R3volution March Video

A bit dramatic, but entertaining nonetheless. The Ron Paul video below is an advertisement for the July 12 Ron Paul March in DC.

The beginning of the video is fantastic - the editing is slick and the situations presented are completely relevant to today. The video sags a bit in the middle, except for Paul's explanation of Americans being forced to sacrifice liberty for safety, perhaps history's greatest ruse.

Bush's "False Comfort of Appeasement"

On the heels of Bush's controversial speech at the Israeli Knesset last week, I started to wonder about what brand of history upon which Bush's speechwriters relied before writing that fateful paragraph that has drummed up so much controversy vis a vis Barack Obama:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Although the Bush Administration claims the thinly-veiled criticism was aimed at Jimmy Carter, it is beyond obvious that their real target was Obama. In the past, Obama has professed his desire to negotiate with America's "enemies," notably Iran. It seems obvious to me that diplomacy is always preferable to bombing, but in today's bizarro world of national defense--where somehow we've been snookered into believing we are safer by invading and occupying other countries--perhaps I'm a little deluded.

That said, there are a number of ways Obama can respond to this irrational claim by the Bush Administration. Patrick Buchanan's "Bush Plays the Hitler Card" is an outstanding place to start, and Buchanan has already done the homework.

BTW, I purposely linked to Buchanan's article on TownHall...the comments are at once hilarious and alarming. A painfully ignorant (and neoconservative) website, TownHall is on par with Huffington Post for unintentional comedy.

If I were Obama, though, in addition to Buchanan's historical references, I'd reference a specific historical fact in order to squelch any discussion regarding appeasement. Specifically, I'd ask ol' Bushie about his grandfather, Prescott, and his involvement with Brown Brothers Harriman and the Trading with the Enemy Act. If anyone knows about appeasement, it's the Bush family.

Your Arm Please, Comrade

Police in Illinois will take blood samples from individuals suspected of drunk driving. For one weekend, suspects refusing to submit to testing will have their blood drawn involuntarily.

The program, appropriately dubbed "No Refusal Weekend," will be enacted in three Illinois counties. Officials will not say which weekend it will take place.

My opinion on drunk driving laws is that they should be abolished altogether. As Lew Rockwell brilliantly illustrates in his criticism of drunk driving laws, the premise of existing DUI laws is flawed. Government and Police should not be allowed to legislate and determine guilt based on a probability that you may commit a crime due to the existence of a chemical in your system. There are plenty of other toxins--not to mention distractions--that complicate driving, yet they remain legal.

To be sure, this is not an easy position to defend. The usual response from naysayers (after laughing uncontrollably and asking whether or not I'm serious) usually comes in one of two ways. First, there's the "the streets will be choked with drunk drivers, is that what you want?" Second, there's the "Crime rates will increase, more people will die...what an irresponsible argument to make."

In my view, both arguments above are irrational and make the same mistake of equating drunk driving with criminal activity. As I stated above, I do not believe that the presence of a chemical in your body constitutes criminal activity; rather, I define criminal activity as an act of aggression against someone else's life or property. To engage in the criminalization of substances (drugs, etc.) is to take the first step down a very slippery slope, one that is heavily regulated by government. And government has no business regulating the substances we put inside our body.

Using my definition of crime, then, two things become obvious: one, driving while drunk is not a crime; two, any aggression against another person (vehicular homicide, destruction of property, etc.) should be treated as criminal activity. In other words, a crime does not become a crime until the act is committed. Moreover, once the crime is committed, the crime is the act, not the substance that could have caused the act.

As for the argument that the streets will be choked with drunk drivers, I say so what? Are we any less safe with roads filled with cell phone users, portable DVD players, satellite radio, etc.? As Rockwell avers, is it not equally dangerous to drive after you had a fight with your spouse, an exceptionally challenging workout, or find yourself down in the dumps after a breakup? Everything listed above is a distraction and contributes to lessened states of awareness on the roadway, yet there are no major movements afoot to regulate "driving while depressed." At least not yet...

Finally, while I believe there is some truth to the argument that more people refrain from driving drunk because they are more afraid of getting caught than believe the act itself is reckless endangerment of life and property, I reject such utilitarian claims because they conflict with law and justice in a free society. Using the same logic, then, citizens would be forced to accept a whole slew of injustices, from racial profiling to involuntary searches. In a free society, the ends never justify the means.

Programs such as "No Refusal Weekend" are not only an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, they are also incapable of achieving their desired goals. As one of the biggest revenue-generators for government, increasingly strict DUI laws (as well as methods to determine drunk driving) are in everyone's best interest...save for the citizenry, that is. What is in everyone's best interest is to reject laws that govern probability instead of crime, and all programs that the privacy of responsible citizens.

Two Great John McCain Parody Videos

First, the parallels between McCain's brand of shameless warmongering and the attitudes of General "Buck" Turgeson (and Major Kong) are nothing if not eerie.



Second, a more straightforward critique of McWarmonger comparing various soundbites on an array of topics throughout his tenure as a public figure. It seems McCain can say whatever strikes his fancy at any particular moment, and few "liberally biased" media members are willing to address his duplicitous nature.

But McBomber is a war hero, don'tcha know? How anyone justifies casting a ballot for this moron is beyond me.

A homosexual apology.

From time to time I purposefully bring up the topic of homosexuality around my peers and my relatives to elicit debate on the topic. Homosexuality is a topic filled with prejudice, misunderstanding, and outright hatred. My peers are members of the armed forces of the United States of America, a job which openly discriminates against homosexuals and even charges them with misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I usually start the arguments by either responding to a veiled anti-homosexual statement or by asking what the harm is with homosexuality. The responses I get from people are predicable, ranging from the pure hatred: "Those goddamn faggots should be eliminated!" to the revolted: "Those gays are so gross, do you know what they do?" to the slighted: "'They' stole the word gay from 'us', and 'they' shouldn't be allowed to get married because 'they' are trying to 'steal' that word from 'us' as well." to the offended: "Those fags are always sticking it in 'our' faces, why do 'they' have to make such a big deal about their sexuality? 'We' don't make a big deal about 'ours'. to finally the ignorant: "I don't care if they are gay, as long as I don't know about it, and they don't tell me about it." The pronouns 'we', 'ours', and 'us' typically refer to the broader heterosexual population, as though any individual were qualified to speak on their behalf. Every one of these responses is profoundly hypocritical, and will each be discussed in turn.

First a diversion on the topic of hypo criticality. I am a hypocrite. I always have been, and I always probably will be, but I fight it within myself every day. Everyone of you reading this is also a hypocrite, in fact, just claiming that you are not a hypocrite makes you one, so be careful how you respond. Hypocrisy, double-standard, prejudice, or special-case, all synonyms for the same thing. Hypocrisy is the enemy of rational thought and the destroyer of critical arguments. Fortunately, hypocrisy is easy to discover. Unfortunately, hypocrisy is difficult to convince someone who is guilty of it that they are a hypocrite. No one likes to be called a hypocrite, because it means that they are not being fair or rational, which is true. They hypocrite is easy to spot starting at an early age as in an example of the schoolyard bully who changes the rules to benefit him mid-game. Hypocrisy drives school children mad, and they respond by rightfully calling the hypocrite a cheater. Among adults, the tactics do not change, but the terminology does. Hypocrisy is found in the laws and regulations that govern everything from residential zoning to marriage. Hypocrite-fighters often respond by with the platitude: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Originally, this proverb was used for equal rights between men and women, but it works equally well in the case for homosexuality.

I am not a homosexual. I don't find homosexuality particularly appealing, and I am somewhat revolted by homosexual practice. Homosexual and gay are terms usually used to denote male homosexuals, while the term lesbian is reserved for the female homosexual. For the purposes of this article, homosexual will be used to refer to both male and female homosexuals.

Homosexuals have as much right to be as anyone else. I have a right to be disgusted by the practice of homosexuality. No one has the right to tell a homosexual that they cannot be. A person responding with hatred and malice toward homosexuals, calling for their elimination or extermination is the most thoughtless of the anti-homosexuals. Their response is emotional, and on that level they cannot be subjected to reasoning. They are hypocrites because when pressed about why homosexuals should be eliminated, they usually respond by saying something like homosexuality isn't natural, or that is is gross. The logical next question is to press them to define what is 'natural', or to ask them if anyone who does anything that is gross should be eliminated. People do gross things all the time, like put ketchup on eggs, or watch NASCAR, but they are allowed to continue. Hypocrites.

Less caustic are those who do not wish to eliminate the homosexuals, but rather to restrict their freedoms in some way. These hypocrites quickly point out that time-honored institutions such as marriage have always been defined as between a man and a woman. They may feel slighted or threatened because a different lifestyle than theirs is gaining acceptance. The best counter-argument for these poor souls is to ask them how someone else's definition of marriage affects their own. If someone else says that marriage is between a man and a man, does it really affect their own heterosexual marriage of many years? The answer is no, there is no effect. Each has an equal right to the word. This argument is the rose-by-any-other name argument. Homosexuals have not 'stolen' any word from anyone. The issue of homosexual marriage is perhaps the most highly publicized of the facets of gay life today, and more will be said about this shortly.

The offended and the ignorant are the least vehement or at least the most secretive of the anti-gay crowd. They are not openly trying to eliminate the homosexuals, or explicitly restrict their rights, but they typically subscribe to the same views as those who would restrict their rights. The hypocrisy of these individuals is the most obvious. They claim to not care whether someone is gay, as long as the person who is gay keeps quiet about it. I recently had a conversation with a married elderly couple. The wife is particularly outspoken in her hypocrisy. She claimed that she didn't care if someone was gay, because she didn't want to know about what goes on in anyone's bedroom. Sounds like a safe argument, right? I asked her then if there should be any restriction on marriage, to which she replied that it should be between a man and a woman. I responded by asking how she could restrict marriage in such a way because to do so, she would have to ask about what goes on in the bedroom. Hypocrite.

People who are offended by the propensity for gays to flaunt their sexuality by holding hands in public, kissing on television, or even laying in bed in the movies are hypocrites. The wife in the elderly couple was especially offended by wanton displays of homosexual affection. "Keep it in the closet.", she would say. Ahem. Elderly people watch and have watched enough television and Hollywood films to know that if anyone is flaunting (by their definition of the word) sexuality, it is the heterosexuals. To note just a few examples from recent history: Frank Sinatra, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Joe DiMaggio, John F. Kennedy, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Wilt Chamberlin, Mick Jaggar, and the list could go on. Plainly, some of these people have led very publicly, and in some cases very promiscuous heterosexual lives. They flaunted their heterosexuality from the silver screen to the white house. Where is the hue and cry over this debauchery? Hypocrites.

The heart of the issue is not about homosexual rights, it is about human rights and individual freedoms. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic or a choice is immaterial, homosexuality just is. Homosexuality doesn't affect anyone more adversely than heterosexuality. The people I press on this issue like to press back by asking: Would you let your child go on a camping trip with homosexuals? My answer is yes, just as I would with heterosexuals. However, the question and answer is more complicated than that, because I would feel equally uncomfortable allowing my child to be in the presence of a heterosexual couple who engaged in a great deal of sexual affection near my child as I would with homosexuals. The issue of gay marriage is not an issue with gays, it is an issue for people. Should the institution of marriage be restricted by law to exclude gays? The question is should the institution of marriage be restricted by law at all?

The best question to ask anyone who wishes to restrict another person is by what authority they would do so. Just because a person is in the majority doesn't give them the right to tell others how to act. Appeals to religious doctrine are really just appeals to personal preference, because religion is a choice like any other. Not everyone reads the Bible, Koran, or the Torah. Critics may claim that my argument is for moral relativism, and that if I cannot appeal to any objective measure for correct action, how can there be any standard at all? People who argue against moral or cultural relativism are also hypocrites, because their 'objective' measure it not at all objective, it is their choice to subscribe to their doctrine, just as it is my choice to subscribe to mine. No one restricts them from choosing their lifestyle, neither should they restrict others from theirs.

Critics may also take my live and let live attitude to the extreme, saying that by my rule any behavior is acceptable. Under moral relativism, they say, people can murder, rape, and pillage because there is no standard. This is a childish argument because murder and rape deprive the victim from their right to be free to choose their own destiny, while someone being a homosexual deprives no one of their freedom. If we define a victim to be someone who is otherwise innocent being deprived of their freedom, then homosexuality has no victims. Murder and rape creates victims.

As for freedom, people should have the freedom of association. If homosexuality is disagreeable to you, try to limit your association with it. While this is not absolutely realizable in all cases, it should also be understood that not everyone shares your preferences, and people are free to make their choices, as distasteful as it may seem to you. Voltaire one said, "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I say, "I may find homosexuality disagreeable, but I will defend to my death the right for people to be homosexual."

Doug Feith: PWNED!

Play a vital role in deceiving the America public into war, contribute to the death of thousands of Americas and millions of Iraqis, write a book and - presto! - you're a millionaire. Welcome to the bizarro world of Doug Feith.

A bumbling, stammering Feith tries to justify the Bush Administration's actions in the run up to the Iraqi invasion. His repeated references to "this administration" and "the administration" is a clever attempt to shift the blame: Doug, weren't you a part of the administration?

I pity anyone who wastes his or her money on Feith's ridiculous attempt to rationalize the war on terror and remove any blame from his shoulders.

Overall, a very good interview by Jon Stewart. I haven't seen much Comedy Central recently, but if this is Stewart's normal approach, I'm going to start watching more.

Part I:



Part II:

Ron Paul on False Credit

A FOX Business interview with Ron Paul, wherein Paul dispels the myth that we need fractional reserve banking in order to ensure prosperity.

Another Sign of Aggression?

According to the American Conservative Blog, aggressive action against Iran may be closer than we think. The blog post in full:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

While it is encouraging to see at least one dissenting voice in the room (Defense Secretary Gates) the ominous remark that that "final decision" rests with President Bush all but squashes any enthusiasm I have that cooler, rational heads will prevail.

As Justin Raimondo asks: Why isn't this being reported in the mainstream news? Some competitive news business we have, eh?

More alarming, though (and Raimondo addresses this, too) is the fact that NONE of mainstream Presidential candidates are speaking out about it. We know John McCain salivates at the opportunity to kill more Muslims, and Hillary Clinton has promised to "obliterate" Iran given the opportunity...so perhaps it's no surprise they've remained silent. But what of the "antiwar" Barack Obama? Wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for him to distinguish himself from McCain as the sole voice of reason?

I'm not holding my breath for Obama to deliver any earth-shattering speeches denouncing the Bush Administration's foreign policy blunders. Non-issues like race and his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright are much more important than killing brown people in the Middle East, right?

Don't Raise the Bridge, Lower the Water

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates defended the quality of our troops, but offered a few lines of appeasement in an attempt to assuage the bubbling anger from service members caught in extended combat tours.

One of the dirtiest, nastiest "secrets" about service members on active duty is the threat of being "stop lossed." To put it bluntly, stop loss is the term used to describe the government's violation of contract with service members. In other words, the government is forcing service members to remain on active duty--and deploy--with their units even though their obligation to serve has expired.

By any other measure, stop loss is enslavement. But since the government needs bodies, it is given a free pass.

According to the article, stop loss affected 12,235 service members in March 2008.

Secretary Gates offered this nugget of information in defense of his policies:

"I've been very worried about stop-loss ever since I got here and found out what it was," Gates said. "I sent the Army a memo a year ago this spring asking for their plan to reduce stop-loss. Unfortunately, my decision to go to 15-month tours just made it impossible for them to achieve that."

In the next paragraph, Secretary Gates all but blamed President Bush for his decision to extend combat tours to 15 months, claiming the troop "surge" necessitated the move.

The natural consequence of contract violation and the subsequent enslavement of service members is lower enlistment ratings. Ah, but the Pentagon has a solution for that, too: lower the standards. Presently, one out of eight recruits (an alarming 12%) requires a waiver to enter military service. Waivers are required for felons, serious misdemeanors, and three or more minor misdemeanors. Indeed, the Pentagon's strategy here seems to be one of lower the water instead of raising the bridge.

Now that it has become official military policy to accept (some) felons into service, we can expect significant erosion of the quality of the product produced. Put another way, we can expect an alternative form of Gresham's Law: bad service members will drive out the good ones. If Secretary Gates remains positive about the quality of troop levels now, I'm curious what kinds of adjectives he'll offer in defense of our soldiers in a few years.

Big Brother Comes to Dallas Public School

Are your children having trouble making it to school on time? Have you tried everything within your power to curb those excessive absences? Well, perhaps you'd like to try the Dallas Public School approach towards ensuring children with truancy problems are at school on time: the GPS student tracker!

You can't make this up. Under the guise of helping to boost their "No Child Left Behind" statistics on attendance and graduation, one Dallas School has turned to electronic monitoring to ensure the tax dollars keep rolling in.

Predictably, the New York Times makes no attempt whatsoever to balance the story with any kind of discussion pertaining to the gross violation of student privacy. The closest they come is quoting a state senator's opposition to the program, who compares the anklets to "slave chains."

Additionally, the article makes no mention of whether or not the program is voluntary. Students are sent to "truancy court," where (presumably) a judge decides whether or not a student merits enrollment in the program. Out of the 300 students sent to truancy court last year, nine were sentenced to the electronic leash. I'm guessing those "lucky" students selected for the program were chosen at random...free from ulterior motives (yeah, right). It just so happens that the selected students quoted in the article have connections to gang activity. Nope, no conflict of interest there, right?

For the most part, however, reaction to the program has been positive. Parents--as well as students--seem satisfied with the results thus far. One has to wonder, though, what kind of parent would willingly subject his or her child to any form of electronic monitoring, especially one through a school? In addition to violating a student's right to privacy, the electronic monitoring program alleviates parental responsibility for their children. Programs like this not only erode the traditional strength of family relationships, they do those relationships a further disservice by "volunteering" to play the role of surrogate parent.

If electronic monitoring is to become an accepted form of school discipline, where will schools turn to next?

The McCain Charade

Almost without fail, whenever the subject of John McCain comes up in discussion, someone is bound to mention "war hero" in conjunction with the presumptive Republican nominee for President. His military record--especially time spent as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam--are above reproach. That he is a bona fide hero is taken for granted, and to criticize his military record is viewed as borderline treasonous.

But what makes a hero a hero? It's a simple question, really. I've heard the term "hero" used more often, and in so many different cases, that the term has become saturated and devoid of meaning. Rather than re-state the bulk of Steve's argument about the misuse of the term "honor," I'm going to instead concentrate McCain's military service...the details of which have earned him a spot in the pantheon of great American warriors.

At the heart of my argument against McCain's alleged heroism are his actions during the Vietnam War. McCain flew upwards of 23 bombing missions over Vietnam prior to his capture, undoubtedly killing hundreds (if not thousands) of Vietnamese civilians. By any other measure, McCain's actions would be classified as murder. Under the "fog of war," however, McCain is branded a hero. I remain unconvinced of McCain's heroism, for reasons brilliantly stated by Scott L. Field:

"There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale."

As an individualist and a libertarian, personal responsibility and law comprise the core of my beliefs. Under libertarian ideology, acts of aggression--especially unprovoked killing--are anathema to a free and peaceful society. Generalities such as the "fog of war" and "greater good" are counterintuitive, especially considering McCain had ample opportunity to see his vicious acts for what they were: indiscriminate killing for killing's sake.

The case of "McCain as murderer" is not an easy one to make. The majority of my adult life has been spent in the military, and the majority of my friends have military experience as well. For a long time I never questioned McCain's actions in Vietnam, probably due to a conflict of interest.

Nearly every one of my friends with whom I've discussed this has said that McCain is not at fault for murdering civilians. The argument goes something like this: McCain was ordered to fly those missions, and America was at war. We can't possibly have soldiers disobeying orders during wartime, can we? The more simplistic arguments use a combination of "war just sucks" and "if McCain refused to go on those missions, someone else would have bombed them instead."

My answer to the above questions--especially the one about disobeying orders during wartime--is yes. Although unpopular, refusing to kill civilians is not only the right thing to do, it's the legal thing to do. As a former military officer, I was constantly bombarded with Orwellian phrases challenging me to think for myself, while in reality the only thing demanded of me--and any military officer--was strict compliance with military procedure. That McCain's heroism would be easier for me to accept had he refused to murder Vietnamese civilians goes without saying...but somehow I doubt his life story would be as attractive to voters had he refused to kill instead of embracing the opportunity.

Another situation my friends like to use when discussing McCain's actions in Vietnam is to compare the actions of a Strike Officer (officer in charge of launching Tomahawk missiles) with that of a bomber pilot in Vietnam. Surely the Strike Officer cannot be held accountable for killing civilians simply for pushing a button, they say. The Strike Officer, like the bomber pilot, is under strict orders from his or her Commanding Officer to carry out the mission, and sometimes that mission includes killing civilians (otherwise known as "collateral damage") My argument remains the same, in spite of today's de-personalization of combat. There's no difference between pushing a button on a console, dropping napalm, or putting a gun in someone's mouth: each act of killing is it's own act, and no amount of de-personalization can correct the fact that you are willingly taking another human being's life.

Further compounding our ability to diagnose McCain's actions as murder is the absurd notion that America must now engage in preemptive warfare. This concept, often packaged as "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" or "if we don't kill them first, they'll kill us" is laughable on its face. This logical sleight-of-hand, while it has fooled many, is nothing more than a morally bankrupt excuse to wage continuous war. Under that ideology, the killing has no expiration date, and battlefields expand without limit. Where boogeymen cannot be proven, they are created.

America's warm embrace of McCain's status as a "war hero" is troubling, to say the least. While I do not dismiss McCain's tenure in a POW camp, I do not think it entitles him to "hero" status. Rather, an argument can be made that he got off easier, comparatively speaking, than those he murdered.

Ideally, I'd like to see McCain learn from his crimes and never again endorse aggressive military action in another sovereign country. Sadly, his actions speak otherwise as McCain has never met a foreign occupation/war that he didn't like...so his apology rings hollow at best. Given McCain's despicable murderous past, and utter failure to learn from it, I will forever bristle whenever I hear someone using "John McCain" and "war hero" in the same sentence.

Pentagon / Media Collusion

Glenn Greenwald is rapidly becoming one of my favorite online writers. Although he writes for Salon, home of the most annoying site pass ads on the 'Net, his articles are always crisp, insightful, and full of facts. I always come away from one of Greenwald's articles having learned something.

His latest piece, part of a larger expose on the merger between the Pentagon and our news media, is a perfect example of Greenwald's extraordinary ability to distill complex issues down to the most pertinent facts.

That the Pentagon plants "experts" in our news media to pose as military analysts singing the siren song of the State probably surprises no one, as the article admits. What's shocking to me, however, is the forthrightness of these "analysts" in admitting they are carrying the water for the war-hungry State.

Here's to honor.

Honor is a tricky word to define, because it can mean many things depending on the context in which it is used. In the courtroom, the judge is referred to as "Your Honor" out of respect for that position. Sometimes, a cyclist may have "the honor" of riding at the front of the peleton, or at a wedding the bride and bridegroom have the honor of the first dance. For the purposes of this article, a more general definition of honor will suffice, and honor will be used to describe a person who is upright in character, and who has great personal integrity.

Referring to someone as "in the service" is a way of honoring those who would set aside their own affairs for a time while they tend to a greater cause. The greater cause is typically some military action on some corner of the globe requiring that service member to be absent from friends and family. Today, the greater cause is the dual-fronted war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are today's military members in the service of the country? Traditional propaganda would have the American public believing that those people are risking their lives abroad so that Americans at home can sleep soundly under the blanked of freedom they provide. Because, they say, if we didn't take the fight to the enemy, we would have to fight them on our own soil, at great expense of innocent American lives. Instead, it is a greater cause to risk innocent Iraqi lives since somehow they pose a risk to the lives of innocent Americans. This propaganda is alive and well in middle America, and it is a fiction.

Let me take a concrete example of honor and service and see what conclusions can potentially be drawn. On one hand, I will serve as an example, on the other, a good friend of mine. I graduated college and was commissioned an Ensign in the United States Navy. Not long after graduation, I was on watch in the Arabian Gulf aboard a destroyer, ostensibly to enforce sanctions on the state of Iraq imposed by the United Nations. My vessel queried foreign boats, boarded and inspected them, and sometimes detained their crew for violating sanctions. Other times, we would "show the flag" by asserting our nation's right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, guns at the ready the entire time should the Iranians decide to assert any of their own rights. I did this for 4 years, and what do I or anyone else have to show for it?

My friend, on the other hand, has been a teacher for 30 years. She graduated college and began a career teaching elementary and high-school students. She is by all accounts a model citizen of the United States. She has raised 4 beautiful children who are also model citizens, and throughout her career she has had a positive impact on the lives of thousands of children. Nearly everyone she comes in to contact with is better for having known her. She has been, and still is today along with her husband who has also been teaching for 30 years, in the service of the country. Yet, no one refers to her as such, in fact, some people would disparage her because she chose to attend college instead of "joining the service". She joined the teaching service, and she has served honorably. This children of this nation can attest to her service. Who can attest to mine?

Between myself and my friend, who has served with more honor? Some people would say that the teacher did not risk her life for the nation, so my service was more honorable. Or is it correct to say that I provided her with the opportunity to serve because of my "sacrifice" abroad? I could write such a sentence without cringing if our nation's military had not been co-opted into the aggressive force it has become. When I joined the military, I joined to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, not invade and occupy a nation that took no part in harming the citizens of my own. The United States Military was never intended to be an aggressive force, rather, it was intended to be a defensive militia, capable of defending the shores of this land against those who would do us harm. Instead, I am a member of a imperialist, power-hungry militia, asserting an aggressive agenda on the land of over 200 other countries. I have defended nothing, in fact, quite the opposite, I have unwittingly decreased the security of this nation by unnecessarily angering foreign nations. Which is more honorable: To teach the future of America or to provide freedom to America by "asserting our presence" across the lands of the world?

The military members of the United States are no more in the "service of the country" than any other profession and they aren't defending our nation from any force that can cause us significant harm. Over 150,000 uniformed personnel occupy the nation of Iraq, and in doing so, serve no one but the radical interests of the elite of this nation. They have sacrificed their time and family lives not to defend this country, but to press the aggressive interests of this country on foreign shores, a bastardization of the original intent of the military. Furthermore, the members of the military are a volunteer force, and they are paid well for their efforts. I was paid handsomely for my work overseas, and so are those who are now overseas. Individual persons serving in the military may be considered honorable, but closer scrutiny is required to determine the proper placement of that term. The actions of this nation's military is dishonorable because it has not acted in an upright manner by invading and occupying a foreign nation that caused us no harm. This nation's military lacks personal integrity because it cannot admit the mistake openly and take the necessary actions to right this error. Any military person who understand the proper role of the military as set forth in the Constitution, and continues to remain a part of the military is complicit in the dishonorable actions of this nation, and are themselves dishonorable. It is no longer honorable to be a part of the nation's armed forces.

Forget the propaganda, the songs, the flags, and the sense of security you feel when you consider the U.S. armed forces. It is a ruse, a fiction, and a shameful use of those people who are in the prime of their lives. They are dishonorable, and will continue to be so until they act otherwise. As for honor and service, I salute the teachers of this nation, the businessmen, and the doctors for their continued hard work to make this country the great country that it is.

No Need to Sugarcoat it!

Well, calls for an invasion of Myanmar didn't take too long. According to TIME magazine, it may be time to invade the country formerly known as Burma.

Isn't it funny how the United States' answer to dealing with the death and destruction caused by a natural disaster is to cause more death and destruction by invading a country?

Those Pesky Ron Paul Supporters

Why won't they just conform like the rest of the (mindless) Republicans?

The Boston Globe writes a decent synopsis of Ron Paul's "insurgent" supporters. From Nevada to Minnesota and beyond, Paul's fervent supporters refuse to silently conform to "established" Republican party principles.

It's funny, I have yet to meet someone who identifies himself as a John McCain supporter. Even Jonn, who's really just a bitter old man who's never read a FOX News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, or Weekly Standard comment he didn't agree with, refuses to acknowledge McCain as a "strong" conservative...whatever that term means. I think today's definition of a strong conservative just means a steadfast commitment to American hegemony, and the above publications (as well as Jonn's angry website) serve as the hegemony's soap box.

Still, it's alarming to note the inconsistencies involved in the criticisms leveled at Dr. Paul by "strong" conservatives. On one hand, they like to call Paul a "racist, conspiracy-minded nutcase with no supporters and no real chance of winning" while on the other they fight vehemently to deny any discourse challenging Republican party principles when shutting down state conventions while complaining of a "Paul insurgency." Based on the inconsistencies above, Ron Paul truly has done the remarkable: simultaneously enjoyed no support and enough support to shut down state conventions.

And let's not address the issue of conformity as it pertains to these "strong" conservatives, either. For them, it's almost a unanimous "anybody but [Clinton/Obama]" mantra. The fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil doesn't faze them one bit, because what's important is picking a winner. That kind of rhetoric only adds fuel to the already strong argument against voting at all.

Government In-Fighting Inhibits Rescue Missions

When disaster strikes, America responds by sending in perhaps her only reliable export: the military.

To be sure, the storm that ripped through the Irrawaddy Delta in southern Myanmar on Saturday is a tragedy. Early reports estimate that upwards of 100,000 people could die as a result of going without clean water, medical supplies, and food. Already reports estimate 22,000 people have died in a region that houses around six million people.

This morning I awoke to an angry radio personality (Fred Grandy) excoriating the government of Myanmar for not allowing United Nations officials into the country to distribute supplies. According to a CNN article, The United Nations workers needed permission from Myanmar's Ministry of Social Welfare before distribution could begin. The UN's hand-delivered request was denied.

In response to this denial, the supplies--enough to feed and care for 95,000 people for one day--remain on the tarmac, and the United Nations has halted all future flights bearing supplies to the region. Other governments in the region continue to assemble supplies to funnel into the region, but the geographic challenges of the affected region (a significant portion is underwater) are hampering immediate progress.

On the surface, Grandy probably has a legitimate point: why is Myanmar's government preventing supplies from reaching her people? What kind of government would actively prevent aid from reaching her citizens?

Well, we have our own example in the United States (hurricane Katrina), where the big, lumbering "Department of Homeland Security" failed miserably to provide for our citizens. Instead, as the link shows, private companies--such as big, bad Wal-Mart--did far more, and in a much more efficient manner--than anything Bush, Brownie & Co. could put together. Although utilizing the market in response to tragedies is superior to any government, I'm going to (attempt) to make a different point in this post.

Instead of bitching about the Myanmar government's callousness when it comes to her citizens, why is there no criticism of the UN's decision to cease all flights into the region? Why does the UN insist on having its own troops distribute supplies? It seems the United Nations is doing what disappointed toddlers do when the game doesn't go their way: they take their ball and go home.

And more citizens suffer. It seems the ultimate goal of the UN's relief project has nothing to do with helping people in need, and has everything to do with subverting the authority of a sovereign nation's government. Only from today's hackneyed "The World is Flat" viewpoint can a nation's government be recast as the villain when failing to capitulate to an unelected body's demands.

This is not a defense of Myanmar's government, either. My point is, if I'm a member of Myanmar's government, and an unelected "world body" steps in and demands jurisdiction over my country, I'd be a little hot, too.

And so it goes with America's efforts to alleviate suffering in the region. From the same CNN article linked above, we get this gem:

One senior U.S. military official told CNN that the United States is presenting Myanmar with an aid plan that would minimize the presence of American troops on the ground.

Oh good. I love how that sentence just takes for granted that US troops will be on the ground in Myanmar. The only question that remains unanswered is how large of a footprint the US will demand as part of her "aid" package. How generous of the US--willing to provide aid to a country that they don't even recognize!

Given the US' reputation in the region (and the world), I hope Myanmar refuses US aid, too. But of course that won't happen. If there's one thing the United States is an expert in, it's bullying her way into the internal affairs of another nation, sometimes even when American presence is neither wanted nor needed. Since the United States' two biggest exports are her (worthless) dollar and her (weakened) military, the cyclone that struck Myanmar's coast was, if you'll pardon the pun, the perfect storm for US imperialism in the region.

Imperialism was on Grandy's mind this morning as well. In fact, he went so far as to call for another "coalition of the willing" to band together and oust the government of Myanmar. Yes, even natural disasters are cause to call for regime change in another country, as I'm certain Grandy is not alone in harboring that sentiment. With four US Navy ships converging on the region and negotiations for a US "aid package" underway, it seems Myanmar's fate is already sealed.

Human Smoke Generating Some Buzz

I'm pleased to see a considerable amount of buzz generated on the LRC blog (and elsewhere) for Nicolas Baker's excellent book about WWII, Human Smoke.

Tom DiLorenzo, an economist by trade and part-time historian by hobby, has written an outstanding review of the book. I'd offer my own analysis, but DiLorenzo's review is much better than anything I could put together. Additionally, this comment from LRC blog, particularly the quote within it, is a powerful message to consider. The quote (from Scott L. Field):

I've had interesting reactions from historians, who seem to understand (for the most part) that I'm not trying to write a comprehensive history of the beginnings of the war. I've had some very good reviews and some very bad ones. The bad ones seem to follow the teeter-totter school: that if a dictator and the nation he controls is evil, then the leader of the nation who opposes the evil dictator must be good. Life isn't that way, of course. There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale. One person, as Roosevelt said, must not be punished for the deed of another--though he didn't follow his own precept.

Indeed, the United States adhered to the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" during WWII when we allied with the Soviet Union. Ostensibly, the reasoning behind US alliance with the Soviets was to overcome the evils of the Axis Powers and end the war as quickly as possible. Baker shows this to be patently absurd, as FDR--as well as Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, etc.--were interested in war for war's sake.

The larger lesson in the book is succinctly captured in Field's quote above. The phrase "each act of killing is its own act, not something to he heaped on the produce scale" neatly sums up the attitude that (I think) has been missing when considering every post-WWII conflict that the US has been involved in. In a sense, today's "de-personalization" of combat--using cruise missiles, predator drones, and "precision" bombs--alleviates the guilt that would otherwise set in had the soldier witnessed the bombing of a village first hand.

The counter argument to the above is saying that advances in military technology have saved American lives. In my estimation, that is only a half truth because that statement can easily be turned on its head: how many more wars have we entered precisely because fewer Americans would be killed?

The term "fewer" is relative, of course. Why settle for fewer casualties when you can have no casualties? Baker's contention is that world leaders hell-bent on world conflict manipulated their respective populations into war, and that America should have never entered the conflict.

When "No Animal May Sleep in a Bed" becomes "No Animal May Sleep in a Bed With Sheets"

I completely forgot to link to this story yesterday. One of the first things I heard when I woke up was the story about yesterday being the five year anniversary of President George Bush's (in)famous "Mission Accomplished" speech. The morning pundits dangled a quote from White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino, wherein she attempted to tweak, shape, and mold the context of the quote to better fit with today's war environment. Witness:

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific, and said, 'Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission,'" said spokeswoman Dana Perino."

Aside from the blatant exercise in newspeak, I'm curious: what mission? The sailors on this ship on their mission? Aside from that phrase being a horrendously long slogan to place on a banner, the phrase (excuse) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You see, those sailors were on board USS Abraham Lincoln, who was operating off the coast of San Diego at the time.

The only way Perino's cover up makes sense is if the "mission" Bush was referring to was USS Lincoln's successful completion of flight operations, but somehow I doubt that's the case.

Online Battle With a McCainiac (cont.)

I know I'm being childish, and I don't care. I'm thoroughly enjoying the "discussion" on Jonn's blog. Based on the feedback I've received, I'm convinced it is much easier to talk with Democrats than Republicans (in this case, anyway). At least Democrats will listen to what you have to say, and are relatively consistent in their beliefs.

Part I of our discussion is here.

1. PWConservative Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:44 am

   As I posted in February at pwconservative.net, Ron Paul supporters are attempting to take over the VA Gop, They overwhelm conventions in areas with few republicans (Alexandria,Arlington) and nominate only their delegate’s,
   Chris Kachouroff attempted this unsuccessfully,
   Amit Singh is case in point, he’s running as an anti-war “Ron Paul” republican against jim moran.

2. 17
   Ray Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 6:32 am

   Wow Eddie,
   
   “You have history exactly wrong”
   
   I guess I never knew the extent of my own ignorance. Just which part of WWII did I get backwards? The parts where Hitler steamrolled over a good chunk of Europe, bombed London and killed a shitload of people in gas chambers? Or the part where the Japanese kicked our ass all over the Pacific for the first year and a half and brutalized a huge chunk of Asia? I know about the screw ups that led to the war… War is almost always caused by SOMEBODY’s screw up. But what are you going to do when it starts? Being unprepared and underdeployed cost the United States quite a beating in the opening of WWII. (and again in Korea). You talk a good game Ed, but how many times have YOU deployed and seen just how complicated it is to move thousands of men and machines to where they need to be, and, oh yeah… be able to fight when they get there? If we subscibed to your utopian plan, the United States would not have intervened in WWII. What exactly do you think would have happened then? Hitler, satisfied with his winnings would just go back and make little Arians with Eva? If there were no US bases around the world, exactly how would you suggest the Military be physically able to fight? Oh… that’s right, we don’t really need to fight wars. We can just smile and trade with people and the world will be a happy peaceful place, full of people singing the Coke “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” song. What you fail to realize is that there are “bad people” out there, who, for whatever reason, want power and want what other people have and like hurting people to get it. They do nasty things like kill millions of Jews and gas the Kurds. Of course you are right… they would never come here and do those things if we took your suggestions, because we would be happy friendly traders who have no deployed military and we pose no threat. Why… I’m sure once they started bombing our cities, we could just “whip up” a military strong enough to kick their asses, but just back accross our own border… (mustn’t go to other countries and be mean.)
   
   Fight the wars and get out… no need to stay. Yeah… that would have worked after WWII. I’m sure the Soviet troops would have just sat back with half of Europe and been happy. Korea? Oh yeah they were happy with half (for a while). Japan? Well… they didn’t get into Japan did they? I wonder why? What mysterious power kept the Soviet Union at bay during the last part of the 20th Century? What magic entity held them from taking over pretty much everything? You think it’s impossible to invade and keep a country because of Afganastan? “Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.”
   Riiiiight…Ask Poland, Romania, and East Germany just how easy it was to throw out the Soviets. Ask the Cubans in Miami about how easy it’s been to get rid of Castro. Ask the Mexicans how well they’re doing getting back Texas. Ask the Native Americans how easy it’s been to kick out the roundeyes. Ask Gaul how easy it was to keep the Romans out. You accuse me of ignorance and simply display your own.
   
   You preach how many mistakes we made, fighting wars and deploying overseas. You say “the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad.” If our military were a occupation force as it is described by the media, Baghdad would be a smoking hole in the ground. No problem. My old boat could have done that, and every other major city in Iraq with one missile. Then, just back up the oil tankers and fill ‘er up. Cheap gas for everyone. The fact that we aren’t invaders come to plunder a country limits our reactions.
   
   Do I think we haven’t made mistakes? Of course not. Only the perfection of hindsight can see all sides of an issue. But history is history. Can’t change what’s happened. The world is as it is. Pulling our head into our shell will just make it certain that we get our asses blown off by someone who wants something. Some of your solutions would work… but most of them are based on the false assumption that everyone WANTS to get along. Ask the muggers, rapists, home invaders, and murderers how much they care if you get hurt while they get what they want. “But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute” Really? Wow… how many years as a globetrotting superman do you have? You sit in your parents basement spouting shit like a Christmas goose. I’ve seen the evil men can do. Some Boogymen DO exist asshole.

3. 18
   EddieWillers Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

   Ray,
   
   I appreciate your passion, but I don’t think have refuted my argument. To re-state it, I asked you whether or not you’ve balanced your research with scholarship that is critical of United States foreign policy, from WWI to our present nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on your response, I’m forced to assume the answer is a (resounding) no. Further, you don’t know me–I could be a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps or Cindy Sheehan’s sister, and in either case that knowledge would be irrelevant to our discussion. Let’s focus on the material and not the person, OK?
   
   I don’t dispute what happened during WWII when it comes to Germany, Japan, and Italy. However, it is impossible to understand *why* people like Hitler and Stalin come to power without discussing the direct involvement of the United States in fomenting European (and Asian) conflict. Do your research. And please spare me the “We were saving the Jews!” argument because that is an exercise in futility. We didn’t fight WWII to liberate the Jews any more than we invaded Iraq to liberate Iraqis.
   
   Moreover, the idea of Soviet Russia invading us during the cold war or anytime thereafter remains as laughable as it is absurd. Ray, how many countries can you name that were conquered by the Soviet Union? I’m not talking about occupation or border disputes amongst her ethnic people, but outright conquest. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with zero. That we were able to win the Cold War (against an enemy with an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) without firing a shot should tell you something about the power of diplomacy and talking with foreign leaders during tense periods. Instead, today, we have taken the opposite approach: we get uptight over the *possibility* that a country like Iran (who has signed the NNPT, something our “staunch” ally Israel has steadfastly refused to do) is enriching uranium…and may have the capability to build a bomb within a few years. Please clarify for me how I’m being ignorant in my desire to adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy?
   
   Declaring illegal war is becoming easier and easier, and the bulk of our population is mindlessly conforming to the whims of an irresponsible government that is drunk on its own power. We started out declaring sovereign nations enemies of the United States, now we’ve resorted to declaring war on non-entities like drugs, poverty, Islamofascism (a hilarious term if ever there was one), and, presently, terror. Where will it end? Our citizens lose every time, through taxation, through inflation, through injury and death, and through the erosion of our sacred liberties. It goes without saying that wars are not fought to conquer, to police, and to bring things back into balance…wars are fought to keep the citizen population under the thumb of an oppressive government.
   
   A while ago John mentioned “Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next country” and accused Ron Paul supporters of being unemployed basement dwellers. You have done much the same, Ray, and I think what both of you are trying to establish by saying that is to label me an isolationist. I’m forced to ask, though: who’s more of an isolationist? Me, who advocates diplomacy, trade, and commerce with all nations (and entangling alliances with none); or you two, who advocate (I’m inferring here, so please correct me if I’m wrong) no interaction with countries like Iran, global military presence overseas, and a continuation of interventionist foreign policy (which has failed miserably)? Between the two arguments, if I had to choose who was unemployed, isolated, and uninformed, I’d choose the group who refused to engage in diplomacy with other countries…but that’s just me.
   
   I’m not pacifist, either, and I acknowledge that evil does exist in this world. Like other Ron Paul supporters, I believe in a strong national defense, but also believe our defense does not extend to cover hundreds of overseas bases. We can’t afford it, and we are less safe for following that path. If the United States determines there is a threat to her well-being as a nation, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and then come home. This idea that we can fight wars at the behest of the President or to enforce UN regulations not only undermines the sovereignty of the United States (ironic when you consider we fight these wars supposedly to protect our sovereignty), but grossly violates the Constitution as well.
   
   Further, I have absolutely no problem if you, John, your friends, families, etc. want to sign up and fight for the liberation of Iraqis, Venezuelans, Tibetans, Indians, Sudanese, or any other global hotspot that you deem threatens your sovereignty. By all means, become a mercenary and fight/kill/maim until your heart’s content. There’s nothing stopping you. But what right do you have to interfere with my ability to make a living? You may not see these undeclared wars as preventing Americans from enjoying their lives (you may even subscribe to the propaganda that these wars preserve our freedom) but the evidence surrounding you is impossible to ignore. Inflation, high taxes, erosion of civil liberties, etc. are a reality…and a direct consequence of our failed interventionist foreign policy and reckless government expansion. None of the remaining candidates (save for Ron Paul) will change that reality, either.
   
   I think our biggest disconnect is that we have different answers to the above question, and I’d love to hear the rationale behind your answer.
   
   Jonn wrote: No, our biggest “disconnect” is that you won’t accept answers that prove you to be ill-educated and sworn to an intellectually bankrupt ideology. My concentration of study in history and political science was in US foreign policy - but I suppose that isn’t enough education for you. The Ron Paul supporters are real fond at telling everyone how we won’t listen to people, but the truth is that the Paulians are the most ignorant, ill-read and close-minded creatures involved in our political process. Absolutely everything is the fault of some nebulous corporate conspiracy who is fixated on silencing the negligible 2% of voters who support Ron Paul, apparently.
   
   What did you write in that post that you couldn’t have summarized in a paragraph? My case for calling you a blowhard is made. No one here has the time or inclination to engage in your mental masturbation when you can’t even accept basic math or give the American voter credit for even a tiny bit of thought to the process. Who wants to lay out a case to a snob who pooh-poohs every word? You won’t do any converting here, so please move on.

4. 19
   LT Nixon Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

   Jonn,

   I’ve been trying for months to get a Paultard invasion on my blog and, alas, it has failed. I salute you for accomplishing the feat before I, sir. Although, I have to admit that I am looking into Bob Barr being a decent candidate.

   Jonn wrote: Well, apparently you have to video Ron Paul so that 900,000,000 people view it in the first hour on YouTube, link to your blog from there and then warn about a Ron Paul hissy fit before it happens. It’s just that easy.

5. 20
   Ray Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

   What John said. LOL