner, and that games are only meant to hone your skills and abilities. As such, winners and losers had to accept either situation with grace. It was no shame to lose, and winning gave you no particular rights or privileges to gloat over the losers. Life was a process, not a conclusion.
When I finally accepted that I had been living under a delusional comprehension of how things worked, everything became clear to me. I began to understand more clearly the actions and attitudes of those around me whereas before I was simply dumbfounded. When “WINNING” is all that matters, being good at something does not matter. Neither does it matter whether you follow the rules (although getting caught breaking the rules is a bad thing -- it implies a certain lack of sophistication). And as for doing your best, that only counts if you actually win. No, when “WINNING” is all that matters then lying, cheating and stealing become totally appropriate behavior, as long as you do not get caught. Also, gloating at the expense of all the other participants becomes not an ugly display of bad taste, but normal behavior that should exemplify the final conclusion.
Now, under the old definition of the “American Dream” everyone could be a winner. But under the new and improved definition of the “American Dream” there can only be a small number of winners, and everyone else must be a loser. This explains my angst and confusion: All those years spent thinking I was a winner for following those three simple rules was just a delusion to hide the fact that I was a loser. I am not particularly rich, I am not particularly thin, my hair is not particularly thick and manageable, my accomplishments are not particularly noteworthy, etc. etc. etc.
Wow! I am a total loser, and I never realized it! Although this realization is somewhat depressing, it also provides me with a certain clarifying emancipation of my spirit. Now I can interpret the way my fellow Americans behave in a much more accurate light. When I think about the many times that someone has wronged me in some way and then proceeds to lie about the entire ordeal, often to the combined disgust and amazement of everyone with some knowledge of the situation, I now realize this person is simply pursuing the goal of winning at all costs. In most cases it has not really been about the money, and it certainly was not about fault since right or wrong obviously does not really matter. No it was all about winning, and that means beating me, beating the authority figure, and beating the system regardless of how meaningless and pointless the victory may prove to be.
I can look at any aspect of American life, and realize that this is so. In business, producing a good product or service means nothing; satisfying the client has no intrinsic value; and building a meaningful place in people's lives has no merit. Only winning at the game of making money counts for anything (in fact it counts for more than the money itself), so you might as well do anything that it takes to get ahead (just don't get caught). If Enron was the only example of this new leitmotif in business, I might think differently, but it is clear that the entire system has been run, sometimes into the ground, by people who care about nothing other than obtaining short-term victories over their immediate rivals.
Politics show the same focus on winning at all costs: all that is required is the ability lie effectively to impress the media and the voters. Truth, ideas, justice, freedom, effective government, etc. means nothing. It is all about beating the other guy or party, and making a good show of it for the voters.
In sports and entertainment it is the same: do what ever it takes to win, and then do a little dance in the endzone! Does anybody really doubt that Roger Clemens used performance enhancing drugs in violation of the rules to achieve his amazing results? The real shock will be if it turns out he is innocent. And no matter how nauseating Kanye West's acceptance speech may have been (along with his prior bizarre behavior at other venues), his actions simply reflect the fact that Mr. West understands very clearly the new definition of the “American Dream”: WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS. Everything else is incidental.
Am I sounding bitter, perhaps even vain, in my amazement at what the “American Dream” has become (at least in my eyes)? If so please forgive me. Perhaps, once the shock of my self-revelation wears off, I can join the club, and abandon any pretext of my old way of thinking. I will just do what ever it takes to win. Watch out world!????
herodotus on 02.14.08 @ 10:47 AM CST [link] [Karma: 7 (+/-)] [197 Comments]
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Byzantine Circus
As the political season in the USA heats up, I am reminded of the Byzantine Circus. The word Byzantine is now defined as: "characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue; devious." This is because the Byzantine Empire was maintained by a level of scheming and intrigue that has yet to be surpassed even in our modern age of electronic media.
This brings me to think about one of the primary methods that the Byzantine Emperors used to maintain power: keeping the various factions fighting against themselves so that they could never unite against the Emperor.
I read an interesting book about the Byzantine Empire, and the thing that struck me the most was the Circus Factions. The Circus in Rome and Byzantium was the chariot races which were very very popular. In fact these games were more important in Byzantium than football is in the USA, or soccer in the rest of the world. There were 2 factions which supported two separate teams, the Reds and the Greens, and their motivations were entirely sports related; they had almost no political interest whatsoever. However, they were powerful due to their numbers, and they would fight each other like cats and dogs causing riots that disrupted the entire Byzantine nation. Eventually the Emperors, particularly Justinian, realized that these factions could be turned from a disruptive force that threatened the survival of the nation, into a "useful" force that could be utilized to help the Emperor stay in power. The Emperors would favor one faction against the other, promoting their leaders in government, giving them perks and giving them added attention over the losing faction. By this time, these factional wars oddly had very little to do with outcome of the chariot races. The factions would signify themselves by hair style, clothing, badges, etc. When one faction was looking like it was getting a little too powerful, the Emperor would encourage the other faction to step in and push out the other. In this way the Byzantine Emperors kept Constantinople under their collective thumbs without having to use their own personal power to maintain order. The people were so obsessed with these factional contests that had zero effect upon the outcome of government that the Emperors were able to maintain their power and authority regardless of the success or propriety of the government itself.
In the USA we now have a very similar set up: the Reds and the Blues. They even have colors!!!!!! And both sides get so worked up about the other side, over the most trivial issues, that they ignore the fact that both sides are essentially the same. Even when they differ in words they almost never differ in actions. What difference does it make if Hillary, Barak, Rudy, or Mitt win the election???? None will have real authority to do what they say they will do, and none will make a decision without the prior approval of the real rulers, whoever they may be. The only difference I see between the Byzantine Empire and our current Emperors of the Modern World is that the Byzantine Emperors used to be required to maintain a certain public presence with appropriate pomp and circumstance. Our current Emperors hide in the background funneling billions of dollars to one cause or another, and fighting amongst themselves in battles we are too ignorant to even understand.
This brings me to the word 'Circus'. In ancient times, the Circus was merely a place where people met to enjoy sports. Now 'Circus' is defined as "a frenetic disorganized and often comic disturbance..." Where the Byzantines had the heart thumping excitement of the chariot races to propel them to meaningless action, we seem to rely upon the electronic media to provide us with the modern definition of circus to motivate our political lives and choices. But what sort of circus are we enjoying? Is it the acrobats we are watching, or the clowns????
herodotus on 01.26.08 @ 10:09 AM CST [link] [Karma: 7 (+/-)] [3 Comments]
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Universal Coverage vs. the Status Quo
As of late, the Republican Party and to some extent conservative political thinkers (the two are not always the same) have shown a disturbing disconnect between the real world and their perceptions. This is not just evident in the handling of the Iraq War, but in matters of domestic policy as well. The evidence of this can be found in the results of the 2006 election where the Republican Congress was handed its walking papers by voters fed up with double talking Republicans. Unfortunately the results of election have seemingly had little if any positive effect upon this disconnect. A case in point is the health care “crisis”.
The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they favor Universal Coverage through a system using a “Single Payer”. This is a misleading way of saying that they want to socialize the health care industry and put it under the sole control of the US government. They claim that this is necessary due to the failures of the “free market” system to adequately provide for a significant portion of society that currently lacks health care insurance coverage. They point out that millions of people are not covered by medical insurance right now and therefore declare that there is a crisis that requires federal intervention in the form of socialized medicine. There are two major errors in this line of thinking.
First of all, it is important to note that lack of health care insurance coverage does not equal lack of medical care. It is true that millions of people currently lack health care insurance, but this is due to a variety of causes including in many case a calculated voluntary decision on the part of many individuals not to pay the premiums for health care coverage which they could otherwise afford but decide not to obtain. Instead of insurance, these people have decided to pay for medical expenses out of their pocket, and take the risk upon themselves. In regards to the poor who cannot afford insurance coverage or medical care, there is no question that they are receiving medical care through a variety of government and private solutions. A lack of health care insurance does not equate to a lack of health care. There is no “crisis” in regards to health care, only in regards to health care insurance, and as such it is more of a middle class crisis than a crisis of poverty.
The second and more significant issue (at least it should be for the Republicans) is that the current system is far from a “free market” solution, and therefore their support for the status quo is far from supporting a free market solution. A free market requires that all potential parties to a transaction have free access to the market unhindered by oppressive barriers and are protected by an unbiased legal system. This must apply to potential consumers as well as potential providers. In the current system, the consumers are effectively locked out of the market place and must instead rely upon their employer to provide them with adequate coverage. Although there are “private” health care policies available they simply do not compare in price and quality to what can be provided by an employer. If the employee is dissatisfied with the coverage provided by the employer, the consumer/employee has little choice in this matter other than changing employment. Now this state of affairs is NOT a free market. If it is failing it is NOT because of the inability of the market place to provide effective solutions for the consumers, but because the barriers imposed by federal regulations (in this case a combination of tax code and insurance regulations) have effectively locked individual consumers out of the market, and instead locked them into a system that gives their employers overt control over their health care decisions, and thus greater leverage in retaining employees. No matter how hateful a job may be, the fact that it provides health care coverage to an employee and the family will often retain the employee if nothing else would have. This is not the free market at work.
When you examine this system more closely, I think it will become apparent that the concern that is being voiced by the American people about health care coverage is not really a fear of not getting adequate medical care, but is more a concern about job security and frustration at being reliant upon potentially fickle employers for not only ones' income but also health care. Republicans need to be aware that this is a very serious issue for millions of Americans who currently have health care and who have jobs, but who fear the consequence of losing both. Again, the issue is not that of poverty, but of middle class concerns for their family's security. Ignoring these concerns or cavalierly waiving them aside as insignificant is political suicide.
Although we could debate the viability of introducing a system that was truly based upon the “free market” it would be a fruitless discussion since that is not going to happen. We are not going to abandon our current system of employer sponsored health insurance coverage in favor of a true free market where the employer is removed from the equation and the consumer has the freedom to choose the best health care options for themselves. That is just fantasy. What is going to happen is that some form of Universal Coverage is going to be proposed, and if all the Republicans can do is act in opposition, then eventually they will lose, and a socialized version of Universal Coverage being promoted by the Democrats will be implemented with potentially disastrous consequences. The Republicans and/or conservatives must offer more than “principled” opposition. They must offer a viable alternative.
Now the Democratic flavor of Universal Coverage is based upon the socialist models found throughout the world, particularly in the UK and Canada. It is odd that these models are the only ones being considered since they have not been very successful. It is true that the system is popular in Canada, but that is because the system is primarily popular among those who are not sick. If you are seriously ill in Canada, the attitude changes quickly. The fact that most people in Canada are healthy would seem to explain the popularity of the Canadian health care system. In the UK, even this support has been lost as the sky-rocketing costs of the slow cumbersome and inefficient system have caused anxiety even among the healthy. From listening to the politicians it would seem that there is no choice available other than the status quo which is unsatisfactory to most Americans (even though it is working for those same people) and socialized medicine which has failed to provide “good” medical care but has provided “secure” health coverage. It would seem that security of coverage is more important to most people than quality of treatment or freedom of choice.
This is because of the fundamental failure of the Republicans to properly present the situation and offer effective alternate solutions. The Republicans have more or less ignored the profound sense of insecurity expressed by most Americans in regards to the current employer sponsored system, and then simply objected to Universal Coverage on the basis that it would require socialism and all the evils that socialism entails: a bloated out-of-control government that is too large, too intrusive, and unresponsive to the needs of the people.
However, Universal Coverage does not have to mean Socialized Medicine. There is another model that can be used to provide Universal Coverage that does not look to the failed model of socialism for guidance. This model is the IRA and has already been partially implemented by the Bush Administration. For decades this system has been providing a successful alternative to people looking to supplement their retirement. In addition, the Health Care IRA has proven somewhat successful at providing solutions to those small businesses and individuals who have the ability to pay for health care but were unable to get the same benefits as those working for large companies and government agencies. The model of the IRA is clearly superior to that of socialism since it has proven to work where socialism has proven to only cause long term suffering and eventual collapse.
A Universal Health Care System based upon the IRA principle would be easy to design and implement. First, the tax credits given to employers for providing such coverage to their employees should be transferred to the employees themselves by allowing them to put as much money as they want into a Health Care IRA and requiring a minimum deposit/withholding to insure inclusion and coverage. In one fell stroke, health care coverage would become “transportable” and employers would no longer have the stranglehold over the employee's lives through health care. I suspect most employers would be glad to be rid of the burden since the need to provide health coverage has gone from being an attractive perk to a burdensome nuisance. This system would require that all dependents of the Health Care IRA beneficiary would be covered by a catastrophic health care policy that is currently available “off the shelf” and quite affordable. Such coverage is essentially a very high deductible health insurance policy that covers the health care costs associated with serious illness and injury involving protracted hospital stays, surgery, etc. The rest of the funds could be used on either direct medical care and/or insurance coverage, or simply saved for the future according to what the consumer believed was in his or her best interests. Of course there would need to be some regulations to insure that “fair” access was provided to all potential participants by requiring certain minimum coverage options on policies to be sold to through the IRA, and removing such policy restrictions like the “pre-existing” conditions, etc., but this would be very feasible to arrange and easy to negotiate with insurers considering the large number of consumers that would now be freed to purchase the coverage that suited them in an open and free national health insurance market.
Some problems that would remain would be how to include the unemployed, unemployable, and the working poor in the system. In regards to the unemployed, this may not be such a big problem depending upon the amount of time between jobs. If some small percentage of each deposit was required to be kept as cash, then there would be sufficient funds to cover costs while the employee was looking for a new job. Or perhaps simply some sort of “unemployment” insurance that would be mandated as part of the program. In the case of the unemployable, perhaps keeping the current system of Social Security disability combined with Medicaid would be the best solution. And in regards to the working poor, a reverse income tax (much like the Earned Income Tax Credit) could be employed to guarantee that low income earners who do not earn enough to contribute a meaningful amount to the system would still have adequate funds in the account to pay for the catastrophic health care policy, and some minimal level of coverage for the beneficiary and the dependents. Of course these are just a few ideas. I am sure there are others that would work quite well.
The current Republican policy of opposing Universal Coverage as an unacceptable socialist solution, and blindly supporting the current status quo system is simply unacceptable to the American people even if it is acceptable to fat-cat corporate leaders who are able to use the leverage of a virtual monopoly on health care coverage to retain employees. The current system is far from a “free market” solution in that it interferes in the market place by locking out consumers from the decision making process, gives too much control to employers, and fails to meet the needs of millions of potential consumers. And even in regards to the “fat-cats” in corporate America, I suspect there are many that would favor giving up their monopoly on health care coverage. I suspect GM would jump at the chance of transferring some or all of their current health care burden onto someone else.
The health care “crisis” may be a false crisis to the extent that there really is no crisis in American medical care. America still has the best health care system in the world, and access to the system is virtually universal even if it is not implemented in a clear and easy to understand manner. However, there is a crisis regarding health care coverage to the extent that there is a growing sense of insecurity in the middle class. The Republicans have an opportunity to resolve this problem while fixing the current system which is unsatisfactory to everyone. Let us hope they choose to do so rather than support a status quo that goes against the principles that the Republicans claim to support: Liberty, Economic Freedom of Choice, Reduction of Government Interference, Free Markets, etc.
herodotus on 05.01.07 @ 11:47 AM CST [link] [Karma: 3 (+/-)] [738 Comments]
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Letter from GW
On 4/19/07, GW wrote:
> Dear Herodotus:
>
> I was reading your blog at http://herodotus.memebot.com/ and I thought, hey, this guy's pretty
> cool! But then I read "Bush & Cheney Should Resign" and I thought, "What's up with that???" I mean
> I thought you were on our side! But noooooooooooooooo. You think me and Dick should resign and
> let that old broad Pelosi take over? What the hell are thinking about!? I mean she's not bad looking
> and all, and sometimes I have had a naughty thought or two about her, even for an old broad, but
> still I just can't see her in the Oval Office! At least not sitting at the desk... maybe underneath it...
> hehehehe. Naw just kidding. You'll have to get Clinton back in office for that stuff.
>
> But I digress. Although I didn't like your comments about how me and Dick should resign, I thought
> some of things you said made some sense.
>
> Now the "Surge-Thing" is not working out quite like I wanted it to. Yes, our troops seem to be a
> little safer since there are more of them out there and it seems neither side is targeting them so
> much, and the Shiites seem to be lying low for now, but I am not sure if we are making any real
> long-term progress with them, and the Sunnis are acting up worse than ever.
>
> What should we do?
>
> Your friend.
>
> GW
>
> ps: don't print the stuff about me liking old broads like Pelosi, ok?
Dear GW:
I am glad you wrote as I was thinking a lot about the "Surge-Thing" lately and wondered if you were keeping track of the progress. Glad to see that you are paying attention to these things. It does indeed seem like some things are getting better in Iraq. The rush to the Jordanian and Syrian border by terrified Iraqis seems to have slowed a bit, but that might just mean that everyone who was able to get out has already left. More encouraging is the fact that people are starting go back to Baghdad, a clear indication that things are getting better there. And although it is hard to believe, it appears that both sides seem to want the US troops to stay, if only to hide behind them as they carry on their relentless attacks against each other. It seems that US troops are no longer being targeted like they were.
But I think you are wise to be concerned. It is clear that there has been no let up in the violence on the part of the Sunnis, and it seems that the Shiites are just biding their time waiting for an opportunity to strike. Radical Shiites have infiltrated every part of the Iraqi government, military and police force. I am not sure what you can expect to get out of more efforts in Iraq other than bad press. Remember, no matter what happens in Iraq the Democrats and the Media are not going to let up on you so don't count on them for support. And the truth of the matter is that it will take years to convince the knuckleheads down their to stop fighting each other, you just don't have that kind of time. If you are not going to win this one, you might want to consider cutting your losses and moving on.
This is what I suggest you do:
Take a play out of the old Clinton Play Book and tell everyone that you really tried hard. Declare Victory by reminding everyone how you beat the hell out of Sadam, his world famous army, and his gangs of thugs, and that you really really tried to do your best in the occupation. However, it just wasn't really your fault since all those crazy Arabs just seem to want to blow themselves up. You've spent billions of dollars on trying to rebuild Iraq, and all they seem to want to do is tear the place apart. Remind everyone that there is no shame in quitting when you have done your best, and then try to look very serious, sympathetic and caring, and say, "We have done all we can in Iraq. We have done our very best. Now it is time to give others a chance to solve this problem."
While you are doing all this you need to be cutting secret side deals with all the other powers in the region:
* the Kurds need to be controlled in regards to Turkey but need to be rewarded by giving them Kirkuk and other areas, and provided with a healthy dose of US military aid and support. The new Kurdistan needs to be our well mannered and obedient Ally in the region.
* Turkey needs to know that we will not let the new Kurdistan do anything to interfere with their internal problems. We need to to be clear about this, and make sure that the Kurds understand this as well. If the Kurds misbehave they will find themselves with Turks to the North, Iranians to the East, Sunnis to the West, Shiites to South, all trying to kill them, and the USA no where to be found.
* We need to let the Iranians know that we understand that they have a very special relationship within the Shiite south of Iraq, and that as long as they do not try to expand beyond that area, we will have no problems with them.
* We need to let the Sunni states know that we support them in the face of Iranian aggression and that we will stand behind them (well behind them) as they proceed to support the Sunnis against the Shiites in Iraq. However, since we don't really have any authority in the UN, with the Europeans or with the Russians, there is really very little we can do to stop the Iranians from doing whatever they want to do, whether it is building nuclear weapons or overrunning the Middle East. (That should put the fear of Allah into them!)
Now the result should be a nice safe place in the Kurdish north where US troops and "security forces" can operate freely, an agreement with Turkey to lighten up a bit if there is a quid-pro-quo from the Kurds, and total chaos in the south as the Iranian backed Shiites and the Saudi backed Sunnis proceed to fight a bloody proxy war for a generation or so. If things are handled correctly, the Iranians will wear themselves out trying to fulfill their dream of a New Persian Empire (this could turn into a Vietnam for the Iranians instead of for the USA -- remember what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan?), the Arabs desperate for our help will be more cooperative than ever, the oil will continue to flow out of the Kurdish held areas and neither the Saudis nor the Iranians will allow the conflict to escalate to the point of interrupting the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, and we may even be able to lure Syria out of its alliance with Iran with promises of increased trade and support. And with our catbird seat in Kurdistan, we can carefully manipulate both sides to insure that neither side ever gets strong enough to win.
Think about it. You have a lot of friends running for office in 2008, and I bet they would really appreciate it if you would solve this problem in Iraq one way or another, and let them focus on other things.
Your Friend.
Herodotus
herodotus on 04.19.07 @ 11:05 AM CST [link] [Karma: 11 (+/-)] [2 Comments]
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Jason Whitlock - An Honest Voice: "Imus isn’t the real bad guy"
COMMENTARY
Imus isn’t the real bad guy
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
JASON WHITLOCK
http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html
Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
The bigots win again.
While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.
I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.
It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.
I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.
But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.
I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.
Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.
In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.
No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.
To reach Jason Whitlock, call (816) 234-4869 or send e-mail to jwhitlock@kcstar.com. For previous columns, go to KansasCity.com
herodotus on 04.11.07 @ 10:22 AM CST [link] [Karma: 4 (+/-)] [2 Comments]
Friday, February 23, 2007
What to do about a Iraq, Resurgent Islam and Everything?
Right now we are actively debating what to do about the War in Iraq with a sharp eye on what is going on in Iran. Indeed, regardless of one's past support for the conflict, or one's persistent desire to see that democracy spreads and flourishes in the Middle East and throughout the world, it is impossible not to notice that things are not going well in Iraq. As part of the analysis of what to do in the future we must observe what really happened in the past, review current options, but more importantly we must analyze what we should be doing in regards to Islam as a whole.
On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked by a dissident group of Islamic Fundamentalists. For these Islamic Fundamentalists the USA represented a convenient “straw man” that could be safely attacked in order to attract attention and support for their internal conflict inside Islam. The USA really posed no threat to these people, and had very little influence upon the Islamic world as a whole, however, attacking the USA gave this minority of Islamic Fundamentalists a credibility that they otherwise would have lacked through more peaceful means such as debate and discussion. So repeated attacks were made against the USA and the West by Al Qaida and other Islamic groups for the primary purpose of developing their base inside Islam rather than to influence US and Western policy regarding the Middle East and Islam.
So after being attacked numerous times, and trying to resolve the conflict through non-military non-violent means, after 9/11 the USA went to war against this dissident group of Moslems who had a base inside Afghanistan, and who also operated out of virtually everyplace on earth. We were actively supported by the rest of the world, particularly our “friends” in Europe, Russia, China and the Middle East. Our fight was justified, our means were reasonable and effective, and our goals were logical and beneficial for all. We were not at war with Islam. We were not on some kind of Crusade to restore Christianity or to oppose Islam in any manner. We were just defending ourselves against a chronic threat.
And the World supported us. I think few would argue that our involvement in Afghanistan was justified, and even that our continued presence there is useful or at least necessary.
Iraq is another matter. The invasion of Iraq has driven wedges not just between the nations of the West who have the most to lose from a resurgent violent Fundamentalist Islam, but also within nations and even within political parties. It is argued, in most cases from hindsight, that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and driven by lies and misrepresentations by the Bush Administration.
I will not admit it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Not even in hindsight. We invaded Iraq for 3 reasons: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), Iraqi Support for International Terrorism, and Saddam was a serious threat to everything good in the world. And the idea that the Bush Administration would lie about such serious issues is preposterous since it clear that all the information that was relied upon came from the prior administration, and also reliable and varied foreign intelligence. Some of the information may have been wrong, but it was not fabricated.
Although we did not find huge stock piles of WMDs like some believed were possibly in existence, we did find convincing evidence of Saddam increasing his capacity to produce WMDs, particularly of the biological kind. For some of these items you are looking at a relatively short period of time between having the capacity to produce and actually producing and also a short shelf life once produced, so it is difficult to argue that because we did not find stockpiles of WMDs, Saddam did not have them since he had the capacity to produce them. Although Saddam was not involved in 9/11, and no one ever suggested he was, he was a significant player in international terrorism supporting a wide variety of terrorist groups across the globe. And as for Saddam being just a big pain in the butt that needed to be removed, I think 2 major wars that resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives (Iran-Iraq War and the Invasion of Kuwait) should serve as ample reason alone, but his human rights abuses to his own people rank him up there with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Since the removal of Saddam Hussein the world is clearly a little safer since a possible source of WMDs is now gone, support for terrorism has fewer sponsors, and a war criminal has been brought to justice.
We could probably argue whether or not the war was justified at the time for ever. But I think most people would agree that the following occupation of Iraq was a muddled ill-conceived bungle. It is clear that removing Saddam from Iraq unleashed a level of chaos that few really realized was possible. I admit that I thought at the time that once Saddam was removed, the Iraqi people would strive for a secular society. Of all the Arabs in the Middle East the Iraqis are the most advanced, well educated, and non-religious (at least they used to be). But I and many more like me were wrong, simple as that.
Saddam did one thing well: He contained Iran. Because of that everyone tolerated his paranoid insane behavior and his destabilizing actions regarding neighbors and international terrorism. Now that Saddam is gone, however, there is a power vacuum, and it would seem that the parties attempting to fill that vacuum are playing for keeps. The Iranians have taken advantage of the absence of Iraqi force and money, and filled the gap expanding their roles not only in Iraq but in Lebanon, in Palestine, and in unlikelier places (South and Central America?). This is not necessarily a bad thing for us. I know it looks bad, but I am not sure if Iranian influence is any worse than Saddam's since the Iranians are easier to talk to than Saddam ever was despite the strange and bizarre behavior of the current Iranian president. And those Moderate Arab nations that wish to counter Iran are more desperately in need of our support than ever before. Ironically, this state of complete chaos puts us in a position of leverage and control like never before if we are willing to tolerate the uncertainty.
Now what to do about Iraq? I don't know... maybe nothing. If extra troops can convince the Iraqi people to stop trying to kill each other over religious and tribal differences then I suppose that would be the ideal situation, particularly if it does not involve additional US casualties (it would seem that the added troops are improving security for US forces if no one else). If it is not possible to end the bloodshed in Iraq, and at this point it is too early to know if that is even possible, then we should "withdraw" from the Shia-Sunni War, and get out of the way. Let the Iranians and the other Arabs fight their little proxy war for the next 10 years in Southern Iraq. We establish secure bases in Kuwait and in Kurdistan to make sure that the Kurds are safe (and so that we can protect the Turks from continued harassment from Kurdish separatists -- a fair trade all in all for the Kurds). We put pressure on Syria to change sides or at least question their alliance with Iran. We heat up things in Lebanon to make sure Iran and Syria are under serious pressure there as well. And we generally sit back and watch as the Middle East (and Iran in particular) bleeds itself dry. Eventually Iran will run itself into the ground trying to recreate a New Persian Empire (since Iran only has 10 years of exportable oil production left that should be about what is needed). A rather cruel and callous perspective, but perhaps it is the only one we have.
But what to do about Islam as whole? Somehow the USA has been maneuvered by internal philosophies as well as by external factors into confronting more than just “Islamic Dissidents”. We are now confronting the entire Islamic World in the form of a Resurgent Islamic Movement on behalf of the West, while our “friends” in the Middle East, Europe and Asia have essentially decided to withdraw their support from us! Why are we dong this? What does the USA have to fear from a Resurgent Islamic Faith? It would seem that those who have legitimate reasons to fear a Resurgent Islam are those who are doing the least to oppose it: Moderate Arabs, Europe, Russia and China.
How did we allow ourselves to be suckered into this position of fighting to protect this strange group against the destabilizing effect of Islam on their societies, while those same parties most profoundly effected feign a lack of interest in the issue or outright opposition to us?
Perhaps it was just an over abundance of confidence in our own abilities combined with an American Naivety concerning the sincerity of our “friends”, many of whom turn out to be jaded cynical scoundrels. Together with a profound and perhaps unreasonable optimism in the power of democracy to solve all the worlds problems. Whatever the reason for our current position, it is not necessary for us to carry this burden alone. In fact it may not even be necessary for us to worry about a Resurgent Islam at all. Why should we worry over whether or not Europe survives as a culturally Western entity in the absence of such concern inside Europe? Why should we defend Moderate Arab nations when they seem unwilling to defend themselves? And why should we be opposing Islamic expansion into Asia when Russia and China seem quite happy to see us flailing away desperately in the Middle East? We have no real stake in the cultural hegemony of these groups in their regions so we should not be trying to protect them from the spread of radical Islam.
We just want oil.
And Islamic countries have proven more than happy to sell it to us as long as we don't bother them too much. In fact it is quite obvious that these countries need to sell their oil much more than we need to buy it. If for some reason there was a substantial cut-off of oil supplies from the Middle East, the USA along with the rest of the world would face some difficult choices, and likely economic trauma. But the oil supplying countries would be utterly and totally ruined. Without selling oil, these countries have no other means of support or survival.
It would seem that there simply is no rational basis for getting ourselves involved into what has become an Intra-Islamic conflict between Shia and Sunni in Iraq, and it would seem equally absurd for us to get overly concerned about growing Fundamentalist Islam in Asia and Africa. As long as they sell us oil, what do we care?
herodotus on 02.23.07 @ 11:32 AM CST [link] [Karma: 7 (+/-)] [1002 Comments]
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Animation of the Philosophy of Liberty
This is a great website/animation that explains the Libertarian View (or True Liberal) regarding Liberty:
http://www.libertarian.to/images/animation/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english.swf
herodotus on 12.19.06 @ 08:16 AM CST [link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [2 Comments]
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Movie Review of "The World's Fastest Indian"
The way that various internet service providers use your personal information to select potential products that you might like can be both fascinating and troubling. Using information about your prior buying habits (and if you volunteer your personal rating of satisfaction) the store can select a product that is likely to meet your approval. "The World's Fastest Indian" is a case in point. This is a movie that I would never have found on my own, but turned out to be exactly what I like. It would appear that the electronic sprite that sorts through my information knows me better than I know myself!
Anthony Hopkins plays Burt Monro, a 67 years old eccentric from New Zealand who has taken an Indian Scout motorcycle built in the 1920s and modified it over the years into a two wheeled speed demon. His single minded pursuit of speed impels him to make a pilgrimage to Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats in 1967 to participate in the annual speed trials held on the dry salt bed. Before he leaves he discovers that he has a heart condition, and is advised to take things easy. Luckily for us Mr. Munro ignores the doctor's advice and proceeds on an adventure that takes him from New Zealand on a freighter, where he works in the kitchen to pay his way, to Los Angeles to begin the overland trek in an old Chevy to Utah with his modified motorcycle in tow. From New Zealand to Bonneville, this unlikely hero uses his charm and unlikely charisma combined with his steely determination to overcome obstacles that seem to be insurmountable and in the process make friends out of the most unlikely of characters. In the end the old man breaks the speed record at Bonneville.
And it is a true story!
|
|
herodotus on 12.17.06 @ 07:36 AM CST [
link] [Karma: -3 (
+/
-)] [
2 Comments]
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Book Review of 'The Historian' by Elizabeth Kostova
This intriguing book was initially picked up on a whim because of an interesting cover and the historical aspect of the book. I initially thought that the book was an odd cold war mystery, and my initial impression seemed to be reinforced as the first chapters slowly unfolded. The story revolves around a shy somewhat lonely American girl who lives with her father in Amsterdam during the early 1970s. The father is a mysterious international “mediator” whose wife disappeared sometime in the past, and who spends a great deal of time traveling throughout Europe on various missions. As the girl explores her father's library she discovers a strange package containing the makings of a bizarre story set twenty years before when her father was a post-doctoral student in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The package contains letters from her father's professor who was in turn telling a story about his adventures during the 1930s.
Although the tale starts out slowly, some might even describe it as plodding, it is riveting as the “tale within a tale within a tale” begins to take shape. The father begins taking the daughter on some of his trips so that they can begin to discuss the nature of the package, and perhaps explain her father's reluctance to discuss the past. What was most surprising to me was the fact that the story was not a “cold war” spy mystery at all, but a tale about an ancient evil filled with fantastic historical tales of horror and cruelty set in the fifteenth century world of Eastern Europe and the conquering Ottoman Turks in the Balkans. The story is about Vlad Tepis Dracula!
Of all the absurd things! A vampire story. Or is it? You won't really be sure until you are beyond the point of stopping for the pace builds with each new romantic yet terrifying venue. As the father and daughter travel from one lovely European location to another, the tales of the father and his professor begin to come together like a jigsaw puzzle, and as one mystery is explained another is discovered. Soon the tales set in the 1950s and 1930s erupt into the 1970s and the girl goes from being a passive listener to an active participant in an adventure that started 500 years before. The girl grows up very quickly, and in the process discovers not only the hidden secrets about her father, but also who is her mother and what actually happened to her.
A thoroughly enjoyable read even for a moldy stuck in the mud amateur historian like me.
|
|
herodotus on 11.29.06 @ 10:07 PM CST [
link] [Karma: -2 (
+/
-)] [
2 Comments]
Friday, November 10, 2006
In Defense of Communism
The title of this essay may be a little misleading since I really do not intend to defend Communism so much as attempt to accurately describe it. I have grown weary of Leftists taking offense when you point out that a particular policy or attitude is Communist. Communism (or Marxism or Socialism) is not a slur, but a description of a particular economic and political theory. Calling someone or something Communist should not be viewed as a slur so much as a description (which like all descriptions may be erroneous, vindictive, etc.).
Now the best shorthand definition of Communism that I can come up with is the following: A political economic theory that relies heavily on a historical analysis of the distribution of wealth and power, which proposes the communal ownership of property, and which strongly favors the ethical societal value of equitable distribution of wealth and power above other competing values.
Most ethical opposition to Communism is found in the rejection of the value of equitable distribution of wealth in favor of equitable access to wealth and power, which is often described as equality of opportunity and equality before the law. This philosophy in favor of equality of access was traditionally referred to as Liberal. Although the two values sound similar, they are diametrically opposed since to obtain equality of outcome requires the sacrifice of equality of access to some degree.
Let us begin with a model. Let us start with 100 men from the same culture, education, race, religion etc. The only way these men differ is in the following qualities: intellect, emotional stability, and motivation. These characteristics are distributed through the group in numbers representative of any random group of humans. We shall give each of the men enough resources to provide for their individual survival using only a moderate amount of effort on their part. We shall also give each man 10 silver coins to be used as a means of exchange of value. Over the next year each man will be allowed to freely trade with each other. All transactions will take place in the absence of compulsion and in good faith, and there will be no theft.
After one year, depending upon your view of human capacities, the likely result of this experiment is that 10 of the 100 will most likely have between them 500 of the 1000 silver coins, and perhaps a greater part of the resources necessary for survival. There will probably be from 10 to 20 men who due to misfortune or foolishness have lost virtually everything, including not only the 10 silver coins, but also their resources necessary for survival. The remaining men will most likely have maintained their resources necessary for survival and some if not all of their 10 silver coins. We shall call the top 10 men the Haves, and everyone else the Have-Nots.
The Communist will see this inequitable distribution of goods as an evil in and of itself which must be remedied. There is abundant historical evidence to validate and support this view. The history of mankind has shown that this sort of arrangement leads to all manner of injustice and chaos. The conflict between the Haves and the various levels of Have-Nots can arguably be blamed for much of the misery found in the human condition. The Haves historically use their position of wealth and power to buy the services of the bottom tier, often on unreasonable terms and under duress, and then use their position of power and authority to create divisions among the other levels of Have-Nots in order to insure that there is never a united front against the Haves. When successful this leads to a tyranny of the Haves. When unsuccessful it leads to bloody revolution where all levels tear each other apart until there is nothing left for anyone.
Although Liberals of the 17th, 18th and 19th Century did not see the inequitable distribution of goods and services as the root of the problem, they did recognize that the situation is dangerous and likely to lead to the endless cycle of tyranny of the Haves and the ultimate revolution of the Have-Nots. The Liberals tried to break this cycle of misery by defining a free marketplace where all could participate equally. Adam Smith, the “father” of modern Capitalism, recognized that the result of the above experiment was likely to lead to collusion among the Haves and oppression for the Have-Nots, and suggested that the role of government was to prevent such collusion. True Liberals sought to create a society where the Haves could not so easily manipulate the government so as to oppress the others. However, history suggests that creating such a government is very difficult. Humans have proven susceptible to the corruption of power and authority. Most governments become the exact opposite of the Liberal ideal: instead of discouraging monopoly and oligarchic power and removing obstacles to entry of others into the marketplace, most governments have simply selected one group of tyrants over another. This has proven most unsatisfactory, and thus the appeal of Communism.
The above explanation would suggest that Communism could provide a fair and just solution to the question of how best to order human society. However, it misses one profound and important variable in the equation. The history of the human race does suggest that the above experiment is fairly accurate and will reflect human interaction over not just one year but over time. However, this does not take into account the dramatic growth of productivity over the last two centuries. For thousands of years, since man began to forge tools and build communities, productivity has grown at a slow and plodding pace or not at all. Centuries have passed with zero improvement in the productivity of individuals, and when some technology or another has emerged the growth in productivity has often been marginal. Under these circumstances the Static Economic Model is quite accurate. Under the Static Economic Model there is a fixed amount of resources available for distribution, and without proper regulation there will be inequity and subsequent injustice; for one person to gain another would have to suffer. Furthermore, due to the static nature of economic growth even the most Liberal structure would eventually fall prey to greed, corruption and mismanagement as resources become scarce and demands increase.
The industrial revolution changed all that. No longer did mankind live within a static zero sum world, but instead society could create wealth and resources by increasing the productivity of the individual and therefore the group. No longer did the gain of one person have to come at the expense of another. This is called the Dynamic Economic Model and more accurately reflects the modern world. Our above experiment did not include the dynamic aspect of productivity growth. If it had, there is a very real possibility that the Haves may have obtained their wealth by “creating” it, not necessarily by taking it from another. Under this model, increasing growth in productivity justifies inequitable distribution of wealth since such wealth is most likely being created by those who either work harder, have invested in better technology, and/or have greater skills and inventiveness thereby increasing their productivity and thus the amount of wealth available for distribution. As such those individuals should be allowed to keep the product of their increased productivity as a reward and encouragement. Under this modern dynamic system, Liberalism has a chance to prosper. It should be possible to create and maintain a system that fosters equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law while at the same time regulating against cartels and other oppressions commonly used by the Haves of the world. Where fairly and honestly applied, Liberalism or Capitalism has proven to be a tremendous liberating force providing the ability to create wealth and means by anyone capable of increasing productivity. Of course under Liberalism there can never be equality of outcome since people have dramatically different abilities and skills and thus will create dramatically different levels of wealth. But there need not be the cycle of oppression and revolution since the rich are not taking the poor's portion so much as creating their own increased portion, and as long as the marketplace doors remain open to everyone who wishes to enter, there is hope and opportunity for everyone.
Communism on the other hand has proven to be wholly ineffective at managing societal interaction. By failing to take into account growth of productivity, Communism cannot compete with “free” societies. However, on a more fundamental basis it would appear that Communisms does not work because it deprives people of their fundamental desires to compete and excel, even at the risk of failure and loss. From each according to his means and to each according to his needs is an easier thing to say than to implement. Without adequate reward to encourage productivity, Communism has found it difficult to coerce the “from” part of the equation, yet the “to” part of the equation has proven to be an unending stream of unmeetable needs.
So when someone says one particular political party or politician or even idea is Communism by another name, this is not a slur, but merely a description that may or may not be accurate. Please do not take offense.
herodotus on 11.10.06 @ 11:54 AM CST [link] [Karma: 5 (+/-)] [2 Comments]
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Bush & Cheney Should Resign
Yesterday's mid-term elections are the result of two possible circumstances:
The Republican Party's abandonment of the Conservative agenda it initially ran under resulted in the Republican Base either voting in protest against Republicans or abstaining from voting altogether. It is my opinion that this is what happened, however, this may be a bit too optimistic on my part.
In the alternative the Democratic victories were the result of a dynamic shift in the American people towards a more socialist leftist agenda.
Regardless of the reason for the election results, the current state of affairs is Irrational and Dangerous.
If the midterm election victories for the Democrats were the result of disgruntled Republicans casting protest votes against the Republicans while still supporting George Bush as president, then far from punishing the Republicans, the voters have punished the entire USA by foisting upon it an ineffective and divided government in a time of war. If the Democrat victories were the results of a dramatic shift towards the left, then the Bush Administration received a dramatic “vote of no confidence”.
With the Democrats in control of the House and perhaps the Senate, and a “lame duck” Bush Administration desperately trying to hold onto whatever shreds of policy it may want to pursue, domestically or internationally, the next two years may prove to be the most unstable and contentious in American history. The Democrats will be forced, due solely to political considerations, to take a fierce obstructionist stance against anything and everything the Bush Administration tries to do. Impeachment will probably be the best way to accomplish this goal. The Democrats cannot afford to be conciliatory or accommodating since there is a real risk that George Bush could miraculously pull a rabbit out of his hat in the next two years and obtain a satisfactory victory/resolution in Iraq and the Middle East. No matter how unlikely this is, such an occurrence would be a disaster for the Democrats. The Democrats need to go into the 2008 election cycle with a defeated and humiliated Republican Party as an opponent. In the same vein, the Republicans will have to move farther to right since to do anything else would only risk further alienating the already disgruntled Republican Base.
Under such circumstances, a divided government would be required to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan since it would be just about impossible for a weakened Bush Administration to convince NATO, Europe and other nations to continue the fight when it is clear that the US is going to abandon it. Going it alone may be impossible with an obstructionist Democratic Congress. Once we have abandoned Iraq and the Middle East to its bloody fate, few in the region or elsewhere will trust us again. Similarly our position of leadership in regards to virtually every issue would have to be abandoned, at least until order is restored in the USA. Issues such as nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts, etc. would be deferred to a defeatist Europe and an anti-American UN. In regards to domestic policy neither side would be in a position to cooperate: the Democrats would need to propose radical leftist programs to satisfy its Left Wing base (knowing they will never pass) which the President would need to veto in order to retain the Right Wing base for the Republicans.
Such a state of affairs is unreasonable and irrational, and far too dangerous to tolerate. Bush and Cheney should both notify everyone as far in advance as possible of their intention to simultaneously resign in favor of the prospective Speaker of the House, whoever that may be.
There would be many benefits to such a strategy for the Republicans and for the Nation, although it would require Bush to essentially abandon his Presidential Legacy in favor of National Unity. When it comes time to elect a new Speaker of the House, the Democrats will need to pick a candidate based on qualifications other than his or her abilities to obstruct the Republican agenda and be a thorn in the side of President Bush. The new Speaker of the House will need to have qualifications and fitness to be President and lead the Nation. The Democrats should have no problems finding a moderate and respectable Speaker of the House who could serve as President and unify not only the Democratic Party but the whole country. However, if the Democrats choose Nancy Polosi and the radical Left Wing of the Democrat Party, instead of a more moderate and reasonable candidate, I suspect the Republicans will be swept back into office in 2008 with a landslide.
Such a course of action would provide the US with a unified government under a moderate Democrat leadership, it would teach the Republican Party that it cannot afford to abandon the principles and ideology which resulted in substantial election victories, the Republican voting base would learn that voting Democrat to protest lazy or unresponsive Republicans is a dangerous and foolish choice, and it would teach the Democrats that allowing its party to be hijacked by isolated radical leftist fringe groups will never give it the authority to truly lead the USA from a position of unifying respectability.
herodotus on 11.08.06 @ 11:45 AM CST [link] [Karma: 5 (+/-)] [2 Comments]
Thursday, November 2, 2006
On Demagogues and Demagoguery
Demagoguery (or demagogy) has been a common tactic to oppose reason and rationality since ancient times. Thucydides testified in his “Peloponnesian War” that demagoguery was used to set aside the reasoned and successful approach of Pericles and drive Athens into a risky and destructive course that eventually resulted in its defeat. The annals of Rome shows how demagoguery was used successfully to destroy the Republic. In more modern times, 19th Century Democrats used demagoguery to defend slavery. And who can forget our friends in brown shirts from Munich! The Nazis mastered the ancient art, and brought new tools to the game.
There are two essential tactics for the Demagogue with the first being the noisy and repetitive use of mantras. Repeating the same simple message over and over regardless of truth or context has been an old favorite of Demagogues:
The control of the Mediterranean is our sacred right! (this basic theme has proven popular throughout the ages with minor changes for geography where necessary.)
Negroes are inferior to Whites and therefore deserve the be enslaved! (Again simply replace the races with other races, religions or ethnic groups, and this arguments has worked over and over again.)
Jews are guilty of robbing us and polluting our culture!
Hell no we won't go!
Bush Lied!
If and when someone tries to use reason to address your mantra, you just scream louder. If necessary hire people with loud voices to yell with you. Control of printing presses and media help too! And don't stop regardless of how silly you may initially feel. After awhile it will grow on you.
The second tactic is to be used when the first fails for some reason: the ad hominem attack (that is a personal attack on the opponent's character or appearance, not a word that sounds like another word). The use of relentless personal insults and accusation is particularly good at robbing a debate of reason since it so often encourages the foolish and gullible supporters to go back to the mantra out of fear of being targeted with the same attack, and often distracts the reasonable man by filling him with anger and rage.
The famous orator Cicero was often accused of being a Demagogue by his opponents. His response was generally: the ends justify the means. That is if you mean well it is a perfectly good tool to use to win a debate. But it is worth noting that as Cicero so brilliantly spoke in defense of the Republic (and against anyone who dared to stand up to him and his cabal of Republicans), the Roman Republic collapsed around him. Many people put a great deal of the blame on him for this, both among his contemporaries and later students of history. Although well meaning and full of civic virtue, his tactics often brought an end to civilized debate and forced opponents to more dramatic and tragic actions (crossing the Rubicon is just one notable example). As a general rule, the use of demagoguery has encouraged or allowed horrible atrocities to take place, and has caused tremendous damage whenever employed.
What is the solution?
Attempting to reason is pointless. The entire goal of the Demagogue is to rob a debate of reason, not to respond to reason or attempt to discover it.
Hectoring and lecturing does not work since you are not dealing with wayward children who simply need to be put in their place, but willful adults who have decided to use this particularly effective tactic to silence their opponents.
The carrot and stick approach usually does not work either, since these people do not want your carrots; they want your head – your complete destruction or at least suppression.
Humor has sometimes been effective, but generally these people are adept in the art of calumny, the scurrilous remark, the emotionally charged statement, and the artful personal jab.
No, unfortunately the old saying remains true: when reason fails force prevails. Historically, only the generous application of lumber about the head and shoulders has proven an effective means of countering the Demagogue. Either that or adopt his own methods.
herodotus on 11.02.06 @ 10:58 AM CST [link] [Karma: 6 (+/-)] [3 Comments]
