Point of Ordure, Mr. Chairman

First we had the journalism profession up in arms because the FCC was going to assign someone to every newsroom in order to keep the hired help in line. That was good for a few larfs. Now we have the Senate and the CIA standing toe-to-toe and arguing about who has been spying on whom, and who hacked who's computers, and who has, or thinks they have, or pretends to have, oversight over whom... and so on. This is one of those cases where, quite frankly, I don't care who wins because both sides deserve to lose, and lose big. It's like what happens when two schoolyard bullies get into a fight – everyone else wants it to keep going until both of them have to be carried out on stretchers.

Another way of putting it is that the Senate (and Congress in general) and the CIA (and the intelligence community overall) deserve each other. The rise of the intel cabal to its place of preeminence in the government was aided and abetted by Congress, which has been only too happy to give up its Constitutional prerogatives, one by one, almost since the founding. It seems to have started with war powers, but has escalated more recently to the point where Congress is as ignored and left out as the proverbial wallflower at a high school dance. The Executive Branch does as it damn pleases, and the courts reverse all the hard work of Congress on any whim that strikes their fancy. In fact, one could seriously question whether we need the Legislative Branch at all – except that they do the donkey work on laws that the Executive Branch wants, because the latter have better things to do with their time. You could say that Congress is little more, on any given day, than an extension of the White House staff – and you'd be right. And I say this fully aware that we still have, allegedly, a two-party system, and that the two parties in question are at perpetual knife-points about just about everything... except that they're not. As I've pointed out before, all the debates are about trivial and marginal issues, and are staged primarily as demonstrations that the Legislative Branch is not obsolete. (And when you have to stage meaningless debates about trivia, that's the best indicator that said branch is, in fact, obsolete.)

One could ask, plaintively, at what point did legislators cease to represent the people in any meaningful way? And I guess one would have to attribute this to things like bribery, lobbies, interest groups, special pleading, etc. -- in other words to things that have been around since the day after the Constitution was ratified. But again, the trajectory has been a long, slow curve upward – correlated, roughly 100%, with the portion of our gross national product, i.e. our productivity, that was confiscated by Congress and turned to dubious uses. When tax rates were low they had less to play with, and hence were less besieged by people wanting a handout. As, over time, they took a bigger bite out of the flesh of the hapless working American, they had more to play with, and hence were the targets of more, and more irresistible, temptations – not only in the form of money per se, but even more in the form of power. Power, and glory – or, maybe power without glory. Isn't that just as good? And this actually brings us back to the intelligence complex.

You have to admit, at least the hard-core intel types aren't in it for the fame – unless you count strictly intramural reputation as fame. And they aren't even particularly in it for the money. No, it's all about power, which is, supposedly, a product of knowledge, AKA intelligence. The spy has power simply because he can find things out about other people without them knowing – i.e. it's an asymmetrical relationship. He can exploit people without them knowing they're being exploited – sort of a sophisticated, high-tech version of a peeping tom. And that seems to be enough for these characters most of the time. They are content to live – and occasionally die – in obscurity, because they hold the power... the golden keys... the combination to every lock. They are people for whom secrets are like unto pearls of great price, and for whom secrecy, and the arts and crafts thereof, comprise their highest-valued skill.

Now... certain of us are occasionally fooled and misled by the notion that the intel agencies are somehow working for the good of the American citizen, or to protect our way of life (whatever that entails these days)... that they are super-patriots, willing to sacrifice anything to keep the wolf from the door. Well, no. OK – there may be a few genuine patriots slaving away in the bowels of CIA or NSA or some other intel headquarters, but they're either deluded or in denial as to the true agenda and priorities of those for whom they slave. (And they'll never get a corner office, I guarantee you that.)

Am I saying that this is the age of cynicism? Yes, to a great extent. The average citizen may be harboring some residual feelings of patriotism – love of country – but his leaders have grown way beyond such childish, grade-school and social-studies-class foolishness and have acquired a new respect for milking the system for all it's worth. “Intelligence” is no longer, assuming it ever was, about patriotism, any more than “defense” is about pursuing the ideals of the Founding Fathers. And again, I suppose that this is inevitable given the universal concupiscence of politicians when it comes to money and power (sex being a sub-category of power, note). Even the few with good intentions who are sent to Washington by starry-eyed supporters come down with “Potomac fever” the minute they get inside the Beltway, and never recover – nor do they want to. What, after all, is fragile human nature when confronted with that much confiscated wealth, the levers of power, the (kind of pathetic, when you think about it) “perks”? The reason power and money corrupt is that human beings are corruptible – and nothing lends itself more to this process than big government. It would be like expecting dictators to be philosopher kings; it just ain't gonna happen. Fallen human nature is against it. Thus, the folly of ever expecting the sins and offenses of big government to be cured by more government (an affliction which befalls “conservatives” from time to time). No, the idea is: Less, or none. Line up all the government agencies like ducks in a shooting gallery and start plugging away. I guarantee that the more that fall, the more refreshed and liberated and energized we will all be.

Consider, for a moment, how the omnipresent, omniscient intelligence complex came to be. It started in earnest – and by necessity, assuming the war was necessary, which Pat Buchanan questions – during World War II. For two decades up to that point, our unofficial policy when it came to other countries was: They don't bother us, we don't bother them. But all that was to change, and permanently, on that “date that will live in infamy”. So along came the intelligence agencies, and they multiplied like rabbits – internal, external, one for each armed service, overlapping missions, the occasional gap (which 9/11 was not, BTW)... and, like any other government entity created to deal with an emergency (war or otherwise), they turned out to have everlasting life. They could not be killed, because “mission creep” is always way ahead of whoever it is that doles out funding (Congress, for example). World War II was followed in close order by the Iron Curtain, and the Cold War, and all the other artificially life-extending circumstances that required us to keep armies of spies fully deployed around the globe as well as internally, because there are enemies everywhere, don't you know. Add to this our expanding economic and political empire, and you have the perfect formula for the dominance of “intelligence” over all other functions of government. We did not give up on military conquest, but preferred the economic kind – less messy, more efficient. But for economic conquest to work, one must have information, and the intimate symbiosis between the intelligence community and the business community arose quite naturally out of this necessity.

Now, I'm not saying, as some do, that the rest of the government actually works for the intelligence complex. It would be more accurate to say that they are all employees of a higher power. The intel side only seems to have more power because it keeps secrets and can get away with more. But are they running the whole show? I doubt it very much, and one reason is simply, why would they? Why bother? They have their empire – their “parallel government” -- and they don't need to waste time bossing the tools on Capitol Hill or in the White House. Those latter entities have their uses... and the appearance of separation of powers helps when they're dealing with the citizenry (not that there aren't plenty of chuckles and guffaws in Langley or Ft. Meade at their follies). One could almost say that Congress and the White House pretend to be in charge but aren't, whereas the intel agencies pretend to not be in charge, but are. But again, being in charge, I suspect, is secondary to playing the game.

And this is the real key. Intelligence is a game, and ultimately it doesn't even matter who wins or who loses. Losers can write memoirs too, after all. The appeal is that of action – of manipulation – of being in the midst of it all – of knowing what really happened and why, and who did it. Imagine spending a lazy Sunday afternoon riffling through the Top Secret/Kill Self Before Reading files in the basement of the CIA. Wouldn't you then have all the answers – about JFK, 9/11, Jimmy Hoffa... and so on? The great mysteries of our time, revealed? It's tempting to think so. But again, is the ultimate truth really what it's about? Remember, it's a game. Old CIA and KGB guys get together and reminisce over vodka and Cuban cigars: “Ah yes, those were the days. And I'm sorry about poor Percy, but he had to go, you know.” “Think nothing of it, old friend, we got back at you with Ivan, remember.” “Oh yes, I do remember – good show.” (chuckles all around) So when anyone is “eliminated” it's, basically, because they got in the way – not of national security but of the game, like some pinhead running onto the field during the Super Bowl. They get due diligence – but the game goes on. (I imagine this is a major aspect of the JFK story – he was done in by a cabal of cold warriors, intel game-playing types, plain cynics, opportunists, sociopaths, and maybe one or two genuine patriots. Sort of a dream team, if you will. But mainly, he got in the way of the game.)

So the intelligence cabal was partly created (by the Executive Branch and Congress) and partly self-created. It grew and multiplied like the brooms in The Sorcerer's Apprentice. And because it dealt in secrets, everything about it had to be secret as well – budget, staffing, operations, influence on foreign governments, and so on. And... now this is where it gets weird (or pathetic)... Congress is, allegedly, charged with “oversight” when it comes to intelligence operations. Well, who charged it? Itself, of course. So every once in a while a few intel bigwigs trek up Capitol Hill in order to provide a briefing, behind closed doors, to one or more Congressional committees – but how do those committees know that the intel guys aren't just blowing smoke up their butts? They don't, obviously – how could they? What are they going to do, go up to Langley or Ft. Meade in a motorcade with flashing lights to see if the intel guys were telling the truth? “Trust but verify?” How about “Don't trust, and afraid to verify.” Even if they were shown all the secrets down to the third sub-basement, what about the fourth and fifth sub-basements? If someone tells you they've told you all there is to know, how do you know? So it's really impossible. Add to this that the intel agencies have secret budgets (all approved, sight unseen of course, by Congress), and probably take a good chunk out of other budgets as well. How about a personnel count? You've got people on the books, people off the books, contractors, informants, deep-cover operatives, moles, rats, stool pigeons... every species, from high fliers to bottom feeders. “Oversight”? It's a total joke. And yet Congress, in its infinite narcissism, insists on keeping up the pretense, and all is well until they get too close for comfort, and then you have the current situation, with the very people who created the monster now in high dudgeon because said monster is galumphing through the formal garden.

And what's most delicious about the current hostilities is that it's largely Democrat members of the Senate who are feeling victimized -- yes, the same people who will use any means at their disposal to increase the size of government and the extent of its reach into the lives of private citizens – but their own hallowed halls are to be kept sacrosanct, right? Sorry guys, that's not the way it works. Cookie Monster want more cookies, and it doesn't care where it gets them.

What do I recommend? Well, it's too late to get rid of the intel cabal – might as well try to get rid of an inoperable tumor once it's taken over every organ system. It would actually be easier – and more fun – to get rid of Congress, but since they apparently have their uses even in the midst of appearing useless, that seems unlikely as well (not to mention that it would require some minor modifications to the Constitution – but it's widely ignored anyway, so I don't see that as as a major issue). No, I really do think that there is no solution short of waiting for the system to collapse of its own weight – but that could take many more lifetimes even though the process seems to be accelerating. Better to focus one's serious attentions elsewhere, and just let these sorts of controversies serve as comic relief.

The Guttering Torch

What does Vladimir Putin have in common with Richard Nixon? (pause) Give up? Well, they caused exactly opposite reactions from American liberals, but over the same issue – or, the same general issue, historically speaking. Taking Nixon first, he earned everlasting hatred, rage, and condemnation from American liberals for his “outing” of Alger Hiss. All of the subsequent hostility – over Vietnam, Cambodia, Watergate, etc. was – albeit there were some intrinsic justifications – based on that singular event years earlier. He exposed Hiss for what he was – not only a traitor but a member of the Eastern elite Ivy League establishment... a person of privilege whose dream it was to enslave the masses and establish himself as their ruler (or one of their rulers). And if he couldn't do it here (at least not right away) he'd help the Soviets do it in Eastern Europe.

And nothing could have been more of a contrast than the smooth, elegant Hiss versus the awkward, overly-serious guy from the boonies of California with the ski nose and the five o'clock shadow that set in around noon. Culturally and in terms of pedigree, it was David vs. Goliath... and Goliath was brought down, but the damage had been done, and he became a martyr for the left right up to the present day.

Hiss did, in fact, exemplify the dream of communists of the elite or “theoretician” sort as it always has been; everything else they promote, advocate, and fight for is a means to that end – total, crushing control. And this, in turn, is based on their self-created aura of superiority and entitlement. They pretend to love “the masses” and “the people” but, in fact, they despise them and want nothing more than to thwart their ambitions, dreams, and individuality, and make them march in lock step into the brave new world. And not a small part of this is their utter alienation from normalcy and willful lack of understanding of what makes regular people tick. What they find, much to their chagrin, when -- on rare occasions -- they go slumming and wade among the unwashed masses they pretend to worship is that most people are not “idea people”. They are much more likely to be committed to the old ways and the old values – you know, things like family, religion, ethnic group, and, yes, race. They typically conform to the standards and customs of their group, but have little interest in becoming “international” or “global”. And it's this attitude that offends collectivists and totalitarians of all sorts, and it's this which they go to great lengths to stamp out – offering, in its place, contrived entertainments and bogus “diversity”, on a foundation of unrelenting propaganda churned out by the media.

Sound familiar? Well, liberals in our time are infected with the same ailment, although they may not be as obvious about it as the old-time Bolsheviks. Someone has commented that “communism is socialism with balls”, and it's absolutely true. There is not a single socialist or liberal or “progressive” program that, taken to its logical conclusion, would not be an essential part of a communist regime, past or present. The problem, over the years (and we're talking close to a century now), is that bright ideas that filter down from academia by way of political activists tend to cause a bit of pushback when they start to impinge on regular people; seek no further than the recent vote against unionization on the part of VW workers in Tennessee. Oh sure, the masses (working class, “labor”, etc.) may enjoy some of the benefits of socialism, but they eventually find out there's a price to be paid, and that's when the deal goes sour. We have in our time the disorienting (to liberals) phenomenon of regular people up in arms (figuratively – so far) about big government and all its pomps and works. These are the same people who would have been on the bandwagon during the New Deal (possibly out of sheer desperation more than being enamored of the ideas). But suddenly the working class is biting the hand that pretends to feed them – even to the extent of joining forces with the always-hated middle class, AKA bourgeoisie, in protesting against government meddling in their everyday lives. So activists (union organizers in particular) in our time are starting to feel mightily thwarted – and they're getting downright paranoid (like, it's all the Koch brothers' fault, or Fox News, etc.).

Liberals in our time cannot come out and be “pure” socialists, let alone pure communists. They have to pull their punches a bit (though not always, as witness Obama's frontal attack on Catholic institutions re: the provision of “family planning” services). But their ideals – their ultimate goals – remain as always. All one has to do is apply a bit of logic and historical perspective to any given case. The ObamaCare program, for example, clearly has as its ultimate goal the elimination of any form of private health insurance, and its takeover by the government. They won't admit this in so many words, but that's clearly what they have in mind. But this has to be accomplished in small steps – the frog in the hot water thing again – or they might encounter too much resistance. And once you eliminate private health insurance, it's only logical to eliminate private health care, and have that taken over (not merely regulated, as now) by the government as well. Nationalized, in other words – but they will avoid that term and deny that's what they have in mind. (In fact, note that there are no longer any such people as “liberals”; they are all “progressives” now. Word magic!)

Sometimes the line between regulation and nationalization is so thin and ambiguous that it might as well not be there as well – the mortgage industry and rail transportation come to mind. (And forget about the post office!) But again, these are all temporary stages; everywhere you look the squeeze is on. What it adds up to is that liberals are in a perpetually-compromised position – their ideas vs. the reality – and so it's no surprise that they seem to go around with a permanent attitude of frustration and hostility. If their ideal is total control, and their means to that end is class warfare, then it's small wonder they never seem to relax. They never have a nice day, because there's always another battle to be fought and another outrage against “fairness” to be dealt with.

Let's turn the clock back a bit and adopt a historical perspective, because this process has been going on for decades... lifetimes, in fact. But in the midst of all this struggle – this frustration – over the years, there was always at least one shining light, glimmering in the distance... one thing with which to identify and validate one's ideals... one thing to pin one's hopes on. And that thing was the Soviet Union, and the “New Soviet Man” that had been created out of the dust of the earth to engage in the perpetual struggle against ideas of race, religion, and class... and to aspire to a society that would have “fairness” as its highest value. “Fairness”, or “social justice”, is the everyman's version of “reason”, which was enshrined by the French Revolution and has been trickling down from academia and intellectuals in various forms ever since. “Science” -- especially “political science” (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) -- has always been on the side of the greater good of man, right?

So how to create the New Soviet Man out of the fractious and skeptical working classes of America? First through propaganda, and then through some political and material gains – some short-term, some illusory, but enough to get everyone to sign onto the program in perpetuity. Witness the working-class people here in Pittsburgh who wouldn't vote Republican if their lives depended on it, because they're a “union family”, and besides, they promised their father on his deathbed – you know, the guy who fought in the Battle of Homestead. And never mind the fact that union bosses and politicans are getting fat off their hard-earned union dues, and when doubts do arise they are quickly squelched through social pressure and hypocritical appeals to loyalty. Problem is, the same people, and party, that was a “friend to labor” in the old days is now attacking their families, their values... even their church. This great schism seems to have begun, like everything else, in the 1960s – and we now have phenomena like that rarest of rare political animals, the “pro-life Democrat”. The thing is, the regular folks – the “cultural Democrats” -- simply don't have what it takes to fight in this new war, so they turn on the TV, pop another beer, and try to pretend everything's OK. And these are the people, by the way, who never wanted anything to do with the Soviet Union (especially if they came from one of its oppressed minorities, which many in this area did); that romance was left up to the union leadership.

So we had this phenomenon, starting, basically, with the Cold War, where people at the top of the cultural and intellectual totem pole were still starry-eyed in their regard for the Soviets. But the farther down said totem pole you went, the more skepticism and realism you encountered, until the guys at the bottom could hardly have cared less, except for the few oddball misfits like Woody Guthrie. But it's the cultural elite that frame the debate and write the history books, so when Tricky Dick (see, I'm finally getting back to him) came along, even though his exertions might have been applauded – possibly in secret – by the average American, the elite were appalled. In fact, now that I think about it, this might have been the very thing that set off the culture wars of the 1960s, or at least an imporant factor. The battle had been joined. Now, this culture war was fought on many fronts, but certainly far from the least was that of politics – not just the usual domestic debates but the much bigger, broader picture. What sort of country, or society, do we want to be? Apparently that question was still being asked nearly 200 years after the founding (as it still is today). We thought we had the answer during the Progressive Era, but that seemed to run out of steam after (perhaps because of) World War I. But then came the New Deal, and that was – at long last! -- the answer, or at least an answer. We found that we were on the same path as the Soviets – just a few decades behind due to cowardice, hesitation, and inertia – clinging to old-fashioned ideas. It's hard to imagine these days, but there was a time when socialism of some sort was accepted as not only the wave of the future, but really the only thing that made any sense. And we had two models to choose from – the Soviets and the Nazis. Apparently this was not a difficult choice to make, and it would be in bad taste to argue that the two systems had more similarities than differences. World War II, of course, only served to confirm the correctness of our choice, and all was well until this thing called the Cold War got started – and please remember that the American left was, by and large, on the other side all during the Cold War. They weren't all providing direct aid and comfort to the enemy, but they were certainly rooting from the sidelines, and not always sotto voce. Their efforts were muted a bit during the Korean conflict, because it wasn't crystal clear that the North Koreans enjoyed moral superiority... but there was no such hesitation when it came to China, as there had been none with regard to Russia. Now communism was the wave of the future, and we were just retarded – but a few guitar strums and folk songs would awaken the sleeping masses, surely.

Now, I know that the foregoing might seem like a rant, and terribly unfair, etc. Well, it is a rant – and didn't many of the communists and hard-core socialists have good intentions, even if they were somewhat naïve about human nature, etc.? I'm not saying this is impossible, but in my encounters with communists (“small c” at least) and serious socialists, I have yet to encounter any with unadulterated good intentions. Behind that humanistic mask there always lurks, on some level, a “class warfare face”... some resentment... some sense of personal hurt or affront. “Somebody did something to someone – usually me – and that's why I feel this way.” And frankly, the communists and socialists I knew in college – a veritable hatchery for political liberal activism – were, by and large, operating on a quite infantile level. They hadn't yet learned to make their viewpoints even mildly palatable, so were reduced to throwing tantrums much of the time. Hey, I can only speak from my own experience, OK?

Plus, I think what we're seeing now, in American politics, is not even some species of socialism in pure form, but a combination of cynicism and power-madness. It's enough to make one nostalgic for the likes of the recently-departed Pete Seeger. You see what a man (or woman) is truly made of, morally and politically, when they acquire some power... and when I look out across the political landscape all I see is a cynical ruling elite and the people who've sold out to them. And what this means to me is that pure socialism can neither stand the light of day nor avoid being co-opted... which means that's it's a weak, unsustainable system, and only kept alive by people's infinite capacity for delusion and wishful thinking.

(The best thing I can say about the left is that they have always had better music, posters, art, and movies. They are geniuses at packaging, in other words; what's in the package is another matter.)

OK, back to Nixon (as the fool returneth to his folly) – his great crime was that he outed Alger Hiss, and in the process exposed many of the less savory aspects of communism in general, and the American version in particular. And for this he earned the eternal reprobation of the American left, socialists, liberals, Democrats... just about everyone to the left of William Buckley, which means just about everyone. The love affair between the cultural elite and the Soviets continued, of course, but it was carried on in a somewhat more muted form, because now there was a “witch hunt” on, thanks to Nixon and Joe McCarthy... with “blacklists” and all the rest of it. (Of course, there are never witch hunts or blacklists in communist countries, oh no.) And the left, once they got rid of McCarthy, remained vigilant with regard to Nixon... ready to pounce, and when Watergate came along, pounce they did. Finally! At last, the guilty party has been hunted down and brought to justice, like some octogenarian concentration camp guard.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the people's Utopia. The Soviet Union broke up, and great was the wailing and gnashing of teeth – and the accusations directed at people like Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II that they weren't being fair... that it all would have worked if only we'd given it a chance, and not given in to “hate” and paranoia, etc. -- as if the Cold War was all in our fevered imaginings.

So there was a regime change in the now-downsized former Soviet Union, and even though the American media had treated Gorbachev like a rock star, there was a certain ambivalence, like, he just sort of let it all slip away, didn't he? Gave up without a fight. That just didn't seem right somehow. It should at least have been more spectacular, like something out of Wagner, with a funeral pyre and stuff. How could our role models have just wimped out like that? Very disturbing. And yet... this aura of the hopes of yesteryear, of having fought the good fight... clung to Russia even through its struggles with privatization, corruption, and so on – right up to the present. They were all about “hope and change” once; could they be yet again? And they were keeping up the propaganda from their side as well, occasionally referring to their former subjects as “fascists” or (following our lead) “Islamofascists”. (This is a semantic gift from World War II that just keeps on giving.) And anyone who calls anyone else a “fascist” is automatically a friend of ours, right? No questions asked. Besides, who did the left have, um, left to call their own in the world? China had long since gone down the road of communism with a capitalist face... or vice versa. Vietnam had become a trading partner. North Korea – too crazy. And that left... Cuba? Really? Nowhere else? Just Cuba, with all those cool old 1950s American cars and great music? Well OK – better than nothing, I guess. (I would include Venezuela, but you know those places, it could go back to military uniforms, gold braid, a chest full of medals, and big hats at any time.)

So Russia was a disappointment, but not enough of one to end the romance. And then came Vlady, and Ukraine, and the Crimea, and... well, what's a good socialist president to do? I mean, there was a time when Stalin could do no wrong – including that awkward treaty he made with Hitler. If you're anti-American, which so many of our politicians in Washington seem to be, don't you have to be for something? Or at least appear to be? It's no wonder there's so much nostalgia for the Cold War – and it's not just on the conservative side, or among the military. At least back then it was clear-cut, and one could take sides. So faced with Putin's antics on his southern border, the left is caught flat-footed because they've never adjusted to the way things are now. In their own way, they're just as bound by nostalgia as those on the right. Do they let Russia do its thing with impunity because Russia used to be right in the old days? Or do they decide (for the first time ever) that American conservatives are right about something? But that might call into question everything else the left has ever done in the last 70-odd years. It really is quite awkward... and, let's admit, it's great fun to see them wriggle and squirm. How they manage to resolve it, who knows? My guess, though, is that it won't have anything to do with historical perspective or principles.

 

Showdown at the Not-OK Corral

 

I guess it was only a matter of time. We passed (or failed, depending on one's point of view) the first test, which was Georgia... then passed/failed the second test, which was Syria... then there was a period of truce for the Olympics... and now Putin is putting pressure on Ukraine, which threatens to wander off the post-Soviet reservation, and we're passing/failing that test as well. So, basically, he took the measure of Obama, his administration, and U.S. “resolve” in general, and decided that he had nothing to lose, and a lot to gain, by showing the flag in the Crimea and at least intimidating the new EU-friendly administration of Ukraine as well as its military. And his excuse is that there are Russians in Ukraine, and they're in danger of being treated like second-class citizens. Well yeah, that's what happens when people are caught on the wrong side of a new (or old) national border. It's happened time and time again in history, and this is no exception. And it's largely Stalin's fault, because he's the one who decided that the best way to handle all the various “nationalities” in the Soviet Union was to ship half of them to the Gulag and then settle a bunch of loyal Russians in each territory in order to run things and keep an eye on the rest. So when the Soviet Union broke up – basically into pieces defined by the various Soviet republics, and in some cases by earlier borders dating from World War I, all these places wound up with Russian minorities. Too bad, so sad. So suddenly the people who had been throwing their weight around in those territories since World War II (at least) were not so secure any longer. They were, in a way, in the same position as the Carpetbaggers who invaded the South after the Civil War -- “large and in charge” until the natives asserted themselves.

Now frankly, if I were an ethnic Russian I might almost prefer to be part of a minority in, say, Estonia than in the majority in Russia – I'm talking in terms of economics and personal freedom now. But ethnic loyalties usually triumph abstract concepts of “rights”, and even economics; no self-respecting Russian wants to be ruled by Estonians, or Kazakhs, or whoever. Things have to be pretty bad for someone to renounce their homeland once and for all, the way the Cuban exiles did. Even some of the countless “illegals” from Latin America go back to their home country eventually – provided they managed to save up enough money in the U.S. And who hasn't met a displaced Californian who longs to go back to the land of their birth? And so on. “Ideas”, and internationalism, are fine things if you're a person with no national or ethnic loyalties, but most people are not rootless cosmopolitans; they will always long to go home, even if “home” is a place they've never seen. (Witness the “right of return” which is a key concept for Jews vis-a-vis Israel, for instance.)

And one can say, but isn't the migration of peoples the rule rather than the exception, historically? At any given time, doesn't a large portion of the human race find themselves strangers in a strange land? And the answer is yes. Go back to the Israelites in Egypt. People go where they have to go in order to survive, and they tend to stay there unless things become intolerable. And every once in a while, a minority becomes a majority – as it clearly did in this country the minute the colonists outnumbered the Native Americans. So whose country is it anyway? It all depends on which slice of history you want to take. Recall the trouble Serbia had (and continues to have) giving up Kosovo – because although it was populated largely by Albanians it had great historical significance for the Serbs. Everyone wants self-determination, but what that is depends on one's point of view – the group with which one identifies. Washington, DC prided itself on being “Chocolate City” a few decades back, even though it has enclaves of rich white folks; New Orleans was supposed to become even more “chocolate” after Katrina, although I'm not sure how that's working out. Mexico is reclaiming, through sheer force of numbers, territory that it lost to the U.S. right up through the Gadsden Purchase. And the number of racial/religious/ethnic groups that have a claim of some sort on Israel/the West Bank/Jerusalem is too high to count.

So what we're seeing now in Ukraine is just another example of a process of give-and-take that has characterized just about any place you can name throughout history. And the funny thing is, we have always had this notion that, in a sense, history is over with when it comes to borders. The way things were at the close of World War II is pretty much the way they ought to be, and ought to stay – as if there were some cosmic map that dictated everything once all the blank spaces were colored in. Of course we did make an exception for Israel, but in general we find shifting borders terribly upsetting – unless it's in our favor, like the reunification of Germany or the breakup of the Soviet Union. But remember how hard we fought to keep Korea and Vietnam split in half? It just raises all kinds of issues with geography textbooks when things keep shifting around. South Sudan? What the heck is that? Most Americans would have a hard time finding Argentina on a world map. So quit bothering us with all these new places. (And don't get me started on Nunavut!)

So to get back to the Ukraine kerfuffle – I'm not going to belabor the argument zipping around the Internet re: the moral equivalence of Russia in Ukraine vs. the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, the Russians have a better argument. We invaded Iraq because some Saudis from Afghanistan attacked us (allegedly) on 9-11. OK, that made a lot of sense. And we invaded Afghanistan because they had provided aid and comfort to said Saudis – as if the planning for the attacks couldn't have been carried out in any Moslem country (or in any number of neighborhoods in Paris, etc.). Russia, on the other hand, has deep historic, ethnic, linguistic, etc. ties to Ukraine, not to mention they share a common border (without even 90 miles of water in between, like us and Cuba). Now, this is not to say that Ukraine isn't “diverse” in its own way, as shown here:

http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/03/ethno-linguistic-map-of-ukraine.html?spref=fb

We can see that some people wound up, after World War I and/or II, on the wrong side of the border. But again, that's the rule rather than the exception.

So am I saying that Russia ought to be huffing and puffing, and throwing its weight around Ukraine? Ideally, no. But ideally, any minority in any country ought to be allowed to live in peace without having to cry out to some other country (especially a big and powerful one) to save it. And common sense should apply as well. Who, in Iraq, asked us to invade Iraq? Ditto Afghanistan. So if we're talking aggression here... well, hopefully you get my point.

Then there's the question, what should we “do” about it – if anything? Sarah Palin was ready to start a war with Russia over Georgia. Obama – who couldn't be further from Palin on the political spectrum – was all ready to invade Syria until Putin looked him in the eye and said “unh-unh”. The paleocon/libertarian position is that it's none of our damn business. But our leaders are all a-tizzy, making all sorts of threats, most of which are pathetic, frankly. It would be more respectable to just stand up and say, we're over here and they're over there, and the twain are not going to meet. We're not cops, and the world is not our beat. Besides, we're bankrupt. Et cetera. But of course, no one's going to say that because it would violate our “core values”, and be an admission that the American Era is over with – or at least fading fast. I mean, imagine leaving world affairs to the tender mercies of Russia and China – scandalous! Humiliating! Demeaning! Et cetera. So it's better to spit and hiss and wring our hands – much more respectable, ahem. (Oh, and by the way, people are already starting to talk about a “domino effect”, like if we let Putin get away with this, who's next? Lithuania? One of the “stans”? Who knew there was this much Cold War nostaliga floating around? Heck, there's even a decent amount of Stalin nostalgia in Russia.)

It's been remarked that “Putin plays chess, and Obama plays basketball”. In other words, the typical Russian strategy is to make a move, see what happens, make another move, etc. In chess it's called a gambit – and the result may appear to be a setback, but it's part of a larger plan. What's required, above all, is patience, and being able to operate below the surface of things. The long run is what counts – and no one is more of expert in this than the Chinese, but the Russians aren't far behind. After all, didn't Uncle Joe wait patiently all through the 1920s, 1930s, and World War II before he made his move to establish the Iron Curtain and the Warsaw Pact? The Soviets could have moved into Europe at any time after the end of World War II, but they didn't; in fact they allowed some areas that had been part of the old empire, like the Baltic States, to declare independence. But once the opportunity arose – aided, in no small part, by Uncle Joe's friends in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, they made their move... and, again, there wasn't a whole lot we could do about it.

The basketball strategy, on the other hand is, basically, you charge ahead and if you get knocked on your ass you get up and charge ahead some more. Subtle it ain't (at least as far as I can tell). A perfect metaphor for American foreign policy in our time. (And in fact, we aren't even that good at passing the ball – not that anyone else is interested in it... )

I see our helplessness as just another earmark of a waning empire. But again, as with national borders, our dominance on the world stage was meant to last forever – unlike that of all the empires and pretenders up to now – because we have ideas, and principles, and are the shining city on a hill, etc. Yeah, well, if that's true why has so much of the world failed to sign on? I mean, OK, our economy is linked to nearly all other national economies in a way that would have been inconceivable up until recently; even the British Empire could never have claimed the interdependency that exists now. Our culture – such as it is – has spread far and wide. National leaders world-wide are wearing suits and ties now. People are eating Big Macs. And so on. In some senses we really have taken over the world. But in other ways we have no more influence than ever – less in some cases (militant Islam, e.g.). People in sub-Saharan Africa who wear Nikes and “Hard Rock Cafe” T-shirts still engage in the same primitve, brutal tribal warfare that they have for millennia. The only serious resistance to American cultural influence comes from fundamentalist Islamic countries – and they still use cell phones and laptops. So we have “conquered” the way the European powers once conquered much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America – everyone speaks English, they all use our gadgetry and dress in our clothes, but below that superficial level the age-old beliefs, habits, memes, etc. are alive and well. Once again, things that people can identify with – the age-old truisms – tend to, in the long run, trump ideas. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then home and hearth are more powerful than either one.

But in another sense, the “American Empire” isn't American at all – assuming it ever was. It has been absorbed into a larger empire – that which I call the Regime or Cabal – headquartered in Europe. We still do the heavy lifting – we're the cannon fodder – but we're taking orders from people way above Obama's pay grade; all he does it pass them on. Now, the EU is the most prominent overt manifestation of this Regime, and we have seen the loving care with which it beggars less-solvent economies (the so-called PIIGS) and then takes them over. And this is the entity that half of Ukraine wants to join? Even knowing that it will be next in line? On the other hand, the attraction of Russia has to be somewhat tarnished given that Stalin & Co. tried, within living memory, to exterminate Ukraine – or at least the Ukrainians – in one of the great genocides of the 20^th Century. The Ukrainians call it the Holodomor, which was, for them, the equivalent of the Holocaust. This alone would give anyone pause when it comes to cozying up to Russia.

So, as so often happens, the little guy (even though Ukraine is a fairly large country) finds itself caught between two larger entities, both of which may have evil intent. Poland experienced it in World War II, and now it's Ukraine's turn. One can only hope and pray.

It's a Nice Day for a Gay Wedding (Cake)

I swear, if I were king (or president – assuming there's a difference) I'd establish a cabinet-level department devoted to clear thinking. It would be staffed by... well, maybe a logician or two, but certainly not any of this motley crew of self-styled “philosophers” that infests our campuses these days. I think I would round it out with stand-up comics – you know, the serious kind, like George Carlin or Jackie Mason. Or Lenny Bruce. Their job would be to cut through all the cant, fog, smog, and obfuscation that characterizes virtually all political (which also means social and economic) discussion in our time. But... wouldn't a government agency devoted to clear thinking be a contradiction in terms? I think it would, since government is so dependent on deceit, dissimulation, and obfuscation as tools with which to get their way and exploit the hapless citizenry.

In any case, a current example of where clear thinking could be of use, but will never be applied, is Arizona's gyrations with regard to whether businesses have a right to discriminate against some (potential) customers based on religious freedom – i.e. the business owner's religious freedom vs. the customer's supposed freedom to purchase goods and services the same as anyone else. (Note, please, that the former freedom is in the Constitution, whereas the latter is not.)

First, let's clarify what is intended here (since no one else will). The issue in question, basically, is whether a merchant or service provider can refuse to deal with a customer whose behavior (known or assumed) would be considered sinful according to the religion of said merchant or service provider. (This is, of course, contingent on said businessman being a member of a recognized religious group with a coherent moral code. That already narrows it down a bit.)

Right? I mean, isn't that what we're talking about? It's not just a matter of like or dislike, or of taste. Now – LGBT customers are low-hanging fruit, if you will (and I really do apologize for that metaphor), since the minute they walk in the door you can assume they are engaged, on a regular basis, in certain, um... “activities” that a traditional religious code would consider sinful, even if they are no longer illegal. (I say “traditional” because this is no longer the case with main-line Protestantism, liberal Catholicism, or most of Judaism, or just about anyone else. The Moslems seem to be holding the fort so far.) But this is an assumption, right? I mean – who's going to ask even the most blatantly gay couple whether they actually “do it”? They might be living under one roof in a state of total chastity, for all I know.

But what about everyone else? Do I have to come up with a questionnaire to administer to everyone who comes in the door? I mean... how about a couple “living in sin”, as they used to say? Are we to deny them a wedding cake? At least a wedding would make them into honest people. Or, what about an adulterer? What if a known mobster, suspected of being involved in any number of cement-bootie operations, walks into your bakery and orders a box of cannoli? What about a sharp businessman, or an evil banker or loan shark? What about a politician? Where does one draw the line? I mean... all they're talking about with this bill is one of the ten commandments. What about the other nine? The LGBT community could claim that they're being picked on – and they would be right, in a way.

That's the logic (or illogic) of the situation. But there's another aspect, at least as important. Any libertarian worth his (or her) salt would say that a private businessman has a perfect right to do business, or refuse to do business, with anyone he pleases – for any reason, or for no reason. Call it “discrimination” if you like, call it arbitrary, but the point is that it's a private business, and is thus – or ought to be – sacrosanct and free from government interference, even with the best intentions. The government itself, on the other hand – meaning its agencies and employees – have no such right, since they are supposed to serve the entire citizenry (and not just the ones who voted for the winner, note). And by extension, any organization that does business with the government, or receives any sort of preferential treatment or subsidy, likewise does not have that right. So a defense contractor would be forbidden to discriminate, but the pizza parlor down the street would not (unless they had a standing order to deliver ten thick 'n' crusties to the local recruiting station every Friday night).

See what I'm getting at? “Private” means private, period. So with that in mind, the governor of Arizona should reject (not veto, just ignore) this bill because – horrors! -- it doesn't go far enough. The problem with that, of course, is her legal team would advise her that any bill that expands the rights of private entrepreneurs to the point of, say, the rights they all had up until the last few decades, would be automatically nullified by any number of existing federal laws, case law, etc. And they would be correct, since decisions of that sort were taken out of the hands of business people long ago.

But what does this all mean? Should religious beliefs, or beliefs of any sort, or mere convictions, prejudices, distastes, etc. all be confined to the private sphere and disallowed in the marketplace? Does the government, in effect, own the marketplace even if it doesn't always operate it? We see in this case, more clearly than in most, how the assertion of one right, or set of rights, on the part of one party invariably means a diminution of a right, or set of rights, for someone else – even if those rights are not considered “equal” in merit by societal consensus or by law. My free speech may mean you don't have a right to perfect peace and quiet, or the serenity of unquestioned opinions. My freedom of religion may mean my rosaries on your ovaries – not in the literal sense but by way of prayer. And so on. The premise has always been that human rights, or civil rights, are morally superior to more parochial, self-centered, bigoted interests, but this is a premise in itself – humanistic enough, but a premise nonetheless, that is typically implemented based on political considerations. The very definition of “rights” -- most of which were unheard of until recently -- is a political process. In fact, the term has been abused to such an extent that we may have find another, just to bring meaning back into the discussion. The main problem is that human rights had, at one time, a moral and ethical basis, whereas these days it's all been reduced to politics. But, a lot of the traditional morally- and ethically-based rights are still hanging around, and are forced to duke it out on a daily basis with the newly-discovered politically-based rights. To give just one example, “freedom of speech”, a presumed basic human right, has run up against laws prohibiting “hate speech”, which is a purely political construct. Et cetera.

So if we have a “wall of separation between church and state”, it also appears that we have a wall, likewise, between church and the marketplace, i.e. business. And anyone of any conviction who chooses to seek his fortune in the marketplace must leave his “personal” (even if shared by millions of others) beliefs behind. This is the plain intent of the law as it is currently applied. The dilemma for a person of faith is this: Do they sin by consenting to this arrangement? It's one thing to pay taxes to a government that does immoral things, because behind every tax form lurks the point of a gun. Filing one's taxes is not voluntary; it's voluntary – or else. Or – turn the problem around and ask what happens when a provider of goods and services is perceived as doing sinful, immoral, or just plain wrong things. (Think of Chick-Fil-A. Think of Dow Chemical of old. Think of all the boycotts you've ever heard of, or participated in.) People certainly have a right to not patronize that business. But the business does not have an equal, or reciprocal, right to “boycott” or refuse to serve a subset of customers. All I'm trying to establish is that it's a matter of politics, not principle.

We pride ourselves in that we honor, most of the time, the concepts of free trade and free association, among others. Add freedom of thought, of which freedom of religion is a subset, into the mix. Then see what happens when the freedoms of thought and of association collide with free trade. This is the problem Arizona and a number of other states are dealing with at present, and I think we can expect, in the long run, that anything remotely resembling states' rights in these cases will be crushed into fine power by the federal courts – or by state courts in anticipation of the federal courts. The pity is that questions like this in our time are not referred to the Constitution or to any venerable moral or ethical code, but to politics – which is to say, to rule by the mob and by emotion.

An added observation – what if the Arizona bill were to be passed, signed into law, and passed scrutiny by the judiciary all the way to, and including, the Supreme Court? I mean, I know this could never happen, but “what if?” Let's say a given business decided to assert itself in some way, against one or more “minorities”. Would they regret their decision? It depends. They would, of course, lose some potential customers automatically... others would quit doing business there out of solidarity... others wouldn't start doing business there for the same reason... etc. But on the other hand, there would be people who would start or keep doing business there out of solidarity with the businessman. So it would be a matter of demographics and, yes, politics – and how strongly people felt about the issue. I've never participated in a boycott, but I have redirected my business when I felt that a given merchant or service provider was “doing the right thing”, and that may have been just because they were locally owned and operated, or small, or independent, or something. But it's a complex world out there, and if you look for a reason to not do businesses somewhere, you'll usually find it. Even the coolest of the cool businesses, like – oh, I don't know – Ben and Jerry's or something, probably have some fatal flaw. So on any given day I'm going to opt for price and convenience and quality, and leave the politics up to someone else. (Call me apathetic, go ahead.)

On the other side of the coin is the fate of the consumer. Would a “freedom of association for businesses”, or FAB (!), bill result in minority members collapsing in the street from hunger or lack of clothing and shelter? Of course not. The beauty of American free enterprise – what's left of it – is that any need is going to be filled in short order, as long as it's up to the private sector and not government. To begin with, the majority of places of business would, almost certainly, ignore their new-found freedom to discriminate and continue to serve all comers. But besides that, new businesses would spring up to fill the gap, catering to whatever niche market had developed. And in fact, those businesses would probably attract non-niche customers as well. I've wandered into plenty of places in all innocence, only to find that I didn't quite fit the demographic they were aiming at. (And I'm not talking about bars; just thought I'd throw that in.) But I was always greeted with courtesy, and more often than not I became a customer – at least on that one occasion. So I imagine that our (also quite recent) infatuation with “diversity” would more than make up for any ill effects of letting businesses do as they please. Of course, the only way to find out for sure is to try it, and that's not gonna happen.

U So Karzai

“Bad puppet! Bad!” This is the message that Obama and the State Department mob keep trying to convey to our man in Kabul – the guy with the sheepskin hat and the coat of many colors – Hamid Karzai. As far as they're concerned, he owes us, man! We put him into power, we're his sole means of support, and yet he keeps acting like he's his own man. He even says things like “Afghanistan is a sovereign country.” Dude – when you're country is still occupied by foreign troops who invaded it more than 12 years ago, it's not “sovereign”. Get over it.

But what Obama & Co. see as flakiness on the part of Karzai is nothing more than survival tactics. I mean... the guy is not stupid, OK? He knows full well that even though we call him an “ally” he's expected to salute and click his heels every time Obama or some State Department functionary gives an order, er, suggestion. And while the rest of the world (and not a few people in this country) call him a puppet, a goodly portion of his own citizens consider him a collaborator. And as if this weren't enough, he has also seen what a temperamental and unreliable “ally” the U.S. can be. I mean OK, we do have one “eternal ally”, namely Israel, and that would not change if Moloch himself ascended the throne. But otherwise, we're perfectly capable of turning around and walking away, leaving our “friends” behind holding the bag (or their own heads). It happened in Vietnam – though not without ample cause – and, arguably, in Iran and in any number of other marginal, third-world places. Basically, the relationship is over when we say it's over... and Karzai expects that one of these days it will be his turn, so he's trying to make a few friends, and unmake a few enemies, in order to ease his plight when that day arrives. And in that part of the world, the “plight” in question typically involves being separated from one's own head by main force. Anyone remember Najibullah? He was Moscow's man in Kabul, and, according to Wikipedia, he “(was) said to have been castrated by the Taliban, and... was dragged behind a truck in the streets of Kabul before being publicly hanged.” Now there's an attention getter for you! No wonder Karzai is hedging his bets.

The main bone of contention at this time is the question of how long our troops will be permitted to stay, or tolerated, or whatever the euphemism is – and this in itself is remarkable since we certainly didn't ask permission to invade Afghanistan, or cause a regime change, or occupy it for lo these many years. And yet all of sudden we're asking permission to stay. This could, in fact, be a sneaky way of creating an excuse to leave – like, well, we were perfectly willing to hang around until doomsday, but hey, Karzai said no, so we just have to go, too bad so sad. Well, of course that argument would be somewhat novel, and it certainly wouldn't fit into our empire-building model. After all, we still have troops stationed in the Axis powers – Germany, Italy, and Japan – nearly 70 years after the end of World War II. We don't ask their permission, and they don't ask us to leave; don't ask, don't tell.

The other sticky wicket at this time is the release of prisoners – but that's easily explained, once again, by Karzai's need to make friends and unmake enemies.

The reason the “Global War on Terrorism” is a full-employment act for all kinds of people is that there's no criterion for victory – for an end point. How would we ever know that it was over? Because even if you kill or suppress all the “terrorists” in a given area or country, more could come bubbling up at any moment. It's like killing weeds – they're never really dead, they just suffer a momentary setback after which they come back as strong as ever (or stronger, if they learn how to eat the weedkiller). So the “war on terror” is, by definition, a perpetual war; it can be no other. And by the same token, it can occur anywhere in the world, so the choice of where and when to invade, where to station troops, where to direct out intel apparatus, etc., is more or less arbitrary. We could argue that we're fighting terror by spying on Iceland, or parachuting into Tasmania.

But! -- you might say – Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, who were providing a safe haven for terrorists. OK... except most of the 9/11 hijackers (alleged) were Saudis... so why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia and simply keep anyone else from migrating to some terrorist training ground? Et cetera. The point is that the “war on terror” is perpetual and cannot be won. To truly uproot and exterminate all the causes of “terrorism” we would, basically, have to declare war on all of Islam (which we kind of have, come to think about it) and undertake a massive genocide to kill all Moslems (compared to which bombing a few wedding parties seems like rank tokenism).

How does one eliminate conflict, in the most general sense? One can eliminate one (or both) sides of said conflict, or one can eliminate the cause. Killing all Moslems – impractical. Killing all Americans – politically risky. That brings us to the cause, and I'll say it again, along with Ron Paul: “They're over here because we're over there.” Ergo – get us out of the Near East, Middle East, wherever there are Moslems who might be offended by our presence (which means wherever there are Moslems). Get us out of their pants economically, politically, diplomatically... quit trying to force “democracy” down their throats, or American “culture”. Just forget about that part of the world entirely. Easy, right?

Dream on. What's keeping us in that part of the world? Two things, basically – oil and Israel. And even if we achieve self-sufficiency with regard to oil, Israel will still be there, all alone and feeling blue without our 24-7-365 help and vigilance. And what are the chances that we will abandon our “eternal ally”? I would say zero out to the 1000^th decimal place, no matter what sorts of paranoid fantasies “Bibi” and his gang come up with, and no matter how badly they treat our leaders with snubs, insults, and campaigning for their opponents. And this, in turn, reflects the fact that we are no longer in control of our own destiny as a nation or as a world power. There are countless people above Obama's pay grade (to use his own words) who make these decisions now, and all we can do is follow orders passed down from our invisible rulers by way of our visible figureheads. And these rulers, by the way, are not opposed to “terrorism” in the slightest – it's a huge moneymaker and power source, not to mention an excuse for ramping up totalitarian activities. They don't want to defeat terrorism any more than the medical profession wants to defeat cancer. Yes, that's right – just like everything else, it's ultimately all about jobs, and the American military and taxpayers are, as usual, no more than cannon fodder and serfs.

So in a funny kind of way, I think we should give Karzai a little respect – a few “ups”. He's a survivor, and ultimately a realist, and he's shown that kowtowing has its limits. Oh sure, he may wind up with his head on a pike, but at least he hasn't been unfailingly obsequious towards people who deserve no respect or honor.

Oh, the Irony!

The mainstream media objecting to the FCC putting political commissars into newsrooms and broadcast studios is like a prostitute complaining because she's been told to have an annual health checkup. The MSM have been abject slaves of the Regime for so long that no one can remember when we had an independent press of any consequence, or independent broadcasters aside from marginal radio stations. The Internet has turned out to be the salvation of free speech, and it has, predictably, come under threat of “regulation”, AKA censorship.

But this gambit by the FCC is beyond rich in irony. Historically, we have never had a free press in wartime (e.g. the Civil War, World War II) for the simple reason that the press is expected to do its patriotic duty and unite the country behind the president, no matter who that happens to be (or from which party). And if it should fail in that duty, or show signs of wandering off the reservation, severe sanctions have, historically, been at hand and have been applied. The first crack in this armor, as far as I can recall, came when “Uncle Walter” Cronkite finally expressed doubts – on the air! -- as to the rationale for the Vietnam War, or at least for its continuance... and LBJ was allegedly fit to be tied, because this was tantamount to treason – to a palace coup, in effect. But even there, did this skepticism persist through the election of Nixon in 1968? As I recall, his enemies in the press were more than happy to criticize just about everything about him, but still pulled their punches when it came to the war – because the war was, after all, about America, and our freedoms, and everything that made us great, and... well, you know, all those things that allegedly make Islamic radicals hate us.

But if the press is subservient during wartime, what about the rest of the time? Ah, there's the rub – because our government has now adopted a position of perpetual war, as of 9/11 – which thus puts foreign policy forever out of the bounds of vigorous debate. So that takes care of half the territory – call it Section A (after the custom of most large newspapers devoting the first section to foreign affairs). Section B (domestic affairs), however, is still fair game... right? Well no, not really. Again, mainstream journalists act as scribes, recording secretaries, propaganda agents... but very seldom as bonafide journalists, which would imply some degree of skepticism and an ability to ask tough questions (of the right people, not just of each other). If you want skepticism and serious questioning, you have to go to the margins – to the outsiders – most of whom (again) are found on the Internet, along with a few small-circulation magazines and newsletters.

Now – and I see you, in the back, waving your hand frantically, trying to get my attention – I am intentionally ignoring the current, and completely bogus, distinction – which is talked about as though it was some kind of great continental rift – between the liberal press (being the majority, whether you're talking about print or broadcast media) and the so-called “conservative” press (being the minority, etc.). It's, you know, the usual suspects – the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, and CBS on one side and the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News, and “talk radio” on the other. The problem with that latter group is that they represent what has been termed “the acceptable opposition” -- i.e. people who beg to differ, but typically only at the margins. They never call into question any of the true sacred cows – things like the warfare state, perpetuation of the American Empire, the national debt and deficit spending, free trade, etc. Even the most vigorous – i.e. least pathetically wimpy – debates on social policy and economics are still, in nearly all cases, at the margins... about minuscule differences. No one seriously questions entitlements, for example – just the one or two percentage points that take up most of the time and energy in Washington.

To make a related point – when I refer to the Regime, I'm not talking about Obama and his gang of minions, hangers-on, lackeys, and hacks. They are an essential part of the Regime, certainly – they are its functionaries and tools. But it also includes the Republicans. It includes liberals and mainstream conservatives, AKA neocons. Even the Tea Partiers and the Occupy crowd are considered part of the acceptable, if annoying, opposition; they are acceptable because they accept most of the same premises upon which the Regime bases its policies and actions, even though they can have a different line of reasoning based on those premises. What the Regime most emphatically does not include are the libertarians, anyone who is genuinely anti-war (and not just temporarily for political reasons), anarchists (needless to say), and the not-sold-out portion of the Catholic Church – and as you can see, none of these entities has a voice, or a place at the table. In fact, they are actively resisted, demeaned, and marginalized at every opportunity.

So when Rush Limbaugh says that the whole FCC initiative is aimed at Fox News, and at him in particular... well who was it who said “just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you”. But Fox News is, in the broad scheme of things, as much a part of the Regime as are the (formerly) Big Three – and Rush is as much a part of it as... oh, I don't know... how about Brian Williams? He's kind of the Uncle Walter of our time. Oh sure, Rush may point out any number of inconvenient truths about Obama, the Democrats, and liberals in general, but he has a total blind spot when it comes to the Republicans and mainstream conservatives. Well, why not? He is one. It would be like expecting a fish to discover water, as they say. And if one is blind to half of what is wrong in this country, one may as well be totally blind, for all the good it's going to do. When you start out that compromised you can never be a radical or a revolutionary – just a complainer.

So if the media are already on the side of the Regime, and more explicitly on the side of one of its two heads (the Democrats or the Republicans), why do they need continuous monitoring by the government, like kids in some special needs class? Well... there's always a chance that someone might start getting funny ideas about way this country is run, and we can't have that – especially if their job is to represent the mainstream, i.e. the Truth!! No one in the MSM can ever be allowed to look up from their work like the cow in the classic Gary Larson cartoon who says “Hey guys! This is grass! We're eating grass!” You can marginalize pacifists any day of the week, but you can't marginalize CBS, ABC, and NBC – they are charter members of the propaganda ministry. Even the Associated Press and the Washington Post have started talking back to Obama once in a while – cautiously, of course, lest they get smacked upside the head (or worse, have their front-row seat at White House press conferences taken away). So this is what the FCC has in mind, basically – keep the troops from wandering off the reservation (now there's a mixed metaphor for you). As usual in a totalitarian system it's the inner circle that is held to the highest standards, and is punished most severely for failure; Orwell said this very clearly in “1984” and it was shown time and time again in Soviet Russia.

See, here's the point. Obama and Co. have been going from one victory to another – island-hopping, if you will, like our troops in the Pacific after the war turned around – and the amount of control and influence they had over the media back in 2008, say, is no longer enough. The amount they had a year ago is not enough. Power is like any other addictive substance – it only begets the desire for more of the same. So why not clean up the loose ends... get our own house in order (this is the liberals thinking)... and once we have a sworn loyalty oath from the MSM, and a non-aggression pact with Fox News and other neocon outlets, then we can police up the outliers (this process is already underway with Antiwar.com, by the way – but you ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say).

The thing of it is, the totalitarian mindset simply does not tolerate dissent. And it doesn't tolerate any sort of ambivalence, backsliding, doubt, or lukewarmness among its adherents. The notion of the acceptable opposition – well, the Soviets had both Pravda and Izvestia, whoop-te-do. Competition is good, supposedly – but did you ever see the Big Three TV networks of old compete when it came to ideas? No – they were clones of each other – Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledumber. All the competition was commercial, based on games and circuses. How about Time vs. Newsweek? Don't make me laugh. It's been pointed out that the total range of acceptable opinion in this country is dwarfed by that in most of Western Europe – and from what I've seen this is totally true. And yet they are supposedly more “socialistic” (implied: collectivist and conformist) than we are. It's getting to the point where we are as phobic and petrified when it comes to the hard questions as people used to be in the Soviet Union or its satellites. The amount of difference that is perceived as a threat grows smaller with each passing day – the squeeze is on. So small wonder that the FCC wants to formalize (and make overt) something that has been informal and not always reliable up to now. The ultimate goal is to put us all into a prison of ideas (or non-ideas) – a conceptual gulag, as air-tight as North Korea. And this, in turn, is based on the premise that a happy serf is a good serf. What is more pathetic and more productive, and less trouble for its master, than a willing slave who is strung out on social brainwashing?

So yeah, MSM – you've been lapdogs for so long you forgot all about this mysterious thing called “journalism”. And every once in a while a lapdog needs to be treated for fleas – and the FCC is up to the task. But frankly, it won't hurt the liberal press all that much, because their model of reality is that everything is political anyway. So if they can be persuaded that one approach or point of view is more politically acceptable than another, they'll latch right on to it, no problem. They never have any original ideas, after all; leave that to the academics. The neocons, on the other hand, for all of their obvious faults do appear to have a lingering notion of principle and of truth (even if their “truths” are frequently dead wrong) – so they will take offense more readily (as they already have) and feel more put upon when all of this becomes a daily fact of life. Or – they will go out of business entirely and leave the field to the political animals; that's a real possibility.

Self-censorship is all kinds of fun. You don't like the real news, you make it up. You stay on the right side of the powers that be. Et cetera. You get perks. You get invited to the White House correspondents' dinner. But when someone decides they can do a better job of censorship than you can – oh, the indignation! I say it's all richly deserved. If the press had maintained their principles and standards all along, this wouldn't be happening because the government would be – guess what – not a little afraid of the press. But no one's afraid of a lapdog. Even if it only takes a playful nip once in a while, that's one nip too much. The press has been toothless for a long time; now even its dentures are about to be confiscated (for its own good, of course – and for ours).

News and Comments

Playing Chicken in Kiev

It doesn't take much reading between the lines to understand the current controversy in Ukraine. One side wants to align itself more closely with the EU – i.e. with the “West”, i.e. with us... and the other side wants to move, at least partly, back under the wing of Mother Russia. Now, there is nothing new about this issue; it's quite ancient, in fact. You can find the issue of “Europhilia” vs. “Slavophilia” -- i.e., do we want to be Europeans or not? -- coming up in 19th-Century Russian novels, and it goes back at least as far as Peter the Great. That's Russia, of course, but Ukraine has its own version of the very same dilemma, and when it looks around at the other former Soviet republics, it can see a full range of solutions, from the enthusiastic embrace of the EU by the Baltic states (which were never Slavic anyway) to a deeper commitment to Islam among the Central Asian “stans”.

To our conventional way of thinking, it seems obvious. After all, Ukraine was horrendously mistreated by the Soviets back in the 1930s, and once pacified became just another one of the gray, nameless, faceless Soviet republics. And now they are free! So why turn around and re-align with their former rulers and persecutors? I mean, OK, because of its size, economy, and culture, Ukraine might wind up as a most favored trading partner of Russia (assuming it's not already), but wouldn't the whole thing be just a bit intimidating – a marriage of non-equals?

On the other hand, is this really the best time for Ukrainian leaders to propose a closer alliance with the West? Maybe it's better to be a second-class citizen within the Russian sphere of influence than a third- or fourth-class citizen with regard to the EU. Plus, what's the EU's trajectory these days? It's basically morphing into the next German Empire. Does Ukraine really want to go the way of Greece and the other insolvent places that were forced to sell themselves down the river to the more sober power north of the Alps? Because, like it or not, this is the sort of thing that's likely to happen when a place that is politically chaotic gets into an economic “arrangement” with a place that's not. We've already seen it any number of times.

And that's just about the EU. An alliance with the EU is also, inevitably, an alliance with the U.S., and one look at our political system these days, where the inmates have clearly taken over the asylum, should be enough to sober anybody up. And besides, the EU or its surrogates have assumed a dominant, if not totally controlling, role over the U.S. banking system and thus its economy. If it can happen to us, it can certainly happen to Ukraine in much less time.

Add to this the unlikely fact that Russia has actually started to assume moral leadership on the world stage, as in the case of Syria. Clearly, the Russian Empire is starting to come back to life and regroup, whereas ours is fragmenting and falling into chaos. Which team is starting to look like the winning team? Where does the future lie? Ukraine is going to have to cast its lot in one direction or another, and I don't envy them their choice.

Can They Hear Me Now?

The award for the funniest news item in ages has to go to the story about the fake “signing” guy at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela. Standing an arm's length from President Obama (and any number of other, ahem, dignitaries) this guy pulled off a coup that would put Sacha Baron Cohen to shame. Apparently he managed to penetrate security and sneak up on stage and start “signing” with absolutely no problem – and those in charge didn't know anything was amiss until it was pointed out, later on, that the guy hadn't been saying, er, signing anything whatsoever but just “moving his hands around”.

But what a beautiful metaphor for Obama and his administration! You can't make this stuff up. Placed on high for no discernible reason – check. Much gesticulating and waving of arms, but totally content-free – check. A total fraud and a hoax – check. Only detected after the fact, once it was too late – check. “An absolute circus” -- check.

Ah yes – this is life in South Africa, where hope and change rule... where an oppressed people finally got their piece of the pie and said “it's our turn”. And hey, there are bound to be missteps now and then – after all, haven't any number of impostors manged to crash White House parties and have their pictures taken with The Anointed One?

And, oh yes, the guy was not taken into custody – at least not right away. And, it turns out, this is not the first time he's played this trick. Yeah... always give someone another chance, that's the American way.

At any rate, it's too funny. Just the thing to liven up the holiday season.

Snakes on a Plane

There's another story that came out of the Mandela pilgrimage, but one that requires a bit of reading between the lines. It seems that the plane that transported Obama & the missus to South Africa was also graced by the presence of George W. Bush (a fellow member of the Regime), Mrs. Bush, and Hillary Clinton (a former political rival of The Anointed One). Conspicuous by their absence from the First Plane were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the reason given being “logistical issues”.

Logistical issues, my a**. My guess is that Obama didn't want to be seen spending that much time with Carter; it might have invited unfortunate comparisons. And as to Bill – well, I suppose the prospect of him and Hillary spending an entire flight to South Africa on the same cramped, stuffy airplane didn't appeal to either one of them. It would have been the longest time they spent together since leaving the White House!

Ending With a Whimper

The Pittsburgh Steelers retain an infinitesimal mathematical possibility of making the NFL playoffs – provided a few other teams all come down with herpes or shingles in the meantime. Otherwise, fuhgeddaboutit. On the plus side, it means we can finally relax and just enjoy the game instead of having our intestines tied in knots on every play. After all, somebody has to lose – right? But I guess when most people are “educated” in the public schools, where everyone is a winner each and every day, it's hard to accept that fact of life.

Up the Vigilante

Turns out that George Zimmerman is a badass with a temper after all. Ah well, it's too late now. Maybe Neighborhood Watch can hire more Mister Rogers clones in the future.

Prisoner of Pretense

Of all the perennial jailbird stories that come around on a regular basis – you know, like O.J., Mumia, that “Kennedy cousin”, whatever the hell his name is (who, it now appears, is a free man again, confined to a 100-acre estate somewhere, I'm sure) – the one with the most political significance, therefore with the greatest potential for causing rage and depression, has to be Jonathan Pollard. Now... I won't belabor the sordid details (Google it!); suffice it to say he was tried, convicted, and jailed for spying and for causing grave damage to our national security. OK so far. But who was he spying for? Israel. Oy, there's the rub. He was spying for not just an ally, but an “eternal ally”... a country for which there is no “daylight” between it and the United States... whose foreign policy and ours are synonymous. So, as I've often asked, why did they even need to spy on us? Don't we always give them anything they ask for – whether in terms of money, military support, diplomatic support, propaganda – oops, I mean media – support? Can't they walk into any secure area in Washington, DC and get immediate access to files labeled “Top Secret Crypto/Destroy Self After Reading”? Well... apparently not, unless...

... unless what Pollard did was not so bad, or so unusual, after all, and he's being held for other reasons, as a kind of twisted version of a political prisoner. Now first, as to the “badness” factor, well, he didn't give atomic bomb plans to the Russians like the Rosenbergs did, who wound up getting fried for their trouble. But in any periodic Department of Defense security briefing for the worker bees, Pollard is right up there in the pantheon of spies – as a public enemy and traitor of legendary stature. Make no mistake (say the security guys), Pollard is lower than the do-do of whatever it is that eats snake do-do. And this is part of a litany that is recycled year after year. Of course, never is it mentioned that the Israeli government has been putting crushing pressure on every administration since Pollard was first locked up to set him free so that he can live out his golden years on some kibbutz pitting peaches or something.

So here's a case where Israel is most definitely, thumpingly, not getting what it wants. And the question is why? It's quite simple, really. Even though every administration that comes along stumbles all over itself to be even more accommodating of, and to make even greater sacrifices for, Israel, it has not yet reached the point where we can openly declare ourselves a colony of Israel and proud of it. There has to be at least some appearance, however minimal, of autonomy – that we are still a sovereign nation and that the president (whoever it might be) is his own man.

So here's where Pollard comes in. He's kind of like a scapegoat, but what he actually is is a sign or symbol of the notion that we don't just take orders from Israel... that we can, in fact, even “get tough” with Israel once in a while, and assert ourselves, and declare our independence. To give Pollard up and put him on the next plane to Tel Aviv would be to, once and for all, admit that our sole reason for existing was to support the Zionist project – and that might not go over so well in some quarters (although it would make the Evangelicals and Neocons downright giddy with delight).

What this means, paradoxically, is that if we were ever to admit a bit of “daylight” between us and Israel... and stop calling them out “eternal ally” (the only time in all of history that the word “eternal” has been used in a diplomatic context, note)... we might be able to afford to let Pollard go. But as things stand, he's the one bit of evidence against the argument that we've become a wholly-owned subsidiarity of Israel, so for that reason alone he's going to have to stay in that old jailhouse.

Empire and its Discontents

A correspondent writes, regarding my previous post (Russia Takes Over, Nov. 16):

"I don't agree with you on the part about good and evil.  You seem to be saying that a nation which does any amount of evil cancels out any good which it may do, and should simply be considered to be part of the shit heap of evil nations.  As you state it, there is an assumption that good and evil are easily identifiable, divisible, and quantifiable, in the process of geopolitical power and international score keeping. I'm not sure they are. But assuming we can sort out the good things a nation does, isn't it really more of a net/sum analysis?  Who is generally more good than evil... or, at least more good than the alternatives, even if not all good, which is impossible, or even mostly good, or even occasionally good. In a world which is largely evil, even being a little good, or more good than the others, is good, or as good as it gets. I think the US still has that stature, despite the fact that it may be somewhat like winning the world championship in double amputee cross country foot racing."

My reply:

Well... I don't think "cancels out" is what I had in mind -- at least not directly.  I think the good can stand on its own, as can the evil -- but then right away we get the question of intent.  Is unintentional good as good as intentional good?  If so, then logically, unintentional evil must be as bad as intentional evil.  We can't have it both ways.  We can't get all the credit for the good we do, but then just mumble "shit happens" when we do evil or when evil results from our actions. 

What the good/evil dichotomy really does, IMO, is call into question the basic core premises upon which we established ourselves as a nation.  Were those principles, as noble as they sounded at the time, actually a time bomb?  I think the Civil War was already ample proof that there was something seriously wrong with our world view as a nation -- not that slavery was not evil, but we didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery, as any honest historian will admit.  It was about "preserving the union", which was ideational for some, but which boiled down to political and commercial issues for many, including cynics in the industrial sector.  Freeing the slaves was a bonus (or "collateral damage" if you were in the South).  Not that some in the North would not have been willing to make the same sacrifice just to free the slaves, but they were a minority, and considered "radicals" by the rest.  So, bottom line, the Civil War might have had one positive outcome, but the negative outcomes continue to haunt us right up to today.  The South is still treated like a defeated nation, and Southerners are treated like ignorant, backwards bigots... and all the old resentments are still alive and well.

So, I'm willing to give the US full credit for whatever it has done over the years to enhance the quality of life for the human race in general -- and full discredit for whatever it has done that has had the opposite effect.  That's not the same as saying that it all balances out, and the net sum is zero.  That would be like claiming that some great industrialist -- from Pittsburgh, say -- who oppressed his workers for many decades, but then built fine libraries and museums and concert halls, had a net score of zero.  I'm not enough of a Zoroastrian to claim that good and evil are inextricably linked, and you can't have one without the other.  I don't put them on an equal metaphysical footing.  And besides, one hopes that any good a given nation does will outlast the bad, despite what Shakespeare says about men.  One can certainly see this with ancient Rome, and (I will argue) the British Empire, although there is plenty of debate on that count.  The French Empire, I'm not so sure... and the Soviet Empire I will count as an overall disaster (but they did field some dynamite Olympic teams).  (And yet the worst colonial power was not Russia, but Belgium.  Go figure.)   

This brings us to the American Empire, and has it been of aggregate benefit to the world, or an overall liability, or too close to call?  This depends partly on how much one values democracy (without quotes) as a system, and to what extent our version of democracy -- the kind we export -- is the real thing, and whether it actually does any good.  Now, I include under the heading of democracy things like the rule of law, trial by jury, property rights, etc. -- all the Bill of Rights and related concepts that we always hope we're also exporting along with the basic idea.  And clearly, the success or failure of this enterprise is more dependent on national character than anything else.  I don't claim that some nations or peoples are "not ready" for democracy; this is condescending.  They may simply not be interested -- and I don't take this as an automatic sign of primitive ignorance, or tribalism, or religious dogmatism, etc.  What it means is that democracy, of any variety, is not a universal value -- and I don't think you have to look far to realize this is the case.  Then you add in the aggravating factor that many of the "democracies" we have established around the world are anything but -- thinly-disguised tyrannies, in fact, not a whole lot different from the "people's republics" that the Soviets set up by the score.  It is not enough to have a democratic "form" -- one also has to have a democratic mind set, and leaders who agree with that.  Heaven knows, we have enough trouble with this even within our own borders. 

Does this mean that "exporting democracy" is a farce and a hoax, and we should stop doing it (or trying to)?  If you look at the record, it's a mixed bag.  It does seem to "take" in some cultures, and provide benefits.  In others, it makes little or no difference, and in some it makes things worse.  I think Job One of the State Department should be to try and make these determinations ahead of time, so we can cut down on the waste of time and money (and resentment and hostility).  (The alternative is to forget the whole project, and I would not oppose that either.)  My preference would be that we simply try and set a good example.  The problem with this is that, to anyone looking at our political situation from without, it seems like a circus and a farce.  (Again, was it designed that way, or is it a a sign of degeneration, or are we just having a bad day, or what?)      

But I'm being wildly optimistic even there.  The project of the American Empire as it stands has nothing whatsoever to do with exporting democracy, free and fair elections, promoting human rights, property rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc.  Those are propaganda buzzwords.  What it has everything to do with is economic imperialism, which is supported by political influence (both domestically and internationally).  One only has to ask the question, who is in charge and what's their bottom line?  If the answer is the international banking and financial cartel (which I believe it is), then the bottom line is money, period.  Even political influence and spying are just means to an end.  (Ask yourself this question:  Which happens more frequently, politicians getting rich or the rich getting into politics?  I rest my case.)  Now -- there are political goals embedded within this scenario, and I would characterize them as establishing a one-world secular humanist government.  But you won't be making a mistake by following the money.  (Which is the means and which is the ultimate end may, in fact, be a point of lively discussion when the Regime gets together, e.g. at Bilderburg, Davos, the Bohemian Grove, Mackinac Island, etc.  I'd love to get a transcript of some of those discussions!)

Even then our self interest might have some broader benefits.  I mean, let's say that someone figured out how to make big bucks from the breakup of the Soviet Union, so they did all they could to make that happen.  They wind up rich, but the Soviet Empire goes away, much to the joy and jubilation of all (except for a few million bureaucrats, commissars, police, camp guards, etc.).  It's kind of like that "trickle-down effect" that Reagan's people were so fond of citing -- and that the other side lambastes on a regular basis.  Just as good can, paradoxically, come from evil, so good can also (unintentionally) come from good.  (Our biggest challenge when it comes to military operations is seeing to it that evil does not come from what we consider good -- a task that we've failed on spectacularly of late.)   

The ultimate question for future historians will be, was the world better off because the US existed?  Again, I say that Rome provides a possible precedent.  They did a lot of really bad things, but they also had certain principles of government and law that, in good times, served them (and their subjects) well.  We constantly point to Rome as a foundation for our own system -- not forgetting the high-jinks of such as Caligula and Nero, but consigning them to the ash heap... not allowing them to detract from the larger picture.  (I imagine much the same will eventually happen with regard to characters like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- but I digress.) 

One thing's for sure, the world would have been less interesting if the American Experiment hadn't risen up in the midst of it all.  We have at least been a source of ideas, for good or ill -- not to mention technology.  I say this fully cognizant of the fact that the political experiment has clearly run out of energy, and that we are self-destructing as a nation/culture/economy at a rapid rate.  We are a demoralized people, in that we've lost track of basic principles.  We haven't stopped mouthing words about them, but we've lost any comprehension as to what they mean.  Now... was this process inevitable?  Was it the result of an inexorable historical cycle, the inevitable growth/consolidation/decay process of any empire, nation, or political system?  I'm not prepared to say -- only to point out that there have been no exceptions as yet in history, so one is tempted to say yes, it was inevitable.   But is that, in turn, an indictment?  Again, if one does good while one can, this is not a bad thing.  Who would want to judge the worth of a human being based on his last declining days, months, years?  It wouldn't seem fair.  So we could, if we were feeling charitable, apply the same idea to nations.  Even an enterprise that is doomed might nonetheless be worth undertaking; it's a matter of what one values the most.