Suicide is Painless

Stephen Cox, editor of Liberty, notes, in the August issue, that President Obama acts “as if the BP executives didn't care whether they ruined their own company”. And he observes, correctly, that “people in business care whether they lose a fortune or not”. And this is true, as long as you deem that fortune to be the personal fortune of the businessmen, and not the firms they work for. Because it has gotten to the point where executives, indeed, don't care whether they ruin their own companies; we have seen evidence of this for years, extending way back before the current economic crisis. And one of the main reasons for this – aside from nearly universal moral degeneracy on the part of captains of industry – is that “big business” is no longer a matter of ownership, but of “management”. I.e., the old, so-called “robber baron” model featured men who were founders, owners, and executives rolled into one. Hence, they had not only a serious financial interest in the fortunes of the firm but a great amount of pride in its history, performance, and prospects. No one named Smith who founded, owns, and operates a company called Smith & Co. is going to lightly see it go down the drain due to mismanagement, competition, or government harassment. But how many of the old, venerable firms these days are still run by the founders – or the descendants thereof? Most of them are run by mercenaries, pirates, and looters -- warlords who have only one thing in mind – squeeze the most you can out of the firm and its stockholders, then bail. And the amazing thing is, this behavior is not only no longer shocking or even surprising; it's expected. No one expects a business executive to have any loyalty to the firm or anything else but his own portfolio – and you'll notice than even when stockholders suffer, executive portfolios not only remain intact but continue to grow. That's the way it's been set up – and the amazing thing is that stockholders seldom, if ever, object... and stockbrokers continue to recommend the stock in that firm, and mutual funds continue to include it in their own portfolios. In other words, rampant corruption – more of the moral than the legal sort – is expected and rewarded, and the system that reinforces it is further strengthened every time an executive ruins a company and gets away with it.

So in that sense, Obama is right about the BP executives. They will reap their rewards no matter what happens to BP – or the Gulf of Mexico, or the people who depend on it for a living. The golden parachutes have already been deployed and the guilty parties are on a slow, pleasant glide to their next position, ready to do the same thing all over again. And BP is just a type of what has happened in this country for decades now, and especially in the aftermath of the “meltdown”. Do you see any of the guilty parties in jail? Or even mildly inconvenienced? No – like those politicians whom we can never seem to get rid of... like the proverbial bad pennies... they always reappear in a new position of power, ready to reprise their successful acts of pillage and rapine. And this, I submit, is one of many measures of the overall decadence of our society; we are much better at rewarding, and celebrating, villains than heroes. In politics, for example, who had held onto superstar status ever since his administration came to a blessed close? Bill Clinton! He probably has more groupies now than he did when he was in the White House. Even in professional sports, where ethical standards are way higher than in politics, there is still a certain amount of reverence and respect for the “bad boys”. We have always had a grudging sort of respect for guys who “got away with it” -- up to and including murder. I guess this is an example of American individualism in a degenerate, distorted form; the losers and non-achievers have to identify with someone, and if there are no heroes available, they'll identify with criminals. It's not unlike the old saying, “There's no such thing as bad publicity.” There is a certain zest -- a certain glamor -- connected with being an outlaw, a sociopath, a psychopath. Every nerdy accountant secretly wants to join a biker gang. Even guys in jail can remain celebrities -- the feeling being, it might have been worth it, considering how "large" the guy lived until he got caught.

Cox goes on to contend that President Obama alleged “that BP and the banks and Wall Street and the big corporations – all of them – want to enrich themselves, by what? By fatally damaging themselves.” And again, we can solve this apparent contradiction by identifying the first “themselves” with the executives, and the second with the companies. And it does sound extreme to say that, if a business executive sees that the shortest path to his own personal enrichment is to loot and bankrupt the company he is charged with managing, he will do so – except that we've seen conclusive evidence of this time and time again. But, in a sense, this mindset is not confined to business – it's also standard procedure in government. It's well known that the best way to get a budget increase is to fail; this has become the main strategy for the public schools, for example. So one can hardly be surprised when people in many economic sectors come to see failure as the surest road to success – their own, that is. And the beauty of becoming a beneficiary of the Culture of Failure is that one never has to make an accounting of one's actions, or pay back any of one's gains... because it all ultimately comes from the hapless taxpayers, who have precisely zero power to change the system. So the government rewards its own failures, and those of big business... and the citizens pay the bill. It's probably the neatest, most air-tight system ever devised. But it does depend, let's admit, on the “fear factor” -- the process of intimidating people to the extent that no one ever wants to speak up, or protest, or rock the boat. And this is not to say that a few people don't... but the government's media servants quickly declare them beyond the pale, and “nut cases”, "wing nuts", “haters”, “racists/sexists/homophobes”... you know, the usual rap sheet on the ordinary citizen. (Look at how the "tea partiers" have been portrayed as being little better than mother-rapers and father-killers.)

Then on another level, the vast majority of these “failed” firms nonetheless stay in business! Not only are they considered “too big to fail” (because they were designed that way), they actually wind up, in many cases, prospering – because their balance sheets now include a vast infusion of wealth from the citizenry (AKA "bailouts"). So failure is turned into success in short order. And firms that succeed legitimately – in the marketplace, with free and open competition, and subject to supply and demand... well, they are tolerated by the government in most cases, but they certainly do not merit any special consideration, any more than a government agency would if it were successful... although I have yet to see or hear of an example of the latter. So our entire economic system has been turned on its head, basically – failure is the new success, and real success is... held in suspicion, if not downright contempt. For who gets taxed, in many cases out of business? Small and medium sized firms that obey the rules, provide goods and services that people really want, and don't go begging to government every other week. And who gets subsidized? Places that, on the free market, would have (and should have) gone out of business years or decades ago. So we see that, in the long run, the economy is fated to be made up solely of failures (by traditional criteria) – which means that it will come more and more to resemble the government, which is, almost by definition, made up solely of failed programs and agencies. And as true success is more and more punished and persecuted, the ambitious and ethical (and yes, one can be both) people will, literally, take their business elsewhere – as they have already begun to do. (“Galt's Gulch” is more likely to be in Costa Rica than in the mountains of Colorado.)

And I also submit that this trend is unstoppable – not only because there is a total collusion between government and business, but because no one with any power wants to stop it. In fact, those in power are profiting handsomely from the situation. The liberals are pleased as punch to see business become a vassal of the state – although the opposite is more likely. Conservatives are in total disarray because they want to be on the side of “free enterprise”, but most of the practitioners thereof (or so it is claimed) really want nothing less. The paleocons would like to see a return to the day when there was a wall of separation between business and state... but for that, you'd have to go back to at least the pre-Civil War era. And the libertarians would like to see unfettered business but severely fettered government – which is a fine idea, except that the two, seemingly, cannot coexist – at least not in this society at this time. Powerful business interests will naturally tend to rise up and take over the government, as they have – simply because it's, well, good business. It would not seriously matter what form of government we had – if it was seen as “weak” it would sooner or later fall to the power of business and financial interests. And this is because they don't see the value in any sort of separation; in fact, they see it as a threat to their well-being and prosperity. After all, look at what happened to large firms in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution – they were taken over by the workers and the commissars. Surely we can't have that! And the best way to prevent it is to not only dominate the government but to also dominate the media and as much of the political landscape as possible. Hence you have – shazam! -- the political and economic landscape of today. No matter what Obama says or thinks, the government, and his administration, are securely in the hands of the financial powers, and they are going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

And there is another angle to all of this that we must keep in mind, which is that the U.S. is not “an island, entire of itself”. When you move up the ladder of the financial powers in question, you eventually get to the point where they are no longer confined to the U.S. In fact, you get to the point where they are no longer in the U.S. at all. So Obama is not only under the thumb of the home-grown financial powers, he's also, or mainly, under the thumb of the international financial power, AKA the “globalists”. And this is just fine with them... but it should worry the American citizenry even more than the spectre of domination by old-time robber-baron types. (The Rockefellers were Americans, at least!) But now we have a cabal that includes not only the upper strata in this country, but the same (or even more) upper strata in Europe, and the Near East, and, for all I know, Russia and China. So the Culture of Failure now extends even unto, for example, the American economy as a whole... the dollar... the American (i.e. Constitutional) political system, and so on. And does the international financial power consider the U.S. “too big to fail”? Well, we're certainly not too big to be scared shitless by a – by-and-large bogus -- “financial crisis”... and we're not too big to have a “Great Recession”. The question that remains, however, is – are we too big to be allowed to simply collapse, and get plowed under? Would the liquidation of the American economy benefit the Regime? Because if it would, it will happen -- sooner or later. Would it, in other words, benefit the global financial power more than if we remained more or less intact (if badly bruised)? I'm afraid that the only way we're going to get a definitive answer to this one is to wait and see. If we fail, it means we were allowed to fail (and, most likely, intended to fail); if we remain in a kind of semi-monde of recession, unemployment, high taxation, expanding government, eroding liberties, etc., it means that this is considered (for the time being at least) to be of most benefit to the Regime. But it will certainly have nothing to do with the true interests of the American people.

It's a Wacky World

Herewith, a sprinkling of headlines, quotes, and other tidbits from the last week or so, and a probing analysis of the deep significance of each (if any):

1. A young woman from the Pittsburgh area is facing charges of “attempted homicide, conspiracy and criminal solicitation” for plotting with her boyfriend to kill her mother so they could run away together. (What ever happened to good old-fashioned elopement? Not exciting enough, I guess.) But! Not only is she out on bond, but is leaving for college in California in a few weeks, “where she intends to study opera.” And the boyfriend? He's still in the clink. Well... one thing's for sure, she won't have any trouble empathizing with opera characters; this could be a brand-new stage in the evolution of method acting (and singing), in fact.

2. When's the last time you saw, to say nothing of used, a dollar coin? Yeah, that's what I figured. The last time I got any of those damn things I realized, before long, that I had turned around and spent them as quarters – and of course the cashiers in question had no objection. So that's the point at which I swore off, and I suspect a lot of people have the same story. I mean... what sort of genius does it take to come up with two coins of the same size and color, one of which is worth 4 times as much as the other? Do you smell a plot here to relieve the hapless citizen of even more of his hard-earned cash? Well, I sure do. But the point is, due to massive consumer resistance to the dollar coin, the feds are having to store them up by the billion (while they continue to mint even more, by the way) – and they are running out of room. Now, what I think they ought to do is set up a bunch of “Scrooge McDuck Money Bins”, like in the old Disney comics – big cubical structures full of these coins, with a diving board from which one can do half-gainers into the lucre. These could be anchors for theme parks, in fact, or located at the main crossover point in a suburban mall. I'm sure the price of admission would more than cover the storage costs... and best of all, the ticket booths could have a rule that any change must be made in dollar coins instead of bills.

3. And speaking of coins, the World's Fair of Money was recently held in Boston, featuring exhibits of many rare forms of currency, coinage, and securities. An article on the fair and all the collectors and dealers in attendance referred to “the surprising resilience of the coin industry”. But what's so surprising about it? Coins are, after all, real money... which is more than you can say of anything printed on paper, especially in these times. Frankly, it's amazing that people are still willing to deal in paper (currency, securities, notes, etc.) at all, considering what a bum deal it has turned out to be... but as someone once said (kind of), a fool and his coins are soon parted, and the hypnotic effect of paper continues to be the basis for massive exploitation of the unwary. Plus, most "money" these days isn't even paper; it's electrons, which represent paper, which represents... nothing.

4. And speaking of cash, some of the more prosperous citizens in China have finally revived the age-old custom (in non-communist countries) of hiding income from the government. I mean really, literally hiding it -- not just in tax shelters or offshore accounts. Oh, the many discontents of capitalism! Who knew that they would be impinging on China so soon after the Cultural Revolution?

5. And, speaking of not “walking the talk”, the ever-tolerant, laid-back French have taken time off from their frenetic national debate about Moslem women's clothing in order to “dismantle” (I guess that means “level”) more than 40 illegal Gypsy camps throughout the country. This is in preparation for sending the camp residents back to Bulgaria and Romania “on chartered flights” (probably so any pockets they pick will be their own). It's amazing how France has started revealing its true colors again, after such a long period of terrorizing the rest of the world with its cultural superiority, amorality, and savoir faire. I've always thought this whole “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” thing was a fraud anyway – as the Reign of Terror so conclusively demonstrated. But the French have still been allowed to get away with the myth all these years. Now they are running headlong into Gypsies and burqas, and I find it highly amusing.

6. Headline: “Growth engine for U.S. sought.” This reflects a whole lot of head-scratching on the part of the geniuses in the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve as to how to “stimulate” the economy, which is starting to act like an old horse that's just been prodded and goaded too many times, and is about ready for the glue factory. Well... there have been a few people out there who had some ideas on this matter, and maybe it's time to consult with them. Like for example, how about eliminating confiscatory taxes – especially the cruel and petty kind that take money away from even the most modest “saver” -- but also “death taxes” and taxes that are simply too high to have any moral justification, no matter how rich the people being taxed are. That's one thing. Then, how about drastically reducing the regulatory burden, which impacts small and medium businesses much more than large ones – for reasons I've discussed previously. And how about getting rid of union monopolies? Not unions, just their government-granted monopolies. And how about trying to come up with some semblance of trade parity with other countries? And how about a strong currency that's actually backed by something? Before anyone worries too much about a “growth engine”, I think these things should be given a try. My suspicion is that if even one or two of these things were put in place, that would be all the “growth engine” we need.

7. A commentator notes that “the mounting evidence of suicides, drinking and drug abuse within the armed forces is a sign of low morale and often a lead indicator of despair and eventual political defeat.” Didn't I just post something about the devastating effect of the absurdity and hopelessness of our military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan on troop morale? I'm glad to see the idea is catching on... Plus, I like the part about "political defeat"; if only it referred to every last national leader who sends our armed forces on wild (and mortally dangerous) goose chases overseas.

8. “People tend to behave more recklessly when their sense of safety is increased.” I don't recall what this quote referred to (I think it was about traffic control), but it could very readily have been in reference to the banks and other financial institutions and their key role in setting off the recession. There's nothing like guaranteed bail-outs from the government to lend one a sense of safety... and nothing like that sense of safety to lead to the recklessness we have all seen predominate in the thinking and activities of the financial sector.

9. In searching for a pair of fugitives – an escapee from an Arizona prison and his female accomplice -- “marshals are asking travelers... to watch out for the couple, who may have dyed their hair and otherwise changed their appearance.” In other words, they want people to watch out for two people who don't look anything like the two fugitives. Think about that one for a moment...

10. And by the way, the fugitive's female accomplice is described as “his cousin and fiancee.” You might be a redneck if...

A Mosqued Ball

Well, it sure wasn't the result of a bunch of “focus groups”... or polls... or huddles with political advisors, election committees, re-election committees, or platform committees. And it doesn't seem like the result of any sort of “coordination” with Israel or its American lobby. And that's more than you can say about anything Bill Clinton ever did. No, Obama's stand – OK, “stance” -- on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” most definitely flies in the face of... just about everything and everyone. Except “tolerance” -- taken to what some would consider an extreme (but which the ACLU would have been willing to go to court for – at least in the old days).

And yet, the question has to be asked, as with everything else about Obama, “What's his game?” Because nothing – absolutely nothing – is done by him or his administration without painstakingly considering all political ramifications – present and future (or, at least as far into the future as the next election, which is coming up in less than 3 months). Now, given that their idea of “political ramifications” is predicated on, basically, ignoring everyone in “flyover country” and concentrating on the coasts and the urban elite... and based on their worldview that the main thing wrong with this country is that it's not yet collectivized enough, and the government is not yet big enough... it still took a bit of chutzpah to stand up and say that, to quote the article, “opposing the project is at odds with American values.” And – direct quote -- “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.” Which, of course, goes directly against the opinions of all Christian fundamentalists and, I suspect, many Jews. See, when it comes to American history and American tolerance, just being a monotheist is not enough. They have a different holy book! So that right there is grounds for deep suspicion... although the Mormons seem to have passed that hurdle without much difficulty. (But they have an entire state all to themselves... which brings up the possibility of an all-Moslem state in the U.S. Think the American public would go for that? We may get a chance to find out.)

So right away you have to expect a revival of the theory that Obama is a “crypto-Muslim”... although I suspect “crypto-non-Christian” is closer to the truth. (And don't be confused by his erstwhile church attendance; those urban “black churches” are more like political clubs than what the rest of us have come to expect. Think: liberal Episcopalians with toe-tappin' music, and you've about got it.) And to further aggravate the matter, he made the statement “at a White House dinner [iftar} marking the holy month of Ramadan”. Yikes! When's the last time the White House hosted an Islamic celebration? I think “never” might be the correct answer. I mean, we're used to all sorts of (Protestant) Christian and Jewish goings-on in the White House... but this is beyond the pale. And of course, there were – as there had to be -- “other religious leaders” present, including, I'm sure, at least one rabbi, who is probably right now in intensive care at George Washington University Hospital.

Another quote from Obama: “Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” Well – that commitment has been “shaken” plenty of times throughout American history; anyone remember the anti-Catholic riots in the pre-Civil War era? And the persecution of the Mormons (and I don't think it was just about polygamy)? Plus, the problem is that we are now engaged in the first bonafide religious war in our history – and don't give me that “but it's just against the violent radicals” business. Even if that were true, the Moslem world does not buy it – as far as they're concerned we're engaged in a new crusade... a war against all of Islam and all of its adherents. And this may, in fact, provide a clue as to what Obama is up to. We have, at this point, made enemies, or potential enemies, of the vast majority of all Moslems on earth – and that is a substantial number. “Foreign fighters” continue to pour into Iraq and Afghanistan to take up arms against our troops... and many Islamic countries are holding their breath, waiting to see where we'll strike next (Iran and Yemen being at the top of the list, according to most calculations). So what better time to throw the Moslems a bone than right now, and in connection with a controversy that has – say it with me – absolutely no bearing on national security, and which is highly unlikely to erode any of Obama's core support. Plus, not to forget, many American blacks (the core of the core) are either Moslems or Moslem sympathizers, so this could help keep them on the reservation as well. And as far as the fundamentalists are concerned, Obama didn't get a single vote from them in 2008 and is unlikely to want or need their votes in 2012. But this does leave, let's admit, “moderate Democrats” (i.e., mere socialists as opposed to communists) a bit in the lurch, since they depend more on that mysterious voting bloc called “independents” -- and some of those (again, in flyover country) might not take too kindly to this apparent appeasement of the Moslems. And then we have, last but far from least, the Jews – and they have been strangely silent on this issue from the start... and I refer to both American Jews and Israelis. They are one group that doesn't seem to care one way or the other about the “Ground Zero Mosque”, preferring to leave the heavy lifting to their Christian Zionist friends. It seems that they've chosen their battles wisely in this case... and that they're going to let Obama do, and say, whatever it takes to advance the larger agenda, without busting his chops. And this, to me, is a very important data point – because if the Jews don't mind, then they might as well be in favor, since they are never known to be neutral about anything. And if they did mind, they'd be raising a stink, just like the fundamentalists are doing. So what I'm saying is that not only are Obama's statements not “anti-Semitic” -- they're likely to be part of an overall strategy that has been thoroughly vetted by the Jewish community, the Israeli lobby, and Israel itself. Throw the Moslems a bone (a halal bone, of course) and defuse some of that anger, but stay the course, foreign policy-wise and militarily. It's really a masterpiece of triangulation if that's what's going on, and I'm willing to bet that it is.

Kowabunga!

I read a column the other day where the writer was racking his brain trying to come up with a thumbnail descriptor of the present era. And, of course, it had to be called "The Era of ..." or, better yet, "The Age of ...". Now, as you may be aware, up until recently -- i.e. up until the total annihilation of everyone's attention span -- "eras" or "ages" were, well, kind of substantial. I.e., they represented a good chunk of time. The Era of Good Feelings was good for eight years, for example. And the Middle Ages -- well, depending on who you ask, but it was good for 1000 years or so. Now that's an "age"! Compared to which, our "Gilded Age" is a mere passing fancy, and the "eras" defined by the 4-year terms of presidents (no matter how incompetent) are even more ephemeral. (The "Kennedy Era" was all of 34 months long.)

But with all of that in mind, I venture to nominate -- since there has to be an "age", no matter what -- the term "The Age of Irony" for our time. Now, as we all know – or should know -- “irony” has nothing to do with the things that account for most of the current uses of the term. Those are better described as “camp” or “put-ons”. To give an example: Wearing your mom's 1960's-era prom dress to a “rave” is not ironic. But choking to death on a vitamin pill -- that's ironic. See the difference? Irony is what happens when the very thing you want the least happens anyway, and as a direct result of all your efforts to keep it from happening. Mimes, for example, are masters of (non-verbal) irony. And this is why it's such an important concept in ancient Greek plays -- to, let's say, put your own agenda – your plans and ambitions – up against fate is just asking for trouble, and the way that trouble usually manifests itself is through self-defeating behavior. Now do you see why this term might apply to our time? Everything we try to do, or achieve – and this is represented primarily by laws and government “programs” -- turns out contrary to what we said, or thought, we wanted. It's more than “unintended consequences”, which can, in theory, be merely coincidental or the result of not taking all factors into account. No, this is where all attempts to achieve “A” lead directly, and inexorably, to “not A”. And of course, this provides all sorts of lessons about hubris, and humility, and so on – all of which are ignored by leaders and populace alike.

So, can you name one single, solitary government program that has not, in the long run, had an effect exactly the opposite of what was intended (according to the advertised intent, that is)? Or one law that doesn't backfire on a regular basis? Or one intractable problem that can't be traced directly to government meddling? It's getting to the point where, the minute a new “program” is unveiled, one can bet hard money on its not only failing, but having the opposite effect to the intended one. Minimum wage laws don't raise average wages, but do increase unemployment. Education “programs” turn out more ignoramuses with every passing day. "Fair labor laws" lead to union tyranny. Agricultural "price supports" help drive small farmers out of business. The jails are full of graduates from inner-city "youth programs". Banking regulations lead to bank failures. “Peace initiatives” lead to war. “Free elections” lead to tyranny. Vaccinations lead to an entire galaxy of incurable side effects. And so on. We are seeing, in many areas, not only diminishing returns on technology but actually negative returns – two steps back for every one forward. And it would be tempting to say there's some unwritten law behind all this... some form of what the ancients called “fate”. I don't know, quite frankly. All I know is that for every disease that's “eradicated”, two or three new ones come along to take its place... and for every improvement in “public health” we find out about a dozen or so more things that cause cancer. And on the political side, well... the more our leaders babble on about “freedom”, the less we have.

So overall, it seems that we have reached a kind of balance point in our time, where all the straining and exertion towards Utopia is being overmatched by... what? “Reality”, or “nature”, or “Mother Earth”, or what? How about “human nature”, and that old stand-by of the Church, “concupiscence”? Those are alive and well, although vehemently denied by all the “agents of change”. And is it really the intended destiny of the human race to build heaven on earth, and thus to deny the need and desire for the real thing? We are, according to the Church, all pilgrims and wanderers on this plain of tears... and while we are expected to make the best of it, and exercise good stewardship over the Creation, we are also expected to set limits on our ambitions, with all humility.

And now, after all that buildup, I present the tidbit that inspired it all... and I won't blame you for being a bit disappointed. But this really is too rich. OK... now, remember the American Indian Movement? Wounded Knee, Pine Ridge, Russell Means, Marlon Brando, and so on? That was back when American Indians... “Amerindians”... Native Americans... thievin' redskins (oh no, wait, that is totally wrong!)... were standing up and asserting themselves. Some of them even had the intestinal fortitude to say that the reservation system was a complete farce -- besides being revoltingly condescending and paternalistic. And of course they were right about that; “Indian reservations” have about as much validity in our time as the Jewish ghettos did prior to World War II. But, human nature being what it is, the folks with gumption got the hell off the reservations and the fat and lazy ones stuck around -- and yes, I know that's an oversimplificaton, but compare it to the situation in our "inner cities" and it's not that much different.

But guess what – somewhere along the line, all the steam got let out of Native American assertiveness, and they became pacified again. What happened? One word: casinos. This is the greatest weapon against the “red man” since smallpox-infested blankets and cheap whiskey. And it's amazing how the “Indian casinos” have actually caused a dramatic increase in the Native American population. People who didn't even know they were Indians, or hadn't thought about it for generations, have all of a sudden become born-again Native Americans, formed corporations, applied for status as a “tribe” with “tribal lands” (usually just enough for a casino and a parking lot – preferably not far from a large urban center), and become filthy rich. In other words, the Indians were bribed, co-opted, and bought off – and thus endeth the militancy and concern for “rights” and (dreaded word) "reparations". I mean, who needs “rights” when you own a tax-free casino full of suckers (mostly of the non-Indian type)? It's probably the best minority-placating scam in all of human history.

But wait! Here come da irony. The states – always on the lookout for a fast buck – took a gander at this Indian casino scam and said to themselves (except for Nevada and New Jersey, who had already gone down the road to perdition) “Gol-ee garsh, lookit' all the money them Injuns are making! We gotta get in on that action.” The result? Suddenly, states that had prohibited gambling for decades, due to their - ahem - high moral standards and concern for the public welfare, are all of a sudden – shazam! -- legalizing gambling, as long as it's the states that own the casinos... or, as long as the tax rate on the casino take is higher than the highest bracket in Sweden (over 100% at one point). But wait! Where does this leave the noble red man? Pretty P.O.'d, I would say. Here they had been (implicitly) promised a monopoly on gambling in perpetuity... and for a while there they enjoyed one... but now the states are moving in on their action. And what recourse do they have? The state giveth and the state taketh away. The Indian casinos were a brainstorm at the federal level... but the feds can't, or won't, prohibit state-by-state gambling, at least not at this point. So now the Indian casinos have to – gasp! -- compete for the gambling dollar, against the states, who can build casinos anywhere they want (not just on “tribal lands”). And guess who makes up the rules having to do with licensing casinos – the states! The amazing thing to me is that it took so long for the state governments to wake up on this one. But – all I can say is, look out for “blowback”. You take away a monopoly, you're going to make some people very angry... and I see, well, more Wounded Knees in the future if the government doesn't come up with another scam, and fast!

Good War, Bad War

The more I read, and think, about the Catholic Church's teaching on “just war”, the more I believe that this country – known for its high ideals – has seldom, if ever, fought a war that can be conclusively deemed as “just”. I have to admit, it took me a while to come around to this conclusion. Clearly, the “wars” (I call them “occupations”) in Iraq and Afghanistan do not meet the criteria – and the Church has said so in no uncertain terms. And no one's going to argue about Vietnam either – although, admittedly, an argument can be made that the Vietnam effort at least showed the communists how costly their expansionist ambitions were, which may have slowed them down a bit. But then we come to Korea – another battle against communism. Was it justified? I would not give one U.S. soldier for all the citizens of South Korea, quite frankly... but again, communism was rightly seen as a moral, or “existential” threat to Western democracies (and their Asian clones). So if America is internationalist in orientation, and obligated to play policeman to the world, then getting involved in Korea was obviously the right thing to do. If, on the other hand, the duty of American leadership, and its military, is primarily to the American people and not to the “world community”, then the Korean involvement was a terrible mistake – just like Vietnam.

Then we come to World War II, which very few people – saving Pat Buchanan -- are willing to argue was anything but a “good war”. After all, weren't we obligated to see to the utter defeat of Hitler and the Nazis... and to aid and abet the victory, on the eastern front, of Stalin and the Soviets? Well, um... But it wasn't only about Germany; there was also Japan, who seemed to think it was their right to dominate the Pacific, whereas any fool could see that it was our right. Well, um... See, the more you deconstruct the arguments the thinner and more lame they become. But actually, it's a disservice to separate World War II from World War I, which, if anything, was even more pointless. And if World War II was simply the “blowback” from a pointless war – namely World War I – then doesn't that render it pointless as well? How can something that was totally absurd give rise to something that had meaning?

Then, going back in time a bit farther, we have the Spanish-American War, which was just about the most trumped-up affair in American history, along with the Mexican War. OK then, how about the Civil War, which was “fought to free the slaves”? Well, of course, it was nothing of the sort – it was mostly fought in order to establish, once and for all, economic dominance of the North over the South. Freeing the slaves was, for Lincoln, no more than a political football, which he – let's admit – managed to kick through the goalposts with consummate skill.

Now, we've already mentioned the Mexican War, so what's left? Other than the revolution itself, that is. Only the War of 1812, and at least in that case one can say that we were invaded – for the first and last time! So was that our last “good” -- i.e., just – war? I would be willing to make the argument. And, I hasten to add, I am not a pacifist. If I see the Russkies (or the Chinese, or an army of social workers, whatever) coming over the hill toward my homestead, just hand me a gun, no problem. I think anyone who attacks America, or Americans, deserves to have their ass ground to fine power – despite any rationalizations they might manage to come up with. (The mistake we made in responding to 9-11 was that we fought back against the wrong people. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia. But that would have, you know, caused “problems”, unlike what we did do. Ahem.) You don't have to believe that this country is perfect in order to be willing to defend it – but, on the other hand, you also don't have to fall for just any cock-and-bull story told by a fat, lazy, corrupt politician as to what constitutes “national security”. Clearly, very little that we've actually done in terms of war has had anything directly to do with “national security”. I mean... let's take an extreme case. Let's say we didn't join up for World War II in Europe, and Germany had won. Would we have then “fought” the Cold War with Germany for 45 years? I tend to think not. I'll bet we could have come up with a gentleman's agreement with Adolf et al. -- except there would have been that awkwardness about the Jews. So OK, we didn't go that route. And we also didn't go the route of staying out of World War I, even though it was far from clear who was at fault and who was in the right. (Do you know there's a cause for sainthood of one of the leaders during the World War I era? Guess who – no, no one on “our” side. It's Emperor Karl I of Austria.)

So basically, one can argue until the cows come home about which of our wars were “just” or “necessary” -- and much of this is predicated on one's notion of America's “mission” in the world. Are we, in fact, fated to be the world's policeman? Is it our job to promote and protect “democracy” -- or any semblance thereof, even the most superficial and remote – at all costs? (And the other side of that coin is the obligation to fight to the death against “tyranny” -- which, for most people, includes any form of monarchy. So when do we invade England in order to get Queen Elizabeth II off the throne?) For if this is our mission, then any war/invasion/occupation can be justified, and there is, by definition, no such thing as an “unjust” or “unnecessary” war. Since we are the highest moral standard on earth (well, second to Israel I guess), we get to decide – and if we say a war is just, or necessary, then it is; case closed. And this is, in fact, the position nearly all of our presidents have taken over the years – not the least being Bush II and Obama. Yes, Obama! -- the peacemaker and peace prize winner. But he's following religiously in the footsteps of his supposedly despised, misguided,a dn war-mongering predecessor. And the amazing thing about the “America as cop” idea – which really got up to speed under Wilson, although there were precursors under Teddy Roosevelt – is that, as an idea, it is virtually indestructible, no matter how many times we fail at that mission. We're willing to literally go bankrupt and give up most of the benefits of democracy on the home front in order to spread it abroad. We're going to wind up like some senior citizen superhero in an “adult cartoon”, still proclaiming our divine right to go anywhere at any time and kick ass, even as we creep along with a walker, an IV, and a U-bag.

But here's what occurs to me. Even though one can define a spectrum of sorts based on how just, or unjust, our many and varied wars have been, one thing stands out in my own experience, which is that the Vietnam conflict is almost universally regarded as “bad” -- worse, in fact, than Iraq or Afghanistan. And this is most curious, because, as I said, one can argue that Vietnam was at least a way of raising the price of conquest so high that the communists were unwilling to do anything of quite that magnitude again. Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand, are examples of the wrong war being fought against the wrong people for the wrong reasons. There is, in short, no rational justification for our continued presence in those shitholes – and overwhelming justification for simply turning around and walking away, and leaving them to their own devices (which, ideally, would include them killing each other off in short order). And yet, Vietnam is “bad” -- in folklore, song, and story (especially film) – and Iraq and Afghanistan are strangely neutral. So why is this? One word – the draft. Vietnam was fought by guys who really, really did not want to be there... whereas Iraq and Afghanistan are at least being fought by volunteers... except when you run up against things like “stop loss”, the “volunteer” aspect starts to look a little thin. And here's another irony – returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are invariably welcomed home as heroes, whereas in the case of the Vietnam vets people turned the other way. And these were guys who didn't want to be there! They were victims! And yet they were treated like lepers when they got home – and this says something about how sick and demoralized our society was at that time – way sicker and more demoralized than it is now, in fact! I mean, the post-Vietnam era was, for those of us who remember, a case of societal and cultural depression – and no one exemplified it better than our president at the time, namely Jimmy Carter. This guy spent four years as, basically, a poster child for the Great American Hangover from Vietnam... and he did a damn fine job. Every time we started to snap out of it and feel good about ourselves again, all we had to do is look at his Puritan prune face and we'd go right back into a deep, black funk. Mission accomplished! I think Reagan was elected based solely on the votes of people who had barely avoided committing suicide.

See, the problem with Vietnam was... well, the draft was only the start. It was the beginning of the snowball, if you will. The draft got people thinking about just war -- but not in those terms. But still, that sort of thinking leads to skepticism about government... and sensitivity to corruption, and to the two-facedness of politicians... and to the absurdity of the Warfare State in general. Then you combine that with the hippie movement, free sex, drugs, etc. -- and you have a small-scale revolution on your hands, which is exactly what happened. By comparison, there are no “ancillary issues” connected to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts; they're wrong, but they don't necessarily indict an entire galaxy of other things as also being wrong. Plus, the casualty rate is lower. And the race factor is not there – or, at least, not considered important (volunteers again, remember?). Plus, it's not about communism, and let's admit, a lot of the Vietnam protesters were far more sympathetic with “the other side” than with ours (start with Jane Fonda and work down from there). Very few college and university professors and students these days are going to hold protests to demonstrate solidarity with Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or Islam in general; political correctness doesn't go that far. Plus, those people are monotheists! And we certainly can't have any of that nonsense. So we are fighting, in effect, a neutral, faceless enemy, whose only offense is that they're fighting us – and that's a... well, not really the worst thing in the world, after all. I mean, they could be “racists”, or “sexists”, or “homophobes”, and that would be really bad. (At least they don't eat pork products!) But as it is, they seem to be, well, patriots in a way... defending their homeland and their way of life, and all that. Not like those dirty Nazis, for sure! So there's a certain flabiness, if you will, to the antiwar movement in our time. It's about money... and about people getting killed, but, again, they are, after all, volunteers... but it's really not about principle. And this is what ultimately separates war protesters into two distinct groups – those who protest a given war for highly temporal and situational reasons (Vietnam), and those who protest any war that violates the principles of “just war”, which most of them do. Most of the people who objected to the Vietnam involvement, for example, had no problem at all with our bombing of Belgrade. And now that Iraq and Afghanistan are “liberals' wars” they have no problem with those either. “Conservatives”, on the other hand, never see a war they don't like, no matter who's involved or who suffers. (You'll notice, for example, that they are totally silent about the ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Near East, mostly as a result of our efforts or our support of Israel.) But their love of war has nothing to do with the just war principle -- it's more a matter of American exceptionalism, which is, as I said before, a conceptual choice... but, I believe, doomed to failure in the long run.

So, basically, it's all relative, and it's all about politics. There are principled pacifists out there, and a small remnant of people who refer back to the Church's teaching on “just war”. Everyone else is being blown about by the winds of politics, emotion, impulse, and sheer greed.

Comes the Dawn

A recent survey by the Chamber of Commerce showed that whereas 57% of Americans “support capitalism”, 70% “back free enterprise and free markets”. And, as usual, I'm intrigued by that mysterious 13% -- i.e. the people who are pro-free enterprise but against capitalism. Are they confused, or do they know something that other people don't? Now, granted that the 30% who like neither capitalism nor free enterprise are, undoubtedly, hard-core liberals... and those who like both are, in all probability, standard-model conservatives... again, who is in that 13% group?

But first, let's look at a quote from a Chamber of Commerce executive concerning the overall results: “We need to do a better job of explaining the economic system in the United States and how it is working.” He believes that there is “a misunderstanding of the capitalism.” Well... frankly, I think the American people at this point know a whole lot more about the economic system than they would care to... and as to “how it is working”, I think the answer for most people at this point would be “not!”

No, there's not a “misunderstanding of capitalism”; if anything, there is an increased understanding – and part of that understanding is that “capitalism” as practiced today, especially by the major corporations and financial conglomerates, has very little to do with “free enterprise” or “free markets”. Those qualities may still be apt descriptors of small and even medium-sized businesses... you know, the ones that actually provide goods and services that people understand and are willing to buy on the free market... and on a competitive basis, by the way. But I have yet to perceive what all those “investment banks” and other Wall Street outfits that exist just to churn money around have ever done for the ordinary American citizen – on the plus side, that is. How can they claim to be responding to “market forces” if no one understands what they do? So no, “misunderstanding” has nothing to do with it; if anything, the American public understands more about so-called capitalism than it ever has – and it doesn't like what it sees.

Of course, the few major corporations that are still concerned with their public image like to claim that, shucks, they're just like any other business... like the candy store on the corner, for example... but writ large. And that brings up an interesting question (aside from the blatant snow job that hopefully, few if any people will fall for), namely: Is there something about “big business” -- some emergent quality – that inevitably makes it turn away from good and start doing evil? Or is that just, let's say, the most “natural” course, given the fallibility of the people involved, but not at all inevitable? I mean, think about it – most of what we call “big businesses” started small. Look at Wal-Mart, for example. Or Microsoft. And yet, sooner or later, most of these gigantic multinational firms acquire the “evil” designation – as witness Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks... you know what I mean. There is always someone out there who is willing to pronounce one or more of these outfits “pure evil” -- and yet were they always so, but not large enough to do any serious damage, at least at the beginning?

One thing is for certain in our time: The larger any firm becomes, the more of its time, energy, and resources are spent on self-preservation to the detriment of plain old “customer service”. And this, in turn, is at least partly because, at the upper reaches, the competition is more keen, more fierce, and unrelenting; when you're talking about multi-billion-dollar contracts, for example, there's not much a business won't do to get to the head of the line and stay there. Another factor is that the sheer size of an organization tends to depersonalize its relations with its employees, who start to feel more and more like cogs in a machine. I don't believe, for example, that working conditions at the Postal Service are that much worse than they are anywhere else; from what I can observe they're actually better. And yet the term “going postal” has entered the language to represent an employee who goes berserk and starts spraying bullets in all directions. I think it's the sheer size of the organization, and the things that naturally occur because of that sheer size, that's largely at fault. (Still another argument for distributism, by the way.)

And of course there are many other things a large business has to do in order to stay that way – and these are based as much on the general moral corruption of society, especially as reflected by the government, as on any pre-existing “evil intent” on the part of top managers. Take, for example, the lucrative field of government contracting, which is characterized, at the top of the heap, by things like “no-bid contracts”, government-supported (or mandated, by law or regulation) monopolies, and ample opportunities for waste, fraud, and bribery. One would have to be a moral giant with nerves of steel to resist all of these temptations... and, sure enough, hardly anyone does. (And the few who do stay “small”, I would say. In fact, they probably go out of business before they get anywhere near "big".)

And there's another factor as well. Corporate CEOs these days are not like the innovators and owners of old; their interest in the business is strictly monetary, and has no emotional component. In other words, “loyalty” simply doesn't exist in those circles... which is why CEOs and other top officers behave more like mercenaries, raiders, or pirates than leaders who have an interest in the company's success (and reputation). How many times have we heard about a top executive bailing out, and soon afterwards the company goes bankrupt (or needs a “bailout” by the taxpayers)? There is no morality out there – only the seeking of short-term gains. “It takes a pillage”, you might say. And yet this situation surprises no one, and is considered perfectly acceptable – just the way things work. But I daresay the “robber barons” of old would be appalled. They at least had loyalty to the companies they founded – not just to themselves and their “portfolio”. But, with very few exceptions, corporate CEOs these days are hirelings – war lords, brought on board to make profits through any means necessary, or, failing that, to at least extract a fine reward for themselves and their cronies... then to move on to the next conquest.

Now, I'm not going to claim that all of these problems can be solved by enforcing smallness. Anti-monopoly legislation and regulation, while seemingly well-intended, has lent itself to shocking abuses over the years (plus, it's administered by bureaucrats, which is never a good thing). And admittedly, if one believes in free and open competition, one also has to admit that there are “economies of scale” -- that bigger companies can often provide the same goods and services for less. (See Wal-Mart again.) So it's a conflict. I don't think anyone out there, except for the most extreme distributist, wants to see an entire society full of nothing but corner candy stores (figuratively speaking). Can the small-town “Main Street” really be extrapolated to the entire country? I tend to doubt it. But, on the other hand, does every small town need to be put out of business by the Wal-Mart out on the bypass? Once the death star called “Wal-Mart” rolls in, you can forget about “Main Street” and small-town quaintness, friendliness, and personal service; from here on out it's a bunch of morons who no one knows, working for some rich guy eight or ten states away. The old-time Sears catalogs were more warm and fuzzy than the average Wal-Mart. And yet, it is, arguably, the result of millions and billions of free “supply and demand” choices by consumers. If “Main Street” was so great, why did we stop shopping there? “Oh, you know, price, selection, and so on. And there's a bank right in the store! And a fast-food place! And a hairdresser!” Et cetera. I've heard it a hundred times, and so have you. So OK, people got what they wanted (as expressed by their “consumer choices”)... Main Street disappeared... and Wal-Mart became Evil Incarnate. The mystery is that anyone wonders why.

A similar scenario could be told about Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks... with the added caveat that any “high-tech” firm owes a good portion of its existence and prosperity to government contracts. And that brings us back to why and how firms become evil – the implication being, if you're not willing to be evil, you can only get so far -- especially if you depend on the government for a good portion of your business. But then look at Google – very “high tech”, and yet its informal motto is “Don't be evil”. And as far as I know, they're managing to stick to it, more or less... i.e. they are not the blatant predators outfits like Microsoft are, for example. So there is a choice to be made, and nothing is inevitable – and yet the political and economic structure of our society does, in fact, constitute a moral hazard, in much the same way as the hyper-bloated government budget does. When confronted with so much money and potential power, there are very few strong enough to resist – and those who have fallen form their own society which, in turn, enforces the “rules” by which one gains admittance. And when they have the gall to identify what they are doing as “capitalism”, well... some people fall for it, and some don't. And it's those latter who should, by rights, form the core of a renewed society – one in which free enterprise and free markets thrive, but “capitalism” has been slain like the ravening beast that it is.

Stemming the Tide

It can't be that long ago -- can it? -- that the MSM were characterizing anyone who favored adult stem cell reserach over embryonic stem cell research as a conservative, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing "hater". It seems like that was the party line just a few months ago -- that all the hopes in the world (and of all the "poster children") resided with the variety of stem-cell research and therapy that destroys life, and there was no hope whatsoever in the other kind. But now comes the revelation that research with adult stem cells is "booming", and that "therapies (are) far ahead of those that use (the) embryonic variety". The secret is that "adult cells have been transplanted routinely for decades", and with great success across a wide spectrum of disease and injury. One might almost say that the medical profession has been acting subversively and in a very non-PC manner on this issue. And this is all to the good, since it indicates that, at least in this area (as opposed to climatology, say), science has not yet let itself become totally dominated by politics. It's also encouraging to see that, indeed, there really is much more hope in adult than in embryonic stem cells. Dare one speculate that the hand of Divine Providence is at work here?

Strangers in a Strange Land

Guess what country has decided to deport children born in that country to people from other countries? A leading politician said that "the new policy is intended to stem a flood of illegal aliens, whose children receive state-funded education and health care benefits", and to defend the national identity of the country in question. He also said, "We don't want to create an incentive for the flow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers." And note that, under the laws of that country, "the children were not automatically granted residency status" (to say nothing of citizenship).

So where is this hard-nosed place, where there is very little mercy shown toward the economically disadvantaged? Why, Israel, of course. Now, right away, someone is going to jump up and say, but that's different -- and offer up all the age-old "reasons" that Israel is unique in all of human history, and therefore deserves limitless tolerance and sacrifice (on the part of everyone else), etc. After all, didn't the leader in question, Benjamin Netanyahu, say that "there are Zionist considerations for ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel"?

And you know something? For once, I agree with Benny the Nat. I think _any_ nation, state, or country -- even the U.S. -- has the right to define what constitutes "identity" and any other form of legitimacy as the basis for residency and citizenship in that country. And after all, Israel is -- if any place on earth is -- "a nation of immigrants", just like us -- except that we've never felt the need to engage in any comparable defining of national identity. As far as we're concerned, if you're born on American soil, you're just as much an American as someone whose family has been here for 400 years -- which kind of makes you wonder how it makes those 400-year people feel. (Well, I am one -- or almost. And I know. It's kind of like checking into the Waldorf-Astoria, then walking around the block and finding out that the other side of the same building is a Red Roof Inn. With rates 1/10 of what you're paying.)

But here's my question. Since our foreign policy is entirely in the hands of Israel, why can't we go all the way and follow their example in this regard as well? I mean... if they can do no wrong, then what harm could it possibly do to enact the same policies on illegal aliens that they have? We could even ask their advice... maybe even get military assistance to defend our southwestern border. I mean, isn't it about time they gave something back for all of our sacrifices over the years?

World's Largest Pie To Be Served At Some Point

On the "watch list": "40 wealthy individuals and families" who have pledged "to give at least half their wealth to charity" -- in the newly-established tradition of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Apparently Buffett strong-armed, er, persuaded, a number of his fellow billionaires to make what he and Gates call the "giving pledge".

Now, the cynic might say, sure, they can "pledge" all they want, but what happens when it comes down to cases? Or, what happens if they die first; do their heirs honor the pledge, or do they sue the trustees and the estate, etc.?

Another type of cynic might say, sure, but won't most of that wealth go to support "foundations" which are thinly-disguised strategems to not only preserve accumulated wealth, but to add to it if possible? And there is certainly ample historical basis for this suspicion.

And someone who is aware of the history of various rich people's legacies will say, how do they know that whoever winds up running the trust, or foundation, or whatever, will spend the money as they would have wanted? The landscape is dotted with foundations begun by ultra-conservative individuals that are now dedicated to the aid and abetting of the most blatant forms of liberalism in politics, academia, art, and so forth. You might say that the only a way a rich person can dispose of his wealth as he sees fit is to really and truly dispose of it, while he's still alive -- no trusts, no foundations, no nothing. Just spend it all and die with a dime in your pocket.

And maybe this is the intent of Gates, Buffett, et al -- but again, I'm going to contain my enthusiasm until I see what actually happens, and where this money actually goes. For one thing, I have a funny feeling that a huge hunk of this dough is going to go to support "family planning" and "population control" -- which is the way the wealthy of the West have, for many generations now, tried to subdue the unruly, unwashed, and disgustingly-fertile denizens of the "third world". Another possibility -- a remote one, I admit, but you never know -- is that some of the wealthy have heard the cry of the poor and disenfranchised... and it has them scared. After all, and as the illegal immigration controversy demonstrates, the third-world rabble is only a few hours' bus ride away from anywhere in the U.S. -- including the gated, well-guarded estates of the American nobility. Maybe they've been reading about the French Revolution. Or the Russian one. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" -- and the "crown" of our time is the vast fortunes that have been made in business and finance... much of it legitimate, no doubt, but much of it the result of sheer pillage. Of course, the radical populist or collectivist (and I assume there's still a difference) will be totally disinterested in the difference between the two -- but for my money, so to speak, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with accumulating great wealth, as long as it's done legitimately and, ideally, with plenty of charity to go along with it. And I suppose that the very least one can say about the Gates/Buffet altar call is that it at least appears charitable, and might in fact do some good. But we also have enough experience with these things to know that ulterior motives are never to be dismissed.

Null Set

Nullification is all the rage these days -- especially among conservatives. And what is nullification? Simply the notion that if the federal government passes a law that blatantly violates the Constitution, the states have the right to, basically, ignore it. This ancient and venerable (and never used since the Civil War) idea has become popular due to ObamaCare, the idea being that the government cannot compel citizens to buy health insurance... and a number of states are taking the bull by the horns and declaring this law null and void.

But wait! Now comes Massachusetts -- which, let's admit -- seceded from the United States of Normal People decades ago -- with a nullification idea of its own. And no, it's not about "gay marriage". But it's about the Constitution itself. It has to do with the Electoral College -- remember, that thing that Hillary Clinton vowed she would absolutely, positively, do away with the minute she became president? Or senator? But Massachusetts is serious about this; they have just "passed legislation to nullify Article II, Section I, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution" -- that part providing for the Electoral College, i.e. for election not by direct democracy (i.e. the voters) but by "electors". And there are apparently five other states that have the same idea; it's all part of something called the National Popular Vote, which is a kind of piling-on, social metaphysics venture that says that all of a state's electoral votes should go to the candidate who wins the most popular votes. In other words, no more "states rights" or "regionalism" here! From now on it's, let the people speak and hinder then not, for they have the word of truth.

Now, granted that that premise is wildly untrue, and unlikely, and improbable in the extreme, let's at least give Massachusetts et al. credit for finally -- finally! -- seeing the value of nullification. But would they be willing to apply the same idea to ObamaCare, for instance, or to the commerce clause? Damned unlikely. And yet I can't help seeing this as a much-desired crack in the ice of federal tyranny. Today's nullfication when it comes to the Electoral College could become tomorrow's nullfication when it comes to the commerce clause... or any of countless other government inroads. And of course, my local paper, which has a conservative bent, is in a state of high dudgeon over all of this -- but I think they need to take a broader view of the situation. If the idea becomes popular -- and if it works! -- it could mean a significant turning point in the relationship between the federal government and the states, or localities. I say, let's give this a chance to work even if the specific issue is not one of our priorities... because our turn might come next, and if it works for "popular vote" buffs it could wind up working for anti-commerce clause buffs, anti-ObamaCare buffs, or any number of other praiseworthy causes.

A Star is Born

I guess in the annals of “frightening and/or depressing headlines” the following has to be pretty near the top: “Geithner poised to inherit vast financial power.” And the first question has to be, “inherit” from whom, or from what? And the answer is – from nobody, since this particular concentration of power is unprecedented in American economic history, and probably in world history as well. As a result of Obama's financial “reform” package, this guy is about to have thrown into his lap all of the strings to the (still) largest economy and financial system on earth (or, again, maybe in history). Now... I don't know about you, but Tim Geithner is one of those guys who, if I shook hands with him, I'd turn around and check my wallet. And given his position (and his projected position) this would be a completely realistic act. You see, the world power has, in fact, shifted in our lifetimes away from the military and toward the economic – not that economic power hasn't always been paramount, even in times of war, but now it's becoming more so... more “official”, more overt, and much more pervasive. Time was, the country that had the most firepower ruled – but we still have the most firepower, and yet one can hardly say we “rule” in that sense. I mean, a bunch of goatherds in Iraq and Afghanistan has us hunkered down and barely able to move. So much for “high-tech weaponry”! No, the race is not always to the swift... or to the most high-tech. It's becoming more and more clear that dogged persistence and, yes, belief (religious or political) are at least as important, if not more so. We can bomb a place back to the stone age, but that's perfectly alright with them... they're comfortable with that. They can operate in the stone age, and we can't... and that's their secret (except that it's pretty obvious to anyone who is paying attention). The 9-11 attacks were, among other things, a technological and cultural anachronism – a technological David-and-Goliath match, and a culture clash between post-modernism and “medieval superstition” -- and guess who won?

And yet, Geithner, although he is not an elected official (Well, would you vote for him? For any office?), is an appointee of an elected official... and as we all know, elected officials come and go. How much power does George W. Bush have these days, for example? (How much did he ever have?) Even Dick Cheney can only do so much from his hospital bed... although it's rumored that he's already made arrangements to have his brain put in a jar -- hooked up with tubes and electrodes -- from which he can rule the world like some disembodied evilness in a B-grade sci-fi movie. The point is, elected officials and their minions have temporary power, at best – it is fleeting, and worse yet, it's subject, at least to some degree, to the whims of the voters, i.e. the clueless and unwashed. Such a situation cannot be tolerated by the powers that be – i.e. by those who are truly in control. I think that any elected official in the land is, ultimately, no more than a servant to the real power – and that power is long-lasting and persistent, and virtually impossible to dislodge, because it does not accrue to any one individual but to an elite group, whose membership requirements are as strict as any on earth. And even at those exalted levels, I daresay that no one individual is indispensable; they are all expendable to some extent, and when someone dies or falls from grace, there is a smooth transition by which someone else takes their place. It's like seats in the White House press room... or like the Mafia. And what unites them? I would say raw power and money, not necessarily in that order... and what those provide, in turn, is not only material and psychological rewards but the perceived opportunity to remake the world in their own image. Power and money are one thing, but to truly rule the world you have to rule minds – to be able to define reality itself for the mass of humanity. And this, I believe, is their ultimate goal. So in that sense, it's a metaphysical conquest they're after, not just a political or economic one. And, I suspect that, in their delusions of grandeur, they're certain that once they have nearly everyone on earth signed on to their world view, that world view will indeed attain the status of reality. In other words, they believe it, but they would feel even better if everyone else believed it as well. (But isn't this the way all collectivists think?)

There are, in fact, systematic and observable trends in the exercise of world power, in that it is overwhelmingly secular and materialistic, and consistently involves a continual attack on religion (i.e., on the competition) as well as attacks on individual liberties and freedom. The goal seems to be to turn the vast bulk of the human race into slaves – and “unchurched” slaves at that, who have no hope either in the material world or in the world beyond. Because, as everybody knows, the majority are unfit to rule and are good only as slaves and cannon fodder – to do the bidding of the elite without asking why, and ideally without even realizing what their true status is. A “happy” slave is a good slave, in other words – which is why the oppression is only turned up a little bit at a time. (The “tea party” movement is a sign that the rate of “change” may have gotten a bit too excessive of late – a bit too noticeable, a phenomenon that can be blamed more or less directly on Obama -- which provides more evidence that he is not in charge. But we see how much time and energy the Regime spends trying to co-opt and suppress the tea parties and other like movements. And then there are some groups that are allowed to wander off the reservation, simply because they are powerless and small in number; the libertarians come to mind. There are, in fact, certain safety valves that are allowed to exist, as long as they don't impact the program.)

But here's the question. If people like Geither – and Obama, his boss – are servants, who do they serve? And how did those people become members of the power elite? Is it only about money, or is it more a matter of “connections”... organizational ties... family ties... race... ethnic group... creed (or the lack thereof)... or what? Are there any visible channels of advancement to the upper reaches – any ladders to ultimate success – or is this all predetermined based on factors of which we know nothing? Can "any boy born in a log cabin...", etc.? What I suspect is that it's some sort of combination of hereditary position (regardless of money or overt position or power) and old money (by which I mean _really_ old money – older than any money in the U.S. for sure). But is even this enough? I mean, any organization needs “new blood” now and then, especially considering some of the problems than can arise when the same people stay on top for too long. (Think only of European royalty and some of their “issues” -- like inbreeding, for instance. Can you imagine if the British “royals” were actually in charge of anything? Scary.) And even “old money” can be dispersed and stretched too thin – the reason you don't hear much about the du Ponts any more is that there are just too many of them; it's hard for a great fortune to survive having thousands of descendants. (I imagine the Kennedys will eventually suffer the same fate – unless their shallow gene pool catches up with them first.) But many rich families have had the sense to see to it that their fortunes remained intact – the Rockefellers being, probably, the best example in this country. (And what about the really new money – the Waltons, Gates, Buffet? I haven't yet figured out where they fit into this scheme. It has to be, at the very least, a state of peaceful coexistence with the Regime, if not actual membership. I mean, they were “allowed” to get rich. But then what do they owe, and to whom?)

So it seems to me that there must be a process by which, once in a while, someone who has risen in the ranks by being a skilled servant is eventually anointed, and allowed into the inner circle (think of becoming a “made man” in the mob). And I also suspect that elected politicians – current or former – seldom if ever qualify. What it takes to get elected to office is simply not the same skill set as what it takes to really run things (as we can plainly see from the performance of the likes of Bush, Obama, etc.). You have to have, let's say, a global perspective on things, and not be loyal to any particular political or economic system, country, party, or movement. You have to be someone like, say, Henry Kissinger, who, to all appearances, is one of the anointed ones (even though he has a much higher profile than would be typical). And I'm sure that there are many out there who are aware of the situation and of the hierarchy, and would very much like to be admitted to the inner circle – but they simply don't have enough of the “right stuff”, and so are relegated to perpetual second-class citizenship. (Dick Cheney comes to mind in this regard.) So, bottom line, what are the chances that Geither will ever wind up in the Pantheon? I'd say pretty much nil. He is, no doubt, a good and faithful servant – but I just don't see him having that much staying power. And it certainly isn't about “charisma”. It has to be about having (or acquiring) the values of the elite and being able to make a substantial contribution... and, above all, complete reliability and discretion. No “loose cannons” allowed – although George Soros comes close at times. And this is because one of the key features of the Regime is its ability to rule without anyone knowing it exists – at least none of the “common folk”. I'm not even sure how much the higher-ranked servants know. I mean, does Obama know who his bosses are? Does he get coded messages left in cactuses or under park benches? Or does he have a “handler” who he checks in with bright and early every morning? He's a smart enough guy, but he has the towering ego of a politician... and that can cloud the mind. I'm sure that George W. Bush, for instance, existed, throughout his administration, in a kind of fog, or a house of mirrors. Who knows, he might have even thought he was in charge! (“I'm the decider.” Remember that? What if he really believed it? A scary thought.)

But clearly, the control mechanisms are far from being vague and aloof. If any of the servants step out of line, their chains are rudely jerked in an instant by means of the media... and how, and from whom, do the media get their orders? Because they all say pretty much the same thing at the same time about the same people. We're not just talking “talking points” here; it's more like those “large character posters” that used to appear all over China whenever Chairman Mao got another of his bright ideas. Allegedly, no one knew how those posters got there or who put them there... but they all said the same thing; they were like unto holy writ. Even the farthest provinces got the word instantly. And our version of this holy writ is what is put out by the news networks and the major press agencies... outfits like Time and Newsweek... the “newspapers of record”... and it even extends into the “entertainment” industry. No “comic” is going to seriously go against the party line and survive, career-wise. And no “public” effort or activity is too small or trivial to come under the gun. And I don't have to bring up academics, do I, I hope? So this operation, far from being abstract, is extremely tangible, fast, and efficient – but the amazing thing is that even its favored operatives labor under the delusion that they're somehow “independent” and “objective”. I mean, look at how often the “journalism” combine toots its own horn in this regard. If they were truly objective, they wouldn't have to keep claiming objectivity, would they? So again, this is all part of the massive, multi-layered deception process, which, once again, is designed primarily to keep people ignorant and avoid trouble. After all, even the elite still live on the same planet as the rest of us (as far as I know) – they breathe the same air, and so on. Why open yourself up to all sorts of popular movements, protests, insurrections, revolutions, etc. when you can get what you want more readily by administering a continuous, slow drip of anesthetic to the populace? The notion is to draw as much blood as possible without killing the patient – because, after all, there is no power unless most people are powerless... and no wealth unless most people are poor, or at least un-wealthy. You can't accumulate wealth that no one is producing, in other words. What is the king without the peasants? So in that sense it's all relative... and it's also materialistic in that spiritual considerations are given very little value; in fact, they're considered an annoyance and a hindrance.

So really, in Geithner's case, all he is is a placeholder. Yes, he will have tremendous apparent power... but will he have any real initiative? I doubt it very much. He will, rather, be on the blame line if anything goes wrong – which it almost certainly will. How would you like to have all sorts of apparent authority, alleged responsibility, but real accountability? It's enough to give a person ulcers. Whereas the people really in charge have actual authority, no risk of being held responsible, and no accountability whatsoever. Must be nice... but frankly, I prefer to be one of the “folks” Obama is always talking about so condescendingly. It's much better “karma” to simply sit under one's own vine and fig tree, and leave everyone else alone (and keep your hand off their wallet).

Iraq and Ruin

Now here is a comforting quote, from President Obama: “Our commitment in Iraq is changing — from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats." Yeah... when's the last time you ever heard of “a civilian effort led by our diplomats” amounting to anything? Especially when said “diplomats” are all Obama appointees? Sheesh... maybe the whole operation is designed to fail, so he can justify sending troops back in. But never fear! According to the article, “A transitional force of 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts.” This “transitional force” is bigger than most occupation forces! So really – and I'll say it again – nothing is really going to change. And he confirms this, as follows: “We have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq.” But actually, the word “sacrifice” is a misnomer, because the assumption when one talks of sacrifice is that it's for a purpose – that it means something. I have yet to see any evidence of this in the entire Iraq operation. Well, we did get rid of Saddam, Uday, and Qusay, so I guess that amounts to something. I mean, I guess I would have been willing to sacrifice a couple of square meals to get rid of those clowns. But beyond that...

And would anyone in their right mind call the presence of 50,000 troops anything but an occupation? And when it comes to this lame excuse that they are not “combat troops”, well... any time you have 50,000 troops stationed in a country where most people hate our guts, guess what – they will, sooner or later, become combat troops. After all, they _are_ “troops”, and in uniform, and they carry guns. This notion that you can have a clean demarcation between combat and “other” is a total delusion... and the politicians know it. They know they are only playing word games with this. I'd like to see, for instance, how much our casualties decline when all the “combat troops” leave and all the “trainers, advisors, etc.” stay; I can't imagine there will be much difference, especially considering the tactics involved. We haven't been fighting set-piece battles in Iraq anyway... so the “look” of combat has been, basically, one of street fighting and guerrilla warfare. But this sort of thing can be inflicted on “trainers and advisors” just as readily as on explicitly “combat” troops. And the net result will be the same – more blood shed for no discernible purpose.

Plus, what about all those "contractors" -- AKA mercenaries? Obama didn't have much to say about them, nor about our square-mile "embassy" (also known as a "fort") in Baghdad. So what it amounts to is that the "withdrawal of all our combat troops" is a technicality and a word game; it does not change our level of commitment one iota -- nor is it intended to. We will continue to occupy Iraq in perpetuity... that is, unless we are forcibly thrown out.

Clap On, Clap Off

OK, so now we have a guy up for confirmation as Director of National Intelligence – which is not to be confused with director of any given intelligence agency, of which there are literally countless examples (“literally countless” because the existence of many of them is unknown – even to those in Congress who approve their budgets). What's interesting is that this office has only existed since 2005, and it was created in order to improve coordination among the various intelligence agencies, enhance accountability, yadda yadda. In other words, it's the typical government layering effect, where each new layer is promoted as being the solution to all previous problems... and then that layer becomes one of the “previous problems” the next time around, when still another layer is added, ad infinitum. In the case of the Director for National Intelligence, there is also a Principal Deputy Director, a Director of the Intelligence Staff, Deputy Directors, Associate Directors, Assistant Deputy Directors... starting to glaze over yet? Yeah, it's just another bureaucracy, which, far from being part of the solution, simply adds to the problem.

Now, the current nominee to oversee all of this is a guy named Clapper (LTG, USAF, ret.), and when it comes to the massive redundancy in missions among the various intelligence agencies, his excuse is that this represents “the conscious pursuit of competitive analysis”. In other words, let a hundred flowers bloom. The problem is, this assumes that Job One of the vast array of intelligence agencies is to actually gather, analyze, and report on information that could be vital to the nation's defense. If you believe that, I've got a job for you with... the Director of National Intelligence. But the truth is, the number one job of any intelligence agency, or cluster, array, or galaxy of agencies, is the same as it is for any other agency in the government – namely survival, self-perpetuation, and, if possible, growth in both power and resources. This, what I call “organic” model of government growth, seems to have escaped the attention of nearly everyone (those in Congress, for example) – the fact that any organization, and particularly any bureaucratic organization, behaves very much like a living organism. It's motivations are quite simple, really – nourishment (budgets), growth (budgets again), and survival – and the latter, in the case of the intelligence agencies, requires a good deal of secrecy. But the secrecy is not so much a matter of “national security” as one of simply concealing the fact that they don't do much of anything but work toward their own self-perpetuation. And the greatest thing about this secrecy is that it serves as a total safeguard against failure – by which I mean... well, let's say there's a truly catastrophic failure in intelligence. Like 9-11, for example. So right away, the cover stories and red herrings start – we're really doing a great job, but this one just got past us. And we really were keeping an eye on these people, honest. And so forth. So the answer – as with any failing government enterprise (the public schools come to mind) – is more resources! “Mend it, don't end it”, as Jesse Jackson would say. And this turns what looked, at first, like gross and abject failure into success; it has been pointed out how much larger the intelligence community has grown since 9-11... and all based on what is probably the most blatant failure in all of their history. (Kinda reminds me of the banks and the auto industry, actually.)

It's also notorious that the intelligence budget is top secret. No, it's beyond top secret; no one in Congress knows how much is spent on “intelligence” work, which is pretty remarkable considering that they're the ones who approve the funding. Also true – no one knows how many people (government employees and contractors, plus informers, stoolies, turncoats, etc. overseas) work for the intelligence agencies. The agencies get to spend as much as they like, hire anyone they like, and do, basically, anything they like – including nothing, if they're so inclined -- and no one in Congress has a leg to stand on when it comes to objecting or attempting to reform things, because, after all, they "approved" the top-secret budget. What this adds up to – and this should be no news to anyone – is that the “intelligence community” is, basically, a parallel government, or a country within the country. It has its own resources, its populace, its real estate, its capital property, its armed forces (mostly, but not all, overseas), and it's... call it what you will... culture, way of life, mystique. Yes, there is an intelligence mind set, that is characterized by obsessive-compulsiveness, paranoia, and protectiveness... qualities which might have had some utility during World War II or during the Cold War. But now we have a bigger-than-ever intelligence community dealing with smaller-than-ever problems and issues... or with none at all, I suppose, depending on which arm of the squid you happen to occupy. And is it dealing with these issues well? We'll never know, since, once again, the intelligence community has a way of burying its mistakes (except for the biggest ones) and bragging, in an extremely generic way, about its successes. It's like those messages I keep getting on my computer screen -- “Foxfire has just blocked a pop-up message”. Well, whoop-de-freakin'-do. Maybe I'm glad it was blocked. But at least it didn't cost me a few billion to block it. In the case of the intelligence agencies, all we ever hear about is all the dreadful things that didn't happen because they were on the job, with their all-seeing, never-sleeping eye. Well OK guys, then where the hell were you on 9-10? And has anything really changed? I suspect not. Just more layers. Again, a good crisis did not go to waste; a greater-than-ever portion of our national wealth was turned over to the intelligence agencies – or thrown into a bottomless pit, pick one – but is it really possible that their performance has markedly improved as a result? This stale old alibi of “there haven't been any more 9-11s” doesn't take into account that, as far as the terrorists, or whoever they were, are concerned, 9-11 was “mission accomplished”. They don't have to do it again; they can move on to other things (like bleeding us dry all over Iraq and Afghanistan).

At this point, the typical plaint of the uninformed citizen is, why can't something be done? I mean, if Congress controls their budget, why can't they simply withhold funds until they get some answers, and so on. But you have to remember that the intelligence agencies deal primarily with information – and as knowledge is power, information is power over those who would rather not have that information made public. And, after all, aren't most of our elected officials, let's say, a bit “flawed”? Many of them are moral imbeciles, so have a lot to hide from the voters; others might have some semblance of conscience but still feel a bit apprehensive about all of their dirty laundry being hung out. So what am I implying? That the intelligence community is just one big blackmail operation? Let's just say that they have certain tools and resources at their disposal, and it would by shocking if they didn't use them once in a while. And there is nothing new about this. J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for having a “black file” on virtually every elected official in the land, and plenty of other people besides... and he used this information whenever it was needed, in order to further his mission (which was not all bad – don't misunderstand me on that point). And I suspect that, really, this has been a “bread and butter” part of intelligence operations throughout history. And there might even be some rationale for it if these people were truly mission-oriented, and doing a commendable job. But what I suspect is that the situation has deteriorated, principally because of the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was at least an object of intense focus; not only that, but the threat was real. Since then, what have we had to deal with? China is more capitalistic than we are, and their main form of aggression is buying up our debt. What's the intelligence angle there? And the best the Russians can do is send a bunch of dingbats over here disguised as American yuppies. No, it has to be about “terrorism” and nothing more – but even there, the idea that “terrorism” is a profound threat to American security and the American way of life is... well, it's propaganda, basically. And this is not to deny the reality of 9-11 or of other terrorist actions or attempted actions – only that it's not really us they're after. The Soviets really did, in their heart of hearts, want to make the U.S. into a people's republic... and so did their agents here (including those in the government, academics, media, etc.). I don't think the terrorists are the least bit interested in converting us to Islam – all they want is for us to get the hell out of the Islamic world (and our little dog too – i.e. Israel). If we were to leave, I suspect that “terrorism” would stop. (Ron Paul said as much.) And if you're thinking, “but what about Europe?”, the answer is that the European countries that are supporting our efforts in Southwestern Asia are the ones getting hit; the rest are being left alone – except Russia, which has a long-standing Muslim minority. But of course this is not going to happen, so we will continue to be confronted by “terrorists”, and completely baffled as to “why they hate us”... and the intelligence community will continue to half-heartedly poke away at the problem while feathering their bed in perpetuity.

Bush Was Right!

Remember the time George W. Bush landed on that carrier deck and stood, triumphant, in front of a very large banner that read, "Mission Accomplished"? You know, people have been lampooning, demeaning, and making fun of him for this ever since.. but the fact is, he was right. I mean, if the goal of our invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan was regime change, we can most definitely claim "mission accomplished". And if the goal also included conquest (more or less) and occupation, the same thing applies. So it is a bit small-minded of everyone to persist in calling these operations "wars", because they're aren't wars at all -- they're occupations. Occupations that involve insurgency, but this is a universal trait of occupations. There are always insurgents, rebels, partisans -- call them what you will. I can't think of too many cases where an occupied country just basically rolled over and played dead; I guess Germany and Japan after World War II are examples, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. The problem is, the Germany and Japan experience spoiled us by giving us a grossly distorted picture of what occupation is all about. More often, it's a case like the German occupations during World War II... or the Soviet occupations afterwards. There are always a few soreheads who are unwilling to accept things as they are, and they take up arms, and perhaps get a bit of help from the outside... and the next thing you know, you have an "insurgency", which, if you turned it around the other way, would look like a small, brave band of loyal patriots fighting against the oppressor (and the oppressor's lapdogs and toadies). And this is, in fact, how these groups always present themselves. Even terrorists who kill mostly their own countrymen are always, allegedly, fighting for the good of that country in the long run -- for its freedom and independence from the colonial powers, etc. Our politicians could do much worse than to just take, say, five minutes out of every day and imagine that we are the ones who are under occupation, and what our reaction would be to much of what we are doing over there. And it also wouldn't hurt to imagine how popular "collaborators" would be if we were the ones being occupied. People would be making lists and tying hangman's nooses in preparation for that happy day when all the collaborators could be hung from lamposts.

Am I saying that these should be our only foreign policy considerations when issues of invasion and occupation come up? No -- but they should at least be on the table, which they most certainly are not at this point. Even "our most brilliant general", Gen. Petraeus, never (at least publicly) tries to put himself in the other guy's shoes (sandals, whatever). It's, America is always right, and the other guys are always wrong -- but this is not the voice of principle, it's the voice of empire. And it is heard that way by virtually everyone off these shores.

The Silly Season, Part II

To begin with, I must say that I'm disappointed. For a while there I thought NASA was actually going to start doing something useful, namely work to improve relations with the Muslim world. I mean, the payoff from that would be much bigger than the payoff from the space program, right? I could hardly wait for them to get started – especially since no other sector of the government seems to care about the Muslim world one way or the other, except how much of it they can bomb back to the stone age. But now it turns out that all of that hope and promise from the NASA director was in vain – his superiors in the White House have taken pains to reassure the citizenry that we are not, after all, about to do anything to improve our relationship with the Muslim world, and that this is not, nor has it ever been, a key element in NASA's mission. (And as far as taking a Muslim up in space, well... can you imagine? Floating prayer rugs? And how do you know whether you're facing Mecca if you're out in space?) Well... I still wish someone else would take up the challenge, even if NASA has more important things to do. Surely there must be some government agency somewhere that is living way past the expiration date of its original mission, and would gladly take up where NASA left off... or didn't, as the case may be.

News about the Gulf oil spill (“eruption” would be a better word) is starting to show signs of that most-feared phenomenon in the news business – I call it “page creep”. This is when a story outlives the news cycle but doesn't go away entirely (the way the Goldman Sachs story did – one day it was headline news, and the next day – nothing). So it moves off the front page (after first having dropped below the “fold”) and gradually morphs onto higher-numbered pages of the first section of the paper... eventually (depending on the paper in question) making a leap into the second section, and so on... until eventually it's tucked way in the back, somewhere in the vicinity of the “loser comics” -- you know, the black-and-white one-panel jobs like “Marmaduke”, “Grin and Bear It”, and “The Lockhorns”... the ones that might have been funny, oh, let's say 20 or 30 years ago before the cartoonists became senile. In any case, what's odd about it is that the oil spill is just as much of a disaster today as it was on Day One – if not worse. If you made a movie about some Dr. Evil type threatening to “kill the Gulf of Mexico” unless he was paid a fat ransom (or made CEO of AIG, which would be the equivalent), people would tell you it was far-fetched... and yet here it is, happening right before our eyes, and yet it too is suffering the effects of The Great American Short Attention Span. It seems that nothing is important enough, or catastrophic enough, to stay on our front pages for long... and hardly ever until the situation is resolved. We are, as a people, crisis-oriented... but we're just not solution-oriented. Solutions... follow-through... these are all just too boring and stuffy for the American personality. We are all about expansion and not at all about consolidation – ideas and not realism – and I suppose there are few current events that do not serve as illustrations of this. The oil spill is just the most prominent at the moment – but if you went back and took all the “top stories” -- all the life-threatening crises – from just, say, the past year... and asked yourself, have any of those things been fixed, or resolved? The answer would be no, not one – and yet they are no longer news. This is, truly, one of the marvels of our time.

And speaking of stories that are already history – how about that “spy trade” with the Russians? We managed to round up ten suburbanite airheads with delusions of grandeur and trade them for a handful of what appear to be serious people – which I would say means that we won this round, even thought the mocking MSM say the opposite. The mystery that remains, of course, is what on earth the Russians were thinking sending those doofuses over here and telling them to infiltrate... what? Organizations that just about anybody can listen in on, or read about, or visit, or even join, any time they want. I mean, these characters made Maxwell Smart look like Kim Philby. You know, in world affairs, even when someone does something stupid, there's usually a perfectly good reason. But this one has me baffled.

Every time a high-ranking military officer retires, or is transferred, it sets off a kind of domino effect – he has to be replaced, and his replacement has to be replaced, and so on... and the effect goes resonating through the system, sometimes for months. And this is for each case, and there are thousands of cases per year. It's what is euphemistically called “turbulence”, but a more appropriate word would be “chaos”. It's especially fun when it happens at the highest and most visible levels, because then it becomes a public spectacle – as witness the recent cashiering of Gen. McChrystal, who had been working for Gen. Petraeus, but was then replaced by Petraeus, who has now been replaced by Gen. Mattis. Now, Mattis is another one of those loose-cannon, non-diplomatic types that the military has tried so hard to eliminate from its ranks, but they keep on mysteriously cropping up, and usually at the most inconvenient times. What's wrong with Mattis, you say? Why, nothing, except that he has stated that it's “fun” to kill the enemy, and that a perfectly good, and sufficient, reason to kill someone in Southwest Asia is if he beats his wife or insists that she wear a veil. In other words, while these are not treated as capital offenses in this country, Gen. Mattis sees nothing wrong with treating them as such overseas – without benefit of judge or jury. Now, you might say, isn't this just a minor eccentricity, and surely he didn't mean it? But consider that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan – we call them “insurgents” and “terrorists” -- pay very close attention to what our leaders, both civilian and military, say, especially when it's like to have a direct impact on their well-being. And they tend not to have much of a sense of humor, or irony; they assume that we, in fact, mean what we say (imagine!). What if, for example, the U.S. was currently occupied by the Taliban.... or the Republican Guard... and what if the military commander overseeing the entire operation came out in public and said that killing Americans was fun, especially guys who do stuff like make their wives take jobs outside the home to earn extra money? Is there an American alive who would not seethe with white-hot rage at this, and vow to do everything in his power to kill as many of the occupation forces as possible, or die trying? See, this is what statements like that mean to the other side – and that's what counts, not what they mean to the average brain-dead American. And we wonder why we keep encountering “hostility and distrust” over there...

And by the way, Gen. Petraeus has already decided that one of our biggest foes in Afghanistan is “corruption”. Now... I know, I've harped on this before, but... the first thing you have to understand is that there is no word for “corruption” in most third-world languages. It's simply known as “the way things are done”. But then we show up with our grandiose idealism, and language to boot, and start busting everyone's chops about “corruption”. It's kind of talking about “child prostitution” in cultures where girls commonly get married at age 12. It's not that we're necessarily wrong, or that we're even wrong to bring it up, but we have to understand that we're introducing a whole new concept, and one that is unlikely to win friends or influence people (which we, presumably, want to do... at least with a select subset of the populace). At any rate, Petraeus is – just like Eliot Ness – going after “pervasive theft, graft, and bribery”... in which case, why doesn't he start right here at home? With places like Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey, for example? But get a load of this: “... anger at corruption is the top reason Afghans support the Taliban over the government.” So in that sense, we and the Taliban are on the same side. Who knew? Maybe what we ought to do is join forces with the Taliban to get rid of the Afghan government; wouldn't that make everybody happy?

And, speaking of winning hearts and minds – a recent survey showed that “most Pakistanis view U.S. as an enemy.” After all we've done for these people, I swear. I mean... just because we're trying to annex their next-door neighbor, with whom they share plenty of fine qualities, religion being just one of them. Of course, they helped us get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but I'll bet it was for their own selfish reasons. And now they're being asked for help in getting a radical Islamic group out of an Islamic country, when they're Islamic as well, and... we usually pay a whole lot more attention to India than to them. Ah yes... when the third world awakens from its slumbers, the masters of the West give an involuntary shudder...

And along the same lines, Senator John Kerry (remember him?) asked recently, “why the Taliban, with fewer resources and smaller numbers, can field fighters who are more committed to winning than are Afghan soldiers. 'What's going on here?' he asked with exasperation.” Well... time to get un-exasperated, Senator... it's the same old thing I've talked about a lot lately, but the flip side. I recently said that the spate of military suicides might just have something to do with the absurdity – the lack of meaning – of the whole occupation/empire experience from the troops' point of view. “Theirs not to reason why”, etc. the Taliban, on the other hand – as revolting, fanatical, and malodorous as they may be – actually believe in something, and this is what keeps them going... what keeps them “more committed to winning”. After all, if a U.S. troop “wins”, what does he win? A ticket back home at best, and then he has to pick up where he left off. And if an Afgan Army troop "wins", he's probably bought himself a ticket to a beheading (his own) in the event the Taliban regains control. But for the Taliban it's a matter of faith... of blood and soil. They are defending their homeland against the invader, plain and simple (whereas the Afghan Army is defending the invaders -- now there's a real moral-builder!). The Taliban are also defending Islam – particularly the militant kind – against invasion, conquest, maltreatment, and defamation by us and Israel (and by anyone else who cares to join us on any given day – a diminishing number, to be sure). See, we don't have to like them to see where they're coming from... but the administration simply refuses to see any of this as important. (No one understood kamikaze pilots either; we just assumed they were suicidal.) As far as we're concerned, they hate us because of McDonald's and indoor plumbing. Of course, this misunderstanding is at least partly willful... it provides a better rationale than saying, “We're fighting against people who are defending their homeland and their faith.” That would make it seem just a bit too symmetrical or something... like something _we_ might even do (or might have done at some past time).

And on the lighter side (but also related to the Senator), I wish the local paper would make up its mind. Half the time it refers to Teresa Heinz Kerry as “the pickle heiress”, and other other half of the time as “the ketchup heiress”. The truth is, it's both, and then some. How about just calling her “the 57 Varieties heiress”? It would also be a good shout-out to diversity...

On the even lighter side, I can't resist providing a quote from a somewhat unusual source – the July 29 issue of The Wanderer, and a story about the environmental impact of birth control pills. Seems that in Britain, “odd-looking fish have been found in waterways, especially below sewage outlets. The fish are neither male nor female, but have characteristics of both, and are unable to breed.” Gee, that sounds like a perfect description of a lot of American liberals.