~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, March 6, 2004
Fear of a Bot Planet
Yesterday was the tenth birthday of spam, as I noted. A lot of bloggers, myself included, are annoyed by those spiders that go around collecting e-mail addresses from webpages, gathering them up for spammers to fill your mailbox with. There are two ways bloggers have dealt with this problem: People either suck it up, as I have, posting a clickable e-mail address and accepting the flow of spam, hoping that spam filters will block the bulk of it, but making it more convenient for people to write you. The other alternative is to either not post an e-mail address on your site or write it out in text, something like "joe -at- bloggerville.biteme", which people who want to write you find annoying.
Well, also via the screensavers (and also see here for a full explaination of how this works), there is a way to write a "clickable" e-mail address into your blog's code in a way that spoofs the spiders. It involves the following Javascript:
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
var name = "insert the addressee of the email here";
var domain = "insert your domain here";
document.write('<a href=\"mailto:' + name + '@' + domain + '\">');
document.write(name + '@' + domain + '</a>');
/ /-->
< /script>
This won't "fix" things with respect to those who already have your e-mail address, but it will prevent new spiders from aquiring it in most cases. This is also a good way to go if "starting fresh", make a new e-mail addy that the bots don't have and post it with this code so they can't get it. Folks who have been using the clunky text solution ("mergetron -at- screedwriter.com") can switch over to this.
Update: There's also this method, that allows you to fill the mail link with other text:
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
var contact = "insert text here I.E. Contact Porphy"
var name = "insert the addressee of the email here"
The New Republic is one of the most responsible, thoughtful Liberal publications around. Andrew Sullivan rightly praises an article by Noam Scheiber which is well worth reading in full, both for the sound arguments on the economy & job situation that Scheiber makes, but also the revealing attitude on display at the end, which proves a point I've been making for some time now.
The closing paragraph is an endorsement of demagogy and efforts to deceive and mislead the electorate as perfectly acceptable if it helps the "Good Guys" get and keep power:
But the idea that correcting any of these deficiencies might have saved a significant number of jobs over the past few years is far-fetched, at best. I have no problem with John Kerry scoring political points on the jobs issue if it helps elect an administration that cares about the long-term consequences of its economic policies. But if Kerry seriously thinks he can influence the pace of short-term job growth any better than George W. Bush, then his view of himself is even more inflated than his detractors suggest.
In other words, as long as Kerry knows that what he's saying is rubbish, complete and utter bovine fecal matter, then it's ok for him to say it if it will help whip the public into a frenzy and allow the Left to regain power.
One also has to ask whether Noam Scheiber believes that Kerry "cares about the long-term consequences" of the economic policies he proposes. This only flies for people who think that for every one dollar of revenue they believe they'll bring in from raising taxes, it's ok to favor spending four or five dollars in new programs or increased spending on the old ones. The idea that Kerry, or the Democrats generally, represent fiscal responsibility is itself deceptive, and involves looking only at one half of their policy positions. It involves looking only at the fact that they're willing to raise taxes, while ignoring the impact of the additional spending they propose on the other hand, which more than offsets any increase in revenues from higher tax rates - itself a dubious proposition, but we'll set that argument aside for the moment. All we have to do regarding claims that the Kerry Democrats represent concern for our long term economic situation to a greater degree than Bush does is look at their complaints about the recently enacted prescription drug program, the most expensive new entitlement since the Great Society era. Do they argue that it's something we can't afford given the unfunded entitlement liabilities we already have? Do they argue that it should be less expensive? No, their complaint is that it is not lavish enough, that we're not spending enough. This is hardly the position of fiscal sobriety and restraint, and once you add in all the other programs that Kerry proposes to create or increase the funding for, they dwarf any increased revenue his tax policies may bring in - especially over the long term, which is what Scheiber claims to be concerned about. Once this can of worms is opened, though, one has to ask oneself whether Scheiber himself really believes that Kerry represents fiscal restraint and long-term economic responsibility or not, or is just asserting that because, as he says in the article, it’s ok to say things that you don’t really believe to be true as long as it helps promote the right political outcome.
But perhaps they're just lying to their own base when it comes to the increased funding for this or that program that they mention in speeches, or the new programs they claim they will enact if elected and fully fund. Perhaps that's all bovine fecal matter, too, just as the demagogy about jobs is. But then the Liberals, who have a self-image of themselves as the party of honest civic discourse and respect for the electorate and democratic processes, is really what their critics say they are: A deceptive band which has adopted a "Vanguard" mentality where it is acceptable to deceive people as long as the enlightened elite (themselves) which knows better how people should live their lives. It is then acceptable to people like Scheider to manipulate the electorate, which wouldn't be able to grasp the truth if policies were explained honestly, so long as the "right" results are attained. Maybe that's why Kerry and other Dems believe Bush is the manipulative deceiver: Bush doesn't know that in situations like this, you're not supposed to mean what you say! The outrage! You're supposed to say one thing to whip people into support, but then do the other, what the vanguard elite would do. Lying to the public for it's own good (your attainment of power) is one thing, but saying what you mean and doing what you say, that's an unforgivable manipulation of the expectations of the elite, as represented by Kerry and other members of the Democratic & European establishments.
Well, we have long known why the Democratic Left identifies so much with the elites of Continental Europe. Their visions are closer than many like to believe. Either that or there's just something about guys named Noam that causes them to engage in propaganda in the aid of their cause.
I'm sure you're just thrilled. Hey - at least it wasn't March 9th, that's all I can say.
The second is more of interest to bloggers, perhaps, and more useful. They clued me on this newseum page with that has daily front pages for hundreds of newspapers from dozens of countries. From there you can get into the papers themselves when an article catches your eye. The Mapview might be the most useful way to search them.
Well, three reasons I guess, because here's a piece on blogs and unattributed idea expropriation. I haven't noticed this being a huge problem in the political blogosphere (they seem to be focused on tech blogs. I mean, what are they? Some sort of Tech-centric outlet, or what?). In the political blogosphere people give proper hat-tips and quote/link to their sources.
Update: In honor of Spam's 10th B-Day, I've opened up comments to this post so the various penis enlargement , low-rent bauble hawkers, home refinancer “brokers”, porn aficionados, insurance advertisers, relatives of deposed African potentates, and the rest of the lot can have a party.
An update of yesterday's post on the brewing battle in the EU, here - the Vice-President of the European Socialists finds any suggestion that if the center-right parties win, the losing Socialists will not control the EU Commissione "arrogant".
Projection has long been a hallmark of Leftist political rhetoric, and it's on display here. I have no doubt that they're outraged by the concept that an election result might matter and it might mean they will no longer be in the driver's seat in Their EU. Denis MacShane has confirmed exactly the point I was making.
Then there's the Franco-German Plan to help bring peace to the Middle-East. The French and Germans have long practice in cooperating in Final Solutions of this sort, and there are many Arabs who look to them for the historical example to emulate.
By cutting high-priced procurement items. That's what the NYT proposes in one of their more sane editorials. We had a discussion here last year that parallels the Times piece, and their editorial supports John's stance.
Me? I think we should pay for two divisions by cutting agricultural subsidies, two more divisions by cutting a number of other bogus porkine spending measures that have been introduced by Congress and accepted by Bush over the last couple years, two further divisions by eliminating various tax loopholes that have crept back into the system since the '86 reforms (giving up on stuff like this), and if we need them two more divisions by cutting these procurement programs. Oh, and what we could fund if only we weren't gilding the Gray Panther's lilly with the prescription drug program.
Why would Joe Lieberman have been a credible Democratic alternative to Bush? Well, here's why:
[T]here is one area in particular where we simply cannot afford to allow campaign politics to take over - and that is the current crisis in Iraq.
We are at war. The lives of more than 100,000 American troops are on the line in Iraq. So, too, is the fulcrum of our present and future national security.
The stakes in Iraq for our future security and our victory in the wider war against terrorism are of the highest magnitude - and our politics must catch up with that reality.
I recognize that differences of opinion about why and how we went to war in Iraq run deep and run wide. But I believe deeply that we cannot allow arguments about past policies to stop us from finding common ground to face the present and future threats in Iraq.
We cannot re-fight the last war against Saddam with such focus and ferocity that we falter in fighting the terrorist insurgents that threaten Iraq and us right now. . .
I want to separate the challenges in Iraq and the presidential campaign. We cannot allow the politics of this campaign to obscure or block the commitment to finish the mission. We must recapture the spirit of bipartisanship and national purpose we achieved following the 9/11 attacks. It is that important.
For Democrats, that means we must focus on how best to win the war against the terrorist insurgents. Questioning how we got into the last war against Saddam is simply not enough. Doing only that is not acceptable anymore.
For President Bush and his party, it means not politicizing the conduct of the war. As commander-in-chief, he has a special responsibility to focus first on winning the war, even in this election year, and particularly in these times.
The fact is that both parties and their leaders must reach out to each other in the election year, as difficult as it may seem, to find common ground in fighting our common struggle.
I could understand people letting the wookie win if the wookie was Lieberman instead of Kerry, and I would be happy if his advice here was taken. I would like to see something like this, where Britain's Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, is saying things such as this:
"I entirely agree with the prime minister that we face a real threat from terrorism and it is vital that we take effective action to deal with that threat.
"Where the government takes effective action to deal with the threat from terrorism, we shall give them our full support."
in reaction to a speech by Blair. It would be nice if Kerry and other Dems would show the same level of maturity here in America.
Instead of going around ranting about how "Bush Lied! Bush manipulated intelligence!", people might ask what he's done to make sure things like this don't happen again:
America's prewar claim that Saddam Hussein had a fleet of mobile laboratories that could produce biological weapons relied mainly on information from an Iraqi defector who was never interviewed by US intelligence officers.
CIA officials say the engineer who provided the original tip-off never dealt directly with US intelligence agencies but had passed along the information through a foreign intelligence service, which they refuse to name.
Now, that's not really illegitimate - intelligence is shared among allies all the time. But I for one would be keenly interested in knowing which foreign intelligence service we're talking about here. I wonder, for example, if it's from one of those countries that are filled with people insinuating that Bush made it all up. It would also be interesting to know if it was one of those countries involved in corrupt deals with Iraq.
The point here should also be that, when we're getting info from "allies" who may have axes of their own to grind - be they those who are now critics or those who may have wanted us to go in - our intelligence agencies should take that into account. Powell has said that at the UN he used only the best intelligence we had, so presumably this information came from an agency that we consider(ed) reputable and reliable. We may have to rethink that.
The attitude isn't new, but the phrase "micro-agression" is a new one on me, who thought I'd heard everything when it comes to stuff like this.
Of course, it's just another bit of Orwellian nomenclature in service of Liberating Toleration and Marxism, like another Orwellian phrase, Neo-McCarthyite, used to delegitimize points of view that the Left finds unsettling (more here and here).
This is a good opportunity for me to catch up with some things Joe Willingham sent in when I was gone, including a link to a site cataloging educational malpractice. Then there's this on the Open University, an alternative to doctrinaire, PC, and expensive Unis. Sounds like the kind of thing I should look into, actually. Wonder if there's a Stateside version. Then there's also this, on a textbook for the Politically Incorrect - and not in the Bill Mahr "I'm really PC, but it helps confuse people to claim otherwise" sense.
Richard Meixner sends in a link to this Independent article, noting that it pays to go beyond the headlines here.
Hans Blix says the Iraq war is illegal because all the people Saddam was bribing in corrupt oil deals and paying to help him with his missile program (see below) didn't want it to happen. But there's more! Richard suggests that Blix's main purpose here isn't to refight the last war, but to insure that "Hans Blix is analyzing again, promoting early 90’s style (re: North Korea) ‘analysis paralysis’ to blur the decisions leading to war" to insure that remains the model for future problem "resolution" or, rather, lack of resolution - in all meanings of the word. It's worth comparing & contrasting the position exemplified by the Independent article with the Torygraph editorial I linked to and commented on earlier this week.
On a personal note, Richard also wrote:
I trust you are not discounting your time in Mancos-you have done lots of writing and thinking. You will get the paper certificates that you need to continue on your journey.
Which I appreciate, because I have been discounting that some. Thanks for the reminder.
If they didn't like the draft, they shouldn't have agreed. Pulling tricks like this at the very moment that it should be signed is lame at best.
Update: This David Ignatius column would be a worthy read if the Shias hadn't bailed at the last second. Ignatius and I are right now sucking wind on that one, after talking up the willingness to compromise.
Additional: Here's more and perhaps it's not a big deal, but things that could have been worked out yesterday. Maybe I'm just impatient.
The UN says Saddam was a good boy after '94 - a change from what they themselves were saying a year ago - but Russia helped Saddam's missile program into 2001. The Democrats think we should have gotten their approval before doing anything.
So it's been awhile since I wrote about China and trade (follow-up here). I wasn't sure how to handle things, but I knew - and know - we're not looking at a free market model here.
I'm certainly not a protectionist, of either the right variety or the Left/Shimberal variety. But the trade situation with China is a challenge, and the NYT had a piece this week that examines that challenge, making the same comparison with Japan that I alluded to in the posts referenced above.
To me, that comparison is a negative one. That is, it makes a point opposite of the one that those who are concerned with China as they were with Japan might want. Because a lot - virtually all - of those concerns proved to be overblown, often overheated, raising the specter of boogiemen verging on accusing the Japanese of some conspiracy to overturn America and buy it up. Now, our very real concern isn't with Japanese commercial dominance, but the moribund state of Japan's economy. It is only just now emerging from more than a decade of stagnation. If it is emerging at all. The problem with the once-vaunted Japanese financial sector isn't that it threatens to displace ours, it's that it has an overhang of bad loans, hindering Japan's ability to grow.
The comparison between the views of Japan that many Americans had then (think Gephardt '88, Buchanan '92) and China now is emotional, and that some of the concerns are the same. But in details, the cases are very different: Japan's political economy, neither then nor now, bears little resemblance to China's political economy now. Here, I think some of the concerns with respect to China that proved so specious with respect to Japan are real, though not the more over the top conspiracy theories.
The NYT article:
While China's economy is still one-third the size of Japan's, the potential size of its market has made it very hard for companies to say no when Beijing officials demand that they build factories, transfer the latest technology or adopt Chinese technical standards.
Which shows that in these instances, the idea that businesses are making deals with other businesses, is a superficial facade. The fact is that this is far from a libertarian free market, it's a situation of government dictat, where Chinese businesses are often owned by a branch of the Chinese government, which imposes terms rather than negotiating them. They impose conditions on doing business in China that would normally be deplored if people weren't so seduced by the potential of China's market. Such conditions are common in third-world states, but China is so large that it matters much more in their case. As Stalin once said, "quantity has a quality all its own". There are few alternatives in doing business in China, and thus choice - a hallmark of market economics - is restricted by government. When the EU does this, libertarians deplore it. For some reason, when China imposes worse conditions, they turn a blind eye to it and want us to treat it as a gift, a boon of the Chinese government to us. This is odd coming from those who normally are suspicious of the generous nature of governments, in particular one-party governments that restrict liberty:
Its transition from a planned economy to a form of capitalism seems to make it especially susceptible to economic booms and busts, and Chinese officials have begun worrying that an unsustainable economic bubble is developing. At the same time, China's one-party system may struggle to adapt to the social tensions brought to the surface by rapid economic development.
The significant phrase here is "one-party system". Japan was, to be sure, dominated by the Liberal Democratic Party, and certainly had (and still has) a problem with the Permanent Bureaucracy in much the same way that France or Italy does. But to not see the distinction is a failure. Japan had (and has) real politics. China remains a one-party dictatorship. Neither business nor Labour can be considered free, and this matters with respect to trade with China - not "only" on the moral level, but at the commercial/economic level.
The Bush administration over the last year has tried to assuage worries about job losses by talking tough with the Chinese — in particular, demanding that China let the exchange value of its currency float upward to raise the price of its exports. But it has also continued to assert its faith in a policy of free trade.
Of course, there's no contradiction here, though the NYT writers don't appear to recognize that. Artificial manipulation of exchange rates is an offense to free trade. Under market conditions, the value of China's currency would be higher than it is now. Those who support that because it's a gift to them aren't really in favor of free markets - they're just like others who are willing to accept government provided benefits that come at someone else's cost (and there's always a cost, citizen. TANSTAAFL). The cost of the imports they buy are being artificially subsidized. What's next? Defense of the EU's CAP on Libertarian, free-market grounds? Of the Bush-Daschle Farm Bill?
The point is that this is a distortion of the market, not the market in action. It's one of many that trade with China involves, and it is very difficult to alter this situation, as the NYT article points out. Why? Is it because of natural market forces? No, it's due to the ability of China's government to prevent market liberalization:
China's strengths are indeed impressive. Its wage advantage is much greater than Japan's was a decade or two ago. China has the diplomatic muscle to resist trade and currency concessions that might undermine its competitive edge. And its opening to foreign investment brings China both the latest technology and the corporate connections overseas that help it fight restrictions on its exports.
(Emphasis added).
A significant part of China's "wage advantage" is real, a result of the remaining poverty and low productivity of China. But part is artificial, a result of the aforementioned currency manipulations. China is able to maintain a restricted market - yes, it is more open than before, but hardly very open - as a result of its government ("diplomatic muscle"). In a free market, if a business closes as a result of competition and its workers lose their jobs and shift to another industry, it is because they were out-competed by a better company producing things more efficiently (or an innovation that displaces the product, &tc). Normally, free marketeers would object to market distorting policies because they can have the effect of putting good businesses at a disadvantage. This means that the competition is rigged and the businesses that suffer may not be the inferior ones, while the businesses that prosper may not be the superior ones. This is the case here, and if it were not then China would not pursue the policies they have in place, and use their diplomatic muscle to maintain them. This is hardly a "gift" to market economics. This is not to say that Chinese products are necessarily inferior, but the prices are artificial. Interference with the pricing mechanisms of the market are hardly defensible on free trade grounds. If anyone has a convincing argument that does defend them on those grounds that they would like to present me with, I'm all ears (or, rather, eyes).
China’s trade surplus with the U.S. is high, not entirely due to market forces, but due to the widespread interference with them by the Chinese government’s policies.
In part, analysts say, Washington chooses to act gingerly out of geopolitical considerations. China is a nuclear power that, unlike Japan, does not depend on the United States for military protection. Yet the United States looks to Beijing for help in coping with problems in countries including North Korea, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
These are all considerations in diplomacy with China, but note that they’re all non-economic reasons for not pressing China to trade liberalization and market forces. They can perhaps be defended, but not on the grounds of “this is free trade at work”. It also illustrates the fact that we’re not simply homo economicus, that considerations other than economic ones influence our decisions. But in China's case, it might be better if economic considerations influenced our policies towards China more than they have, because the price of paying for their diplomatic acquiescence may be too high. This, of course, is in part a function of China having a seat on the UN, and yet another reason to replace the current international system with one more suited to our interests.
Andrew Gilligan has new charges against Tony Blair. But, at least there is this picture of Democratic Candidates and their personal regard for each other.
No, not the U.S. election. I'm talking the battle for the control of the EU. I've mentioned before that the Socialists in the EU have a proprietary view of it. So we'll see how well this goes over:
Socialist candidates were warned yesterday that they stand little chance of becoming the next European Commission president if the centre-right wins an expected victory in the June European elections.
Hans-Gert Pöttering, leader of the European parliament's centre-right group, said his colleagues would not accept the choice by European leaders of a social democrat for the top job in Brussels. . .
"If we win the elections we would expect that the heads of government would propose someone from our political family," he said in an interview with the Financial Times. "It is a question of principle which heads of governments should respect."
The idea that an election might matter and should affect how the EU is governed, and that the result might not be the pre-eminence of the Left, may go over badly with some. How this is handled - if the elections produce the "expected" result - will be an important signifier for how the EU will develop. It will be a good sign if election results are respected, it will be a bad sign if they are resisted or dismissed and the same old gang tries to function in their role of an entrenched bureaucracy insulated and unaccountable to the governed.
Then there is this:
The next Commission president will have to rebuild morale at the EU executive and show it is capable of standing up to big member states in applying EU law and coming up with new initiatives to boost European integration.
That's another move that would go over like a lead balloon in a couple of capitals, the "core area" vanguard Restored Carolingian Empire that sees the EU as their demesne. It's the other, lesser, vassalary fiefdoms that are supposed to submit to the EU's authoritah.
Responding to this post from yesterday, Randolf Addison writes, via e-mail, as follows:
I am not sure if you would agree with me, but I believe that Andrew Sullivan has completely gone off the deep end and has become, in my eyes, the frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic who used to so reliably chastise. He has become that which he hated--a close-minded ideologue who casts those who disagree with him as "bigots", "immoral", and "on the wrong side of history". Those who wish to leave things as they were and are not simply those with another opinion; they are de facto evil.
Yes, well I have to say that the "Religious Right" is Andrew's boogieman, not mine. I think you're right that he overgeneralizes when it comes to this group. I know there are a fair number of conservative Christians who read this blog (mine, that is), including several who disagree with my position on Gay Marriage (argued on Christian grounds), but none of them have raised a fuss about it or been the least bit "bigoted".
However, in Andrew's defense, he gets a lot of mail on the subject, much of it quite harrowing. I would say it comes more from bigots than Christians and anyone who writes some of the things he receives should search their soul in my opinion and ask themselves if they're acting with Christian charity and grace. This includes those who write mails that aren't overtly insulting but are overtly condescending. I know that if I got mail of that sort, my responses would likely be a little rough (and so why doesn't Porphy search his own soul? Good question, and I work on it). It may be that by no means the majority of the mail he gets on the subject is hateful, but those always stick in one's mind.
I do think that in the post I quoted yesterday, he casts the blame for the fall of California's Republican Party a bit at the wrong feet (many constituencies played a role, IMO), and that he put it too starkly. James Taranto said "ugly and intemperate" and Andrew doesn't see it - but I kind of do, and I like Andrew and respect his thinking, especially on the subject of the war.
However, I also get Andrew's point, in that when people like Dennis Prager - who I also respect as a thoughtful person - compare this to al-Qaeda, they're entering Jerry Falwell territory - a religious figure that I can't muster a lot of respect for. Not being able to recognize the difference between blowing people up because you disagree with them and pressing an issue, if perhaps sometimes in ways I don't think are acceptable (even as a supporter of Gay Marriage) - is an example, IMO, of Bad Philosophy. Btw, see Andrew's post today on the Rule of Law. Though I disagree with him that the Mayor of SF fits acceptably into the category of civil disobedience, but I agree with him on the larger point.
The history of same-sex marriage got us where we are (unless I am mistaken, Andrew himself was created this way). Yet, those who wish to keep it that way are "on the wrong side of history". Curious.
Yes, well, for what it's worth I think it's going to happen. I am aware that even in civilizations that accepted gay relationships as perfectly normal, marriage was still reserved for man & woman. But I've come to the position that I think it should be permitted. We can disagree respectfully, though.
I've long given up hope on him.
Well, this brings up another subject, in a way. For one thing, this is one of Andrew's signature issues and has been since before he started blogging. The idea that he's going to give up on it is - well, it's not going to happen. That he argues it with as much force as he argued the war is also to be expected.
I do have to say that at times it gets over much for me. Even though I agree with him it isn't an issue that I care to read about as much as he writes about it. At times I'm saying to myself "I get the point". But then we don't have to read everything someone writes. I guess I'm making this point not quite so much with respect to Andrew, but in reaction to what Steven Den Beste wrote recently, having returned from his hiatus only to get grief for the subject(s) he wrote about upon his return. Yah, the "techy" posts, in particular the Apple Wars, while sometimes interesting, aren't my favorite either. Other people disliked it when he focused lots of posts on political/foreign policy issues and wrote in to tell him they wanted more tech/science posts. I'm sure it does get frustrating when people don't accept that others can write about what they want to, and if you're not interested just don't read that particular post. I guess the problem there is that with Den Beste's writing is you can never tell whether it's going to "swerve" halfway through to another subject which becomes the real point of the post. The solution there is to skim the post quickly to see what the main topics are. It's better than writing a snippy mail about his topic selection or writing style. By now, regular readers should know his position on that and if you can't live with it, there are other blogs - many good ones, more than any one reader could possibly frequent. I know 'cause I keep finding thoughtful, well-written blogs (often via trackback pings and other means), and I have trouble just keeping up with my "old favs".
Update: Randolph writes to clarify a point I was confused on:
I did not mean that I had given up hope on Andrew Sullivan in that I had given up hope that he would give up on the gay marriage issue. What made me lose hope on him was his aforementioned fanatacism and demonization of those with differing opinion. It could be on any topic, say, pepperoni vs. sausage on a pizza...
Yes, well everyone knows which of those is superior, and anyone who disagrees is a knave and a blackguard, an agent of the forces of darkness, insidiously trying to tear this nation apart with their divisive stance on the subject that pits people against each other. They must be stopped, and will be.
So both sides have elements that seem unserious about the defining issue of the day: the war. But the right's malcontents snipe from humid redoubts of Internet message boards. The left's biggest spokesmen are parading their delusions.
Which is what I've been saying for months. Lileks hits conservatives pretty hard, but for whatever reason doesn't target the wavering "War Base" folks who are about to shrug their shoulders and let the wookie win, if the wookie is Kerry.
I can understand the position of the conservatives Lileks aims his fire at. But the people for whom the war is supposedly a priority, well I expected them to know better. I figured that hell or high water, unless the Democrats nominated a candidate that was credible on the war - Lieberman maybe, Gephardt maybe - they'd be solid. After all, the "War Base" kept saying that all last year.
I guess the focus, the attention span of at least some of them really isn't as strong as I expected it would be. They all have their reasons - or rationalizations, at any rate. Some of them are making the perfect the enemy of the good, not as if they see Kerry as the perfect, but because Bush isn't quite living up to exacting standards - and I don't think he's perfect, either - they're willing to accept worse. For them, it isn't the Reagan Ideal that Lileks writes about perhaps, but a Churchill Ideal, and Bush doesn't live up to it. He's certainly not the oratorical champion Churchill was, for one thing, and I've written in the past that this is a void that needs filling.
Will Kerry fill it? With the right message, the right content? As if. Until there is a better choice, folding one's arms across the chest in a harumph and letting whatever happens, happen, is not a constructive response from those who see themselves as active supporters of the war effort.
Update: More here, including how Bush pulled a dirty trick on Kerry by meaning what he said, that rat bastard.
What the religious right amendment is doing is splitting the Republican coalition and uniting the Democrats. What the religious right did to destroy the Republican party in a state like California, they are now trying to do across the country as a whole. They are not only on the wrong side of history; and on the wrong side of morality; they are putting the Republican party on the losing side of politics. They must and will be stopped.
I don't put it in exactly those stark terms, especially since I'm hardly sure the "religious right" is what decimated the California Republican Party. But I wrote about the comparison between the FMA and Prop 187 in early February. The fact that Andrew says this will be stopped, while the issue of the war and foreign policy remains a more open question, should have some influence on how people will vote. It’s just my opinion, but the war is still the priority issue for me.
As John Kerry runs a positive, uplifting campaign of ad hominem references to and accusations about George Bush, he prepares himself for the onslaught of negative Republican attacks such as these which Kerry and his supporters in the media have long been warning us about. Regarding that, reader Beckett93 wrote, via e-mail, as follows:
I am writing to express my continued admiration for Porphyrogenitus and especially your comments in "Political Rhetoric of the Good People." The growing rancour of the left is not only frightening to contemplate should the Democrats when the upcoming election, but a more extreme radicalism among fringe elements of the left that can be expected should they lose is almost as terrifying. Their complete and utter contempt for all those who do not subscribe to every point of their program is quite ironic when they roundly villify Bush as some Hitler minus the ambition to be more evil (I never thought Margaret Cho was very funny and the fact that the DNC paid her to say such things is less funny than her comedy) who is so callous as to not listen to no one outside of an imagined coterie of CEO's, oil barons, and whoever else the anti-globalists loathe. I have often heard the Terrorist Alert System accused of being a method of mind control and that Bush was trying to create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia to gain support for Republicans. Whenever I have responded to this assertion that it can be just as justly put that the the Left is trying to create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia about Bush and Republicans so as to gain support for Democrats, the shock that some have expressed that one could conceive of Democrats doing such a thing was itself shocking. A la Hillary Clinton, it is alright to suppose a right-wing conspiracy, but impossible to even bring up a leftist conspiracy for the sake of debate because they consider themselves much too benevolent.
He included two examples from a Liberal blog of the Good People engaging in such behavior, but those are a dime a dozen so I decided to save the server space.
A bit belatedly, because I'm only finding it now, there is this piece by Tony Blankley discussing a book on George Bush's foreign strategy vision written by John Lewis Gaddis. Unfortunately the Boston Globe article Blankley mentions is now in their "paid only" archives. But read the Blankley article and, if you're so inclined, check out Gaddis' book.
Sarah at Trying to Grok wishes me well and has a bunch of other kewl posts. Start at "A Stand Up Guy" and scroll away.
Btw, I'm still way, way behind on replies to mails. Stuff came up the last couple days and I didn't get as far in getting back to people as I hoped & ought to. I'll catch up: I may be slow, but if you wrote me a letter and haven't gotten a response yet, you'll get one. Till then, my thanks again.
A senior U.S. official said on Tuesday Washington's Middle East democracy plan should not depend on a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prompting a public disagreement with Egypt's foreign minister.
It's good to see there's follow-up to the things Bush has been speaking about on this subject. Speeches in the U.S. are one thing, but confronting the "allies" in the region with a message they don't want to hear but need to shows it's not just political rhetoric for domestic consumption in the U.S.
The document is remarkable for a number of reasons. To start with, it is a patchwork of compromises in a region where give-and-take is regarded as a sign of political weakness if not outright dishonor.
In the macho world of Middle Eastern politics, the "strongman" imposes his will by force, giving even the mildest critic no quarter. In a game in which the winner takes all, the most that the losers can hope for is not to be put to the sword, thrown into prison or forced into exile. This is why, with the exception of Turkey, there has never been a genuine coalition government in any Muslim country.
The Iraqi success in agreeing to a draft is all the more meritorious because the compromises that had to be made concerned fundamental issues.
Again, that shows more political maturity than the EU often evidences, given the "no compromise, take it or leave it" stance that the EU proponents took with respect to their Constitutional ambitions (and how's that workin out for them? not very well). The Washington Post has an editorial on Iraq's Constitution that I would describe as "cautiously optimistic", and the notes of caution are real concerns, not specious ones. But so far so good.
Update: Here's another note of caution, and Austin Bay has more on Democracy & Iraq, and how concerns like these can be put to rest. Check it out.
Christopher Hitchens on upsetting the Mullahs and Joshua Muravchik on the upset global elite fighting to defend the authoritah of unaccountable international institutions so the gravy train will keep rolling along. If Soros was sincere about open society, he'd be training his guns in the other direction.
Not to neglect the Hitchens piece, which is a good argument for gay marriage and points out that hetro marriages are so destabilizing to society that God had to include a Commandment about them.
Speaking of unusual arguments, here is another, declaring The Passion pro-Israel. Here's the reason:
In fact, Jewish activists should embrace "The Passion." After all, if Jesus was divinely sent to die for mankind, then the high priest Caiaphas was God's instrument. If Jesus was just another rebel from the Galilee, well, no harm, no foul.
Besides, there is a pro-Israeli message in Gibson's movie.
Lately, Yasser Arafat has taken to declaring that the original inhabitants of Israel were Palestinians. But there are no Palestinians in Gibson's Jerusalem, just as there were none in the Gospels. Jesus and his disciples are as Israeli as Ariel Sharon.
The Arabs are still 600 miles and 600 years from the Holy Land.
If the Anti-Defamation League were smart, it would stop bugging Mel Gibson for an apology and ask instead for a couple hundred copies of the movie.
(Emphasis added).
If you haven't read it, a must-read post on Bush's "War Base" and its disaffection. I've begun to think that Bush has at least a 50-50 chance of losing, even though electing Kerry would be a near disaster internationally, putting us back to about a 1998 foreign policy at best. But if a Kerry-Soros foreign policy is your idea of an acceptable international vision, go ahead, don't vote Bush.
Here's one that reminded me not so much of console games but of Anime:
Logan's Run Rule
RPG characters are young. Very young. The average age seems to be 15, unless the character is a decorated and battle-hardened soldier, in which case he might even be as old as 18. Such teenagers often have skills with multiple weapons and magic, years of experience, and never ever worry about their parents telling them to come home from adventuring before bedtime. By contrast, characters more than twenty-two years old will cheerfully refer to themselves as washed-up old fogies and be eager to make room for the younger generation.
The draft interim Constitution for Iraq is a remarkable triumph for liberal (small "L") values and for those who want to see an Iraq based on liberty rather than theocracy. It also stands in some contrast with the draft EU Constitution that was put together by people with a much longer experience with life in democratic countries.
Today's attacks are clearly designed to upset developments like this and prevent them from taking hold. They're conducted by those who seek to incite inter-Iraqi strife that will make a liberal, constitutional Iraq that respects the rights of all its citizens impossible. Again, we have to insure that they don't succeed.
My sojourn is over and I had a relaxing time. For those who don't expect weekend posting, I made a number of posts this Sunday that readers might be interested in.
I want to again thank those who have been giving me advice and/or encouragement on my future. I'm going to work on catching up with correspondence and responding to mails today as well.
I've clearly been sitting where I am for far too long. I'm still trying to get past the regret of where I might be right now if I had moved on earlier. The focus that I have now on what I want to do makes me regret not having taken those steps earlier. It's a long path and seems insurmountable, more and more as the years have passed. There were a variety of reasons, not worth going into, that seemed important at the time but now seem insignificant, and I'm left wondering why I let this that and the other get in the way. In part it was because the road ahead will be long and there always seemed to be time, once the thing-of-the-day was dealt with. Now there doesn't seem to be so much time, and I'm telling myself that it's only too late if I let it be. Also I've finally learned that there will always be a "something" that puts things off if I let it.
One of the options I have long considered is military service, serving in the Army and pursuing my education from there. The military offers good support for getting an education, both in the service and afterwards. There are a number of other good reasons to serve in that capacity as well. Again, in the past a number of things have prevented me from taking that path, some family related and some not.
Well I'm looking into that now, and just by a whisker it's not too late. That's the path I'm going to take, and it'll be the Army. In the past, whenever I've considered military service, I've always seen myself in the Army. Others have recommended looking into some of the other services as well, such as the Air Force. I will say that I did make an inquiry and if only the Air Force Recruiter in Farmington had returned my calls, I might have given it a closer look. In particular if they had a slot open that was what I'm looking for.
I had hoped to get into Military Intelligence. I think I'd excel there, I think my talents would be suited to the task, and I know I qualify (I scored in the 98th percentile on the ASVAB), and language school would help me lock down one of my goals - finishing my undergrad degree. But it was locked up and the Army had no openings there. What I got for now is Human Resources, acceptable for me (given I'm better with my head than my hands), but I hope to find a way to reclassify. Once I'm in I'm going to apply for OCS and/or Warrant Officer school, and get into M.I. from there. If anyone has any other recommendations, I'd be happy to hear them.
I'm also keen on getting situated somewhere where I can work on institution building and the like (Civil Affairs was also full up): I think I could also make a good contribution in that capacity. I'm going to try and get stationed in the Northern Virginia/D.C. area, I think that would be a good environment for me. I actually wouldn't mind getting deployed to Iraq and, like I said, work on institution building. The Army's doing decent work there, better I suspect (and have blogged to that effect) than other folks would. But if folks have recommendations of good bases to get stationed at, I'm all ears.
I've been out of the National Guard for more than four years, so I have to go through Basic Training again. I'm scheduled to report at Fort Jackson, SC, on the 13th of May. (No, this wasn't what I was doing on my sojourn; I was looking into this and lining it up before I left, while also looking at other options). I’m hoping I made the right choice, that I’ll do good work, do well, and get closer to where I want to be. If nothing else I won’t be brooding away in Southwest Colorado, and that’s something. This is, I hope, a way to make a contribution to something I think is important while also advancing my progress towards my own ultimate goals.
I may be looking for "guest bloggers" while I'm in Basic. AIT shouldn't be as much of a problem but, though you have e-mail access in Basic now (through a .mil account; everything else is firewalled), there isn't a heck of a lot of time there for keeping up with current events and writing blog posts. You're kept pretty busy and with whatever free time you have, you're fairly tired.
John at Sleaze Report recommends an index for the whole series. So here it is:
Part I: Historical background, America's position in the world, and why we cannot go back to that "state of republican innocence and seriously non-interventionist foreign policy" (Colby Cosh) in the absence of some other power who would undertake the job and uphold the same values.
Part II: Why this role is necessary at all, a clear-eyed look at what the world would be like in its absence.
Part III: Examining alternative systems and arguing why my "Commonwealth" alliance is the best alternative. (See also the recent Krauthammer AEI speech.
Lengthy direct arguments against forced consensus and transnational governance, the alternative that is often strongly if only implicitly argued (as in the run up to Iraq and with respect to the common European Foreign Policy), since open advocation and setting forth clearly what they involve would result in widespread rejection. But also a post distinguishing this vision from international order.
Of Course You Know, This Means War and War and Legitimate Questions: Domestic politics and the possible consequences of failing to take foreign policy and the war seriously. Why the Democratic Party is on the wrong, and even a dangerous, path in how they are dealing with these issues.
Case Studies in why the Democrats are unsuited to provide a foreign policy vision.
Part IV: the generational task of institutional rejuvenation, rebuilding, and reform. What is needed domestically to reform our foreign policy establishment so that it effectively pursues our interests and goals and the American State Department ceases to be the world's representative in Washington and becomes once again America's representative to the world, advocating our interests abroad rather than being the advocate for others' in the White House and Congress. (More on the generational factor here).
