Defending Europe: The "Not Me!" Principle
I'm always a bit amazed by people who say they are anti-war. Not that I'm pro-war. But, I do recognize that war is sometimes necessary to keep the peace, along with essential freedoms.
It's fashionable for Europeans to be anti-war, but Europe's gone too far in demilitarizing, said U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, speaking at the NATO Summit on Thursday:
"One of the triumphs of the last century was the pacification of Europe after ages of ruinous warfare. But, as I've said before, I believe we have reached an inflection point, where much of the continent has gone too far in the other direction. The demilitarization of Europe--where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it--has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st. Not only can real or perceived weakness be a temptation to miscalculation and aggression, but, on a more basic level, the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to operate and fight together to confront shared threats."
Meanwhile, we're diving further and further into debt and your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will, if we keep spending at this rate, be indentured servants to the Chinese. Judy Shelton writes in the WSJ about the financial mess we've allowed ourselves to get into, and the potential consequences:
But China's angry response to the news that Mr. Obama will meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader tomorrow in Washington goes straight to the point. "If the U.S. leader chooses this period to meet the Dalai Lama, that would damage trust and cooperation between our two countries," said Zhu Weiqun, a Chinese Communist Party official at a Feb. 2 press conference. "And how would that help the United States surmount the current economic crisis?"In other words: China sees a clear link between America's ability to stand up for human rights and its economic interests--and Beijing isn't afraid to exploit it. Mr. Weiqun was bluntly reminding the U.S. to take a close look at its balance sheet before indulging in any displays of moral support for an exiled Buddhist monk deemed a "dangerous separatist" for seeking Tibetan autonomy.
...China holds nearly $755 billion in Treasurys--more than one-fifth of the total held by foreign nations. "China is now the largest creditor nation to the United States," noted Victor Gao, a former top official in the Chinese foreign ministry, in a recent CNN interview. "Just imagine if China buys less of the Treasury bonds or stops buying the Treasury bond for a couple of months."
Actually, China has apparently started doing just that. Yesterday the Treasury Department reported that China had significantly reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasury securities in December. The big drop--$34.2 billion--means China has moved to second place behind Japan. The big question: Will China continue to cut back?
...To lose confidence in U.S. capital markets is to lose faith in democratic capitalism. We are the nation most trusted around the world to champion free markets and free people; standing up for principle and coming to the aid of beleaguered allies is part of the American creed.
Re: war
Either you deter war, go to war, or surrender.
There are no other options.
'Pacifists' are naive.
lsomber at February 25, 2010 2:31 AM
See also.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 2:53 AM
OFFTOPIC RANT FOLLOWS: Next two comments. Sorry, can't be helped.
—————————
Until someone kicks out a transcript, this video is a good way to spend a half hour (3 parts totaling 29 minutes). If you only have a moment, go to 4:45 on part 2 and let 'er rip.
Y'know, at this point, I think the good years are over. With the taxation we already face and with so very much more just ahead, there's no way I can ever again live in the comfort and safety which I enjoyed just a few years ago. There will be no way to pursue my own interests as readily, or to defend my own health, or perhaps most importantly, to care for family as I did in the first decade of this century. Bad people have fucked things up.
Even while living with some modesty in my own habits and ambitions, I helped the bad guys: I should have known that the swollen stock market was built on mutual puffery from financial services people, each pretending that the others evinced a genuine capacity for wealth creation, when all were naked (and mutually-fellating) emperors. I trusted them.
While I respect him considerably, Matt Welch is wrong here. The divisions of left and right aren't just mechanized irritability: I think there are very real weaknesses in human nature, monstrous forces in all hearts which the left ignores but which the right acknowledges as deserving a respectful challenge. So the party on the right argues that life is imperfect, and the party on the left argues that policy is the problem. Guess which party's winning the government game?
(More — Dodging Amy's spamfilter)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 3:03 AM
I think the hatred of Palin tells us more about the nature of America (and humanity) than does any critique, no matter how well substantiated, of Palin's fitness for the Presidency. It's not just that lefties are inexplicably repulsed by her success as a woman, as a working American, and as a politician....
The fault continues in their unstated presumption that the United States presidency requires some miraculous expression of the human form, a God-blessed Star Child of intellectual heft, empathetic attunement, and commanding moral authority. (In other words, sex-soldier Rock Stars like Bill & Barry.) These people, including Palin's seemingly more-patient detractors in the Republican party, ignore the spirit of every passage worth reading in our nation's founding documents: They think Americans want (or need) government leadership in order to do well, and that (mere) good public service isn't enough.
I want very badly to disagree with this woman, Rabinowitz, who argues that Palin's enjoyment of sarcasm and pointed comments disconnects her from the proudest conservative patterns. After all, Palin's taken some pretty brutal punches in recent years, personal ones, and has shown a nearly Reaganesque ability to ignore them.
Palin's book publishing alone is said to have earned several terms' worth of Governor's wages, enough to sustain her family for a very long time... And hers is a family which might have some extra expenses in decades to come. I don't fault her for quitting that job.
But take a closer look at their personal lives. The Palins have had to work hard and pinch pennies and live thoughtfully in order to do well. Reagan had an alcoholic father, and that's a burden which can give a person no choice but to trust in a positive attitude... And for Reagan, it worked. Reagan's faith in hard, sober work and making your own luck may have been misplaced: He was a good-looking white guy from middle America who did well in Hollywood movies, a path of opportunity which almost no one can share.
I don't think a candidate has to be Ronald Reagan in order to bring conservative values to the federal government. (Besides, some say civilian federal employment increased under Reagan's administrations, some say it dropped.)
But Palin so far has gotten substantial mileage out of a (seemingly) libertarian impulse to keep government out of our lives, and perhaps our wallets. It would be great to have a conservative leader who could reflexively make the case that we don't NEED government to tell us how to live. Twenty years of voters have come to the polls without being told this.
But no such candidate comes to mind.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 3:07 AM
One last comment quickly, I forgot to tie it all up with a ribbon: The point of all that is that since Barry dug a ten trillion dollar hole in his first year and is still digging, aspirations to wealth in our own lives are probably permanently wounded. If Obama or his ilk ever gave a speech encouraging independent enterprise, I haven't heard it.
But we should oppose him on behalf of our kids. America is still the leading light on this planet, and no other nation even comes close.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 3:15 AM
Barry's never given a speech encouraging Freedom either.
It's "arrogant" of the US to meddle in other countries affairs.
On the european Military thing ... except for the Brits, Europe does not have a military force. Just a jobs program. It's a joke. Uncle Sam has been providing peace and security for those socialists for 50 years. Not that they'd think to thank us.
But it's not much better closer to home. There are more NYC policemen then members of the Canadian Military.
I remember Canadian politicians getting all indignant about how US forces were performing in some Nato led peace keeping exercise in Bosnia (I think). They pledged to send Canadian troops to take over for those brutish Americans.
Only problem was they didn't realize the Canadian military didn't have the airlift capacity to move their own troops.
So they had to ask the US military to give them a ride.
sean at February 25, 2010 4:17 AM
Let me translate Gates' comment for you:
"We're spending ourselves silly over here trying to be just like you, which means we won't be able to afford to keep a military presence in Europe. If you want to keep the Russians at bay, you're gonna have to do it yourself."
This is a prelude to bringing all our troops home from abroad, which will win the Democrats significant libertarian support.
brian at February 25, 2010 4:47 AM
The military issue keeps coming up on the Swiss ballot, and I keep voting against the changes, which are to reduce the military. I am completely anti-war, especially for Switzerland. I do not think Switzerland should join any wars. I am totally a pacifist. But I'm glad my male relatives know how to shoot a gun. Probably I will learn, too, once we get there this summer, as we can't afford the city and there's not much else to do in the country...
It annoys me when guys get out of their service with fake doctor's notes. These are the guys who are going to defend us if we get attacked? Better hope the gnomes of zurich stay powerful.
As for America, I am not against us having a strong military, though I am against the Iraq and Afghan wars, I think they are a waste of money, spread us out too thin, bring us no gain, and hurt the local people unnecessarily. Of course war is sometimes necessary but I don't feel these are.
I think withdrawing the troops from Europe is an excellent idea. They'll stop harping on us so much when they have to spend some of their money on their own defense. Us being there creates a dynamic where they resent us. No better way to lose a friend than to do them a big favor, right?
NicoleK at February 25, 2010 5:17 AM
You can't just up an withdraw troops from Europe completely. Well, you COULD, you simply should not. Our forces at bases in countries like Germany provide essential intermediate staging bases for getting our troops and supplies to and from other places.
Also, defending your country, also means defending our national interests. Which can, at times, mean feretting out the cave-bound savages wherever they are, so they do come here. We have made a leadership job in Al Qaeda a short-term prospect. It has helped reduce their ability to plan and organize large scale attacks.
We cannot allow them the time to recover. We must keep this pressure on. It's likely to be job the never really goes away.
Steve B at February 25, 2010 6:00 AM
"so they do come here" should be "don't."
D'oh.
Steve B at February 25, 2010 6:02 AM
>>Palin's book publishing alone is said to have earned several terms' worth of Governor's wages, enough to sustain her family for a very long time... And hers is a family which might have some extra expenses in decades to come. I don't fault her for quitting that job.
Well I do fault her for quitting that job, Crid.
And I judged her explanation to be both feeble and transparently self-serving balderdash.
But the real question is - what did you think of her book?
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 6:10 AM
You have to feel sorry for the Chinese. They've got a bunch of paper which is as valuable as our willingness and ability to pay. If they take us down, there are a whole bunch of Chinese workers cranking out widgets that nobody can buy. Nice weapon, too bad it'll kill you if you use it.
MarkD at February 25, 2010 6:19 AM
"I am totally a pacifist. But I'm glad my male relatives know how to shoot a gun."
O_o
Trusting that other people can and (presumably) will fight for you when you need them to is not being a pacifist.
Spartee at February 25, 2010 6:31 AM
To be fair, we're probably better off without those particular people defending us.
I've heard the "Europe's military forces are weak" meme before, but I wonder how true it is for former Warsaw Pact nations. For example I think Poland doesn't want to be conquered ever again. Some former components of the USSR are still police states, which require a strong (or large) military, right?
Russia's military, for all of its problems, has been becoming more capable as they move to an all-volunteer force.
Pseudonym at February 25, 2010 6:38 AM
"...To lose confidence in U.S. capital markets is to lose faith in democratic capitalism."
Huh? In what way does this staggering government debt resemble "capitalism?" Losing faith in that worthless paper is an entirely appropriate response. No one can borrow an infinite amount of money, forever.
I feel the way you do, Crid. This awful trend may reverse at some point, and I will do what I can to help, but I think I will witness decline throughout the rest of my life. I remember as a kid (in the 70s and 80s) thinking things would always get better, and it has a psychological impact when you realize that you can only watch things get worse. Things may get better eventually, but it's going to take so long, I may not still be alive then.
Making the decision to give up on the pipe dream of retirement, wipe out most of my IRAs, and pay off my home to free up cash went against all the advice of my financial advisor and twenty years' worth of indoctrination. But I realized my financial advisor was the only one who ever made money on my portfolio. The stock market was going to provide for us after SSI failed, but it was just another type of racket. It seems the best thing to do is stop trying to plan for anything more than five years ahead, and pay as you go.
Pirate Jo at February 25, 2010 6:39 AM
America has been a debtor nation before - your railroads were built with European money.
Of course the current situation is NOT identical. It never is! But I've just been reading about this:
"During World War I, America was transformed from a "debtor" to a "creditor" nation. On the eve of World War I, some $7 billion in foreign investment was present in the United States, while U.S. investments abroad totaled $3.5 billion. This meant that the United States had larger obligations to foreigners than foreigners had to it, the definition of a debtor nation. At the end of World War I inward foreign investment was actually lower than in 1914, while U.S. investments abroad had surged. America had become a creditor nation—a status it would continue to hold until the late 1980s."
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 7:11 AM
""I am totally a pacifist. But I'm glad my male relatives know how to shoot a gun."
O_o
Trusting that other people can and (presumably) will fight for you when you need them to is not being a pacifist."
Exactly. It's being a weak leech. Much like europe. Being a pacifist means when someone comes to murder your kids, you sit there are let them. Are you totally that? because I'm pretty sure you're thinking of having kids, and you need to be willing and ABLE to protect them. It would also mean you'd be A-Ok with an islamic take-over of switzerland, rather than firing a shot against them.
(yes, I realize the likelihood of you or any parent ever needing to is tiny at best, but still. I don't think you're really a pacifist.)
momof4 at February 25, 2010 7:15 AM
agree with the comment about the airbase in germany as a staging point, and it is also where are seriously wounded are first taken I believe. As far as bringing troops home, I would start with Korea. They are more than capabale of defending themselves now. As far as Palin ... A coworker of mine voted for Obozo simply because he couldn't stand the thought of Palin being on the other ticket. To this day I loathe him.
ron at February 25, 2010 8:02 AM
Just a little thing regarding China's "control" of the U.S. Debt; it's not because they have a chunk of it that they need to assume that they can sway U.S. politics.
Let's remember that the Arab states used to have a near-monopoly of crude oil until they tried to move their weight around in the support of the Palestinians. When they cut the oil supply, they only give the other countries all the incentive they needed to start drilling. Now, any attempt to blackmail the West with an oil embargo is laughable at best.
China is in the same position. They have an "Ace in the Hole" but if they misuse it, they will lose it. There's many countries out there who would LOVE to buy their way to Uncle Sam's ear and they would gladly buy any U.S. securities the Sino Giant would let go.
Toubrouk at February 25, 2010 8:07 AM
Toubrouk, you can't seriously believe that other's would ump at a chance to own our debt? The US now owes over 140k per taxpayer. I am an american and I will not touch a treasury note until this country proves it is serious about becoming responsible again. This can only be proven by throwing out these asshats in congress who want to spend away the next 6 generations on things like healthcare reform (1600 pages of crap that nobody fully understands but will lead to another 200k federal employees and their onerous benefits). The hoax and chains crap has to stop immediately and the debt be paid down ASAP by whatever means necessary before any new social experiments can be undertaken.
ron at February 25, 2010 8:22 AM
Ron, why do someone buy Treasury Notes? For a secure return on their investment. Even with their spectacular debt, the United-States still got a stellar credit rating. Why? Because Uncle Sam always pay-up.
The United-States is not only the most powerful economic engine in the world, but also the most stable one. Look at the Euro-Zone right now. They are in "Silent-Panic" mode since the Greeks cooked their books to be accepted in the Economic European Club. Is there someone insane enough to buy Greek (or Venezuelan) treasury bonds right now?
Yes, the American debt is staggering and it opens the door for foreign involvement in U.S. politics. I am also painfully aware that the American taxpayer will have to pay for all that "blood-money". I am just skeptical regarding the capacity of China to sway U.S. politics. Treasure bonds are nothing but a (dreadful) commodity traded like anything else. The Soutern-States had cotton and the Arab countries still got oil. Regardless of their tentative of blackmail, their use of their commodities as leverage failed. This will be the same for China.
Toubrouk at February 25, 2010 9:08 AM
I only have to be reminded of the warning on any investment "past performance is no guarantee on future returns". Just cuz uncle sam has paid his debt in the past .... He has never had close to this percentage of debt vs GDP
ron at February 25, 2010 9:57 AM
Ron - where else are they gonna go?
China's sitting on a massive amount of labor, they need a place to sell their shit if they are to avoid mass social upheaval.
They need us more than we need them.
brian at February 25, 2010 10:27 AM
You have to respect someone who would die rather than violate their ethics.
But when they're willing to let someone else die for them...well not so much.
By my ethical reasoning, all life has value, which is enhanced or degraded by one's actions. A person who spends their life doing the right thing, caring for their own and helping a neighbor in need, that life is of incalculable value.
The person who chooses to become a predator on the vulnerable, a leech on society, a reaver of honest men's work, has so degraded the relative value of his own life, that I think I should feel neither regret nor remorse for ending his life when it intersects violently with my own.
I'm a peaceful many by preference, as any good person ought to be, but being peaceful and being utterly pacifist are two different things.
An absolute pacifist is utterly dependent on either the willingness of others to do violence for them...or counting on the good luck that whomever torments or preys upon them has enough conscience to leave them their lives and enough goods to rebuild. Not what I'd call a wise approach.
No sane person says they can't wait to go to war and kill people and get shot at by people trying to do the same.
But an honorable person is willing to undertake that hazard when his homeland is threatened.
To live in peace and freedom be prepared for war. If you only want to live in peace and care nothing for freedom, then fasten your chains and find the kindest master you can.
Robert at February 25, 2010 10:40 AM
>>But an honorable person is willing to undertake that hazard when his homeland is threatened.
Personally, I am not a pacifist Robert.
But my grandfather was during WW2. I'd say he was a very honorable man of great conviction; he was a Quaker. As a recognized "conchie" (and one with very poor eyesight on top of that) he was sent to help run a POW camp in the Pacific for the duration.
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 11:24 AM
"America has been a debtor nation before - your railroads were built with European money."
Jody, I'm not sure I buy that, considering how different the American and European systems turned out. But even if it's true, if I were a European, I'm not sure I'd want to take credit for that. Although the American railroad system was a magnificent achievement from a technical standpoint, from a business and organization standpoint, not so much. It was the railroads that gave crony capitalism its foothold in American government. And even in their heydey, American railroad companies were notoriously inefficient and corrupt.
It's not a coincidence that the American railroads got their asses kicked by the still-infant aviation and automobile industries in the early part of the 20th century. Earnest Gann pointed out how, in the late 1930s when a Douglas Sleeper Transport could fly you from New York to L.A. in 24 hours, it sill wasn't possible to get a through train for the same route -- in either Chicago or St. Louis, you not only had to change trains, but you had to gather up your bags, get a taxi, and take to another terminal across town to catch your connecting train. And the whole trip took five days.
Cousin Dave at February 25, 2010 11:59 AM
>>China's sitting on a massive amount of labor, they need a place to sell their shit if they are to avoid mass social upheaval.
...and they will be scared silly the day an American will order a "Freedom #5 for two with extra Freedom rolls" as take-out. This is the point China needs to ponder; unlike their own "camarades", Americans have the freedom to NOT buy the product proposed. If the Chinese leaders keep on waving their U.S. securities menacingly, Americans will vote with their wallets.
And for Europe disarming? I say it's a moot point. They are unable to pacify the balkans without the help of the U.S. military machine, even less dealing with the Russians. I put little hope on a "EuroForce" or something similar. Just like Japan and South-Korea, they are living under the "Pax-Americana" without any thought besides scorn for Uncle Sam's proudest warriors. This leads me to believe that wars like the Iraq mess will be more common in the future; conflicts where the European opinion will be discarded because of the Illogical pacifism of the entire continent.
Toubrouk at February 25, 2010 12:07 PM
> And I judged her explanation to be both feeble
Ever see this movie? Me neither. They say it sucked. In American public affairs, you strike while the iron's hot. I loved rock music as a kid. I can't count the number of bands who struck it big as attractive, slender-jawed teenagers, and persisted –whether by youthful vigor or contractual obligation– through a few years of steady touring and recording, and then decided to take a year or two off to "Get my head together, Man"... Only to find that popular tastes had by then moved on. (A list of album titles from failed comebacks would be a comically pathetic read.) And these tastes can change anyway: Skip Humprey, with one of the proudest (untarnished!) names in America political life, got his ass kicked by Jesse Ventura.
More follows below—
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 12:12 PM
>>Jody, I'm not sure I buy that, considering how different the American and European systems turned out. But even if it's true, if I were a European, I'm not sure I'd want to take credit for that.
Hells bells, Cousin Dave.
I'm not trying to take any stupid credit!
I'm just pointing out WHERE THE MONEY CAME from for US railways in the boom years before WW1 (scads of it).
And of course the railroads got their asses kicked by the car and aviation industries!
What is this? A high school history lesson in early 20th century transportation?
(By the late 1930s - the American car was no longer toddling along in its infancy - look at ANY ownership statistics!)
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 12:12 PM
> and transparently self-serving balderdash.
How did you feel about Bayh's whine about partisanship? Have you ever heard a politician end a complaint about partisanship by saying "And of course, I, personally, have also been far too partisan in recent years?" Have you ever heard a politician say anything that wasn't self-serving balderdash?... Or even something that wasn't transparent, for that matter?
And those who claim that the Governor's office in Alaska offers no training for the presidency shouldn't worry too much that she's quit it... Can't have it both ways. If they have a specific curriculum vitae in mind for the job, they should say so. (And of course, they all DO have specifics in mind, particular specific resumes, which makes the whole argument ludicrous.)
> But the real question is - what did you
> think of her book?
Didn't read it.
Did you? Seriously? C'mon, are you still comparing your Amazon rank to every new kid on the block? Have you EVER read a politician's book that you liked? Was Palin's better than "It Takes A Village"? Was anyone counting on this creature for good literature?
My thesis endures: The hatred which found this woman, beginning in her earliest hours on the international political scene (as she acquired nicknames like "Shooty McBitchface"), speaks of nothing so clearly as weakness in the hearts of the haters... And if you want to shuck right down to the cob, we can go ahead and address that hatred by its sobriquet— misogyny. Nothing else could explain the depth and breadth of this reaction to a woman who's so obviously a feminist.
> your railroads were built with European money
Who knew? Euro cash, Chinese labor. And a century later, Ted Turner gave us this aphorism: "Never make a deal unless it's with the other guy's money."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 12:26 PM
>>Have you ever heard a politician say anything that wasn't self-serving balderdash?...
Yup. Obama. To the GOP. After his State of the Union.
Also, some politicians can write. (Churchill got the Nobel Prize for Lit, after all. Different committee to the one that awards the Peace Prize, by the way!)
>>Nothing else could explain the depth and breadth of this reaction to a woman who's so obviously a feminist.
She's dreadful, Crid. Face it. Ducking out of her job 'cos it got too mean. Cooer!
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 12:43 PM
Also, thanks for not harshing me for the 'coming close to a leading light' thing... That shoulda been written much more clearly. I trust everyone took the point.
We're the only game in town.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 12:48 PM
> . Obama. To the GOP. After his State of the Union.
What did he say? I forget. He's whispering over the blare of TEN TRILLION trumpets, with million more turning up in back.
Of course Churchill could write, his mother was an American.
> She's dreadful, Crid.
MISOGYNY.
It's always that personal, that visceral, that fast and that certain, like a schoolboy who complains about the girl sitting next to him in grade school: COOTIES!
A mention of her name never summons a comment like 'This politician has problematic ideas about ag policy'. It's always a heartfelt squeal about encroaching Black Death— "She's dreadful"
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 12:54 PM
Tuning up. Tuning up in back.
Besides, again, I think she got out of it for the money, not because it was mean. And why do you think Bayh resigned?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 12:55 PM
>>A mention of her name never summons a comment like 'This politician has problematic ideas about ag policy'.
Oh, sounds so reasonable when you put it like that, Crid.
Except you wrote earlier in this very thread:
"I think the hatred of Palin tells us more about the nature of America (and humanity) than does any critique, no matter how well substantiated, of Palin's fitness for the Presidency."
So there's no point substantiating my critique, because you KNOW it's really all about hatred. Or "cooties"
As I was saying, she's not an extraordinary leader. Never will be. Petty. Ruinously vain about her own position. A sly flake. Talks nonsense. No foreign policy smarts...
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 1:05 PM
> So there's no point substantiating
> my critique
After seven seasons of "she's dreadful", you've got your work cut out for you. For fuck's sake, look at the catty rhythms of your last graph: Short sentences. Slappy condemnations. Irredeemable faults.
Jody, it's personal. And it's instructive. Welch is wrong.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 1:09 PM
>>For fuck's sake, look at the catty rhythms of your last graph: Short sentences. Slappy condemnations. Irredeemable faults.
Totally fair call, Crid.
(I've made a dreadful mess of some archive downloads & was struggling with that. I am shit at multi-tasking & it shows.)
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 2:02 PM
I'm not saying she should be president (though why not? Could she be worse than Obama, or any other president since FDR?), I'm just saying people's reactions to her are not sane, and they're not the reactions people are pretending they're having.
I mean, 'Ruinously vain'? I just don't see it. She's attractive. That's not the same thing as being vain. It's a misogynist to assume that a beauty is responsible for the heartbreak it brings to the beholder. I sincerely believe this is the same impulse which puts women in burqas in lesser nations: 'Stop being so POIGNANT for me! '
I mean, "Shooty McBitchface"? Is she less vain than the famously twitchy Hillary?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 2:11 PM
I don't *hate* Sarah Palin. Her small-government rhetoric sounds nice, but I think it is empty, just like it is when it comes from other Republicans. It irritates me that she jumps in front of the Tea Party parade and then pretends she is leading it.
Pirate Jo at February 25, 2010 2:21 PM
Jody, my previous post was not intended as a dig at you personally; just a general observation about how the American railroad system evolved and why they are nearly a non-factor in transportation in America today. However, since you chose to take it as a personal insult:
Have you ever flown in a Ford Trimotor? I have. Go outside and start your lawn mower, and run it up to full throttle. Now stick your head six inches away from the exhaust. Keep it there for four hours. While you're at it, bob your head up and down until you get motion sick and puke. That's what it was like to fly in a Ford Trimotor. And people who could afford it still preferred that mode of travel to the railroads. Similar goes for the automobiles of the period, traveling over dusty rough roads with a poor ride, minimal creature comforts, and frequent breakdowns. And the railroads, with all of their opulence, had trouble competing with that. Yes, there was something very wrong. Don't miss the point.
And as far as Palin goes: Considering that 98% of the criticism of her has consisted of schoolyard insults, it says far more about the critics than it says about Palin herself. In light of that, you might want to go review your last couple of posts.
Cousin Dave at February 25, 2010 2:42 PM
Dave,
I wasn't really taking it personally - I was just exasperated by your "taking the credit" bit.
I find it vaguely interesting that Europe bankrolled so much of US railroad speculation before WW1 so rudely interrupted the astonishing flow of investment. That is all!
(To be fair to me, this has been quite a defensive US flag waving thread! So blame it on that! Anyway, I seem to be writing rubbish today - apart from telling the truth about Palin! Sorry...)
Jody Tresidder at February 25, 2010 3:00 PM
Spartee, Momof4 did you read my whole post? I said I am probably going to be learning to shoot.
Especially now that Libya declared Jihad on Switzerland.
NicoleK at February 25, 2010 3:18 PM
> apart from telling the truth about Palin!
Year after year, decade after decade, it's these sparklike impulses that liberals want to cling to... Hold on to your feelings, child! Hold on to them at all costs!....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 3:56 PM
Fuggin' HTML
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 3:56 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O53820100225
It seems like pretty much anybody in Islam can declare a global jihad ... and for any reason at all. And this is what we call an organized religion?
At least the Swiss Army might finally get to use their knives.
Conan the Grammarian at February 25, 2010 4:05 PM
Goddammit, they will open a can of soup on those motherfuckers! They will pick their teeth and leave 'em for dead!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 25, 2010 4:09 PM
Goddammit, they will open a can of soup on those motherfuckers! ...
Darnnit. Coffee all over the keyboard.
Hey Skipper at February 25, 2010 4:47 PM
"Spartee, Momof4 did you read my whole post? I said I am probably going to be learning to shoot."
Yep. hence my post telling you you weren't really a pacifist, even though you oddly called yourself one. Pacifism is extreme, fringe-lunatic stuff.
momof4 at February 25, 2010 4:59 PM
It is easy to be a pacifist when someone else is doing the fighting and dying for you.
Richard Cook at February 25, 2010 7:05 PM
Pacifism is amoral.
At best.
Hey Skipper at February 25, 2010 7:21 PM
No, I am most definitely a pacifist, which is why I am in favor of a strong army... if they don't attack you to begin with, you have peace.
I am not in favor of attacking other countries. But if you get attacked, you get attacked, nothing you can do about that you can't lay there and die. So best to avoid getting attacked to begin with. Not attacking others is one way, having a good army is another, and having others have economic interest in your country not getting attacked is good, too.
NicoleK at February 25, 2010 8:04 PM
Europe, even my beloved Germany, is being absorbed by the "Womb of the Borg = Islam".
Again,
"America Alone" is a must read.
Don't believe me?
Guess what the second most popular birth name is in the U.K.?
Ken at February 25, 2010 8:22 PM
On a happy note... moderate muslims speaking out against Qaddafi in a Swiss newspaper:
http://www.tdg.ch/ne-estimer-appel-kadhafi-2010-02-26
"C'est vraiment n'importe quoi. S'il y a problème, il doit être résolu par le dialogue. Kadhafi est hors contexte. Il ne vit pas sur notre planète, il n'est pas du tout crédible", a réagi le secrétaire de l'Institut culturel musulman, Moahmed Karmous, interrogé par l'ATS.
My translation:
"It is nonsense. If there is a problem it needs to be resolved with dialogue. Qadafi is out of touch. He doesn't live on our planet, he's not at all credible" reacted the secretary of the Muslim Cultural institute
"L'appel de Kadhafi n'a rien à voir avec l'islam", a réagi de son côté Bachir Gobdon, de l'association culturelle somalienne de Zurich. "Cet appel n'est pas tolérable, nous ne voulons rien à voir à faire avec cela", a-t-il ajouté
"Qadafi's call has nothing to do with Islam" reacted Bachir Gobdon of the cultural somalian assoc. "This call is not tolerable, we want nothing to do with it" he added.
NicoleK at February 26, 2010 6:50 AM
I think the opposite is happening. She told the Tea Party folks not to pick a figurehead, not to let their movement be identified with a particular person. At the convention in Nashville where she spoke, she was distant and aloof, not campaigning.
Personally, I like much of what she says, but I worry that she just says it because it's what people want to hear. I'm encouraged that she took on corruption within her own party. If she ran for President, I don't know if I'd vote for her in a primary, but in a general election I can't imagine her Democratic opponent having a better platform than she does.
Pseudonym at February 26, 2010 10:58 AM
>>Pacifism is amoral. At best.
Hey Skipper,
I am not a pacifist. But I disagree with that essay.
Yes, it is possible to paint the individual pacifist as a deluded parasite in practical terms.
You can despise - and mock - the pacifist for absurd idealism. You can shun him, send him or her white feathers in wartime & loudly hope he meets a violent end - because it'll serve him right!
It doesn't make the principle itself either amoral - or immoral.
Jody Tresidder at February 26, 2010 11:12 AM
Wasn't this all summed up in the Team America 'D!cks, P#ssies, & @$$holes' speech?
http://tinyurl.com/ydwlqoo
lsomber at February 26, 2010 12:02 PM
I was annoyed with her when I read this:
Palin told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the grass-roots movement would be wise to "pick a party" because she said "it is easier to reform one of the parties than it is to form a new machine and new process via a third party."
I felt a little more forgiving when:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged the tea parties on Thursday to "take over" the Republican Party.
But I am suspicious. Isn't she just trying to get the tea partiers to vote Republican? The tea parties are libertarian in nature. I'm not even sure that it IS, in fact, easier to reform a party than build a new one. I think this might be the perfect time to build a new party - everyone is pissed off at record levels with the current ones.
Pirate Jo at February 26, 2010 12:03 PM
Yes, it is possible to paint the individual pacifist as a deluded parasite in practical terms.
...
It doesn't make pacifism itself either amoral - or immoral.
Pacifism exists due only to the non-pacifist actions of others. Therefore, it is impossible to paint any individual pacifist, or pacifism in general, other than as free-riding parasites.
So, despite their lofty claims, they -- at best -- morally deluded. The presumptions are so preposterously self contradictory that it is very difficult imagining anyone of normal intellectual acuity tumbling for them.
Hey Skipper at February 26, 2010 2:15 PM
>>The presumptions are so preposterously self contradictory that it is very difficult imagining anyone of normal intellectual acuity tumbling for them.
But, Hey Skipper, what if they are aware of the contradictions (as many pacifists are) but still espouse the ideal?
Einstein wasn't dumb.
"Though Einstein considered himself a pacifist and believed war to immoral, his findings were a staple in creating the nuclear weapons used in WWII. In his own words: "unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged.".
Though his works in physics were used in creating the bomb, this was not his greatest effort which set it off. He wrote a letter to President Roosevelt revealing the information about Germany’s plan to make bombs for themselves. This letter set off what is now known as the “Manhattan Project”. He later felt this was a mistake, saying "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them,".
Though he was a pacifist, stating that if there ever was a war then he would not participate directly or indirectly, he briefly and reluctantly retracted his beliefs on war after the rise of Hitler. Because of this, he participated in helping the US build its own atomic warhead. He wrote to another physicist about what an epiphany he had about the future of atomic weapons: "When the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life,".
Jody Tresidder at February 26, 2010 2:32 PM
If I remember correctly, Einstein lived in a society, the US, which included law enforcement.
Which occasionally must resort to force.
Which benefits him.
Unless he would refuse to call the police should he witness criminal violence happening to anyone, then he is not a pacifist.
Instead, he is fooling himself, and you.
And, I couldn't help noting that this:
"When the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life,".
So far is dead wrong.
Finally, he must have been against the Korean War, which means he is in favor of the North Korean regime.
See what I mean by amoral?
Hey Skipper at February 26, 2010 4:22 PM
>>Unless he would refuse to call the police should he witness criminal violence happening to anyone, then he is not a pacifist.
Instead, he is fooling himself, and you.
Hey Skipper,
I don't believe Einstein was unaware that his position was open to ridicule. And I agree he wasn't a great prophet in matters of politics!
I just don't agree that makes him an amoral dumb fuck.
Jody Tresidder at February 26, 2010 4:41 PM
"There's many countries out there who would LOVE to buy their way to Uncle Sam's ear and they would gladly buy any U.S. securities the Sino Giant would let go."
Can you say, "John Huang"? You know - the guy making out with Slick Willie while everybody fixated on Monica?
About pacifism: a nation is made of individuals. Are you a member of the Nation of Cowards?
Radwaste at February 26, 2010 4:45 PM
>>About pacifism: a nation is made of individuals. Are you a member of the "Nation of Cowards"?
Talk about a sermon for the amen corner, Radwaste!
Yeah, I did read it.
This bit seemed especially crass: "Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, [the handgun] can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many."
Just "a modicum" of cool required? Really? It's that easy?
Jody Tresidder at February 26, 2010 7:54 PM
> I just don't agree that makes him an amoral dumb fuck.
Good resolution of that point. Maybe his opinion is worth knowing, but that doesn't mean his leadership in fizziks applies to the moral realm. Pretty soon, people will be asking Jolie and Madonna how to care for children in the third world....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 26, 2010 8:06 PM
"Just "a modicum" of cool required? Really? It's that easy?"
It is for some, and not for others. It is easier for those who prepare, who are trained. Mr. Snyder's column doesn't refer to armed people as poseurs, but as people who have decided what they will and won't do in important circumstances.
There are those who will call a small man defending his daughter against a gang a savage murderer if he kills one of the gang, because people of that sort have bought the idea that we must treat the thug and the valedictorian the same. Others are horrified at the idea that there are cases when only violence can stop violence. That is why we lack the resolve as a nation to do what must be done: the subject is distasteful to enough of the population that ignorance and fantasies appear wherever "security" is breathed aloud. You see the awesomely disgusting stupidity of the Transportation Security Administration at every airport - and in the apathy of passengers in their role of animals to be herded.
Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute teaches many things, not the least of which is that the niceties of "the law", whatever the participants of a fracas think of it, have no bearing on the outcome of any encounter involving force. This is as true for nations as it is for individuals. Both have to be prepared for the action beforehand and the reaction afterward. For you, the citizen, the state may try you to see if you have usurped the role the state demands for its own: arbiter in all cases of life and death. You do not dare grin for having actually survived criminal attack, because criminals are a protected species to many -- especially those who would hate you for simple competence, for not being a victim of some kind, just like them.
Radwaste at February 26, 2010 8:28 PM
Jody:
Hey Skipper,
I don't believe Einstein was unaware that his position was open to ridicule. And I agree he wasn't a great prophet in matters of politics!
Pacifism is ridiculous, regardless of who espouses it. The underlying reasoning, such as it is, has nothing to do with personalities.
Einstein was a genius, perhaps unsurpassed, in physics.
That doesn't mean his opinion is worth any more than diddly when it comes to car repair, or political philosophy.
Citing him in this regard amounts to argument from authority, and nothing more.
Hey Skipper at February 27, 2010 12:36 AM
Jody:
Hey Skipper,
I don't believe Einstein was unaware that his position was open to ridicule. And I agree he wasn't a great prophet in matters of politics!
Pacifism is is just a fancy way to say free-loading, regardless of who espouses it. Pacifists are preen their moral feathers, while relying upon others for the opportunity.
Einstein was a genius, perhaps unsurpassed, in physics.
That doesn't mean his opinion is worth any more than diddly when it comes to car repair, or political philosophy, or morality.
Citing him in this regard amounts to argument from authority, and nothing more.
Hey Skipper at February 27, 2010 12:43 AM
>>It is for some, and not for others.
Well, at least you conceded the inaccuracy of the "modicum" part of Mr. Snyder's guns-for-all screed, Radwaste!
Jody Tresidder at February 27, 2010 3:55 AM
Einstein was a genius, perhaps unsurpassed, in physics. That doesn't mean his opinion is worth any more than diddly when it comes to car repair, or political philosophy.
Dunno about car repair specifically, Hey Skipper.
But Einstein wasn't just a physicist!
"Einstein is often characterized as strictly a theoretician; it was refreshing to learn that he had real mechanical ability. He received several patents, two of which were for a navigational device for ships and the other for a refrigerator..."
Jody Tresidder at February 27, 2010 4:01 AM
>>Maybe his opinion is worth knowing, but that doesn't mean his leadership in fizziks applies to the moral realm.
Crid,
I think you put it well, that Einstein's opinion in this matter is "worth knowing" (for obvious reasons!). But with considerable caveats about how much weight it should carry.
I like that.
Jody Tresidder at February 27, 2010 5:25 AM
Jody, "A Nation of Cowards" isn't a "guns-for-all screed". It's a call to recognize the truly huge hypocrisy of those who call for us to regard ourselves as great without doing anything to prove it. Jeff Snyder knows, as do all professionals, that there are those who really are a danger to themselves and others when given any power - and power takes different forms.
Focus on the gun, and you have made the same awful error so many others have: transfer the duty of responsibility to an inanimate object, a symbol, at once of the mythology that power has no price and of the desire to shift blame.
Boy, it's easy to see a gun. Gun. Gun! Gun! GUN! Call it out, and you can make fearful people do what you want - if you are not fearful, yourself.
Radwaste at February 27, 2010 7:42 AM
>>Focus on the gun, and you have made the same awful error so many others have...
But I didn't, Radwaste.
I very, very purposefully focused on exactly what Synder unambiguously stated regarding the mere "modicum" of cool required for a person to effectively use a handgun.
With a split infinitive to boot!
Jody Tresidder at February 27, 2010 8:09 AM
In fact, Radwaste;
By crassly over simplifying the minimum skills necessary for effective handgun ownership, Synder has shot himself in the foot!.
Jody Tresidder at February 27, 2010 8:26 AM
Oh, bull.
You "very, very purposefully focused" on something completely true for those with training or even with long association with firearms - something less common as the years pass. You're making it out to be something else because you can - because Jeff didn't load his "guns-for-all screed" (as you put it) with explanations just for you, about the difference between you and, say, a concealed-carry permit holder.
Don't be an idiot about this. You have to be cool, but you don't have to be cold-blooded, to defend yourself with a gun.
He's right. Which is why he was cited.
But you're happy, and that's all that counts.
You might want to think about the term, "effective".
But maybe not.
Radwaste at February 27, 2010 3:31 PM
>>You "very, very purposefully focused" on something completely true for those with training or even with long association with firearms - something less common as the years pass.
Radwaste,
Now you're just confirming that Snyder's entire essay is - as I said from the start - no more than preaching to the amen corner.
It's only intended for "those with training or even with long association with firearms".
Which explains why I didn't find it persuasive.
(And I didn't say anything at all about needing to be "cold-blooded" to use a gun! That's nuts.)
Jody Tresidder at February 28, 2010 4:48 AM
Leave a comment