That Joe, What a Shmo!

He's tough. He can take it. In fact, he probably had it coming anyway. Still... one does have to avert one's eyes from the humiliating scene of Joe Biden being made a complete fool of by the Israelis. I mean, given that the office of the vice president basically consists of being the president's attack dog – sometimes the target of the attack bites back, with even bigger teeth. And also given that, in American politics, there are two pilgrimage sites that every candidate or office holder has to visit on a regular basis – one being an AIPAC pep rally, and the other Yad Vashem, where American politicians can don sackcloth and ashes and make reparations for “not having done more”. (This is, please note, an exercise in collective guilt, since most American politicians were not yet born when the last Nazi concentration camp was liberated.) And heaven forbid any American politician should cross Abe Foxman; one word from him and your political career has about as much of a future as that of Charles Manson (less, actually, since Charlie apparently has quite a cult following within the prison system).

So who would volunteer for such a duty, anyway? An inveterate masochist? No – more likely, someone who thinks, delusionally, that this cup might pass them by... or that by the time it's placed in their hands the contents won't be so bitter. Or, just as likely, the sure and certain knowledge that occasional humiliation is the price of political power... I mean, Dick Cheney went through the same drill any number of times and he came out of it intact, right? But really, how much political power does a guy have who can go to a foreign country – an “ally”, no less – be thoroughly mocked, tricked, and duped, and yet not allowed to answer or fight back except for a few pathetic token mewpings that don't fool anybody – and which are quickly rebutted by his hosts? It is a fact that, in Israel, no American “emperor” or other high official has any clothes – they are expected to come, pay homage, ask no questions, and go home – and even when on their best behavior they are still likely to be made fools of, just to make certain they've gotten the message. (Think: LBJ peeing on the shoes of his Secret Service bodyguard. Yes, it really happened – probably more than once.)

Some tidbits from the press on this latest farce:

O The Palestinians suspect that “the United States is too weak to broker a deal.” True enough, but the fact is that no one over there wants a “deal” anyway, so it really doesn't matter how strong or weak the U.S. is.

O There is “widespread skepticism about whether the Obama administration would have the courage or the backing to take Israel to task” for this latest humiliation. Well, this skepticism is well-founded, and no, no U.S. president, past or present, has ever had this sort of courage. Men who labor for years – decades! -- to become president, who overcome every imaginable adversity on their way to the top, suddenly run into a brick wall labeled “Israel” once they take office -- at which point they lose control of their bodily functions and become helpless infants, much to the astonishment and dismay of the public. (But that's not true! The public sees and does not comprehend, or care.)

O "'This is a global message of American weakness and Israeli arrogance,' said Palestinian lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi." He's got it right – even if the entire U.S. media establishment can't bring themselves to utter the words.

O “Obama now has the choice of absorbing the blow or engaging in a politically unpalatable battle with the Israeli leadership, which past U.S. presidents have largely avoided.” Yeah. What did I just say about courage?

O "'Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel,' Biden said.” “No space?” How about just admitting that, foreign policy-wise, there is no difference between the U.S. and Israel. Everyone knows this already, but it would clear the air a bit if someone actually admitted it. And did he really say that "progress occurs" under these conditions? I wonder, would he care to point out an example?


The problem with all this talk about “U.S. pressure” is that there is no “or else” part. There are no sanctions, either explicit or implied, nor can there ever be any. How can we put “pressure” on Israel when it comes to settlements – or anything else – if we aren't prepared to do something when they don't comply? (And in fact, what would we do even if we had the will? This is something that is never discussed, of course.) Every tiresome repetition of this farcical dialog makes it look more like Israel is running the show and we're just the biggest chump in the “amen corner” -- which is, of course, precisely the truth.

In the unending Kabuki dance/sado-masochistic bondage ritual that is U.S.-Israeli relations, where Israel, despite its diminutive size, always seems to come out on top, getting anyone's honest opinion on the matter is about as easy as taking a Mardi Gras parade float up Mount Everest. Well, this is true on our side of the playing field, at least – the Israelis seem refreshingly candid, in their press and in discussions among their politicians, about who is wearing the pants in the relationship. In fact, they revel in the fact that the U.S. is basically their slave; they consider it the greatest political coup of all time, which it arguably is – although they don't spend a whole lot of time discussing, in public, how things got that way. (Kind of like who got Aunt Minnie pregnant back in '33 -- better you shouldn't ask.) So why don't our politicians see anything amiss here? And why doesn't the American public see anything amiss? It's because we all live in a state of fear – and paramount among all of our fears is that of being labeled “anti-Semitic”. This, of course, is based on the premise – far from proven – that to be anything but fully supportive of Israel is to be anti-Semitic. If you're not a neo-Nazi or a Jew-hater, you have to be pro-Israel in every way; that's the law, and there is no middle ground. It's impossible, by definition, to be at once tolerant (of Jews or anyone else) and also skeptical as to the morality of certain Israeli actions and policies. And to question the original rationale for the founding of Israel – well, that is totally beyond the pale. Who wants to have the bloodiest of all bloody shirts – i.e. the Holocaust – waved in their face? So the American public, and its leaders, are paralyzed in the face of any and all Israeli actions, no matter how illegal or outrageous – and we wonder why we have a hard time earning respect in the Arab/Islamic world (and much of the rest of the world as well).

I've already discussed the price we have paid, over the years, for all of this. We are as Samson, who wound up blinded and chained to a mill wheel. But so great is the blindness of our leaders that they don't even perceive the situation as it is – so how can one expect them to do anything about it? It is as natural to them as shaking hands and wearing power suits. I imagine that, as each of them climbs the ladder of political success, there is a point – probably more than one – at which the question is asked, “what think ye of Israel?” If the correct answer is provided, the person is allowed to continue their climb; if not, they are thrown into the pit of political failure. What this means is that no one even gets as far as the primaries without the “Israel chip” having been planted under their skin. And yet I imagine that, down in the trenches of local politics, there occasionally arises a brave soul who has the courage to ask “why?” But they are outnumbered, outspent, and out-politicked. And so the beat goes on. So much for our “leaders” -- they can be bought and sold fairly readily, and threatened or blackmailed even more readily. But explain the public's sheep-like going along with this decades-old farce. If you asked them, one at a time, if they really and truly thought that the “support” of Israel at all costs should be the highest priority of the United States... well, would you get an honest answer? Might as well ask the average Russian in the 1930s what he thinks of Stalin. This is how profound the fear and intimidation has become – and why those who do publicly question the situation are among the bravest people on the planet at this time.

So to get back to our man Joe – he's supposedly over there seeking to advance “the peace process” -- as proven a lost cause as ever there was -- and even this is something that no one ever questions. Why should we care? What's in it for us? Do we really have a dog in this fight – really? And especially, why do we want peace when neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians do? So the vice president of the U.S. is reduced to quibbling about the number of “settlers” in East Jerusalem – which would be sort of like Obama having to worry about the trash pickup schedule for Washington, DC. And despite the fact that no one over there has the slightest interest in peace, we keep grasping at straws, because... well, I suppose on one level we're still trying to vindicate our actions back at the time the State of Israel was founded. It's another example of cognitive dissonance – if peace is achieved, that proves we were right all along; otherwise, it implies we might have been wrong – the way it might be wrong to, for example, set up the national headquarters of the KKK in the middle of Harlem. If we have a fetish for “democracy” in Southwest Asia in general, then we also have to have a fetish for “peace” in the Holy Land – where all the troubles began. And of course adding to the chorus are the Evangelicals, who have their own utopian delusions where that area of the world is concerned. So we wind up going halfway around the world in search of something that has never existed there, and is unlikely to in the future. And yet it must! We simply cannot accept the impossibility of it all, and retire from the field. Hence the need for the likes of Joe Biden to, on occasion, go over there and get pummeled.

A word about the Evangelicals, by the way. They are absolutely, thoroughly convinced that Israel – not just the Jews but the modern State of Israel – is destined to play a key role in salvation history, as “clearly” prophesied by the Book of Revelation and promoted by any number of televangelists, megachurch pastors, and authors. And I agree with them to this extent: God definitely has something in mind for the Jews. To put it bluntly, He is keeping them around for a reason – since any other race of people under comparable circumstances would have perished eons ago. The difference is, I don't think the State of Israel has anything to do with it, except in the negative sense. There is an orthodox Jewish group, Neturei Karta, that believes that Israel is part of the problem – that it is, in fact, the problem. Their position seems to be that the establishment of the State of Israel constituted a great setback in salvation history (or whatever their term is), and that its continued existence basically has the whole process in a state of suspended animation – if not actual regression. They just as fervently desire the demise of Israel as the Palestinians and other Arabs/Islamists do – but for different reasons, of course. Israel's enemies want Israel wiped off the map because of the supreme insult its existence represents; surely that tiny bit of territory can't figure too largely in their thinking, except in a strictly symbolic sense. In other words, they want the Jews and their allies (us) out of “their” holy land, once and for all. The Neturei Karta folks, as I understand it, would welcome the disappearance of the State of Israel more as an unlocking or a liberation – now the Jewish people can finally get back on the road toward their final destiny, whatever that might be... and as I've said, the Evangelicals may actually have a clue about this, but they have been way too distracted and seduced by the blandishments of Zionism and Israeli nationalism.

The Neoconservatives, on the other hand, are firmly on the side of what Michael Jones calls “revolutionary Judaism” -- totally secular in nature – which was the biggest stream feeding into Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel. So we can expect no help – or insight – from that quarter.

But despair not! There is hope – for more absurdity, that is. Now Hillary Clinton has weighed in with her own criticism of the East Jerusalem gambit – not necessarily to defend Joe Biden, of course. (The next time he goes over there his opening remarks will be, “My mom, er, secretary of state, can lick your mom, er, whatever.”) But hey, we all know Hillary is a team player, right? So an insult to one member of Obama & Co. is an insult to all... and the Israelis had better be careful this time around. Biden was one thing, but with Hillary they have a real bad-ass on their hands.

But, on the other hand, the annual AIPAC meeting is coming up in a couple of weeks, and I'm sure that whatever delegation Obama sends over will do all of the requisite cringing, bowing, and scraping. This is less of a showdown than simply the Israelis allowing the U.S. to “vent”, the way the parent of a surly teenager might do. But we know – and they know we know – and we know they know we know -- that nothing we say is going to make the slightest difference, and that's what counts.

Mixed Grill

In Index Veritas

Is it any surprise that the U.S. has fallen to 8th place on the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index? Well, of course, the Heritage Foundation is supposedly a “conservative” outfit, so you might expect any index they came up with to be weighted in favor of old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy things like property rights, freedom from excessive regulation, freedom from confiscatory taxation, and what not. But hey, no one can accuse them of being partisan – they put the blame on both Bush II and Obama. To which I would add the hopeless, endless wars, which I'm afraid the Heritage Foundation might not be so quick to condemn, since they generally seem to be in favor of a “muscular” foreign policy (the “M” word standing for “military aggression”). Still, conservatives of whatever stripe are still right at least half the time, especially when they're talking about liberal utopianism and its impact on prosperity.

I'll Have Nunavut!

And speaking of utopias, a small, brave band of level-headed Canadians has apparently turned back the tide of PC idiocy in the land of Dudley Do-Right. A proposal to change the lyrics of the national anthem “to make it more gender inclusive” has terminated with a “never mind”, and hopefully this is the beginning of a sea change in Canadian politics – not a minute too soon for a country that felt compelled to change the name of its largest territory to Nunavut.

England's Mini-Nuremberg

As degenerate and crushed by political correctness as Britain is these days, they are still managing to accomplish something that will never be possible here – namely a serious inquiry into the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq by the “coalition of the willing”. The latest politico to mount the hot seat is PM Gordon Brown, who has admitted to errors on the part of both governments – unlike Tony Blair, who was last seen wearing a Yankee Doodle hat, waving a wooden sword, and riding a straw pony around his back yard while screaming, “Kill! Kill!” Brown at least had doubts – then, and even more in retrospect. Catch the likes of Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld ever admitting such a thing! And how about this line: “The inquiry won't apportion blame or establish liability, but will offer recommendations later this year on how to prevent errors in the future.” Good idea! And may I be the first to offer a recommendation – stay far away from fanatical, delusional, war-mongering American politicians! But Brown himself offered, for starters, this bit of elegance: “I never subscribed to what you might call the neo-conservative proposition that somehow, at the barrel of a gun, overnight, liberty or democracy could be conjured up.” Mr. Brown seems to have acquired more respect for sanity as the result of his experience; would that our own leadership might have the same capacity.

The Sleeper Awakes, and the Awake Slumber

It always amazes me that people are still so surprised that China has reared up, like a sci-fi sea monster, and threatened to take over the world economy, one bite at a time... with the biggest bite being the first, namely its fatal co-opting of the American economy – and therefore government – and therefore foreign policy – through its heavy investments in American debt. Oh, for the glory days of the Cultural Revolution, when China was an economic basket case, and the Chinese who hadn't already starved to death were spending all their time killing each other. We didn't know how good we had it back then! And, to think, there were some sentimental souls longing for China's “awakening”... and, wouldn't it be wonderful if they would repent of their collectivist madness and embrace capitalism, and free enterprise, and international trade (which means: trade with us), and all the rest of it. And wouldn't you know, they did just that, and now they are playing, more and more, the piper whose tune we have to dance to, or else. They may have been totally insane as a society during Mao's time, but they've more than made up for it since, while we have gone the other way, sinking into hopeless debt, military quagmires, and diplomatic dead ends. Now we know what all of those “inscrutable Oriental minds” were thinking all those years. Did we really imagine that, once China's billion-plus awakened from their slumbers, they wouldn't immediately embark on a program to dominate the world, through sheer human wave tactics if nothing else? But as it turns out, they play the capitalist game better than we do, while keeping a firm hand on their own citizenry – a combination that was once thought impossible, until they showed that it worked. Seems like, in the long run, size might count after all...

My Fascist is More Fascistic Than Your Fascist

Any MSM article on Dutch politician Geert Wilders will make it clear that he's one of those anti-immigration nativists, Holland-firsters, right-wing “haters”, etc. -- just like his counterparts over here who don't think the open borders idea (in practice if not in law) has worked out very well for the U.S. And they also seem to think that Islam is somehow different from other religions – more aggressive or something. But if what he's objecting to is, basically, religious conservatism and fanaticism, of the Islamic variety, that ought to put him more in league with liberals, who don't think religion should have anything to do with public policy, or with anything else, for that matter. See, the other side of this coin is the irony that follows the open, tolerant, “welcoming arms” attitudes of liberals, who ought to have second thoughts (but seldom do) when the people they welcome with open arms turn out to be into things like honor killings and female circumcision. Plus, Wilders even uses the F word to describe Islamic fundamentalism – no, not that F word, I mean “fascist”. So how can a guy who is determined to protect his country against fascists be considered a fascist himself, by his political opponents? Do we need an entirely new political language here? Sometimes it seems that way.

Dirty Laundry

Some people might have thought I was being too severe or judgmental when I posted a discussion of what I feel to be the worst things about the military's personnel “system”, in response to the Hasan case. (See http://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2009/11/uniformed-disservice.html, Nov. 20.) But not long after, all of the dirty laundry came out into the blinding sunlight, and it turned out that I had been, if anything, understating the case. One article was entitled “Documents: Army knew Hasan unfit” and subtitled “Fort Hood defendant lauded as intern despite deficiencies, concerns of potential psychosis.” the other was entitled “Officers faulted in killings on base”. What these two articles said was pretty much the same thing thing I had said – that Job One when it comes to military personnel is to look the other way, hide problems under the rug, blame the messenger, and basically keep your fingers crossed and hope it all goes away. And as I pointed out before, things didn't get this way because of the people involved – the people got this way because of the system. They respond – as any healthy organism interested in its own survival should – to the rewards and punishments that are set before them.

A few quotes by way of illustration:

“Supervisors... sanitized (Hasan's) performance appraisals for years...”

“Officers in charge of Hasan piled praise into his record...”

“(Hasan) might have been developing a psychosis – yet no mental health evaluation was done...”

“Several... officers failed to use 'appropriate judgment and standards of officership' when reviewing Hasan's performance...”

“... the same supervisor who meticulously catalogued Hasan's problems suddenly swept them under the rug when graduation arrived.”

“... officers... kept Hasan's academic career moving on a glide path... despite all his known deficiencies.”

“... a sharp disconnect between close-up performance reports... and a higher level of reports that make up the... permanent career record.”

“... military supervisors are often slow to intervene when personnel under their command exhibit suspicious behavior.” “... supervisors frequently fail to note such behavior in formal reviews.”

“Instead of being drummed out of the Army [after having given a suspicious lecture]... Hasan was promoted and sent to Fort Hood.”

Hasan received “a glowing review” covering a period in which he had been criticized for “a continuous trend of poor performance” and for conflicts between his job duties and his religious beliefs.

Hasan received at least one “Outstanding Performance” rating. (Note that, in the military, the only way you can fail to receive an Outstanding rating is if you rape your own grandmother on YouTube.)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

And of course, as one might expect, a wall of silence rose up about all of these issues and incidents, and none of the people involved are talking – whether still active or retired. That's because they know that they have everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by admitting to all of the fatal flaws in the system – flaws that everyone knows exist, but is apparently helpless to do anything about.

But the main point about all of this is that not only is it nothing unusual – it's standard procedure. And the reason it “works” is that the vast majority of people who are floated along through the system this way don't eventually pick up a gun and start shooting at everything in sight. Instead, they continue to drag down the system, waste everyone's time, and exert a negative influence on readiness – not to mention morale. I saw more than one of these characters during my time with the military, and can assure you that even the ones who never cause grievous harm are a tremendous drain on resources. For one thing, the sheer burden of paperwork and “counseling”, and meetings with “the personnel people” to figure out what to “do” about one of these clowns adds up to a staggering amount – probably months of manpower and associated costs. I can look through the personnel files of any agency and pick out, in a heartbeat, the “problem employee” files – they are fat, and bulging, and full of the give-and-take of harried supervisors and officious “personnelists” -- and ultimately lacking in resolution, until such time as the person retires, dies, or changes jobs. Compared to this, the situation in the private sector is like a breath of cool, bracing, Arctic air – someone screws up, they're out of there. Not in a year, or a month, or a week, but that very day. The sheer power a supervisor wields in the private sector makes government and military supervisors green with envy... because they, in fact, have very little, if any power – and so, in lieu of that, a mountain (or landfill) of neurotic, compensatory behaviors is built up and perpetuated, generation after generation. And please note, appeals to “readiness” and “warfighting capability” and all of those other noble buzzwords fall on deaf ears, when you're dealing with the personnel system – whether military or civilian, unionized or not. The goal of the military personnel system on the civilian side is to make it as difficult as possible to hire competent people... and to make it virtually impossible to fire the incompetent. On the military side, there is at least some lip service given to competence, but that doesn't always have much to do with promotion... and sheer incompetence has very little to do with disciplinary actions or “early retirement”. There is, in fact, a definite air of masochism and despair about the whole thing – and I have yet to figure out why things had to become quite that bad. All I can imagine is that, once again, the futility and absurdity of our foreign policy and military operations eventually trickles down to the rank and file, and thus begins the erosion of morale and shirking of responsibility which leads to things like the Hasan case. It is possible to have healthy people performing an ill-starred mission based on pathological policies – for a while at least. But sooner or later the chronic degradation has to have an impact... and I think we've seen it in all its ultimate squalor in the Hasan case.

Conservatives and Neocons and Tea Partiers, Oh My!

Well, that recent Conservative Political Action Conference has my head in a spin, I must say. Ron Paul and Dick Cheney sharing the same podium? Wow – talk about the Abomination of Desolation rendering the Temple impure. And it raises all sorts of questions, which I will attempt to at least start answering here.

To begin with, there are as many definitions of “conservative” as there are conservatives – or non-conservatives, for that matter. The broadest might be, “anyone who didn't vote for Obama”. Or, better yet, “anyone who didn't vote for Obama plus the ones who did but are now sorry they did”. That would be the biggest basket of all, I guess. The problem is, that still leaves the majority of “conservatives” firmly in the Republican camp, which means firmly in the demographic that voted for George W. Bush (twice) and for McCain/Palin -- in other words for big government, business as usual, and empire building at the expense of the American people. And as any good Paleocon would point out, people in that demographic really have no claim to true conservatism. They may be “social conservatives”, but they are hardly less “big government” than the most abject liberal or progressive, and are hardly less imperialistic than the most hard-core Wilsonian. The differences, it seems – as with communism vs. fascism – are more ones of style and iconography than of real substance. By and large, their means are similar, as are their ends. The means amount to getting enough votes to get into office and then impose your will on everyone else... and the ends amount to remaking the nation, and the world, in your own image. And all of it feeds on grandiosity, delusion, power-madness, and the gullibility of the citizenry – i.e. on deception, propaganda, and “bait and switch” tactics.

The Neocons in particular – who, according to some definitions, also count as “conservatives” -- are a particularly egregious bunch, whose treachery extends to drumming up bogus wars in the interests of arms makers, religious fanatics, and foreign powers... and totally against the interests of the American people. And the fact that they are still in power, if not in office, has to stand as the premier ongoing scandal of our time.

Then we have the “business community”, which can, thankfully and finally, be written off at this point, since they have formed a visible and permanent alliance with government that puts the fascist systems of old to shame. And yet even this is an illusion, since, as I have pointed out, the dominant business and financial entities of our time are international in scope and are totally indifferent to the welfare of any given country, people, or even political system, as long as it can be manipulated to their ends. The American government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of international finance, no matter who is supposedly "in charge". So in a way, politics these days is an epiphenomenon – it is not primary or vital, but is merely the visible aspect of something much bigger over which the mere voter has absolutely no influence. In other words, politics in our time is another version of “games and circuses” -- amusing, time-consuming, adrenalin-stimulating, but ultimately without consequence, as we see so clearly in the, ahem, radical breaks the Obama administration has made with Bush policies.

Well, OK then, but what about the “tea partiers”? Ah yes – that ragtag band that has been treated like a mangy dog with AIDS ever since Obama's inauguration, not only by the liberal media but also by most mainstream Republicans... but that is now being assiduously courted by the Republican/”conservative” power structure. ("Hey there kiddo, you don't look so bad after all -- with a makeover and a shot of penicillin you'll be ready to walk into the finest restaurant in town.") Well, as I've said before, the tea partiers came to the party about 80 years too late. Finally the frog realized he was sitting there in boiling water and jumped out of the pot – but by that time he was pretty much cooked. And let's admit that, as implied above, the Obama people aren't doing anything much different from what the Bush people did – it's just that it's being done by the Obama people that has everyone so fired up. It's the other side of the coin from the liberals, who suddenly find themselves enamored of war, now that Obama is commander-in-chief. Take all the “ad hominem” motives away from the tea partiers, and what do you have left? Not much, is my feeling. And this is not to say that there aren't people in the tea party ranks who have actual principles – various Paleocons and libertarians, e.g. But they would be saying what they say and doing what they do whether the tea party umbrella was there or not. What I'm talking about is the main mass of tea partiers, who, for example, had absolutely no problem with Bush's twin wars – and are only now discovering how much they cost (and even then, they aren't demanding we pull out, just “cut costs” elsewhere).

So we now move on to a few vignettes from the CPAC, to further illustrate the dazzling absurdity:

0 Glenn Beck “urges GOP to admit it has a spending addiction”. Good. Where was he during the 8 years of the Bush administration? And where were all the rest of the "conservative" talking heads while Bush & Co. were running roughshod over everything and everybody? And how many of them voted for McCain and Palin, who were all ready to nuke Russia over Georgia?

0 The conferees seemed a bit ambivalent about identifying themselves as Republicans, even though I'm sure the vast majority were. Is that because they're feeling betrayed? Well, they ought to. On the other hand, not a single Republican politician was hanged in effigy, and Dick Cheney was welcomed onto the podium. So clearly the urge to be identified with something big and powerful overcame the urge to retain any principles.

0 In fact, I knew things were horribly wrong when Dick Cheney showed up. Don't these people know that the Dickster is not part of the problem -- he _is_ the problem? It would be like the Democrats getting O. J. Simpson to deliver the opening address at their national convention (actually, they might).

0 Ron Paul won a straw poll for the 2012 presidential nomination. You remember Ron Paul – he's the guy who was mercilessly boycotted and defamed by the bulk of the conservative media all throughout the primary campaign, and who the conservative talking heads wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. So does this reflect some sort of a “fault line” between conservatives and conservative leadership? What it reflects, more likely, is that people will have a fling with truly conservative ideas once in a while, but when they wake up in the morning they'll find themselves in bed with Dick Cheney. So sad...

0 As further evidence, note that “others [at the conference] booed loudly when event organizers announced Paul as the winner”. Right. So we evidently had some real conservatives in attendance, but the majority were still the big government/American Empire types who are scared to death of true freedom. Any idea now why the Republican Party is in the shape it's in, and why “conservatives” aren't doing any better?

So that's the bottom line to all this? The CPAC was really an incoherent bunch of people scattered around a very large room trying to pick the hero, or position, or cause du jour – i.e. the one that best fit their impulses of the moment. The winds of hypocrisy and demagoguery blew through the very large room, stirring up dust, raising hopes on the one hand and doubts on the other. No one was quite sure which hero, or which position, or which cause, was the best fit for their personal needs. And no one was quite sure which of their personal needs should most influence their actions – power? A sense of belonging? Sticking with the “tried and true” (or the tried and failed)? Or – heaven forbid – real, rock-solid principles – you know, the kind that are difficult, if not impossible, to detect in any political speech or campaign platform. In other words, are they absolutists or relativists? (And no one wants to be accused of being “dogmatic” or an “extremist” -- this goes without saying. That's not for polite people; that's for the lumpen proletariat that put Obama into office.) And what, after all, does it mean, these days, to be an “American”? Supporting endless, unwinnable wars? Allowing the unnatural marriage of government and international business and finance? What does it mean to “support the troops”? Even that is the basis for endless controversy. What nearly all seem to agree on is that big government is bad when it does things they don't like, but OK when it does things they like. But this is not a principled stand, is it, class? One could say the same thing about the military, for that matter – or about “social programs”, or entitlements. There is very little that these so-called “conservatives” will consistently object to on principle – which leaves them, basically, no less impulsive, arbitrary, or self-serving than the typical liberal/progressive/Democrat. Which, in turn, explains what I see as the chaos inherent in events such as CPAC. And it's not that the liberals do much better – but what they have on their side is the universal delusion that government gives back more than it takes. Whereas conservatives at least have an inkling that this cannot possibly be true. But guess which position typically gets more votes.

And as for this euphoria that “we're about to take back the government” and “turn it back over to the American people” -- aren't those the exact same lines that the Obama campaign used? Really, folks, you're going to have to come up with something better. Everyone thinks that the government – or party, or administration – they like is the proper one for “the American people”... and that's because everyone thinks they're one of “the people”. This, of course, reflects a traditional core value – fetish, even – for populism, democracy, non-elitism, and so forth... the same core value that inspired “Grapes of Wrath”, no less than Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. No politician in all of American history has ever stood up and announced that they represent the elite, or special interests; they are all “men of the people” -- including those who are obviously anything but. It might be healthy, in fact, for Americans to admit, once and for all, that there are, in fact, no general interests but only special ones... and that all government spending is, ultimately, “pork-barrel” spending... and that all anyone wants out of the system is to get back more than they put in. Then it would be more like a poker game – an honest one, even. Anything but what we have now, where hypocrisy is the only position that is permitted to be voiced in public.

So what did it all amount to? The last, dying gasp of a movement, or point of view, that is voluntarily jettisoning itself onto the dust heap of history – which is what all the liberal/progressive talking heads fervently hope? Or perhaps a renewal of the American spirit, and of traditional values, against what – and this time it's the real thing, honest... I mean, I know we say this every time, but this time we really mean it – appears to be the final triumph of socialism? Try as I might, all I can see is one mob reacting against the political dominance of another mob. Each mob has its heroes, its fetishes, its iconography, its symbols and buzzwords, its “personal style”, its mode of discourse – but each is, ultimately, incoherent, impulsive, arbitrary, self-centered, and abysmally ignorant. And yes, there must be a few people of true principle among the tea partiers, and some undoubtedly showed up at CPAC. But they should admit that they are strangers in a strange land, no matter how much they might agree with some of what is being said some of the time. Because if they stand back and look at results – look at what these so-called “conservatives” manage to do when they are in power – they will find that the truth is not in them, and in fact never was. Today's “conservatism” bears very little resemblance to the real thing of old, and in fact is not worthy of the name. It would be better, and more honest, if they would rename their movement/cause/whatever “imperialism”, or “nationalism”, or "neo-fascism" -- because at least those terms would reflect some of their core values. When someone calls themself a “conservative”, the first question should be, what do they want to “conserve”? In these people's case, the answer seems to be – not much, and nothing of any real substance.

Failure is an Option

It wasn't that long ago – was it? -- that Attorney General Eric Holder was solemnly intoning judgment on the 9/11 conspirators by way of defending his decision to try them in a civilian court a stone's throw from Ground Zero. He assured us that, after being given a fair trial, the defendants would surely be found guilty and dealt with accordingly. He assured us that, in fact, no other option was possible, or even conceivable.

But now comes a slightly different tune – and you have to be on the “Obama frequency” to notice. To begin with, it seems that – in line with the usual guidelines for civilian trials – evidence based on “enhanced interrogation techniques” might not be admissible! What, all that work for nothing? And yet that's precisely what is being claimed. But fear not, we have plenty of other evidence that ought to be perfectly OK – er, we think. Stuff like “seized evidence, financial transactions, recorded phone conversations, and cooperating witnesses” -- you know, all that stuff we already had prior to 9/11 but didn't do anything about.

Notice the slippage here? From “a gold mine of intelligence” based on KSM's confession, we're now back to the same old pile of stuff that has to be somehow pieced together in a credible way. Of course, if the trial were in a military setting, all of this might have been different... but then we would not have had the stirring symbolic “value” of trying them at the scene of the crime. (And New Yorkers wouldn't be complaining about all the cost and inconvenience, and Chamber of Commerce-type douchebags in Pittsburgh wouldn't be volunteering to take it off their hands.)

And who, and where, are all of these “witnesses”? I mean, who are we talking about? This isn't a matter of trolling the bars and alleyways of Chicago for losers willing to provide evidence against the Mob in exchange for getting set up for life in the witness protection program. Who would make a halfway decent witness except for other fanatics – and what are the chances that other fanatics would be willing to spill the beans (even if they wound up gaining weight while in Guantanamo)?

Saith Jack Cloonan, a retired FBI agent: “Prosecutors are going to want to put on a case that in their minds [note the expression] is overwhelming and that can leave absolutely no doubt... to put on coerced statements or some sort of flimsy circumstantial case would be disastrous.” So... what this means is, it could fail after all! I mean, look at all the “air-tight cases” that have failed over the years, leaving the populace in a state of scandal and astonishment. (Look at O.J.!) People continue to underestimate the arbitrariness, cupidity, and randomness of our system of “justice” -- and now, when it “really counts”, we're about to be treated to just another inane example.

“This is not only the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed... the entire Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder's place in history will be on trial as well.” Well, that's the good news, I guess – especially since the Obama administration is full to the brim with hacks who, if justice had been served, would already have been in jail at the time of their confirmation hearings. But in any case, I can't help but notice that anything the Obama crew touches quickly melts down into a puddle of absurdity. And I think this is ultimately because none of these people has any real concept of true justice, or of standards of conduct – they are purely political animals, which means they are sheer relativists and opportunists, whose concerns go no further than serving themselves and their supposed boss. And here they are bringing to trial a bunch of 9/11 conspirators who, say what you will, at least had some principles – and this may be the most humiliating juxtaposition of all, not that any of them will notice.

The March of Time

In response to news that the earthquake in Chile moved the Earth a few inches off its axis, a spokesman for President Obama said, “You have to understand that this trend began in the previous administration; all we can do is try and clean up the mess they made and minimize the damages.” This continues the administration's policy of attributing superhuman powers to George W. Bush and merely human powers to Barack Obama.

The recent killing of a Hamas official in Dubai has been met, predictably, by a wall of indifference virtually everywhere except the Arab/Moslem world, and even they aren't all that sure they want to pursue the matter. The reason is that the Mossad – Israel's equivalent of the CIA except with competence added – was supposedly behind it... and if Israel is untouchable, its world-class intelligence (including assassination) arm is doubly untouchable. It would be like messing with Al Capone in Chicago – it simply isn't done, if you know what's good for you. Thus we see – as if it were any surprise – who is truly at the top of the pecking order in at least half the world... and who can, basically, do anything they want in broad daylight and get away with it. Good thing they're our “allies” rather than our enemies, huh? That way we can volunteer ourselves as scapegoats for anything they choose to do.

Regarding the latest “suspicious substance” scare, this time in Utah – with the usual hysterics being hauled out on stretchers after having inhaled, come into contact with, seen, or only heard about some white stuff no more dangerous than baby power – less so, in fact. And these were IRS personnel, no less, renowned for their merciless thick-skinned-ness. My question is, why doesn't someone study the incidence of hysteria in government officials, especially ones in the "enforcement" business.  What I mean is, do hysterics tend to get into enforcement -- highly likely -- or does enforcement cause hysteria -- also arguable.  The connective tissue could include paranoia, e.g. Of course, this also further exposes a weak spot – an Achilles heel – in our increasingly totalitarian system; the people who are paid to keep an eye on everyone else have their own issues, and are, in fact, easily shaken by the slightest irregularity in their routine. Thus, the banality of evil, and a whole new category of potential mischief that real terrorists could take advantage of.

So let me get this straight. If the Haiti earthquake had struck Chile, it would have been no more than a minor inconvenience... and if the Chile earthquake had struck Haiti, the whole place would have, basically, sunk beneath the waters of the Caribbean. Now tell me why the people who supposedly engineered this whole thing (George W. Bush and his superpowers again) didn't think of that?

Here's an idea. Put some obnoxious kid in a chair behind Obama's in the Oval Office. His only job will be to say, over and over again, “Are we there yet?”

And how about those Hawaiians, huh? And here I thought there was no trouble in Paradise. But no, it turns out that “Native Hawaiians” have, for decades, considered themselves second-class citizens. But that is about to change, thanks to the House of Representatives' decision to turn the entire state into an Indian reservation (kind of like West Virginia, except for Hawaiians rather than white people). So now Hawaii will be a “sovereign nation” instead of a mere state... and we can expect the casinos to spring up overnight as a result (unless they're already there). But what happens then? Do non-Hawaiians become second-class citizens, in what would be just the latest spasm of affirmative action-style payback? And will the “business climate” be enhanced (for anything but casinos, that is)? I mean, we know that Hawaii minus tourism is, basically, a pineapple plantation. So – if you drive the tourists away, the way many countries in the West Indies managed to do after achieving independence, what's left? Frankly, I think a better idea would be to simply rescind Hawaii's statehood status and liberate it entirely – let it become an independent nation, as in days of old. It's what we should have done with Texas; so let's try and get it right this time.

Well, at least the Marines – arguably the only truly military component left out of the “military” -- are holding out for “don't ask, don't tell” -- and thus bucking against the combined forces of the administration, the other services, and all the various assorted political hacks who occupy that gray area between the two. So will this pushback be a “career ender” for Gen. James Conway, Marine Corps commandant? Probably not – because the Marines have, traditionally, been allowed to do things their own way and even express the occasional opinion, as long as they don't interfere with the politicization and watering-down of the other services. I mean, after all, once in a while we really do need a bunch of guys who are ready to storm the beaches without worrying about all the pregnant servicewomen they're leaving behind on the boats offshore. In other words, even the politically correct need the politically incorrect at times, to do their dirty work. The real crisis would come if the Marines ever tried to withhold their services until the rest of the military got its collective head out of its collective butt. But that would be too demeaning – much better to just put that dagger in your teeth and charge, and let the rest of them crap their pants.

I guess it had to happen. There is now a significant movement of “Clinton nostalgia”, and leading the charge is none other than – Hillary Clinton! Ah yes, for those glory days of budget surpluses... for the naïve, pre-9/11 air of freedom, marred only by the occasional “wag the dog” bombings of foreign countries, incidents of government terrorism against the citizenry, election-buying by China, and the ongoing soap opera in the White House. Suddenly Hillary has become an expert in economics as well as statecraft... but hey, she became an overnight expert in health care, so what's the problem? Her manifest brilliance is such that she could walk into any particle physics laboratory in the land and immediately put them years ahead in theoretical development, the way Elena Ceausescu used to do on a regular basis. She has more brains in her little finger than George W. Bush has in his entire head... but then again, who doesn't? The main thing Hillary seems to be worrying about these days – although she never says it in so many words – is that her old allies in China are pretty much fixin' to take over the American economy, or at least to exert undue influence on foreign policy, e.g. And she should know! My theory is, she doesn't really care one way or the other what happens, as long as she's in charge. And if being in charge involves answering to a higher power – namely China – I'm sure she could weather that ethical crisis with barely a hair out of place.

And what is this flurry of indignation about hot dogs all of a sudden being declared unsafe for consumption by kids? Sheesh, where have these people been? As far back as I can remember, hot dogs have been considered thinly-disguised death traps by conscientious parents. And this it not to say they have been relegated to the outer darkness, where there will be wailing but no gnashing of teeth. No, the hot dog remains a staple of the Americhild diet, right up there with peanut butter, jelly, and Cheerios. And the reason for this is simple. For a substantial minority of American children, hot dogs – or, at least, things shaped like hot dogs – are virtually the only solid food they will eat between toddlerhood and the teen years. This is, of course, an abiding mystery, since the human race did not – as far as we know – evolve in a hot dog-rich environment. Where did this obsessive interest in that particular form... in that fine-grained, somewhat squeaky texture... in the savor of preservatives and artificial coloring... where did this come from? And to add to the perversity, now it turns out that what kids love the most is the worst thing for them – a good operational definition of addiction, in fact. And can they be blamed for childhood obesity? Not when you consider the fact that hot dogs have been a dietary mainstay for much longer than childhood obesity has been a plague upon the land. Or – maybe it's because in my day the formula was “hot dogs + exercise” whereas now it's “hot dogs + more hot dogs”. In any event, as a case in culinary and social history, the hot dog fetish has few peers... and if it's kids we're talking about, it has none. I imagine that both hot dogs and the kids who love them will survive this latest round of do-gooder scolding.

Oh, for the glory days of interstellar travel at “warp speed” -- when every boy (and a few kind of tough girls) could imagine being able – within his lifetime! -- to voyage to distant planets, solar systems, and galaxies. And look what we've come to. Now NASA is, like a desperate, losing poker player at 3 in the morning, trying to bargain for a few scraps... things like lunar orbits (again), lunar landings (again), orbiting Mars, landing on Mars, landing on a Martian moon... landing on the Moon and mooning Mars... and so on. Pretty sorry, pathetic stuff compared to the “Every Boy's Book of Space Travel” hopes and dreams of old. Turns out that gravity has a pesky way of asserting itself, time and time again. You'd think Obama, for example, could figure out a way to suspend the laws of gravity now and then – the way he's suspending the laws of economics. But apparently gravity is a tougher nut to crack than even economics... and besides, people – including those in Congress – are starting, more and more, to see the space program as mainly the world's biggest sandbox. What I say is, send all those geeks with the buzz cuts and the skinny black ties who have lived in Houston, Huntsville, and Cape Canaveral all their lives back to the TV repair shops they crawled up out of. Let them earn an honest living for once, and leave space travel to those who do it best – science fiction writers.

And I'm not sure I quite understand the problem people seem to be having with this “full body scanner” technology in airports. Something about violation of privacy? And these are the same people who think nothing of parading around public pools and beaches in the summer with less material on their bodies than it would take to hold a dollar in change. Maybe what they're worried about is that TSA personnel will notice how they've failed to stick to their diets – or, in the case of Pittsburghers, how they've failed to ever consider dieting in the first place. Frankly, it's not the passengers I feel sorry for, but the TSA personnel. I mean, seriously, what percentage of the American populace would you really ever want to see nude? Be honest now. For every Playboy bunny or Chippendale guy you'd have about a hundred people who make the Michelin Man look like Twiggy. There really are some doors – or windows, or screens – that were never meant to be opened.

Anyone remember “war gaming”? There was a time when it was “the” thing to figure out what would happen “if” various actions were taken, or various scenarios evolved. All way too eggheady for the likes of George W. Bush et al – much better to shoot first and ask questions later (if ever). But now – or so it appears – war gaming is back, and the scenario is question is – surprise! -- what would happen if Israel attacked Iran's (alleged) nuclear facilities. It seems the outcome might not be as surgically clean as those of similar missions in the past. For example it's actually proposed that an Israeli action of this sort might “sour” U.S.-Israeli relations – an eventuality which I consider wildly unlikely since, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “U.S.-Israeli relations”. There is only “Israeli relations”, with us as a passive subset. But in any case, the war game goes on and what happens next is that “Iran attacks Israel, both directly and through its proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip”. This seems more likely, though far from inevitable – I mean, no one retaliated in the previous two known cases, did they? And this, in turn, is because everyone in the Near East knows that Israel has more nukes than Mao had backyard iron smelters – and that, unlike Mao, they know how to use them. Did the war gamers take this into account? And did they take into account the fact that those supposed Iranian “proxies” have already done battle with Israel on a number of occasions, and lost? And did they take into account that probably some of the same geniuses were the ones who predicted a “cake walk” in Iraq? Frankly, I'm not inclined to take any of this very seriously – but it is good to hear that at least a few people in Washington are thinking – or trying to – before they act.

And why hasn't “spell check” added “Obama” to the list of OK words yet? Clearly there's a subversive somewhere in the bowels of Microsoft.

Quote for the Day

"How much do we really know about the vaults and caverns which lie somewhere under the structure of a great nation -- about these psychic catacombs in which all our concealed desires, our fearful dreams and evil spirits, our vices and our forgotten and unexpiated sins, have been buried for generations?"

Friedrich Percyval Reck-Malleczewen, "Diary of a Man in Despair" (trans. Paul Rubens)

Eee Uuu PIGS!

My first thought, back when they announced that the EU was moving toward a single currency, was -- wait a minute, are you telling me that all these sober, level-headed, thrifty Nordic types in Northern Europe are going to cast their lot, currency-wise, with all those laid back party animals in the south? Sounds kind of like opening a joint bank account (with right of survivorship) with your ne'er-do-well, drunken brother-in-law. And yet, inexplicably, that is precisely what happened, and the inevitable denouement has... well, “denouemented”, or whatever the term is. The guilty parties – at least, the first wave of guilty parties, 'cause we know what happens in a welfare state, sooner or later everybody winds up on welfare – are being referred to as the PIGS, which stands for Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. And sho' nuff, 3 of the 4 are Mediterranean countries with histories of insolvency and misgovernance that go back decades... and then there's Ireland, which is in a category all its own in this as with everything else.

So what have these warm, sunny, cheerful (again, with the exception of Ireland) places done that have brought things to this point? Why, they have done the same thing that many other places have done down throughout history – spent more than they had, and promised to spend even more than that. The difference – as with American banks and businesses in our time – is that they have done so with the comforting thought that they would be “bailed out” in the event things went badly, because they were a valued part of something larger. And the thing that always amazes me about situations like this – and I admit to not understanding it – is the amount of leverage the small, failed entity seems to have over the larger, not-yet-failed entity that it is a part of. It's a kind of twisted version of David and Goliath, but with finance. Why should the collapse of the Greek economy have as much of a ripple effect throughout the EU (and beyond) as everyone fears? But then, why should the collapse of an American automaker, or bank, or stock brokerage, have as much of a ripple effect through the U.S. as everyone claims (and uses to justify bailouts)? I think there is a lot that no one's telling us about the so-called “global economy” -- but I also think that much of this panic is over-dramatization with a political agenda. It's not so different, really, from all the “domino effect” arguments during the Cold War, many (if not all) of which turned out to be made up out of whole cloth. In fact, almost any sort of propaganda designed to make people panic and turn all of their freedoms over to government should be met with utter skepticism... and yet people are living in a state of perpetual fear, and all it takes is one small jolt to set off another round of rushing to our leaders, crying “Help us! Save us! Protect us! We'll do anything you say!” Thus – mission accomplished, once again, for the Regime.

It is a bit intriguing, in any case, to see the EU as a “distant mirror” for what will surely become our fate in short order. We have bankrupt cities (Pittsburgh being prominent among them)... bankrupt counties... bankrupt states... bankrupt just about everything, in fact, in the public sector, from the largest to the smallest... and they all expect salvation, and bailouts, from the federal government, which is, in fact, more bankrupt than they, except that it can print more money and they can't. If you're the only guy in a downtrodden mining town with a credit card, you can pretend, for a while, that you're the cock of the walk – but you may, in fact, wind up worse off than your neighbors.

So it's going to be very interesting to see what the cooler heads among the EU members decide to do about those other guys. They might, in fact, wind up asking themselves why they even admitted these clowns to the EU to begin with, knowing full well that they would eventually turn into PIGS.

Snippets

How come when Obama likes nuclear power it's a good thing... but when Republicans like it it's bad! Evil! Dangerous! A grave threat to all life on earth! And so forth. Just wondering...

Oh sheesh, Dick Cheney's back – and fighting it out with Joe Biden. Well, at least they each have a worthy opponent...

Looks like China has started to bail out of U.S. Treasury securities. Of course, they're smart enough not to dump them all at once – or, at least, they haven't yet (although they might, if they have some other agenda, like totally trashing the U.S. economy). I mean, can you imagine if Bill Gates sold all his Microsoft stock at the same time? So yeah, these guys aren't fools; anything they need to do to maintain the upper hand, they will do.

So what kind of idiot would climb a volcano in mid-February? Some guy did it out in Washington state. I think the government should make people like this open bank accounts and send one of the debit cards to some central office – that way, when they do something stupid, the central office can swipe their debit card for the cost of the rescue before the rescue operation begins. If there's not enough in the account – hey pal, we'll see you in the spring.

As for that professor who started slinging lead when she failed to get tenure? That's just the upper-crust version of the entitlement mentality in action.

This is great: “...some schools are turning to more unconventional means, such as Pacific Hills School in West Hollywood’s recent threat to turn up the lights and play Burt Bacharach if students started to grind, according to the Los Angeles Times.” Well, that would sure stop me...

A New York Times article posted on MSNBC says the “tea partiers” are “bracing for tyranny”. Well, if that's true they're only about 80 years behind the power curve. But – better late than never, I guess.

The paradox, of course, is how to organize people who are against big government – i.e. who are against large political organizations. This problem is, of course, already being exploited by the liberals and the slavish media. Small political organizations tend to be powerless and nearly invisible... large ones are already in charge... and medium-sized ones are typically co-opted and taken over by the large ones. So it's a real problem.

According to news reports, the heavy snow in Washington, DC led to a drop in crime. I guess that refers to the fact that Congress wasn't in session...

If you want courageous politicians, you must first have courageous voters.

“Cleveland tops list of most miserable U.S. cities”. Aha! I knew it! Whenever someone around here starts complaining about Pittsburgh, someone else is sure to say, “Well, at least this isn't Cleveland.” Yeah, it sounds harsh, but after all, someone has to anchor the scale. (You'll note, by the way, that Cleveland beat out Oakland, Detroit, Youngstown, and Philadelphia – no mean feat.)

Head Start doesn't work and, therefore should be eliminated – say commentators in Sunday's paper. Well... but was it ever, even at the very beginning, intended to “work”? As I recall it was a blatant political ploy, designed to assure blacks that “we're doing something for you”. But, clearly, if it really worked we might expect it to be the seed of a change in the motivational structure of inner-city/lower-class blacks, which might, in turn, cause them to lift themselves out of abject, multi-generational dependency on government. And surely we can't have that. So basically, Head Start does, in fact work – as propaganda. But it also “works” in terms of not making any significant difference in the lot of black Americans.

The death of Rep. Jack Murtha caused the local papers to print a map of his congressional district... and if you thought the days of gerrymandering were over with, you should check out this monstrosity. It looks like the accumulated splash of years of tomato sauce on the wall of the local pizzeria... or a jigsaw puzzle designed by Salvador Dali as interpreted by Alexander McQueen. If a history is ever written on how Congress got to be the way it is, the author could do worse than to start with maps of some of the more ridiculous Congressional districts.

Archaeologists in Israel have discovered a 1,400- year-old wine press that measures – get this – 21 by 54 feet! Wow, those folks must have been the ultimate party animals. Too bad the Moslems had to come along and spoil everything...

Sometimes I really wonder if the president, and Congress, are signing on to this insane, limitless national debt because they know that, really, it'll never come due and never be repaid. More likely, we'll see complete economic collapse, or at least the collapse of the dollar, first. Then that debt will be about as collectible as the dividends on a Bernie Madoff account. If true, it would be the most cynical – or desperate, or both – financial move in history. If not, then all it means is that the next few generations of Americans will be slaves to the international financiers. But then, we already are, so I guess we've gotten used to it.

Rumor has it that, in their attempt to avoid extinction, the Republicans have re-discovered the Constitution. Too little, too late, I say. If you were to poll Republican congressmen on the question, does the Constitution say what it means, and does it mean what it says... and do you agree, 100%, with what it says... you'd get an “affirm” with not much more frequency than if you asked Democrats the same question.

And when it comes to their idolization of Sarah Palin -- “the blunder from the tundra” -- this reflects a death wish almost unmatched in American politics.

And... the real test of the Constitutional seriousness of any Republican would be, what think ye of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan... and the bailouts (started under Bush). If you get the expected answer, i.e. “no problem”, just turn around, and walk away.

There Is No American Empire

Yes, that's what I said. Oh sure, I use the term a lot, and so do other commentators – but when you get right down to it the “American Empire”, per se, does not exist. There's an empire all right, but it's not American – assuming it ever was. I guess if you go back to those heady post-World War II days, it would be possible to demonstrate a kind of paradoxical American empire, which involved sending out troops to occupy, to a greater or lesser degree, nearly every non-Warsaw Pact country in Europe, as well as good chunks of East Asia and, on occasion, Latin America. And these occupations would invariably be accompanied by overwhelmingly generous donations of food, clothing, shelter, etc. from "the American people" -- although if they ever got a chance to vote on this, I'm not aware of it.

This was followed, all too soon, by the “Ugly American” era, where a world war no longer sufficed as an excuse; now we were all over Latin America and poking around in other parts of Africa and Asia – which, of course, eventuated in the Vietnam war, which I guess was the high water mark of American Empire activity between World War II and now. Not forgetting Korea, of course... and the war there, which technically is still on, at least resulted in a lasting 50-50 split between North and South Korea, unlike Vietnam, which resulted in a 100-0 split.

But are these really the signs of empire in the classical sense? Let's think about this for a moment. If you take the other great empires in history – especially the colonial empires headed up by various European powers – you will find a number of things. For instance:

Does traditional empire-building involve attempts to transplant the colonial power's form of government, intact, to the colony? No – the Europeans knew better. Colonial governments were much more authoritarian than the home government, and what little self-determination was left to the colony was more or less a direct extension of its pre-colonial system – typically a monarchy of some sort. The European powers seldom felt any urge to dethrone the native king, and install a president, premier, prime minister, etc. in his place. They simply left local affairs to the pre-existing local government, and ran the country's foreign affairs (which were 99% about trade and military bases, after all) from the colonial government house, and everyone was happy – more or less. Contrast this with the curious American habit (or at least pretense) of “spreading democracy” -- which either turns out to be impossible, or, when it actually happens, it results in the “wrong” people being elected, at which point we have to go back and start over. So those earmarks of traditional colonization – leaving local governments intact (vs. “regime change”) and ruling the rest at least semi-wisely from the colonial headquarters – are missing for us.

How about on the economic side – i.e., trade? Down through history, the flow of goods between colonizer and colony has been overwhelmingly of one sort – raw materials are shipped from the colony to the colonial power, and finished goods are shipped back. And who winds up with all the profits from this exchange? The colonial power, i.e. its merchants, officials, and politicians – and its people, if they're lucky, through a trickle-down effect. What do _we_ get in exchange for our colonial exertions? Yes, some raw materials... but, more often these days, finished products. But the subject states turn out to be not such a great market for _our_ finished products (the few that remain), and so our empire-like holdings actually wind up constituting a new economic liability (aside from all the expenses associated with invasion and occupation). Now, would a traditional colonial power have tolerated this? Not for a moment! The whole idea of colonialism was to enrich the colonial power, and if it didn't there was something serious wrong. When's the last time we could argue that we were “enriched” through the fruits of empire? Maybe back in the 60s, when we were talking about literal fruits – bananas and such. But ever since, the cost of holding on to these places, with all their revolutions and insurrections... and now terrorist activity... has vastly exceeded the payoff. It's the classic “white elephant” scenario writ larger.

And speaking of the military, what does it take to subdue the country of our choice these days, and keep it subdued? Many men, and much materiel – and you'll notice that these are not one-time costs. We spend just as much to stay in a place as we did to invade and conquer it – all according to plan, of course, since nothing irritates a Pentagon budget planner more than unpredictability in the “out years”. In their ideal world, every budget (or “line”) item extends out into the indefinite future on a level basis... which means that if we need to shift funding from “invasion” costs to “occupation” costs, we will – there is always something that money can be squandered, er, spent, on. (This, by the way, is one of the main rationales for "nation building" -- the fact that _something_ has to be done with all that money; it simply wouldn't do to give it back to the taxpayer.)

And what about that most intangible of all qualities for a nation, respect? And dignity? The old European colonial powers were respected... held in awe... and, yes, feared at times. But they were seldom despised, except in the waning days, and not always even then. But every new venture into foreign entanglements for us involves firing up the Ugly American machinery again... and right now, we're considered an evil empire by the entire Arab/Moslem world, and someone to not turn one's back on in plenty of other places (Eastern Europe, Latin America, etc.). How many times, for example, were the British, or French, ever considered “out of control” in their empire-building efforts – even when they were? We seem to be out of control virtually all the time. Did anyone “non-understand” what the British and the French were doing? Heck no, colonialization is as old as history... it's just about the easiest transaction between countries to understand – more so than war, even (although they certainly overlap). On the other hand, how many people really understand what the U.S. is trying to do in Iraq, or Afghanistan? Foreigners don't... most of our own citizens don't... many of our leaders don't... the president may not even understand. So one of the earmarks of the American Empire at this time, in contrast to other empires throughout history, is its sheer absurdity.

What else can be said? The traditional empires seem to have had the support of most of the citizenry of the colonial power (except for the most hard-core pacifists and indifferentists). They could see the advantages, which were many – and the down side was usually confined to the dusty, flea-bitten, fever-ridden battlefields and outposts of the colony, which were not pictured 24-7 on TV and the Internet. Contrast this with today, when at least a substantial minority of Americans believes that the twin wars are a mistake and a hoax, and want us out of those pestholes ASAP. They can see the advantages – which do not exist for the average person. To paraphrase The Mommas and The Poppas, nobody's gettin' fat except the arms makers and international financiers.

So... when it comes to the empire game, we apparently just can't hack it. It's trashing our economy and our morale, corrupting our politics, and turning us into a rogue state as far as most of the world is concerned. And it's also severely eroding the freedom of American citizens, both at home and abroad. But yet we persist, against all reason. And why? Well, it's because the American Empire really isn't our empire at all – it's the empire of the globalists, the internationalists, the rootless, anti-nationalistic bankers and financiers, the multi-national arms makers... even the Neocons and their counterparts overseas, who, collectively, could not care less about the welfare of the U.S. or its citizens. Oh, they will mouth words to keep people signed on, but when you study their actions, you realize that they are anything but patriots – they use the U.S., and its gullible citizenry, to further their ends... but who benefits? Certainly not the man on the street; all he sees is the current pain and misery. The fact that the economic crisis/recession/what have you is, more and more, showing signs of having been planned, and manipulated, and engineered, from the outset should offer a clue – nations are suffering, people are suffering, but the internationalists are happy as pigs in stuff. The deeper you probe into the cast of characters behind the crisis, the more you find that they are, in fact, enjoying themselves tremendously... and, as far as they're concerned, the “crisis” can go on indefinitely.

So it's really their empire, and the U.S. -- and its government, and the military – are, basically, servants and patsies. The bright line that seems to have been drawn between the U.S. and the Arab/Moslem world, for example, is more a line of convenience for the Regime than the real thing. It pays to set the U.S. up as a scapegoat, but when you see who is profiting, it certainly has nothing to do with the U.S. per se. Now, there is, undoubtedly, a genuine line between the Regime – taken on the international level – and the Arab/Moslem world. There is, likewise, a line between the Regime and Russia, and between it and China – although these are by no means as clear-cut, and there is more room for negotiation. On the world map, the Regime is one nexus, and the Arab/Moslem world another. China and its allies is another, and it overlaps with the Arab/Moslem in the case of Iran, for instance. Then we have Russia, which seems to be operating more or less as a lone wolf these days, although it certainly has plenty of residual “interests” elsewhere. Then we have the places that, apparently, have yet to picked for a team – most of Latin America, most of sub-Saharan Africa, and a few places in Asia. (Japan and South Korea... and, OK, Taiwan... are firmly in our camp). These are the fault lines at present, and of course the “uncommitted” are constantly being wooed, seduced, and fought over – but at least not with the fervor that marked the Cold War. (Heck, we would have gone into Venezuela or Bolivia in a heartbeat as soon as Chavez or Morales got in, in the old days. But maybe this is less a matter of principle than of residual PTSD from Cuba.) And there are, certainly, places in the world that are no longer considered worth fighting over – like most of sub-Saharan Africa – as long as we can bribe a few mercenaries to keep the shipments of strategic raw materials coming.

But again, I keep saying “we” when what I really mean is the Regime. The marching orders come down from high and land on the president's desk every morning... and on the desks of certain key Congressmen. And, since nearly all of them were put in place by the Regime, they don't dare disobey, no matter how obviously damaging the action is going to be. Their main job is to dream up alibis.

What it amounts to is that the U.S., even though it seems, at times, to be a colonial power, is really a higher-order colony itself... the colonial power being the Regime, or whatever you choose to call it. And that Regime knows no loyalty except to itself – and values individual life and liberty not a whit. It is the ultimate faceless organization which, I'm sure, even eats its own at times. And this is not to say that it doesn't have ideals... or even principals of a sort. But those are distorted way beyond what the average person would see as right or desirable – they are, rather, a roadmap to keeping a thing, or entity, alive – not an association of free men.

President Declares War on Supreme Court; Pictures at Eleven

In the annals of hypocrisy, a prominent place has to be given to the indignation on the part of Democrats as to the recent Supreme Court decision having to do with who, or what, is allowed to donate money to political campaigns. To hear them talk, you would think that the fate of the nation had been turned over – lock, stock, and barrel – to massive, faceless multinational corporations. Well, to begin with, my theory is that the fate of the nation already _is_ in the hands of massive, faceless multinational corporations and other related entities. But whether that's true or not, the notion of Democrats objecting to corporate largesse is a bit absurd, since – as we all know by now – the rich donate at least as much money to the Democrats as to the Republicans, if not more. The Democrats are, as I have explained numerous times, the party of the rich and the poor... and it is primarily the contributions of the modestly-endowed that keep the Republicans afloat -- you know, those so-called "values voters" who see the country they grew up in slipping away into dystopian oblivion. And if you want to talk about the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, the situation is even more so; I doubt if one rich, or "culturally poor" person has even donated to either one. Corporate America – and, by extension, the corporate world – has, after the early years of struggle, cast its lot with the collectivists for the simple reason that, under socialism, their bottom line is more enhanced that it would be under a decentralized, laissez-faire system. Call this the moral corruption of capitalism, if you like... or the death of true capitalism. The fact remains that the government is a bigger spender than any individual, or any conglomeration of individuals... and the charms of true competition have long since been traded in for the corporate security blanket that government provides -- as vividly illustrated by the recent and ongoing "bailouts". There was a point – and I can't say precisely when it was, but I suspect somewhere in the vicinity of World War II – when the balance shifted from the marketplace to the public trough when it came to the expected source of wealth for big business... not that the marketplace is not still a factor for the “little guys” -- you know, the small businesses that are in the process of being taxed out of existence. See, I don't think the choice between Wal-Mart and, say, Sears, or Target, is a real one, any more than the choice between Chrysler and GM, or between Microsoft and Apple. They are all heads of the same hydra. My idea of competition, and a free market, is the small, independent bookseller vs. Barnes & Noble... or the local coffee shop vs. Starbucks. And I suppose that even among large businesses there are some vestigial remnants of competition where the government doesn't yet have the upper hand; pizza and fast food companies come to mind, for instance. And as for the “competitive bidding” among defense contractors – well! That's about as genuine as professional wrestling. One outfit gets one contract, the other gets another, but all prosper and all stay in business, because, basically, their contracts, and their favored status with the government, are the biggest and longest-running pork barrel in history. And all – please note – donate generously to political campaigns, especially to the Democrats, because, as everyone knows, the road to socialism is the road to prosperity – for the few, that is.

But I suppose that, for all this, the Democrats feel they still have to, from time to time, make noises and mouth words consistent with the myth that they are still “the party of the people”, and the Republicans are “the party of big business”. It's all too pathetic, really. Here, for instance, are Senators Charles Schumer and Chris Van Hollen proposing “a bill that would ban political ads by corporations that have as little as 20 percent foreign ownership”. Heck, that would prevent both the Democratic Party and the Republican party from political advertising! The bottom line is, what difference does it make whether the powers that be are involved in resourcing political campaigns openly or under the table – the outcome is the same. And, since both major parties are firmly in the pockets of the corporations, the outcome remains the same regardless of who wins any given election. But again, in the war of ideas – assuming it isn't already over and done with – it's appearances, and propaganda, that count, not the reality.

But that's not even the most interesting aspect of this controversy. That would be the open challenge delivered by President Obama to a captive audience of Supreme Court justices during his State of the Union address, in which he said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, (the court) reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Now, to begin with, when a politician uses the phrase “with all due deference” what he is typically saying is that the person, or people, in question are not due any deference at all. And this would certainly be true of the recent history of the relations between the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court – and I don't care which major party you're talking about. Contrary to the outdated notion that the Executive, or Congress, proposes, and the Supreme Court disposes, recent history has provided one example after another of the other two branches of government basically ignoring the Supreme Court – in spirit for certain, and often in letter as well. The Court hands down a decision having to do with affirmative action, say – and what happens? Is there a flurry of corrective action to declare null and void any law, or regulation, or policy, designed to implement affirmative action? Heck no, they simply ignore it and go on their merry, politically-correct way. I suppose that the greatest example of push-back to date has been FDR's “court packing” attempt... but presidents of a more recent vintage have not done much better. Clinton was notorious for, basically, ignoring Court decisions and encouraging his minions to do the same – the attitude being, to paraphrase Joseph Stalin, “how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?” And it's perfectly true, of course – the supremacy of the Supreme Court is only sustained as long as there is a sense of honor (and deference) among those charged with writing, and enforcing, laws, and that sense of honor has been noticeably missing of late.

Having said that, however, it is still a bit startling to see a president, in the most public of all public forums, getting totally up in the face of the Court while they sit there like mummified Buddhist monks (with the exception of Sam Alito, who apparently couldn't contain himself – but I'm sure he's been severely reprimanded for his expression of skepticism). To say, in so many words, “we don't care what you say, we're going to do it our way”... well, at least now it's out in the open. Which means that, for all intents and purposes the Supreme Court is now an irrelevant and vestigial antique, not unlike Britain's House of Lords. They can sit in judgment all they like, but if they can be ignored with impunity what difference does it make? Might as well make the Supreme Court building into a high-end food court for the convenience of Congressmen who are tired of the navy bean soup in the Senate cafeteria.

But in another sense this sorry situation is largely the Court's fault. They have had, over the years, ample opportunities to defend the Constitution against the inroads of socialists, collectivists, and totalitarians from all across the political spectrum, and have almost invariably failed in that duty. The very fact that, as Joseph Sobran has noted, “anything called a 'program' is unconstitutional” -- and that the vast majority of government agencies likewise have no constitutional basis – reflects a sorry tale of years of neglect on the part of those who should have been the last line of defense. Making the most of the allegedly “ambiguous” parts of the Constitution, and ignoring the parts that are as plain as day, has contributed to the situation as well (think “penumbras” and so on). “Providing for the general welfare” and the commerce clause have been elevated to virtual fetishes, while the Tenth Amendment has been set on the shelf like a dusty World's Fair souvenir. All in the interests of, I suppose, keeping peace in the family... and also political correctness, even though the Court is supposedly the least subject to political pressure of any assembled body in the nation – or so it was intended to be. So after years – decades – of failure in this regard, they can hardly object when a president reads them the riot act. All they can do it sit there in their stoic black robes and sweat it out, waiting for the proceedings to be over with so they can retreat to their Greek temple across 1st Street and go back to pretending they still have some power.

Ah yes, those carefree days of my youth when, thoroughly indoctrinated by my social studies teachers, I still believed that “separation of powers” was a reality. In fact, I even gave a speech on the subject, for the American Legion oratorical contest. (I didn't win, because my presentation was too dry and academic compared to the histrionics of the other speakers. They probably still vote Republican.) But I'm afraid the reality has been somewhat different, and more depressing, than all that. When it comes to waging war, for example, Congress can pretend to offer “advice and consent” but the fact remains that an American president can send any number of troops to any foreign country any time he (or she) pleases, and no one can stop him (or her) (just steeling myself for Hillary's eventual victory). And if Congress should dare pass a law contrary to the wishes of the president, why, there is the ever-popular executive order... or, at worst, a “signing statement” that basically says “I'm going to ignore this law... and, by the way, how many divisions does Congress have?” Now, I suppose the Supreme Court can, on occasion, thwart the wishes of Congress... but they will just turn around, as in this case, and blanket the landscape with such a multitude of new laws amounting to the same thing that the Court will eventually wave the white flag of surrender. (You don't like racial quotas? Well, then we'll just call it affirmative action. And if you don't like that we'll call it something else. We'll never run out of new names for the same old thing.)

Another thing that is oft forgotten in all of this is that the Supreme Court cannot decide on the Constitutional merits of anything unless someone brings a case before it – and this, as we know, is a long, drawn-out process that can take years (unless the case has to do with who the next president will be, and then it's handled with lightning speed). The justices may sit around wishing and hoping that a given question, or issue, will be presented for their consideration... but they cannot originate cases. All they can do is take what bubbles up from the provinces and choose to either hear it or not... and if they choose to hear it, the tattered rag that is all that's left of the Constitution is barely enough to wipe their glasses with. Not that there aren't some Constitutionalists on the Court, but they are vastly outnumbered by “penumbrists” and “general welfare-ists”, and so on, who would have to have a Road to Damascus experience in order to become born-again believers in, and defenders of, the Constitution.

Then there is the perennial dead hand of “settled law”, and the typical justice would consider himself (or herself) a radical bomb-thrower if he or she handed down a verdict contrary to any prior decision going back to the days of John Jay. After all, weren't those men and women every bit as intelligent as we are... and didn't they have the interests of the country and its citizenry in mind every bit as much as we do? Never mind the fact that many of the justices over the years have been nothing more than political hacks and empty suits who happen to have a law degree. They are, after all, appointed by presidents – and what president wants to set up a healthy body of opposition to his ambitions? None that I know of. So the Court tends to wind up being a sheltered workshop for the malleable... not that, again, there aren't some occasional exceptions (the result of some oversight by a president, I'm sure).

So yes, the Court has brought its troubles on itself, to some degree – mostly through neglect and the desire to “go along to get along” (though what the sanctions would be for not doing so escape me). But a civilized republic would respect its supreme court and make up for its ultimate lack of power by way of deference and obedience... the way civilized people respect their physically frail elders. So part of the problem is also the total lack of respect of wisdom which has come to dominate public life. How many times of late has a president, or governor, been characterized as “youthful”, as opposed to “wise”? Solomon himself would wander the streets of Washington for years wondering where all the wisdom went (and why the citizenry allowed it to happen). Well, he might luck out and read some opinions by Antonin Scalia, but other than that...

Well, I don't imagine that Obama, with his State of the Union challenge, struck the final blow. Either it has already been struck, or it has yet to be. But we now know, at least, where he stands on the matter, and we see that he sees no problem with his position. And thus, the slouch towards totalitarianism continues...

The Carterization of Obama Redux

Herewith, a "reprint" of a post from way back in June 2008. Obama at that point -- months before the election -- was already showing signs of being another sheep ready for the shearing, in the Carter tradition -- but a black sheep this time, not the cotton-hued variety represented by "Jimmeh". Now, at long last, many other voices besides mine have joined the chorus, warning (or promising, as the case may be) that Obama is on an unmistakable trajectory towards Carterdom. The evidence is all too clear, and it makes my post... well, with all due modesty... prescient. So read, and be afraid. Or maybe not. After all, a failed liberal presidency should be good news for conservatives, as Rush Limbaugh unsuccessfully tried to point out. It's just that in their failures, liberals tend to drag a lot of people who make an honest living down with them, the way a harpooned whale would. And yet, if one believes in liberty, or even karma, or both, the ongoing descent into chaos, as inconvenient as it may be at times, at least serves as a kind of vindication.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

The Carterization of Obama

He was elected primarily as a reaction to a previous regime that was considered hopelessly corrupt, if not actually criminal. His level of experience and his aptitude for the job were widely questioned. But he was an honest man... a good man... a man of principal. He was intelligent. He was not a political "insider". He had "values", he was sincere, he stood for change. But when he became president, he brought in, like ships spreading the plague, an army of low-grade political hacks, frauds, and schemers, and as a result his presidency became a total disaster area on all fronts. In addition, his idealism tended to get in the way of clear, level-headed, realistic thinking when it came to domestic and foreign policy questions.

This is the conventional wisdom -- or one version of it -- regarding Jimmy Carter. Now, why am I starting to get the exact same "vibe" from Obama and his campaign, and his many hangers-on... and the new hangers-on he will undoubtedly accumulate between now and election day, all of whom will follow him to Washington (in the event he wins), each with his or her own agenda which has very little to do with the welfare of the country?

The problem with idealists down through history is that they are too easily exploited. Their idealism tends to blind them to the perfidy all around them, and the closer it is the more blinded they are. Unlike the cold, realistic cynic who knows how the game is played because they are masters at it themselves -- a person like Hillary Clinton, for example -- these people have way too much faith in humanity, particularly in other politicians. They are easily duped, easily flattered (because they know how good and pure they are, after all), and easily kept in the dark about what is really going on. This is not the same thing as the Bush II model, in which a dull-witted, clueless blockhead is set on high to be used as a whipping boy and scapegoat for all sorts of treacherous and treasonous activities. No, this is about a person who might really have merit... who might "deserve" the level of power the presidency entails, but who -- because no one can do the job alone -- inevitably has to call on friends and acquaintances, most of whom are totally uninterested in ideals or ideas, for help. The outcome in cases like this is usually farcical and depressing, and creates a "never again" movement while enshrining the president in question as "the worst ever" -- at least until the next one comes along.

I have a definite impression that the Carter model is already being reworked and prepared for implementation in January. Do I claim that it is any worse -- in operation or in outcome -- than the Neocon model that John McCain represents (except with the president really in charge this time)? Not at all. Just that no one should be surprised when it kicks in and we are once more treated to four years of Carterism.

Twilight of the Kennedys

People say there is no good news these days. But I beg to differ! It seems that, sometime this year, we will come to a milestone – namely “Washington without a Kennedy in political office for the first time in more than 60 years.” This is on the occasion of Patrick Kennedy's announcement that he will not seek re-election. I can hardly wait to breathe the clear, crisp air of Washington, DC without the oppressive foetor of the Kennedy myth hanging over it. I cannot imagine America without its myths, but it's easy to imagine America without the myth of “Camelot”. If e'er idols had feet of clay, it was in The Brothers Kennedy, who dominated the nation's capital in one way or the other for, as the article says, 60 years. Of course, the master plan – shown in unabashed detail in an early propaganda piece (which I have a copy of, and I'm sure it's a collector's item) – was for JFK to serve out two terms, followed by two terms for Bobby and two for Teddy... at which point the next generation would have been ready to take over, and we would have had the longest-running royal family since the Plantagenets. But it was not meant to be... because cooler heads prevailed – aided, I'm certain, by a good dose of anti-Catholicism -- ironically, I might add, since I have always considered the Kennedys to have been very bad Catholics, and one of my gripes with the Knights of Columbus -- even though I'm a member -- is that they continue to idolize JFK. So the Kennedys were dethroned, and denied any further opportunities. In the case of JFK and Bobby, this can be attributed to a handful of bullets as the primary cause, but in Teddy's case it was more a matter of multiple and blatant character flaws. And yet this did not keep the people of Massachusetts from re-electing him, generation after generation – but, as I've commented before, the spectacle of American Catholics consistently voting for anti-Catholic (in action if not in name) politicians is a great mystery.

But what, precisely, are my objections to the Kennedys? Am I a “Kennedy hater”? I don't think it's quite that simple. I understand their pretenses to being “America's royalty”, because, after all, people – and a nation – need royalty of some sort; this has been proven time and time again. In other words, someone had to do it, so why not them? What would you prefer, the Bushes? Please. The most royalty-bound nations on earth in the 20th Century were, in fact, communist – regicides in theory, but enamored of royalty, and even hereditary rule (as shown by the Kims in North Korea and the Castros in Cuba). World War II in Europe was, basically, fought among 3 kings – FDR, Hitler, and Stalin... with a couple of dukes (Churchill and Mussolini) thrown in for good measure. The “real” royalty had, basically, nothing to do with it – although Hirohito apparently had a role to play on the Pacific front. So the seeking after emperors, kings, and rulers is a natural human trait, and one that we are unlikely to evolve out of very soon. The question is not “shall we have kings?” but what our criteria should be for deeming a person worthy of the crown. In sub-Saharan Africa, it's generally the biggest, meanest, and most vicious SOB around. In the Arab world, it's whoever promises to do the most damage to Israel... and in Israel, it's whoever promises to do the most damage to the Arabs. And so on. So no, the mere designation of the Kennedys as “American royalty” is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for reproach.

Well then, how about the fact that, in some ways, they really aren't snobs at all, despite their legendary wealth (most, if not all, of which was ill-gotten anyway)? I mean, OK, they do live in a “compound” and spend a lot of time sailing, but in the old days they spent at least as much time playing touch football and throwing each other into swimming pools. No one would ever accuse them of being intellectual, or even particularly cultured; they're basically a bunch of jocks (not unlike the British royals, for that matter). And they seem like the sort who would be perfectly comfortable sitting at a bar with ordinary folks – or tending that same bar, for that matter.

Well then, what about their teeth, which are twice the size of anyone else's? Or their wives, who all have the same hairdos and the same pointed chins and stringy necks? Or those impossible accents, that no one else in Massachusetts seems to have? Hey, you'll never catch me “dissing” people just because of their DNA; that's really not at all fair.

Is it the fact that they seem, to all appearances, to be towering hypocrites – living on top of the heap while seeing to it that everyone else has to live in a liberal dystopia? Well yes, that's part of it, for certain, along with the notion that they know better than you do what should be done with your money. Certainly a “Kennedy world”, if we lived in it today, would consist mainly of a controlling elite (with all of the glamor, energy, teeth, etc. of Camelot) and a bunch of happy peasants and laborers. Kind of like what we have now, in fact, but with a more human face. Maybe. But even so, there are liberals leaning against every lamppost in Washington, DC and yet they don't have the power to offend that the Kennedys always seemed to have. I think it's because they were, and are, not only totally convinced of their own superiority, but always tried to combine this with “the common touch”. That, to my way of thinking, only aggravates the offense. I say that if you're going to be an elite snob, at least act like one – that way you can be one of those people that people love to hate, like the villains in the old “Perils of Pauline” films – you know, the guys with the top hats and the thin, curly mustaches. Those were villains worthy of the name. The Kennedy type is more like the beefy, red-faced guy who slaps you on the back in the bar, then leaves before you find out your wallet is missing. He's the “good guy” who leaves a trail of destruction in his wake... the guy who, ultimately, wants you to be part of his world, but as a servant or facilitator, not an equal. And he expects to be thanked, and esteemed, more and more as time goes on, no matter what the record shows. He is, in a way, the prototype alcoholic – not necessarily in the literal sense, but in the transactional sense. He is always there, in your face, asking for another chance to do good -- which means, do good unto others but not unto you. He's the guy we can hardly imagine living without... but when he finally leaves, we heave a great sigh of relief. So if you hear a sigh of this sort emanating out of Washington later this year, that may be the reason.