We're All Hutaree Now

Pay close attention, if you will, to the verbiage being traded back and forth with regard to the question of whether to keep the nine members of the Hutaree militia in custody. The judge says (and rightly so) that "offensive and hate-filled speech" does not automatically signal a conspiracy to levy war against the government. The feds, on the other hand, contend that there was indeed a conspiracy, as evidenced by talk of killing law officers. This assumes, of course, that "talk" equals "conspiracy" -- or, to put it another way, that the mere exchange of thoughts and ideas is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy; i.e., a tangible, feasible plan is not required. It is also contended that “the defendants pose a danger to the public” -- although no explanation of which “public” they have in mind was offered. The judge, on the other hand, who seems remarkably enlightened, says “Defendants are presumed innocent of all charges against them... This presumption of innocence is part and parcel of why, 'In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.'"

So what are we to make of all this? It seems to pit the traditional rights of defendants against claims that these are exceptional circumstances that require “flexibility” when it comes to heretofore-settled questions of law... “conspiracy” being the scare word du jour, the way “Bolshevism” might have been in an earlier era. And there are always people looking for exceptions to the rule of law, because the law, quite frankly, is a pain in the butt when you're trying to get something done. Just at the point when you think you've got someone dead to rights, it turns out they have rights after all. And this is the thing that has always irritated those with tyrannical or collectivist tendencies... and it's one of many reasons why we've evolved, with hardly anyone noticing it, into a perpetual-war system (and economy). Because if we're always at war, then wartime measures are always justified, and things like habeas corpus can be dispensed with for the duration.

Hence the Guantanamo controversy. If the president can wage war with neither the advice nor consent of Congress, then he can also take prisoners of war, right? And those prisoners can be held until the war is concluded. But when will the “war on terror” be concluded? How would we even know that we've won? We won't – which means that, perhaps for the first time, we have a truly open-ended war on our hands... which is, of course, exactly what the Regime wants. An open-ended war is ideal, because it means endless expenditures, endless “temporary” compromises in the area of citizens' (and non-citizens') rights, and endless opportunities for more concentration of power and resources at the federal level. And of course to fight an open-ended war, it can't simply be with another country or group of countries – because then it would be too easy to define what would constitute victory. No, it has to be with a nebulous, ill-defined entity of some sort that is not located in any particular place and has no discernible, coherent economic base. But it also has to be capable of eliciting vast and chronic fear in the populace (ours, that is). Hence the “war on terror” -- made to order for the Regime, the internationalists, the globalists... in short, the New World Order – which, as it turns out, is one of the things the Hutaree used to trade e-mails about between swigs of beer and training sessions for pit bulls. So yes, we now have guys who live in “double wides” arming themselves against the New World Order; how things have evolved over the last few decades! Time was when they would have been just peaceful deer hunters – except for the occasional barroom brawl. But now they have a sort of international consciousness. And whose fault is that? Did they dream this issue up out of thin air? Well, of course not; they didn't, and they couldn't. What they do see – if dimly – is that this country has long since submitted to, and come under the boot of, powers that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States in terms of loyalty, patriotism, or economic good faith. They see that the federal government has sold out and collaborated with what is, in effect, an alien force, and they would like very much to see that the same thing doesn't happen at the state and local level. This, rather than any sort of tangible conspiracy, is their real sin – and the fact that they are both hapless and powerless doesn't make it any less of a threat. (The town drunk in a small Russian village could be sent to the gulag for criticizing Stalin just as readily as an urban academician or journalist could.)

But I don't want to just talk about the Hutaree, and the other equally pathetic militia groups. I want to talk about you and me. Because we're conspirators too, don't you see? We think, we talk... by the standards of the World War I era we're all already guilty of sedition, a criminal offense. Federal authorities accused the Hutaree of having “dark hearts and evil intent” -- but didn't we hear the same things said about the “tea partiers” by the powers that be in Washington? What I see here is a kind of pincer movement on the part of the establishment – on the one hand, you do as much as possible to suspend the usual rights under the law based on claims of “a national emergency”. And at the same time, you (or your stooges in the media) start re-defining terms like “conspiracy”, “terrorism”, “freedom of speech”, “freedom of association”, “overthrow” (as in “overthrow the government”), “danger to the public”, and the like. The idea is to narrow the scope of allowable debate or protest until we reach the point where any debate, or any protest, is considered dangerous and a cause for legal sanctions. Which means that much of the current debate would – under conditions the Regime considers ideal – be off limits and illegal. And don't forget – we would still have “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” -- but only to the extent that those freedoms were exercised in a “responsible” way – i.e. a way that did not constitute any sort of threat to the status quo.

Impossible, you say? “It can't happen here”? I refer you again to the Sedition Act of 1918... and the martial law imposed by Lincoln... on the North! And how have many of the skeptics when it comes to the Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 attacks been treated? Some have not lived to tell any more tales. Whenever any other version of reality becomes “off limits” -- unpublishable and unspeakable – you know you're dealing with censorship of a totalitarian sort. And one might say, well, as long as it's just outfits like the Hutaree – i.e., ignorant rednecks – I'm not going to get too worried. But it has already gone way beyond that point. Again, I ask you to consider how Ron Paul was treated by his fellow Republicans when he expressed skepticism about our twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is censorship (not to mention character assassination) at the highest levels. On a more intermediate level, we have the “tea partiers” and the reaction to them by the mainstream media. You'd think the Huns were sailing up the Potomac and storming the Capitol! And the top-drawer liberals of the press and Congress have called them every name in the book – with the President and his underlings piling on when the mood strikes. They've been accused – by a certain ex-president – of being, basically, a bunch of little Tim McVeighs... based on what they write on protest signs?

The culture wars, just like most wars over the last couple of centuries, typically begin with words – and those words express ideas... ideas as to who is right or wrong, good or evil... who has a right to remain at liberty and who must be eliminated by one means or another. At present, the war – and yes, one could call it a civil war of sorts – is being fought primarily with words. But once the terminology is firmly in place, and all the names that can be called have been called, you can expect to see more direct action – not on the part of rag-tag militia groups, and certainly not on the part of solidly middle-class “tea partiers”, but on the part of the government itself, which has become, in our time, the main practitioner of intolerance.

Selected Shorts

1. “Scientists working on the Big Bang project probing the secrets of the cosmos said on Wednesday their giant particle collider is on course to make unexpected discoveries about the origins and makeup of the universe.” So... in other words, they fully expect to make “unexpected” discoveries. But what if they don't discover anything? Wouldn't that be even more unexpected?

2. What a coincidence! Mere months after the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, the offshore wind farm that he fought for decades because it might put a crimp in his yachting has been approved. I guess you could say we've lost one significant source of wind but gained another...

3. A concept I haven't seen for quite a few years has cropped up again in connection with the shooting of a local man. A number of years back, there was a popular bumper sticker in Washington, D.C. -- “Stop black-on-black violence”. And I always wondered, at the time, what the reaction would be if I, or someone, made up a bumper sticker that said “Stop white-on-white violence”. The implication, obviously, would have been that white-on-white violence is, somehow, more wrong than other kinds. But isn't that precisely what the term “black-on-black” implies? That, somehow, there's no excuse for minorities killing each other but there might be good – or at least understandable – reasons for minorities to kill other people? Because of a “history of discrimination”, let's say... or of oppression... or even (as was argued by black radicals back in the inner-city riot era) as a “political statement”. Now, I frankly don't think (and I don't think Obama does, either) that there will ever be an end to racial politics in this country; I think it will last as long as the nation does. It's part of our heritage – part of our karma, if you will. But if it ever does end, one of the signs will surely have to be an end to idiotic (and deeply racist) concepts like “black-on-black violence”.

4. And speaking of one-sided, politically-correct terminology, what if some Christian country started giving out awards to people for being “Righteous Among the Jews”? Imagine the indignation! The implication, of course, would be that, with the exception of those receiving the award, the vast bulk of Jews are not “righteous”. And yet that could be seen as the implication of the “Righteous Among the Gentiles” awards given out by Jewish organizations – that those few gentiles were, or are, “righteous”, whereas the rest of us are all potential anti-Semites (or, at best, indifferent to Jewish suffering). I mean – I understand what those awards are all about, but it still makes me uneasy. It's patronizing. It's sort of the equivalent of the old line about a black man being “a credit to his race” -- as if all the rest weren't. But what made me think of this is a death notice for Rabbi David Forman, “founder of Rabbis for Human Rights, a prominent group defending Palestinians”. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction from radical Zionists and their supporters in this country would be that he was a “self-hating Jew”. Maybe – but he was also director of the Israel office of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations – not exactly a fringe outfit. He was also a resident of Israel starting in 1972. The notice says that “Rabbis for Human Rights leads regular protests against the demolition of Palestinian homes and uprooting of olive trees in the West Bank”. Seems so simple, doesn't it? Simple, reasonable, humane? It seems like the kind of thing any “righteous Jew” would be glad to do anywhere in the world... except in Israel, for some reason. So -- would they agree that Rabbi Forman was "righteous among the Jews"? I suspect not.

5. “Mercury spill forces school evacuation.” Nearly 1900 students had to be evacuated from an area school the other day when “a very small amount” of mercury was spilled in a science lab. And not only that, but some people had to be “decontaminated”, the HazMat unit had to come in and clean up, and school was dismissed for the day. Ah, for the good old days! I recall a similar incident involving a barometer in grade school. The mercury scattered across the floor in shiny little blobs, and was eagerly snatched up by the kids who spent the next few weeks playing with it (in the built-in pencil trays inside the desks) and using it to shine dimes. No evacuations, no HazMat unit, no decontamination. And as far as I know, we all came out of it just fine – no permanent damage. Any chance that we are presently living in a state of perpetual fear and overreaction? And, any chance that this is precisely the state the government, and its stooges in the public school system, want us to live in?

Just Enough for the City

Well, it looks like Forbes.com goofed. They ranked Pittsburgh #1 in livability among the 200 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. And why is this a goof? Well, simply because it will reward all the wrong people – i.e. local politicians – for all the wrong things. You know, things like coddling big business and unions, but driving most businesses (and many residents) away with high tax rates, neglected infrastructure, poor management, debt, and so on. And sure enough, the naysayers have come out of the woodwork along with the public officials and Chamber of Commerce “booster” types.

But I have to beg to differ with both sides. Clearly, the average Chamber of Commerce is forever pushing things that they think people ought to value, or be interested in, but don't. I call this the “mint on the pillow” approach – for that one stinkin', lousy mint you're expected to cheerfully fork over another $50. And because some local booster says something is “good for business”, the average citizen is supposed to lie down, roll over, and play dead. Anyone remember back when “urban renewal” was going to be “good for business”? It was good for business – in the suburbs. But the cities were turned into vast wastelands, and, in most cases, are only now beginning to recover. The question no one asks every time something is touted as being good for business is, "_whose_ business"? The answer is usually a very small and often very elite group; everyone else can get lost. (We saw this in action during the recent G-20 meetings, for example.)

But on the other hand, the objections from the conservative side aren't necessarily any more responsive to what the average person really wants or values. The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, for instance, cites “traffic problems, high property taxes, incompetent public officials, financial conditions of the core city, labor strife, poor street maintenance and inept snow removal”. But really, does the average Pittsburgher spend any significant part of his day worrying about the fact that the city is chronically bankrupt? I daresay not – mainly because he doesn't perceive the effects; at least not directly. Even incompetent officials only become a worry when their incompetence directly impacts one's wallet. And as to taxes, if you don't own property you avoid most of those as well. And snow can be a pain for a while -- but it does eventually melt, after all.

The point is that livability is, obviously, a “quality of life” issue, and quality of life is a highly subjective thing. Outfits like Forbes try to boil it down to objective, quantifiable “metrics”, but that can only go so far. (Look at all the “happiness” scales out there, for example.) And it's always based on someone's – an “expert”, a focus group, whatever – notion as to what constitutes “quality”. I always think of the guys from the inner city who used to spend the weekend fishing in the Potomac above Washington, D.C. – their notion of “livability” would have included how good the fishing is. In an urban area! Plus, a lot of it has to do with comparisons between where you live at present and where you've lived before. I hear complaints from the locals about Pittsburgh traffic, for instance, and can't help wondering how they would survive in D.C. They complain about the weather as well – and I consider Pittsburgh weather one of the best-kept secrets around. But see, there you are – I happen to relish “real” winter weather (vs. that wimpy stuff D.C. usually has) because it reminds me of the winter weather when I was a kid – and you know the saying, when you're a kid there is no such thing as “bad weather”. I also happen to relish the fact that, in the summer, you will find Pittsburghers walking down the street on errands, and sitting on their front porches – something that, in the hermetically-sealed suburbs of D.C., is unheard of. But to a person who doesn't care one way or the other about the weather, because they spend their lives in high-rise apartments, this is not a “livability” factor. And frankly, I could get along just fine without the Pirates and the Penguins – but not the Steelers! Now how would Forbes quantify something like that? Would the fact that Pittsburgh markets have a vast array of Italian cheeses and sausages carry any weight in D.C., where, as far as I know, there are no -- repeat, no -- authentic Italian markets? And yet D.C. has every imaginable kind of Oriental restaurant -- and some that aren't imaginable as well. But most Pittsburghers would emit a huge yawn at that fact.

So these "livability" indexes, while intriguing, can only tell one so much. Ultimately it really boils down to the individual -- his likes and dislikes, preferences, and "non-negotiables". There is no city on earth, probably, that some people "wouldn't live in for all the tea in China", and that others would never want to leave, even for one day. Frankly, I think it's just as well. I used to think how great it would be if everyone shared my (good -- ahem!) taste -- until I realized that then we would all be competing for the exact same things. And then watch the price skyrocket and the supply, in the cases of some non-sustainable items, be used up. No, it really is better to have true diversity (vs. the government-engineered kind) -- in cities as well as everywhere else.

Don't Ask, Just Do

During the Clinton administration, we were described as having a “government by focus group”. Now it appears that we have a government by survey – at least in one vital area, namely that of the military and the question of the “don't ask, don't tell” policy. And it's funny, it seems like just yesterday that all the senior military leaders, except maybe for one holdout among the Marines, were stepping up and vowing that, indeed, the time had come to eliminate this wishy-washy policy and institute full acceptance of gay and lesbian (and, I suppose, bisexual as well) citizens into the military. And if military leaders – allegedly the most conservative demographic around – were for it, who could be against it? So... what's behind this recent headline, “Pentagon wants to keep gay ban”? Who “got to” whom? Who got “politically corrected”? And here's what I find striking. The Pentagon wants to “come up with a plan for dealing with potential opposition in the ranks” before the ban is “tampered” with. And how is the senior leadership going to find out how the troops feel about the issue? Why, via a survey, of course! And “the troops” are supposed to tell the Secretary of Defense “how it should be done”. Now... can you imagine what would have happened if this procedure had been adopted back in 1948, when the armed forces were integrated? If they had put out a survey – and if it had been answered honestly – the military might still be segregated! What ever happened to that old civil rights tactic of, first you pass a law and start putting people in jail, and their hearts and minds will follow? It always worked when it came to racial integration; why wouldn't it work when it comes to integration of “sexual minorities”?

Oh, and – by the way – much the same thing happened when women were integrated into many “non-traditional” specialties and units. Yeah, there were some surveys – I was involved with some of them – but the bottom line was, this is the way it's going to be, and if you don't like it, there's the door. I'm not sure if any other approach is ever going to make as much sense, especially since it's the military we're dealing with. The whole notion of listening to reason – of trying to impress people with “data” -- that just doesn't have traction among the types who are likely to join the military, especially on the enlisted side. There is a certain power to the fait accompli – and it's surprising how readily people's attitudes can change based on actual experience. But if you ask them in the abstract, via a survey – what do they have to lose by saying “no way”? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they might say “no way” just to be ornery – a not uncommon motive among the troops in any time and place.

Now, this is all in the face of a very unambiguous statement by the president that the current policy “unfairly punishes patriotic Americans”, and he has asked Congress for its repeal. And now we're to believe that the senior military has told that same Congress to hold off – even though they are sworn to unwavering obedience to the president? Yeah – there is definitely a disconnect here, and it has everything to do with politics – with mid-term elections coming up in a few months – and nothing to do with the real needs of the military. And the top brass at the Pentagon must be feeling a bit whiplashed at this point – not that this is a new experience for them. One minute they're “encouraged” to jump on Obama's anti-DADT bandwagon, and the next minute they're told that it's OK to tell Congress how they really feel. This, in turn, provides the Democrats “political cover”, as an AP article puts it, “not to press the issue until after this year's midterm elections.” In other words, come November, their conservative constituents can't blame them for getting rid of DADT because nothing will have changed... but their liberal constituents can't blame them for not getting rid of it because it was that mean old reactionary military's fault. Perfect! And the only true victims, as usual, are the senior military leaders, whose self-respect has to have reached new lows with this latest episode. But hey, that's what they're paid for, right?

And of course the gay rights crowd has reacted with predictable indignation – but aren't they used to getting seduced and abandoned by liberals yet? At long last? Guess not.

Can You... um... "Top" This?

I'm a fan of what I call “subtle indicators” -- you know, things that reflect a trend, maybe indirectly, but never in an obvious way. So this recent spectacle (I assume it was a spectacle, although I didn't actually see it) of topless women marching for “the right to go topless”... well, did it reflect some sort of new frontier on the feminist front? Here's a clue. The march referred to happened in Farmington, Maine, a small college town. And guess what, it's already legal for women to go topless in public in Maine. So... what was the point? Oh, right -- “the protesters... want it to become socially acceptable too.” Well... even if that were a worthwhile goal, how is it to be measured or assessed? By women handing out surveys every time they choose to go topless? (“Do you find what I'm doing right now – or not doing, as the case may be – socially acceptable (on a scale of 1 to 10)?”) And hey – if these are true-blue feminists, why are they concerned with social acceptability at all? Isn't the whole idea to “epater le bourgeois”?

I know what's really going on here; in fact, I'm sure of it. It's nothing more than sheer desperation – the seeking of a cause, any cause, because, hey, that's what college types do – they march for “causes”. And guess what, most of the traditional causes have been totally co-opted by the fact that we have a liberal Democrat as president. So all the things people were marching and protesting about when Bush was still in office are now off limits – since Obama has adopted every one of them in its entirety. Imagine an anti-war march on a college or university campus today; impossible! Now that “our guy” is in the White House, we have to support him (and the troops, etc.). And if he's all for bailouts, how bad could they be? Etc. So as usual, the fools on the left have been, first exploited (i.e. at the polls) then abandoned... but they don't have the fortitude to do anything about it. (Or – they aren't aware of the alternatives, since the MSM have forbidden any mention of libertarianism.)

So who takes to the streets now – and during any Democratic/liberal administration? Why, the tea partiers, of course – or their precursors. And the pro-lifers. But the overlap between them and the college/university demographic is... I would say just about nil. When times are good, the tea partiers are content to stay home – but not so the “restless youth”. They have to have something to get up in arms about... and it's always amusing to see the absurd lengths they'll go to when one of their own kind is in the White House. Marching for something that's already legal... wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Too Small to Not Fail

The Pew Research Center reports that small business owners are now trusted, by the public, more than any of the following: churches, colleges, technology companies (assuming they aren't small, I guess), labor unions, large corporations, Wall Street, banks, the federal government, federal agencies, the national news media, Congress, and the entertainment industry. And the only surprising thing about this finding is how little a surprise it is. We've come to expect, as a matter of course, that government, unions, and big business do not have our best interests in mind... and that academics, the media, and the entertainment industry are primarily engaged in subverting the values of “mainstream America”. These things are simply taken for granted in our time... and it's hard to remember, or even imagine, a time when things were any other way. When the “tea partiers” are criticized for being adversarial and “negative”, the criticisms invariably come from the people who happen to be among the controlling elite. Of course revolutions or threatened revolutions always look “negative” to the people in charge; how could they not? But what the media fail to realize is that a large portion of the people they depend on for their cash flow are those very people whom they belittle and criticize, day in and day out, for all sorts of sins and thought crimes against the totalitarian state. If only everyone who agrees with the tea partiers would stop buying MSM periodicals and turn off their TV! But I guess they've come to like getting beaten up on a daily basis – it proves, on some level, that they're on the right track.

You'll also notice that nearly all of the “less trusted” entities listed above are drawn from what I call the non-productive or parasite class. Labor unions are on the list, but not labor – i.e. not actual working men and women. Technology companies are on the list, I suspect, because very people understand what they do – although it could also be because so many of them have become so overwhelmingly huge and powerful. (Microsoft is the Standard Oil of our time, e.g.) And what does Wall Street produce? Nothing that the average American can understand or appreciate. They mostly make money by shuffling paper around at hurricane-like speeds. What does that contribute to the welfare or quality of life of the ordinary citizen? Government is starting – very gradually! -- to be seen as part of the problem – as, basically, a gigantic tumor on the body of the productive citizenry. And the media – both entertainment and “news” -- are increasingly seen as nothing more than the propaganda arm of the government, or the Regime, or the establishment. And what about academics – the “idea people”? Well, it can be argued that any idea that is being promoted and implemented by government today started in colleges and universities a generation ago. 'Nuff said! Congress, of course, gets low ratings because it's seen as basically a powerless front for the people who are really in charge – and a farce to boot. If the president is a puppet, Congressmen are puppets without strings – basically in a state of collapse.

But then what about small business? How does it differ from all of the above? For one thing, it is typically engaged in providing goods and services that are not only understandable by the average citizen, but actually of some use. Of so much use, in fact, that they are in demand and sought after on the free market. How many of the “services” (because there are no real “goods”) of those other entities can make that claim? Very few if any. That's what I mean by the “parasite class” -- where the market is missing, or has been short-circuited, what remains is people doing things that have no market value, i.e. who have to be supported by confiscated wealth.

So there is a supply and demand function when it comes to small businesses. And also, their operations are, by and large, local and visible. They are not so multi-layered that we can't tell who owns and operates them or who works for them. But the most unique feature is this: They are not “too big to fail”. In fact, they fail all the time, and are replaced, and there is this constant “churning” that reflects, if you will, the bottom line of the supply-and-demand function. Either you perform in a way that makes sense, or you fail and have to leave the playing field. Contrast this with large corporations, if you will, which are assured of “bailouts” in case of failure – which means that, in fact, they _can't_ fail. Which, in turn, means that there are no differential rewards for success or failure as these terms are normally used – success equals success, and failure also equals success. Which means, in the long run, the people who succeed at this level are not the ones who are skilled at bringing marketable goods and services before the public, but the ones who are skilled at gaming the system – i.e. the government. And we see that this new species of “managers” has already taken over all corporations of any size in this country, as well as banks, stock brokerages, mortgage companies – you name it. They live in an entirely different world from that of the small businessman, with an entirely different set of rewards, and no punishments. They are no longer small business writ large, assuming they ever were – they are an entirely new mutation, and one that (unlike most mutations) is thriving beyond belief -- at least for the present, although I can't imagine this model being sustainable in the long run.

But aside from these considerations, there is another – let's call it a social, or political -- consideration. It was once said about a politician, “Everyone hates him but the people.” Well it's pretty much the same in the case of small business. They aren't big enough to inspire awe or fear, and yet they aren't small enough (i.e., nonexistent) to satisfy collectivists. Historically, when a communist or socialist regime is established, what do they invariably go after first? Big business, i.e. the “fat cats”? No – because they need them too much. It's small businesses that have to be snuffed out with all dispatch – and that includes farms large enough to have employees. Remember the “kulaks” -- the prosperous farmers in the Soviet Union? They were the first to be hauled off to the gulag – the ones who weren't simply shot, that is. Why? Because they were “standing in the way of progress” -- i.e. collectivization (you know – that idea that resulted in all the famines). And what happened to small business owners? They got “denounced” by envious neighbors and people who had failed to keep their own businesses running profitably. Now, this is not precisely what is happening in this country, but it is on the same continuum. Socially and politically, the small businessman represents everything that the sophisticated elite fear and despise... and politically, they are, by and large, unapologetically conservative. So they have to go! And I don't think there has been a significant government program since before the New Deal that is “pro” small business – or, let's say, the aggregate of all government programs – which frequently contradict each other – has been overwhelmingly “con”. In fact, you can come up with a pretty good gauge of how hostile a given administration is to small business by the frequency with with they use the term – kind of like “middle class”. And Obama has declared war on both – you can tell by how often he and his minions talk about them.

So yes, small business may be “the backbone of America”, but the goal of this administration (and most others of late) has been to relieve America of its backbone and, basically, render it helpless in the face of aggression by the globalists. Small business people tend to care about America – and that's what makes them dangerous. Heck, they might even have a few things to say about illegal immigration... or the death tax... or inflation... or free trade... or even the balance of payments. All very dangerous, reactionary, socially backward. And don't even get the coastal elites started on their life style or tastes! No, clearly, this is one class of society we can do quite well without... so it really doesn't matter if ordinary people trust them more than anyone else. In fact, that's just further evidence that they have to be eliminated as soon as possible.

Superman for President

How's this for a headline: “Worsening oil spill tests Obama response”. That's from AP. Note they said “Obama” response, not “government” or, heaven forbid, the people responsible for the spill in the first place. That's right -- doing something about the oil spill is the personal responsibility of the president, and no one else. Doesn't this reflect the... well, not the “imperial presidency” so much as the _deification_ of the presidency? At what point did the president of the United States become all-powerful and all-knowing? Even his enemies attributed those qualities to George W. Bush; because he was president, he was “responsible” for, basically, everything that went wrong in the entire country if not the world. And yes, this deification is a bit one-sided. The president is responsible for everything that goes wrong, but little if any of what goes right. Clinton got some credit – mostly undeserved – for some things that went right during his tenure; Bush, of course did not... and Obama? Too early to tell, really. He gets credit for force-feeding health care reform on millions of unwilling citizens and not a few skeptical legislators... but so far it's all on paper, it's really too early to assess the total impact. Otherwise the Obama administration has been pretty much on an unbroken continuum with that of George W. Bush – a fact which upsets the lefties no end, which I, of course, find quite satisfying. But in any case, when it gets to the point where the president is widely assumed to have super powers, and all he has to do is fly in “to save the day”... well, I'm not sure that's quite the model the Founding Fathers had in mind, although, let's admit, the deification of the presidency certainly got its start under Washington, and a huge boost under the likes of Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and now Obama. And I guess it says something about human nature as well – I mean, look at where all the most blatant personality cults exist, or have existed: communist countries! First they ban religion, then they deify the national leader and turn the state into his church. And I suppose that as traditional faith erodes we can expect to see more and more of this basic human motive, or need, displaced in the direction of the president – even though, at the very same time, the significance of nations is diminishing and that of the “new world order” is expanding. It's no secret that the American president is not his own man – and has not been for quite a few administrations. He is a creature of much higher powers, both domestic and international, and rushes to do their bidding. So our national deity, as it turns out, has feet of clay – which makes our worship of him all the more absurd and pathetic. But as long as he is seen as all-powerful, it lets us off the hook, and allows us to blame him, rather than ourselves, for whatever goes wrong, and for anything we don't like. And thus proceeds the infantilization of the American public...

Going Home to Zion

I have to admit, there's not much that surprises me any more. I mean, you live through Clinton, and George W. Bush, and now Obama, and come out with your sanity relatively intact, but you're about as likely to be surprised – by anything – as a three-toed sloth. And, the very last place I would expect to be a source of surprise is my home town newspaper.

Now, let me set the context. My home town and its weekly paper – both of which shall remain nameless to protect the innocent – are both paragons of predictability. The town had a population of 4000-plus according to the 2000 census, and I don't expect it to have grown a whole lot since. And the paper? Well... if you have any experience with small-town newspapers, you know that they are basically a combination of pennysaver and bulletin board. I mean, a story about a guy pulling a stump out of his back yard can make the front page, OK? We're talking small here. Local news? No problem. County news (that's not as local as local news), mostly OK. State? A bit remote. National? N'existe pas. And this is all well and good; it serves an important purpose. It serves to bolster the image of the town as a real place, and its citizens as people who still count (despite Obama's statements to the contrary). And the “columns” that are included seem to be a more or less random selection from the offerings of what, I'm sure, is some sort of small town newspaper syndicate. And in general, the contents are no more controversial than how to raise prize-winning rhubarb.

With that as background, imagine my astonishment when I opened the latest issue to find a column entitled “Israel is a true friend to the United States”! Not only is this a national-level issue, but it has to do with foreign affairs! (Unheard of!) And it's controversial (or should be) to boot! (The dam's broke! Head for the hills!) Oh, the loss of innocence! The sleaze and ruination of the world has penetrated even unto the Norman Rockwell-esque provinces!

This column is by a guy named Dr. Robert L. Heichberger, who is apparently an academician of note in the New York State hinterlands. His thumbnail picture makes him look like a basically affable type – sort of a cross between Andy Griffith and Alfred E. Newman. But what's his point? Well, it's the same point (or lack thereof) that I discussed just the other day when I described Ed Koch's rant (“Mayoral Deficiency”, April 19). He cites “the recent fierce denunciation of Israel by the administration in Washington”, which has “ignited a fire storm in Congress”. And, he refers to “the administration's decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem”. And then – to add insult to injury! -- the president visited the Middle East last spring and did not make a stop in Israel – an act which Dr. H refers to as “a deliberate slap in the face of Jerusalem”. (I wasn't aware that Jerusalem had a face to slap – I've been there, and there was no city-level face in sight. But I digress.) Oh, and then he expresses a fear that “America's pro-Israel policy is changing”. Then comes a quote – attributed to Obama, who “appeared outraged at 'those horrible Israeli settlements'”. That's right! Obama called the settlements “horrible”. Well – I couldn't resist Googling this particular gem, and as it turns out the quote was not from Obama but from Dick Morris, who used the phrase (in an ironic way) in a 2 June 2009 column. In fact, in that same column, Morris also makes the very same “slap in the face” statement as Dr. H – but nearly two years earlier. The exact same words! Ah, ah, Dr. H – aren't we flirting a bit with plagarism here? And just down the page, he refers to “those terrible Israeli settlements” -- and this version does not Google.

And on top of all this, “the current administration in Washington is turning America against Israel”. How, pray tell? I don't recall Obama, in any speech given to date, counseling us to start disliking Israel; on the contrary, he goes out of his way to state that the “relationship” is as strong and enduring – and eternal – as ever.

But regardless of who said what and when, I make the same point I made re: Ed Koch. What “fierce denunciation”? What “fire storm”? What public condemnation? And what change in policy? None of these things has happened, and none is about to. It's all just a case of a kid running through the house yelling “Ma! He hit me!” when, in fact, nothing of the sort occurred. But as if that weren't enough, Dr. H then joins George Will in a bit of historical misrepresentation, as follows: “How many Americans understand that when Israel was founded in 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded, no Palestinian state destroyed?” Well... I guess, technically, there was no invasion, at least not at that exact moment – but there had, very definitely, been a place called Palestine, a “British mandate” since 1923. So is a “mandate” a state? Darned if I know. But it did have people living in it – approximately 1.6 million (so much for the myth of “a land without a people”). And was it destroyed? Well, it was replaced by Israel – at least the portion of the British mandate actually called “Palestine”, as opposed to the portion called “Transjordan”, which became Jordan. And if one wanted to quibble, one could contend that Palestine was indeed “invaded”, over a protracted period of time, by the Zionists... and that it was, for all intents and purposes, “destroyed” by the founding of the State of Israel. But Dr. H is apparently not interested in all of these subtleties. All he knows is that “Israel is a true friend” -- you know, the kind of friend that commits espionage against us, attacks our warships, and humiliates our leaders at every opportunity. Too bad Vlad the Impaler isn't still around – we could “friend” him too (on Facebook maybe, just to be safe).

So I have to put Dr. H in the same hysterical and possibly senile category as Ed Koch. But the real question is, how did any of this wind up in a small-town newspaper in upstate New York – especially one that, last time I checked, had a grand total of three Jewish families living there (none of which seemed militantly Zionist, as I recall)? Who makes that call? And why? Is it really all that important to win the hearts and minds of small-town America when it comes to the Israel question – especially when Israel already has a death grip on our foreign policy, our military, and our elected officials? And consider the timing – Koch one week, then this character the next. From the biggest to the smallest – they've got the waterfront covered. But really, they don't have to worry about Washington in the slightest, since that city is in their hands in every way. But small-town America? Maybe not quite such a cake walk. Of course, there are the Evangelicals – and my town had its share, but nowhere near to the extent of any place in the South – who are reliable, nay fanatical, supporters of Israel... so their loyalty is certainly not in question. But not everyone is an Evangelical – even in small towns. Maybe what they're afraid of is a new grass-roots movement – one even more radical than the “tea parties” -- called “why the hell are we still supporting Israel”? Now this would be something to be feared... because, in the long run, today's grass roots can turn into tomorrow's elected officials, and then some real damage can be done.

So am I saying that some vast Zionist conspiracy put Dr. H up to writing this column, and then proceeded to disseminate it even unto the fastnesses of very un-Jewish small town America? Not necessarily. But the timing is curious indeed. And the strength of the arguments – namely none whatsoever – is equally curious. This seems to reflect, as I've already implied, some sort of hysteria... some dark fear that the next pogrom is just around the corner. Or, if not an actual pogrom, then a massive wandering off the reservation on the part of ordinary Americans, who might just be tired of the con game Israel has been playing on them for.... well, two generations at least. Now, this is not to say, or even imply, that the Israel question has risen to the surface among ordinary conservatives or even “tea partiers”. As far as they're concerned, Israel is a sacred cow, and our support is never to be questioned. But who knows, maybe not everyone down at the grass roots feels that way. Maybe, on occasion, the scales fall from their eyes and they see the absurdity of the situation for what it is. And those may be the target audience for presentations like Dr. H's. No matter how small that hole in the dike is, is has to be patched at once! The slightest whisper of dissent has to be squelched! No one must dare breathe a word against Israel – not even in the “sanctity of the bedroom”, as LBJ so memorably put it (you notice he didn't mention who else was in the bed).

Now, before closing on this topic, I have to mention another factor that just might be entering into all of this. The liberals are always accusing the “tea partiers” and suchlike of “racism” because they are protesting Obama's policies, and Obama is “black” (although not “black” in the same way regular black Americans are “black”), therefore any protest of his policies is, by definition, racist. (And I guess blacks who protest his policies are “self-hating blacks” the way Jews who protest Israeli policies are “self-hating Jews”.) But the problem is not limited to white supremacists and their fellow travelers. The relations between blacks and Jews in America have been fraught with ambivalence almost from the beginning. On the one hand, Jews were the most steadfast and reliable – and most activist, among whites – supporters of civil rights. (It was all about "Go Down, Moses" and "let my people go" -- remember?) But on the other hand, the cultural experience of blacks with Jews included some very large and very negative factors -- Jewish slumlords and Jewish merchants (who were always being accused of hiking up prices, because there was little or no competition in those inner-city areas). And some of the more perceptive blacks might even have felt that Jewish support for civil rights – and also for black artists, etc. -- was a bit paternalistic and condescending at times. And of course, there is the stereotype – but very true nonetheless – of the black maid commuting out to Westchester County every morning to her job in a manor-like Jewish home. Not at all unfair – but certain to cause resentment, especially among a group with paranoid tendencies. Plus -- guess what! -- some of the more militant blacks wound up converting to Islam, of all things.

So the bottom line is that Jews have always been ambivalent about blacks, and vice versa. So now comes a black president, who has to deal with a Jewish country, namely Israel. Any chance that some of that same ambivalence and tension might come into play in this transaction? And how about the Israel lobby, which is, relatively, home-grown? “Oy, now we got a shvartzer in the White House.” That's both good news and bad news. Good, because blacks ought to be better able to emphasize with the perennial Jewish dilemma than white gentiles; bad because blacks occasionally get feisty and even violent, and start blaming Jews for things – as witness the riots in Brooklyn a few years back. So, while white gentile presidents – including Evangelicals – don't put the Israeli lobby on edge (except maybe aesthetically), it's possible that a black president might. Which means that the propaganda machine has to be shifted into higher gear than usual, including a trickle-down effect to small-town newspapers... just to make sure everyone is covered, and that everyone stays on board. Paranoid? Yes. Over-reacting? Absolutely. But when you're Israel, or an Israel supporter, and see the most trivial things as part of a life-and-death struggle, no precaution is too absurd to take.

Next Time Send an Obama-Gram

I have to admit it – I enjoy watching a true master practicing his craft... even when the craft is politics. Now, your initial response to this statement might be, “What's so special about politics? Anyone can lie – and isn't politics basically the art of deception?” Very true. And the standard response to this objection would be, “But it's not just lying that counts, but lying convincingly.” But my response, in turn, would be: Not true! In fact, it's just the opposite. The true art – the sign of a “natural” politician -- is not his ability to lie convincingly, but his ability to make people want to _believe_ his lies, even when they are blatantly untrue. Take Bill Clinton, for example – the “liar-in-chief” -- or, as someone said about him and his wife, “They lie even when they don't have to.” But his genius (if not hers) was to say things that people wished were true – that they wanted, with all their heart, to be true... so it didn't matter that they weren't true, just as long as they ought to be. Now, to pull this off successfully requires brilliance on many levels. To begin with, you have to be able to discern what people really want – as opposed to what they say they want, or even think they want. And then you have to be able to choose just the right words (and choreography, and timing, etc.) to optimally answer that need. And you have to be willing to take advantage of any situation, in a completely shameless way, to pursue this agenda. And then when those few malcontents pipe up and accuse you of gross deception, you have to be able to hang tough, and basically ignore them – i.e. never argue, and never -- never, ever -- apologize. (And this takes considerable will power, you must admit.) So the bottom line is that you create, for all intents and purposes, reality out of thin air – what should be true somehow, almost magically, becomes true simply because you have said it and people agree. This is the art of politics brought to fine perfection – and Bill Clinton is without peer in our generation in this regard. He took full advantage of what I call the 3-day news phenomenon. On Day One, you make your headline-grabbing (but completely untrue) statement. On Day Two, the media broadcast it to the ends of the earth, representing it as The Truth, like unto the tablets Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai. Then on Day Three, a few troublemakers start to pick apart this fragment of holy writ, pointing out the gross errors and untruths within. They are, of course, totally ignored by the media (not to mention by the perpetrator) and their objections are soon forgotten, whereas the original statement stands as strong and tall as ever. Or – worst case – a few isolated media outlets deal with the objections in a desultory fashion by putting in a tiny item, buried somewhere within the paper and below the fold so that no one ever reads it.

And this is how we, as a society, handle “truth” in the political arena – which is to say, we don't handle truth at all; in fact we treat it like nuclear waste. But let's return to Bill Clinton, who has now -- taking a hint from Rachel Maddow -- identified the “tea partiers” with domestic terrorists of the Timothy McVeigh persuasion. It's a load of crap, of course – but because, to many people, it “ought” to be true, it is therefore accepted as the truth... and the rest are too intimidated to speak up. And, in fact, the ploy works – since you can expect the tea partiers and other protesters and dissenters to feel a chill on their efforts. I mean, it's one thing to trot down to the National Mall on a bright spring day with a sign in your hand – and quite another to feel that you've been added to a list of suspected or potential terrorists. What happens the next time you try to get on a plane? Or get a job requiring security clearance? And so on. That's the sort of thing that would intimidate any middle-class person, and a good many other people besides. Only the perennial radical would see this categorization as a badge of honor – not that he accepted it as the truth, but that it proves his point about the government... the system... the Regime... however he puts it to himself and others.

(And by the way, how is it that anti-big-government people are always being referred to, by liberals, as “Nazis” and “fascists” -- as if there was anything in Nazism or fascism that was opposed to big government? Just asking... )

But now let us turn to the new, young master of all of the arts political – namely our current president. He has shown skills in this area nearly on the level of Mr. Clinton, although I suspect he's operating at a distinct disadvantage because he still has a functioning conscience. But that is an ailment that is easily cured – and Obama is showing himself to be a cooperative patient. This last Sunday, he showed up at the mountain retreat of none other than the Rev. Billy Graham, for a spontaneous and unrehearsed chat with Graham and his son Franklin. (The AP referred to it as a “pilgrimage”. No “wall of separation” around here, folks!) Now, as you'll recall and as I described just the other day (“Graham Crackers”, posted on April 23), Franklin Graham is the guy who was disinvited from speaking at a Pentagon prayer service because he had referred to Islam as “evil”. And our military – for whom Job One is killing as many Moslems as possible in the shortest amount of time – decided that his remarks were “not appropriate”. What I imagine happened then was that someone in the White House said, “oops!!” -- fully realizing that the Pentagon had just alienated a few million Evangelicals. And this is not because Obama is depending on Evangelical votes, but because they are the most hard-core supporters of the multiple and endless wars he is taking such delight in waging. And somehow, mysteriously, as I've said before, the Evangelicals still wield tremendous clout in Washington. So obviously, there were some fences that needed mending... and, the next thing you know, shazam! -- Obama shows up on Billy Graham's doorstep and, I'm sure (although the article didn't say a word about this – wonder why), commiserates with his son over the latter's shabby treatment by the Pentagon. What were those strutting, huffing and puffing, uniformed clowns thinking, anyway? To blackball a patriotic American!

Well – as Michelle Malkin puts it, “there are no coincidences in the perpetually orchestrated Age of O” -- and I'm sure that even fire-breathers like Rahm Emanuel – Obama's James Carville and Paul Begala combined – advised Obama to go down and make nice with the good Reverends, even though their followers are all Bible-clinging, gun-toting, slack-jawed, snaggle-toothed, inbred, racist, homophobic morons. 'Cause who knows, they might “need” these people some day – especially since so many of the middle class have started wandering off the reservation. But the bottom line is – as in Clinton's case – everyone will see this “pilgrimage” for what it was, namely a total scam... but they will believe it, or let's say believe “in” it, because it fits their vision of the world as it ought to be.

And thus, Obama takes his place as the most skilled politician since Bill Clinton... and who knows, with nearly three years to go (not even including re-election) he might surpass him yet. He might, in fact, turn out to be the Tiger Woods of 21st-Century politics. (Um... there might be some problems with that comparison, but I can't think of a better one right at the moment.)

No Pat Answers

Once again I find myself in the position of having to reply to a Pat Buchanan column with Charlie Chan's famous expression, “collection prease”. He's talking (in Saturday's paper) about the overall decline of America – economically, politically (internally and on the world scene as well), militarily... in terms of trade, industry, and infrastructure... and so on. All true! But then he proceeds, in the last paragraph, to blame it on “a utopian ideology that is becoming perilous to the republic”. The utopian delusions he mentions in the column are: limitations on oil and gas drilling, refusal to build any more nuclear power plants, global warming in general, free trade, and – vaguely -- “intervention”, which I take to refer to “spreading democracy”, but which is more accurately described as empire building. But of course there are many more utopian delusions in our history, as well as in the present day... and any number of variations on the ones listed. At the core of all of them is the premise that the world ought to see itself the way we do... and if it doesn't, it's our job to correct its errors. And this, in turn, is based on the premise – the philosophical premise, if you will -- that there is, in fact, only one way to see the world, and that is with the, basically, Puritan/Protestant eyes of the early colonists, with an overlay of classical liberalism contributed by the Founding Fathers. We were, after all, the most successful society to grow out of the Enlightenment, were we not? The purest and best example? The “peaceable kingdom”, and all that? And really, when you get right down to it, it was fairly easy to be utopian here back in 1800, when the rest of the world was a perilous sea journey away. It's easy to be the shining city on the hill when there are no other cities (and no other hills). And of course what we had broken away from – declared independence from – in Europe was kings, established churches, oppression, intolerance... not to mention “superstition”, which has been the liberal (classical or modern, take your pick) euphemism for the Catholic Church for centuries. But unfortunately, much of Europe eventually followed us over here – the newly-oppressed, the unwashed, “yearning to breathe free” and all that... and they, in many cases, brought their “superstitions” with them. So what were “real Americans” to do, except hunker down in their small New England villages and take Masonic oaths to defend “their” country against the papist rabble that was crawling up out of Boston harbor? So the battle ever since has been, basically, between the utopian legacy and the much more gritty, “diverse”, material reality. In the South, this took the form of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate nostalgia... more recently, in various rural areas (mostly in the Middle South and the Northern Rockies), it has taken the form of the “militia movement”... and even more recently it has manifested itself in the “tea party” rallies. They are all longing for a time in the past when things were immeasurably better... a time that, in my opinion, is largely fictitious.

And this is my beef with Buchanan. He objects to a “utopian ideology that is becoming perilous to the republic” -- as if this is the first time a utopian ideology has imperiled the republic... whereas, in fact, utopian ideologies have always been around, and, in fact, this country (and its predecessor colonies) was founded largely by utopian ideologues. For them, America _was_ utopia – and they exerted every effort to affirm that and make it more of a reality. And when they ran out of utopian ideals to apply domestically, they decided – with missionary zeal – to spread them worldwide, backed up by military force if need be... because, after all, what were a few thousand, or million, lives (especially if the dead were all yellow or brown or black in hue) if the outcome was heaven on earth? And of course their delusions fit in perfectly with the agendas of power-crazed politicians and armaments manufacturers. So we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”... then fought World War II to make the world safe for communism. (Well, that's not how it was advertised, but that was, in fact, the only significant outcome.)

Here's my point. It's not as if the country was founded on one set of premises, then “utopian ideology” came along, subverted the original intent, and took over. No – utopianism _was_ the original intent, and continues to drive many aspects of our domestic and foreign policy to this day. We wouldn't know how to live without it; we'd be lost. And this is a point Buchanan seems to miss. He is, arguably, a nationalist – but he seems to see nationalism from a level-headed point of view – a paleoconservative point of view, which is very close to libertarianism. We should retain (I would say “regain”) our identity as a stronghold of liberty and free enterprise... provide for political and economic freedom... and mind our own business abroad. Let's hear it for Calvin Coolidge! But the problem is, this is not the American way, and never has been. The main reason we were able to avoid “foreign entanglements” for so long was that “foreign” meant “across the ocean”. The minute we were able to steam across the oceans (in either direction) and start throwing our weight around, we did so, and without the slightest hesitation. After all, we were secure in our democratic principles and in our success and prosperity – so, after all, wasn't it our duty to spread the blessings (if not the actual wealth) to the impoverished, benighted peoples elsewhere on the planet? Or even to the relatively civilized Europeans, who had grown tired and cynical after so many centuries of war and strife? Couldn't they use some inspiration – a breath of fresh air to refresh their jaded brows? So off we went – rifles in hand. And this is not to say that more cynical elements – arms makers in particular – were not at work, at all times and in all places. There will always be people who "follow the money", and when "the money" is in war they will pursue war. But would their efforts, and the efforts of the jingoistic press, have been sufficient to get us steaming over to Europe in 1917 (and suspend all civil rights for the duration)? And what role did some form of utopianism play in the enactment of Prohibition? The question answers itself. Even World War II, which was, arguably, more cynical than World War I (at least for us), required us to put our full support and strength behind one set of ideas – actually two sets, democracy and communism – and in opposition to another set of ideas, i.e. fascism or national socialism. What was our involvement in both of these wars based on, if not ideas – and ideas with a strong utopian flavor?

Then, of course, after handing half of Europe over to the Soviets and standing by benignly while Mao conquered China, we decided to fight communism in Korea and Vietnam – again based, allegedly, on ideas – or the “idea” that some ideas are preferable to others, not only in practical terms but in theory as well. And it is true, after all, that communism as an ideology is based on a horribly distorted vision of human nature (and, therefore, the nature of societies, economies, etc.) -- but was it really our job to “prove” that fact by, again and again, acting as the “lone gun” in a struggle (AKA the Cold War) that the jaded, decadent Europeans had, once again, decided was not worth the effort? The French sipped wine and nibbled on cheese while we tried to clean up the mess they had made in Vietnam – and we failed just as dramatically as they did! But by that time they could not have cared less; they just made one of those French gestures of dismissal and said something like “alors!” or “zut!” And can anyone deny that West Germany was much more interested in reunification with East Germany than we were to see them reunified? (How many American politicians woke up screaming, with the Horst Wessel Song echoing in their heads, the day after “the wall” came down?) I even suspect that the Koreans would like to reunite more than we would like to see them reunite. And don't even get me started on Cuba!

And haven't our “enemies” -- and our “allies”! -- taken full advantage of our utopianism and naivete over the years? Isn't that what was happening all during the Cold War, when some third-world tyrant would play alternating footsie with us and the Soviets until he figured out which side was prepared to give him the biggest bribe? And can it really be true that every single ruler or regime that the Soviets supported had to be opposed by someone we supported? Every last one? No exceptions? All it took was for some guy with a bone in his nose to say “I'm against communism” for our government to suck the life blood out of American taxpayers to keep him in wives and limousines. (And notice, this particular species of folly persists to this day.)

The ultimate example, of course, is Israel, which – by appealing to the Evangelicals, millennium and end-times buffs who (inexplicably) have enormous political power, no matter who is president or which party is in control of Congress – has managed to convince us to cripple our economy and our military – and to offend nearly everyone else on the planet – in order to serve their interests. And again, it's not as if the cynics and elitists and power-crazed politicians have not been involved – not to mention the arms makers. But again, “ideas”, when added to the mix, often seem to make the difference between – well, not between success and failure in the usual sense, since the effort is clearly a failure by any reasonable criterion – but between the agenda moving forward at top speed and it having to be moderated a bit by reality.

So when it comes to Pat Buchanan's complaint, I have to ask, what is his alternative to “utopian ideology”, since it has always been with us, and America would not be the place it is without it. In fact, America would not even _exist_ without it. Has he all of a sudden decided it's a bad idea, now that it's so clearly not working? Surely this is not the first time utopian ideology has become “perilous to the republic”. It has always been so – or let's say that the history of this republic has been one of constant and ongoing tension between ideology (utopian and otherwise) and the pragmatic. At any given time, one or the other is in ascendence – unless we're talking about some sort of hybridization where the pragmatists take it upon themselves to implement utopian ideals, but for their own sakes rather than those of the ideals. This certainly seems true of the arms makers throughout our history, for example, who thrive on war and hate peace. But peace, as an ideal, has nothing on war – at least in the American tradition. (How many “peace monuments” does one find on town squares – other than in Vermont?) And I suppose that one could argue all day as to which motive is predominant at any given time. But there has to be some reason that we have military bases in nearly every country on earth – and I don't think it's all the fault of defense contractors. We have decided that being the world's policeman is a worthy calling – based on all the successes we've had with that mission, starting with World War I (which saw Germany go from a belligerent monarchy to an enlightened democracy... right up to Hitler's election, that is).

So – take utopian ideology out of America, and what do you have left? Not America, that's for sure. So the real quibble is not one of ideology vs. non-ideology, but whether or not it “works”... and for Buchanan and the “tea partiers”, it has apparently worked well enough, right up to recently – right up to now, in fact. Suddenly the lights come on and we find out that we're the world's dupe, and have been for quite some time – and yet this revelation doesn't change anything, because there are still too many vested interests. Reputation and shame are no longer deterrents – only short-term profits (for the arms makers) and victory at all costs (for Israel and its supporters). And yes, you could call it a sadly degenerate version of the idealism that motivated the Founding Fathers – but idealism it is, and if we were ever able to shrug it off our overburdened shoulders, we would have to quite literally start over again.

Graham Crackers

It's ironic. Here we're fighting, basically, a war against Islam... well, I know that our civilian and military leaders always say no, that's not it at all, we're really fighting “terrorism”, or “terror”, or “Islamofasicm”, or "militant Islam" (as opposed to the "religion of peace") -- but let's face it, what it amounts to, on any given day, is a war on Islam. We know it, and -- more importantly -- they know it. And our defense “contractors”, in particular, all know this (you know, outfits like Blackwater or whatever it's called these days) – they freely admit it, not only to each other but to anyone who asks. And, in fact, if you ask people on the other side of the conflict if America is fighting a war on Islam – i.e. a new Crusade – they'll say, of course; isn't it obvious? And when you look at who got us into this mess in the first place – namely Israel – they would obviously be a lot happier if Islam were wiped off the map (even though the Near East was “a land without a people” before they showed up). So let's not quibble about this any more, shall we?

But here's the irony. An evangelist named Franklin Graham – Billy Graham's son, named after the new $100 bill – has been disinvited to speak at a Pentagon prayer service because he has described Islam as “evil”. According to an AP article, “Army spokesman Col. Tom Collins [named after the cocktail] said Graham's remarks were 'not appropriate.'” Not appropriate for what? And at what point after inviting Rev. Graham did they figure this out? (And why don't they care about the feelings of Evangelicals all of a sudden, since they are the Pentagon's biggest supporters?)

Well... OK, I guess, in theory, we could be waging war on Islam even if we didn't regard it as evil; I'll grant that much. But I also have to point out the ongoing absurdity of the Pentagon – or any other government entity, for that matter – holding “prayer services”. Not that there aren't plenty of believers among our military personnel – but let's face it, they are on the front lines in the business of empire building, and can we really pray for success in that endeavor with a straight face? Apparently some of us can. Historically, nearly every warring party in any war involving the English-speaking world or most of Europe has had God on its side – allegedly. Which, I guess, means that He only answers prayers for victory about half the time, which, you would think, would be enough of a discouragement to put an end to Pentagon prayer services and White House “prayer breakfasts” -- but no such luck; the hypocritical beat goes on.

And I'm not making this argument from the point of view of the “wall of separation” buffs – simply because they're dead wrong as to what “establishment” means. They obviously have little or no experience with the rest of the world, where established churches, or religions, are a common thing. And "establishment" in those places doesn't just involve mouthing words -- it involves legal support and preferences, and money. The U.S. has no established churches – at least not officially – and it would be a stretch to even claim that it had an established religion – i.e. Christianity. What it does have is a sort of established religious baseline, or reference to religion, in the public sphere – but when it comes down to cases, it means little or nothing, although it may have meant more at the time of the founding.

And in fact, public prayer received another blow last week when a federal judge in Wisconsin (where else?) ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it amounts to a call for religious action (kind of like a crusade, I guess). Well, if that's a “call for religious action” -- and if that, in turn, is unconstitutional – what about the inscription “In God We Trust” on American currency? Should non-believers stop using money? (They'd be way ahead of the rest of us if they did.)

Sometimes I think the best thing would be to call the bluff of all of these critics and simply remove all references to God, religion, and faith of any sort from all public buildings, ceremonies, observances, documents, you name it. Do what the Soviets did, in other words. Because then there would be no more easy outs – religion would, once again, be strictly a matter of individual choice and no one could pretend that the government had anything to do with it one way or the other.

Of course this would still leave plenty of issues open to contention – like taxation of churches, Congressional and military chaplains, and so on. So maybe the battle would just shift into new venues. But at least the tiresome level of controversy that we've been forced to dwell at for decades now would finally be a thing of the past.

Today's Menu of Indigestibles

Well, the ObamaCare tsunami has washed over the land, and the warring parties have already moved on to more current, no-less-urgent issues... like who's going to replace Justice Stevens? (I understand there's an overripe rutabaga looking for work... ) And of course, there's a great flurry of activity centered around the need to “clamp down” on Wall Street. I'll have more to say about this in a later post, but right now it looks like nothing so much as a butterfly who is already pinned to a cork board talking about clamping down on butterfly collecting.

And, after a brief respite, the waters of absurdity are rising again, threatening to engulf all sane living and rational discourse. And, as usual, I choose, as an act of defiance, to point out the most obvious examples, as a remedy against complacency and the mistaken notion – that even overtakes me at times, when I'm not yet fully awake – that everything might be OK after all.

O The Bureau of Engraving and Printing today trotted out the new, high-tech $100 bill, designed to thwart counterfeiting. Ironically, the presentation was witnessed by Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke, who some might say are the two worst enemies of the sound dollar – in any denomination. Which, in fact, raises the question – why bother to make the $100 bill counterfeit-proof, since the policies of the Treasury and of the Fed are such that, before long, it won't be worth counterfeiting?

O On the local scene, “Big Ben” Roethlisberger has been slapped with a 6-game sideline penalty – that's 38% of the entire season, for those of you in Rio Linda. And whaddaya know, the Steelers have just bolstered their quarterback roster. And there are rumors flying around that Big Ben might even be traded. Lo, how the mighty have fallen! But frankly, I'm not sure I understand why people keep getting surprised by things like this. Football, while not unique in this respect among team sports, seems to be unusually high on the testosterone scale – it thrives on guys who are barely under control, and in fact reinforces the fact. Guys who qualify as hotheads off the field are called “aggressive (i.e., good) players” on the field. Constantly flirting with disaster off the field? That's “determination” on the field. Frequent brushes with the law? That's “worth taking the penalty” on the field. A guy leaves the stadium when the game is over, but he takes the game with him wherever he goes and no matter who he's with. That's just the way things are. No one questions it when soldiers develop “post-traumatic stress disorder” months or years after they finish combat duty – but an athlete who has comparable issues? “Giving the game (team, city, whatever) a bad name.” Either there's a lot of hypocrisy floating around out there... or a lot of naivete... or both.

O How soon are on-line dictionaries going to add, to the definition of “Nazi”, “someone who doesn't agree with liberals”? This has become standard usage, so I expect the word experts to get caught up as soon as possible.

O A funny thing happened on the way to that filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Now a cause near and dear to the hearts of Democrats – for decades! -- has received another setback... namely full voting rights in Congress for the District of Columbia. The fly in the ointment? A threat to weaken D.C.'s gun control laws, which now limit gun ownership to criminals only. But who was making the threat? Republicans? But that should not have mattered . (Filibuster-proof majority, remember?) Gee, I'll bet there are days when the Democrats wish they were still in the minority... at least back then they didn't have to take any responsibility.

O The Securities and Exchange Commission gets tough! Yeah, this time it's for real. According to an article in Wednesday's paper, “the agency has sent letters to 19 banks seeking information about whether they are using accounting tricks that a bankruptcy examiner said masked (Lehman Brothers') precarious financial condition.” Now, class, what do suppose these 19 banks are going to say in reply? “No tricks here, ma'am, nosiree... we just be honest folks, yep. No precarious financial conditions around here.” And this, mind you, is what the SEC calls “more vigorous oversight”. Makes you wonder what they were doing before. (Well, we already know – nothing.) But really, perhaps I'm being too harsh. The perennial problem with regulatory agencies – especially when it comes to matters of high finance – is that the smartest person at the SEC, for example, is still dumber than the dumbest person at Goldman Sachs. So it really doesn't matter that they are charged with oversight, and with enforcing a vast array of laws and regulations – the private sector folks will be way ahead of them no matter what. This has a lot to do with how the “Great Recession” got started, in fact – these firms were either dealing in non-regulated securities or they were staying one step ahead of the sheriff the whole time. The people in charge made their pile and headed for the tall grass, and the taxpayers were left holding the bag – as planned. And now a gaggle of government bureaucrats think they're going to change this? Lots of luck. As long as the bailout model is in force, the financial sector is going to respond accordingly – by doing exactly what it has already done. In this case, the definition of “sanity” is “doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the same results”.

O Now, on this next item... I have to say, I'm not making it up, and I can prove it. Believe it or not, a guy on death row in Ohio objected to the drug intended for use in his execution on the grounds that “he might be violently allergic” to it. I mean... what?? Was he afraid he might sneeze to death? Well, to give credit to the great state of Ohio, they weren't having any of it, and this character was dealt with as intended on Tuesday – with, as it turned out, absolutely no sign of needing a dose of “the nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, so you can rest medicine.”

O Meantime, a strike by New York City doormen was narrowly averted. Did you even know that doormen had a union? I sure didn't. But this is New York City, after all. I suspect that even the homeless have a union in the Big Apple.

O And now the military has added a phrase to its recruiting message: “No fatties, please.” It turns out that 27 percent of all Americans ages 17 to 24 are too fat to join the military. (Funny, it sure wasn't that way during Vietnam – or we'd have all made pigs of ourselves.) And the culprit, if you please? School lunches! You know, those sugar, salt, starch, and trans-fat-laden piles of refined dreck that have been prescribed, and overseen – for decades now – by... the federal government! So yep, it has happened again – two government programs have come into direct conflict... the one promising to feed America's youth at all costs (but never mind with what) and the other promising to defend America, with the help of those same youth – also at all costs. So something's gonna have to give -- but what? Either the public schools start serving the same stuff as the Whole Foods cafe... or the Army turns itself into a fat farm. Stay tuned.

O And finally... it seems that a woman in England (and again, I'm not making this up) started speaking with a Chinese accent after suffering a severe migraine “that reportedly left her with a form of brain damage.” Well, for one thing, isn't this an insult to the Chinese? “Brain damage” indeed! But sure enough, in our Age of Illness, this sort of thing even has a name. It's called Foreign Accent Syndrome. Wow – that explains a lot, doesn't it? The same way all the other ailments called “Something Something Syndrome” are explained by their name. But what they don't mention is that she also developed an uncontrollable urge to do laundry, take carry-out orders, and buy U.S. Treasury securities. (OK, I made that last part up. But who could resist?)

Mayoral Deficiency

It's too bad, really. I always liked Ed Koch (mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989) – he was smart, quick-witted, blunt, and said whatever he liked and to heck with anyone who was offended. Thus he was the epitome of the New Yorker – the real deal. And, I hasten to add, he's still around... but... his article in Sunday's paper makes it sound like senility is setting in, big-time. The title is “Obama slanders, abandons Israel” -- and certain parties might cheer, if it were true. But it's not -- not in the slightest. We've talked about this pro wrestling-style farce that characterizes current U.S.-Israeli relations before, so I won't repeat myself on that score. But what is Koch seeing that the rest of us are not seeing? “Outrageous verbal attacks”... “verbal assaults and distortions”... orchestrated by no less than President Obama. OK Ed, so... let's see some examples. Oh, but first he has to compare Israel's shabby treatment by Obama to the Romans' treatment of the Jewish rebels in the year 70 A.D. Oh yeah, that's an apt analogy, all right – right on target. Obama is most definitely destroying the temple and committing genocide on the Jewish race, and kicking them out of their ancestral homeland. Uh huh. (See what I mean about the “senility” part?)

But he goes on. Koch cites the 1948 war (which was a response to the establishment of the State of Israel forced on the Palestinians by the European powers – but he doesn't mention that aspect), in which Jordan committed ethnic cleansing of the old walled city of Jerusalem as well as East Jerusalem and other parts of the re-occupied West Bank. OK, fair enough – that's what tends to happen when wars are fought over territory. But most of Israel was still in Israeli hands. And so it remains... but now comes Obama, whose administration has a higher percentage of Jewish members than the Knesset... and Koch throws a fit, because... he (Obama) has “in a few weeks... changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel”. And how has he accomplished this? But wait -- first we have to read about how Obama indulges in lavishly benign treatment of Afghanistan's Karzai. Well, yeah... we're trying to convince him to keep supporting our war on his countrymen. That takes a bit of bribery and persuasion. Whereas we're not trying to convince Israel of anything – just trying to get them to quit busting our chops, and to show a little appreciation once in a while.

But to get back to Ed – Israel “has been demeaned and slandered and held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.” OK, Ed... but once again, let's see some evidence. We're supposedly doing this in order to “weaken the resolve of the Jewish state” and make it more amenable to our “plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. And! We might even be fixing to “create a whole new relationship” with Arab states neighboring Israel. Well, imagine that -- us trying to get along better with Israel's neighbors. Oh, the treachery! And, says Ed, we might feel a need to accomplish this by “throwing Israel under the bus”. But the last time I looked, Israel was driving said bus.

Then he calls on AIPAC to get tough with Obama. What are they supposed to do, waterboard him? That would be the only way to get discernibly tougher than they already are. And for Hillary to quite harassing Netanyahu. And for Congress to protest Obama's “mistreatment of Israel”. Oh, what a world, what a world!

By now, you've probably noticed something. Yep, there is absolutely no evidence provided of any of these alleged “verbal attacks”, “assaults”, “distortions”, demeanings, or slanders. And how, exactly, has the administration held Israel responsible for our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan? I mean – they are responsible, of that there is no doubt – because if it weren't for them we wouldn't be over there at all. Or, as Ron Paul might put it, we're over there because they're over here because we're over there – and that's because we were invited by Israel, and dared not refuse.

The only failing Koch can even cite is the alleged browbeating Hillary Clinton gave Benjamin Netanyahu. Does this quite come up to the events of 70 A.D.? Hillary – to give her credit – was only responding to the latest of the countless tricks and insults we have borne at the hands of Israel; the offense, I suppose, was that she actually responded rather than rolling over and playing dead, as our State Department usually does. In any case, other than this single incident – which would have justified far more than a 43-minute “hectoring”, Koch supplies no other evidence of what, precisely, has him so upset – which leads me to believe that there is, in fact, nothing more... which, in turn, leads me to think he is either mad or senile, and given his age I suspect the latter.

And as to the notion of our having “abandoned” Israel -- has as much as one dollar been excised from our multi-billion-dollar annual “foreign aid” gift to Israel? No. Have we withheld any of the expensive and exotic weapon systems – in many cases, better equipment than our own troops have – from export to Israel? No. Are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and saber-rattling at Iran on a daily basis? Yes. Plus -- have we changed our tolerant and benign position when it comes to Israeli espionage -- i.e. against us? Not in the slightest. So -- we have “abandoned” Israel about as much as one of two twins joined at the hip can abandon the other. So what on earth is Koch talking about? I have no idea... and I suspect he doesn't either.

You know, it's just possible that my local paper – known for its conservative, and even at times libertarian, leanings – published Koch's Lear-like rant on purpose, just to show how divorced from reality Israel and the Israel lobby can be at times. But then again, maybe they just saw it as a chance to provide “fair and balanced” reporting... but when one side of the scale is occupied by a lunatic, it hardly qualifies as “fair and balanced”.

So I will have to, regretfully, pronounce a “R.I.P.” for Ed Koch – at least for the brain part, which was always the most interesting.

Unhappy Anniversary

Today is the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, and we are being regaled, this evening, with a special presentation on MSNBC, hosted by Rachel Maddow, entitled “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist”. I'm not going to watch the show; I can't, because I don't have cable. But I will make a prediction, which is that a fairly large, thick, bright line will be drawn, by Ms. Maddow, between McVeigh -- and home-grown terrorists in general (not that there are all that many to date) -- and the “militia movement”, and from there an equally large, thick, bright line to “tea partiers”, people opposed to ObamaCare and illegal immigration, bailouts, et cetera. She may not name names, but that will be the implication. The average tea partier is driving around with his car trunk full of fertilizer, just waiting for an opportunity to blow something up – anything, really, as long as it has some connection to the federal government. After all, hasn't the Obama administration already warned all government workers that they are in the crosshairs of domestic terrorists? And what is the answer to this threat – clearly, pre-emptive strikes are in order, by law enforcement as well as by the media... and as we see, this process is already well underway. Hey – if pre-emptive strikes on foreign countries are good enough in the face of “WMDs”, they should certainly be good enough on the domestic side. Didn't FDR do the right thing by rounding up all the Japanese-Americans? (He would have rounded up all the German-Americans and Italian-Americans too, but there were just too darned many, and they blended in too readily with “real Americans”.)

Listen to – I mean read – the conversation between Maddow and TODAY's Matt Lauer (excerpts thereof):

RM: He (McVeigh) saw himself as part of a movement – a gun rights-based, anti-government, so-called patriot movement...

ML: This movement you talk about, there were arrests recently in Michigan, militia members plotting anti-government activities... do we know, have any idea how widespread this movement is right now?

RM: It's hard to quantify, but when you talk to law enforcement sources -- I spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about this last week on my show – it does seem like there's a sort of a resurgence of those movements in general...

ML: Fueled by what?

RM: Fueled by the same things that fueled them in the 90s, fueled a lot by economic dislocation – that doesn't get enough credit as a cause. Also by alienation from the government -- feel that the government is on the other side, not on your side. And it's the sort of movement that ebbs and flows over American history; right now it's flowing. And it doesn't mean that anybody who's in the movement right now is the next Timothy McVeigh, but it does mean that we ought to pay attention to the risks.


You see the lines being drawn already? “Gun rights” equals terrorism; “anti-government” equals terrorism. “Patriot” equals terrorism! And of course the current crop of “militia” organizations are direct descendants of McVeigh, and likely to do the same thing. And what, after all, does “plotting anti-government activities” include? Well, the tea party protests are most definitely anti-government activities, so I guess anyone involved in planning those protests is engaged in “plotting”. Which means it would be perfectly within the scope of the anti-terrorist mandate to stop them.

And as far as “economic dislocation” goes, no one seemed all that upset when economic dislocation caused all the urban riots of the 1960s and 1970s; back then, it was perfectly understandable.

Who out there expects the liberal media to carefully distinguish between bonafide terrorists and these “militias” that are mostly just a bunch of yokels tromping through the woods on weekends playing soldier? And who expects them to, likewise, carefully distinguish between the militias and ordinary people protesting out-of-control government? I sure don't. It's all a matter of building up the case for suppression of protest and dissent, and pre-emptive arrest, detention, and trumped-up charges. At least that's how it looks to me.

And of course, Maddow delivers the usual disclaimer: “It doesn't mean that anybody who's in the movement right now is the next Timothy McVeigh.” Right. But what are the chances that there aren't hundreds, or even thousands, of mini-McVeighs lurking in the ranks of the militias, and attending tea party rallies, just waiting for a chance to strike back? Yeah – it's time to stoke up the fires of fear again, now that we (i.e., liberals) are in charge.

Well – if you decide to watch the show tonight, please take notes. I'd like to know how close to the target I've managed to come.

A Tax By Any Other Name

Now that most of us have been moved out of intensive care after our annual encounter with the tax man, it might be a good time to go over a few, let's say, basic parameters of the situation. The IRS and the system it oversees have become synonymous with all that is mean, cruel, and heartless about the government – and for good reason. Other than on April 15, most citizens of the self-supporting and law-abiding class enjoy precious few direct encounters with the bureaucracy – mostly limited, on any given day, to the post office and, on the odd unlucky occasion, the DMV (which is at state level anyway). Direct encounters with local government are few and far between – although one can very easily feel the pressure and the oppression by simply reading the daily paper or watching the news. There is always some poor schmuck getting ground up in the machinery – and the dominant feeling on the part of those witnessing the spectacle is invariably, “Better him than me.” But then once in a while someone who shouldn't be entangled in the mechanism of totalitarian bureaucracy winds up a victim... and that makes the rest of us feel that the floodwaters are rising, that it's no longer just a matter of the underclass, or what Tom Wolfe called “the chow” (in “The Bonfire of the Vanities”), being in a constant struggle with the authorities, but, potentially, all of us.

So the income tax system is, for all intents and purposes, the main component, for most of us, of the line of battle between freedom, liberty, and self-determination on the one hand, and oppression, extortion, intimidation, and serfdom on the other. And yet, supposedly, the system expresses the will of the people, since it was duly enacted by the people's representatives. And even today, there is a substantial portion of the populace that sees taxation of income as the most efficient way to extract funding for government programs from the pockets and bank accounts of the citizenry – programs which, again, they have supposedly all approved by virtue of having voted for the representatives who, in turn, voted them into law. In other words, if we get the government we deserve, then we also get the tax system we deserve. And the tax system should, in fact, be the ultimate reality check – a reminder of exactly how much all of these “programs” that sounded so good when they were proposed cost. There is a saying, “if you can't do the time, don't do the crime”. Likewise, it could be said, “if you're not willing to pay for it, don't ask the government to do it.” The argument against this is, of course, that very little of what the government does these days is something it was directly “asked” to do by the citizenry. And yet, for every program, every expenditure, no matter how great or how small, one can identify at least one – and usually way more than one – citizen/voter who fervently wanted it, and who believes in it, and who would be unhappy indeed if it were terminated.

But let's go back a bit in history and recall how the whole thing got started. The income tax was, at first, not a big money maker. It was, in fact, designed to extract just a token amount of wealth from the very rich, in order to, I suppose, stave off violent revolution. Actually, we can be more precise than that. It was designed to relieve John D. Rockefeller of some chump change. His level of wealth, in 2010 dollars, would be sufficient to render Bill Gates his cup-bearer and Warren Buffet his valet. So he was, let's say, a prime target for not only the rabble, but the progressives, who were in full cry at that time. So, to throw them a bone, the income tax was appended to the Constitution... and, as far as I know, John D. Rockefeller was the only person wealthy enough to actually pay it for the first few years. But eventually, with the successive raising of tax rates, combined with “bracket creep” (which is, in turn, a product of inflation – which is, in turn, engineered by the government, i.e. the Federal Reserve) nearly everyone wound up paying taxes, right down to the drayman and the washerwoman. But at the same time, the proliferation of deductions, exemptions, credits, deferrals, rollovers, preferences, amortizations, etc., made it gradually easier for those in the upper reaches of the income scale to avoid paying -- at least to avoid paying anywhere near as much as was originally intended. In fact, it became a constant battle between the “progressive tax tables” and the layer upon layer of deductions – a battle which is still going on, and which, by and large, explains why the tax code is thousands of pages long and a veritable thicket of complexity. And, like any other tax system down through the ages, it's designed to tax people who are smart enough to earn money but not smart enough to avoid having it taxed – i.e. the middle class.

Given that all of this is true – which I contend that it is – what are we to make of the proposals of libertarians and some conservatives that the income tax system be abolished and replaced with something “simpler”? Or the even more radical proposals of anarcho-libertarians (but no conservatives) that it be abolished and not replaced with anything? Ah yes, a new day of freedom would dawn in America if only it weren't for that nasty, oppressive income tax. But how many are willing to argue that none – absolutely none – of the goods and services currently provided by the government would, in some form, be needed, whether the income tax existed or not? Yes, the anarcho-libertarians would argue just that; that all goods and services that were really needed, and that are now provided in a collectivist manner, would remain available and affordable in the post-income tax age, but now subject to strictly free-market choices and supply and demand? And yes, their argument is not only about things like schools and the post office; it extends to roads, public utilities, the police, the military... you name it. There might even be a space program, if you could get enough “Trekkies” to support it. What would be less likely is perpetual wars, entitlements, welfare, subsidies, government-supported and funded monopolies... the entire array of corrupt practices that authority with neither responsibility nor accountability have yielded in the nearly 100 years since the 16th Amendment was ratified. But! Not to forget – the Civil War was fought without benefit of the income tax, as was the Spanish-American War. There had been monopolies... oppression... bottomless corruption... all of the ills of democracy, American-style, long before that fateful day (February 25, 1913). So the notion that a sudden lifting of this burden would solve all of our problems is wishful thinking, to say the least.

But the other point was -- assuming the income tax no longer looms large, and the anarcho-libertarian model is not embraced by the body politic -- how are the goods and services still deemed necessary to be paid for? So the question is not “tax” vs. “no tax” -- it's more like “tax model A” vs. “tax model B”. And since it would still be the government who was doing the collecting, is there any guaranteed the new system would be any less corrupt, oppressive, or fraudulent than the one we have now? I'd like to see some evidence for that; pardon me if I'm skeptical. Local governments all over the country collect property and sales taxes, for example; are they known for their wisdom, efficiency, and lack of corruption? If Pittsburgh is any sort of example, the situation is actually worse than that at state level – which is, in turn, worse than that at the federal level. If you want to see really rank corruption in its rawest form, forget about Congress – just have a look in any city hall or mayor's office window in the land. (And is this, by the way, one possible argument against distributism? It could very well be – I hate to admit it, though.) Are local governments more responsive to the people than state and federal governments? Not that I've noticed. But they may be much more responsive to special interests.

So what does this all add up to? A continued presence of government at the federal level, providing goods and services through various programs – and supported by... what? Some form of tax; what else? Sales, “value added”, tariffs, taxes and fees on transportation, roads, utilities... taxes that we have now, and others that we haven't yet imagined. And would those taxes be “progressive”, which is the shibboleth of any liberal tax program? Not necessarily. If I want to further impoverish inner-city dwellers, I'm going to tax cigarettes, alcohol, (legal) drugs, fast food, and gasoline. This is the Bizarro version of the so-called “luxury tax” (which translates to – a tax on things most people wish they had, but don't; call it an “envy tax” if you like), and, in fact, has a lot in common with “sin taxes” (which translates to – a tax on things most people would like to do but can't, for some reason).

In any case, would the new system be any more “fair” than the one we have now? Would it encourage any more frugality in government than what we have now – i.e. none? Would it have any impact on class warfare or the politics of race? It might make them worse. Plus – all of the same people who are now favored in some way by the current system would have to start all over again, pressing for a renewal of their favored treatment. It might not be long until the tax code would be just as long and Byzantine as it is now, and for the exact same reasons.

So... all I'm saying is that, yes, the income tax and the IRS are easy targets... but they are really just stand-ins for what should be the real target, i.e. government oppression and exploitation of the citizenry. But no one wants to tackle that, because it's too big, too pervasive, too scary... and, to tell the truth, no one wants to admit just how bad it's gotten. The IRS is a convenient villain, like the guy in the old serials with the curly mustache and the top hat. But really, the IRS is just a tool of much higher powers... and the tax code is their Bible and gun combined. And whoever wants to eliminate, or reduce, taxes has to be honest with themselves as to, again, what goods and services currently supplied by government they are willing to get along without. Ask the “tea partiers”, for example, if we should bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan – right now, today. Then you'll find out how serious they really are about cutting down the size and cost of government. Everyone has their pet program... their cause... their rice bowl. No one who profits from the tax code wants to see it go away – not one jot nor one tittle. And as to those who do not profit, even they probably have that one favored program that they would just as soon be kept on the books. So add it all up, and you have a recipe for no change whatsoever. But as I've tried to show, even the most radical change might not improve our existence as much as some people want to think.