Two trainloads of KKK members invade a small country town, hoping to terrorize the residents and force them out. But the intended victims turn on their persecutors and manage to fight them off, winning a major battle against the forces of bigotry.
This actual historical event should be an occasion for celebration. And it is, in fact... but not for a national holiday or a spread on the evening news or a PBS series. Because the people who fought the KKK and won were not African-Americans but Catholic immigrants. The place was a town called Lilly, in Cambria County, Pennsylvania (correct -- in the North, not in Alabama or some place like that). And the year was 1924 -- still within living memory of some of the oldest survivors.
This bears pointing out because we have grown to accept the premise that bigotry, and prejudice, and discrimination are, by definition, qualities shown by ignorant white people and directed at people of color. It seems odd that there was ever a time when it was "white against white", based on religion and ethnicity (and recent immigrant status, with which they were highly correlated). And yet, drives of "nativists" against immigrants had been going on for close to 100 years at that point, starting with the Irish in the 1830s. (And anti-Catholic laws had been on the books in many states for a long time before that -- predating the Revolution in some cases.) Then we had the Know-Nothings of the time just before the Civil War, who were against just about anybody but white Protestants. The much more massive waves of immigration in the late 1800s seemed only to inflame feelings, although by the post-World War I era the movements seem to have bifurcated into two main branches, the KKK, i.e. lower-class rural whites (but not all Southerners), and the "eugenicists", who had a field day with classifying people according to racial and ethnic -- "superior" and "inferior" -- types until their programs got a bit of a black eye by being adopted wholesale by the Nazis. But one remnant of eugenics remained, and is alive and well to this day, namely "birth control" or "family planning", which was originally aimed at Catholics who threatened to out-reproduce Protestants the way Moslems are out-reproducing white Europeans in Europe. Family planning, of course, eventually devolved into the abortion "rights" movement, and everybody knows what happened after that.
At this point, most Catholics, with the exception of traditionalists (AKA "Latin Mass" or "pre-Vatican II" Catholics) have bought the family planning arguments hook, line, and sinker from the mainline Protestants (who can't keep their churches filled in areas where everyone else is building new ones). Even blacks have been gathered into the fold, thanks to goverment-funded abortions. About the only American subgroups that persist in having large families besides the traditionalist Catholics are the Mormons and the Hassidic Jews. (Well, there you go -- three cults all in a row. Janet Reno, white courtesy phone!)
Aside from population issues, bigotry against Catholics -- or, more precisely, the Catholic Church -- is still alive and well in the U.S., and I'm not just talking about the zeal with which the MSM jumped on the "pedophile priest" scandals. The Church is seen -- and not without at least some cause -- as standing in direct opposition to all that is genuinely American, which means, historically, things like the "Protestant ethic", "Manifest Destiny", unfettered capitalism, Wilsonian meddling overseas, "separation of church and state", and the gradual secularization of the public square, the law, schools -- even unto the apathy of the current administration as to the validity of Just War Theory. These are issues that have actually been the occasion for open conflict more in the past than in recent times, in many cases. When's the last time the Catholic Church in America came out, as a body, in opposition to a major element of foreign or domestic policy -- aside from birth control and abortion? I'm certainly not old enough to remember, but I'm sure the Church has been much more militant in the past than it is now. It would not have been unheard-of for a president, say, to call in various religious leaders to offer advice on major issues. And that still happens -- particularly if we're talking about Evangelical influence on foreign policy -- but the Catholic Church is left out in the cold. The Pope and the Magisterium remain moral anchors for Catholics -- at least the serious ones -- but can hardly be described as having any influence over world affairs, although Pope John Paul II's involvement with the breakup of the Soviet Empire was a happy exception. And can one imagine a Bishop Sheen today -- appearing on TV, with a highly-rated show, talking about the Church's position on moral questions? And please don't try and tell me that the "pedophile priest" business is responsible for this trend, because it began decades earlier. The Church only has as much moral authority as _non-Catholics_ accept it as having. This is a seeming paradox, but it's quite true -- not that the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium haven't been seriously eroded by the almost total secularization of Western Europe, and the drive in that same direction over here. But who, aside from a remnant of practicing Catholics, turns to the Vatican for moral guidance, advice, assent? How does it even compare to American televangelists, or the head of the Mormon Church, or some mullah in a flea-bitten hovel in Afghanistan? Is it because the Church _has_ no moral authority, or is it because, in exercising its moral authority, it finds itself having to tell "inconvenient truths" so much of the time? A "morality" that conforms to the trends of the time isn't really a morality at all. Morality is, almost by definition, "against" people "doing what comes natural" -- i.e. to their fallen nature and flawed will. It is something that stands apart from that which is "current", "trendy", "groovy", and -- yes -- humanistic and "diverse" and "nonjudgmental". The guy who stands on the corner in a white robe with a sign saying "Repent!" is usually all by himself -- he isn't part of a crowd, and doesn't attract one either. Jesus had his core group of twelve. The "mega-churches" of today have more people than that directing traffic in the parking lot. Morality and popularity just don't go together, somehow -- and when that morality seems to rub the political and social policies and habits of the country the wrong way, it becomes even less popular, and thus -- as I see it -- the growing alienation between the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and American society. The conflict may have begun in earnest with the Irish "invasion" of the early 1800s, and it may have morphed many times between then and today, but it is still there.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Many Deaths of America
This is the end, beautiful friend
This is the end, my only friend
The end of our elaborate plans
The end of ev'rything that stands
The end
--- Jim Morrison, "The End" (excerpt)
My first experience with the total destruction of America was back in grade school, with "air raid drills", rumblings on TV and radio about the "nuclear arms race", and -- best of all -- fall-out shelters. Fall-out shelters were for the early Fifties what home spas are now -- everyone had to have one, and there was stiff competition as to whoever had the biggest, strongest, deepest... the one with the best ventilation and filter system... the most dried and canned food... etc. It was a real status thing. (I wonder what people are doing with all those old fall-out shelters now. Raising artisanal mushrooms, perhaps? If you know, please share.)
In any case, what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing new about "terror" -- we lived with it every day, and I suspect that had a lot to do with the 1960s. People who had grown up with "duck and cover" decided, the hell with the system that had exposed us to such delights -- to hell with their world view, their priorities, their politics, their uptightness, and what not. And to hell with their "reality" -- hence the rising tide of "drug abuse" and alternative lifestyles.
But that wasn't the end of "the end", oh no. The next thing-after-which-nothing-will-ever-again-be-the-same was Vietnam. And sure enough, Vietnam, along with everything that went with it, certainly "morphed" American society into something other than what it had been before -- but the point is, it still existed. It survived in a new, modified form. What was the next "end of everything"? Well, AIDS certainly merits mention, especially since it was supposed to spread into the general population like the Black Death, and render vast stretches of the U.S. depopulated, with hapless cows wandering about, mooing to be milked. Well, that never happened either. It was discovered (read: admitted) that, in order to get AIDS, you had to do some very specific things of your own volition, and unless you did those things -- with rare exceptions -- you weren't going to get AIDS. And this was even after the definition of what constituted "AIDS" had been broadened to include a case of the sniffles, and hangnails.
Ah, but let us not forget that, at about the same time, we were blessed with a sort of mini-Dark Ages in the form of the Carter administration, and _that_ was supposed to be the end of everything -- militarily, diplomatically, economy-wise, and so on. But fortunately a dude named Reagan showed up and put Carter and all his brain-damaged cronies on a sealed train back to Georgia, and we all started to feel much better almost immediately. This was the same Reagan who also managed to defuse one of the other major "this is the end" factors, namely Soviet communism and its associated militaristic belligerence. This, in turn -- with a few minor glitches like the S&L crisis, another economic "end of everything" that turned out not to be -- led to our brief respite from history in the form of the Clinton administration, which was America's spring break in Fort Lauderdale.
But, as fate would have it, the rest of the world wasn't content to let us just chill out. Along came 9-11, with its own claim to be "the end of everything", and yes, for a few hours it seemed like it just might be -- until we realized that the terrorists had run out of planes, and of terrorists able to fly them. But the damage was done, and we are now forced to live under an oppressive police state, that tracks our every move and monitors all of our phone calls, e-mails, and bubble gum purchases, all for our own good. Or are we? I mean, honestly, how much does the average schmuck feel that his "civil rights" have been "eroded" by the post-9-11 constraints? For that matter, how often did he use his civil rights to the full extent _before_ 9-11? Seems to me that if you don't travel by plane, you basically wouldn't notice a thing. As as for "Internet privacy" -- pardon my indulgent chuckle -- it never existed, does not now exist, and never will. You put your mess out there on the Net, and it's public property, baby. Just accept that, live with it, and keep on truckin'. Oh, certainly, the "post-9-11" world is different -- but not in the ways most people seem to believe. The main impact, in my opinion, was that it solidified political, social, and economic alignments that were already in place. In that sense, it provided a new setting for our foreign policy which could very well last for generations -- and will, if John McCain has anything to do with it.
And that brings us up to the present day, with its plethora of world-ending events and trends. "But this time it's different!" This time it's a "perfect storm". Never before have we had to deal with terrorism _and_ the declining dollar, _and_ the subprime mortgage meltdown, and the Social Security crisis, and the health care crisis, and the autism epidemic, and global warming, and catastrophic declines in fisheries, beehives, tortillas... expensive oil... "frankenfoods"... exotic ailments imported from the Third World on airplanes and tramp steamers... the list goes on and on and on, like the drumbeat that always seems to accompany the trip to the guillotine in the tumbrel. And yet I ask -- does it really "feel" like things are that much worse now than they've been at any number of times in the past? Are people now panicking and putting everything they have into krugerrands and freeze-dried survival foods, and moving to the Northern Rockies, the way they actually _were_ doing during the Carter years? Or are we just too fond of griping? It is, after all, the national pastime -- never so much as right now, during an election year. Are the cities burning? Well, they were back in the late 60s. Are our politicians getting knocked off on a regular basis? Well, they were back then. I'm not saying we don't have plenty of challenges these days -- and I'm not saying that our society doesn't suffer from some ailments that may well turn out to be fatal. But it has shown remarkable -- yea, miraculous -- durability in the past, and might well continue to do so. We know our weaknesses all too well -- but do we really know our strengths? I consider that a basically unexplored area.
And as someone said -- "Always assume you'll survive. You'll only be wrong once."
This is the end, my only friend
The end of our elaborate plans
The end of ev'rything that stands
The end
--- Jim Morrison, "The End" (excerpt)
My first experience with the total destruction of America was back in grade school, with "air raid drills", rumblings on TV and radio about the "nuclear arms race", and -- best of all -- fall-out shelters. Fall-out shelters were for the early Fifties what home spas are now -- everyone had to have one, and there was stiff competition as to whoever had the biggest, strongest, deepest... the one with the best ventilation and filter system... the most dried and canned food... etc. It was a real status thing. (I wonder what people are doing with all those old fall-out shelters now. Raising artisanal mushrooms, perhaps? If you know, please share.)
In any case, what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing new about "terror" -- we lived with it every day, and I suspect that had a lot to do with the 1960s. People who had grown up with "duck and cover" decided, the hell with the system that had exposed us to such delights -- to hell with their world view, their priorities, their politics, their uptightness, and what not. And to hell with their "reality" -- hence the rising tide of "drug abuse" and alternative lifestyles.
But that wasn't the end of "the end", oh no. The next thing-after-which-nothing-will-ever-again-be-the-same was Vietnam. And sure enough, Vietnam, along with everything that went with it, certainly "morphed" American society into something other than what it had been before -- but the point is, it still existed. It survived in a new, modified form. What was the next "end of everything"? Well, AIDS certainly merits mention, especially since it was supposed to spread into the general population like the Black Death, and render vast stretches of the U.S. depopulated, with hapless cows wandering about, mooing to be milked. Well, that never happened either. It was discovered (read: admitted) that, in order to get AIDS, you had to do some very specific things of your own volition, and unless you did those things -- with rare exceptions -- you weren't going to get AIDS. And this was even after the definition of what constituted "AIDS" had been broadened to include a case of the sniffles, and hangnails.
Ah, but let us not forget that, at about the same time, we were blessed with a sort of mini-Dark Ages in the form of the Carter administration, and _that_ was supposed to be the end of everything -- militarily, diplomatically, economy-wise, and so on. But fortunately a dude named Reagan showed up and put Carter and all his brain-damaged cronies on a sealed train back to Georgia, and we all started to feel much better almost immediately. This was the same Reagan who also managed to defuse one of the other major "this is the end" factors, namely Soviet communism and its associated militaristic belligerence. This, in turn -- with a few minor glitches like the S&L crisis, another economic "end of everything" that turned out not to be -- led to our brief respite from history in the form of the Clinton administration, which was America's spring break in Fort Lauderdale.
But, as fate would have it, the rest of the world wasn't content to let us just chill out. Along came 9-11, with its own claim to be "the end of everything", and yes, for a few hours it seemed like it just might be -- until we realized that the terrorists had run out of planes, and of terrorists able to fly them. But the damage was done, and we are now forced to live under an oppressive police state, that tracks our every move and monitors all of our phone calls, e-mails, and bubble gum purchases, all for our own good. Or are we? I mean, honestly, how much does the average schmuck feel that his "civil rights" have been "eroded" by the post-9-11 constraints? For that matter, how often did he use his civil rights to the full extent _before_ 9-11? Seems to me that if you don't travel by plane, you basically wouldn't notice a thing. As as for "Internet privacy" -- pardon my indulgent chuckle -- it never existed, does not now exist, and never will. You put your mess out there on the Net, and it's public property, baby. Just accept that, live with it, and keep on truckin'. Oh, certainly, the "post-9-11" world is different -- but not in the ways most people seem to believe. The main impact, in my opinion, was that it solidified political, social, and economic alignments that were already in place. In that sense, it provided a new setting for our foreign policy which could very well last for generations -- and will, if John McCain has anything to do with it.
And that brings us up to the present day, with its plethora of world-ending events and trends. "But this time it's different!" This time it's a "perfect storm". Never before have we had to deal with terrorism _and_ the declining dollar, _and_ the subprime mortgage meltdown, and the Social Security crisis, and the health care crisis, and the autism epidemic, and global warming, and catastrophic declines in fisheries, beehives, tortillas... expensive oil... "frankenfoods"... exotic ailments imported from the Third World on airplanes and tramp steamers... the list goes on and on and on, like the drumbeat that always seems to accompany the trip to the guillotine in the tumbrel. And yet I ask -- does it really "feel" like things are that much worse now than they've been at any number of times in the past? Are people now panicking and putting everything they have into krugerrands and freeze-dried survival foods, and moving to the Northern Rockies, the way they actually _were_ doing during the Carter years? Or are we just too fond of griping? It is, after all, the national pastime -- never so much as right now, during an election year. Are the cities burning? Well, they were back in the late 60s. Are our politicians getting knocked off on a regular basis? Well, they were back then. I'm not saying we don't have plenty of challenges these days -- and I'm not saying that our society doesn't suffer from some ailments that may well turn out to be fatal. But it has shown remarkable -- yea, miraculous -- durability in the past, and might well continue to do so. We know our weaknesses all too well -- but do we really know our strengths? I consider that a basically unexplored area.
And as someone said -- "Always assume you'll survive. You'll only be wrong once."
Snapshots, 4/8/08
Folks, the hits just keep coming. And I haven't even heard the Petraeus news yet. For all I know he's been clamped in irons and condemned to the Senate's basement cafeteria, where he was put on a steady diet of Senate navy bean soup (extra ironic for an Army officer). But that can wait. For right now we have some slightly, um, lighter fare:
1. Pass the Moose
Canada is creating a 1.9 million acre national park in the Northwest Territories. It will be called Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve -- and rather than charge money for admission they have decided to only allow people in who can actually pronounce the name. Sounds like those Arctic voles have nothing to worry about.
2. Rubber Ducky
A new condom factory in Brazil's Amazon rainforest will aid rubber tappers "while helping to preserve the Amazon rain forest". Not sure how that latter benefit is to be derived -- maybe by keeping the tree-cutters busy doing other things when they should be clearing land? In any case, the program is also expected to contribute to AIDS prevention, thus making it "win-win-win". Now when does Al Bore, I mean Gore, suggest something similar for the U.S.? As a substitute for offshore drilling, perhaps? But on the other hand, the effect on global warming might offset any benefits. I suggest we adopt a wait-and-see attitude on this one.
3. White Out
"Mugabe militants force whites off their land". What astonishes me is that there are any white ranchers and farmers _left_ in Zimbabwe. These guys must be meaner than pit bulls with piles. Can you imagine having put up with that crap all these years? I recall back in the late 1970s I knew a guy whose in-laws were Rhodesians. He showed me some of their anti-Zimbabwe literature. Of course, at that point those folks had about as much clout as the white rulers of South Africa. Funny thing is, though -- everything they said would come to pass with Zimbabwean independence has, and then some.
4. The Princess and the Pea Brains
Well, it's finally been settled -- Princess Di was indeed killed through the negligence of a drunk driver (her own) and a bunch of Vespa-riding paparrazi. The alternative theory was that she was the victim of an assassination plot hatched by none other than members of the British royal family. OK, so lessee -- these are people who need help telling a salad fork from a soup spoon, and they were supposed to hatch a complicated and devious plot to do in one of their former members? See, this brings out the problem -- one of the main ones, in fact -- with many conspiracy theories. You always have to judge the credibility of the theory based not on motive or opportunity, but on the capabilities of the alleged conspirators. Like -- Bush had something to do with 9-11. This is a guy who has training wheels on his golf cart. I don't think so. Of course there were smarter people hanging around who might have pulled it off... but in Diana's case, what are the chances?
5. Hugo, meet Homer
Venezuela has pulled "The Simpsons" from its TV listings and substituted "Baywatch Hawaii" on the grounds the "The Simpsons" "may be inappropriate for children". As if "Baywatch" is OK? I guess communism is about more than just political and economic distortion. What I really suspect is that the fact that Homer works in a nuclear power plant is seen as a slight to the Venezuelan oil export business. Either that, or people have been demanding that the state beer stores start to carry Duff rather than just the local brew.
1. Pass the Moose
Canada is creating a 1.9 million acre national park in the Northwest Territories. It will be called Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve -- and rather than charge money for admission they have decided to only allow people in who can actually pronounce the name. Sounds like those Arctic voles have nothing to worry about.
2. Rubber Ducky
A new condom factory in Brazil's Amazon rainforest will aid rubber tappers "while helping to preserve the Amazon rain forest". Not sure how that latter benefit is to be derived -- maybe by keeping the tree-cutters busy doing other things when they should be clearing land? In any case, the program is also expected to contribute to AIDS prevention, thus making it "win-win-win". Now when does Al Bore, I mean Gore, suggest something similar for the U.S.? As a substitute for offshore drilling, perhaps? But on the other hand, the effect on global warming might offset any benefits. I suggest we adopt a wait-and-see attitude on this one.
3. White Out
"Mugabe militants force whites off their land". What astonishes me is that there are any white ranchers and farmers _left_ in Zimbabwe. These guys must be meaner than pit bulls with piles. Can you imagine having put up with that crap all these years? I recall back in the late 1970s I knew a guy whose in-laws were Rhodesians. He showed me some of their anti-Zimbabwe literature. Of course, at that point those folks had about as much clout as the white rulers of South Africa. Funny thing is, though -- everything they said would come to pass with Zimbabwean independence has, and then some.
4. The Princess and the Pea Brains
Well, it's finally been settled -- Princess Di was indeed killed through the negligence of a drunk driver (her own) and a bunch of Vespa-riding paparrazi. The alternative theory was that she was the victim of an assassination plot hatched by none other than members of the British royal family. OK, so lessee -- these are people who need help telling a salad fork from a soup spoon, and they were supposed to hatch a complicated and devious plot to do in one of their former members? See, this brings out the problem -- one of the main ones, in fact -- with many conspiracy theories. You always have to judge the credibility of the theory based not on motive or opportunity, but on the capabilities of the alleged conspirators. Like -- Bush had something to do with 9-11. This is a guy who has training wheels on his golf cart. I don't think so. Of course there were smarter people hanging around who might have pulled it off... but in Diana's case, what are the chances?
5. Hugo, meet Homer
Venezuela has pulled "The Simpsons" from its TV listings and substituted "Baywatch Hawaii" on the grounds the "The Simpsons" "may be inappropriate for children". As if "Baywatch" is OK? I guess communism is about more than just political and economic distortion. What I really suspect is that the fact that Homer works in a nuclear power plant is seen as a slight to the Venezuelan oil export business. Either that, or people have been demanding that the state beer stores start to carry Duff rather than just the local brew.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Snapshots, 4/7/08
Spring is here! The air is balmy... the daffodils are about to pop... and an ever-new round of lunacy strikes the body politic. To wit:
1. Shall We Dance?
You're going to see some tap dancing that would put Bo Jangles to shame when Gen. Petraeus parachutes onto Capitol Hill tomorrow to deliver his latest pep talk on the war. McCain will, of course, be happy as a pig in stuff, since his belief in the merit of the war is totally unclouded by actual facts. The tap dancing will be done by Hillary and Obama. They would, ideally, like to subject the general to a war crimes trial, not so much for him as for his role as representative of a delusional administration. At the same time they realize that same delusion is still shared by millions of Americans -- and that the previous round of jeers and catcalls directed at the general didn't go over too good with the home folks. So they will adopt an air of skepticism and ask "probing questions" while being careful not to leave any teethmarks. At the same time, they'll each be positioning themselves at a very precise balance point which will allow for either continued criticism of the war or a "wait and see" attitude -- all in anticipation of an eventual (they hope) position statement once in office. It's called keeping one's options open. Of course, Obama is more unambiguously against the war than Hillary, in his public statements. But it's funny how, once in office, presidents develop a strange new respect for American empire-building. Well, it's on their watch, for one thing, so how can it be bad? But I suspect that what really happens is that they are made to sit down and have a little talk with a few key players who don't want their "deal" screwed up. And at that point, they realize that they've been taken captive, and that they will remain so until the day they leave office. You see this when they start walking around in a daze, with a glassy stare and mumbling about things like "America's obligations". What you are seeing at that point is the "pod person" who was substituted for the real thing by the body snatchers. What happens to the real person in that case? We don't know, because they never reappear. The "pod person" serves out their term, and then retires, and never utters a word of regret or repentance. All they manage to do -- if they don't have the good sense to live out their days on the golf course -- is get in the way, like Jimmy Carter.
2. "Girl born with 2 faces doing well, parents say"
At least now we know what that extra .1 child looks like, as in "average number of children" being 2.1 And of course, being as how this happened in India, the baby is already being revered by devout Hindus as a deity. (Apparently, every malformation in the human body is matched by at least one Hindu deity, which is really a very compassionate view of things. On the other hand, what self-respecting religion would have a deity that looked like Jimmy Carter?) In any case, when asked if this sort of thing might give India a bad name, a government spokesman said: "On the contrary. This event will put us into the first rank of nations. After all, Americans have been worshiping a two-faced female as a deity for years, and they are about to elect her president. If it's good enough for America, it is certainly good enough for India."
3. "Donation made to ensure control of Jerusalem"
This, referring to a donation of $6 million to "Israeli causes" by American evangelist John Hagee, a "Christian Zionist". Well, frankly, $6 million is a bit lame, considering that our foreign aid to Israel amounts to more than that each day. Plus -- what, precisely, does Hagee (an anti-Catholic as well, by the way) expect Israel to _do_ with this chump change? Build a chain-link fence around the Dome of the Rock? Buy every Arab youth an iPod, in an attempt at pacification? I'd like to see his plan, because if it's any good, we could use it to ensure control of Baghdad.
On a more general level, it always fascinates me that the Israelis are willing to accept, as official ambassadors of the United States, lunatics like Hagee and Pat Robertson. I mean, yeah, it sounds good when they pledge the lives and fortunes of each and every American to the Israeli cause... and it sounds even better when they point out that they have had unlimited access to the White House and the vice president's mansion for the last seven years. But hey, guys, all that could change in less than a year. The Democrats fear and despise white Southern redneck fundamentalists, televangelists, and Bible-belt "talk radio" hosts more than anyone on earth. If either Hillary or Obama wins in November, the Neocons and their "Christian Zionist" allies are going to be out in the cold faster than a case of Bud on Super Bowl Sunday. So the Israelis might want to start re-thinking their unfortunate habit of partying hearty with the likes of Hagee.
4. The Non-Boob Tube
Researchers at the University of Minnesota recommend that parents remove TV sets from teenagers' bedrooms. Now wait a minute -- aren't those the same people who are always saying that "the government should stay out of the bedroom"? Guess it depends on the specific behavior their busybody attentions are directed to that day. Frankly, if I had to choose between keeping TV out of kids' bedrooms and keeping those kids out of public schools, I'd pick the latter. At least with TV you can change the channel...
5. Gutter Politics
Turns out that Obama is one _lousy_ bowler. This isn't going to go over too well in Steel Town, where bowling is the perennial consolation prize after the Steelers play their last game of the season (or post season, "if applicable"). The male of the species hereabouts would be totally lost without an opportunity to take out his aggression on a bunch of hapless wooden pins. The only question that remains unsettled is, is bowling an excuse to drink beer or is drinking beer an excuse to bowl? However that is settled, the locals have to be looking askance as this Ivy League type who handles a bowling ball with about the same degree of familiarity as Bill Clinton handles a Bible. And to think, for a while there he almost seemed like one of us...
6. "New Mormon chief calls strays back to the fold"
Wonder if he's acting in concert with the Texas Rangers? Could be -- he refers to the "strays" as "the less active, the offended, the critical, the transgressor". The _what_? I'd like to see the response if the Pope used that term for fallen-away Catholics. But hey, the Mormons are just this weird, goof-ball sect that is not a threat to anyone. And with that, we now return you to Texas, where the latest cult-busting operation is in full swing. Among the latest shocking revelations from the raid on "a polygamist compound": (1) "Many people at the compound... are related to one another and share similar names." So... I guess we're going to see a raid on the Amish next? (2) "The women wore long pastel dresses...; several had infants." Wow, how twisted and perverse can you get? (3) "The women were not allowed to wear red... and were not allowed to cut their hair. They were also kept isolated from the outside world." So... I guess we can see all traditional Islamic families in court before long?
And finally, this quote -- for which the term "chilling" is a gross understatement: "'In my opinion, this is the largest endeavor we've ever been involved in in the state of Texas,' said Children's Protective Services spokesman Marleigh Meisner, who said she was also involved in the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco."
I love that -- "involved in the siege". That's like saying that Adolf Eichmann was "involved in the relocation of Jews". But isn't it comforting to know that the same folks who pulled off the Waco massacre under the watchful eye of Janet Reno are still at large, and still dealing with "cults"? I, for one, will sleep much better tonight knowing that I'm not going to be attacked by women in long pastel dresses holding infants.
1. Shall We Dance?
You're going to see some tap dancing that would put Bo Jangles to shame when Gen. Petraeus parachutes onto Capitol Hill tomorrow to deliver his latest pep talk on the war. McCain will, of course, be happy as a pig in stuff, since his belief in the merit of the war is totally unclouded by actual facts. The tap dancing will be done by Hillary and Obama. They would, ideally, like to subject the general to a war crimes trial, not so much for him as for his role as representative of a delusional administration. At the same time they realize that same delusion is still shared by millions of Americans -- and that the previous round of jeers and catcalls directed at the general didn't go over too good with the home folks. So they will adopt an air of skepticism and ask "probing questions" while being careful not to leave any teethmarks. At the same time, they'll each be positioning themselves at a very precise balance point which will allow for either continued criticism of the war or a "wait and see" attitude -- all in anticipation of an eventual (they hope) position statement once in office. It's called keeping one's options open. Of course, Obama is more unambiguously against the war than Hillary, in his public statements. But it's funny how, once in office, presidents develop a strange new respect for American empire-building. Well, it's on their watch, for one thing, so how can it be bad? But I suspect that what really happens is that they are made to sit down and have a little talk with a few key players who don't want their "deal" screwed up. And at that point, they realize that they've been taken captive, and that they will remain so until the day they leave office. You see this when they start walking around in a daze, with a glassy stare and mumbling about things like "America's obligations". What you are seeing at that point is the "pod person" who was substituted for the real thing by the body snatchers. What happens to the real person in that case? We don't know, because they never reappear. The "pod person" serves out their term, and then retires, and never utters a word of regret or repentance. All they manage to do -- if they don't have the good sense to live out their days on the golf course -- is get in the way, like Jimmy Carter.
2. "Girl born with 2 faces doing well, parents say"
At least now we know what that extra .1 child looks like, as in "average number of children" being 2.1 And of course, being as how this happened in India, the baby is already being revered by devout Hindus as a deity. (Apparently, every malformation in the human body is matched by at least one Hindu deity, which is really a very compassionate view of things. On the other hand, what self-respecting religion would have a deity that looked like Jimmy Carter?) In any case, when asked if this sort of thing might give India a bad name, a government spokesman said: "On the contrary. This event will put us into the first rank of nations. After all, Americans have been worshiping a two-faced female as a deity for years, and they are about to elect her president. If it's good enough for America, it is certainly good enough for India."
3. "Donation made to ensure control of Jerusalem"
This, referring to a donation of $6 million to "Israeli causes" by American evangelist John Hagee, a "Christian Zionist". Well, frankly, $6 million is a bit lame, considering that our foreign aid to Israel amounts to more than that each day. Plus -- what, precisely, does Hagee (an anti-Catholic as well, by the way) expect Israel to _do_ with this chump change? Build a chain-link fence around the Dome of the Rock? Buy every Arab youth an iPod, in an attempt at pacification? I'd like to see his plan, because if it's any good, we could use it to ensure control of Baghdad.
On a more general level, it always fascinates me that the Israelis are willing to accept, as official ambassadors of the United States, lunatics like Hagee and Pat Robertson. I mean, yeah, it sounds good when they pledge the lives and fortunes of each and every American to the Israeli cause... and it sounds even better when they point out that they have had unlimited access to the White House and the vice president's mansion for the last seven years. But hey, guys, all that could change in less than a year. The Democrats fear and despise white Southern redneck fundamentalists, televangelists, and Bible-belt "talk radio" hosts more than anyone on earth. If either Hillary or Obama wins in November, the Neocons and their "Christian Zionist" allies are going to be out in the cold faster than a case of Bud on Super Bowl Sunday. So the Israelis might want to start re-thinking their unfortunate habit of partying hearty with the likes of Hagee.
4. The Non-Boob Tube
Researchers at the University of Minnesota recommend that parents remove TV sets from teenagers' bedrooms. Now wait a minute -- aren't those the same people who are always saying that "the government should stay out of the bedroom"? Guess it depends on the specific behavior their busybody attentions are directed to that day. Frankly, if I had to choose between keeping TV out of kids' bedrooms and keeping those kids out of public schools, I'd pick the latter. At least with TV you can change the channel...
5. Gutter Politics
Turns out that Obama is one _lousy_ bowler. This isn't going to go over too well in Steel Town, where bowling is the perennial consolation prize after the Steelers play their last game of the season (or post season, "if applicable"). The male of the species hereabouts would be totally lost without an opportunity to take out his aggression on a bunch of hapless wooden pins. The only question that remains unsettled is, is bowling an excuse to drink beer or is drinking beer an excuse to bowl? However that is settled, the locals have to be looking askance as this Ivy League type who handles a bowling ball with about the same degree of familiarity as Bill Clinton handles a Bible. And to think, for a while there he almost seemed like one of us...
6. "New Mormon chief calls strays back to the fold"
Wonder if he's acting in concert with the Texas Rangers? Could be -- he refers to the "strays" as "the less active, the offended, the critical, the transgressor". The _what_? I'd like to see the response if the Pope used that term for fallen-away Catholics. But hey, the Mormons are just this weird, goof-ball sect that is not a threat to anyone. And with that, we now return you to Texas, where the latest cult-busting operation is in full swing. Among the latest shocking revelations from the raid on "a polygamist compound": (1) "Many people at the compound... are related to one another and share similar names." So... I guess we're going to see a raid on the Amish next? (2) "The women wore long pastel dresses...; several had infants." Wow, how twisted and perverse can you get? (3) "The women were not allowed to wear red... and were not allowed to cut their hair. They were also kept isolated from the outside world." So... I guess we can see all traditional Islamic families in court before long?
And finally, this quote -- for which the term "chilling" is a gross understatement: "'In my opinion, this is the largest endeavor we've ever been involved in in the state of Texas,' said Children's Protective Services spokesman Marleigh Meisner, who said she was also involved in the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco."
I love that -- "involved in the siege". That's like saying that Adolf Eichmann was "involved in the relocation of Jews". But isn't it comforting to know that the same folks who pulled off the Waco massacre under the watchful eye of Janet Reno are still at large, and still dealing with "cults"? I, for one, will sleep much better tonight knowing that I'm not going to be attacked by women in long pastel dresses holding infants.
House of Commons, and Crack
From the e-mail file -- comments, dated February 6, on the issue of property rights as applied to the oceans, and "the tragedy of the commons" that is manifesting itself in that environment as well as everywhere else. The argument attempts to deal with some of the property rights concepts frequently raised by libertarians:
It strikes me that one has to move beyond a simplistic concept of private property whenever you're dealing with things that "move", i.e. are not, and cannot be, contained within definite boundaries. Air is the best example, but we also have moving water. E.g., I can own a pond but I'm unlikely to own the entire stream that runs from the pond to some river, and I'm unlikely to own the entire river from that point to the ocean, and I'm unlikely to own the ocean. I can more or less control the air within the 4 walls of my house, but beyond that? Even dams, which are, of course, always bones of contention, while being _located_ on private (or public, whatever) property have an impact downstream. Presumably, anyone building a dam would have to own everything downstream that could be impacted, all the way to the ocean. (This is probably why there aren't that many private dams.) Then you have related issues, like fertilizer, which is spread on private land, but makes its way into water tables, streams, rivers, etc. So one could argue that, basically, private property ideas simply do not -- cannot -- apply in these situations, which means that one would have to get at least permissions -- downstream or downwind -- for whatever one wanted to do that might impact air and water. Failing that, some organized entity would have to be able to step in and adjudicate, and enforce. So, do people have to organize a protective association for each instance of actual or potential "pollution", or do they simply organize a standing association which has the mandate to keep an eye on things and enforce when and where necessary? Thus we have another legitimate role for government which might just be better performed that way than using a strictly private model. (It gets even trickier when the pollution from one jurisdiction impacts a different jurisdiction, or even a different country.)
One can come up with theoretical cases fairly readily. A farmer uses fertilizer that makes its way into the water table and streams, and has an adverse impact downstream. He rejects all appeals to quit using the stuff. In order to enforce the rights of the people downstream, some private or public entity would have to be empowered to invade his private property and remove the offending substance -- thus, trespassing and stealing, if it's a private organization, vs. "enforcing the law" if its public. Similar cases can be made re: air pollution and dams. What if a colony of _beavers_ builds a dam that has an adverse effect downstream? But the person whose property lies next to the beaver dam doesn't mind, in fact he is a beaver buff. What rights do the people downstream have vis-a-vis breaking up the dam, which would have to involve trespassing on that property? Are beaver dams an "act of God" like hurricanes and earthquakes, that can change the course of rivers and reshape tidewater areas? (Or volcanoes, which pollute the air worse than -- oh, let's say a typical McDonald's fry vat?) Does _protection_ of private property include the (group) right to build dams, canals, etc. on expropriated property?
Another good one. (This happens a _lot_ in cities.) Let's say I live in a row of townhouses, and the one next door becomes a haven for rats, cockroaches, and other vermin. They, of course, invade _my_ house from time to time. What are my rights? Are rats and roaches the same as air and water pollution? And what about noise? It travels through the air, and cannot be readily contained within the boundaries of private property. And what about "soft" forms of air pollution, like cooking odors, "air fresheners", scented candles, strong disinfectants, dirty diapers, pets, etc. etc.? And does "visual pollution" count? (New Hampshire has a "view tax" that applies to property where you can see the mountains, or whatever. How about a "non-view" tax for people who _block_ the view other people would have had?) (I understand this is a major issue in Beirut, of all places.)
[A further comment, after the discussion "morphed" a bit, into the topic of "enforcing morality".]
If you think of the "war on drugs" as one of the manifestations of our politically dominant secular Puritanism -- i.e. as more of a moral crusade than anything having to do with "law and order" or public health, then it's not so far-fetched that _many_ people would be willing to spend huge amounts of money (including their own) on it. That certain drugs should be illegal, and that penalties for their use and possession should be severe, is an article of faith in this country -- "faith" because it certainly has no objective, i.e. scientific, validity. (And the economic argument is in precisely the opposite direction.) Combine this with the implicit notion that we somehow "need" a perpetual underclass of addicts, felons, prisoners, and losers in order to make everyone else feel better (i.e., virtuous) and you have a perfect formula for the continuation of the WOD -- even in the face of all other cultural trends, which at least _seem_ to be moving away from Puritanism. In this regard at least, Obama is no better than any other black "leader" who continues to sacrifice his own race on the white Puritan anti-drug altar. (This is the biggest sell-out of blacks by blacks in the country -- or maybe 2nd next to abortion. Anyone who could get this message across to even a fraction of the black community would be rewarded by seeing Jackson and Sharpton sent into exile.)
It strikes me that one has to move beyond a simplistic concept of private property whenever you're dealing with things that "move", i.e. are not, and cannot be, contained within definite boundaries. Air is the best example, but we also have moving water. E.g., I can own a pond but I'm unlikely to own the entire stream that runs from the pond to some river, and I'm unlikely to own the entire river from that point to the ocean, and I'm unlikely to own the ocean. I can more or less control the air within the 4 walls of my house, but beyond that? Even dams, which are, of course, always bones of contention, while being _located_ on private (or public, whatever) property have an impact downstream. Presumably, anyone building a dam would have to own everything downstream that could be impacted, all the way to the ocean. (This is probably why there aren't that many private dams.) Then you have related issues, like fertilizer, which is spread on private land, but makes its way into water tables, streams, rivers, etc. So one could argue that, basically, private property ideas simply do not -- cannot -- apply in these situations, which means that one would have to get at least permissions -- downstream or downwind -- for whatever one wanted to do that might impact air and water. Failing that, some organized entity would have to be able to step in and adjudicate, and enforce. So, do people have to organize a protective association for each instance of actual or potential "pollution", or do they simply organize a standing association which has the mandate to keep an eye on things and enforce when and where necessary? Thus we have another legitimate role for government which might just be better performed that way than using a strictly private model. (It gets even trickier when the pollution from one jurisdiction impacts a different jurisdiction, or even a different country.)
One can come up with theoretical cases fairly readily. A farmer uses fertilizer that makes its way into the water table and streams, and has an adverse impact downstream. He rejects all appeals to quit using the stuff. In order to enforce the rights of the people downstream, some private or public entity would have to be empowered to invade his private property and remove the offending substance -- thus, trespassing and stealing, if it's a private organization, vs. "enforcing the law" if its public. Similar cases can be made re: air pollution and dams. What if a colony of _beavers_ builds a dam that has an adverse effect downstream? But the person whose property lies next to the beaver dam doesn't mind, in fact he is a beaver buff. What rights do the people downstream have vis-a-vis breaking up the dam, which would have to involve trespassing on that property? Are beaver dams an "act of God" like hurricanes and earthquakes, that can change the course of rivers and reshape tidewater areas? (Or volcanoes, which pollute the air worse than -- oh, let's say a typical McDonald's fry vat?) Does _protection_ of private property include the (group) right to build dams, canals, etc. on expropriated property?
Another good one. (This happens a _lot_ in cities.) Let's say I live in a row of townhouses, and the one next door becomes a haven for rats, cockroaches, and other vermin. They, of course, invade _my_ house from time to time. What are my rights? Are rats and roaches the same as air and water pollution? And what about noise? It travels through the air, and cannot be readily contained within the boundaries of private property. And what about "soft" forms of air pollution, like cooking odors, "air fresheners", scented candles, strong disinfectants, dirty diapers, pets, etc. etc.? And does "visual pollution" count? (New Hampshire has a "view tax" that applies to property where you can see the mountains, or whatever. How about a "non-view" tax for people who _block_ the view other people would have had?) (I understand this is a major issue in Beirut, of all places.)
[A further comment, after the discussion "morphed" a bit, into the topic of "enforcing morality".]
If you think of the "war on drugs" as one of the manifestations of our politically dominant secular Puritanism -- i.e. as more of a moral crusade than anything having to do with "law and order" or public health, then it's not so far-fetched that _many_ people would be willing to spend huge amounts of money (including their own) on it. That certain drugs should be illegal, and that penalties for their use and possession should be severe, is an article of faith in this country -- "faith" because it certainly has no objective, i.e. scientific, validity. (And the economic argument is in precisely the opposite direction.) Combine this with the implicit notion that we somehow "need" a perpetual underclass of addicts, felons, prisoners, and losers in order to make everyone else feel better (i.e., virtuous) and you have a perfect formula for the continuation of the WOD -- even in the face of all other cultural trends, which at least _seem_ to be moving away from Puritanism. In this regard at least, Obama is no better than any other black "leader" who continues to sacrifice his own race on the white Puritan anti-drug altar. (This is the biggest sell-out of blacks by blacks in the country -- or maybe 2nd next to abortion. Anyone who could get this message across to even a fraction of the black community would be rewarded by seeing Jackson and Sharpton sent into exile.)
Autistic Tendencies
From the e-mail file -- some comments on the autism "epidemic", dated March 10 and 11. The original stimulus was an article from CNN, which included the following: "The parents of a 9-year-old girl with autism said Thursday that their assertion that her illness was caused by childhood vaccines has been vindicated by the federal government's decision to compensate them. A federal program intended to compensate victims of injuries caused by vaccines concluded last November that Hannah Poling's underlying illness that had predisposed her to symptoms of autism was 'significantly aggravated' by the vaccinations she received as a toddler and that her family should therefore be compensated." Essentially, the government is simultaneously holding two positions on this matter -- that vaccines can be responsible for autism, and that they cannot. My comments:
So typical. Two different agencies with diametrically opposed stories. What I actually suspect is that there is a sort of "predisposing" factor in autism that is triggered by these vaccines, but also by any number of other environmental factors, hence the rise in incidence. (This is not the only childhood ailment that has shot up, with environmental factors the suspected cause.) Also true -- overdiagnosis due to a broader definition of the ailment. (Kind of like AIDS in Africa.) Autism has become a "racket" just like so many other ailments. You know this when they start spending huge amounts of money and not getting any results (and rejecting competing theories as being beyond the pale). We're already at the point where 1/2 the public school kids are diagnosed as abnormal in some way -- it can only get worse, from real as well as made-up or political factors.
[My correspondent responded: "It was my impression that certain kids genetically lack the ability to metabolize mercury and eliminate it, so it accumulates. That seems a sufficient explanation, in any event."] My response:
Right. But what about all the other "increased autism" cases? Maybe a similar lack of ability to metabolize some other environmental threat -- heavy metal etc. I think we've just scratched the surface re: environmentally-based ailments and epidemics. It may turn out that technology is a zero-sum game after all.
[To which he responded: "Or if vaccinations become a permanent part of our environment, those who are sensitive to mercury will be weeded out."] My response:
Could be! Autism, while not fatal, is certainly a "weeding out" since very few autistic people get married and have children (alth. I can think of a few who come close). Problem is, as exotic pollutants become more widespread, we may come to the point where _everyone_ is sensitive to something -- we are already halfway there, in fact. Again, not always fatal but not great for quality of life (think asthma, etc.). Similarly, rise in diabetes and hypoglycemia from over-abundance of refined sugar. Many other diseases from other refined foods, artifical sweeteners, preservatives, etc. really way worse than anything alcohol or tobacco can do -- but the regime has set their seal of approval on all of it so what can be done? Once again it's about politics, power, and -- yes -- jobs, which translates to votes. Every time a disease becomes an "industry" you can count on it _not_ to be "cured" any time soon. And what happens to the 50% of public school kids who are already considered "sick"? Do they become wards of the state by age 50, or earlier? I notice also that in nearly all murder cases these days, and quite a few rape cases, the defense brings up the matter of -- not "mental illness" but some other, really lame-assed excuse that comes under the heading of "illness", as a mitigating circumstance. Note also that every time a guy over 60 is tried for anything -- especially corporate thievery -- he suddenly turns into an invalid, who no judge with any compassion would ever actually send to jail. OK, lessee -- he was healthy enough to steal $100 million, but is too sick to go to jail. Right.
All of which "piles on" to the evidence _against_ this society lasting much longer, at least in its present form. All we do from dawn to dusk any more is apologize and get sick. You don't find our opponents on the world scene doing that. We seem to get weaker every day, while they get stronger. Even Russia has gotten over its post-Soviet slump -- and China has been climbing steadily ever since Mao left the scene. Communism is a new and exciting idea in much of Latin America... and Islam is an old and exciting idea all the way from Morocco to Indonesia. What do we have? A ludicrous process of selecting leaders -- a Constitution in shreds -- and a populace that's scared of its own shadow. I really think it's just a matter of time.
[To which he responded: "Just a matter of time--and not a very long time, I think. It is interesting that we seem to be becoming more and more a nation of hothouse plants--asthma and all sorts of sensitivities. I'm not sure whether that's because the environment is becoming more toxic, or whether we're overprotecting ourselves in some way."] My response:
I think "overprotection" is a big piece of it. Didn't I just read that growing up on (highly septic) farms produces healthier adults than growing up in (sterile) cities? No immune system develops properly unless it's challenged on a frequent basis. Problem is, we've confused naturally-acquired immunity with resistance to "unnatural" substances, i.e. ones that either do not occur in nature or do occur but in much smaller quantities. So we rush to protect people against _all_ "hazards", including things like raw milk... or worse yet, we protect against the natural septic challenges but blow off the threat from exotic chemicals. Please note that up until recently, maternity wards, which are supposedly the model for antiseptic purity (except they aren't), were discouraging breast feeding and "lying in", and insisting that women get the "Barbie doll shave" because of all those nasty germs lurking in pubic hair. What it is -- IMHO -- is another one of those holdovers from Puritanism, AKA "emotional plague" (Wilhelm Reich's term), whereby anything natural and organic is shunned, whereas the artifical and man-made is embraced as somehow representing man's "conquest" of nature. It's a perverse form of utopianism. But funny how nature always gets even, sooner or later.
Policy-wise, you wind up with a vicious circle whereby known carcinogens, etc. cause us to create a "hothouse" atmosphere, which "protects" against healthy, immunity-building vectors as well. (And to make it worse, many of the so-called "health promoting" substances are, in their own right, pollutants, or linked to pollution in some way -- e.g., look at all those damn plastic bottles that people throw away when they've finished their "spring water".) So with the immunity-building vectors in decline, our sensitivity increases and more people get sick from the _unnatural_ agents, which in turn creates more "sanitation" and "safeguards", etc. So yes, someday we really will each live in our own little bubble -- but it's OK because we'll have all the Ipods and DVDs, etc. we want. And it'll all be free! (ha)
And BTW, I'm sure the Russians and Chinese are studying all of this very carefully in order to plan their next moves. Now that they've shucked off their own Achilles heel, i.e. dogmatic communism, they're ready to take us on again in a big way -- but this time stronger or at least on par with us on nearly all counts (except maybe the number of cable TV channels). The American Empire could stand only as long as our opponents were severely handicapped by philosophical illusions. Now that those have faded (which we celebrate, ironically) we find ourselves in a perilous position. Note also that one of our biggest handicaps, namely "political correctness", is a liberal program. So the old "right-wing paranoid" idea that the liberals were intentionally weakening us in order to make a communist takeover more likely was actually half right. The "wrong" half was the communist part. But we assume that because communism is "dead", the Russian and Chinese forms of imperialism are dead as well. Mistake! They are just as interested in empire as ever, only the methods have changed. Now it's economic -- ironically the same tool we used to bring communism down has been turned against us in less than 20 years! Of course, part of it is that Americans are even fatter and lazier now than they were back then. But another part is that we've taken on Iraq and the entire Islamic world, which is, of course, an unparalleled folly and which plays right into the hands of such as Russia and China. Did they ever "invest" in another country simply on the basis of politics, with no discernible chance for material gain? Certainly -- back then. But no longer. The true dogmatists in the world of today are not the former communists, but the "spreaders of democracy" (i.e. us, and whoever we can con into providing support) and the Moslems. So while we and the Moslems fight that battle, Russia and China sit on the sidelines having a great time, and planning how to divvy up the spoils.
And also BTW, Israel finds itself on the losing side of this "great game". Even if we hold the Moslems at bay on their behalf, we are still headed for a collision with Russia and China. And will whoever wins that one be at all interested in maintaining the status quo vis-a-vis Israel? Not bloody likely. Russia and China are already, each in their own way, establishing solidarity with the Moslems and keeping Israel at arm's length. Again, no dogmatism is involved -- just cold calculation. So basically, anything that threatens to bring down the American Empire will also bring down the Israeli Empire. How they plan to wriggle out of that one is anybody's guess. I see the beginning of the next historical cycle for the Jews in all of this. The notion that with the establishment of Israel history (at least for the Jews) was supposed to "end" was a fond delusion. As far as the Jews are concerned, history _never_ ends -- it just keeps cycling through the same sequence over and over. Some would call this a "curse"; others (e.g. the Evangelicals) a "blessing". I don't think we'll know for certain until -- literally -- the end of the world, i.e. the _real_ "end of history".
(Overall comment, April 6) How we get from autism to foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel is one of those mysteries of free association and random access. But as far as I can tell, each link in the chain is valid. So you be the judge.
So typical. Two different agencies with diametrically opposed stories. What I actually suspect is that there is a sort of "predisposing" factor in autism that is triggered by these vaccines, but also by any number of other environmental factors, hence the rise in incidence. (This is not the only childhood ailment that has shot up, with environmental factors the suspected cause.) Also true -- overdiagnosis due to a broader definition of the ailment. (Kind of like AIDS in Africa.) Autism has become a "racket" just like so many other ailments. You know this when they start spending huge amounts of money and not getting any results (and rejecting competing theories as being beyond the pale). We're already at the point where 1/2 the public school kids are diagnosed as abnormal in some way -- it can only get worse, from real as well as made-up or political factors.
[My correspondent responded: "It was my impression that certain kids genetically lack the ability to metabolize mercury and eliminate it, so it accumulates. That seems a sufficient explanation, in any event."] My response:
Right. But what about all the other "increased autism" cases? Maybe a similar lack of ability to metabolize some other environmental threat -- heavy metal etc. I think we've just scratched the surface re: environmentally-based ailments and epidemics. It may turn out that technology is a zero-sum game after all.
[To which he responded: "Or if vaccinations become a permanent part of our environment, those who are sensitive to mercury will be weeded out."] My response:
Could be! Autism, while not fatal, is certainly a "weeding out" since very few autistic people get married and have children (alth. I can think of a few who come close). Problem is, as exotic pollutants become more widespread, we may come to the point where _everyone_ is sensitive to something -- we are already halfway there, in fact. Again, not always fatal but not great for quality of life (think asthma, etc.). Similarly, rise in diabetes and hypoglycemia from over-abundance of refined sugar. Many other diseases from other refined foods, artifical sweeteners, preservatives, etc. really way worse than anything alcohol or tobacco can do -- but the regime has set their seal of approval on all of it so what can be done? Once again it's about politics, power, and -- yes -- jobs, which translates to votes. Every time a disease becomes an "industry" you can count on it _not_ to be "cured" any time soon. And what happens to the 50% of public school kids who are already considered "sick"? Do they become wards of the state by age 50, or earlier? I notice also that in nearly all murder cases these days, and quite a few rape cases, the defense brings up the matter of -- not "mental illness" but some other, really lame-assed excuse that comes under the heading of "illness", as a mitigating circumstance. Note also that every time a guy over 60 is tried for anything -- especially corporate thievery -- he suddenly turns into an invalid, who no judge with any compassion would ever actually send to jail. OK, lessee -- he was healthy enough to steal $100 million, but is too sick to go to jail. Right.
All of which "piles on" to the evidence _against_ this society lasting much longer, at least in its present form. All we do from dawn to dusk any more is apologize and get sick. You don't find our opponents on the world scene doing that. We seem to get weaker every day, while they get stronger. Even Russia has gotten over its post-Soviet slump -- and China has been climbing steadily ever since Mao left the scene. Communism is a new and exciting idea in much of Latin America... and Islam is an old and exciting idea all the way from Morocco to Indonesia. What do we have? A ludicrous process of selecting leaders -- a Constitution in shreds -- and a populace that's scared of its own shadow. I really think it's just a matter of time.
[To which he responded: "Just a matter of time--and not a very long time, I think. It is interesting that we seem to be becoming more and more a nation of hothouse plants--asthma and all sorts of sensitivities. I'm not sure whether that's because the environment is becoming more toxic, or whether we're overprotecting ourselves in some way."] My response:
I think "overprotection" is a big piece of it. Didn't I just read that growing up on (highly septic) farms produces healthier adults than growing up in (sterile) cities? No immune system develops properly unless it's challenged on a frequent basis. Problem is, we've confused naturally-acquired immunity with resistance to "unnatural" substances, i.e. ones that either do not occur in nature or do occur but in much smaller quantities. So we rush to protect people against _all_ "hazards", including things like raw milk... or worse yet, we protect against the natural septic challenges but blow off the threat from exotic chemicals. Please note that up until recently, maternity wards, which are supposedly the model for antiseptic purity (except they aren't), were discouraging breast feeding and "lying in", and insisting that women get the "Barbie doll shave" because of all those nasty germs lurking in pubic hair. What it is -- IMHO -- is another one of those holdovers from Puritanism, AKA "emotional plague" (Wilhelm Reich's term), whereby anything natural and organic is shunned, whereas the artifical and man-made is embraced as somehow representing man's "conquest" of nature. It's a perverse form of utopianism. But funny how nature always gets even, sooner or later.
Policy-wise, you wind up with a vicious circle whereby known carcinogens, etc. cause us to create a "hothouse" atmosphere, which "protects" against healthy, immunity-building vectors as well. (And to make it worse, many of the so-called "health promoting" substances are, in their own right, pollutants, or linked to pollution in some way -- e.g., look at all those damn plastic bottles that people throw away when they've finished their "spring water".) So with the immunity-building vectors in decline, our sensitivity increases and more people get sick from the _unnatural_ agents, which in turn creates more "sanitation" and "safeguards", etc. So yes, someday we really will each live in our own little bubble -- but it's OK because we'll have all the Ipods and DVDs, etc. we want. And it'll all be free! (ha)
And BTW, I'm sure the Russians and Chinese are studying all of this very carefully in order to plan their next moves. Now that they've shucked off their own Achilles heel, i.e. dogmatic communism, they're ready to take us on again in a big way -- but this time stronger or at least on par with us on nearly all counts (except maybe the number of cable TV channels). The American Empire could stand only as long as our opponents were severely handicapped by philosophical illusions. Now that those have faded (which we celebrate, ironically) we find ourselves in a perilous position. Note also that one of our biggest handicaps, namely "political correctness", is a liberal program. So the old "right-wing paranoid" idea that the liberals were intentionally weakening us in order to make a communist takeover more likely was actually half right. The "wrong" half was the communist part. But we assume that because communism is "dead", the Russian and Chinese forms of imperialism are dead as well. Mistake! They are just as interested in empire as ever, only the methods have changed. Now it's economic -- ironically the same tool we used to bring communism down has been turned against us in less than 20 years! Of course, part of it is that Americans are even fatter and lazier now than they were back then. But another part is that we've taken on Iraq and the entire Islamic world, which is, of course, an unparalleled folly and which plays right into the hands of such as Russia and China. Did they ever "invest" in another country simply on the basis of politics, with no discernible chance for material gain? Certainly -- back then. But no longer. The true dogmatists in the world of today are not the former communists, but the "spreaders of democracy" (i.e. us, and whoever we can con into providing support) and the Moslems. So while we and the Moslems fight that battle, Russia and China sit on the sidelines having a great time, and planning how to divvy up the spoils.
And also BTW, Israel finds itself on the losing side of this "great game". Even if we hold the Moslems at bay on their behalf, we are still headed for a collision with Russia and China. And will whoever wins that one be at all interested in maintaining the status quo vis-a-vis Israel? Not bloody likely. Russia and China are already, each in their own way, establishing solidarity with the Moslems and keeping Israel at arm's length. Again, no dogmatism is involved -- just cold calculation. So basically, anything that threatens to bring down the American Empire will also bring down the Israeli Empire. How they plan to wriggle out of that one is anybody's guess. I see the beginning of the next historical cycle for the Jews in all of this. The notion that with the establishment of Israel history (at least for the Jews) was supposed to "end" was a fond delusion. As far as the Jews are concerned, history _never_ ends -- it just keeps cycling through the same sequence over and over. Some would call this a "curse"; others (e.g. the Evangelicals) a "blessing". I don't think we'll know for certain until -- literally -- the end of the world, i.e. the _real_ "end of history".
(Overall comment, April 6) How we get from autism to foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel is one of those mysteries of free association and random access. But as far as I can tell, each link in the chain is valid. So you be the judge.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Me on War (Part 4)
Bet you thought I had forgotten to pick up all those loose ends! Not so -- but there were a few things that had to be gotten out of the way first, like all the serious, world-altering entries under "Snapshots". But, that having been accomplished, it's time to sum up the "war" topic for now and deal with those questions I left hanging.
There should be no doubt, at this point, that among the four major positions -- Nationalistic/Patriotic, Pacifist, Anti-Pacifist, and Just War, I favor the last. And, there should be no doubt that the war in Iraq failed the Just War criteria at the outset as well as in retrospect. But surely, you'll say, the U.S. has, in fact, fought just wars in the past? Quite a few, in fact? Well, at least two? One? I guess I'd be willing to admit that, to the best of my knowledge, the Revolutionary War was "just" if you believe that the _cause_ was just -- for if the cause was just, then it was also just to defend it against the armed displeasure of Britain. And I suppose also that the War of 1812, since, among other things, it involved an actual invasion of our territory by the Brits, was just. But then we come to that unpleasantness known as the Civil War, or The War Between the States, and recent revisionism has shed more and more doubt on the justifiability of that war. I'll leave it to competent historians to continue to hash out these issues. Suffice it to say that the fallout from the Civil War is still very much with us, a situation which casts a bit of doubt on either its justness or the way in which it was fought, or the way in which it ended, with the aftermath in Reconstruction, the KKK, Jim Crow, Harlem, civil rights, forced busing, affirmative action, quotas, "diversity", hip-hop, Obama... and the list goes on.
To move along the time-line of history... we shouldn't forget the Mexican War, which was basically a huge land-grab, and thus not "just" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was the Spanish-American War for the same reasons. But how about World War I? Again, we have to look to the revisionists, who contend that that war could very easily have been prevented, if the European governments hadn't been such a bunch of butt-heads. But even if they were, what reason did _we_ have for jumping in? In a word, Wilsonian utopianism, i.e. the zeal for spreading "democracy". Is George Bush channeling Wilson, the way Hillary channels Eleanor Roosevelt? Apparently so -- and with just about the same edifying results.
But now it gets tricky -- because if World War I was a mistake (for us, at least), then how about World War II, which was arguably World War I Part II? How can a mistake lead to something that is not a mistake? How can a "bad war" lead to a "good war"? As luck would have it, there is a column by Pat Buchanan in today's paper entitled, "So WWII was a good war?" Buchanan's point -- and he is coming out with a book on this question next month, which I promise to review on this blog -- is that, yes, WWII was a good war -- but for only two countries, and unambiguously for only one, namely the Soviet Union. (It was also indirectly good for the Chinese Communists -- and led, let's admit, to the creation of the State of Israel.)
Now, I have said on other occasions that World War II was fought to make the world safe for Communism -- the way World War I was fought (allegedly) to make the world safe for democracy. The truth is that World War I was fought to get rid of European royalty and make the world safe for secular totalitarianism -- and "may the best system win". But wait -- did we consciously get into WWII in order to insure that Communism won out over Fascism and National Socialism? Well, if you take a look at some of the maggots that infested the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, you have to admit that that might have been exactly what was on their minds. I mean, think about it (and this is something we really have almost totally lost track of, historically) -- on the eve of WWII Europe had already put away all knowledge of kings and emperors (except for a few pathetic token eunuchs who were maintained in state -- and continue to be, to this day -- for the amusement of the people). Democracy had, indeed, been promoted by WWI, and had become familiar, if imperiled, in much of Central Europe, where it had previously been unknown. But what was really happening -- the "thing" of the moment -- was socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism -- and the two forms vying for dominance were Fascism/National Socialism and Communism. Rome, Berlin, and Moscow had the "churches of what's happnin' now, baby!" The democracies started to look like "boys' state" -- a charming idea, but come on! The _real_ Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic church, looked on in horror and made every attempt to warn Europe and America of the perils that were either developing (Germany and Italy) or that had already shown their true colors (Russia) -- but everyone was so caught up in their own political cause that they ignored the warnings. So the two big pots -- Germany and Russia -- continued to boil, almost side by side, with the little pot -- Italy -- bubbling and hissing down across the Alps. And the Eastern version of the same thing was proceeding apace in Japan.
Eventually it would seem as though -- regardless of how one feels about WWI -- the onset of WWII demanded that one take sides. The notion of taking a position against _all_ forms of totalitarianism would have seemed a form of lunacy, simply because, as I said, the choice seemed quite clear-cut -- Fascism of some sort or Communism, because they were hot, they were trendy, and they were, most importantly, the wave of the future -- and never let it be said that Americans, in particular, are ever the least bit hesitant about embracing "the future", no matter how bleak and soulless it appears to be. Now, as we know, there were voices raised -- for a while at least -- in favor of staying out of it altogether, and other voices raised in favor of siding with Germany and the Axis. But we had already, for six years up to 1939, been resonating with the Soviet system in the form of the New Deal -- and besides, they were our old allies from the previous war, and Germany was our old enemy, and... well... it just made sense, that's all. Am I implying that "principles" had little or nothing to do with it? Exactamundo. If we had sided with Adolf and Benito and Tojo, and Western Europe and Russia had been ground into fine powder, all history from that day to today would have been written with that scenario in mind, and its justness and nobility. Yeah -- sorry to sound so cynical, but I can see that happening. Why? Because the people we _did_ ally ourselves to -- namely the Soviets -- were every bit as vicious and destructive, if not more so, than the Axis. And what's more, they had already had 20 years to show it. How enthusiastic do you suppose Ukrainian-Americans were to join the Soviets in a war against Germany? But this is all idle speculation; we cast our lot, and there's an end on't. But... was it a "just war"? Let's wait and see what Buchanan has to say in his book.
We have already treated of Iraq, and much the same could be said of all the "mini-wars" we have fought since World War II -- you know, places like Granada, Somalia, Freedonia,... (OK, that last is from a Marx Brothers movie -- but you get the idea). That leaves two middleweight wars, namely Korea and Vietnam, and for an answer on both of those I refer you to the very next section.
There are three questions I left hanging in the previous "Me on War" blogs.
1. What about a war to defend others?
The Church's just war statement seems to leave an opening for this, by talking about the "community of nations". Now, of course, the interpretation of what on earth _that_ means is anybody's guess. After all, the aggressor state is _also_ a member of the "community of nations", in the broadest sense. So we can't be talking about just anybody here. We must be talking about -- the U.N.? God, I hope not. How about NATO? Well... OK, how about "established democracies that are really democracies and not just abusing the term"? If you want to get that strict, I say, "America, heal thyself!" But just defining "community of nations" the way Bush defined "coalition of the willing" seems a bit lame and arbitrary. How about "people we feel somewhat compatible with and allied to today, but who we might just as easily betray and sell down the river tomorrow"? Oh, that gives me a nice secure feeling. How about "old friends" -- of whatever stripe? Or _new_ friends, like Albania? This is just getting much too confusing.
What I would say is this. Regardless of how we define "community", the criterion should be that the damage inflicted must be of the sort _we_ would regard as damage. In other words, throwing out some weenie of a King or head of state doesn't count. If _we_ would consider it a serious matter, than we can claim a certain solidarity with another country when they consider it a serious matter. I would also question whether the damage inflicted could, with a high probability, spread to us. Let's stay someone attacks Canada, starting with the Maritime Provinces. That's awful close to our own borders. We could see the fallout from something like that in no time at all. But would an attack on South Africa _ever_ meet that criterion? Highly unlikely. (Does this criterion disqualify nearly all of our current "mutual defense" treaties? Damn straight it does. I ask again, if you would not send your son -- or yourself -- to defend some shithole -- or even a halfway decent country -- then please don't ask anyone else to do it either.)
2. What about preventive war?
This question is particularly germane to the Iraq situation. We were convinced -- (weren't we?) -- that Saddam was all ready to lob a scud into the Wee Kare Pre-School down the street. Well, of course that was a total scam, and everyone knew it. But let's say that, at least in theory, it's possible. What I say is this. If it has our name on it, and the coordinates have been punched into some computer in Baghdad, and the countdown has begun, then OK, nuke the bastards, no problem. But the burden of proof is onerous, to say the least -- and the process is highly subject to fraud (think: Gulf of Tonkin). Frankly, I don't care how fat an arsenal someone like Saddam, or Gaddafi, or Kim, or Mahmoud, or Hugo, or Fidel, or Nikita, builds up -- we would have to be more certain than we could ever be that they were about to strike for the usual concept of "preventive war" to have _moral_ validity. I mean, at the very least, we think of these other guys as paranoid when they start complaining about _our_ arsenal. I mean, what, do they think we're crazy? Well, are they any crazier than we are -- really? Again, where is the burden of proof? If we see the Japanese fleet headed for Hawaii we might have an inking as to what they're up to... but it couldn't hurt to ask.
3. What about the atomic bomb (and Buchanan asks this as well)? Not as a weapon per se, but as a source of considerable "collateral damage". Well, hey, "total war" has been around as long as war has been around -- and there are always arguments that, in effect, it's all of us against all of them, and the geisha girl in Hiroshima is just as much the enemy as the kamikaze pilot heading straight for this very ship. Well, of course when _they_ develop that attitude -- like they did on 9-11 -- we get highly incensed. What does a Salomon Brothers trader have to do with our foreign policy in the Near East? (Maybe more than we think.)
I think, as a general rule, the government of a hostile power and its troops, war manufacturing, infrastructure, war-related transporation, material, etc. are all fair game. Civilians not part of the war effort, and resources devoted strictly to their service, are off limits. But that still leaves a huge gray area. What about crops and food storage? They go to feed the troops as well as the civilians. Most transportation facilities will serve both -- ditto manufacturing, utilities... What about a teen-aged boy who is bound to be drafted in less than a year to fight in the war? What about his public school, that puts out anti-American propaganda along with math lessons? On the other hand, if you bomb an army base you're going to hit some military families, including toddlers and babes in arms (as opposed to "babes" in arms). Then there's the even more awkward issue of "striking terror into the hearts of the enemy" -- you know, by doing things like firebombing Dresden. Make it so miserable for them that they want to surrender, in other words. (Of course, _that_ kind of "terror" is a whole different thing than the Al Queda kind. Right?) So on this question I don't have a definitive answer. My answer is, elect leaders who can weigh the factors and make moral decisions within the larger context of moral chaos. Yeah, it's a tall order, but what are the alternatives?
And, BTW, I think that the atomic bombs we stuck on Japan -- given the circumstances at that time, and in that place, and in that war -- might well have been justified. Sorry about that, but I've heard many arguments on both sides and that's what I say -- for now, at least.
[End of "Me on War" series]
There should be no doubt, at this point, that among the four major positions -- Nationalistic/Patriotic, Pacifist, Anti-Pacifist, and Just War, I favor the last. And, there should be no doubt that the war in Iraq failed the Just War criteria at the outset as well as in retrospect. But surely, you'll say, the U.S. has, in fact, fought just wars in the past? Quite a few, in fact? Well, at least two? One? I guess I'd be willing to admit that, to the best of my knowledge, the Revolutionary War was "just" if you believe that the _cause_ was just -- for if the cause was just, then it was also just to defend it against the armed displeasure of Britain. And I suppose also that the War of 1812, since, among other things, it involved an actual invasion of our territory by the Brits, was just. But then we come to that unpleasantness known as the Civil War, or The War Between the States, and recent revisionism has shed more and more doubt on the justifiability of that war. I'll leave it to competent historians to continue to hash out these issues. Suffice it to say that the fallout from the Civil War is still very much with us, a situation which casts a bit of doubt on either its justness or the way in which it was fought, or the way in which it ended, with the aftermath in Reconstruction, the KKK, Jim Crow, Harlem, civil rights, forced busing, affirmative action, quotas, "diversity", hip-hop, Obama... and the list goes on.
To move along the time-line of history... we shouldn't forget the Mexican War, which was basically a huge land-grab, and thus not "just" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was the Spanish-American War for the same reasons. But how about World War I? Again, we have to look to the revisionists, who contend that that war could very easily have been prevented, if the European governments hadn't been such a bunch of butt-heads. But even if they were, what reason did _we_ have for jumping in? In a word, Wilsonian utopianism, i.e. the zeal for spreading "democracy". Is George Bush channeling Wilson, the way Hillary channels Eleanor Roosevelt? Apparently so -- and with just about the same edifying results.
But now it gets tricky -- because if World War I was a mistake (for us, at least), then how about World War II, which was arguably World War I Part II? How can a mistake lead to something that is not a mistake? How can a "bad war" lead to a "good war"? As luck would have it, there is a column by Pat Buchanan in today's paper entitled, "So WWII was a good war?" Buchanan's point -- and he is coming out with a book on this question next month, which I promise to review on this blog -- is that, yes, WWII was a good war -- but for only two countries, and unambiguously for only one, namely the Soviet Union. (It was also indirectly good for the Chinese Communists -- and led, let's admit, to the creation of the State of Israel.)
Now, I have said on other occasions that World War II was fought to make the world safe for Communism -- the way World War I was fought (allegedly) to make the world safe for democracy. The truth is that World War I was fought to get rid of European royalty and make the world safe for secular totalitarianism -- and "may the best system win". But wait -- did we consciously get into WWII in order to insure that Communism won out over Fascism and National Socialism? Well, if you take a look at some of the maggots that infested the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, you have to admit that that might have been exactly what was on their minds. I mean, think about it (and this is something we really have almost totally lost track of, historically) -- on the eve of WWII Europe had already put away all knowledge of kings and emperors (except for a few pathetic token eunuchs who were maintained in state -- and continue to be, to this day -- for the amusement of the people). Democracy had, indeed, been promoted by WWI, and had become familiar, if imperiled, in much of Central Europe, where it had previously been unknown. But what was really happening -- the "thing" of the moment -- was socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism -- and the two forms vying for dominance were Fascism/National Socialism and Communism. Rome, Berlin, and Moscow had the "churches of what's happnin' now, baby!" The democracies started to look like "boys' state" -- a charming idea, but come on! The _real_ Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic church, looked on in horror and made every attempt to warn Europe and America of the perils that were either developing (Germany and Italy) or that had already shown their true colors (Russia) -- but everyone was so caught up in their own political cause that they ignored the warnings. So the two big pots -- Germany and Russia -- continued to boil, almost side by side, with the little pot -- Italy -- bubbling and hissing down across the Alps. And the Eastern version of the same thing was proceeding apace in Japan.
Eventually it would seem as though -- regardless of how one feels about WWI -- the onset of WWII demanded that one take sides. The notion of taking a position against _all_ forms of totalitarianism would have seemed a form of lunacy, simply because, as I said, the choice seemed quite clear-cut -- Fascism of some sort or Communism, because they were hot, they were trendy, and they were, most importantly, the wave of the future -- and never let it be said that Americans, in particular, are ever the least bit hesitant about embracing "the future", no matter how bleak and soulless it appears to be. Now, as we know, there were voices raised -- for a while at least -- in favor of staying out of it altogether, and other voices raised in favor of siding with Germany and the Axis. But we had already, for six years up to 1939, been resonating with the Soviet system in the form of the New Deal -- and besides, they were our old allies from the previous war, and Germany was our old enemy, and... well... it just made sense, that's all. Am I implying that "principles" had little or nothing to do with it? Exactamundo. If we had sided with Adolf and Benito and Tojo, and Western Europe and Russia had been ground into fine powder, all history from that day to today would have been written with that scenario in mind, and its justness and nobility. Yeah -- sorry to sound so cynical, but I can see that happening. Why? Because the people we _did_ ally ourselves to -- namely the Soviets -- were every bit as vicious and destructive, if not more so, than the Axis. And what's more, they had already had 20 years to show it. How enthusiastic do you suppose Ukrainian-Americans were to join the Soviets in a war against Germany? But this is all idle speculation; we cast our lot, and there's an end on't. But... was it a "just war"? Let's wait and see what Buchanan has to say in his book.
We have already treated of Iraq, and much the same could be said of all the "mini-wars" we have fought since World War II -- you know, places like Granada, Somalia, Freedonia,... (OK, that last is from a Marx Brothers movie -- but you get the idea). That leaves two middleweight wars, namely Korea and Vietnam, and for an answer on both of those I refer you to the very next section.
There are three questions I left hanging in the previous "Me on War" blogs.
1. What about a war to defend others?
The Church's just war statement seems to leave an opening for this, by talking about the "community of nations". Now, of course, the interpretation of what on earth _that_ means is anybody's guess. After all, the aggressor state is _also_ a member of the "community of nations", in the broadest sense. So we can't be talking about just anybody here. We must be talking about -- the U.N.? God, I hope not. How about NATO? Well... OK, how about "established democracies that are really democracies and not just abusing the term"? If you want to get that strict, I say, "America, heal thyself!" But just defining "community of nations" the way Bush defined "coalition of the willing" seems a bit lame and arbitrary. How about "people we feel somewhat compatible with and allied to today, but who we might just as easily betray and sell down the river tomorrow"? Oh, that gives me a nice secure feeling. How about "old friends" -- of whatever stripe? Or _new_ friends, like Albania? This is just getting much too confusing.
What I would say is this. Regardless of how we define "community", the criterion should be that the damage inflicted must be of the sort _we_ would regard as damage. In other words, throwing out some weenie of a King or head of state doesn't count. If _we_ would consider it a serious matter, than we can claim a certain solidarity with another country when they consider it a serious matter. I would also question whether the damage inflicted could, with a high probability, spread to us. Let's stay someone attacks Canada, starting with the Maritime Provinces. That's awful close to our own borders. We could see the fallout from something like that in no time at all. But would an attack on South Africa _ever_ meet that criterion? Highly unlikely. (Does this criterion disqualify nearly all of our current "mutual defense" treaties? Damn straight it does. I ask again, if you would not send your son -- or yourself -- to defend some shithole -- or even a halfway decent country -- then please don't ask anyone else to do it either.)
2. What about preventive war?
This question is particularly germane to the Iraq situation. We were convinced -- (weren't we?) -- that Saddam was all ready to lob a scud into the Wee Kare Pre-School down the street. Well, of course that was a total scam, and everyone knew it. But let's say that, at least in theory, it's possible. What I say is this. If it has our name on it, and the coordinates have been punched into some computer in Baghdad, and the countdown has begun, then OK, nuke the bastards, no problem. But the burden of proof is onerous, to say the least -- and the process is highly subject to fraud (think: Gulf of Tonkin). Frankly, I don't care how fat an arsenal someone like Saddam, or Gaddafi, or Kim, or Mahmoud, or Hugo, or Fidel, or Nikita, builds up -- we would have to be more certain than we could ever be that they were about to strike for the usual concept of "preventive war" to have _moral_ validity. I mean, at the very least, we think of these other guys as paranoid when they start complaining about _our_ arsenal. I mean, what, do they think we're crazy? Well, are they any crazier than we are -- really? Again, where is the burden of proof? If we see the Japanese fleet headed for Hawaii we might have an inking as to what they're up to... but it couldn't hurt to ask.
3. What about the atomic bomb (and Buchanan asks this as well)? Not as a weapon per se, but as a source of considerable "collateral damage". Well, hey, "total war" has been around as long as war has been around -- and there are always arguments that, in effect, it's all of us against all of them, and the geisha girl in Hiroshima is just as much the enemy as the kamikaze pilot heading straight for this very ship. Well, of course when _they_ develop that attitude -- like they did on 9-11 -- we get highly incensed. What does a Salomon Brothers trader have to do with our foreign policy in the Near East? (Maybe more than we think.)
I think, as a general rule, the government of a hostile power and its troops, war manufacturing, infrastructure, war-related transporation, material, etc. are all fair game. Civilians not part of the war effort, and resources devoted strictly to their service, are off limits. But that still leaves a huge gray area. What about crops and food storage? They go to feed the troops as well as the civilians. Most transportation facilities will serve both -- ditto manufacturing, utilities... What about a teen-aged boy who is bound to be drafted in less than a year to fight in the war? What about his public school, that puts out anti-American propaganda along with math lessons? On the other hand, if you bomb an army base you're going to hit some military families, including toddlers and babes in arms (as opposed to "babes" in arms). Then there's the even more awkward issue of "striking terror into the hearts of the enemy" -- you know, by doing things like firebombing Dresden. Make it so miserable for them that they want to surrender, in other words. (Of course, _that_ kind of "terror" is a whole different thing than the Al Queda kind. Right?) So on this question I don't have a definitive answer. My answer is, elect leaders who can weigh the factors and make moral decisions within the larger context of moral chaos. Yeah, it's a tall order, but what are the alternatives?
And, BTW, I think that the atomic bombs we stuck on Japan -- given the circumstances at that time, and in that place, and in that war -- might well have been justified. Sorry about that, but I've heard many arguments on both sides and that's what I say -- for now, at least.
[End of "Me on War" series]
Do Not Go Gentry Into That Good Night (Part II)
So far, we've discussed the most common government "solutions" to the problems caused by the former government "solutions" to so-called urban blight, namely (1) the construction of new middle-class housing; and (2) the encouragement of urban homesteading, under the umbrella term "revitalization". The former solution generally involves the construction of modern-day Potemkin villages, where all is well within the gates and all is darkness and anarchy without. The latter solution yields up "diverse" neighborhoods that are, in short, white by day and black by night. And both solutions have an air of artificiality about them. Without constant government support and subsidizing -- "enhanced law enforcement" -- PR campaigns -- and other forms of care and feeding, these settlements would be on very shaky ground indeed. They are very like pioneer settlements, in that without a lifeline to the more civilized centers, they would be vulnerable to the predations of the natives and other natural forces.
Fortunately, government "help" has been shown to be far from indispensable in this matter. It turns out that, under the right conditions -- like, an opportunity to make money -- the private sector can be persuaded, by its own reasoning and not by government bribes or sanctions, to take an interest in the revitalization process. And this typically happens not on a neighborhood basis, or even a block basis, but one commercial lot or residential doorway at a time. And the push into these areas is not accomplished in the delusional way government does it, i.e. by parachuting people in behind enemy lines. The transformation is accomplished from the fringes, or the gray areas, using already-settled blocks or streets as anchor points and venturing in only as far as one can without taking inordinate risks. So, for example, a Whole Foods store (giving credit where credit is due, because they have been just about as successful at this as any enterprise in the country) buys up a large commercial lot a few blocks into the "marginal" neighborhood. Not right on the very edge (already too expensive), but not in the interior either. They set up a store, which not only serves the already-settled area on one side, but serves as an anchor point for new settlement in the other direction. At the same time, some low-risk-averse, "trendy" enterprises are starting to open up in storefronts and old warehouses -- coffee shops, third-world ethnic restaurants (think: Ethiopian), night clubs (gay and "whatever"), art galleries, "performance art" venues, off-off-Broadway playhouses, "art" cinemas, etc. With any luck, an "experimental school" opens up. And while this is going on, we have _individuals and couples_ buying _single dwellings_ to fix up, move into, and maybe "flip" later on so they can start the process over again down the street. Now, this idyllic picture is not some pie-in-the-sky utopian dream; I saw it happening, exactly as described, in a part of Washington DC between DuPont Circle and Logan Circle, in the late 1990's and early 2000's. And the area being settled crossed the notorious "14th Street riot corridor" which had been an undeclared no-man's-land since the "troubles" of the 1960s. And here's the point. The city -- i.e. the taxpayer -- was not on the hook for any of this. All risk was assumed by the people doing the settling. But guess what, they were all making money -- some a little, some a lot -- but the effort was paying off. And did the neighborhood change overnight? Absolutely not. After two or three years it was still funky, gritty, and a bit perilous. Panhandlers still plied the thoroughfares, and rats scuttled along alleyways. But it was going somewhere. And it was getting a name. And people were showing up -- to have a look, to buy, to be entertained. And once it got to a certain point, the "condo people" showed up and started buying up old school buildings for conversion. Now, once things get to that stage, it's "case closed" -- you know you have a success story on your hands.
But wait a sec -- how about those drawbacks of the government solution? Won't they obtain here as well? Well, they might to some extent -- but remember I described the private-sector process as occurring from the fringes, and there is, after all, strength in numbers -- or in this case, numbers plus economic clout plus the social pressures that go along with gradual (emphasis on "gradual") neighborhood transformation. An artificial settlement is going to be seen as an invasion, and the settlers as interlopers -- and rightly so. A more natural "morphing" at the margins is less likely to be met with opposition or direct hostility -- or so it seems to me.
Another advantage is that the new settlers -- the "gray area" people -- will not be isolated from the social and cultural supports they depend on. They can always go a few blocks back into the more settled area of town to do their shopping and socializing -- not to mention their jobs. Likewise, law enforcement in the "gray area" can be tailored to fit the tranformational model (think: more attention paid to graffiti, vandalism, vagrancy, etc.). What we're talking about is natural evolution -- the kind that has characterized urban areas ever since the days of Nineveh. Government imposition, on the other hand, typically produces more problems than it solves, and increases both the scope and variety of misery. To paraphrase a classic quotation, government housing is to housing as military music is to music.
What I'm saying is that the "private sector" solution, as exemplified here, was and is superior _in every way_ to the government/bureaucratic solution. The return on investment starts promptly -- within the working lifetime, even, of the people who took the risks. No white elephants are created... no "new slums" are created... and the city gains not only revenue but also self-respect. The only down side is the same one connected with government-initiated revitalization, which is what one does with the DPs -- "displaced persons". I'm not going to treat that problem right now, other than to acknowledge that it does exist and it's non-trivial.
In conclusion (for now) -- there are solutions to the urban complaint that are not only viable, but have actually worked in practice. And, as always, the primary role for government is to get the hell out of the way and not thwart the process by an excess of regulation, taxes, and fees.
Fortunately, government "help" has been shown to be far from indispensable in this matter. It turns out that, under the right conditions -- like, an opportunity to make money -- the private sector can be persuaded, by its own reasoning and not by government bribes or sanctions, to take an interest in the revitalization process. And this typically happens not on a neighborhood basis, or even a block basis, but one commercial lot or residential doorway at a time. And the push into these areas is not accomplished in the delusional way government does it, i.e. by parachuting people in behind enemy lines. The transformation is accomplished from the fringes, or the gray areas, using already-settled blocks or streets as anchor points and venturing in only as far as one can without taking inordinate risks. So, for example, a Whole Foods store (giving credit where credit is due, because they have been just about as successful at this as any enterprise in the country) buys up a large commercial lot a few blocks into the "marginal" neighborhood. Not right on the very edge (already too expensive), but not in the interior either. They set up a store, which not only serves the already-settled area on one side, but serves as an anchor point for new settlement in the other direction. At the same time, some low-risk-averse, "trendy" enterprises are starting to open up in storefronts and old warehouses -- coffee shops, third-world ethnic restaurants (think: Ethiopian), night clubs (gay and "whatever"), art galleries, "performance art" venues, off-off-Broadway playhouses, "art" cinemas, etc. With any luck, an "experimental school" opens up. And while this is going on, we have _individuals and couples_ buying _single dwellings_ to fix up, move into, and maybe "flip" later on so they can start the process over again down the street. Now, this idyllic picture is not some pie-in-the-sky utopian dream; I saw it happening, exactly as described, in a part of Washington DC between DuPont Circle and Logan Circle, in the late 1990's and early 2000's. And the area being settled crossed the notorious "14th Street riot corridor" which had been an undeclared no-man's-land since the "troubles" of the 1960s. And here's the point. The city -- i.e. the taxpayer -- was not on the hook for any of this. All risk was assumed by the people doing the settling. But guess what, they were all making money -- some a little, some a lot -- but the effort was paying off. And did the neighborhood change overnight? Absolutely not. After two or three years it was still funky, gritty, and a bit perilous. Panhandlers still plied the thoroughfares, and rats scuttled along alleyways. But it was going somewhere. And it was getting a name. And people were showing up -- to have a look, to buy, to be entertained. And once it got to a certain point, the "condo people" showed up and started buying up old school buildings for conversion. Now, once things get to that stage, it's "case closed" -- you know you have a success story on your hands.
But wait a sec -- how about those drawbacks of the government solution? Won't they obtain here as well? Well, they might to some extent -- but remember I described the private-sector process as occurring from the fringes, and there is, after all, strength in numbers -- or in this case, numbers plus economic clout plus the social pressures that go along with gradual (emphasis on "gradual") neighborhood transformation. An artificial settlement is going to be seen as an invasion, and the settlers as interlopers -- and rightly so. A more natural "morphing" at the margins is less likely to be met with opposition or direct hostility -- or so it seems to me.
Another advantage is that the new settlers -- the "gray area" people -- will not be isolated from the social and cultural supports they depend on. They can always go a few blocks back into the more settled area of town to do their shopping and socializing -- not to mention their jobs. Likewise, law enforcement in the "gray area" can be tailored to fit the tranformational model (think: more attention paid to graffiti, vandalism, vagrancy, etc.). What we're talking about is natural evolution -- the kind that has characterized urban areas ever since the days of Nineveh. Government imposition, on the other hand, typically produces more problems than it solves, and increases both the scope and variety of misery. To paraphrase a classic quotation, government housing is to housing as military music is to music.
What I'm saying is that the "private sector" solution, as exemplified here, was and is superior _in every way_ to the government/bureaucratic solution. The return on investment starts promptly -- within the working lifetime, even, of the people who took the risks. No white elephants are created... no "new slums" are created... and the city gains not only revenue but also self-respect. The only down side is the same one connected with government-initiated revitalization, which is what one does with the DPs -- "displaced persons". I'm not going to treat that problem right now, other than to acknowledge that it does exist and it's non-trivial.
In conclusion (for now) -- there are solutions to the urban complaint that are not only viable, but have actually worked in practice. And, as always, the primary role for government is to get the hell out of the way and not thwart the process by an excess of regulation, taxes, and fees.
Snapshots, 4/5/08
1. A Fineman You Turned Out To Be
Now we have Howard Fineman of Newsweek, in an interview in today's Tribune-Review, ringing a death knell upon Hillary's campaign. It's hard to figure why the MSM are piling on to quite this extent -- especially when they know darned well that Bill 'n' Hill have more dirty tricks up their collective sleeve than Boris Badinoff and Natasha. Maybe it's because the dirty tricks keep backfiring -- or at least not gaining traction. The Rev. Wright flap already sounds like last week's news... the revelation that Obama is a black man (by American standards, if not African-American standards) failed to surprise anybody... his drug "history" turned out to be a yawner, probably because no one any longer gives a damn whether you "inhaled" or not... his links with Chicago mobsters have been identified as merely part of the baseline for any politician from Illinois... and darn, he and his family stay as photogenic as ever, unlike Hill and Bill, who look like they have to be re-embalmed before every public appearance. Plus, now it turns out -- according to their tax returns -- that the Clintons have gotten fat on ill-gotten gains... and these are the people who had to beg school children to send their pathetic little allowances (think: coins Scotch-taped to Reese cup cardboard inserts) to the White House to help with Bill's "defense fund" during the impeachment hearings. The problem -- as always -- is that Barack represents all that is fresh, and new, and -- yes -- radical, whereas the Clintons represent the same old tired, gray, failed, liberal crap and criminality. But hey, it's still a long way to November...
2. The names of three "top Michigan Democrats" are: Cheeks, Gettelfinger, and Dingell. Um... OK. And I guess "Johnny Wadd" was something someone just made up?
3. Costa Rica has banned ads that depict someone trying to assassinate Burger King. Hey -- _you_ try putting up with that smile for more than five seconds. It's one thing when you can isolate "big, eternally-smiling plastic heads" to Mardi Gras and Disney World, but to have to see them on TV is more than I can bear.
4. In China, a "mentally ill man" got into a tiger's cage in the zoo and was promptly devoured. The man's parents said that he "especially loved tigers". And vice-versa, I guess. But at least he had an excuse, unlike those nimrods out in San Francisco. "We're all Siegfried and Roy now."
5. That Was Mighty White Of You
Seems that a favorite scam of witch doctors in Tanzania is to "kill albinos and harvest their body parts in the hope it will bring prosperity." Well, one can hardly blame them for equating "white" with "prosperous". Maybe someone ought to point out that you can be as white as Julian Bond and still be considered "black". The president of Tanzania "blamed charlatan witch doctors" for the offenses. (He didn't elaborate on what distinguishes a "charlatan" witch doctor from the real thing.) Word has it that the U.N. Committee on Tokenism and Totemism is dispatching a team to investigate further.
Now we have Howard Fineman of Newsweek, in an interview in today's Tribune-Review, ringing a death knell upon Hillary's campaign. It's hard to figure why the MSM are piling on to quite this extent -- especially when they know darned well that Bill 'n' Hill have more dirty tricks up their collective sleeve than Boris Badinoff and Natasha. Maybe it's because the dirty tricks keep backfiring -- or at least not gaining traction. The Rev. Wright flap already sounds like last week's news... the revelation that Obama is a black man (by American standards, if not African-American standards) failed to surprise anybody... his drug "history" turned out to be a yawner, probably because no one any longer gives a damn whether you "inhaled" or not... his links with Chicago mobsters have been identified as merely part of the baseline for any politician from Illinois... and darn, he and his family stay as photogenic as ever, unlike Hill and Bill, who look like they have to be re-embalmed before every public appearance. Plus, now it turns out -- according to their tax returns -- that the Clintons have gotten fat on ill-gotten gains... and these are the people who had to beg school children to send their pathetic little allowances (think: coins Scotch-taped to Reese cup cardboard inserts) to the White House to help with Bill's "defense fund" during the impeachment hearings. The problem -- as always -- is that Barack represents all that is fresh, and new, and -- yes -- radical, whereas the Clintons represent the same old tired, gray, failed, liberal crap and criminality. But hey, it's still a long way to November...
2. The names of three "top Michigan Democrats" are: Cheeks, Gettelfinger, and Dingell. Um... OK. And I guess "Johnny Wadd" was something someone just made up?
3. Costa Rica has banned ads that depict someone trying to assassinate Burger King. Hey -- _you_ try putting up with that smile for more than five seconds. It's one thing when you can isolate "big, eternally-smiling plastic heads" to Mardi Gras and Disney World, but to have to see them on TV is more than I can bear.
4. In China, a "mentally ill man" got into a tiger's cage in the zoo and was promptly devoured. The man's parents said that he "especially loved tigers". And vice-versa, I guess. But at least he had an excuse, unlike those nimrods out in San Francisco. "We're all Siegfried and Roy now."
5. That Was Mighty White Of You
Seems that a favorite scam of witch doctors in Tanzania is to "kill albinos and harvest their body parts in the hope it will bring prosperity." Well, one can hardly blame them for equating "white" with "prosperous". Maybe someone ought to point out that you can be as white as Julian Bond and still be considered "black". The president of Tanzania "blamed charlatan witch doctors" for the offenses. (He didn't elaborate on what distinguishes a "charlatan" witch doctor from the real thing.) Word has it that the U.N. Committee on Tokenism and Totemism is dispatching a team to investigate further.
Baby, It's Cult Outside
In today's cult-busting news, a "religious retreat" in Texas built by the leader of a breakaway Mormon sect has been raided, and 52 (!) girls rescued by "Child Protective Services". Now, what gets me about news items like this is that they never say what, precisely, were the grounds for this raid by law enforcement officials, and for taking kids into custody. It's just assumed that, well of course, any "secretive" "religious" retreat run by a mysterious cult has to be a den of iniquity, by definition. Why, the article even refers to the fact that the girls were "dressed in the conservative long-sleeve dresses". (The word "the" implies that it's some kind of uniform, I suppose.) And after all, considering the leader of this group is in jail for polygamy, who knows? How many of these girls -- "ages 6 months (sic!) to 17 years" -- were headed for the same fate? I mean, what sort of society would allow young girls to be married to dirty old men while leaving the young guys single and frustrated? (Answer: Almost _any_ society up until about 100 years ago.)
But hey, let's admit that things have improved a bit, at least. You have to admit that any cult foolish enough to set up camp in Texas, after what happened to the Branch Davidians, has to be led by folks with martyrdom on their minds. But in this case -- probably because Janet Reno was airborne at the time, and not standing there in fatigues with a bazooka in her gnarled hands -- it all seems to have ended peacefully.
But hey, let's admit that things have improved a bit, at least. You have to admit that any cult foolish enough to set up camp in Texas, after what happened to the Branch Davidians, has to be led by folks with martyrdom on their minds. But in this case -- probably because Janet Reno was airborne at the time, and not standing there in fatigues with a bazooka in her gnarled hands -- it all seems to have ended peacefully.
Comatose Catholics
From the e-mail file -- comments, dated March 7, on an article entitled "Hillary's Secret Weapon: Catholics", the notion being that "Catholics vote for Democratic candidates by substantial margins, and this year exit polls showed that Hillary has won the Catholic vote in every Democratic primary but that in Connecticut." Another point was that "the Catholic vote today in America, particularly Democratic Catholics, is dominated by older women", and that such women are key to Hillary's success among Catholics. My comments:
_This_ is the real scandal in the Catholic Church today. Forget about "pedophile priests". Problem is -- there is a kind of cultural/political hangover from the old days when the Democrats were supposedly the "friend of the working man" -- and when -- the legality of the New Deal aside -- it actually was possible to, on occasion, vote for a "good" Catholic politician. Pittsburgh is probably just about the last major holdout of this point of view. Needless to say, the last "good" Catholic poltician left the scene a while back... so now all we're left with is totalitarians, hacks, Stalinists, con artists, extortionists, and collectivists. But that won't stop people who swore to their aging father -- a lifetime union member -- on his deathbed! -- that they would never, never vote Republican.
What I find amusing is that Southern whites managed to make the transition -- but Northern, urban, working class whites just can't manage it. Anyone care to start doing some IQ testing around here?
[My correspondent replied: "I wondered if you would argue that these are "modern" Catholics. I wouldn't know, of course, except for assuming that number of traditionalists is small in comparison."] My response:
OK, good question. These are not "modern" Catholics "in the spirit of Vatican II", with clown Masses, "Womynchurch", liberation theology, angry dyke nuns, and all that crap. These are more likely to be the daughters of decent, working-class and sworn Democrat families that may, in fact, have actually benefited at some time in the past from legislation favorable to unions, social programs, e.g. Call them "legacy New Dealers". But now that the Democrats are an equal-opportunity party that, basically, treats everyone like shit except the elite and the insiders, they reallly have no reason to vote Democratic except for sheer habit. Now, this is not to say that there aren't "modern" Catholics among their number, but I'd be willing to be the majority are of the type I just described. (For one thing, any woman who embraces radical feminism of the type that dictates she must vote for Hillary no matter what is not likely to even identify herself as Catholic.)
Now, having said that, the number of traditionalists is indeed small by comparison, and you can count on that group to have made a complete transition from the Democrats to the Republicans, albeit there is currently a split, within their ranks, between the Neocon sympathizers and the Paleocons. All you have to do is check out the parking lot of my Latin Mass church on Sunday morning, with a mix of Ron Paul and McCain bumper stickers. (On the other hand, my "regular" parish church would have some Democrat stickers but none for Ron Paul.) (Amazing what you can learn about a church by just wandering around their parking lot!) (And once you see what's in the tract rack, you can say "case closed".)
I would have to add that traditionalist Catholics are easily won over by patriotic arguments. Part of this is that old business of "proving that we're just as good Americans as anyone else", i.e. loyal to the US vs. to the Vatican, a la JFK. (Funny how Jews don't have to prove that they're more loyal to the US than to Israel -- but I digress.) Part of it is the realization that, as much anti-Catholicism as there is in the US, and has always been, a Catholic is, over time, generally better off here than in most places (including "traditionally Catholic" countries like Spain and Mexico, e.g.). In any case, Catholics of our time have been duped, to some extent, by the Neocons into believing that they must show their patriotism by supporting the administration, the war, Wilsonism, etc. even though the Vatican has come out firmly against all of these.
And I guarantee that, even among traditionalist Catholics, the Paleocons are in the minority -- but gaining strength, from what I can tell. These are the people whose parents may have been Catholics, but who rightfully feel betrayed by Democratic socialism and amoralism, and who more recently feel betrayed by Republican militarism and "defend Israel at any cost"-ism. So they were perfectly willing to support Ron Paul, even thought they would have felt like the Whore of Babylon voting for a libertarian.
_This_ is the real scandal in the Catholic Church today. Forget about "pedophile priests". Problem is -- there is a kind of cultural/political hangover from the old days when the Democrats were supposedly the "friend of the working man" -- and when -- the legality of the New Deal aside -- it actually was possible to, on occasion, vote for a "good" Catholic politician. Pittsburgh is probably just about the last major holdout of this point of view. Needless to say, the last "good" Catholic poltician left the scene a while back... so now all we're left with is totalitarians, hacks, Stalinists, con artists, extortionists, and collectivists. But that won't stop people who swore to their aging father -- a lifetime union member -- on his deathbed! -- that they would never, never vote Republican.
What I find amusing is that Southern whites managed to make the transition -- but Northern, urban, working class whites just can't manage it. Anyone care to start doing some IQ testing around here?
[My correspondent replied: "I wondered if you would argue that these are "modern" Catholics. I wouldn't know, of course, except for assuming that number of traditionalists is small in comparison."] My response:
OK, good question. These are not "modern" Catholics "in the spirit of Vatican II", with clown Masses, "Womynchurch", liberation theology, angry dyke nuns, and all that crap. These are more likely to be the daughters of decent, working-class and sworn Democrat families that may, in fact, have actually benefited at some time in the past from legislation favorable to unions, social programs, e.g. Call them "legacy New Dealers". But now that the Democrats are an equal-opportunity party that, basically, treats everyone like shit except the elite and the insiders, they reallly have no reason to vote Democratic except for sheer habit. Now, this is not to say that there aren't "modern" Catholics among their number, but I'd be willing to be the majority are of the type I just described. (For one thing, any woman who embraces radical feminism of the type that dictates she must vote for Hillary no matter what is not likely to even identify herself as Catholic.)
Now, having said that, the number of traditionalists is indeed small by comparison, and you can count on that group to have made a complete transition from the Democrats to the Republicans, albeit there is currently a split, within their ranks, between the Neocon sympathizers and the Paleocons. All you have to do is check out the parking lot of my Latin Mass church on Sunday morning, with a mix of Ron Paul and McCain bumper stickers. (On the other hand, my "regular" parish church would have some Democrat stickers but none for Ron Paul.) (Amazing what you can learn about a church by just wandering around their parking lot!) (And once you see what's in the tract rack, you can say "case closed".)
I would have to add that traditionalist Catholics are easily won over by patriotic arguments. Part of this is that old business of "proving that we're just as good Americans as anyone else", i.e. loyal to the US vs. to the Vatican, a la JFK. (Funny how Jews don't have to prove that they're more loyal to the US than to Israel -- but I digress.) Part of it is the realization that, as much anti-Catholicism as there is in the US, and has always been, a Catholic is, over time, generally better off here than in most places (including "traditionally Catholic" countries like Spain and Mexico, e.g.). In any case, Catholics of our time have been duped, to some extent, by the Neocons into believing that they must show their patriotism by supporting the administration, the war, Wilsonism, etc. even though the Vatican has come out firmly against all of these.
And I guarantee that, even among traditionalist Catholics, the Paleocons are in the minority -- but gaining strength, from what I can tell. These are the people whose parents may have been Catholics, but who rightfully feel betrayed by Democratic socialism and amoralism, and who more recently feel betrayed by Republican militarism and "defend Israel at any cost"-ism. So they were perfectly willing to support Ron Paul, even thought they would have felt like the Whore of Babylon voting for a libertarian.
Friday, April 4, 2008
It's Their Party and They'll Die If They Want To
From the e-mail file -- comments, dated March 4, on an Internet article saying that "the Libertarian Party must die". Quote from the article: "A shutdown of the Libertarian Party would get radicals and moderates out of each others hair. Radicals could pursue the long neglected non-electoral strategies for long-term radical change and moderates could apply their energies to seeking small reforms inside the major parties, as Ron Paul does." My comments:
But the major parties are hopeless! Ron Paul is an anomaly, and we see how much hostility he has engendered within the Republican Party and among the Neocons. Once he's out of the picture, they will close ranks again and it will be as if he never existed. No, there has to be a baseline organization devoted to libertarian political efforts, even if it does threaten to dissolve into fragments from time to time. Why can't the party be as broad-based as Liberty magazine, e.g.? They don't seem to be wallowing in compromise, or selling out.
By the same token, there probably has to be a paleocon organ, e.g. the Constitution Party, to serve people who are mostly libertarian but who have conservative or traditional moral values (not synonymous with church attendance but highly correlated). Admittedly, I can't see the LP and the CP forming a united front any time soon, alth. both segments have certainly supported Ron Paul (informally at least).
There will always be a conflict between "purists" of all stripes who prefer to have their own little fiefdoms, a la the Balkans -- and the more "big umbrella" types. That it itself is not an unhealthy thing -- it actually reflects two major concepts of the role of ideas in politics. We might question how practical the purist stance is for winning elections -- but a true purist would not rank that very high as a concern; it's the ideas that count, again re: the Ron Paul campaign. The risk on the "big umbrella" side is that by attempting to please everyone we wind up pleasing no one. Someone's going to say, "that's politics", but then the question arises, can we have democratic government without "politics"? It might be worth a try...
But the major parties are hopeless! Ron Paul is an anomaly, and we see how much hostility he has engendered within the Republican Party and among the Neocons. Once he's out of the picture, they will close ranks again and it will be as if he never existed. No, there has to be a baseline organization devoted to libertarian political efforts, even if it does threaten to dissolve into fragments from time to time. Why can't the party be as broad-based as Liberty magazine, e.g.? They don't seem to be wallowing in compromise, or selling out.
By the same token, there probably has to be a paleocon organ, e.g. the Constitution Party, to serve people who are mostly libertarian but who have conservative or traditional moral values (not synonymous with church attendance but highly correlated). Admittedly, I can't see the LP and the CP forming a united front any time soon, alth. both segments have certainly supported Ron Paul (informally at least).
There will always be a conflict between "purists" of all stripes who prefer to have their own little fiefdoms, a la the Balkans -- and the more "big umbrella" types. That it itself is not an unhealthy thing -- it actually reflects two major concepts of the role of ideas in politics. We might question how practical the purist stance is for winning elections -- but a true purist would not rank that very high as a concern; it's the ideas that count, again re: the Ron Paul campaign. The risk on the "big umbrella" side is that by attempting to please everyone we wind up pleasing no one. Someone's going to say, "that's politics", but then the question arises, can we have democratic government without "politics"? It might be worth a try...
Atlas Said "Fuhgeddaboutit"
From the e-mail file -- comments, dated March 14, on a so-called "John Galt Plan" to save the U.S. financial system. The idea, essentially, is for government to "get out of the way" and allow the self-correcting mechanisms of the system to actually operate. References to John Galt and Atlas are based on the novel, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. My comments:
Sure -- except there are no more "Atlases" now (assuming there ever were). The captains of industry and finance have long since sold out to collectivism -- or better, "participatory fascism", in which they have much more of a stake in totalitarian government than in "pure" capitalism. This is true right up to the top, i.e. Warren Buffet. The richest, most "self-actualized" people on earth today would hardly have gotten to where they are if it had not been for government-granted monopolies, bribery, behind-the-scenes manipulation, and conspiracy. I offer as evidence that (1) the Democrats are now the party of the rich as well as the poor; and (2) the stock market doesn't seem to mind who is president -- since they are all, at this point, reading off the same sheet of music. All have been co-opted, and the fix is definitely in. Obama is the JFK of our generation -- all sizzle and no substance. We cannot expect a revolution from below or from the top -- and the middle class is too cowed, and/or too complacent, to do anything, as befits the classic definition of the "bourgeois" -- they each have their own little rice bowl, they are each the king of their own little molehill, they are as wedded to entitlements and "social security" as the most abject inner-city dweller, and they are petrified of any real change. Where does one find truly "free enterprise" these days? In the Fortune 500? Not a bit. It's in the corner mom-and-pop pizza parlor down the street, which really is allowed to fail and must abide by the invisible hand of supply and demand. No one in the upper echelons is at risk, and of course the proletariat have nothing to lose from collectivism. (As an old acquaintance of mine used to say, regarding the "right-wing" hillbillies of SE Ohio -- "Why is it the people who have the least to lose from Communism are the most opposed to it?" Good question!) And -- as I've said before, the only guy I can think of with "the face without pain or fear or guilt" is -- Bill Clinton! Pardon me while I barf.
No, the end of all this will not be revolution from any source, but only the age-old answer of history, i.e. the overcoming of a decadent, soft society by one with energy, beliefs (however wrong or distorted) and, yes, hate. So we have a race to the top (or bottom) with the leading contenders being Russia, China, and Islam -- of which, I expect the first two to enter into a compact (assuming they haven't already) a la the Hitler-Stalin pact, and the third to act as the cannon fodder and the "lumpen proletariat" for the first two. The decline and fall will be on the part of the West, i.e. the "democracies", including Israel. I don't see how this can be avoided. And as you say, the question is not "whether" but "how soon" and "how badly". (Even the Roman Empire "survived", in a sense, in the form of the Catholic Church. Its conquerors were absorbed into that body, and life went on. Of course, we had to endure a little something called "The Dark Ages", but even then there were some points of light, e.g. the Irish monasteries, and also the Eastern Church and, yes, the Moslem World all the way to Spain.) Yeah, this business of having to live as a part of history sucks. Better brush off your time capsules, 'cause a thousand years from now no one will believe it.
Sure -- except there are no more "Atlases" now (assuming there ever were). The captains of industry and finance have long since sold out to collectivism -- or better, "participatory fascism", in which they have much more of a stake in totalitarian government than in "pure" capitalism. This is true right up to the top, i.e. Warren Buffet. The richest, most "self-actualized" people on earth today would hardly have gotten to where they are if it had not been for government-granted monopolies, bribery, behind-the-scenes manipulation, and conspiracy. I offer as evidence that (1) the Democrats are now the party of the rich as well as the poor; and (2) the stock market doesn't seem to mind who is president -- since they are all, at this point, reading off the same sheet of music. All have been co-opted, and the fix is definitely in. Obama is the JFK of our generation -- all sizzle and no substance. We cannot expect a revolution from below or from the top -- and the middle class is too cowed, and/or too complacent, to do anything, as befits the classic definition of the "bourgeois" -- they each have their own little rice bowl, they are each the king of their own little molehill, they are as wedded to entitlements and "social security" as the most abject inner-city dweller, and they are petrified of any real change. Where does one find truly "free enterprise" these days? In the Fortune 500? Not a bit. It's in the corner mom-and-pop pizza parlor down the street, which really is allowed to fail and must abide by the invisible hand of supply and demand. No one in the upper echelons is at risk, and of course the proletariat have nothing to lose from collectivism. (As an old acquaintance of mine used to say, regarding the "right-wing" hillbillies of SE Ohio -- "Why is it the people who have the least to lose from Communism are the most opposed to it?" Good question!) And -- as I've said before, the only guy I can think of with "the face without pain or fear or guilt" is -- Bill Clinton! Pardon me while I barf.
No, the end of all this will not be revolution from any source, but only the age-old answer of history, i.e. the overcoming of a decadent, soft society by one with energy, beliefs (however wrong or distorted) and, yes, hate. So we have a race to the top (or bottom) with the leading contenders being Russia, China, and Islam -- of which, I expect the first two to enter into a compact (assuming they haven't already) a la the Hitler-Stalin pact, and the third to act as the cannon fodder and the "lumpen proletariat" for the first two. The decline and fall will be on the part of the West, i.e. the "democracies", including Israel. I don't see how this can be avoided. And as you say, the question is not "whether" but "how soon" and "how badly". (Even the Roman Empire "survived", in a sense, in the form of the Catholic Church. Its conquerors were absorbed into that body, and life went on. Of course, we had to endure a little something called "The Dark Ages", but even then there were some points of light, e.g. the Irish monasteries, and also the Eastern Church and, yes, the Moslem World all the way to Spain.) Yeah, this business of having to live as a part of history sucks. Better brush off your time capsules, 'cause a thousand years from now no one will believe it.
Obama Pull Out? Dream On...
From the e-mail file -- a comment, dated March 8, on a news item related to the Obama campaign:
The Obama advisor who called Hillary a "monster" was, of course, relieved of duty. Too bad, since she's the only honest person Obama had on his team. But on the way out, she noted that "Obama may not be able to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a year as he has promised on the campaign trail." So the fix is in, and now we can relax, since there is no longer any significant difference between Billary and Bama.
Of course, a president could withdraw all combat troops from Iraq in less time than it took to put them in. The logistics are not trivial but, ultimately, all you have to do is start loading them on transports. As Ron Paul says, "They marched in, they can march out." So this "may not be able to" stuff is pure B.S.
BTW, as the notion of a Hillary/Obama ticket becomes a subject of public speculation, one has only to reflect that during the Clinton I administration, she and Bill were self-identified as "co-presidents". No reason to think this will change. So in a Clinton II administration, Hill and Bill will be co-presidents and Obama will be serving mint juleps in the Rose Garden.
The Obama advisor who called Hillary a "monster" was, of course, relieved of duty. Too bad, since she's the only honest person Obama had on his team. But on the way out, she noted that "Obama may not be able to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a year as he has promised on the campaign trail." So the fix is in, and now we can relax, since there is no longer any significant difference between Billary and Bama.
Of course, a president could withdraw all combat troops from Iraq in less time than it took to put them in. The logistics are not trivial but, ultimately, all you have to do is start loading them on transports. As Ron Paul says, "They marched in, they can march out." So this "may not be able to" stuff is pure B.S.
BTW, as the notion of a Hillary/Obama ticket becomes a subject of public speculation, one has only to reflect that during the Clinton I administration, she and Bill were self-identified as "co-presidents". No reason to think this will change. So in a Clinton II administration, Hill and Bill will be co-presidents and Obama will be serving mint juleps in the Rose Garden.
New Sins for Old
From the e-mail file -- a reply, dated March 14, on the subject of the Vatican's recent statement regarding "new" mortal sins. The list, taken from an article at Telegraph.co.uk, is: Genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs. My comments:
These didn't just come out of the blue. In a sense they are modern-day applications of moral principles that the Church has always identified and expected people to adhere to. For example, drug abuse can be related to the admonition, "thou shalt not kill", applying it to oneself. (The Church has always condemned suicide.) Genetic modification, besides "playing God", could also be considered a form of violence, i.e. against the Creation. Ditto human experimentation. Pollution might come under the heading of violence in some cases, but it can also be considered a form of stealing, i.e. taking away a certain amount of the value or quality of life from others. The wealth thing is a bit trickier since even extreme wealth is not, by necessity, reflective of sin. But the probability that some form of theft or coercion was involved does increase as a person becomes wealthier, I would say -- just based on observation if not principle. And then the holding of much wealth could very easily reflect a lack of charity. Greed and selfishness relate to "desiring your neighbor's goods", i.e. not being satisfied with what you have if that is sufficient for your reasonable support. "Social injustice" (although I dislike the term) could partake of violence, greed, theft, and any number of other things.
One could argue that these "new sins" are much more subtle and nuanced, and less obvious, that the old reliable sins of the past. And yet, even those "obvious" sins of the past have not-so-obvious facets. For example, self-sterilization relates to "thou shalt not kill", and contraception relates to adultery in that it is also a case of separating the procreative from the sexual.
All I'm saying is that garment is still seamless. But there is no change in the fact that the individual must examine his own conscience on a regular basis and, when in doubt, see what the Church has to say.
These didn't just come out of the blue. In a sense they are modern-day applications of moral principles that the Church has always identified and expected people to adhere to. For example, drug abuse can be related to the admonition, "thou shalt not kill", applying it to oneself. (The Church has always condemned suicide.) Genetic modification, besides "playing God", could also be considered a form of violence, i.e. against the Creation. Ditto human experimentation. Pollution might come under the heading of violence in some cases, but it can also be considered a form of stealing, i.e. taking away a certain amount of the value or quality of life from others. The wealth thing is a bit trickier since even extreme wealth is not, by necessity, reflective of sin. But the probability that some form of theft or coercion was involved does increase as a person becomes wealthier, I would say -- just based on observation if not principle. And then the holding of much wealth could very easily reflect a lack of charity. Greed and selfishness relate to "desiring your neighbor's goods", i.e. not being satisfied with what you have if that is sufficient for your reasonable support. "Social injustice" (although I dislike the term) could partake of violence, greed, theft, and any number of other things.
One could argue that these "new sins" are much more subtle and nuanced, and less obvious, that the old reliable sins of the past. And yet, even those "obvious" sins of the past have not-so-obvious facets. For example, self-sterilization relates to "thou shalt not kill", and contraception relates to adultery in that it is also a case of separating the procreative from the sexual.
All I'm saying is that garment is still seamless. But there is no change in the fact that the individual must examine his own conscience on a regular basis and, when in doubt, see what the Church has to say.
Nun Sequiturs
I have never met what I call a "traumatized Catholic" without getting a "nuns with rulers" story. This seems to be a "meme" that is common to everybody who ever went to a Catholic school and who, subsequently, eschewed the True Church and entered upon the road to perdition -- let's say to Episcopalianism, or Unitarianism, or some other such horror. Now, I will admit that it is very hard to answer their argument because, for all I know, there were a few rogue nuns out there who wielded rulers the way Elsa, the Beast of Birkenau, wielded her whip. And if that is true, it is most unfortunate -- although hardly enough to justify abandoning an entire creed, unless the individual had other reasons for doing so, which I strongly suspect. In any case, one of the best answers to the "traumatized Catholic" I have ever run across is a column by a local writer which appeared in the Tribune-Review last Sunday. I offer the link in hopes that it will provide some balance (and also an ongoing resource for me, the next time I get the "nuns with rulers" story):
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/purcell/s_559667.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/purcell/s_559667.html
Snapshots, 4/2-3/08
If April 1 is "April Fool's Day", what is April 2? I suggest it be called -- taking a cue from Mr. T -- "I Pity the Fool Day", i.e. "I pity the fool who survives April 1 just to come back and be an even bigger fool." Some random samples from yesterday's and today's news will illustrate my thesis.
1. But Did They Kill Kenny?
It sounds like a story line from "South Park" -- but it's apparently true. A group of third graders in Georgia (the state, not the country -- funny how we always have to specify that now) hatched a plot against their teacher and apparently had every intention of carrying it out, going so far as to bring an arsenal of weaponry to school, including "a broken steak knife, handcuffs, electrical and transparent tape, ribbons and a crystal paperweight". Again we must read between the lines to gather the full significance of this story. To begin with, this was not an ordinary third-grade class. It was a class for "special" students, who suffered from "learning disabilities including attention deficit disorder, delayed development and hyperactivity". (In my day, we called them "bad kids and retards" -- but that was in the Dark Ages, of course.) Now, not only did this cabal of pre-teens hatch the plot and gather an array of tools with which to carry it out, they also came up with a division of labor by which some would be assigned to "window covering" duty and others to "clean-up" duty (think: "brain duty" in "Pulp Fiction"). Now, it seems to me that, just for starters, having an entire class composed of "challenged" kids is already walking on the wild side. On the other hand, we also see how these supposedly "challenged" kids really did rise to the challenge, and came up with something that one would hardly expect of people twice their age. "Attention deficit disorder", my ass! "Delayed development"? I say, figure out a way to harness these talents. Put these kids to work for the "No Child Left Behind" bureaucracy, for example. Put them out on the street as part of child enticement "sting" operations. These are the tac squad members of tomorrow, don't let them go to waste. And, oh yes, an added note of irony. None of them can be prosecuted since "children in Georgia can't be charged with a crime unless they are at least 13". This is from a state where, up until recently, you could get _married_ at age 13. (And by the way, what were the ribbons for? Maybe I don't want to know.)
2. Russian Cavers Cave
The Russian end-of-the-world cult that was holed up in a cave has broken up and decided to re-integrate itself with Russian society. (This is bad news for Janet Reno, who was all set to make big bucks as a consultant on "how to get rid of cultists".) But it turns out that this "cave" of theirs was just a hype anyway. It wasn't a real cave, but only a hole dug into the side of a hill. Lame, man! But you have to hand it to them for having the Russian trait of long-suffering; they had been there for "nearly half a year". (Well, we've been suffering through primaries for that long, so I can relate... ) Also to be noted -- they "reject processed food" -- obviously the key to their endurance.
3. Are You Black Enough?
Further evidence that the Clinton campaign has made headway with its insinuations that Obama is not an authentic black person, therefore is entitled to no special consideration from the black community. A Clinton backer, Cong. Emanuel Cleaver (no known relationship to Beaver), says that Obama "is articulate", but "in the black tradition, he would probably be mediocre". This has to do with speaking ability, of course, not with anything fuddy-duddy like logic or proper use of English. Well, we know that Obama had a culturally-deprived childhood. But there are ways of making up for all that. If he really wants to emulate the charisma of the black preacher/politician, he needs to add a few things to his campaign repertoire. One would be a choir in long robes, singing uplifting songs during his rallies. (And they all have to sway at the same time, like the Supremes; don't forget that.) Another would be an organist who lays down those little riffs along with Obama's speeches. And -- most important of all -- that elderly woman who sits in the front row and hollers, "Yeah!", every time Obama makes a major point. Do it, Obama! Get down wit' yo' black self! Whatchoo got to lose, bro?
4. Pass 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out
"Computer malfunction wipes out school grades" in Evansville, Indiana. I guess this was an act of desperation on the part of anti-NCLB forces. All of a sudden, the school can't be sanctioned because -- guess what -- no one has any grades! Very clever. Now, when I worked for the "feds", anyone with a grain of sense kept multiple backups -- because we knew that our automation system suffered from LBS, "Low Bidder Syndrome". I mean, we were still using computers with vacuum tubes when everyone else had gone to silicon. We had punch cards when everyone else had Zip drive, and Zip drives after everyone else had tossed them in the trash. And for something _really_ important, we kept -- yeah, you tree huggers -- paper backup. So this "wipes out school grades" stuff is totally bogus. We know what was really going on there, and it ain't pretty.
5. Weather Experts Blow It Again
"Hurricane experts, off the mark the past 2 years, expect 'active' season." Here we go again. It's that same old tired syndrome that all weather prophets suffer from -- if you predict calm and storms develop, you get blamed. If you predict storms and none occur, everyone's happy. So what do you do? You predict storms, cataclysms, floods, typhoons, tidal waves, etc., at every opportunity. Then when they don't materialize, you mumble some lame-assed thing about having to "tweak" your computer models, and life goes on. Hey, I don't blame these guys. But please note that they're the same ones who are gung-ho the "global warming" hype. So do we really want energy policy for the next 100 years based on a bunch of nerds whose Job One is covering their butt?
6. Better Red Than Dead
Now it turns out that the Democrats have had a secret weapon all along, that we could have used in our negotiations with hostile regimes. Seems that former president Bill Clinton reacted to the mention of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's wandering off the reservation by "turning red". (No, we don't mean red as in "The East is Red", we mean literally.) One observer commented that Clinton "seemed more hurt than anything". Well gee, is that anything like the kind of "hurt" a kindergartner feels when someone pushes ahead of him in the graham cracker line? If so, it's something we've seen any number of times from our first black -- er, red -- president. In fact, it's surprising when he _doesn't_ react to bad news in a manner befitting a spoiled pre-schooler. He pulled this act time and again while in office, and he's back at it now. But -- say I -- let's not spoil this hitherto-unremarked resource. Let's send him over to Israel... or North Korea... or to one of our balky "allies". He could succeed where others have failed. What seasoned diplomat could ever get the results Bill Clinton can get by simply turning red? Think of the impact, in a meeting of people who are used to each other's boring monologues. He turns red... then purple... the steam starts to rise... "Give me that pen! I'll sign! Anything to get this guy to turn back to a normal color!" This could be the start of a whole new era in diplomacy -- one with more promise of success than the one we're in now, I can almost guarantee.
And finally ---
7. Moo Over, Rover!
"Scientists in Britain applied for permission to create part cow, part human embryos." Now surely there's an easier way for Rosie O'Donnell to produce offspring!
1. But Did They Kill Kenny?
It sounds like a story line from "South Park" -- but it's apparently true. A group of third graders in Georgia (the state, not the country -- funny how we always have to specify that now) hatched a plot against their teacher and apparently had every intention of carrying it out, going so far as to bring an arsenal of weaponry to school, including "a broken steak knife, handcuffs, electrical and transparent tape, ribbons and a crystal paperweight". Again we must read between the lines to gather the full significance of this story. To begin with, this was not an ordinary third-grade class. It was a class for "special" students, who suffered from "learning disabilities including attention deficit disorder, delayed development and hyperactivity". (In my day, we called them "bad kids and retards" -- but that was in the Dark Ages, of course.) Now, not only did this cabal of pre-teens hatch the plot and gather an array of tools with which to carry it out, they also came up with a division of labor by which some would be assigned to "window covering" duty and others to "clean-up" duty (think: "brain duty" in "Pulp Fiction"). Now, it seems to me that, just for starters, having an entire class composed of "challenged" kids is already walking on the wild side. On the other hand, we also see how these supposedly "challenged" kids really did rise to the challenge, and came up with something that one would hardly expect of people twice their age. "Attention deficit disorder", my ass! "Delayed development"? I say, figure out a way to harness these talents. Put these kids to work for the "No Child Left Behind" bureaucracy, for example. Put them out on the street as part of child enticement "sting" operations. These are the tac squad members of tomorrow, don't let them go to waste. And, oh yes, an added note of irony. None of them can be prosecuted since "children in Georgia can't be charged with a crime unless they are at least 13". This is from a state where, up until recently, you could get _married_ at age 13. (And by the way, what were the ribbons for? Maybe I don't want to know.)
2. Russian Cavers Cave
The Russian end-of-the-world cult that was holed up in a cave has broken up and decided to re-integrate itself with Russian society. (This is bad news for Janet Reno, who was all set to make big bucks as a consultant on "how to get rid of cultists".) But it turns out that this "cave" of theirs was just a hype anyway. It wasn't a real cave, but only a hole dug into the side of a hill. Lame, man! But you have to hand it to them for having the Russian trait of long-suffering; they had been there for "nearly half a year". (Well, we've been suffering through primaries for that long, so I can relate... ) Also to be noted -- they "reject processed food" -- obviously the key to their endurance.
3. Are You Black Enough?
Further evidence that the Clinton campaign has made headway with its insinuations that Obama is not an authentic black person, therefore is entitled to no special consideration from the black community. A Clinton backer, Cong. Emanuel Cleaver (no known relationship to Beaver), says that Obama "is articulate", but "in the black tradition, he would probably be mediocre". This has to do with speaking ability, of course, not with anything fuddy-duddy like logic or proper use of English. Well, we know that Obama had a culturally-deprived childhood. But there are ways of making up for all that. If he really wants to emulate the charisma of the black preacher/politician, he needs to add a few things to his campaign repertoire. One would be a choir in long robes, singing uplifting songs during his rallies. (And they all have to sway at the same time, like the Supremes; don't forget that.) Another would be an organist who lays down those little riffs along with Obama's speeches. And -- most important of all -- that elderly woman who sits in the front row and hollers, "Yeah!", every time Obama makes a major point. Do it, Obama! Get down wit' yo' black self! Whatchoo got to lose, bro?
4. Pass 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out
"Computer malfunction wipes out school grades" in Evansville, Indiana. I guess this was an act of desperation on the part of anti-NCLB forces. All of a sudden, the school can't be sanctioned because -- guess what -- no one has any grades! Very clever. Now, when I worked for the "feds", anyone with a grain of sense kept multiple backups -- because we knew that our automation system suffered from LBS, "Low Bidder Syndrome". I mean, we were still using computers with vacuum tubes when everyone else had gone to silicon. We had punch cards when everyone else had Zip drive, and Zip drives after everyone else had tossed them in the trash. And for something _really_ important, we kept -- yeah, you tree huggers -- paper backup. So this "wipes out school grades" stuff is totally bogus. We know what was really going on there, and it ain't pretty.
5. Weather Experts Blow It Again
"Hurricane experts, off the mark the past 2 years, expect 'active' season." Here we go again. It's that same old tired syndrome that all weather prophets suffer from -- if you predict calm and storms develop, you get blamed. If you predict storms and none occur, everyone's happy. So what do you do? You predict storms, cataclysms, floods, typhoons, tidal waves, etc., at every opportunity. Then when they don't materialize, you mumble some lame-assed thing about having to "tweak" your computer models, and life goes on. Hey, I don't blame these guys. But please note that they're the same ones who are gung-ho the "global warming" hype. So do we really want energy policy for the next 100 years based on a bunch of nerds whose Job One is covering their butt?
6. Better Red Than Dead
Now it turns out that the Democrats have had a secret weapon all along, that we could have used in our negotiations with hostile regimes. Seems that former president Bill Clinton reacted to the mention of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's wandering off the reservation by "turning red". (No, we don't mean red as in "The East is Red", we mean literally.) One observer commented that Clinton "seemed more hurt than anything". Well gee, is that anything like the kind of "hurt" a kindergartner feels when someone pushes ahead of him in the graham cracker line? If so, it's something we've seen any number of times from our first black -- er, red -- president. In fact, it's surprising when he _doesn't_ react to bad news in a manner befitting a spoiled pre-schooler. He pulled this act time and again while in office, and he's back at it now. But -- say I -- let's not spoil this hitherto-unremarked resource. Let's send him over to Israel... or North Korea... or to one of our balky "allies". He could succeed where others have failed. What seasoned diplomat could ever get the results Bill Clinton can get by simply turning red? Think of the impact, in a meeting of people who are used to each other's boring monologues. He turns red... then purple... the steam starts to rise... "Give me that pen! I'll sign! Anything to get this guy to turn back to a normal color!" This could be the start of a whole new era in diplomacy -- one with more promise of success than the one we're in now, I can almost guarantee.
And finally ---
7. Moo Over, Rover!
"Scientists in Britain applied for permission to create part cow, part human embryos." Now surely there's an easier way for Rosie O'Donnell to produce offspring!
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Do Not Go Gentry Into That Good Night (Part I)
Most American cities have neighborhoods whose vintage, architectural interest, and quaintness make them attractive to middle-class people who are less than excited by suburban tract homes and mini-McMansions. These neighborhoods also have the advantage of being close to commercial and shopping areas, and close to the "bright lights", i.e. the entertainment and cultural and nightlife districts of the city. What they also have, more often than not, is a history of neglect and so-called "blight", whereby areas that were upper middle class or upper class at the time of their construction (typically pre-World War I) went gradually downhill for various socioeconomic reasons, until such time as they were dealt a death blow by "urban renewal" programs and became part of the vast no-man's-land that is so familiar in our urban areas. But socioeconomic factors can give as well as take away. Many of these neighborhoods are getting a second look, and many of them are subject to "urban homesteading" -- a sort of upbeat term that really means, "trying to re-establish civilization in the midst of the wilderness". Some cities are offering considerable incentives to people who are willing to act as "pioneers" -- e.g. you can get a house for _free_ if you promise to make it livable -- which can be quite a challenge given that, at the time you got it, it was the occasional habitation of crackheads and junkies, and the permanent habitation of cockroaches the size of rats and rats the size of beavers.
But here's where the trouble starts. It's not enough to buy a house, or have it handed to you, and then proceed to move in and perform major surgery in order to restore it to some semblance of what it was like back in 1880. You're still in "that" neighborhood, and the people who "rule" that neighborhood are, by definition, the ones who aren't afraid to be outside on the street or in the alleyways at all hours of the night -- and that ain't you, bubby. You're going to be sitting inside those triple-bolted doors and barred windows, with elaborate alarm systems activated and emergency lines all ready to fire up in case of an emergency. You're going to hear -- over the sound of NPR -- the sirens, the hollering of drunks and street loonies, the domestic altercations from across the alley, and -- with any luck -- the occasional sound of small-arms fire. And yeah, you're a pioneer, all right -- just like the ones who had the rifle hanging over the door and had to watch out for Indians every time they went out to tend the pumpkin crop. And it's a bit ironic that in a country where the "frontier" closed over 100 years ago, we have a new frontier in our inner cities, fraught with all the same perils and then some. And for the few urban pioneers who knew what to expect, this is the sort of thing that can be taken in stride, up to a point. But for the ones for whom the city represented a newly-rediscovered utopia, it can be very upsetting, and that brings us to the present example -- one of many.
There is an area of Pittsburgh on the North Side known as the Mexican War Streets. It is, of course, a "historic district" and the center of various preservation campaigns. If you want to talk "retro" and "quaint", the place is hard to match. The streets are narrow, as are the houses (being, by and large, of the "townhouse" type, but of very early vintage). There are intriguing little alleyways, walkways, courtyards, rooftops -- all the things that draw people back to the city from the sterile suburban moonscapes. In some cities, these diminutive homes would easily run up to $1 million each -- say, in Manhattan, Washington, DC, San Francisco, or parts of Boston. But in Pittsburgh they are a bargain -- so far, at least. One reason -- other than the simple economics of supply and demand -- is that, despite the gentrification movement that has made this neighborhood one of the most frequently-cited in the area as an example of urban homesteading, the process hasn't moved quite quickly enough or with sufficient force to -- how do I put this delicately? -- "encourage" the former residents to seek lodgings elsewhere. In other words, a lot of people in the MWS area just haven't quite "caught on" to the fact that this area is now slated for gentrification, and upgrading, and settlement by middle-class people who are, by and large -- I don't know how else to say this -- white. So what happens is this. You have a patchwork of settlement -- again, a familiar transitional situation in many urban neighborhoods -- where a fixed-up house is cheek to jowl with a run-down poverty home, which is next to a crack house, which is next to a vacant lot littered with all manner of urban offal, which is, in turn, next to another fixed-up house owned by a couple of "DINKs" (Double Income No Kids) -- or maybe by a gay couple -- or a couple of "DIOKs" (Double Income One Kid, and not planning to have any more). And this unnatural and awkward juxtaposition, and daily rubbing of elbows, doesn't do a thing for the morale of either group, no matter how widely advertised the "diversity" of the neighborhood is. (I have discovered that when an area is described as "diverse" it usually means that one group hasn't yet figured out that it's supposed to leave.) So anyway, what we get is the usual round of muggings, shootings, vandalism, arson, drunkenness, drug dealing, and so forth, all boiling up around the ears of the new arrivals, i.e. the folks who thought that urban life was going to resemble those winsome little line drawings one finds as column-fillers in The New Yorker. So they get upset, and of course when white middle-class people get upset, they don't resort to the direct action of their duskier-hued neighbors and start throwing things through windows -- they call the mayor's office and "demand that something be done" -- and that "something" is invariably a meeting, or series of meetings, which are typically attended _only_ by whites, in a neighborhood that is still overwhelmingly black. And it is in these meetings that the truth finally dawns on all concerned, as to what can be done -- precisely nothing. And the reason it's "nothing" is that these people, like it or not, are outnumbered, outvoted, out-pressured, and "out-cultured", i.e. it is _they_ who are the "strangers in a stange land" -- everyone else is perfectly at home and uninterested in making any changes, thank you very much.
So is this the end of it? Experiment a failure, game over? Not necessarily. There are two main types of force that can be applied to a situation like this -- that originating with the government, and that originating with private enterprise. Government intervention is an ambivalent affair at best, since it was often the actions of the government that created the situation in the first place -- first and foremost being, as I have mentioned, the use of "urban renewal" programs as a club with which to evict the white working class and middle class from the city, and replace it with a warehoused non-working or barely-working lower class. As to why this was ever considered a good idea, I can only refer the reader to the definitive work on the subject, namely E. Michael Jones' "The Slaughter of Cities". Suffice it to say, it happened, to some extent, in virtually every city in America, some to a more severe degree than others, but every city shows its scars. But now, a couple of generations later, the cities (more precisely, their governments) are turning around and saying, "Come back!" Now at the risk of sounding cynical, I could speculate that the primary motive for this is the need to bolster the tax base. How one maintains a viable economy on the basis of small downtown commercial areas and vast "net tax-receiving" areas, and not much else, is beyond me. But it's also possible that -- perhaps by way of travels in other countries, or reading books on history -- a few city officials here and there have had the scales fall from their eyes, and have realized what a grotesque and twisted mockery of urban life most of our cities represent. So they decide to "do something", that that something is to -- by some means or other -- lure the middle class back into Gotham's bosom. The preferred way of accomplishing this at present is to either build new middle-class housing -- typically in concert with commercial and cultural development -- or to appeal in a more focused way to the adventuresome -- the "yuppies" -- the "bourgeois bohemians" -- by promoting the restoration of older, more aesthetically appealing areas. Now, the "new middle-class housing" option is not bad, but it seems, at times, to be no more than a process of moving high-density developments from the suburbs into the city. And it does create an island of security, no doubt -- but only an island and no more. The "restoration" option, on the other hand, retains the uniquely urban character of the area in question, but introduces other discontents as discussed above. In the meantime, the "second wave" of urban renewal is proceeding apace, and this frequently involves demolishing the very high-rises and "garden apartments" that were built to house the participants in the first wave. Where they are supposed to go from here is anybody's guess -- the answer seems to vary from one city to the next. Sometimes it's to other parts of the city, i.e. the ones not slated for upgrading. Sometimes it's to suburban developments which quickly acquire all of same unfortunate qualities as their predecessors. So one might say that the aggregate common good has not been noticeably enhanced. But, by gosh, the city looks better at least. It looks better in Chamber of Commerce brochures, and Better Business Bureau spreads, and in National Geographic. And mainly, the tax base starts to turn around.
But here's where the trouble starts. It's not enough to buy a house, or have it handed to you, and then proceed to move in and perform major surgery in order to restore it to some semblance of what it was like back in 1880. You're still in "that" neighborhood, and the people who "rule" that neighborhood are, by definition, the ones who aren't afraid to be outside on the street or in the alleyways at all hours of the night -- and that ain't you, bubby. You're going to be sitting inside those triple-bolted doors and barred windows, with elaborate alarm systems activated and emergency lines all ready to fire up in case of an emergency. You're going to hear -- over the sound of NPR -- the sirens, the hollering of drunks and street loonies, the domestic altercations from across the alley, and -- with any luck -- the occasional sound of small-arms fire. And yeah, you're a pioneer, all right -- just like the ones who had the rifle hanging over the door and had to watch out for Indians every time they went out to tend the pumpkin crop. And it's a bit ironic that in a country where the "frontier" closed over 100 years ago, we have a new frontier in our inner cities, fraught with all the same perils and then some. And for the few urban pioneers who knew what to expect, this is the sort of thing that can be taken in stride, up to a point. But for the ones for whom the city represented a newly-rediscovered utopia, it can be very upsetting, and that brings us to the present example -- one of many.
There is an area of Pittsburgh on the North Side known as the Mexican War Streets. It is, of course, a "historic district" and the center of various preservation campaigns. If you want to talk "retro" and "quaint", the place is hard to match. The streets are narrow, as are the houses (being, by and large, of the "townhouse" type, but of very early vintage). There are intriguing little alleyways, walkways, courtyards, rooftops -- all the things that draw people back to the city from the sterile suburban moonscapes. In some cities, these diminutive homes would easily run up to $1 million each -- say, in Manhattan, Washington, DC, San Francisco, or parts of Boston. But in Pittsburgh they are a bargain -- so far, at least. One reason -- other than the simple economics of supply and demand -- is that, despite the gentrification movement that has made this neighborhood one of the most frequently-cited in the area as an example of urban homesteading, the process hasn't moved quite quickly enough or with sufficient force to -- how do I put this delicately? -- "encourage" the former residents to seek lodgings elsewhere. In other words, a lot of people in the MWS area just haven't quite "caught on" to the fact that this area is now slated for gentrification, and upgrading, and settlement by middle-class people who are, by and large -- I don't know how else to say this -- white. So what happens is this. You have a patchwork of settlement -- again, a familiar transitional situation in many urban neighborhoods -- where a fixed-up house is cheek to jowl with a run-down poverty home, which is next to a crack house, which is next to a vacant lot littered with all manner of urban offal, which is, in turn, next to another fixed-up house owned by a couple of "DINKs" (Double Income No Kids) -- or maybe by a gay couple -- or a couple of "DIOKs" (Double Income One Kid, and not planning to have any more). And this unnatural and awkward juxtaposition, and daily rubbing of elbows, doesn't do a thing for the morale of either group, no matter how widely advertised the "diversity" of the neighborhood is. (I have discovered that when an area is described as "diverse" it usually means that one group hasn't yet figured out that it's supposed to leave.) So anyway, what we get is the usual round of muggings, shootings, vandalism, arson, drunkenness, drug dealing, and so forth, all boiling up around the ears of the new arrivals, i.e. the folks who thought that urban life was going to resemble those winsome little line drawings one finds as column-fillers in The New Yorker. So they get upset, and of course when white middle-class people get upset, they don't resort to the direct action of their duskier-hued neighbors and start throwing things through windows -- they call the mayor's office and "demand that something be done" -- and that "something" is invariably a meeting, or series of meetings, which are typically attended _only_ by whites, in a neighborhood that is still overwhelmingly black. And it is in these meetings that the truth finally dawns on all concerned, as to what can be done -- precisely nothing. And the reason it's "nothing" is that these people, like it or not, are outnumbered, outvoted, out-pressured, and "out-cultured", i.e. it is _they_ who are the "strangers in a stange land" -- everyone else is perfectly at home and uninterested in making any changes, thank you very much.
So is this the end of it? Experiment a failure, game over? Not necessarily. There are two main types of force that can be applied to a situation like this -- that originating with the government, and that originating with private enterprise. Government intervention is an ambivalent affair at best, since it was often the actions of the government that created the situation in the first place -- first and foremost being, as I have mentioned, the use of "urban renewal" programs as a club with which to evict the white working class and middle class from the city, and replace it with a warehoused non-working or barely-working lower class. As to why this was ever considered a good idea, I can only refer the reader to the definitive work on the subject, namely E. Michael Jones' "The Slaughter of Cities". Suffice it to say, it happened, to some extent, in virtually every city in America, some to a more severe degree than others, but every city shows its scars. But now, a couple of generations later, the cities (more precisely, their governments) are turning around and saying, "Come back!" Now at the risk of sounding cynical, I could speculate that the primary motive for this is the need to bolster the tax base. How one maintains a viable economy on the basis of small downtown commercial areas and vast "net tax-receiving" areas, and not much else, is beyond me. But it's also possible that -- perhaps by way of travels in other countries, or reading books on history -- a few city officials here and there have had the scales fall from their eyes, and have realized what a grotesque and twisted mockery of urban life most of our cities represent. So they decide to "do something", that that something is to -- by some means or other -- lure the middle class back into Gotham's bosom. The preferred way of accomplishing this at present is to either build new middle-class housing -- typically in concert with commercial and cultural development -- or to appeal in a more focused way to the adventuresome -- the "yuppies" -- the "bourgeois bohemians" -- by promoting the restoration of older, more aesthetically appealing areas. Now, the "new middle-class housing" option is not bad, but it seems, at times, to be no more than a process of moving high-density developments from the suburbs into the city. And it does create an island of security, no doubt -- but only an island and no more. The "restoration" option, on the other hand, retains the uniquely urban character of the area in question, but introduces other discontents as discussed above. In the meantime, the "second wave" of urban renewal is proceeding apace, and this frequently involves demolishing the very high-rises and "garden apartments" that were built to house the participants in the first wave. Where they are supposed to go from here is anybody's guess -- the answer seems to vary from one city to the next. Sometimes it's to other parts of the city, i.e. the ones not slated for upgrading. Sometimes it's to suburban developments which quickly acquire all of same unfortunate qualities as their predecessors. So one might say that the aggregate common good has not been noticeably enhanced. But, by gosh, the city looks better at least. It looks better in Chamber of Commerce brochures, and Better Business Bureau spreads, and in National Geographic. And mainly, the tax base starts to turn around.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wright is Wrong... Except When He's Right
The question came up in a column by Ralph Reiland in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, as follows: "... it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them." Further on, he says, "Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed, or hooked on drugs because of a government plot?"
Yeah, OK, let's actually take a look at some of these points, rather than just blowing them off as the rantings of some "radical". In fact, let's admit that, if we want to claim that there is at least of grain of truth behind every "stereotype" or prejudice held by white people, then there _might_ just be a grain of truth -- let's say "a basis for the perception" -- behind certain ideas held by black people. Of course, it's always possible that we're talking about a "meme" - defined as a "unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another." A meme does not have to have a basis in fact -- it can be a wild idea that someone dreamed up, but which appeals to people because of their perceptions of the world, or their experiences in it. For example, the notion that the U.S. government "invented" AIDS for the purpose of exterminating blacks -- in both Africa and the U.S. -- is, arguably, a meme. It's a fanciful notion that is, nonetheless, widely believed for what might be called political/cultural reasons. But even so, someone looking for "evidence" is going to focus on the high incidence of AIDS in black prostitutes (as if that were otherwise unexpected) and its allegedly high incidence in Africa (passing up, for now, the temptation to discuss the known gross over-diagnosis of "African AIDS"). But what about Wright's other points? Are they memes too? Or just the workings of his feverish imagination? Or might there be something more to it? Let's have a look, shall we?
* Does the U.S. hate blacks? Well, we _claim_ to be giving them every break in the world, affirmative action and massive funding of remedial and social and "inner city" programs being offered as evidence. But we've also used them as stalking horses for "urban renewal", the main effects of which were to drive the working-class white ethnic groups out of American cities and to install blacks as a permanent, politically-malleable underclass. We've demolished organic, culturally-rich black neighborhoods and replaced them with sterile high-rises, which instantly become hotbeds of violence and drug abuse. We offer affirmative action programs and preferences, then whisper about the ones who take advantage of them that, well, they "only got as far as they got" because of all the help we gave them. And, yes, we pass laws against certain behaviors, like the use of certain kinds of drugs or even certain _forms_ of the same kind of drug -- laws which have wildly disproportionate "adverse impact", and yet no one ever raises their voice in protest -- except the likes of Rev. Wright. And much more could be said regarding the issue of whether the U.S. "hates" blacks. All I can say is that, given the evidence, it's hard to argue that someone should never develop that impression.
* Does the U.S. government give blacks drugs? Why don't we ask whether there is a blatant differential in drug-enforcement policy between black neighborhoods and, say, white suburban neighborhoods? Might it not be suggested that certain "inner city" areas have been, basically, "triaged" out of eligibility for law enforcement, particularly of the "war on drugs" kind? Does our drug policy result in ridiculously high profits for drug dealers, which encourages them to make drugs more widely available and to see to it that the customer base gets renewed on a regular basis? And finally, do we "treat" drug users with jail time more often than with genuine rehabilitation? Would the situation be any worse if we really _were_ giving the stuff away for free?
* Is jail part of an officially-sanctioned plan for blacks? I have written elsewhere on the "prison industry" in the U.S. It is a massive job-creating and job-perpetuating institution, and its livelihood depends on having a reliable and ever-burgeoning supply of what Tom Wolfe (in "The Bonfire of the Vanities") calls "the chow" -- i.e. the chronically-under-arrest, or in jail, or out-on-bond members of the underclass that are, in fact, the life blood of the system. The situation as it stands is that the rest of the country expects a lot of blacks to be in jail, and blacks expect a lot of their own number to be in jail; it's taken for granted -- that's just the way things are. So no one objects because no one wants to admit that, as often as not, the law creates criminals. In particular, the law becomes a tool by which a dominant group can persecute the members of a non-dominant group, by picking out things they do or like, or their vulnerabilities, and declaring them "illegal". So if it turns out that blacks, for whatever reason, are prone to drug abuse, then the logical thing to do is pass laws against the abuse of those drugs that are especially common in the black world, and less common in the white world. So the ruling class gets to claim that it has "done its duty", the voting majority get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that there is a vast, jailed underclass in America and that they aren't in it, and the "justice" system gets the care and feeding it is accustomed to.
* Is genocide part of an officially-sanctioned plan for blacks? Well, let's see. "Abortion rights" was a movement started by white liberals. The Roe v. Wade decision was decided by, and applauded by, white liberals. Black women troop into abortion clinics by the thousands every day to undergo abortions, many of them entirely or partially government-funded, performed by, overwhelmingly, white doctors. I think a black person would have to be half blind to _not_ see something very sinister in all this. And secondly, how about the apparently limitless supply of guns of all types in the "ghetto"? Where on earth do they all come from -- I mean, seriously? And where do all those African "rebel groups" get all _their_ guns? I mean, these are people who are lucky to get one yam to eat all day long. But they have an arsenal that would put the Normandy invasion to shame. Draw your own conclusions; I've already drawn mine.
* Are blacks poor because of a government plot? Well, to begin with, American blacks are hardly "poor" by world standards. But they have it drilled into them, all day long, that they _are_ poor, by politicans looking for votes and for support for collectivist programs. So maybe this "poorness" is, at least in part, a meme -- but if so it's a government-sponsored one. And we can also count on that same system to make it difficult for that politically-reliable "poor" group to achieve actual prosperity -- by, for example, insisting that their kids attend the same hell-hole schools generation after generation. So -- bottom line -- I can't swear that there are government programs with the explicit mission to keep blacks poor. What I _can_ guarantee, however, is that there are great numbers of government programs that _depend_ on blacks (or someone) being, and staying, poor.
* Are blacks sick because of a government plot? Well, let's think about what contributes to "sickness". One thing is ignorance (schools again) -- another is bad food (junk food is the cheapest and most available of any food in the "inner city" -- how come?) -- another is substance abuse (see discussion of drugs, and note also that in many inner city areas the _only_ retail store on some blocks is the liquor store) -- and another is, quite frankly, just feeling like, what's the use, you're only going to get crapped on. (See any part of the above discussion.)
So I think we have to give Rev. Wright his due. It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to realize that there is something terribly wrong with the "system" in its approach to the race issue. And yes, Rev. Wright may be dealing with the meme more than the reality when it comes to AIDS, but on the other points I'd say he was on pretty firm ground. And I'll bet Obama thinks so too -- but it doesn't play too well in Punxsutawney.
Yeah, OK, let's actually take a look at some of these points, rather than just blowing them off as the rantings of some "radical". In fact, let's admit that, if we want to claim that there is at least of grain of truth behind every "stereotype" or prejudice held by white people, then there _might_ just be a grain of truth -- let's say "a basis for the perception" -- behind certain ideas held by black people. Of course, it's always possible that we're talking about a "meme" - defined as a "unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another." A meme does not have to have a basis in fact -- it can be a wild idea that someone dreamed up, but which appeals to people because of their perceptions of the world, or their experiences in it. For example, the notion that the U.S. government "invented" AIDS for the purpose of exterminating blacks -- in both Africa and the U.S. -- is, arguably, a meme. It's a fanciful notion that is, nonetheless, widely believed for what might be called political/cultural reasons. But even so, someone looking for "evidence" is going to focus on the high incidence of AIDS in black prostitutes (as if that were otherwise unexpected) and its allegedly high incidence in Africa (passing up, for now, the temptation to discuss the known gross over-diagnosis of "African AIDS"). But what about Wright's other points? Are they memes too? Or just the workings of his feverish imagination? Or might there be something more to it? Let's have a look, shall we?
* Does the U.S. hate blacks? Well, we _claim_ to be giving them every break in the world, affirmative action and massive funding of remedial and social and "inner city" programs being offered as evidence. But we've also used them as stalking horses for "urban renewal", the main effects of which were to drive the working-class white ethnic groups out of American cities and to install blacks as a permanent, politically-malleable underclass. We've demolished organic, culturally-rich black neighborhoods and replaced them with sterile high-rises, which instantly become hotbeds of violence and drug abuse. We offer affirmative action programs and preferences, then whisper about the ones who take advantage of them that, well, they "only got as far as they got" because of all the help we gave them. And, yes, we pass laws against certain behaviors, like the use of certain kinds of drugs or even certain _forms_ of the same kind of drug -- laws which have wildly disproportionate "adverse impact", and yet no one ever raises their voice in protest -- except the likes of Rev. Wright. And much more could be said regarding the issue of whether the U.S. "hates" blacks. All I can say is that, given the evidence, it's hard to argue that someone should never develop that impression.
* Does the U.S. government give blacks drugs? Why don't we ask whether there is a blatant differential in drug-enforcement policy between black neighborhoods and, say, white suburban neighborhoods? Might it not be suggested that certain "inner city" areas have been, basically, "triaged" out of eligibility for law enforcement, particularly of the "war on drugs" kind? Does our drug policy result in ridiculously high profits for drug dealers, which encourages them to make drugs more widely available and to see to it that the customer base gets renewed on a regular basis? And finally, do we "treat" drug users with jail time more often than with genuine rehabilitation? Would the situation be any worse if we really _were_ giving the stuff away for free?
* Is jail part of an officially-sanctioned plan for blacks? I have written elsewhere on the "prison industry" in the U.S. It is a massive job-creating and job-perpetuating institution, and its livelihood depends on having a reliable and ever-burgeoning supply of what Tom Wolfe (in "The Bonfire of the Vanities") calls "the chow" -- i.e. the chronically-under-arrest, or in jail, or out-on-bond members of the underclass that are, in fact, the life blood of the system. The situation as it stands is that the rest of the country expects a lot of blacks to be in jail, and blacks expect a lot of their own number to be in jail; it's taken for granted -- that's just the way things are. So no one objects because no one wants to admit that, as often as not, the law creates criminals. In particular, the law becomes a tool by which a dominant group can persecute the members of a non-dominant group, by picking out things they do or like, or their vulnerabilities, and declaring them "illegal". So if it turns out that blacks, for whatever reason, are prone to drug abuse, then the logical thing to do is pass laws against the abuse of those drugs that are especially common in the black world, and less common in the white world. So the ruling class gets to claim that it has "done its duty", the voting majority get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that there is a vast, jailed underclass in America and that they aren't in it, and the "justice" system gets the care and feeding it is accustomed to.
* Is genocide part of an officially-sanctioned plan for blacks? Well, let's see. "Abortion rights" was a movement started by white liberals. The Roe v. Wade decision was decided by, and applauded by, white liberals. Black women troop into abortion clinics by the thousands every day to undergo abortions, many of them entirely or partially government-funded, performed by, overwhelmingly, white doctors. I think a black person would have to be half blind to _not_ see something very sinister in all this. And secondly, how about the apparently limitless supply of guns of all types in the "ghetto"? Where on earth do they all come from -- I mean, seriously? And where do all those African "rebel groups" get all _their_ guns? I mean, these are people who are lucky to get one yam to eat all day long. But they have an arsenal that would put the Normandy invasion to shame. Draw your own conclusions; I've already drawn mine.
* Are blacks poor because of a government plot? Well, to begin with, American blacks are hardly "poor" by world standards. But they have it drilled into them, all day long, that they _are_ poor, by politicans looking for votes and for support for collectivist programs. So maybe this "poorness" is, at least in part, a meme -- but if so it's a government-sponsored one. And we can also count on that same system to make it difficult for that politically-reliable "poor" group to achieve actual prosperity -- by, for example, insisting that their kids attend the same hell-hole schools generation after generation. So -- bottom line -- I can't swear that there are government programs with the explicit mission to keep blacks poor. What I _can_ guarantee, however, is that there are great numbers of government programs that _depend_ on blacks (or someone) being, and staying, poor.
* Are blacks sick because of a government plot? Well, let's think about what contributes to "sickness". One thing is ignorance (schools again) -- another is bad food (junk food is the cheapest and most available of any food in the "inner city" -- how come?) -- another is substance abuse (see discussion of drugs, and note also that in many inner city areas the _only_ retail store on some blocks is the liquor store) -- and another is, quite frankly, just feeling like, what's the use, you're only going to get crapped on. (See any part of the above discussion.)
So I think we have to give Rev. Wright his due. It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to realize that there is something terribly wrong with the "system" in its approach to the race issue. And yes, Rev. Wright may be dealing with the meme more than the reality when it comes to AIDS, but on the other points I'd say he was on pretty firm ground. And I'll bet Obama thinks so too -- but it doesn't play too well in Punxsutawney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)