The story in his head.

By now, I'm assuming that readers of this blog are aware of PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

If not, go over Michelle Malkin's site and keep scrolling.

My post is a bit of a follow to Grim's post on bloggers and journalists.

What we see here is something similar. Beauchamp has a story in his head and he got to tell it, but unfortunately, he confused his reality (or truth? or fiction?) with actual facts and incidents and mundane and boring things like that.

I think he's going to get a big dose of reality pretty soon though. Check out his 1SG and Captain, here: A/1/18 INF

It was a workable plan: Join the Army, serve in Iraq, return to civilian life and then be able with "absolute moral authority" make shit up. And become some "authentic voice" of the Iraq war, and be a writer and do that whole bohemian writer thing.

But, PVT Snuffy screwed it up by prematurely ejaculating his fictions. If he'd waited to get out, in a year or two, things could have been--would have been--more difficult to refute or verify or whatever. It would have worked. But maybe the moment would have passed too, by then, since it appears that Hollywood is set to start its Freidenssturm this fall with Anti-war movies, probably as a spoiling attack at influencing the 2008 presidential election. (Or so they think--me, I think their movies will fail miserably.)

Anyway, going back to that idea that "journalists" have their own truth or story that they want to tell, we see that The New Republic badly wanted to tell a story that PVT Beauchamp fitted perfectly into. And so they did. 10 years ago they would have go away with it. Not anymore.

And that's a good thing.

UPDATE:
bthun finds an actual email from A/1/18's 1SG here at "the Foxhole"

1SG Hatley pretty much confirms what I thought.

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City - Note for Travelers:

I had occasion to visit Oklahoma City last weekend, and saw two things worth mentioning in this Hall.

Something to see: the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. I cannot too highly recommend this. I have never seen a musem so well balanced for a family visit. We didn't enter the children's exhibit (which had a building all to itself), but we did see the rest of it. Mrs. W. especially liked the western art gallery - I liked best the rooms dedicated to postbellum military life and ranching history, but thanks to Grim's posts, I didn't neglect the section dedicated to Western movies, and prominent actors and stuntmen. I have an idea that some of our regular visitors would simply take the whole family to the arms collection (which is half Colt, half "everyone else") and spend a few hours there.

Something not to see: the Oklahoma City memorial. As you likely know, this is dedicated to the Oklahoma City bombing. You can see large displays of the timeline, and hear a recording of a water board meeting that was taking place at the time of the explosion, and you can see collected items from the rubble (including a box of children's shoes). However, as the lady at the front desk explained, they didn't want to focus on "him", so you won't actually hear anything about the perpetrator, not even his name, nor learn his fate. The missus noticed a large group of schoolchildren there, and cogently asked, exactly what lesson were they going to take away from this? That dying in a terrorist attack is sad?

Home At Last

After six hundred fifty days, a soldier comes home:

[O]ur two buses were joined by escorts from the State Patrol, and a couple of dozen motorcycles from the Patriot Riders and the American Legion. As we crossed every county line in Minnesota, we picked up a new escort from the local sheriff. Just outside of Owatonna, our procession turned into a parade with hundreds of motorcycles leading us, and thousands of people lining our route. Our luxury coach bus included tinted windows, so I'm not sure if the folks we passed saw us waving back, or how many of us had to turn away as we were overcome with emotion.

When we finally arrived at the Owatonna Armory, we had to wait a few minutes as the crowd of hundreds made way for our buses. Despite our extended absence, we are still soldiers and we still had to do what soldiers do-stand in formation. After a wonderfully brief blessing from the chaplain, and the equally short remarks by our commander, we heard the word we were waiting for-

DISMISSED!

In the chaos of the huge crowd it took me a few minutes to find my family. I had to call my wife on her cell phone before we could find each other. Most of the next few minutes are a blur in my mind even now, but hugging my kids and kissing my wife are memories that will stay with me until I am old and gray. The sacrifices and hardships of the last two years seemed at once a small price when an older gentleman in a VFW uniform, WWII or Korea Vet by his age, shook my hand with a tear in his eye and thanked me for keeping his family safe.

Via Fuzzy.

Bloggers/Journalists

Bloggers & Journalists:

I recently wrote a piece at B5 in response to an article from Harpers, in which I offered an education for journalists into the nature of blogging.

I must admit that today I got something of an education, as a blogger, into the nature of journalism.

Here's my advice: If you do an interview with a journalist, don't expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of.

I find I honestly don't know quite how to describe my thoughts about that.

I don't want to say that it's treason, because that has political connotations I do not intend. And yet that is exactly, precisely the correct word. It is treason -- not against a political order, or a people, or a country, to be sure.

It is a betrayal, nevertheless, of the thing to which a journalist was supposed to be devoted, to which their loyalty was alleged to belong. For years we have heard their proper loyalty was not to country, but to the reporting of the truth:

Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?

"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.

Now comes Ms. Penelope Trunk to assert that she has, and feels no one can or ought to have, any loyalty even to "reporting the truth." It's not about the story they are watching unfold in front of them; it's about the story they brought along with them. A journalist who comes to interview you isn't there to tell your story, she says; she is being paid to tell hers, which you may not be a part of.

To what, then, is a journalist meant to be loyal? It is not country; they have no "higher duty" to country. It is not to the story unfolding in front of them; they cannot be loyal to that, she asserts, and ought not to try to be. It is to their own story, to the story in their head.

They should be loyal, in other words, only to themselves.

This seems right and proper to her.

I don't know how to deal with people like that. It's a shocking admission, or at least, it ought to be.

Lacplesis

The Epic of Lacplesis

My recent switch to the active Army caused me to undergo some leadership training. One of my fellow trainees was a magnificent Soldier from Latvia. While planning a PT session, I had occasion to check out the national epic of Latvia – Lacplesis. This heroic epic may be of interest to the guests in this Hall, and I found it inspiring. You can read it at Project Gutenberg here (the translation is into assonant verse; if you’re familiar with the Song of Roland it’ll have a familiar feel), or at least part of a later translation here.

Lacplesis – his name means “the bear slayer” – was raised by bears, and himself had a huge pair of hairy, bear-like ears. These ears were to Lacplesis was Samson’s hair was to him – the source of his strength. The epic traces his destiny as discussed by the pagan Latvian gods, then his heroic deeds and death.

Two events especially impressed me. The first was Lacplesis’ combat with the Estonian giant Kalapuisis. The Estonian Army is invading Latvia, and Kalapuisis is also ravaging the countryside (but separately from the army). Lacplesis sends his trusted friend to raise an army against the Estonians, and goes to face the giant himself. Kalapuisis knocks him from his horse, but he fells the giant with a single blow – and then shows mercy. They make a sworn covenant that Latvia and Estonia will never fight again, and that Kalapuisis will instead help to guard both countries against the coming invasion by the Germans.

Unlike Gilgamesh, Lacplesis does not seek out his opponent to win glory for himself – I don’t see any of that in his character – but simply to save his countrymen. And he has the foresight and the strategic sense to think beyond simply killing his enemies. When a deadly enemy is down, you cut his throat or help him to his feet, and sometimes the latter is the best (or the only) course. Lacplesis speaks to me in a way that some heroes of legend do not. This may in part be because the epic was composed in the 19th century and I haven’t read the earlier legends on which it was based – I know the Arthur of Excalibur is more understandable to a modern viewer than is the Arthur of Mallory, and if I knew Tennyson’s version I would doubtless think the same.

The other event that impresses me is the death of Lacplesis. A Latvian traitor who has sold his soul to Satan learns Lacplesis’ weakness through black magic, and gives the information to a German, who picks a witchborn black knight (and confirmed ravager and villain) to make use of it. The knight visits Lacplesis’ hall as a guest, takes part in a tournament, breaks Lacplesis’ sword, and cuts off both his ears – thus robbing him of his superhuman strength. Lacplesis, undaunted, makes an end like Sherlock Holmes’ – he wrestles his enemy over a cliff and into a deep river, where both sink from view. The tale ends tragically, as the Germans then overrun Latvia, but there is hope for the future – Lacplesis can be seen in the river, still striving with the knight, and someday he will prevail and his country will be free (as, indeed, it is today).

Some heroes of legend rely entirely on their god-born powers – and their “heroism” seems to consist mainly of crushing out lesser beings who don’t stand a chance against them. Now I believe in fighting the good fight with every unfair advantage possible; but what Lacplesis understood was that, when all that’s gone and your enemy has the upper hand, the choice still lies with you: to keep fighting or not. And you can see that he had something greater than mere power; he had the heart to fight when everything else was gone.

I commend this heroic tale to all.

The Involunteers:

A new poem by Russ Vaughn of Old War Dogs.

One thing to me rings loud and clear
Through mainstream media sources:
Libs don’t understand, Volunteer,
When it comes to our fighting forces.

Their memories hark to former days,
Dubious deferments due to classes,
Craven cowering in cynical ways,
Just to cover their cowardly asses.

Pony-tailed pundits of treason foregoing,
Now scoff and condemn with derision,
Volunteer warriors, warned and knowing,
Who’ve made a fateful decision,

Foregoing the comforts liberals love,
That very succor to preserve,
A concept Libs are ignorant of:
To reap benefits, one should serve.

Ever fearful, Libs cower in classrooms,
Proclaiming the due of the masses;
On graves of the brave, toxic mushrooms,
Still cravenly covering their asses.

Preaching, protesting, showing their ire,
Cat-box covering all their worst fears,
Cowardly curs afraid of war’s fire,
They’re our nation’s Involunteers.

I know a truth from mankind’s past,
A truth that sure prevails;
Those who fight are those will last,
Throughout all man’s travails.

But those making phony excuses,
As false and fearful disguise,
Will feel history’s worst abuses,
Enslaved by their cowardly lies.


Russ Vaughn

101st and 82d Airborne
1959-1967

Fixed links

Permalinks Finally Fixed:

Now, only several months after it became a problem, our permalinks work again. Thanks to Fuzzy for giving me a tip about what the problem was likely to be; I finally had time to sit and dig through the code.

If anyone reading this knows how to do "if/then/else" statements in webpage code, drop me an email please. I've got a change I want to make to the page to make it easier to recognize the author of a post, but I haven't figured out how to tell the computer to do what I want. :)

Language & Terrorism

Language and Terrorism:

A scholarly article at The Chronicle of Higher Educationmakes the case for calling people names. Well, not just any people:

The reasons fall into five categories.

The first rationale amounts to political correctness, however odd that may ring in regard to terrorism, the most political of all matters on the government's plate. It's the reflexive unwillingness of officials to express moral and political beliefs for fear they'll insult and offend others. Remember Fowler's classic definition of euphemism: "mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth."

These days officials win praise for such evasion. In London, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil-rights group Liberty, observed of Gordon Brown that he "has passed the first test of his administration. He has not played politics with the terror threat and has treated this weekend's events as an operational rather than a political matter."

But if the admirable part of political correctness is that one shouldn't utter unsupportable, reactionary ethnic, gender, or other generalizations, that principle is misapplied in the case of terrorists, who are picked out for condemnation by their acts alone. Aren't "bastards," "scum," and so on precisely the right terms for people who seek to maim and kill presumably innocent others to make a political point?

A second reason for muted language is the notion that not using emotional, judgmental words means one is acting more rationally and efficiently. Here, too, current clichés of proper official behavior encourage word-mincing. New Home Secretary Jacqui Smith won applause for the "calmness and dignity" of her remarks to Parliament after the failed car bombings.

That backslap makes little sense in regard to commentary on terrorists. Are all morally judgmental words "emotive"? Few would think that calling terrorists "wrong" or "immoral" counts as emotive, though branding them "evil" might slip into that category nowadays, on the ground that President Bush gave "evil" a bad name. The step to "cowardly" or "barbarian" strikes far more people as worrisome verbal escalation. What, though, is the logical inference between emotionally strong language by responsible people and irrational action? We don't expect President Bush to make weepy, emotionally upset decisions because he emerges teary-eyed from meetings with American families who've lost loved ones in Iraq. We don't expect religious figures or ordinary people who deliver strong, moving remarks at funerals to make irrational decisions immediately afterward. Why infer such things with politicians?

A third reason, construable as a corollary of the second, is that citizens don't want to see their leaders act emotionally. Hitler's histrionics and Khrushchev's shoe-pounding remain quintessential Bigfoot examples of the political equation that emotional language signals demagoguery. On a different scale, famous moments in American political history, such as Sen. Edward Muskie's alleged crying over attacks on his wife, reinforced a perceived equation between emotion and weakness.

Here one would like to see a poll. Politicians might be surprised by the result.

A fourth reason for morally neutral language about terrorism is fear that emotional, insulting language might make terrorists angrier and more dangerous. An old anecdote about former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir figures on the other side. Once, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, someone reportedly warned that the action contemplated would anger the Palestinians. Shamir supposedly replied, "Are they going to hate us more?" — implying that enemies of Israel had already hit their max in that department, freeing Israel from such consequentialist calculations. A similar logic appears more applicable to terrorists than fear of inciting them to greater ferocity. That aside, fear that insulting or strongly judging terrorists will cause greater terrorism appears to contradict the logic behind emotionless security talk itself — that violence is prevented by tough tactical measures rather than rhetoric. So long as rigorous tactics remain in place during rhetorical upgradings, things should not get worse.

Finally, there is the reason, intuited even by nonexperts on rhetoric, that repeating such language weakens its power. Listening to President Bush denounce terrorists every day as cowards would grow old fast, this thinking goes, as did hearing the mantra that "terrorists hate our freedom." Here, one might nonetheless ask, for what would we be trying to hold language's power in reserve? For another 9/11? A dirty bomb exploded in an American city? Is anything short of slaughtering thousands at a time insufficient for moral outrage? Nonuse of morally strong language arguably saps it of power more than repeated use, making it seem quaint and archaic.

It's interesting that we live in a country in which we often hear our political opponents and fellow Americans called terrible names, but terrorists are normally named "insurgents" or "fighters" or even "activists." The use of the term "terrorist" without scare quotes by an organization like Reuters is cause for note.

A long time ago I remember there was a push from some circles to call Arab terrorists mufsidoon, meaning "evildoer" in Arabic. You see the term now and then, but it never caught on. People adopted "jihadist" instead, falling into just the trap warned against: letting the terrorist be labeled as one doing religious work, performing a religious duty.

The Chronicle suggests that we shouldn't be quite so civilized as mufsidoon anyway: "Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world."

Savages. I like it.

Cass's fault

Goodnight, Cass:

This is all her fault.


LikeTelevision Embed Movies and TV Shows

Tales Bar

Tales from the Spaceport Bar:

That was the title of a book I remember reading back about twenty years ago -- ah, here it is. I had to go down to Atlanta to pick up someone flying in to Hartsfield-Jackson International, one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. Flights tend to be delayed, so you take a seat at the bar, order a Guinness, and see what happens....

Two minutes after I had my beer in front of me, a guy sat down next to me who had the look of someone I needed to talk to. Short hair, muscular, Hawaiian shirt -- I read that as US military, on leave from PACOM. Right the first time, it turned out. He was actually a resident of the US military mission in Thailand, but has been on TDY in Hawaii lately. Passing through ATL to deal with family. We had a lot to talk about, however, as he knew quite a few people in the Philippines right now. Since I'm helping Bill Roggio arrange a mission out there, it was a useful conversation. Nice guy. Showed me pictures of his fiancee, a very pretty Thai girl whom he'll be bringing back.

After he pulled out, my contact was still not there, so I talked to the guy who took his seat. Polish, this one, named Tek. First time in America, but he has excellent English as he attended the American college in Rome, and has lived in England. He dances around polite conversation before asking the question Euros always want to ask: what do you think of the President?

I tell him, and we talk politics for a while. He's got a Polish perspective, but that's all right with me -- I like Poles, a lot in fact, and know the history well enough to join him. We talk about Vietnam, Iraq, the Soviet invasions of Eastern Europe. I tell him that America has always fought for those who wanted to fight for liberty, and he nods at once. "That's true," he says with a serious expression. You can see that matters to him. After half an hour or so, America -- you can tell he's excited to be here -- seems more comfortable.

He asks me about wildlife, so we talk about bears, mountain lions, alligators. He's going to Florida. I warn him about how silent and fast gators can be. He's shocked by all of it. "So you mean you could just be walking along out in the woods and suddenly there would be a bear or a crocodile?" he asks.

"Alligator," I remind him.

"Alligator," he says. "That's amazing. In Europe you could never just be out, and meet a dangerous animal. You must carry a rifle all the time."

"A revolver," I say. This starts him off on another topic, so I show him my firearms license. I explain about how the police have my fingerprints, so if I do anything wrong they'll know it was me. He's lived in London, and knows what gun crime is getting to be like there. Another eye-opening conversation, you can see.

About this time, my contact shows up and it's time to go. We shake hands, Tek and I; I welcome him to America. He's glad to be here. I'm glad he came.

I pay my tab; I've been there three hours, and have three beers on it. Two of them are mine; one of them belonged to the soldier from PACOM. He got one of mine, so we're even, but I met my goal of always buying a beer for a serviceman when I drink at an airport. My contact and I head back towards the mountains.

It's a bad world, my old friend from Freemantle used to say; but it can be a good life. With beer and company, and adventure to discuss, it can be good enough.

It's Friday.



Go get a cold one.

Private Security on the Border

Grits for Breakfast points to an interesting article from The Monitor of McAllen, Texas. In short, there is a proposal to put private contractors on the border in an effort to strengthen the US Border Patrol. Of course a Washington spokesman for the Border Patrol says it’s unthinkable… and of course I’ve already begun seeing the “don’t militarize the Valley” (see the comments on Grits).

I think it’s an excellent idea. Ideally, I would like to see Marine and Army Reserve units deployed down South… but due to the deployment schedule this may not feasible. So I’m willing to privatize the endeavor. While I understand Grits lack of faith in DynCorp there are US firms out there without the stigma they have.

As I said, I don’t trust the Border Patrol’s spokesman. I know it’s anecdotal, but my brother is Texas Highway Patrol in Marfa, Texas (border town) and the security situation is appalling to hear him tell it. Add to that, the Valley is already a pain in the ass as regards Border Patrol checkpoints that are miles from the actual border… complete with overbearing Border Agents.

I realize the popular liberal response is to play the “poor undocumented immigrant looking for a better life” card in response to securing the border. I’m not really concerned with the average dishonest, lawbreaking, Mexicans swimming the border to pick fruit or clean homes… I’m more concerned with the higher level of dishonest, lawbreaking, Mexicans who invade homes, kill citizens, destroy property, or cartels smuggling arms or drugs and outgunning our Border Patrol.

Ev. psych

Evolutionary Psychology and Human Nature:

A fascinating article examines the question of human nature, focused particularly on relations between men and women. For example, did you know that monogamy is bad for women, whereas polygamy is bad for men?

Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.

In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

Actually, it sounds like polygamy is better for men too, in the long run -- it creates men who are stronger and fitter in the future. It's just bad for the current crop of men, who want to get women and can't.

Oh, and for those who'd prefer to avoid suicide bombers. The role of Islamic polygamy in suicide bombing is considered in the article as well. More shockingly, from a personal perspective, is this claim that feminists were right: chivalry and courtesy are forms of discrimination against women. Men who don't discriminate against women instead use sexual harrassment:

Sexual harassment cases of the hostile-environment variety result from sex differences in what men and women perceive as "overly sexual" or "hostile" behavior. Many women legitimately complain that they have been subjected to abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment by their male coworkers. Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment.

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.

I suppose I'll have to accept the role of a proud discriminator, then. Grim's Hall continues to insist on chivalric behavior toward ladies, in spite of these new revelations.

Marine Cleared

Marine Cleared in Haditha Investigation:

Red State has the story.

He got his wish.

It appears that Abdul Rashid Ghazi was killed in the assault on the 'red' mosque in Islamabad today.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, I'm thinking.

Now what will be even more interesting is whether this deflates the radicals, or stirs them up more.

I predict at least two more brazen assassination attempts on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Can't do anything

Endless Regulations:

As if to underscore the point made two posts down, OSHA weighs in with a "proposed rule" governing "explosives," by which they explicitly also mean "small arms ammunition." Although the rule takes the time to state that such ammunition is covered, it doesn't take the time to distinguish how small arms ammunition is different from, say, dynamite.

So, if this rule goes into effect, manufacturers of ammunition will go out of business due to the costs of complying with new rules, which costs are estimated over $100 million. Stores stocking ammunition will be forbidden to allow firearms on the premises -- which means that outfitting stores will have to sell guns or ammunition, not both. (Of course, there may be no ammunition to sell.) Any store that does sell ammunition will be required to physically search prospective buyers before they will be allowed to approach the display.

NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly “adversely affect in a material way” the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
“Significant Regulatory Action” as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

I tried www.regulations.gov myself tonight, but the system offers no clear way of knowing if your comments have been accepted or ignored. I'll mail a hard copy letter in the morning.

This is just the sort of nonsense I was talking about below. We've got to get a handle on this kind of regulatory garbage if, or bureaucrats will fritter away what remains of our heritage of freedom.

Anabasis II

Anabasis, Book I Chapter II:

The Commissar's project continues. Especially if you haven't read Anabasis before, you might enjoy following along with his efforts. The comments from readers are also interesting.

Republican Platform

A Republican Platform:

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change wrote a hypothetical Democratic nominee acceptance speech, to show where he thinks the Democratic Party should go. I undertook to argue with him about it at some length, as did one David Blue, a sharp fellow I've debated in the past. AL responded by suggesting that we jointly compose a Republican platform.

I thought that was hilarious, since I'm a Southern Democrat, and David Blue is an Australian. On reflection, however, I decided that the Republicans seem to be in need of any help they can get. David agreed, so we hammered something out.

Since it fell into the comments at WoC, I figured I'd get it into one place.

AL's original post is here.

My main rebuttal is here. I'll quote it in full b/c it's important to the later platform.

I'd like to note that you have not addressed either of the two most serious problems for the liberal tradition in America. Social Security is the first; and the Federal pension/healthcare programs are the second. The costs of these are estimated to be fifty-nine trillion in hidden debt, not currently budgeted.

The government's response when asked about it was to oppose changes in accounting policies to account for those debts. Why? "The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them."

So here's the stark truth as I see it: the government is stating baldly that it has no intention of paying those liabilities -- but intends, and indeed will have, to "cancel or cut them."

That will create massive problems for our country when it starts to occur. It will also be the dead end for the Reform Liberal tradition. No one is going to trust the government to handle their pension or Social Security or healthcare after the depth of their deceit becomes unavoidably clear.

Nor should they trust them now. It is already plain, and being articulated by the government itself, that these promises will not be honored. We need to begin privitizing American society now, so that the shock of the collapse of these promises -- and, indeed, the collapse of any remaining faith in the government -- will do less damage to the nation. The private sphere will survive when the government collapses -- for who will work in its bureaucracies when they see how the promises made to their ancestors are kept?

If the reality is a much smaller government, refocused on the actual Constitutional business of government, it may be worth the price. But we should start preparing for that world, because it's coming whether you want it or not.

Now: A general critique:

I have to admit I wouldn't feel good about voting for a politician who promised to "work damn hard" on "solutions" that "would never solve" the problems. What I want out of government is a lot less meddling, not a lot more -- especially in areas where we don't fully understand the problems yet, or the kinds of problems don't lend themselves to government-led solutions.

That's a general critique. I don't object (as do Libertarians or some conservatives) to using the government to influence the nature of the economy, for example, in order to create a society we would prefer to the one the market will create. For example, I think a policy designed to boost individual ownership of small business and family farms would be of great social value to America. Nothing against corporations; it's just that people are freer, as Jefferson noted in praising 'yeomen farmers,' when they own their own means of production.

But if we can't actually solve a problem, let's leave it alone. No meddling in the affairs of the People unless we can both name a specific policy we want to enact, and show that it has a reasonable chance of success for resolving the actual problem it addresses -- and won't create nasty unintended effects.

The desire to "fix" things that can't be fixed, or that we don't really know how to fix, is the single worst impulse of liberal politicians today. It creates an endless nest of binding rules and regulations, laws and agencies, taxes and tape, until whole areas of human freedom are lost -- and the problem never got fixed anyway.

More specific critiques:

Good points on the DPRK and Iran. Concurr.

Re: Palestine and Israel, see above on the subject of impossible problems and the unsuitability of US gov't meddling in them. For God's sake, let's not involve ourselves any further in this business. Israel's government may have to involve itself with this particular problem-without-solution, but we don't. "The United States has tried to make good faith efforts in the past to help negotiate a solution," we should say, "but we must admit that they have failed. It is time for Israel and Palestine to resolve their differences between themselves, or using such other moderators as they agree to prefer. While we will not stand by for an invasion of either territory by a third party, this dispute must be resolved by the involved parties alone."

As for military restructuring, I think I've written enough about that in the past to avoid needing to speak to it further here.

Now, your big economic question: "How do me make the basics of the American dream - a white picket fence and a better future for our kids - available to people who don't have advanced degrees or trust funds?"

I said above that I think the #1 thing we need to do is encourage the development of small business and family farms. That means a wholesale restructuring of farm aid policies; it also means rethinking government contracting, and perhaps accepting paying more for services and goods rather than going for lowest bidder status. Economies of scale aren't always available to small businesses, but we'd prefer a nation with more of them anyway.

There are other things of this type we can do. We can subsidize education for useful trades (more at the state than the federal level, as states have different needs and are not well served by a one-size-fits-all policy). We can create tax benefits for small businesses v. larger corporations; heck, we could simply forgo taxing small businesses and family farms at all, at least at first.

The number one thing we need to do is dramatically cut back on the regulation of such businesses. We need to make it easy to set one up, so you don't need a lawyer and an accountant to make and sell furniture out of your wood shop.

We need to exempt small businesses from some ADA regulations, so that you can open a restaurant out of your kitchen without having to rebuild your house to accomodate wheelchairs. I knew a nice Korean couple in China who had a business whereby you could come by at supper, and eat what they were cooking for a small price. Or, for more, they'd make something special for you. That's the sort of thing anyone can do -- some extra income for a retired couple, perhaps -- except for the regulations out the ear.

Etc.

Another thing we could do (which speaks to your desire to build America in copper, steel, etc) is reestablish the CCC. Public improvements can be made by young people who are learning a trade at the same time. They have to subject themselves to orders and contracts (one of the CCC's things was that you didn't get the money you earned -- it went to your family. We might have to set up a 'trust fund' type account that you pay into, but can't draw out of except for education until you're 35). In return, they learn how to do something very well, for free; and they get the satisfaction of building something impressive (ever driven the Blue Ridge Parkway?).

Education will benefit most from being privatized. We need to start ending public education. It can't be done all at once, but we can start shifting a percentage of our expenses every year to helping establish new private schools (another small business!) and establishing voucher programs. We should aim to eliminate public schools, with their attendant bureaucracies and public-sector unions, within fifteen years.

You want your mother making $30,000 to have a shot at Harvard? I'd suggest you aim higher, myself, but if that's what you want... let her pick the school that is right for child and his particular talents. Harvard already doesn't require families making under $60,000 to pay tuition, so if we can handle educating the individual child to his best advantage, he should have a pretty good shot.

Or he could go to a real school, like West Point. The service academies are exempted from the critique of public education, as they are better than any other public education. They are better because they train the whole man (or woman): they train the mind and they strengthen the body, they improve his personal willpower and discipline so that he can excel, but also inculcate a sense of the debt that we owe to our nation and its traditions. This is what American education should want to produce.

As for your environmental policies, I have a few comments.

1) You want to get the worst polluters off the road. This conflicts with your desire to help the poor, unless you plan to buy them a car: most of the worst polluters are the oldest vehicles, which are barely kept running because that is what the owner can afford.

2) You want to decentralize to help us against terror attacks. This I agree with entirely, and not merely for terrorist reasons; but again, you need cars for that. I am a great believer in light rail systems -- Virginia's VRE was a wonderful way to commute, when I had to get into DC. But you can't run a railroad everywhere. Most of America is going to drive where it needs to go.

That "most" of America is also the poorest part of America -- the money is in the cities. So, again, unless you're going to buy new fuel-efficient pickups for the rural poor, you're hitting a conflict.

3) Building new plants is a great idea. Moving power generation closer to where it's being generated is a great idea.

4) We should encourage better air quality and other environmental benefits through tax breaks rather than new regulations and oversight agencies. We should always endeavor to avoid regulation, and keep taxes as low as at all possible; so let us do so here.

David began the "R" platform here:

#24 from Armed Liberal: "David B - do you want to coordinate w/Grim on the "fantasy Republican" response?"

Sure.

If you don't think it's too badly off topic, we could start discussing it here, in the context of what you said and the need for Republicans to have an answer to this.

#25 from Grim: "It'd be odd for a Southern Democrat and an Australian to write the Republican platform. On the other hand, by all evidence they seem to need any help they can get."

True.

I agree with Peggy Noonan: the Republican Party now is headless. George W. Bush has thrown away Ronald Reagan's coalition as though it was his property and he was entitled to. He, and other top Republicans like the odious Trent Lott, seen to think that the base of the Republican Party consists of stupid people whose hearts are in the wrong place.

That implies a political crisis) as seen in the illegal immigration struggle) and fundamental rebuilding - much more bottom-up rebuilding than the Democrats need to do.

The party aristocracy will not do this - and if they did they'd do it wrong, but they simply will not rethink and rebuild. We see this in their lack of reading on jihad. We see this in their slowness in getting internet savvy. They won't read, they won't think, you can't make them, and if you're so smart why aren't you incumbent like them? That's their attitude.

Any serious rethinking will have to come from outside the charmed circle of the "best" people. Anybody can pitch in and help with this. Even us.

Who was that Australian recently who I vaguely recall was found to be an illegal immigrant working for one of the major parties? I guess I'm one up on him, because due to the wonder of the Internet, I can do my part here without violating my principle of promoting legality. :)

First, let's see how much were are on the same page on fundamentals.

I start with faith and confidence in the goodness and powers of the American people, the wisdom of their founding fathers (including and especially the author of the second foundation, Abraham Lincoln) the fundamental correctness of their system of law as enshrined in the American Constitution (though not always as courts have applied it: out, damned Roe!), and their future. The American are strong and clever (good engineers), they breed enough to replace themselves (ignoring the major problem of the vanishing white), they've got socially useful religious traditions (Christianity limited by strong requirements for non-establishment and freedom of speech, with a dash of fix-the-world Judaism), they have good neighbors (compare Mexicans and Americans to Palestinians and Israelis), they have a natural network of informal allies (the Anglosphere) - and so on.

So my attitude to fundamental, serious pessimism about America is to dismiss it. Just let the system work and it'll be fine. And my attitude to fundamental reform is, America's fundamentals aren't broken, so don't fix them.

You know the joke about the young multi-millionaire who owed his success to applying a formula? His daddy gave him millions of dollars and said: "Son, this is yours, don't lose it." When it comes to liberty, and the conditions of prosperity and national strength, America is that lucky young man and the Constitution is the most valuable item in his legacy.

Most people in most countries will never come close to achieving the freedoms that in America come gift-wrapped in the founding documents of the state. Better yet, these freedoms are not bestowed, they are recognized by the state as coming from God. That couldn't be better.

So, since you live in a lucky country, your first concern should be to stay lucky.

The Republican Party as an instrument for the preservation of American national greatness is not nearly in the happy position of America itself. I have always been and still am skeptical that "red state" demographics guarantee conservatives a growing edge in national politics. I think that the party has lost its way.

Americans are problem-solvers and they like problem-solvers. Even though it may be true that often the government does best by doing less, I think Americans will always be biased to the guy running for a position in government who says: "I've got a solution, let's do this!"

Through apparent futility in war, protracted deadlock on key social issues, and a needless failure of his intended reforms in the two terms of George W. Bush, the Republican Party has more or less lost the mandate of the effective do-something party. (Which is not to say that Democrats have picked up - prior to the rise of Armed Liberal of course. :) The recent Republican "victory" on illegal immigration was won by gladiators like Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint. Yes, it's valuable to block bad things, so well done. But the Grand Old Party has to get back to positively accomplishing good things, specifically it has to accomplish good things for the three vital elements of the Reagan coalition, which must be restored.

Grim:

1. What do you think Republican security conservatives most need?
2. What do you think shrink-the-government free enterprise conservatives most need?
3. What do you think Christians, pro-lifers and social conservatives most need?

4. What do you think is the issue the system most needs? What is the top issue that's like preventive maintenance on sewers: it's really, really got to be done, regardless of whether there's a charged-up constituency for it?

(I've said it's legality, with Justice Clarence Thomas as my guide to what that is. I think American needs to get back to working a lot more like a civics class says it does, and a lot less like the "earmark" system, the pro-bill side of the illegal immigration debate and the jurisprudence of the "living constitution" demonstrates that it does. I think you need a state of laws, not a system where in effect the law is to do what the powerful and wealthy say, or you'll be sorry.)

5. What do you think independents and persuadable Democrats most need from the Republican Party? What do you think would count as the Republicans solving something for once?

6. What do you see in what Armed Liberal said that we should mercilessly steal, or regard as an offer that's so hot that we have to make some kind of rival offer?

#33 from David Blue at 2:41 am on Jul 06, 2007
Re: point 6: I see you've already addressed that in a lot of ways, but I'm trying to pick out your top priority in each category that I think is important.

My response is here.

All right, David, if you want to give it a go, I'll join you.

On your fundamentals:

I agree that the American people are fundamentally good, insofar as humans can be good. You will recall "The Smell of Death," in which I considered what some of the limits on inner goodness might be. Still, judged as humans, they're well-intentioned, and want to live in a country that "does the right thing."

The underlying freedoms of the American Constitution are solid. The system for administering them is, as I see it, broken (see "Time for a Change," another piece on the topic). Serious Constitutional adjustments are needed to bring the government back into something like what the Founders actually intended for it to be.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by crediting Lincoln with 'the second foundation' of America. It's true that Lincoln's example and rhetoric were and are stirring; and it's true that the Civil War would have been lost without his guidance. However, Lincoln himself did not do much to change the operation of the Constitutional system. The Reconstruction Amendments, 13th-15th, are to be credited to later actors. It is principally the 14th Amendment that is responsible for the structural changes in the US government, which were severe enough to be rightly considered a second foundation.

I am not a fan of the 14th Amendment, and think that a successful settlement of America's internal social differences will require that it be amended to reduce the power of the Federal courts. It is precisely the abilities of the 14th that make SCOTUS decisions so needlessly explosive: because they are impositions on all jurisdictions, it is a matter of extreme political rancor when we have to nominate a new Justice. In fact, I would say this has become the central issue of our elections -- people who are totally furious at the Republican party will vote for them anyway in 2008, precisely to avoid the risk of the SCOTUS drifting left. A huge amount of our political fundraising and activism is driven by concerns about the court.

I think we need to change that, to return to something closer to the original founding, if we are to have an America that can really be for all Americans. The American social contract was meant to allow for multiple solutions to contentious issues -- Bostonian Puritans, Southern rumrunners, and "Rogue's Island's" freethinkers. Now every contentious question demands a one-size-fits-all solution from SCOTUS. There either will or will not be a protected right to abortion; there either will or will not be prayer allowed in schools; and so forth. So much of the heat that is keeping us from working together and viewing other Americans as allies and brothers first is coming from the concentration of power in the SCOTUS and other Federal courts.

There are other systemic concerns I have, which are cause for a certain amount of real pessimism about the American government. About the American people, I am broadly optimistic. They're good lads, mostly; watch too much TV, but mostly they're all right.

I think your story about the young millionaire is precisely right. The number one thing we ought to do is to focus on preserving our heritage of freedom, and not frittering it away (see my objection, above, to AL's proposal for endless "working on" this and that impossible problem, to the tune of constant new regulations in every sphere of life).

I do agree that Americans like to see the government doing things, for fundamentally cultural rather than well-considered reasons. They hate idlers, and they hate people who seem not to be earning their money or benefits; Congressmen have money and other benefits; therefore, they'd better at least appear to be doing something worthwhile to earn it.

That said, Americans also do know that we have tons of useless, pointless, and outright harmful laws and regulations. A Congress that was predicated on passing laws to repeal laws of that sort -- to hunting them out from constituent advice and getting rid of them -- would be a Congress I could even get excited about. "Let's clear the way for you to build the life you want," would be a good slogan. You could easily do ten thousand 30-second ads that would resonate:

Sue: "Hey, you're a good cook, Jill. Why not open a bakery?"

Jill: "That's a great idea!"

Flash through ten scenes of clerks denying her things, enforcing regulations, trying to explain the regulations, etc.

Sue: "You look down. What happened?"

Jill: "So much for my bakery. It's gotten to where you can't do anything in this country."

That's not freedom. Vote for Joe Republican, and start living your dreams!

I'll handle your "six questions" separately.

#39 from Grim at 4:20 am on Jul 06, 2007
1. Security conservatives are, at this point, mostly concerned about security at home. Above all, they want the border secured -- and really secured. They want the TSA to be professional and courteous, quick and yet thorough. Right now we're in an isolationist moment, as security conservatives feel like Iraq means the end of any chance of fighting terrorism overseas -- so they want to make sure the locks on the doors work.

That may change if things improve in Iraq before the election. Speaking as a military analyst, I expect them to do so -- though there is no certainty about it, to be sure. Still, even if things are going far better in Iraq next year, there will be no more Iraq-style adventures in the near future. The next president will, absent a massive provocation, be limited to Clinton-style air war at most.

2. The number one issue for shrink-the-government types is tax reform. There's a "Fair Tax" book that is making the rounds -- I see it everywhere. I don't mean, "in bookstores everywhere." I mean, you go to people's houses, it's on the coffee table. I haven't read it myself, so I don't know if the plan holds water or not -- but I know a whole lot of people are thinking about it.

If the plan's any good, it would make sense to endorse it. If it isn't, it would make sense to get the guys who are behind it off to one side, negotiate a compromise they could support, and become the candidate of tax reform.

3. Pro-lifers are separate from others, in that they are defined by their issue. They will vote Republican for SCOTUS reasons; aside from the occasional meet-and-greet to talk about their issue, they need no further attention.

Movement Christians are hard for me. I hardly ever set foot in a church, to be honest; I have a great respect for religion, and indeed for Christianity, but I have little use for sermons and prefer to sort it out on my own. Nothing at all against people who find a great deal of joy in having a community of believers to belong to; it's just not for me, at least not so far. As a result, I don't know what conversations they're having, so I can't give much of a sense of what their top issues are.

Social conservatives are #1 on immigration right now. Much like security conservatives, they want to make sure the locks work on the doors; but they have the added concern of the culture being overrun, as mass immigration leads to millions of new citizens (children born here, in any event) who may not be fully assimilated and yet able to wield tremendous ballot-box power. There are several solutions to this; the one I favor is to remove forever the path to citizenship from anyone who came here illegally, and to repeal birthright citizenship so that only lawfully naturalized immigrants or the children of American citizens would become American citizens (this is, of course, how almost all nations do it already).

But you still have to secure the border. Fortunately, per #1, you were going to do that anyway.

4. I think we need to hold a Constitutional convention along the lines discussed in the comments to this post and the "Time for a Change" post already mentioned. There are several nuts and bolts issues about the function of the government we need to think about.

If I had to pick just one, it would be the SCOTUS/14th issue I mentioned above. America would be a quieter, happier place if the people on the other side of the Red/Blue divide weren't always having to fear that one SCOTUS ruling would put the heathens on the other side in charge of some cherished aspect of their life.

I don't want to control people; I am happy for California, for example, to have universal health care if the governor wants it and can arrange it within their means. I just don't want it here. That's what America was meant to be, a place for all of us. I want that back. I'm tired of fighting Americans, whom I really want to be happy and to have the lives they want to live -- just not at my expense, if you please.

5. You could get a lot of Democrats with the immigration issue -- I mean union men, chiefly, but also poor Democrats from the western states who are competing for jobs. It's a wedge issue, and if the Republicans could "solve" it, they'd win big.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, my own preferred solution includes permitting mass immigration to continue -- I think the greater immediate threat is a collapse of the Mexican state, which would cause far larger problems. The influx of hard cash from illegals in America is one of the legs holding up a wobbly Mexican table.

We do have to address the demographic / cultural concerns, but I think we benefit from keeping Mexico propped up in this way. At least, given that the option is a failed state on our southern border, it's the lesser of two evils.

6. The health care issue is a problem. People have been talking about it so long -- and aging Baby Boomers, who either neglected to provide for their retirements properly or are just greedy enough to take 'free' health care from younger people trying to raise families, are so large a voting bloc -- that something has to be done. There's just this huge number of people who are hot to suck up the health care industry into the state's clutches, and others who are scared and don't know what to think, and others who have just heard it talked about so long they've become convinced.

What we need to do is the hardest of things -- we need to educate the public about those budgetary deceptions I mentioned earlier. We need to let them know that the government already can't pay, and has not intention to pay, for their Social Security and Medicare at anything like its promised levels. We need retiring Federal pensioneers (and current workers) to understand that they have been sold a fraud. They have been promised assets that will vaporize when they need them most.

Once the scale of the fraud is clear, I don't think the taste for socialized medicine will be so strong. We need to push for those accounting changes I mentioned above, so the scale of the real Federal debt is clear. We need to talk about how hard the benefits cuts and tax increases are going to be already.

We need to make clear that all those rosy promises that came with money sucked out of your every paycheck -- they were all lies.

We need people to understand that the government cannot be trusted with the security of their families. That is a duty you cannot lay down, because there is no one out there who can be trusted to take it up. You cannot trust the government to take it for you; you must not trust them to seize it.

Sorry to end on a negative note -- that's just how the questions fell out. But there we are.

Thoughts?

Anabasis I

Anabasis, Book I:

The Commissar has taken to the study of ancient Greek, and is blogging his translation of Xenophon's Anabasis. This, the story of "the Ten Thousand," is a tale of Greek mercenaries who become involved in the losing side of a civil war in Persia -- and have to fight their way all the way back home. It is one of the great tales left to us from the Classical period.

In the comments to his post, a discussion about hosptality and the concept of the xenos, the "Guest-friend." Readers of Grim's Hall will recognize strong parallels with the concept of frith, particularly as it plays out in surviving Anglo-Saxon literature and the Norse sagas.

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday:

Two hundred thirty-one years ago, a small band of men got together to settle a large problem. They represented a group of colonies in one of the world's largest empires.

The declaration they wrote was a daring one.

These men willingly put their lives, fortunes and honor at risk in an attempt to make the colonies into free states. They could not predict whether their attempt would succeed or fail, but they signed their names on that Declaration of Independence.

Historians would later document a long struggle from that bright July day in 1776 to the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the ratification of the Federal Constitution. The nation birthed in that struggle is now one of the greatest nations on the Earth.

This 4th of July, we remember the Declaration of Independence that was published more than two centuries ago.

Happy Birthday to the United States of America.