March 16, 2004

Driveby Smallholder

In the tradition of America’s free, unlicensed gun ownership, I hereby offer these driveby shootings. I have several substantive things percolating in the back of my wee mind, but have no time to shake the lint out. So here is a quick fifteen minute blog:


The incoming Prime Minister has said that it was a mistake to JOIN America’s UNILATERAL war. Take a second and parse that sentence. I’ll wait.

At the polls, Spanish voters had to choose between peace and honor. They chose peace. They shall have neither.

* Extra credit to the first blogger who identifies the original speaker whose Munich quip is bowdlerized above. No, Maximum Leader, you can’t play.

Spain has now sent a giant signal to Al Queda: If attacked, we will retreat. Excellent plan, nimrods. It seems the enlightened European population has forgotten 1938. There mistake last time devastated the continent. We saved their bacon. The devastation this time may not be limited to Europe, but don’t expect this taxpayer to pony up for another Marshall Plan.

We can’t negotiate with Islamo-fascists. There is nothing we can do, not even abandoning Israel to the tender mercies of the genocidal Palestinians, that will appease these evil men. The success of our system gives the lie to their Koranocentric totalitatian fetishes. Societies based on individual freedom and mixed-economy capitalism (MOP, please note the qualifier) work better than societies based on Sharia. They HAVE to destroy us.

Like Lileks, I want to tell my daughter about how we won. I don’t want to bury her smallpox pustule-ridden body in the back forty. I’m not for futile appeasement. I’m for killing violent terrorists dead, dead, dead as quickly and efficiently as possible.

What scares me about Spain is that is will embolden the terrorists to repeat what has worked. My wife and I were thinking about accompanying the Maximum Leader on a pilgrimage to Sagamore Hill via the rail system. She turned to me last night and asked if I really wanted to take sweet little Emilie on a train. This prompted me to reply that worries like this might make me vote for Bush (See the Big Hominid’s site for the economy & social justice vs. security conundrum). She replied that that would be a divorce-level crime against humanity. But I guess that’s another story.


A while ago, Annika opined that the issuance of gay marriage licenses was exactly akin to Mullah Moore’s Ten Commandments crusade (forgive me, but I don’t know how to do trackback links). I believe she was dead wrong. The civil disobedience by the mayors of various cities was in accordance with the Constitution and Moore’s was in defiance of the Constitution. The difference between the two levels of civil disobedience is also made clearer that, when faced with a court ruling, the mayors DID desist. Did Moore also accept the rule of law?
Speaking of Gay Marriage

Perhaps Bush has unintentionally done justice a favor when he pandered to his right wing base. In coming out for a Constitutional Amendment, he acknowledged that the current marriage laws ARE currently unconstitutionally discriminatory. The Amendment will fail. And, having failed, the course of the rest of the debate is as foreordained as the failure of Massive Resistance to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. We have won. It is all over but the shouting.


I read the good Professor’s blog nearly every day. He often posts intriguing, thought-provoking stuff. But his political blogs have become increasingly long on invective and short on the logic he values so highly. Recently, he admitted that he does at times propagandize. Propaganda doesn’t bother me. Blind partisanship does. He could use his persuasive powers to make an argument; he has challenged me to think and clarify my attitudes about meat production and consumption. Instead of making me think about politics, he is now just making me skip the political rants. A case in point is his Tech Central Station column about accusations of Presidential dishonesty. I would like to see him apply his standard, “falsehood with the intent to deceive” to current reports that Bush purposely suppressed information about the true cost of his Medicare bill and intentionally deceived members of Congress so they would vote for the bill.

A friend of mine recently criticized me for inveighing against Kerry. If Kerry is better for the country than Bush, he argued, I should use my (tiny and pathetic) platform to attack the President. Any acknowledgement of Kerry’s shortcomings would muddy the issues and perhaps sap the resolve of readers to displace the Commander-in-Chief. This would be moral; if the end (a Democratic president) was moral, then it was okay to self-edit in order to achieve that end. I’m not up on all the fancy philosopher lingo that Analphilospher likes to sling around, but would this be called act-consequentialism?

Perhaps Analphilospher has become an act-consequentialist on the issue of Bush’s re-election. He has decided that a Bush election is in the best interests of the country. He therefore willingly joins the elephant echo chamber and churns out blindingly uncritical arguments supporting the righteousness of the commander-in-chief. Most reader may drink the pap. But for many of us – those who like a more reasoned discussion - these hagiographic fan letters undermine the Professor’s credibility. Convince me, professor. Don’t snow me.

Speaking of Lying Presidents

How can anyone not see that Bush has lied repeatedly? Now, I’ll be the first to admit that Old Bill was allergic to the truth. But it just boggles my imagination that people seem to think Bush is honest. Take a look at his employment numbers. Take a look at his “no double-tax” crusade against the inheritance tax (which largely affects untaxed capital gains). Take a look at his repeated convention that the inheritance tax hits family farms (No farm has EVER been sold due to the inheritance tax. Some children did have to pay a tax when they took the farm and broke it up for development. But this tax was neither the cause of the end of the farm or a double tax). Take a look at the Medicare lie. Take a look at how he redefined small businesses to include partnerships so that he could claim his tax cut for the rich helped “small businesses” – including small businessmen like himself and his Vice President. Take a look at how he claimed that his tax cut would not go overwhelming to the rich. My God, if you really believe in tax cuts for the wealthy – and one can make an argument for it – make that argument. Don’t lie to us about who is going to benefit. Take a look at Bush’s claim that no one could have anticipated an airplane attack even though his own intelligence briefings were warning of just that attack. I don’t blame Bush for 9-11. In a free society, determined, evil men will be able to kill Americans. But to claim he had no idea? Blatant, verifiable lie.

One can argue about whether Bush or Clinton’s dishonesty is worse. But one side claiming the absolute moral high ground is ludicrous.

Minister of Propaganda

My childhood friend and I have differed on the Iraqi war from the beginning. I am beginning to think he was right in certain particulars when we considered the results of the half-assed reconstruction the Haliburton team is putting together. In the Smallholder World Order, we wouldn’t have cut taxes on the rich and would use that revenue for a modern Marshall Plan, which would rebuild Iraq on an unbelievable scale.

But I have to disagree with the MOP on the sanctions. They weren’t working. And they were resulting in terrible suffering (Saddam’s sins, not ours) as Saddam diverted all resources to fuel his military behemoth. Invading Iraq was MORE humane than leaving the people to Saddam’s tender mercies under the sanctions.

And does the MOP seriously believe that Saddam really intended to comply with an inspection regime?

As to planning the invasion, that planning began under Clinton. Hell, Clinton should have done it. It would have saved lives.

Maximum Leader

I well remember our college debating days. We went to a school that could be charitably described as a “second chance college for kids who partied too hard in high school.” Our peers weren’t particularly academically gifted folks. Discussion oriented philosophy classes and political science classes had lackluster student participation (with some notable exceptions, particularly our wonderful Laura and the Horseman of Famine). The ML and I dominated many of our classes. So, since there was little competition from our peers, we had to manufacture some. Mike would wait to see what side I took and take the other. But it wasn’t just fun. It is educational to argue for a position you oppose. It helps to examine your own assumptions and look closely at the other side’s position.

I stand prepared for return-fire.


Post a Comment

<< Home