As many recall, one of the great fascist slogans was “Long Live Death!” Hereabouts I am proposing a new slogan for our politics – “Long Live Lying!” Lying is so endemic to our society that we are inured to it. On the level of the pathetic we have the recent spectacle of the Governor of New Jersey installing his lover as director of Homeland Security in that state (and now being sued by him) as a “gay rights” issue. Talk about “left in form but right in essence.” It would almost be a farce, if there weren’t innocent parties involved, like the governor’s two-year old daughter.
But on the more serious level, we have the continued absence of coverage of the Kerry/Cambodia affair in that great purveyor of “truth” The New York Times. Now perhaps they are engaged in a serious study of this issue, which will arrive as (conveniently) late as their analysis of the UN Oil-for-Food Program. Or perhaps they don’t think this lie is important, a mere misstatement, as the saying goes. Robert Pollock in the WSJ gives lie to that lie:
In 1986 Mr. Kerry argued on the Senate floor against U.S. support for the Nicaraguan contras, again citing the 1968 Christmas in Cambodia and “the president of the United States telling the American people I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared–seared–in me.” In a 1992 interview with the Associated Press the story came back: “By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry’s patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia.”
Now, trying to be honest myself, I was opposed to the Contras in those days too, though I would like to think I wouldn’t have lied on the Senate floor to make my point. Being for the Sandinistas then was cool. Omar Cabezas, their Minister of Culture and an author, a near Che-like figure, was an overnight guest in my house. Boy, did I dine out on that one! Years later I… and others… became curiously silent when it turned out the Sandinistas weren’t all they were cracked up to be. I’ll be honest about it now. The Contras weren’t the greatest guys themselves, but neither were the Sandinistas, two peas in a corrupt pod. I made a mistake. But I didn’t lie of the Senate floor. [Big deal. You weren't a Senator.--ed. Hey, that's a technicality.] Of course the silence by Senator Kerry and the NYT these days tells us all we need to know about their devotion to the truth.
UPDATE: The “Band of Brothers” evidently didn’t last quite as long as the Rolling Stones… or even the Beatles. How about a week? [Is that lying?--ed. Nah, exaggeration...]
Byron York has a piece on the Kerry Lie over at National Review Online. Basically it picks up on the timeline Ed at Captain’s Quarters put together. Bottom line: Alston actually did serve with Kerry, but only for the last seven days of his tour. He was NOT present for Kerry’s actions for which he claimed the Silver Star and both he and Kerry have been “misremembering” that fact for years.
RLS for Senate!
Seriously, good point about the far-Left’s nihilism, from !Viva la muerte! to the present.
Random thought … suppose The Clash will do an album in tribute to the US Marine Corps? Somehow, kinda doubt it …
“The Contras weren’t the greatest guys themselves, but neither were the Sandinistas, two peas in a corrupt pod.” ó Well, maybe, but the Nicaraguan people didn’t seem to have much trouble figuring out which flavor they preferred once Reagan gave them the chance. Have the Sandinistas won any offices since? In any of the three free elections?
And at the rate the “band of brothers” is contracting (“two tours”, “Four months”, “a week”, we’ll get Senator Gilligan down to that three-hour tour yet…
Roger:
Hobby Horse Alert!
You said about lying; “left in form but right in essence.” But Roger, the left has always been as much about the “Big Lie” as the so-called “right”. In fact there is no difference between socialist and “fascism.” Lenin and Mussolini were good friends, corresponded and debated who was right about political organization. Historically, Mussolini was correct and Lenin wrong about the nature of mature totalitarian thought. The myth of socialist opposition to fascism is one of the biggest lies of left. The socialist opposition to fascism is not about good versus evil. It has always been about who’s form of evil should dominate.
You also admitted: “Being for the Sandinistas then was cool. Omar Cabezas, their Minister of Culture and an author, a near Che-like figure, was an overnight guest in my house. Boy, did I dine out on that one! Years later I… and others… became curiously silent when it turned out the Sandinistas weren’t all they were cracked up to be. I’ll be honest about it now. The Contras weren’t the greatest guys themselves, but neither were the Sandinistas, two peas in a corrupt pod. I made a mistake.”
The big lie leads to this kind of “liberal” thought and behavior. The contra’s were not corrupt, they represented the will of people. The Sandinistas were not cool. They were communists who could only hold power through thuggery and intimidation. Mr Cabezas was no more “cool” then Goebels or Himmler. Roger, if Whittaker Chambers can grow up and realize that he served evil then I think you can at least admit that your infatuation with things of the political left after the appearance of South Asian boat people and the publication of the Gulag series were a result of adolescent thought and behavior that lasted long past its acceptability in a mature adult.
jerry, wake up. I just admitted that. But you should wake up and read a little more about the contras.
Roger:
You admitted that you were mistaken in the case of the Sandinistas. However, my point was that by the 1980s making that kind of mistake should have been out of the question.
Here is some food for thought:
Do we really want Bush to win this election because of what many will view as a cheap head-butt, or would it not be better to win with a clean left hook to the side of Kerry’s head?
The “Cambodia lying” is going to be viewed by many as a cheap head-butt, not unlike Florida in 2000. Remember, after this election runs out of gas, somebody is going to have to actually govern this country and it is still going to be a very dangerous world.
I think the Bush people can win without the lying/non-lying issue. I hope he sticks with his left hook.
On the surface, I take your point, LR, but there is more to it than that. The MSM is prevaricating and ignoring this issue in favor of Kerry in the same manner they do many other issues. The acceptance of these lies and distortions must be stopped, and this is a specific we can grab onto. I imagine you would agree that the reporting on Iraq has worsened the possibility of freedom and democracy for Iraqis. This is part of the same weltanschauung.
Roger:
True enough. My prediction is that the MSM will be largely irrelevant by the 3rd year of Bush’s second term, for reasons self-evident to readers of this site.
Perhaps the emphasis should be on helping the public understand that there is no such thing as a self-inflicted head butt. If the public understands this a problem Kerry is alone responsible for, then Bush will be elected AND be able to govern.
I watched the 1971 debate between a 27-year old John Kerry and a 25-year old John O’Neil yesterday on C-Span. I’d like to see John Kerry address this nation on how his approach to Iraq will differ from what he was calling for with respect to Vietnam. John O’Neil was calling for a measured withdrawal, for a gradual handing over of the country’s security services to the Vietnamese. I hadn’t realized that Vietnamization did not begin in earnest until 1968.
He goes on to comment, “Secondly, as long as you do not settle the political question of how the Vietnamese communists are going to fit in to some kind of regime…” transcript
Does this hold true for Iraq? Should we entertain that the thought that there is a political settlement, that extremist Islamic-fundamentalists can be a part of a representative democracy in Iraq? Will Kerry follow in DeGaulle’s footstop and admit he doesn’t have the tools to affect positive change in the area and that the Iraqis will just have to duke it out for themselves?
I suspect President Bush completely understands the nature of the MSM–In fact, I think he signaled his intentions to take his case outside the MSM. For me, Bush sent his intent to ignore the MSM when he stopped giving the crazy old aunt of the media, Helen Thomas, the first question at news conferences.
ganzo:
Vietnamization did not begin in 1968 for the same reason the JFK II could not have heard President Nixon say that we had no troops in Cambodia at Christmastime of the same year….Vietamization was instituted by President Nixon and Gen Creighton Abrams starting in 1969.
Jerry, ease up. See Luke 15, the “prodigal son”. [Why is the Buddhist the one who keeps quoting scripture? -- ed. Cripes, now he's after me!]
I don’t know, Mr. Simon, if dishonesty is rampant so much as honesty is demeaned and discredited.
John O’Neill was lucky to get 7 minutes out of 20 on Chris Matthews’ show. I lost count of the number of times O’Neill wasn’t allowed to finish a sentence. Paula Jones, whatever anyone thinks of her, was dismissed as “trailer park trash” without addressing her veracity. The McGreevy story is a Gay American, Victim, despite what the media knows about him, his administration, and the cesspool of New Jersey politics.
I think, in general, people are more moral than our institutions, certainly more so than our media who rival Pravda for sheer distortion. The Russians used to make sad, cynical jokes. It was all they could do. Americans have blogs. There’s hope. )
For those arrogant reporters in the MSM to pooh-pooh reporting by bloggers, here is another counterexample. Without the intrepid detective work of a woman named “Lori from Texas,” a man named “Bandit” and Ed Morrissey, Kerry’s “band” would be cutting their White Album by now.
It was plain to anyone who looked at the timeline that Alston could not have been on Kerry’s boat during the month of February when most of the engagements took place. Ergo, the implication he witnessed the Silver Star incident (Feb. 28) that he made to Jake Tapper on Nightline is false.
Note: It took a credentialed reporter (York) to nail the thing down. Bloggers cannot do it by themselves without access to primary sources. This is Drudge’s main added value, scurrilous as he is.
First comment in a Free Republic thread regarding the outcome of the recall in Venezuela…
This was predicted by many. Only a fool like Danny Ortega would allow a free election and look what happened to him…
I don’t spend a lot of time refighting wars and lauding/criticizing former Presidents of the United States (except in memoriam) because I don’t see any point in doing so. I thought it was great (and amusing) that Ronald Reagan brought the lessons (and plots) of the movies of his time into his attempts to shape the thinking of the citizens he was trying to lead. I still do.
Wretchard, a favorite blog writer because of his style (I’ve recently reread some Conrad and Greene because of him) and his focus on “big” ideas, got it so wrong when he made reference to Albert Camus’ The Rebel in a post linked to from this blog a few weeks ago that I was reminded of how easy it is to slip into the habit of agreeing with people (including articulate Presidents of the United States) because you like listening to (and reading) their words.
Camus is one of my heroes and his The Rebel is a major part of the foundation by which I perceive the world. Another hero died in Poland (where he belonged) on Saturday. I met him in Berkeley 24 or so years ago in the aftermath of his selection by the Nobel committee to receive the Literature Prize. Are there many more like Czeslaw Milosz still in the world? Fervently do I pray that there are, but he is one of the few I’ve met.
In his introduction to The Rebel, published in 1956, Camus has this to say regarding the times:
Thirty years ago, before reaching a decision to kill, people denied many things, to the point of denying themselves by suicide. God is deceitful; the whole world (myself included) is deceitful; therefore I choose to die: suicide was the problem then. Ideology today is only concerned with the denial of other human beings, who alone bear the responsibility of deceit. It is then that we kill. Each day at dawn, assassins in judges’ robes slip into some cell: murder is the problem today.
Almost 50 years later, I think it still is.
The words of a poet (1911-2004):
Grow your tree of falsehood from a small grain of truth.
Do not follow those who lie in contempt of reality.
Let your lie be even more logical than the truth itself,
So the weary travelers may find repose.
Ironically, without the Sandinistas there may never have been an honest election. Somoza was a very bad guy and he needed to go. While the US seemed to support the right wing death squads, the Sandanistas, meanwhile, were busy murdering their native indian population.
It’s no wonder, however, that communism was attractive to some central american countries. we were supporting murderous regimes, they must have thought, if this is who america is supporting, how bad can communism be?
In any case, democracy it seems, is winning out– again, ironically because of the Sandanistas.
great op-ed in today’s LA Times on honesty. written by Pete Hamill. worth reading…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hamill16aug16,1,7003448.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
DC:
I guess we all owe Adolph Hitler a debt of gratitude. After all, with Hitler’s dictatorship we never would have put to death the cultural militarism of Germany.
Communism is never attractive to the people. It oppresses the people. Communism comes to as is maintained in power through lies, deceit and brutality.
Unlike fascism, the totalitarian competitor to Socialism and at least produces some measure of econmic progress, Communism produces nothing put political oppression and starvation.
DC, your statement is among the dumbest I have seen in a long time.
jerry,
For what it is worth, I think that the fact that Roger not only realized the truth about brutality of Marxist regimes clocking themselves as ìPeopleís revolutionsî, but publicly admitted that he was wrong testifies to his integrity and courage. It is easy to speak the truth if you knew it all the time; it is much more difficult to sort through the propaganda, and then admit that you were wrong. Many dissidents in the Soviet block started as believers in the correctness of the Marxist ideology and necessity of ìbuilding a new manî by any means necessary, including elimination of ìenemies of the Peopleî.
Of course here in the West the truth was always available if one would seek it, but the pro-revolution, anti-capitalist forces are something to behold. I am constantly amazed how seductive communist propaganda is for people who are not directly affected by its consequences. Looking at the EU, one can almost think that the (not-existing-anymore) Soviets will win after all, except that they will not need to exert themselves by invading (maybe Lenin was right about that rope after all).
Also, for people not living in the Marxist paradise there are no real life instances of barbarity to shock you back to reality: everything is second hand tale. So, it is in a sense natural to discount the bad news. How many people did not want to believe the utter inhumanity of Germans during WWII? Germans, after all were so ìcivilizedî.
Than again, now that the evil of the Communist regimes is laid bare I wish that people would stop glorifying murderers like Che. And if they cannot admit that they were wrong, they could at least shut up.
Jerry,
When in my post did I state any support for communism?
I’m sure you know that the right wing dictatorships in central America were cold-blooded and brutal regimes. Perhaps you can defend those dictatorships, I can’t. Nor will I defend the Sandanista’s killing of its native indian population.
Interesting, though, how you were able to squeeze in a line about the benefits of fascism.
DC
Katherine:
I am sure by now that you must know that the chronicler of those “Captive Minds” died this weekend at age 92.
ìCommunism comes to as is maintained in power through lies, deceit and brutality.î
And, interestingly enough, ìpeopleís revolutionsî are usually started by groups of intellectuals who simply know best what it is the ìpeopleî need.
Funny, that usually it is the elite revolutionary leaders who end up with caviar and champagne, and ìthe peopleî with rationed stale bread.
I found this sentence interesting from Byron York’s NRO piece on the Cambodia issue, considering the subject of Roger’s post. “Alston spoke only briefly with National Review Online, saying all interviews must be approved by the Kerry campaign.”
Now why do I think that, if the words Bush campaign were substituted for Kerry campaign in an analogous piece about his National Guard service or whatnot, Rather, Russert, Jennings, Koppel, NY Times, WaPo, etc. would be screaming bloody murder. (A fellow National Guard pilot spoke only briefly with Nightline, saying all interviews must be approved by the Bush campaign).
DC:
I think you are a little dense. I mentioned the “Building the Autobahm” meme. just to demostrate that haters of fascism on the so-called left, prefer an economic system that provides fewer material benefits then their political rivals.
Oh…Pardon me for taking your defense of a communist dictator as meaning that you are a supporter of such regimes.
Oh my God, Jerry, I missed it! I was not paying attention to any news. Thank you for telling me.
Yes, I had Milosz in mind; he was a great poet and a great man. Do you know that when I was in school I never knew of his existence? We had to learn, as usual, from the forbidden sources. I read Captive Mind in smuggled, London edition.
Jerry,
Perhaps I am dense, because you seem to be responding to things I’m not writing or even implying. You continue to put your words in my mouth.
I’m not going to respond to your lunatic replies. If by chance, you make a sane and rational response, I will enjoy engaging in a debate with you. In the meantime, you can continue to enjoy debating imaginary opponents.
DC
Step back and observe the two party system. Is there anyone who does not see the critical mass of slime covering the democrat party ? Isn’t it time that we Americans voted together to end this cancer ? Slick Willy Clinton, Gray Davis, The Torricelli/Lautenberg switch, Captaino Kerry, McGreevy, and so, so much more. Please America, just this once, vote straight republican. Kill the cancer. Eradicate it. Bury it. Put the final nail in this coffin. It’s not funny any more.
Barry,
It is a shame about Kerry needing to approve interviews, but this troubles me to:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/08/05/loyalty_oaths/
DC:
I see you are engaging in standard left wing debating tactics. I haven’t been putting words in your mouth. They are your words not mine.
Wxjames-
ButÖbutÖ butÖBush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are the real Axis of Evil! I know, because I saw it on a bumper sticker!
Katherine,
Funny, that usually it is the elite revolutionary leaders who end up with caviar and champagne, and ìthe peopleî with rationed stale bread.
Heh, back in the day I noticed that the most radical “revolutionaries” also came from the richest families. My not so serious explanation was that the offspring of the wealthy, having no skills appropriate to the modern world, were making a desparate gambit to hang on to their power. Class struggle indeed!
The only thing ironic about your posting, Doublecola, is your ignorance of the Nicaraguan revolution. The movement that toppled Somoza was a coalition of opposition. As is usual with coalitions that include Communists, the Sandinistas purged the moderate elements and instituted their totalitarian government.
Here is some background concerning American left/liberal support for the Sandanistas about which some of you may not be aware.
For many years I worked in an academic environment. I remember the enthusiasm for the Sandanistas very well. This enthusiasm served as a mark that you were one of the “right” sort of people. To these people the Sandanistas were seen as almost saintly.
Most of my friends in this environment have not been able to admit, even in private, even to themselves, that the Sandanistas committed atrocities and generally failed miserably. Against this background Roger’s changing his opinion of the Sandanistas, and his publically admitting this change of opinion, is an act of courage, and especially, an act of enormous and humane honesty.
Roger, another excellent, honest post. It is the issue of truth which goes to the heart of the matter. This can be seen, for example, in the postings of hollywood. When I try to understand exactly where (s)he and I disagree, I find that the disagreement lies precisely in the area of determining reality. hollywood simply lives in a different reality from mine. For example, (s)he thinks that the current state of the economy is the same as in the declining days of Hoover. My mother lived through the Depression and the Dust Bowl and I was regaled with stories about them while growing up. I know that the current situation is far better than the Nineties for most people and the Depression just doesn’t come into it. The Hoover “talking point” is complete nonsense. But does hollywood know this isn’t really true but is just something to say? I don’t think so. hollywood seems to genuinely believe this nonsense and much other like nonsense in the depths of his/her soul. For hollywood, apparently, what matters is not whether or not 2 + 2 = 4, but rather who it was who claimed that as a fact. If it is stated that Kerry was delinquent in his duties, but it is stated by a Republican, then that information simply disappears from the world-view, much as Nietzsche disappeared from the Soviet Encyclopedia.
I believe it was Socrates who first recognized that before we can come to a reasonable decision concerning the best means of government it is first necessary to come to an understanding of reality, and to do that it is necessary to have a means of ascertaining reality as it really is, not as we would have it. Thus, epistemology is the necessary prerequisite to politics.
And what is real, what is true? The question is not so simple to answer. When I lived in India the papers were full of a scandal sweeping the nation at that time. There was a charismatic fellow, a holy man, a self-proclaimed “healer”, who was travelling the country at that time “curing” sight-impaired people. What was the miraculous cure? According to third-party reports from the police, social services, the press, etc., he was going around from village to village putting out the eyes of these people. Thus they were left completely blind after his treatment. What was interesting, though, was that none of the “victims” agreed with this. Each and every one of them swore up and down that they could see perfectely now, for the first time in their lives. Never mind that they demonstrably could not see your hand if you put it in front of their face; from their point of view, after their contact with this “holy” man, they could see clearly.
[The story is a wonderful macrocosm of the internal conflict between the modern "Western" view of truth, as represented by the authorities, and the traditional "Hindu" view, but leave that aside.]
Again, Katherine’s comment, “How many people did not want to believe the utter inhumanity of Germans during WWII?”, reminded me of a similar incident at the end of WWII. A group of GIs came across one of the death camps in Germany. The father of a friend of mine was among them. Angrily, they dragged the residents of the nearest village over to see first-hand the evil which their country was committing right on their very doorstep–they did not want these people to be able to deny later ever having seen the horror. What was the response of the Germans (who, apparently, were genuinely horrified by and truly ignorant of the atrocities)? “Oh mein Gott, someone should have told Herr Hitler about this, he would have done something!” Such is the social perception of reality.
To my way of thinking, the anti-scientific “deconstructionist” school which has taken over humanities departments across the land is a huge step backwards into barbarism. Politically motivated, the fundamental idea seems to be that if we find reality inconvenient for our political purposes we will simply throw it away and create the reality which we want. How liberating! It sounds very good no doubt as long as the people who are allowed to do the defining are “good guys”. But what happens when the “bad guys” take over? What happens when the apparent “good guys” are actually “bad guys”? Katherine knows what happens; I guess the folks in Berkeley (or CU, take your pick) lack sufficient imagination to cover that scenario.
How else can we explain the apparent dichotomy in social reality which is occurring right now, here in the US? We blog addicts all know the story of the Kerry lies about Cambodia, the Alston story, and about Oil for Palaces, etc., and yet there is scarcely a word about any of these in the MSM. It is eerie and rather frightening. It’s as though we’re suddenly living in some strange science fiction novel in which only the elite are aware of the presence of aliens. As my son said to me the other day during an argument about Kerry, “CNN has more credibility than Roger Simon!” As long as truth is being approached on that level, the social level, rather than the factual level, then one is necessarily going to believe that there is no Oil for Palaces scandal, Kerry is a war hero, and Bush is a lying scum who kills people for no reason. Such is The Story as told by the MSM, nearly uniformly.
Being honest is difficult and requires constant vigilance. As such, it is a high-energy state and so will be avoided by most people whenever possible. However, in the long run the consequences of dishonesty are unacceptable. No matter how we choose to define reality, in the end the real reality is going to come up and kick us in the behind, or worse. It appears to me that the real reality did just that on 9/11. Clearly the social reality has not yet caught up.
P.S. That would be “microcosm”, not “macrocosm”.
DC:
Your reference to the “necessity” of Communism/Sandanista rule is myopic at best, and certainly inaccurate.
One need only examine the history of South Korea or Taiwan to see that it is eminently possible to start with a nasty, vicious right-wing government and wind up with a democracy, without the wasteful detour into Communism.
If one compares cases of divided nations, e.g., Germany (democratic the whole time in the West), Korea (military dictatorship in the South), China (civilian dictatorship on Taiwan), and Vietnam, one can only conclude that Communist systems are not only unnecessary, but actually retard ultimate development. Ask any German, and they will say that East Germany, since reunification, has been a massive drag on that nation’s economic development.
Why you would think that, therefore, the Sandanistas, were necessary (other than, perhaps, hearkening to the positivist dialectics of the academic Left) is beyond me.
But, then, this is the same logic that the Left uses for why they must join with ANSWER. But, as “Roberts” notes, the tendency is far more for the reformists to be liquidated when they align with the likes of the Sandanistas, than for them to triumph.
The Tsar, after all, was not overthrown by Lenin, but by Kerensky and the moderate Left, who were in turn liquidated by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Irony must be dead if no one understands it.
Anyway, the Sandanista army was responsible for the toppling of Somoza and his regime. It was the Sandanistas who called out for an all out uprising. Without the Sandanistas, Somoza would probably have stayed in power.
DC:
I would suggest that it is reading comprehension and/or historical awareness that is dead.
On what do you base the argument that the Sandanistas were not only necessary, but that Somoza would have remained in power w/o them?
Please indicate which Communist insurgencies resulted in the toppling of the Philippine, South Korean, Taiwanese, or Chilean dictatorships?
You suggest that you are not supportive of the Sandanistas, yet one wonders why, in the face of successful violent and non-violent topplings of right-wing governments by non-Leftists, you continue to argue that in Nicaragua that was not possible.
Are the Nicaraguan people just more stupid? More violence prone? More in need of a vanguard-party to lead the way? Or was Daniel Ortega just that much more saintly and necessary?
DC:
The famous “Commander Zero” [Eden Pastora] was the actually leader of the Sandinista Army that brought down Somoza. And what happened to Pastora after Ortega took over? He was driven into exile because he was not a Communist. He became a Contra leader. By the way, Contra means opposition. Of course you lefties interrpreted it as Counter-Revolutionary… a bad thing.
So I guess I am not the only one who didn’t get your “irony.” Perhaps left wing irony is too self revealing.
A few things…
The Kerry quote again:
The implication is that there were communist political forces at play in South Vietnam. And indeed, there was the Provisional Revolutionary Government. However, the PRG was a puppet organization created by the North. [A Viet Cong Memoir, Truong Nhu Tranh, PRG Justice Minister] It was created specifically to provide an appearance of a communist political force in the South which should have a seat at negotiations, and once the North took over, the PRG’s people were sidelined. On John Kerry’s first anti-war visit with the enemy (before his notorious speech), he met with the PRG, but not with the South Vietnamese. I think that’s very telling.
As far as the Nicaraguan Contras, they were a mixed bag. As in normal communist tactics, the Sandinistas hijacked a broad based revolution against Somoza. This left a lot of factions unrepresented. The Contras drew from them as well as, presumably, former Somocistas. One of the large fraud of the time, pushed along by Kerry among others, was the accusation, still believed by many, that the CIA was selling crack cocaine in LA as a complex part of the operation.
Another telling moment happened when the election results of the first fair election were announced to the international (mostly US) press. The press for the most part was very unhappy. One member wept.
Similarly, when the Swifties held their first press conference, the press again was observed to be most upset as they had to deal with this information about their war hero democrat. It didn’t take them long – they simply took the Kerry campaign’s pre-prepared attacks on the messenger.
Meanwhile, Venezuela appears to be a mess. Were the results correct or not? Exit polls showed a landslide against Chavez, but it’s not clear how good or objective they were. Carter has declared the election fair (now he can have another dictator to schmooze).
Roger, I’ve long been curious about your ideological evolution – a smart guy in a life almost optimal to making you a radical leftist. Thanks for adding a little bit, there.
Sun-Tzu,
I never said or implied that communism was a necessary detour to democracy.
I said it was ironic that without the Sandanistas democracy may not have visited Nicaragua. By that I don’t mean it never would have happened. I’m talking about one country, not all countries. And I said it was ironic!
Irony, as I said earlier, must be dead.
The amusing thing is that the Kerry campaign still can’t get their “facts” straight on the Cambodia story. Kerry flack Michael Meehan said that Kerry had one specific mission into Cambodia; Kerry biographer said in the Telegraph article that it was three or four missions. Kerry’s original lie about the Christmas in Cambodia (in a review of Apocalypse Now) says that he went in on “more than one occasion”.
Akefa, whatever credit Kerry might have earned in Viet Nam — not much, frankly, given his 4 months in country and his dangerous gloryhounding then — is more than overwhelmed by the things he said about me and people who hung it out a lot farther than me when he came back.
So, if you really want me to, I’ll be glad to consider his war record when I vote.
Shame I can’t vote for him to be extradited to Viet Nam for his “war crimes”.
DC:
Irony? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
If it were actually true that Somoza would have stayed in power but for the Sandanistas, you would have your irony.
But as others have pointed out, even in Nicaragua, the Sandanistas were but one piece of a larger opposition. Unless you can actually show that their contribution was seminal, I think you have failed to show any irony.
More to the point, you wrote:
It’s no wonder, however, that communism was attractive to some central american countries. we were supporting murderous regimes, they must have thought, if this is who america is supporting, how bad can communism be?
That statement is inaccurate, both in terms of how “attractive” Communism was to central American countries (some elements, perhaps, but they don’t seem to have won many elections, do they?), as well as in terms of the thought processes. Again, it would appear that Nicaragua was susceptible, in your telling, to a thought process that occurred in no other American-backed dictatorship.
Okay, Jerry, I’ll bite…
When did I say the Sandanistas–once they took power–were good? oh, that’s right, I didn’t…you’re putting your words in my mouth.
DC
Akefa–
And while Bush was actually commander-in-chief, liberating 50 million people, Kerry couldn’t figure out whether he was for the war or against it. Whether we were acting in self-defense or being “misled” into war. Some leadership from Monsieur!
P.S. If planning ahead of time to try to win a medal by beaching your boat is “proving yourself,” you have a pretty warped standard for personal conduct.
Pat–
The amusing thing is that the Kerry campaign still can’t get their “facts” straight on the Cambodia story.
Yeah, it’s tough to keep to a consistent story when you’re making it up on the fly.
Akefa:
First, you need a little historical context here. When Bush volunteered for the TANG his unit had elements deployed to SE Asia. When Kerry volunteered for SWIFT boats they had marginally dangerous duties patrolling the coast. By the time Kerry got to SWIFTS their mission had changed to patrolling inland VC/NVA invested rivers. On the other hand, by the time Bush was qualified to fly the F-102 the AF had figured out that an aircraft designed to shoot down Soviet Bombers was not suitable for other types of combat operations. Such is the vagaries of military service.
Second, the ANG was not like the Army Guard during this era. They were, and remain today, the principal tactical force assigned to continental air defense. Bush spent more time on active duty the Al Gore and probably as much as John Kerry did. Furthermore, while obviously not as dangerous as Kerry’s service, flying an underpowered, single engined 1950′s vintage fighter is not a healthy thing to do. Several of Bush’s squadron mates died in flying accidents during his time of service. This has all been said before but you appear to be new.
And finally, remember this. Today’s version of LT Bush might be all that stands between you and a terrorist airplane headed for you place of work.
Akefa, to the contrary, Kerry was not “proving” himself at all in Vietnam. However, regardless of how one might credit Kerry’s dozen weeks of riverine patrol, Kerry has discredited himself with respect to every day of that brief tour with his lies about himself, his lies about his fellow Vietnam veterans and his collaboration with the enemy.
Sun-Tzu,
The Sandanistas led a popular uprising against Somoza’s regime. You may not like that, but it’s a fact.
It’s not the people were pro-communist, but many saw it as a better course than the U.S. backed government they were forced to live under. Obviously, they soon found communism to be just as corrupt as the folks we once backed.
DC
DC:
Since you bit as you say. During the time period that the communists controlled Nicarauga did you oppose President Reagan’s funding of the Contras?
Yes = I didn’t put words in your mouth.
No = I apologize.
Weren’t old enough = don’t make arguments for which you don’t the facts.
akefa:
I’m curious about your use of the term “earned,” when you say that John Kerry has “earned” a chance at the Presidency.
On what do you judge he has “earned” the White House? On his military service? Then I am forced to inquire: Did you vote for Bill Clinton, over George HW Bush and Bob Dole, both of whom served in the armed forces and saw combat? Did you vote for Michael Dukakis over George HW Bush?
Based on Kerry’s Senate record? He doesn’t seem to talk about it much, could you enlighten us as to what he’s done to earn the WH based on that?
Based on Kerry’s record as lieutenant governor and district attorney? Again, he doesn’t seem to talk about those experiences much, could you enlighten us as to what he’s done to earn the WH based on those experiences?
Or is it based on their party affiliations, in which I again ask, why do you use the phrase “earned”?
DC:
Thank you for the partial historical review.
You have yet to show that the Sandanistas were necessary to topple Somoza, which would seem to be a prerequisite for the use of the term “irony.”
Nor is it at all clear that the people saw Communism as superior to the US-backed government. At most, one can conclude that they did not like Somoza (no surprise there).
Did the Sandanistas publicize that they were promoting a Communist platform, when they led the broader coalition? Or did they try to usurp the revolution that they had helped, much as the Bolsheviks usurped the October revolution?
But at least you agree that they were Communists. Given the tenor of the debates at the time, many failed to recognize even that much. SEN Kerry would seem to have been one of them….
WichitaBoy
Wow!
::saving to disk::
And Goof is a perfect example. Note his strange conflation of Camus and Milosz. That the new truth that Milosz speaks of is in fact Bush’s war.
Sheesh.
Kerry seems to be the least qualified major party presidential candidate that I can remember. His qualifications:
-service and combat veteran
-anti-war activist who skated long the edge of treason
-Senator for 20 years or so with no particular achievements during that time – in other words, utterly undistinguished service.
- prosecutor
- Lt. Governor
Color me underwhelmed. Which leads to the obvious question of why this mediocrity is the candidate.
With or without the Vietnam lies, this guy looks like a turkey.
Then we get the lies – the false acquisition of one or more purple hearts, Cambodian Christmas, controversy about his medals, the “I threw away my medals but still have them.”
It is mind boggling. It shows the level of Bush Hate in the country – there’s no other reason to vote for this guy. Apparently “Anybody But Bush” means “Any Turkey Instead of Bush.”
Syl
You just made my day. What a smile.
78 days to go.
With all due respect to those who served in the military (I admire your service), it is a mystery to me how military service qualifies one to be President, or even to be particularly insightful about military matters. It is a piece of a larger puzzle. One can learn some very good and useful skills in the military, some of which skills are relevant to the presidency and some of which are not. Whether one did or did not serve in the military is not an automatic qualifier or disqualifier for political office.
Moreover, Kerry was a very junior naval officer who commanded a small boat. It is not clear to me that this contributes anything at all to Kerry’s qualifications: it does not involve any authority for military matters above tactical level and involves leadership of only a handful of men. I do not disparage the job – men who did it honorably can be justifiably proud and I thank them for it. I do, however, question that it does anything whatsoever to qualify one to be president, as one must jump a few ranks to get from Lt (j.g.) to C-in-C.
Ben,
Do you mean, “How is this relevant to the election?”
The question at stake here is whether Kerry is a pathological liar.
I consider that an important issue to resolve. But that’s just me.
Ben
It’s just another item in the resume. Depending on what you did, it might have relevance (I’d say Eisenhower’s military background indicated a successful executive who would deal with uncertainty).
Otherwise, speaking for myself, being in the military immerses you in the military culture, and shows that you can get along with people under military circumstances. Understanding of military culture can be helpful to a Commander In Chief, and that may be one reason that Clinton, the only non-veteran president since FDR, had a lousy relationship with the military. However, I think the real reason was that his people (and wife) simply detested the military (and a lot of those folks would probably come in with Kerry).
Serving in combat shows physical courage, but I don’t think that’s important for CIC.
Overall, military service provides a time to measure someone’s character. So do lots of non-military things.
As a veteran, I don’t think the President needs to be a veteran, but it might be a minor benefit.
I’m with you Bostonian: it’s an issue b/c Kerry made his service an issue. I’m just questioning why his service was supposed to be relevant in the first place.
2 other issues stand out for me: (1) the blatant double standard of the MSM which thinks it’s ok to harp on questions about Bush’s service in the ANG while ignoring questions about Kerry’s service (and his disgraceful behavior after the war). (2) as much fun as it is to thrash Kerry, the Dems and the MSM over this, I’m more interested in Kerry’s 20 years in the Senate; I don’t want Vietnam to distract everyone from the real questions that exist about this guy’s subsequent record.
As a perfect example of how todays elite media is embracing the lie: In one of yesterday’s threads someone linked to an interview of Ray C. Fair by a reporter for the NYT, regarding an econometric formula of his that is currently predicting a landslide for Bush. The interview was both fascinating and horrifying. First the reporter assumed that because the formula was predicting a Bush win that had to mean that Fair was a Republican. (And which tells us a lot about the validity of any poll coming out of the NYT these days, doesn’t it?) When Fair finally told her he was actually a supporter of Kerry, she then questioned how he could stand by an econometric formula that was predicting a result he apparently doesn’t want. And she went on to say, “But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.”
So in this woman’s pathetic world view, Fair should have compromised his personal integrity and professional reputation by either discarding the results of his formula or altering the formula until it gave him a result that was favorable toward Kerry. Of course to do that would have not only made his formula but his whole life a lie, but that would be okay, apparently, as long as it would serve the cause of getting this one paltry excuse for a man elected president.
What a pitiful, bankrupt life this woman must live that she would hold honor and truth and personal integrity so cheaply. How sad for her, how sad for the newspaper she works for, and how sad for our country that more of us aren’t standing up and shouting in the face of all these liars, For shame!
The unfortunate truth for them–for us all really–is that they can lie until their faces turn purple, and they will succeed in convincing the easily fooled like Goof and Hollywood that their false reality is real, but all the lying in the world isn’t going to alter what simply is. War has been declared upon us by an Islamic facist movement that wants to kill each of us individually and to destroy our civilization. We can either fight back, surrender, or die.
Hugh Hewitt said it best the other day, A President Kerry is going to get a lot of us killed.
John Moore -
I’m glad you responded, as I was particularly interested in what you would have to say. I agree 100% with your analysis. There is nothing that prepares someone completely for the Presidency, since that is a unique office – I think a governorship, a major cabinet post or a senior military position (e.g., theater commander) are about the best preparation for the office. Like everything else, however, these only provide some insight in to certain aspects of the job.
John Moore wrote: Serving in combat shows physical courage, but I don’t think that’s important for CIC.
Relevant to this is a conception that U.S. Grant had. He distinguished between the physical courage of the battlefield and what he called “moral courage”. Moral courage meant the ability to be the guy who says “the buck stops here”. The ability to make the tough decision when there’s nobody else to fall back on. He pointed out that many soldiers and even high-ranking commanders lacked that last bit of “moral courage” to make the necessary decision which might cost lives. All the great commanders of the Civil War had moral courage: Grant, Sherman, Lee, Thomas, Jackson, Forrest. All the failures lacked it.
I think it’s clear that Bush has it and Kerry lacks it. So the only conceivable solution to any problem that Kerry can produce is cut and run.
WitchitaBoy,
Excellent point. Unfortunately it is the CIC who has to decide when to send our troops to kill and die. He doesn’t go himself. Entirely different type of “courage”. We’re likely to hear back from our erstwhile Kerry supporters that demonstrating physical courage gives one a leg up on moral courage, but clearly that doesn’t hold up under historic scrutiny.
Jerry,
Yes, I did oppose Reagan’s funding of the Contras.
It was also illegal.
I thought the Sandanistas would find their way. They did have elections in 1984, though most of the opposition parties did not compete in them–for good reason? I can’t say. I thought, however, it was a start.
While I came to oppose the Sandanista government, many of the Contras were leftover from Somoza’s regime. The Contra death squads were not a welcome sight either. So, I could not support the Contras. It was a bad situation either way.
I think we could have moved the Sandanistas to a true democracy without funding the Contras. In fact, it could have been the pressure that other Central American leaders were putting on Ortega, along with the aid from the Soviets declining, and with the US finally trying to negotiate a solution–now that they could no longer fund the Contras–that brought the elections to, at last, come to pass.
DC
Wichita,
I can only add Amen! to your post.
Regarding military experience of both candidates: I considered it very, very carefully: 4 months of service on the ground vs. 4 years of successful C-in-C. There really is no contest, is there?
Sun-Tzu,
All I was trying to say is that an honest election would never have happened under the US backed government of Somoza. It wasn’t until a communist government came in to power that the US even started talking about democratic elections.
Also, yes, I think there is a little of both regarding the Nicaraguan revolution. In the beginning the Sandanistas brought in non-Sandanista’s into the government. Later, however, it became apparent that other voices were not to be tolerated–the Sandanistas were the only power. But land reforms, education and health care certainly were supported by the masses…they weren’t getting anything close under Somoza. But in the end, the Sandanistas betrayed themselves and the people of Nicaragua.
I bet–okay, I’m guessing–if they had a choice between Ortega and Somoza, Ortega would win the election. Thank God, that wasn’t the choice. As Jerry as pointed out, Pastora, an original leader of the Sandanista movement was elected over Ortega.
DC
DC:
All I was trying to say is that an honest election would never have happened under the US backed government of Somoza. It wasn’t until a communist government came in to power that the US even started talking about democratic elections.
Which was why they never happened elsewhere, like the Philippines, South Korea, or Taiwan. Because the US was just so much more opposed to democratic elections in Nicaragua than Philippines (major bases), South Korea (major bases), or Taiwan (no bases at all).
Exactly why would free elections never be sanctioned in Nicaragua, doublecola? Why do you think the US would never have pressured for them there, of all places, when we were prepared to cut the props out from under Marcos, Roh Tae Woo, Suharto, and Pinochet?
And, based on your reply to Jerry, I can only conclude that you found a Communist system to be as acceptable, if not more so, than a right-wing dictatorship. Good to know.
penwil
I’m glad you mentioned the John Ray NYT interview. My reaction was similar to yours. Mr. Ray seemed almost to be teasing the hapless interviewer; I wasn’t completely convinced he was a Kerry supporter. But perhaps he is; if so, I especially admire his standing by the results of his own analysis, which seem to be unfavorable to a political outcome he may desire.
That the NYT would unapologetically display the blatant bias of this interviewer without any apparent shame was almost beyond belief!
Jamie Irons
Relevant to this is a conception that U.S. Grant had. He distinguished between the physical courage of the battlefield and what he called “moral courage”. Moral courage meant the ability to be the guy who says “the buck stops here”. The ability to make the tough decision when there’s nobody else to fall back on. ….
I think it’s clear that Bush has it and Kerry lacks it.
Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself completely with the Honorable Member’s remarks.
Sun-Tzu,
I could never favor Somoza’s government. It was an evil, cold-blooded murderous regime.
Never would there have been free elections under Somoza. We didn’t care about elections in Nicaragua until the Communists took power. I’m talking about this one country at one particular time.
What are saying about Pinochet? We put that muderous thug into power in Chile. Without the US, that cold-blooded goon would never have overtaken the democratically elected government of Chile. You may not have liked Allende, but he didn’t throw out Chile’s 90 year old constitution, Pinochet did. Allende might have been voted out in the next election, but now we’ll never know.
DC
I have to agree with a lot of the folks here, reality does not exist for the Bush haters. It is all pereception. Kind of like the benign indifferrence of the universe that Camus liked to talk about.
In truth McGreevey is a corrpt politician and the Dems should get rid of him post haste. Forget the whole gay rights thing. It is not playing.
Kerry is fiction and as hard as the press tries to sell him as real candidate with depth sooner or later this will become evident. I just hope he is not president when it does.
As for the whole latin American thing somebody shoudld explain to double cola that politics in central and south America are more complicated than just who America supports. That part of the hemisphere had been “discovered” more than a century before the Puritans landed at Plymouth rock but people in an oil rich nation like Venezuala are still plagued by debt, corruption and poverty on a grandiose scale. Might have something to do with the feudal like caste system left behind by the European elite that pillaged and plundered the continent.
The Sandinistas were clever in hiding a lot of their communist goals and actions. Plus, with the constant attention as a result of the Contras, they did’t get as far down the line. Unlike Fidel, who had public firing squads, the Sandinistas grabbed power more quietly and more slowly.
It is reminiscent of how the Communists in Vietnam sold their re-education camps. The ordered people to go to them and bring 2 weeks of supplies. This led everyone to think they were in for 2 weeks of propaganda. Many of them didn’t get out for many years. It was a scam.
In both cases, the US was foiled.
One little fact that the MSM didn’t bother to report was that the Sandinista leaders were mostly from the upper class – families that had done well under Somoza. Furthermore, upon seizing power, they also seized the best houses (mansions) for their homes.
An interesting document, probably still available from the State Department, is the collection of documents captured in Grenada. They showed clearly a Cuba directed plot to establish communism in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The documents are a bit funny, because the Grenadians were trying to show how important they were to this grand plan.
When one recognizes that Cuba was a very important ally of the USSR, it is clear that support for the Sandinistas (or the El Salvadoran rebels) was support for the foreign policy of the USSR – in other words, Imperial Russia. When Carter stopped fighting the cold war, it rapidly moved into Central America.
Given the history of international communism, all communist regimes are evil. In fact, I would venture to say that the Sandinistas were destined to be worse than the Somoza regime. Certainly the Mosquito Indians immediately felt the increase in repression. The Cold War left failed to understand the true nature of communism – viewing each situation as a special case. For them, I suggest reading “The Black Book of Communism”
If Chavez institutes a Communist regime (and his ties to Castro are not encouraging), Venezuela will turn into a hell hole.
DC:
Amazing. You know that there would never have been free elections in Nicaragua. How?
Ah, b/c we hadn’t cared before the Sandanistas arrived. Again, I ask: What was the Communist insurgency in South Korea that led us to pressure them to allow free elections? What was the Communist insurgency in the Philippines?
Oh, but you’re only talking about this one country? Then I have to ask, again: How do you know? Especially given the pressures that the subsequent admnistration (the Reaganites) put on various dictators, how in the world can you be so certain that there would NOT have been pressures on Somoza?
As for Chile, you might want to check this link:
http://val.dorta.com/archives/000343.html
This link has actually already been cited in previous threads. The point is that, in fact, Allende was in the process of dismantling the Constitution in Chile.
I do find it very funny, however, your absolute certainly on the one hand that Somoza would not have allowed elections, and your apparent near-certainty that Allende would have. When did Castro allow free elections last?
Penwil,
The interview that with prof. Fair was indeed ìboth fascinating and horrifyingî. But it is only the latest example of the moral degeneracy of people who do not care about means as long as the ends that they desire are achieved.
Remember what happened to Bjorn Lomborg when he challenged the orthodoxy of ìglobal warmingî. I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American after reading the hit pieces on Lomborg that the editor solicited; they were very light on the substance, but very heavy on ad hominems. I find it particularity horrifying that scientific truth is considered to be something less important than political expediency.
This is indeed sliding into barbarism.
Ben,
The primary criterion for someone seeking the office of president should be his/her record of achievement. John F. Kerry has been in public service for 28 years (excluding military service). It is proper to ask for a list of his achievements as:
Prosecutor ’76-’82
Lt. Governor ’82-’84
US Senator ’84 -’04
There is essentially no need to kick Kerry around (although it is fun). It is more useful to encourage Kerry supporters to provide a list of achievements. What in his long and illustrious carreer suggests that he is competent to execute the office of President of the United States? What has he initiated and seen to completion in the area of legislation? What evidence of executive competence can a Kerry supporter (or his campaign) provide?
Promoting these type of questions is probably the best way to reach the swing voters. It is also a lot of fun to ask Kerry supporters these questions in order to watch them squirm. The man has managed to achieve practically nothing over 28 years, watching his supporters come to that realization as you question them is interesting.
I’m not sure if the MSM did cover-up the backgrounds of the Sandanista leaders. I, in any case, was well aware of their middle to upper class backgrounds and educations. I was only reading and watching MSM. No Pacifa Radio on one edn or the Washington Times on the other–just MSM. However, I can’t tell you why I know it, I just assumed I picked it up in the Times or on CBS, etc.
Whether the Sandanistas were going to be as evil as Somoza is debateable. I doubt it, but tell that to the indians–I know. There has to be a better choice–and backing Somoza until almost to the end is not the way to go.
I think there were true believers in the Sandanista movement, but the communists pushed them aside.
I think when we side with bad guys, it seems many times to come back to bite us…The Shah of Iran, Somoza, and others.
Ah, the Shah. Horrible fella. SAVAK and all that.
I have to ask, though: Do you think the mullahs, in their 25 years in power or so, have killed more or fewer people than SAVAK did in THEIR 25 years in power?
Do you think women are better off under the mullahs or the Shah?
This is one of those funny things, about how backing the Shah brought about bad results. No, STOPPING our support for the Shah, and allowing the good Ayatollah to come to power, brought about bad results.
‘Cuz the Shah, he’s sorta like Saddam: secular, allowed women unprecedented freedom, all those sortsa things that the Left typically says was good about Saddam, and worse about present-day Iraq.
DC,
It has been discussed already so many times – the big bad USA supported these ugly regimes in the context of the COLD WAR. I hope you remember this particular struggle. Your arguments are based on your believes only. The “independent” communist regimes outperformed all the worst post WW2 non-communist dictatorial regimes.
Jamie,
I know–Fair thoroughly exposed the stupidity of her question in the first place, by pointing out that he could have self-serving reasons for lying either way.
And the woman is so clueless that she never got that the man’s econometric formula itself simply is what it is–a formula. It could be spot on brilliant or it could be a piece of crap, but either way it is incapable of altering, in and of itself, in the slightest the reality of what is actually going to happen on November 2nd.
Sun-Tzu,
Allende was democratically elected.
Allende did allow for mid-term elections and Chile was a functioning democracy.
I’m not talking about South Korea, I’m not talking about Castro. Oh, and I hate Castro!
I do think some countries and situations are unique. You don’t.
I can’t convince you that Somoza was a brutal thug who had no interest in elections. Fine, prove otherwise.
I’m out for the day, I’ll try to be back tomorrow–I’m sorry–really! but I have to run off.
Sun-Tzu, without irony, it was good debating with you. I hope we can continue more debates like this down the road. We may disagree, but name-calling never reared its ugly head…Thanks!
DC
Considering what a rotten President Grant was ya might want to retool the “Moral Courage” argument a bit.
Frankly, I don’t care that Kerry was a LtJg, Bush was in the National Guard, and Clinton successfully avoided the Vietnam War. In that time, many people of conviction and integrity came to different conclusions regarding service in Vietnam.
However, since Kerry chose to make his four months the center piece of his campaign kick-off speech, questions about that four months naturally become relevent. So far those questions have been asked, and he has either not answered, attacked the questioner, or has had to change his story.
I consider the War of Terror to be the most vital policy issue there is. He sought to obscure his peace activism after the war, and his pacifistic voting record in the Senate with a salute, patriotic music and a Double Top Secret War Plan.
I don’t trust him — his lies and dissemination tell me more about his character than his bragging about four months of heroics thirty years ago.
Could one find a clearer illustration of the distinction between an Honest Liberal and a New Reactionary?
Reread Roger’s post and then read doublecola’s initial comment to that post.
The first strives to provide a honest personal assessment of one-time support for a Leftist movement that spawned a totalitarian government. Overriding concern: self-examination via honest admission of error for supporting totalitarianism.
The second strives to redirect the blame for that totalitarian government from the Leftist movement to the government of the United States. Overriding concern(s): shift responsibility of embracing totalitarianism by Leftist movement to government of U.S. (ie-Reagan and Republicans) and to establish moral equivalence between U.S. government and Sandinista (communist) government.
Is that not the heart of the New Reactionary argument? Who are we to attempt to better the world? We are not pure. Only Leftists and their sympathizers are pure. Therefore, because we are not pure:
1) we are no better than those we oppose (except if they are Leftists, then they are better than us),
2) we cannot help or do better for anyone,
3) we cannot do anything for anyone for any reason other than those connected to the basest of motives (because we are not Leftists).
The issue here to doublecola isn’t the Sandinistas, Somoza, Contras or the people of Nicaragua, it is the government of the United States. Specifically, it is the ‘Republican’ government of the United States of the 1980s. And even more specifically, it is the desperate need to deny any legitimacy to a major foreign policy triumph against communism/totalitarianism by a Republican administration.
What does truth have to do with that?
When was the last time you heard Noam Chomsky express interest in the ‘people’ of Nicaragua? When was the last time some dipshit church council put together a ‘fellowship’ trip of Leftists wishing to express their solidarity with the ‘people’ by working in fields or building houses? In both cases, you can bet you ass it wasn’t after the elections.
This isn’t about truth, it is about acquiring power and revelling in moral superiority.
Lech Walesa went to Ronald Reagan’s funeral. You think he’ll bother with Noam Chomsky’s? Or Jimmy Carter’s? Or John Kerry’s? Why not these three paragons of virtue? Why evil old Ronald Reagan, the dimwitted, tiggerhappy oppessor of the world’s downtrodden? doublecola would be loath to admit it, but Walesa and the Polish people know damn well who cared about them. No doubt the Nicaraguan people know as well.
I suppose if Roger was denouncing Pol Pot in this post, some Leftist (like Noam Chomsky, for example) would spring up and state that the killing fields of Cambodia were really our fault for whatever reason seems plausible or handy…because this isn’t about truth, it is about power.
DC
I did check out the link and understand your point vis a vis the pledge signing to get into the NM campaign event. I’d rather it not be necessary but both parties feel something is necessary as protesters are cordoned off for both conventions. If signing something was deemed necessary to prevent some people from trying to highjack/disrupt a campaign event, I’d rather people sign a pledge not to disrupt rather than a pledge to vote Bush.
That said, I still believe that there’s something different about Alston needing to clear his statements with Kerry campaign. The guy actually supports Kerry. It has more the feel of trying to concoct a single plausible story and to make sure there are no inconsistencies. Well Alston remembers what he remembers. Problem is the guy is spending way more time with Kerry now than he ever spent with him in Vietnam.
Sun-Tzu,
Please understand. I think they are both bad. Why can’t we do better? Why is it always a choice between two bads? We shouldn’t back bad guys–it’s a bad investment that always seems to bite us in the butt.
DC
Barry,
It’s all coming down to marketing and staged events. Neither side, it seems, wants to deal with the truth or the opposition.
I do agree with you on Alston.
DC
“Please understand. I think they are both bad. Why can’t we do better? Why is it always a choice between two bads? We shouldn’t back bad guys–it’s a bad investment that always seems to bite us in the butt.”
Hey now, I thought you guys wanted the US to be mulilateral?
DC:
I’m very disappointed in you. Who’s putting words in whose mouth?
I can’t convince you that Somoza was a brutal thug who had no interest in elections. Fine, prove otherwise.
Please show me one place where I wrote that Somoza was not a brutal thug? Or that he was interested in elections? All that I wrote was that you have given no evidence that Somoza could not have been pressured into accepting elections, in the mold of Roh Tae Woo and Marcos, et. al.
More to the point, YOU are the one arguing that without the Sandinistas, no elections would ever have been held. Even granting you that this is time-limited to Somoza’s life-span, it is YOU who are making the sweeping judgement, in the face of actual historical evidence otherwise.
Then you suggest that Chile was a functioning democracy, when the link noted that, in fact, Allende was seeking to overturn the very constitution that made it a functioning democracy. One wonders whether Saddam’s “election” in 2003 meant that overthrowing HIM was somehow off-limits as well?
Finally, you ask why we have to choose between two bads. Leaving aside the obvious answer that in this world, often all we have to choose from are different shades of gray (is that sufficiently nuanced?), the reality is that there are rarely “good” choices out there. Especially when you don’t know the outcome in advance.
Hitler? Or Stalin?
Mao? Or Chiang Kai-shek?
The Shah? Or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini?
Oh, and careful, or you’re going to wind up in the mindset of Dubya and Ronald Reagan, concluding that some regimes, some leaders, are just plain “evil,” and not to be dealt with. You know, leaders like Kim Jong-il and Saddam Hussein and the Soviet Politburo, leaders that more “nuanced” leaders like Bill Clinton and John Kerry would rather negotiate with than topple or get rid of.
Well, Ben, if there’s anything noteworthy in his record that makes him worth voting for, his campaign sure as hell ought to highlight that!
I really don’t think he understands human nature at all, which I consider an essential prerequisite for POTUS. His policies and voting record cannot cancel that defect. I don’t even know how he’s remained in the Senate all these years.
Consider the fact that the vets in that famous picture issued a cease and desist order, telling Kerry to stop using their faces in his campaign–and he continued to use the picture. Is this smart? Hell no! Someone who would do that is very intensely stupid about human nature.
How can a person so stupid about people be a sensible choice for president?
Disclaimer: I wasn’t gonna vote for him anyway, because he simply is not a credible threat to AQ.
DC,
I am sure that you realize that no policy is formulated in vacuum? That there is no such thing as perfect world populated by angels and we fallible humans have to make choices within the context of the world as it actually exists?
This has been discussed to death, but I will bring it up again: the US and Britain entered into alliance with an evil power, the Joe Staliní Soviet Union so that an equal but at the time more threatening and urgent evil of Hitlerís Germany could be defeated.
It was a moral choice.
Afterwards the world moved to the Cold War, where the necessity to defeat the Communist threat (commie boys were quite open in expressing their aggressive goals) dictated lots of unpalatable alliances and less than pure policy choices for the US.
Incidentally, you do know that after the WWII the Eastern European countries were promised free elections by the Soviet Russia? That was the ìoutî that allowed the US and Britain to agree to allow the Soviets to gobble up half of Europe. These elections of course showed enthusiastic endorsement of communist system by 95% or so of the populations; unlike Chile, the Eastern block had to wait 40 years for the real freedom to vote.
“Considering what a rotten President Grant was ya might want to retool the “Moral Courage” argument a bit.”
Moral courage is a well-established concept, and most officer training courses try to teach it to young officers. There’s some debate over whether it’s effective. One of the more interesting treatments of the process was in a Sci-Fi novel (Heinlein’s Starship Troopers), where he essentially said the concept was unteachable. And while moral courage isn’t everything (e.g., it couldn’t save Grant’s presidency from administrative incompetence), it was an essential attribute of great presidents (e.g., it was Washington’s foremost legacy).
Heinlein’s theory (propounded by a fictional History and Moral Philosophy professor) was that a person who volunteered for a dangerous service assignment showed he was capable of placing the greater good of the community over his own well-being. And that such a trait was both rare and laudable. It’s interesting to note the historical attempts of various [socialist] governments to instill such a philosophy in its ruling class, usually miserable failures.
I agree the practical experience of military experience would generally be of only modest usefulness to a president. But history suggests it’s a relatively good indicator of strong moral character (though there are certainly some examples of moral leaders with minimal military experience, e.g., Lincoln). It’s also interesting to note the salient point is volunteering for service and then serving, not necessarily how distinguished the career.
ìIt’s also interesting to note the salient point is volunteering for service and then serving, not necessarily how distinguished the career.î
Yes, but Heinlein was talking about absolute volunteering i.e. a situation in which a cadet had to demonstrate the will to become a soldier while being actively discouraged to do so, not volunteering to have better choices of service before he would be drafted anyway, while in the ideal world he would prefer no to be forced into service at all.
I’ve heard this before, and I’m sick of it.
Facts:
Allende was a Marxist.
Allende was a friend, and political soulmate, to Fidel Castro.
Allende got 1/3 of the votes, not a majority, 2/3 of the people voted against him.
Allende nationalized private property, against the wishes of 2/3 of the people.
Allendes policy lead to civil unrest. (Mostly lead by the communists, who felt he didn’t go far enough fast enough)
Allende did not run a *stable democracy*.
Sun-Tzu provided an excellent link, and I have also read quite a bit of other material on this subject, and checked references, so if anyone wants to convince me otherwise, they better back it up real good.
As the link says, and all factual info I’ve ever read says, Pinochet acted on his own, without US support. Anyone claiming otherwise better provide *proof*. (And no, just saying “CIA did it” is *not* proof)
For starters, all papers from the White House, and radio traffic to the consulate in Chile (including CIAs) is now available.
And Pinochet arranged elections, lost, and left power. Castro was asked to arrange elections at the same time, but we all know his answer to that.
Please show me a socialist dictator that has arranged elections, lost, and stepped down volontarily. Socialists believe in one man-one vote-one time.
The left always bring up the deaths during Pinochet, yet Amnesty has Castros deathcount at well over 5 times that number, and noone (on the left) seems to mind. Castro and Allende had the same political beliefs, so the parallell is valid, Chile could have gone the same way. Compare Cuba and Chile today, and tell me which country is better off.
Civil war and coups are bloody. Communist rule is even bloodier. The same people that praised Allende also praised Mao and Pol-Pot.
As for “communism is popular”, it’s actually not so strange. The gangs come into a village and tell the kids that they will get to carry a machine gun and get paid if they follow and “join the cause”. And if they don’t, they’ll just risk being shot as “enemies of the people”. An easy way to get volunteers. I dont think that many of them even understands what cause they are fighting for.
Different aid organisations also send people there to give humanitarian help, and guess who take the job as aid workers: socialists… The people from the Swedish aid organisation regularly distributed party propaganda for the socialist governments, wore pro-Sandinista t-shirts, and told the people that “we (i.e. “Sweden”) really think it would be bad if they dont win, we might leave you then, and you wont get more aid…” As one of them put it in the interview: “all of us that work here knew where we stood in the struggle before we even got here”.
So, being told by the people that bring food and medicine, and build houses and infrastructure, that “communism is great, look what we bring you”, and no access to other information. No wonder that communism is “popular”.
Sorry for venting something that’s allready been discussed here, but in todays local paper there was yet another US-bashing letter to the editor. They keep bringing up the same stories, and expect to be taken at face value, and I’m getting fed up of trying to respond every time.
You know, if you guys want an echo chamber where only True Believer, Oh-So-Right Wing Conservative thought is allowed on this site, you’re doing an admirable job.
Wonder when this incivility is going to extend to the host…
Like they say damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Go after Saddam and you are wrong, tolerate fascists and you are wrong.
I think that before people who refer to themselves as “liberal” give lectures to Republicans they should formulate their own philosophy. So far it seems it is just anti. Anti war… Anti Bush… Anti Reagan. Where is the pro?
The Shining Path killed tens of thousands of Peruvians. Just your average marxist latin insurgency. And who cares? If you can’t blame it on Reagan, it never really happened. Or if it did, it has no significance. So what if Chile is the most prosperous and stable of South American contries today, let’s just go back 30 years and pass judgment.
What is this fascination that Democrats seem to have with wars of the 70′s and 80′s?
It is the age old double stgandard. It exists in everything from press coverage of the candidates to the interpretation of history. But the bottem line from Democrats is this:
We are better ’cause we said so and anybody that doubts that is a Nazi.
The other night on his interview with Larry King, Bush said something which to me in a nutshell indicates what kind of man he is at the core, and the contrast between himself and the braggart reporting for duty sloppy saluting lying about Cambodia phony CIA hat carrying Kerry. King was asking Bush if it pained him to send men to war, knowing that some would die, and naturally Bush said that it did pain him (and what kind of monster does King think the man is that he wouldn’t be pained–sheesh!). But then Bush mentioned in passing how difficult it is for him when he must face the parents of those men who’ve lost their lives in the war. At which point King interrupted him to ask with genuine surprise, “Are you saying you’ve been meeting face to face with the parents? How come we haven’t heard about this?” And Bush’s answer, was (and I have to paraphrase here), that the reason why King hadn’t heard about the meetings is because he (Bush) insisted that there be no press releases or photo ops. Bush said that each meeting was a private thing, between himself and the parents, arranged so that he could thank them personally on behalf of the country for the sacrifice they’ve made, and that it would be unseemly for him to use such a moment for his own personal gain,.
And the irony is that if Bush were to arrange photo ops of these visits, complete with the Clinton-like tears in the eyes, and the feeling-your-pain platitudes, he’d probably be picking up some votes he might otherwise not get, but it would have been at the cost of his own integrity.
From what we’ve seen of Kerry, he doesn’t even seem to know the meaning of the word.
jdm:
This is an echo chamber?
Try Daily Kos or for that matter Meet the Press.
I really need to start reading Heinlein.
I heard great things about him, but never got around to getting the books, and I think I would have to order it from abroad, never seen it here…
Just a comment (as I said I havent read the book, so I might get this wrong):
Wasn’t the point in “Starship Trooppers” that volunteering would mean lots of hardships, and/or danger, so that only the people that really was serious about it would go through with it to the end? There would always be an easy way out for those that didn’t want to seriously contribute.
I understand the idea that “moral courage” cant be taught, but I would probably think that it could be “learned”. Wouldn’t that be what growing up and taking responsibility for your own life and your own action is?
I think Teddy Roosevelt said that he learned his life lessons when he lived out in the frontier. And that without those experiences, he could never have been President.
“Yes, but Heinlein was talking about absolute volunteering . . .not volunteering to have better choices of service before he would be drafted anyway . . .”
Yep. My point exactly. And if you factor in the fact that a particular candidate’s military career (considering all factors) benefitted the enemy more than our country, it’s rather underwhelming as a qualification for office.
pnewil-
That gruesome Fair/Solomon interview was taken down to Chinatown by LGF’s minions hereabouts, as well as others.
The first, fundamental, foundational rule of a civilized and scientific worldview was of course summed up by Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” It’s kind of horrifying that it’s been so recklessly abandoned, isn’t it. It is not, nor it cannot come to good.
This is an echo chamber?
Try Daily Kos or for that matter Meet the Press.
Or any Swedish newspaper…
I find it so hypocritical.
The left blames Rumsfeld for “shaking Saddams hand”, and then they turn around and blame the US for “not using diplomacy with Saddam”.
If you want to try diplomacy, it’s pretty hard to do that without actually “meeting” and “talking”. *duh*
Also, diplomacy means give a little, which could mean helping out with food, loans, technical expertise, etc… This is a way to hopefully bond together, and get on friendlier terms. Maybe make that bad guy a little nicer, if he feels he will be better off that way.
Of course you will try to talk to anyone, even your worst enemies. Talking is always the first, and preferred, option.
The idea with talking is to avoid having to use force, but that only works as long as both sides really want to actually talk.
As Teddy Roosevelt put it: “Walk softly, but carry a big stick”.
A stick is useless unless the other guy thinks you might actually use it if pushed far enough…
“Wasn’t the point in “Starship Trooppers” that volunteering would mean lots of hardships, and/or danger, so that only the people that really was serious about it would go through with it to the end? There would always be an easy way out for those that didn’t want to seriously contribute.”
Yes, and the only real benefit was to be enfranchised after one’s term of service. Interesting concept, though not much more convincing than most utopian fantasies. Luckily a minor distraction from a cracking good space adventure yarn.
Erik:
The fact that the world is not happey with us is an issue in this campaign. Kerry says vote for me and the world will like us again.
But I don’t think that is an answer. Kyoto might make the world happy but support for it in the Senate was nonexistent. Something like 95-0. How often does that happen? The reason is millions of Americans would be unemployed and if people think the price of gas is high, well you ain’t seen nothin yet. High energy prices = lower consumption = lower emissions. So people may say they want the world to love us, but not that damn bad they don’t.
The ICC is not compatable with our Constitution and we are partial to that document. I don’t see most Americans wanting to change it to paccify Belgium.
People say we should do a better job of PR, but the US is already the leading provider of humanitarian aid in the world. I remember hearing some farmers from Peru saying they resented the US building schools and putting in sewage systems instead of modernizing their agriculture. Well hell’s bells who says we have to do any of it?
But we do. The truth is much of the world sounds to me like mouthy adolescents that do not approve of the way good ol Dad makes his money but damn well expect a raise in their allowance.
I think the world might want to think about the fact that more and more Americans are thinking they are not worth the effort.
So the nesxt time you respond to one of those letters tell them a certain middle aged American woman from Indiana says same to ya.
Erik:
Well Rumsfeld might have met with Saddam but Chirac called the Butcher of Baghdad a “close personal friend” and sold the man a nuclear reactor. Considering the amount of sucking up to Saddam Europe did I don’t think they are in a position to pass judgment on Rumsfeld.
Peope learn important lessons lots of ways. I learned the value of motels from the Boy Scouts
From the military I learned that I could take pain and unpleasant circumstances. I also learned how to manipulate bureaucracies – P-3 radio operator and instructor in 3 months with no school while an E-2 took some doing). I think the most important lesson I learned was that the military is capable of taking a large number of not particularly bright people, and use them to operate and keep running state-of-the-art technology. I also learned that most of those people were good people to know – and I had been a faculty brat, relatively shielded from ordinary people. Another important lesson was that socialism sucks. For a low ranked individual, the military is socialism: the government provides everything for you – crappy medical care, unpleasant clerks, unnecessary delays, etc.
—————–
As far as liberal fondness for the ’70s – I have my guess: the commies were winning. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, various places in Africa. The liberals had, by their own actions, put the communists in power in Indochina. That was a time for rejoicing. Then along came the ’80s with El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. More thrill – one could be a Sandalista, going to Nicaragua to build an outhouse or something, and feel really good. If only it wasn’t for evil Reagan, socialists paradises, like Cuba, would pop up all over the place. I remember arguing with these folks on Usenet’s talk.politics.misc.
——————-
On Kerry Campodia/Vietnam….
I heard one of the Fox guys (Kondracke or Barnes_ say that the failure of the mainstream press to investigate “Unfit for Command” was the worst journalist malfeasance (he had a better word) he had ever seen (he’s probably forgotten Tet ’68).
Fox is the only major outlet that I know has even mentioned the existence of the book and the charges from it and SBVT. I think I heard some stuff on MSNBC, but since I was probably 10% of their audience at the time, “major outlet” doesn’t apply.
Terrye
A note on Kyoto. Regardless of where you stand on the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis, Kyoto was a fraud. Beyond that, it was a treaty that would have given great commercial advantage to Europe over the US (hence the love of it in Europe) and would have exempted to two countries like to have the greatest increase in CO2 output – India and China.
——————-
Re:Henlein
Everything up to part way through Stranger in a Strange Land is interesting (confession: my first fiction book was Have Spacesuit, Will Travel). Everything beyond the second have of Stranger seems broken to me – an old man’s sexual fantasies or something.
I believe that in Starship Troopers, you could not vote unless you had served.
Early Heinlein was libertarian, had traces of Rand in his philosophy, and probably would have gotten along pretty well with Barry Goldwater.
John:
This has been the nicest summer I have seen in years. No global warming here. We have not had two days in the 90′s all summer. Mostly 80′s and in the 60′s at night. Very pretty. I hope we don’t pay for it this winter. Of course according to the believers in Kyoto cool weather is a sign of global warming, just like hot weather is, just like drought, just like floods, etc.
One of the premises of Starship Troopers was that only citizens may vote and the only way to become a citizen was to have served in the military (I seem to recall a pacifist alternative that was ridiculously difficult). There were no other advantages in society for citizens other than being able to vote…which, of course, is the naively idealistic aspect of the concept.
However, Heinlein wrote great rants, as did Ayn Rand for that matter. Both authors had an amazing ability to see through the fallacies of socialism very early.
And Terrye, that description of your summer made me think you’re from the upper Midwest. A great summer indeed.
And I didn’t say it *is* an echo chamber, but I did indicate it could become one.
The left pillories Rumsfeld for “shaking Saddams hand”
I am sure that they are equally vocal in condemning Ms Albright for her visit with Kim Jong-il (handshakes, toasts and all)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/986411.stm
> I am sure that they are equally vocal in
> condemning Ms Albright
Only if she becomes a Republican.
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is my favorite Heinlein novel and, among the later long novels, I really liked the medative Time Enough For Love. Otherwise, my favorites, including Starship Troopers, are all pre-Stranger.
sun tzu:
Thanks for carrying on the discussion with DC. I think you did a much better job then I ever could in getting him to reveal his preferences:
A true story of a real hero:
I went to a friend’s AF retirement last Friday. At the reception I asked about when another friend of mine was having his. The retiring officer told me that our friend did not want to a formal ceremony, but he did ask a few people to his awards ceremony just before he left. I happened to be on leave and could not attend. Everybody thought it was going to be your typical pentagon end of tour award bit. When citations were read it turned out that it was for two bronze stars. One for Afghanistan and one for Iraq. All my friend ever said was that he did support for SPECOPS guys in the two campaigns. Compare that with Kerry.
jdm:
I suppose that possibility exists, but I think a lot of the folks that come here do so because they live or work somewhere which does not make these discussions easy. I have no way of knowing that for sure, but it is a feeling I get.
Roger is in LA after all, talk about the echo chamber effect. Try to talk aobut this stuff in public and somebody like Alec Baldwin might punch you in the nose or something.
I live in Indiana and no kidding this has been a perfect summer. I am afraid those poor folks in Florida got enough bad weather for all of us. I grew up in Oklahoma and weather there has a real personality. A mean one.
Terrye
I’m no cliimatologist, but I know some, and know a bit about it.
Personally, I think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere at the forecasted rate is going to lead to some kind of change. When CO2 goes from 275ppm to 500 ppm in a couple of hundred years, that should change something.
But climatology involves very long time periods (otherwise, it’s meteorology). Meteorological models (which I use a lot) simply got nuts 5 to 10 days out – due to chaos. In fact, chaos was first discovered with a weather program. Climatology is the longer term sum of weather, and weather is chaotic. However, that doesn’t prove that climate is chaotic and hence not predictable.
However, the kind of data used to calibrate climatological models is poor. Mankind has only recorded temperatures for 150 years, and even that record has problems – calibration, changes in location of thermometer, etc. For example, when they moved the thermometer in Phoenix from the middle of the airport complex (surround by miles of asphalt and concrete) to a little desert spot away from all of that, the temperatures appear to have dropped 2 degrees.
Climatologists have to go to older data, since climate is a long term phenomenon. And the older data is poor. Often it is a long iffy extrapolation from the datum (say, an isotope ratio in coral or something) to temperature. Often the data sets cover only very tiny areas.
Climate models are designed to simulate the physics of weather (global circulation models). Newer ones also have to deal with the ocean, which has its own vast unknowns.
Because there is neither enough data nor enough computing power, they divide the earth into little boxes (finite element analysis). But those boxes aren’t very little – they tend to be tens of kilometers in horizontal extent. So then they have to add fudge factors – if a box has a mountain in the middle of it, do you use the average terrain, or some other fudge factor? If it is half on land, half of sea, what do you do?
This is called parameterization. You can parameterize a model to say just about anything you want, so its not surprising that models exist that can predict the past relatively well. The question is how well the predict the future.
On top of all this, major discoveries continue to be made. At one point, they discovered that human sulfate emissions compensated for the CO2 and cancelled out the warmings. Hmmmm…
During the period after 9-11, there were virtually no jet contrails over the US. The resulting albedo data showedd that the warming of the last 20 years (which was significant and had a funny shaped curve – the “hocky stick” warming) could be explained by jet contrails.
Solar variance has a greater impact on weather (and perhaps climate) than expected. Once again, a big variable not in the models.
When you consider that CO2 is a trace greehouse gas (water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas), you have to start wondering just what is going on.
Oh, and there’s another proiblem: they can’t figure out where a bunch of the carbon is going. We emit far more CO2 into the atmostphere than the current levels match. There is a carbon sink somewhere. Where?
Anyway, odd stuff. I’m hardly an expert, but I’m glad Kyoto was killed in the Senate. It was meant to act only as a trojan horse – to set up mechanisms (and reduce national sovereignty) so that the changes actually needed (per the modelers) could be put in place – drastic (30-40%) reductions in carbon emission.
I’m all for the government and private industry working on alternatives. Personally, I think building large nuclear plants in fortresses out in the desert (we have a lot here) makes sense, but you need a way to store that energy for automobiles, and hydrogen has a lot of problems. Maybe CO2 sequestration is a better approach.
Or maybe we just get used to the higher levels.
Problem that I have with SF writers is that when they manage to create believable fiction their philosophy sucks, and when the underlying message is great, the books are dated or unreal.
My absolutely favorite SF writer is Iain M. Banks; but the poor dear is trying to make it so as the most evolved political system is communism, though that message becomes more and more muted in the later books. He may not realize it, not his Culture (future pan-galactic civilization) is philosophically closest to free-market, free-ideas system of the nasty Capitalist West; even responses of Culture to external treats is eerily similar to oursÖ
But his descriptions of AIs are unparallel; the characters that are most boring are humans.
His last book, ìLook to Windwardî is absolute best. Highly recommended.
This should read: ì but his CultureîÖ
jerry:
My uncle had a purple heart and two bronze stars. No discussion, in fact he avoided the subject. I knew other men like him of that generation.
My Dad had a friend that was at Gaudalcanal and all I ever knew was that he had a bunch of medals. His son was killed in Viet Nam. His name was Tatum. It turned out that Tatum was highly decorated. He and one other men had held their postion in the face of overwhelming odds. I found out about when my brother read an account of the battle years ago. It seems they made a wall of dead enemy soldiers, not a happy memory.
Tatum was a pall bearer at my Daddy’s funeral but he never talked about his medals or the death of his son.
You know, if you guys want an echo chamber where only True Believer, Oh-So-Right Wing Conservative thought is allowed on this site, you’re doing an admirable job.
JDM, a great, if flawed, man once said “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
If DC, or Hollywood, or, for that matter, you, want to wander in and say stupid shit and expect us all to nod and say “oh, very good, we’re so glad you contributed”… well, I suspect you wanted the door down the hall, the one marked “Sesame Street”.
If you want to come in and find out if your ideas can stand up to informed critical thought, this place is pretty good.
John:
It would seem to me that such emissions could exacerbate a natural process. The proponents of Kyoto said it would drop the earth’s temp by 1/2 of 1 degree by the year 2050. Well if half of what they say is true that is a bandaid on a gaping wound anyway.
I think it is very interesting. I don’t doubt that the big ball of fire in the sky has something to do with this but I am sure that climate changes both radically and unpredictabley without any help from us.
It seems that it is part of our arrogance that leads us to believe we can destory earth. We can’t. We can change it but the earth will be here long after we go the way of the dodo bird and the dinosaur.
I read that 1000 years ago there were vineyards in Southern England. Far too cold for that today.
Hey, Charlie, oh, very good, I’m so glad you contributed…
My ideas are doing just fine here, but I figured that if people who don’t follow the One True Faith wander in here, fire off an innocent, offhand remark and get hammered for it, there won’t be many more.
That would the definition of an echo chamber. Duh.
Rick Ballard, Bostonian – spot on! My big concern about the emphasis on Kerry’s Vietnam record is that it will divert everyone’s attention from what really matters: Kerry’s undistinguished record since then. Here, we are in a bit of a bind, however. We certainly cannot expect the MSM to do its job investigating the Swifties charges against Kerry (which are far more credible on their face than those against Bush relating to the National Guard), so the only way the story is going to get out is by us pushing it in places like this.
That said, Kerry’s record as a looney Left waffler in the Senate is far more relevant. As far as I can tell, Kerry STILL has no serious plan for fighting the WoT, the single most important issue at stake in this election. In fact, this is probably the most important election since the end of the Cold War, in that we are again faced with an enemy who wants to wipe us out. I can’t imagine anyone voting for a candidate who doesn’t even know whether he is in favor of fighting a war when the consequences of losing are the end of our way of life and the imposition of sharia law. Anyone who thinks the Patriot Act is the greatest threat facing our liberties badly needs a reality check.
doublecola ó I think we can all agree that if it hadn’t been for the US Cavalry, the Native American tribes would never have become the economic power in the gambling industry they are today…
erik ó Heinlein’s the bee’s knees. I recommend “The Glory Road” and “Starship Troopers” particularly. A point about ST ó Although it is condemned by the pig-iggerint as a militaristic book, in fact Heinlein makes explicit that military service is not the only road to the franchise; even those who are unfit for military service will be provided with challenging personal tasks to perform. The key is not what you do, but that are you are willing to put the common good above your own, that qualifies you for the franchise. Another nice touch about ST, it was one of the first SF novels in America with a non-Caucasian protagonist.
Re Global Warming: I have an idea. Let’s pick a problem that we can’t readily define, come up with a solution that may or may not address it, and spend trillions of dollars (while crippling our economy) implementing the solution which may or may not address what may or may not be a problem. If this sounds like a good idea, implement Kyoto.
Ben, you forgot about the UN. They get a cut – er, to help too.
Yes, and the only real benefit was to be enfranchised after one’s term of service. Interesting concept, though not much more convincing than most utopian fantasies. Luckily a minor distraction from a cracking good space adventure yarn.
Cecil, I think it’s best to look at most all of Heinlein’s books as Gedankenexperimenten. Starship Troopers was Heinlein’s experiment looking at what the moral justification for defending one’s home and country was, and then dramatizing the process by which a self-centered teenager who joined up primarily because he wanted to impress a girl (this was made somewhat more plausible in the movie when they picked Denise Richards) becomes a fully moral being — at least by Heinlein’s rules.
But then, the real system in ST isn’t usually very well understood either: citizenship required two years of Federal Service, but it’s quite explicit in the book that this could very well be essentially working in civil service. Monica Lewinski in the ST world might well have been someone doing her two years’ service. It’s also worth noting that, even in a literal war for the survival of the human race, the world of ST has no draft: you volunteer, or you don’t go.
But that’s not a very good experiment if all that happens is you spend a couple of years of low-paid grunt work. Heinlein put it into the context of a war for survival, because he was trying to develop a reasonable moral system that was based on the same truths Thomas Jefferson “held … self-evident” without reference to specific religious beliefs. He did so by building up from the notion that an individual had the right to dispose of his own life by free choice — but argues that there is a higher motivation, one where an individual chooses to ensure, not his own survival, but the survival of his family, his “tribe”, on up to his species.
I find the moral system pretty convincing, myself. But I don’t think you can evaluate that system by believing Heinlein really thought of the ST world as a utopia. It was more a petri dish.
There. You got a sermon and it isn’t even Sunday.
It reached the point long ago when I stopped paying attention to the network talking heads. Katie Couric’s first question to Arnold about his father’s association with the Nazis was way over the top (Katie, what, pray tell, was Arnold supposed to do about that when he was a kid?? Tell dad off?? Yeah, right.)
You and other bloggers are doing the country a great service.
I have enough background in physics and biology to know that what we puny humans can do to mess our climate in nothing compared to what the big indifferent Universe can dish out to us. The things that we can do absolutely nothing about: sun activity, wobbliness of the orbit, or some nice Nova eruption reaching our solar system.
If we really want to worry about something big and cosmic, how about a possibility that a comet like a Shoemaker-Levy will hit our planet. If warned in time we could at least try to act to prevent the disaster. At this point we do not even monitor all the sectors of the Universe.
But no, letís worry about hypothetical increase of a 1/2 degree in the Earth temperature in the next 50 years or so. I am petrified.
BTW, what is wrong with having vineyards in England? More competition to the French is a good thing.
Katherine
For what it’s worth, Stanislaw Lem is my favorite SF author. No one will ever produce a better anti-communist screed than his short story where the space traveller finds all the perfect cubes and tetrahedrons of salt, but no people. And Solyaris (Russian version) is infinitely superior to Solaris.
The high point in SF communism came when Norman Spinrad wrote his brilliant, daring, cutting-edge novel about the collapse of the Soviet Union… and it was published six months after the USSR collapsed.
WichitaBoy,
I had the privilege to read Lem’s books in original. I still vividly remember the “mechanical evolving life forms” from the Invincible. Or the great stories of cadet Prix.
Oh, boy, Pinochet and Allende:
–Allende might have been voted out in the next election, but now we’ll never know.–
He also might have gotten 100% of the vote like some others we could mention, especially his best bud, Fidel.
Or there might never have been an election.
DC, ever hear of the site Val e-diction? He did some reading into Chile and this is what he wrote:
http://val.dorta.com/archives/000343.html
The failed and tragic attempt by Salvador Allende and the Popular Unity at creating socialism in Chile in 1970-1973 has become a myth for the world left, presented as the possibility of a peaceful and democratic transition to socialism that was destroyed only because the almighty CIA acted as master puppeteer of the Chilean reaction. The myth reinforces itself; while the Cold War context is never mentioned, neither is the fact that the CIAís workings are well documented whereas the Cuban and Soviet interventions are still mostly unknown.
This is who he read:
…There occurred many important episodes leading to the coup, but I have chosen those that most clearly present the myth in all its falseness. To support the post I have selected four diverse books, one by a right-wing author (Moss), another by a trio of Marxists (Roxborough) and two by recognized scholars (Sigmund and Alexander); all of them knew Chile well and had first-hand experience of the Allende period….
There’s also this:
http://ase.skynetblogs.be/?date=20030911&number=1&unit=weeks#57190
and this:
http://www.eriksvane.com/allende.htm
Alston has told a new lie.
In his brief interview with Byron York over at National Review, he claims he was not seriously wounded and was in fact treated aboard a Coast Guard Cutter.
But Ed at Captain’s Quarters has published the paperwork proving Alston was admitted to the 29th Evac Hospital in Binh Thuy.
So now we know how the Kerry camp is going to handle this.
Lie.
Tell lies to protect the lie.
Tell more lies to obscure those lies.
A comment on changing the earth.
It is clear to me that we can change the earth significantly and have already done so. How much of earth is now farmland, for example.
Global thermonuclear war (still just as likely as it was in 1985), with lots of ground bursts, could produce a heck of a lot of dust in the stratosphere. Enough to make a big difference? Probably.
Consider that we have increased atmospheric CO2 50% world wide since the mid 19th century. That seems significant.
There are much bigger effects possible. Enormous volanic events could dwarf this stuff. An asteroid or comet hit could make radical changes.
My problem with global warming is that the science is too flakey to justify the proposed remedies. I like Bjorne Lomborg’s approach of trying to prioritize environmental issues.
Sun-Tzu,
It’s obvious Somoza was never going to have elections–he could have, but chose not to. I have to go with Somoza’s history there–an honest election is not what he wanted.
By the way, how many people died under Allende? How many died under Pinochet? Oh, but that’s okay cuz Pinochet is on our side. What did Pinochet do with the Constitution, he threw it out. Allende didn’t. Our country supported Pinochet. We should be ashamed for that.
I’m not for the communists, let’s face it though, we’ve supported bad guys and it gets us into trouble. We can do better, but there is a lack of balls and creativity in our country. We turn our head from saddam, then we have to lose American lives to get him out. Sure Iran was awful, but we shouldn’t have backed the Shah in the first place–we brought the Shah into power and look where it got us. We can’t support bad guys. I agree, that sometimes there aren’t good choices, sometimes though, we create some of the bad choices.
Oh, and I’m far from being part of the hate-America crowd. I supported getting Hussien out and overthrowing the Taliban–just for the record.
I love America. There, said it and I’m proud of it.
DC
Richard,
I think care needs to be taken with the Alston story. The report cited was done the same day he was wounded and is not dispositive as to his arrival at the Evac Hospital. In other words, the chopper was headed there when it took off but I’d sure like to see an admittance form before I said that he arrived. A scalp wound can look absolutley terrible in the field and turn out to be very superficial. Blacks also scar very differently than do whites, so the aftermath photos aren’t proof of anything either. I do concur that two weeks is the probable maximum amount of time that brother Alston could have spent with the magically hatted Lt. but more proof is needed before it can be said with assurance that he never served with him.
DC,
I’m glad you love America but I wish you would work a bit on understanding what the saying, “The perfect is the enemy of the good” means. Sometimes the only choice is to select the lesser of two evils. If you never did a duck and cover drill in school I suppose I can understand your point of view.
Rick Ballard ó Was the report prepared by CoastDiv or the 29th Evac?
I have serious questions about the idea of taking a man with a head and arm wound to a “coast guard cutter”, which would not have a doctor, as far as I know. The biggest CG cutters were the size equivalent of a WWII USN destroyer or modern frigate; would they have a doctor or a pharmacists’ mate? Would said person be competent to diagnose head injuries? Certainly they would not be able to run X-rays, which you think would be taken in the case of a head wound to look for hairline fractures and the like.
Doublecola, you are getting quite a bit of history wrong with respect to Nicaragua and Chile. It wasn’t Pastora that defeated Ortega – Violetta Chamorro.
You misunderstand the history of Pinochet/Allende and Chile which has actually already been discussed here. You don’t know what you are talking about and seem to be working hard to maintain your ignorance. Allende was moving forward into confrontation with the military because of his unconstitutional actions. Experience has shown us that communist regimes are in fact the cause of a multitude of state-sponsored murders . In Chile, US involvement in the Pinochet coup was actually minimal and hardly essential.
Roberts ó Yeah, but if we get our history right, then we don’t get that great National Lampoon magazine cover: “Oh, no! Our beloved presidente has committed suicide with a machine pistol, shooting himself 37 times and only pausing twice to reload!”
Rick Ballard ó “HOTEL: SERVICEMAN TREATED BY CORPSMAN AND MEDEVACED TO 29TH EVAC HOSP. BINH THUY.” So the form was probably generated at CoastDiv. But why would the medevac take it upon themselves to reroute from the designated hospital to a coast guard cutter. As the bulldog said in the cartoon, “It just don’t add up…”
Speaking of which, Ed at captainsquartersblog.com has even more info now about Short’s veracity. This makes two of the “band” who are either badly memory or truth challenged.
Katherine–
A major comet hitting us is worth worrying over…a little bit. I doubt there are any the size of S-L on a coincident orbit with the earth, but there are many long-period comets that come by so rarely no records of their orbits exist. Rumsfeld would call these “unknown unknowns.”
The asteroid threat is more real, but also more finite. More of a “known unknown.” Most of the 1,000 or so 1-kilometer or larger asteroids in our solar system have been identified.
I have studied the problem a bit. While there are lots of theories about how to deal with an incoming asteroid, the most effective way would probably be a standoff explosion with a nuclear weapon. Such an explosion would cause the superheated top layer of the asteroid to fly off and propel the asteroid into a new orbit.
Yes, nukes are good for something besides deterrence. Don’t mothball those Minutemen!
WichitaBoy and Marek:
When I was referring to Iain M. Banks I was thinking about modern SF writers. But Stanislaw Lem was indeed the Master. Remember the Cyberiad and the Constructors, Trurl and Klapaucius? Or the adventures of Ijon Tichy?
And the Futurological Congress? Or Eden? Or the Solaris? (it was absolutely butchered by Hollywood ñ bleah!). And I absolutely love The Invincible and Adventures of Cadet Pirx.
I think I have almost all the books by Lem; some in origin and some in translation.
Lem was quite skilful at delivering political message in the guise of science fiction. And his readers were adept at deciphering it.
It is so nice to find fellow enthusiasts on this blog
Richard,
I agree with your reasoning, the AHAA! for me will come when they dig up a patient roster from the 29th. There is anoter site – swiftboats.org that is currently exceeding bandwidth. There are crew rosters for every swift boat on that site with rough dates of service. I simply don’t know enough about how the Coastal Division operated. Even if he went to the 29th, if the wounds were not serious, he could have been returned for light duty to his home unit. I absolutley agree that something really stinks about this but I’d prefer to wait for the Swiftvets to come out with something prior to calling Alston a total liar. He has told some stories that don’t bear close scrutiny but I think waiting another day or so may prove wise.
Fresh Air
Apparently there is a planned space mission to land on one of these objects and see if they can give it a push. If you knew far enough ahead of time, a tiny delta-V might be all that was needed.
John Moore–
Right. The amount of time before collision is inversely proportional to the amount of force required.
It would be theoretically possible to deflect a 1-K asteroid only six months away from earth by using a Cold War-era 4-megaton nuclear warhead (assuming they still exist somewhere).
Rick & Richard–
I have some reservations about pronouncing Alston and Short liars. (Though it is clear Alston implied he witnessed the Silver Star incident when he could not have. It was a lie, but a small one.)
I think we all need to keep doing our homework, surfing factual websites, checking out books from the library, going through old newspapers and get to the bottom of this. The Swiftees will not touch this thing. They have enough dynamite in U for C. If all goes right it will set off a series of additional Alston-like revelations that will yield a Jericho-like collapse of the “Band of Brothers” as credible stage props.
I wouldn’t worry about the Swift vets stuff distracting from Kerry’s 20-year slumber in the Senate, though. Bush will be attacking that good and hard very soon. And until any of these stories really catch fire, the MSM isn’t paying enough attention to risk blowback.
Wichita
Your (August 16, 2004 12:02 PM) post is a masterpiece. I’ll file that as an addendum to my “Why am a Republican” file. The Democrats have become the Alien Party have they not? My theory is that Democrats have become possessed by them.
In my crazy family of mine I keep waiting for one of my family members to raise their arm and point their hand towards me like Donald Sutherland at the end of the movie “Body Snatchers” screaching “Yearrrrgh!”. Damn, outed by Howard “the clone” Dean, is this getting freaky or what!
Fresh Air,
I only hope that we would spot the danger ahead of time to be able to use the nukes! David Levy in his book ìCometsî describes what would have happened if the Shoemaker-Levy hit Earth instead of Jupiter and the picture that he paints is terrifying. Let us not forget that this particular comet consisted of multiple fragments; by the time of the last impact there would have been be no civilization left and scarcely any nature as we know it.
And what about changes in Earth polarity? I read that we are pretty much overdue for the switch. This would mess us up good ñ and I am not familiar with any strategy that could get us out of it.
Yeah, the old Universe is a nasty place and no mistake.
“Though it is clear Alston implied he witnessed the Silver Star incident when he could not have. It was a lie, but a small one.”
Kerry in public statements has described the action in which Alston was wounded in some detail (when he wasn’t there). Alston does the same for Kerry’s silver star action (and he wasn’t there). It’s obvious from the silver star photo-op that Short was still around then (on March 6th?)–which supports York‘s timeline and suggests they spent at most one week together.
When you throw in the earlier misleading timeline on Kerry’s website (attempting to take credit for PCF 94′s exploits under the previous skipper, Peck), this thing has all the earmarks of guys getting together to puff up their war records–exactly as the Swiftvets have alleged. Concur that Kerry and his campaign bear most of the responsibility. But Alston’s lie stopped being “small” when he decided to tell it at the Democratic National Convention.
Charlie,
But that’s not a very good experiment if all that happens is you spend a couple of years of low-paid grunt work.
I agree the bug war was essential to explore the concept, but Heinlein’s premise (as stated by DuBois and the narrative descriptions) implied that selfless volunteerism was the critical element . . . whatever they did with you afterward. And I suspect Heinlein (a medically discharged career Navy officer) was using DuBois (a medically discharged career MI officer) to air his own views on service. I found them compelling.
First visit here, and I’m pretty darned impressed with the comments. Compares to what I’ve come to expect from the comment stream over at Bill Whittle’s site, and those often take a week to accumulate the lively exchanges you all have managed in a DAY! Wow!
It’s great to see the civility, a reasonable degree of intellectual rigor, and what appears to be a genuine desire for dialog and constructive challenge.
I’ve been searching around looking at something like a hundred blogs recently. It would be nice to find a place where there are more postings (civil and thoughtfully composed) from the left. Unfortunately, the left seems to have opted for a scorched-earth policy, as evidenced by the recycling of slogans and myths that characterize democraticunderground.com. What is most significant of the left-wing sites though, is that many simply will not post a dissenting view, however gently it is phrased, and regardless of any links, URLS, or references there might be to illustrate or support the dissent.
As someone who tries to keep a moderate course, I’ve found that conservative websites tend to welcome or at least tolerate dissent, and most of the replies or counters to a dissenting post attempt to engage rather than mug the poster.
Youse guys set a high standard! I look forward to more visits.
Consider that we have increased atmospheric CO2 50% world wide since the mid 19th century. That seems significant.
John, I agree that — stated that way — it seems significant. On the other hand, that’s what — 150 ppm to 225, or something? It seems a lot smaller as 75 parts per million. (Forgive me if I’ve got the numbers wrong… it’s early and I’m hypocaffeinaemic.)
The thing is, there are two factors that the global warming zealots — zealots as opposed to the people still trying to do science on this topic — always leave out: the error bars on the “hockey stick” and the known long-term variations in solar output.
I realize you’re not one of the zealots; my point is that when it doesn’t appear that the data suggests there’s measurable global warming that isn’t explained by increasing solar output, and the historical data doesn’t show a change outside the error bars, the null hypothesis ought to be the winner.
I remember when I was in high school, the climate models at the time said a new ice age was coming. Now the climate models say global warming will either (a) cause parching heat and drought, (b) cause an ice age (viz The Day After Tomorrow), or (c) not make a lot of difference.
At least it’s predictive.
A major comet hitting us is worth worrying over…a little bit. I doubt there are any the size of S-L on a coincident orbit with the earth, but there are many long-period comets that come by so rarely no records of their orbits exist.
Just to add to your worries, Fresh, a lot of long period comets are probably on their first pass — perturbed out of the Oort or Kuiper objects and heading in.
Luckily, we’re a moving target.
I agree the bug war was essential to explore the concept, but Heinlein’s premise (as stated by DuBois and the narrative descriptions) implied that selfless volunteerism was the critical element . . . whatever they did with you afterward. And I suspect Heinlein (a medically discharged career Navy officer) was using DuBois (a medically discharged career MI officer) to air his own views on service. I found them compelling.
If you think I disagree, then I wasn’t clear. I’m just saying that both the “utopia” and the Bug War were part of a thought-laboratory experiment to make that point.
Not that I believe for a moment that this group of commenters needs much added to their respective reading lists, but there is a combination of articles that have come to my attention over the past two days that are, I think, relevant to some of what’s been discussed in this thread and, when taken together (although each is fascinating on its own), are enormously thought provoking for this knucklehead. I’m going to need to read each more than once.
First is World War IV: How It Started… by Norman Pohoretz from the Sep. 2004 issue of Commentary.
Next is Wretchard’s brief discussion of that article.
Last, is Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy
(August 27,1945) from Policy Review Online. It is allegedly the first translation of this document to English and it is, IMHO, a fascinating read.
I fully admit that I need to reread the both the Podhoretz and Kojeve pieces to even begin to get a handle on what they tell me, but I thought I’d share.
Sorry, I botched the link for Outline of…
Charlie:
Aren’t you more concerned by Mega-tsunamis when some hank of some island or shoreline falls into the ocean than with meteors and asteroids?
Knuckle–
You would have mega-tsunamis in the event of an ocean splashdown of an NEO, too. Given two-thirds of the earth’s surface is water, it’s actually more likely than the reverse.
Mad Fiddler–
Trolls don’t last long here. They react to facts like a ball of garlic in front of Dracula.
Knuck: Only because they’d screw up my chicken soup with kreplach too. I’m a thousands miles inland.
As far as a NEO into the ocean goes, tsunami should be our only problem. Check out an old Analog science fact article on “Giant Meteor Impact” … or read Pournelle&Niven’s Footfall.
(Although if Pournelle writes about one more heroic diabetic person dying slowy, I’m gonna lose it for sure.)
Welcome aboard, Mad Fiddler!
They’re not really conservative here, just thoughtful, intelligent, experienced people.
If you really want to peruse a thread, check out the 350+++ one when Roger was travelling a few days ago.
Covered a lot of ground there.
Would you mind being called Mad or Maddy for short? I really don’t want to type M….
Kind of OT, but Holly?
Here’s a response to your, IIRC, question about Americans and debt:
http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FH18Dj02.html
The key points of the piece relate to why high US deficits can be maintained and not lead to a collapse in either the dollar or Treasury market:
1. The demand for dollars is rising as the world increasingly globalizes.
2. US indebtedness is not relatively as bad as pundits suggest.
3. The call for a US dollar crash means a Chinese RMB crash because of the linkage – Jen believes this will not happen.
4. The US dollar correction is complete. The next 10% move in EUR/USD, GBP/USD, and AUD/USD will be down.
—-
Our numbers are improving.
Sandy P:
Thanks for the link to the Asia Times piece. But, but… what will Tobias think after he checks with Herbert and Krugman at the NYT?
As for …thoughtful, intelligent, experienced people…
Speak for youself, Young Lady! I remain, as always, a knucklehead. Others here, of course, resemble you remark.
BTW, did Mad Fiddler sign the Loyalty Oath? And last, but not least, I suppose a simple “MF” wouldn’t work, would it.
“If you think I disagree, then I wasn’t clear. I’m just saying that both the “utopia” and the Bug War were part of a thought-laboratory experiment to make that point.”
No, sorry, you were clear enough–I wasn’t. My point was just that although the extreme circumstances were necessary for the fictional account to work (as you said), he goes out of his way to emphasize “they also serve . . .” Which was more directed at the qualifications and moral courage theme of the thread than your comment.
Back on that topic, the important qualification of service is moral–and the moral dimension is primarily the willingness to subordinate the individual welfare for the common good. Heinlein, for example, had it in spades despite an undistinguished career during a militarily unimportant time frame (1929-34). And while I’d normally be loath to comment on someone else’s service, the combination of Kerry’s grandstanding, outright prevarications, shameful broad-brush defamation of his “brothers in arms,” and theatrical antics for the VVAW make me doubt he ever had an inkling of the genuine concept. And his campaign’s attempt to hold up medals and inflated accounts of derring-do as indicators of martial prowess–and thus presidential fitness–are focusing on trivia while frittering away the consideration due one who stepped forward when called.
Roberts,
Yes, I was wrong about Pastora. But despite poor memory with names, I’m still firm on Nicaragua. Our support of Somoza paved the way for a communitist takeover. Yet, Ironically, It was the Sandanistas–urged by other Central American Leaders, The UN and yes, President Bush–who held a free and open election and the transfer of power was a peaceful one.
Nor am I wrong about Allende. He has no record of human rights violations. And despite claims here, he was not going to throw away the constitution– perhaps partly because of the Chilean military and the threat it posed.
To say that the US involvement in the coup was minimal and hardly essential is wrong. The CIA had its hands all over the coup.
Before the election, Nixon was financing the parties that opposed Allende–including the Chilean Communist Party.
After the election, the CIA tried to subvert Chile’s constition by trying to persuade Chilean’s Congress to appoint one of the other candidates as president.
Declassified Documents reveal:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm
** Cables written by U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry after Allende’s election, detailing conversations with President Eduardo Frei on how to block the president-elect from being inaugurated. The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community.
** CIA memoranda and reports on “Project FUBELT”–the codename for covert operations to promote a military coup and undermine Allende’s government. The documents, including minutes of meetings between Henry Kissinger and CIA officials, CIA cables to its Santiago station, and summaries of covert action in 1970, provide a clear paper trail to the decisions and operations against Allende’s government
** National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to “destabilize” Chile economically, and isolate Allende’s government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.
** State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.
** FBI documents on Operation Condor–the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.
and more here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ciachile.htm
I know we can throw links at each other all day, but it seems obvious that without the CIA, etc. Allende would have been voted out in the next election–but, of course, we’ll never know.
DC
Knuck
Nice post on Pohoretz. Took a while to get through it. Wretchard’s writing, while good (as usual) isn’t up to the standard of that article.
Mad F
Welcome. This group likes well reasoned ideas – from whatever viewpoint. If they are piling on, it can be for either of two reasons: you’ve stimulated the discussion; or you’ve committed lack-of-original-thinking, an issue here.
DtP
Too early to tell, but maybe your Christmas gift is a well reasoned moderate instead of a lefty troll?
John Lynch-
Where?
Wait til the wrapping is off. Patience.
Hey Knuckle,
My thanks as well for linking the superb WoT analysis. It expands on Bush’s best speech on the subject (and uses a couple of quotes from it–though Podhoretz’s “pillars” are slightly different from the “commitments” in the President’s strategy).
Doublecola, obviously you didn’t read Sun-Tzu’s link above which already directly and specifically refuted your claims regarding Chile including your most recent ones – citations to Allende’s many unconstitutional and illegal acts and preparations for armed revolt make your comment about elections removing him somewhat quaint.
John Lynch and Cecil Turner:
The Podhoretz piece is very good.
When you have time have a look at the French Strategy paper I linked to above. I’ve seen others make the case that the French have been working tirelessly since DeGaulle to rebuild a French-led Europena empire, but I never saw an example of a French strategy paper – only telling phrases in policy speeches and translated quotes from articles and the like.
It shows not only that the French have their own reasons (and they aren’t reasons of Friendship for the American Ally) for opposing US action in the ME and their consistent cozying up with third world dictators and undermining Israel.
It also shows why electing a Francophile and UN sycophant like Kerry would be a big mistake and play right into their hands. The French aren’t a misguided ally, they are a quasi-enemy of the US and, as their plan is increasingly frustrated they run the risk of becoming an outright enemy (surely by proxy – they would not confront us directly).
There is another interesting article in the current online issue of Policy Review titled The Terrorism to Come. I hadn’t stopped and looked at Policy Review in a long time. I forgot what I was missing.
Knuck
I had read the French policy statement (from 1945) a few weeks ago.
The reverberations from that thinking have been a part of French global positioning for several decades.
I lived and worked in France, on and off, for four years in the mid-90s.
The politics there are difficult to follow. Clearly though, a certain arrogance in their position is present in almost all of their thinking.
Sandy,
Thanks for the AT link.
Charlie (Colo),
About that carbon monoxide…. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1283563,00.html
Knuckle,
Sorry, but after rereading the Kojeve piece, I can’t comment intelligently. “Undeniable spritual kinships” (e.g., among Latin peoples) is beyond my area of expertise. Similarly, his philosophical arguments may well be valid, I have no way of knowing. The obvious problem with the piece is that it’s dated, and he made some inaccurate predictions that hamstring his ability to arrive at sensible conclusions. He obviously missed the part of WWII where the balance of sea power passed to the US, and also failed to grasp the shift in economic power–resulting in a faulty emphasis on the UK as the prime power broker. He was also a bit clueless about the obvious ramifications of two major powers in a nuclear age, with competing economic systems, and the resulting bipolar nature of geopolitics. And of course, the collapse of the Soviet system changed everything again.
His grand strategy is also flawed, and that bit about enforced neutrality in the Mediterranean is untenable–but emphasis on African and Mideast trade is probably correct. He is undoubtedly correct that a national system will not result in France being a first-rank power. (Arguably the primary driver behind the EU.)
On the alliance issue, obviously their grand strategy goals don’t mirror ours, which is no surprise. More importantly, they seem recently to have come to the conclusion that even where their goals do coincide with ours they’d rather counterbalance the US “hyperpuissance.” Which ain’t real bright.
Roberts,
What you’re saying makes no sense.
1. How could Allende lead an armed revolt against a Military he knew–without question–he could not defeat?
2. Allende, if he ever thought about cancelling elections, would know that the act itself would provoke a military coup.
3. Let’s wrap this up- Allende’s opponents are worried that he’s going to cancel elections and kill democracy in Chile.
We see, however, that it’s Allende’s opponents who, once in power, were the ones who
cancelled elections, congress, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and the constitution itself for two decades.
DC
DC,
you’re once again using opinions and trying to mask them as facts.
You’ve been supplied with ample information and facts, but choose to ignore it all, and choose instead to create strawmen.
You’re trying to portray the army as a single entity, a faceless mass dead set against democracy. That is never the case, and wasn’t here either, Allende had good reason to believe he could count on elements of the military to support him, and others to not move against him. The problem was to know who wouldn’t be loyal. There’s even a quoute of Allende calling Pinochet a “loyal friend” or something to that effect some time earlier. He believed Pinochet would be loyal to him.
(Allende got 1/3 of the votes, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that at least 1/4 of the military voted for him. And if he had a few generals on his side…)
A few examples of the military taking different sides is the Soviet coup attempt, the overthrowing of Marcos in the Phillipines, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc..etc..
Stalin used the same approach when he purged the military, and I believe Saddam did the same thing.
So the answer to 1 and 2 is simple. The usual, timetested, way is to simply announce an emergency (“a coup is in progress”), use that as an excuse to cancel elections and arrest the generals not loyal to you, and then rule “for the good of the people”.
That’s the answer to 3 too, it’s not impossible to do 1 and 2, it’s been done over and over thru history.
Oh, and you fail to mention that Pinochet, volontarily, held elections, and turned over power when he lost. Show me a socialist that has ever done the same.
Allendes friend and political ally Castro has never held elections, so I think it’s safe to say what Allende would have done, had he had the chance. Compare Cuba and Chile today, and see which is a free country.
And while I’d normally be loath to comment on someone else’s service, the combination of Kerry’s grandstanding, outright prevarications, shameful broad-brush defamation of his “brothers in arms,” and theatrical antics for the VVAW make me doubt he ever had an inkling of the genuine concept.
Yeah, like that. I was prety confident that my resentment of the old “Winter Soldier” thing was reasonably well-founded, even if it did start out in my … distaste, shall we say? .. at being spat on, kicked, and called “baby killer” when I was 15 years old and in my Jr ROTC uniform. You put a finger on it here.
Charlie (Colo),
About that carbon monoxide…. Link…
Hollywood,
Do you know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide?
If so, do you know the difference between worldwide climate change and Parkinson’s disease?
If so, then what the fuck did you imagine your point might be?
Erik,
We’re going around in circles here.
First, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua held elections–has I’ve stated before here–and there was a transfer of power that was peaceful.
Second, Pinochet had free elections when? Two decades later. In fact, the scenario you chose to use as an example did happen, but in this case, there was a coup. Pinochet, not Allende, cancelled elections and arrested–or had killed–those opposed or not loyal to him and then he ruled “for the good of the people.”
Pinochet was the man who killed democracy in Chile, not Allende–and that is a fact.
DC
Well, y’all forgot about a natural disaster that may be overdue.
Yellowstone is a super volcano, thought to be most likely the largest on the planet.
And it’s bulging.
Measurably.
Though that may not necessarily mean much in terms of imminent threat.
I think I’ll worry about the War on Terror instead.
DC – Val e-diction’s already been thru the CIA links. Did you read it?
We know what the CIA did, we don’t know what the commies did, they haven’t released their files.