Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views puts forth the following lament:

This editorial in the Sun News of Myrtle Beach has it right. The editorial talks about a "tax break" that's been proposed in North Carolina. This "break" would allow home builders to be exempt from property taxes for up to 5 years for homes they build that are not occupied immediately.

Of course, if this happens, then everyone else will have to pay more taxes to make up for the builder not paying taxes.

Me?

Personally, I'm happy for ANYONE who gets out of paying any tax for any reason.

It'd be better if it were me, but... *shrug*

And technically, the tax break doesn't CAUSE the higher taxes on everyone else. That's a separate decision and deserves to be cursed on its own.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Bloggrandson Baba of the Baba Gannouj took the NEA to task recently for making schools focus excessively on "self-esteem".

While some self-esteem is necessary, it should not be made into the be-all end-all of early childhood education.

I disagree, although it's probably because I have a different definition of self-esteem. I like Nathaniel Brandon's:

"Self-esteem is the disposition of experiencing oneself as competent in coping with the basic challenges of life and as being worthy of happiness."

There are two components to Branden's definition. The first he calls self-efficacy: "Confidence in the functioning of my mind, in my ability to think, understand, learn, choose, and make decisions; confidence in my ability to understand the facts of reality that fall within the sphere of my interests and needs; self-trust, self-reliance."

The second is self-respect: "Self-respect means assurance of my value; an affirmative attitude towards my right to live and be happy; comfort in appropriately asserting my thoughts, wants and needs; the feeling that joy and fulfillment are my natural birthright."

In short, not just the feeling, but the KNOWLEDGE that you are both capable and worthy of living your life

If you're missing one of those items, then what you have isn't self esteem. It's just a good feeling. Most educational institutions focus is on the latter criteria - kids are told that they're fine just the way they are. Which is all well and good if you're talking about things they can't change, like height, skin color, or physical appearance.

The mistake public schools make is that they try to lump personal behavioral choices into the "it's all good" category. So whether you're a disruptive trouble-maker in class, or whether you sit quietly and do your homework, you're still you, which means you're good.

Crap.

Without self-efficacy - the experiences of succeeding at accomplishing real-world tasks - all the "liking yourself" in the world won't ever help you to feel like a successful human being.

More exercises that involve goal-setting and goal-accomplishment would do wonders toward developing REAL self-esteem in children.

Which you can never have too much of.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Bloggranddaughter VW Bug of One Happy Dog Speaks said:

Looking into the lives of celebrities. I just don't get it. I don't care what they do off the screen. Don't tell me, don't publish it, don't care.

Although I tend to agree with her, it occurred to me that I read bloggers every day that I'll never meet, some of whom don't even know I exist.

Is there a difference?

Posted by: Harvey at 10:23 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogdaughter Sally of Whimsy Capricious brings up an interesting point in the comments to my post about threatening to nuke Mecca as a deterrent against Islamic terrorists planning to nuke a city in the US:

Mecca is already intangible to the millions of muslims who have never been there, but who pray daily in it's direction. It is an abstract. A symbol. Destroying the buildings will do sod all.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in Texas who do not go out and murder, because they do not want to pay the price for it. There are, however, people who cannot help themselves, because they are insane.

There is no reasoning with mad people.

Which is true in most contexts.

Still, I can't help wondering if the thought of Mecca becoming a radioactive crater wouldn't do SOMETHING to staunch plans for nuking a city in the Western world. Isn't there a difference between not being able to see something and knowing that it's not there anymore?

Yes, I know Islamic terrorists are insane, but I'm also aware that even "insane" serial killers can and do restrain themselves from choosing a particular victim if it looks like they might be caught in the process.

Terrorists may be sociopathic, but I think they could be motivated to be cautious when choosing which targets to hit and how.

For the record, though, even if the US did get nuked, I don't think we'd have the stones to actually follow through with the promised hit to Mecca. I think the scenario posited at USS Clueless would be more likely:

In the aftermath of a nuclear attack against the US, the US would issue the following directives:

1. All nations we do not fully trust which have nuclear weapons, or programs to develop them, will cease all development immediately, and will turn over to us all completed weapons and all fissionables and all other equipment and material used in those programs by a certain deadline, a small number of weeks.

2. All nations will fully cooperate with us in finding the attackers and all other militant groups we consider dangerous to us. All nations will immediately and totally cease providing any kind of support to such groups. All nations will immediately and vigorously work to prevent their citizens from providing any kind of support.

3. All nations will fully answer any significant questions we ask.

4. Any nation whose cooperation is not considered adequate will be assumed to be an enemy, and may be the target of a saturation nuclear strike at a time of our choosing, without any warning. There will be no negotiations, no second chances, no obfuscation, no delay, no deception. Nothing less that full and unstinting and rapid cooperation will be considered acceptable.

[snip]

Would we actually obliterate the first nation which didn't fully cooperate? I don't think so; I think that we'd fire one warning shot, by setting off a nuke in their territory, close enough to a major city so it could be seen and felt and heard but far enough away to not destroy it. That might require one or more small towns to be destroyed, but we wouldn't target a major city or metropolitan area the first time.

But that would only happen one time, not once per nation. If anyone after that didn't get the message, I think we would do it, because we would have to.

Posted by: Harvey at 04:03 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

Dana of Note-It Posts takes exception to my comments regarding nuking Mecca, so perhaps I should clarify my position.

First, I'll take #2 ("Can't make them hate us any more.") off the table. I was making a reference to the fact that terrorists already want us dead, and that wanting us to be "super-duper dead" wasn't an issue. It was a flip little remark, and not to be taken as part of a serious argument.

Second, I'm not talking about a first strike against Mecca as punishment for suicide bombings. I'm suggesting it STRICTLY as a consequence for nuking an American city, and here's why:

Terrorists would like nothing more than to detonate a nuke in an American city. It would be their most impressive display of... whatever it is they're trying to display... since 9/11. A real feather in their caps.

And strictly speaking, there's not much we can do to physically prevent this. We can't know all their plans, we can't be everywhere, and we can't kill them all ourselves. They're insane with jihadic blood-lust, so they can't be reasoned with. They don't even care about their own lives, so threatening to kill them personally has no effect.

Now it's true what Dana said - that "neither Mecca nor Medina is [...] a major base of operations for Al Qaeda et al.", so it's of no direct military advantage to destroy either city. However, preserving those cities DOES matter to the terrorists. I don't think they'd consider the loss of their holiest city an acceptable price to pay even if they destroy every building in New York in exchange.

In order to have any deterrent effect, we need to make a credible threat against something that they value more than America values its own cities, otherwise there's NOTHING that will make them hesitate to use a nuke on our shores if they can acquire and transport it.

I don't want to destroy Mecca. I want to keep America's cities safe. And if setting the price tag of "losing New York" at "losing Mecca" will accomplish that goal, then so be it.

If there's another price that's too high for them to pay, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[see also this post at USS CLUELESS on "Asymmetric Deterrence"]

UPDATE 7-25-05: More thoughts here.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:55 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'd say a "cautionary" strike on Medina (nearly as "holy" to Muslims as Mecca--the site of the first Muslim massacre of Jews) would raise the credibility level of a retaliatory strike on Mecca to about 100%. And it's not as though there were no just cause for such a strike already: to date, Muslims have made no genuine effort to discourage jihadist savages in their midst. Medina a sea of radioactive glass: it's at least be a credible statement of purpose.

Posted by: David at July 19, 2005 11:23 AM (ACL5/)

2 I actually would not trade cities in such a scenario. We have been attacked here by muslim terrorists. We must take the fight to their doors. Give them a reason to stop trying to kill us. Let them see the consequences with their own eyes. I disagree with one of the commentors in your last post. While it is true that not all muslims hate us, even moderate muslims look at the Western world as the root of evil. After London was bombed, moderate muslims, who are not filled with hatred, still stated that the US and Tony Blair, and not the terrorists were the problem. When that mentality changes we will see real progress. Since there are no apparent strides in that direction, giving them a reason to move is necessary. Maybe not bombing Mecca or Medina, but showing force of some kind to wake the average joe-muslim from his stupor to stand up against terrorism; that is absolutely necessary.

Posted by: Oddybobo at July 19, 2005 11:38 AM (6Gm0j)

3 As I said on Aaron's CC last week: Japan is a good case study here. Who would have thought that after the bomb was dropped, Japan would become our most frequent trade partner in the world. We haven’t had a scrap with Japan since the bombs were dropped. They love us over there! And this was a country that perfected suicide “bombing” techniques with Kamikaze warriors during WWII. I don’t think it’s entirely outside the realm of reason to suggest that perhaps a similar relationship could exist between us and Iraq if we have the sense to teach them a lesson. I liken this solution to ripping off a bandaid very quickly rather than slowly peeling it off of a wound.

Posted by: Cole from Conservatee.com at July 19, 2005 12:07 PM (yj4LY)

4 I'm agnostic about nuking Mecca. Convince me that it would have the desired effect and I'm all for it. Convince me that it would be counterproductive and I'm against it. What I am strongly against is taking ANYTHING off the table. I barely beat the minimum height requirements for my Department. It wasn't until the local scumbags learned that there was nothing I wouldn't do to win if they raised a hand to me that I didn't have to fight them to make an arrest. Once they realized that, in a fight, I was plumb crazy and meaner than a rabid dobermann, they started to come along quietly. The way to avoid a fight is that the potential opponent knows that the price for fighting is too high. Whether this idea is the right one, I don't know. I think it's a good idea for the thought to be out there, though.

Posted by: Peter at July 19, 2005 12:22 PM (faTmZ)

5 Grrrr.... I agree with every single person who commented before me. What say we experiment a little, and see what works.

Posted by: Larry Morin at July 19, 2005 01:14 PM (7v56M)

6 Having to take responsibility for one's actions is always a good learning tool.

Posted by: marty at July 19, 2005 02:00 PM (0ALfL)

7 During the Cold War, no rational person actually *wanted* to nuke Moscow. However, it was necessary to issue that threat - and make it credible - to ensure that a power-hungry leadership did not attempt to take over portions of the World with force. The US must make a credible threat against the Jihadi's or they will stop at nothing - Bio, nuke, nothing. A *publicly* stated promise that if any US city is nuked or chemed will result in at least one of the Muslim Holy Cities being nuked will serve that purpose. It is necessary to put a palpable threat into the heads of the Jihadi's. If we can turn things around on them, it will be good for us. If - by making such a threat - the moderate Muslims turn to the fanatics and say; "Do not make them destory our cities!", then we will have a powerful card in our hand. Granted, if that promise is made, the initial backlash will be tremendous and condeming. But it will get the point across. That point being; "We aren't fooling around here." Consider this perspective; If your child knows you will never put them in "Timeout", do you think threatening to do it will have any effect? And yes, I do find the comparison close enough.

Posted by: _Jon at July 19, 2005 02:13 PM (grH7t)

8 I would like to uphold Dana's point about the I.R.A. They killed thousands of my countrymen, on our very streets. English and Irish alike. It didn't matter to them. And who funded that? Also, if you think that destroying a Holy City is Just Revenge, remember that some of these people are insane fanatics. Was not the Temple in Jerusalem destroyed? More than once? (My Bible Study knowledge is a little rusty) Did the Faith die with it? Of course not. They don't give a shit about their cities Harvey, because they live in a fucking desert. They have fuck all to lose. Blowing up Mecca would be a nice little "tit for tat" morale booster as regards to New York, but it would not solve the problem, and it would only serve to escalate it. I am reminded of the scene in "Independence Day", when residents of L.A are told not to fire their weapons at the spacecraft. It is not that easily solved.

Posted by: Sally at July 19, 2005 04:30 PM (eNSvc)

9 Ok, so the price for nuking New York should be...? I mean, is there ANYTHING that would deter these maniacs? That's what I'm looking for in this discussion.

Posted by: Harvey at July 19, 2005 05:11 PM (ubhj8)

10 Does anyone know if the Moon is considered 'holy' to the Islamo-Fascists? We've already got a plan for that, right?

Posted by: GEBIV at July 19, 2005 06:32 PM (XRSL4)

11 Sally beat me to the punch. Bombing Mecca would not be a deterrent to the fanatics at all. It didn't stop them from attacking us from Najaf nor from Karbala (holy sites sacred to Shi'ites). They simply don't think rationally. I agree that it would be really nice if we could figure out an effective deterrent, but I just don't think there IS one. We are left in the unenviable position of having neither carrot nor stick that will help us. Bombing a city in a sovereign nation that was not involved in an attack on us - particularly the single holiest site to the ENTIRE Muslim population - (though less so to the actual terrorists) would do little more than make over a quarter of the world our avowed enemies. Finally, David, Medina is not sacred for being the site of the "first Muslim massacre of Jews" (the first time I've ever even heard that), but because it's where the prophet Muhammad is buried, where his mosque is, and where he fled to from Mecca (that's why it's part of the Hajj). Source: ReligionFacts.com.

Posted by: Dana at July 19, 2005 06:37 PM (UlC9+)

12 We should drop a large inert bomb casing with a radioactivity symbol on it just outside of Mecca with a mylar streamer on the tail that reads "Thinking of you..." This would probably make the terrorism situation worse, but it would amuse the hell out of me

Posted by: Graumagus at July 19, 2005 07:16 PM (2YINv)

13 I'm with Grau, here....a Hallmark moment in the making!

Posted by: Susie at July 19, 2005 07:47 PM (PWYyH)

14 Just start dipping all those crazy fuckers in pig fat... that'll shut those bastards up once and for all!!1!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at July 19, 2005 08:19 PM (ikJsr)

15 So Harv, does this go on your list of ways to generate more site traffic?

Posted by: tbflowers at July 19, 2005 09:14 PM (McXMw)

16 "I don't want to destroy Mecca. I want to keep America's cities safe. And if setting the price tag of "losing New York" at "losing Mecca" will accomplish that goal, then so be it. If there's another price that's too high for them to pay, I'd be interested in hearing it. But that's just it. I think there is nothing that they would consider "too high a price"...and they would simply accuse US of terrorism, and continue or escalate their "holy war". They are crazy fuckers, so normal logic isn't going to work with them. Oddybobo's right that all Muslims see the West as the root of all evil, so maybe that's what we need to fix. They're taught this crap from birth. (Kinda like rednecks around here are taught to be hateful). So how do we change what they're being raised to believe about us?

Posted by: dustbunny101 at July 20, 2005 06:31 AM (xGzUR)

17 I have read in many blogs the argument that we can't kill them all. And although it is technically true it really shows how little we understand the power of our own military. Given a tripling in budgetary discrepancy the entire B-52 fleet mothballed in the dessert could be flying and bombing nonstop until there were no more significant structures left in the middle east. That includes all cities all roads all infrastructure. Most of this could be accomplished without anything more that the conventional munitions we now have stockpiled. It is a matter of political restraint that prevents this reality. In a matter of a few months the number of Muslims in the world would be drastically reduced. More importantly all the holy sites would be reduced to rubble or completely vaporized depending on the veracity of the targeting. Praying to Mecca would become an intangible, practiced by an ever shrinking population of worshipers who would quickly dissipate as the generation who last saw Mecca died away. All that prevents this is the world view that Islam is not a threat to the world.

Posted by: JJS at July 20, 2005 09:01 AM (PAuCm)

18 Mecca is already intangible to the millions of muslims who have never been there, but who pray daily in it's direction. It is an abstract. A symbol. Destroying the buildings will do sod all. I'm sure there are plenty of people in Texas who do not go out and murder, because they do not want to pay the price for it. There are, however, people who cannot help themselves, because they are insane. There is no reasoning with mad people. I have found that farting in the general direction of Mecca five times daily makes me feel better. In fact, I recommend a "Call to Fart" alert throughout the Western World.

Posted by: Sally at July 20, 2005 02:54 PM (eNSvc)

19 Let's annex Mecca and just make it a territory like Puerto Rico. Then they can be like all the other self hating Americans and just start blogs like KOS, DU, and Moveon.

Posted by: Dr. Phat Tony at July 20, 2005 03:02 PM (fk/lm)

20 Vaporize Medina and threaten the same for Mecca. This is the only way to fight the mental illness known as Islam. We need to make them realize that their god is worthless and impotent. We must break their spirits. That is what needs to be done.

Posted by: Eric at August 04, 2005 03:31 PM (y9Hjh)

21 am i the only person in the world who feels that a clash of cultures between the west and islam is inevitable? why are we discussing half measures? tit for tat violence? We have the capicity to take out the focal point of their entire religion and do it with mimimal loss of life. this hostility between our cultures is not going to go away. sooner or later a worldwide civil war will come. Surely it is better to end this war now than wait a generation or two until it is unwinnable. mecca and the mosques there are the focal point of islam. allah himself has guaranteed their security. with one act we could demonstrate to 900 million people that their god is powerless, their religion a lie. people say this will enrage the muslim world. without mecca there is no islam.

Posted by: Gman at November 09, 2005 01:15 PM (yggHT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blogdaughter Sally of Whimsy Capricious is a bit disappointed by the last few Harry Potter books and wonders if she's the only one who thinks they've become bland & formulaic.

Me, I don't know. I haven't read the books.

See, I've never been much of one for fantasy & magic stories, because once you allow magic, there's always an easy way out for the hero. He no longer requires his own guts, wit, determination, and decisiveness to succeed.

I prefer my heroes mortal, human, and bound by the laws of physics.

Give or take artificial gravity during space flights...

Posted by: Harvey at 01:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Good point, but, you know the way the first few "Star Wars" films were utterly otherworldly, but believable because of the knackered old robots and spaceships? That's what the early Potter books had.

Posted by: Sally at July 18, 2005 04:35 PM (eNSvc)

2 Why can I never see the first comment here? It drives me mad with the Love Notes, because I don't get to read your naughty comment until someone else has added one. :-)

Posted by: Sally at July 18, 2005 04:37 PM (eNSvc)

3 Since I upgraded to my new anti-virus I can't get into her comments. GRRR. It's hit or miss.

Posted by: Bou at July 18, 2005 05:25 PM (5JHEt)

4 DH reads a chapter from the HP books to DS every night. DS is entranced by the story, DH is appalled at the poor writing, shallow characters, and vapid plot. Just another data point.

Posted by: Dana at July 18, 2005 08:20 PM (UlC9+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blogdaughter Boudicca of Boudicca's Voice has a nice, bare-bones post describing 27 things she did on her vacation.

Which is all well and good, but after doing all that stuff, she's just as frazzled as when she left, and could probably use a nice vacation.

Happens to me, too. Go out of town, busy schedule, heavy pressure to finish the "gotta do this while I'm there" list, then come home to a pile of stuff that was left undone in my absence.

There's gotta be a better way.

It occurs to me that the room in which I do all my blogging is full to near-overflowing with stuff that I acquired over the years because - at the time - I thought those things would somehow make my life better. Mostly they just sit there gathering dust. I never use them - heck, I don't even LOOK at them - and they don't do their job of making me happy.

I think for my next vacation, I'm just going to take the entire day, and enjoy my stuff.

I'd wander from place to place in my room, picking up objects, dusting them off, playing with them a little (so, Magic 8-Ball, will I ever get an Instalanche?), and reliving the memories they invoke that keep me from throwing these objects away, even though they're - let's be honest - mostly just clutter on my desk and shelves.

Maybe I'd find better places for these things. Maybe I'd decide that it really WAS time for them to go and that I'd prefer to have the empty space they left behind.

But mostly I think I'd feel happy and loved by spending a day doing this. None of the objects in my room represent tragedy. They're all icons of someone's love for me, or even my own love for myself. Everything represents some warm, cozy part of my life that I haven't thought about in a while.

Maybe if I spent a little time remembering that, I'd better understand how much of my life is comprised of good times, good things, good memories, and good people - and that those things are here because my life IS good, even if I forget that from time to time amongst the hurry-up of working my to-do list.

After all, there IS more to life than my computer:

(click to enlarge)

Maybe I need a vacation...

Posted by: Harvey at 01:14 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

Every civilian death in Iraq makes me sick. The thing I hate most about this war is that, every once in a while, I imagine myself going up to some Iraqi man who lost his 6-year-old daughter as "collateral damage" and trying to explain why it happened. I could go on and on about how it was "necessary", and "Iraq will be better off", and "I'm sorry it happened", and "America is safer now", and "millions of your countrymen are now free and have the opportunity for a better life", but the words all taste like shit in my mouth.

He's not better off. His dead daughter will never grow up to enjoy any freedom. This war - MY war - has brought him nothing but suffering and misery. Suffering and misery that he wouldn't have known under Saddam. He was a shoemaker by trade. He held no political views. He just wanted to make a living and raise his family. He was completely under Saddam's radar, and would never have been personally threatened. He could've grown old happily, bouncing his grandchildren on his knee. Now the war's taken that away from him, and I supported that war.

Her blood is on my hands, and it'll never wash off. I own it... forever.

...I accept that...

Because I *also* own all the children - and men and women - who Saddam will not kill. I own the better education that the kids will get. I own their newfound freedom and coming prosperity. I own the advancement of civilization in the Middle East, and I own America's increased security as our Warriors slaughter black-hearted terrorists.

And I hold it all in my blood-stained hands. And I alternately laugh and cry over what I've bought and what price I've asked others to pay.

And I'd do it again, because I believe that taking this war to the enemy is better than the alternative of letting them bring the war to us.

Again.

And I'm sorry your daughter died, even though you don't give a shit that I am. And I'm sorry that my cheap words bring no comfort. And I'm sorry that there's nothing I can do to bring her back.

So, it's not that I don't grieve for that little girl, it's just that sometimes I have to look away from the crimson dripping from my palms and think about something else.

I hope you understand.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:17 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 2 kb.

Saw this post over at Pearliewolf's Live Journal page. I don't usually re-post things in their entirety, but it's necessary in this case:

a bunch of bombs went off in a city, killed some people, injured some more. newsflash: nobody cares.

but before you go to flame me about being immature and apathetic about what happened in london, i want you to realize two things:
1. i'm telling the truth.
2. i'm not talking about london.

this is the kind of violence that happens every day in iraq. and before you go and say that it's so different, let me compare some facts:
- london's involved mass transit. but iraq bombings tend to involve buses and such as well.
- innocent people in london got hurt and killed! well, no one in iraq asked to be killed either.
- london's was coordinated and such. it's not like people in iraq can't just go out and buy a bomb and blow up a bus or something without any planning. (that was sarcasm)

and then you'll go on to say that if it happened in london, it could happen here. yet every day (or close to it) someone in iraq boards a bus with a bomb, and it took london for us to wake up and smell the coffee. i could take a bomb and walk onto a bus or train tomorrow and no one would notice! (i'm not going to, ok?)

but english people are like us. they have jobs like ours. they look like us, share our beliefs, etc. but why should that matter?

either everyone is overreacting to london, or underreacting to iraq. you just can't justify our behavior.

so yeah, some people in london got killed. that really is sad, and i wish their families and friends the best. but i do the same for the poor iraqi families who've lost a friend, a sister, brother, father, mother, son, or daughter, or just someone they knew. they don't want the tragedies any more than the english families.

My first reaction was "Oh, great, more ignorant lefty war-bashing" and I was prepared to fisk her within an inch of her life in her comments section. While I was there, though, I saw she'd posted this in reaction to someone else who'd already tore her a new one:

"i didn't bash our efforts to stop terrorism in iraq. in fact, i didn't talk about what bush is doing at all. i repeat, i was talking about what seems to be the attitude of the overwhelming majority of americans. i didn't say we can't solve war with war, i didn't talk about what to do about the terrorists,"

Then I re-read her post, and I got it. Her ONLY point was the RELATIVE lack of apparent empathy for Iraqi civilian casualties.

Here's the lesson: if you're going to post an opinion that might get you flamed for reasons that aren't germane to your point, include the disclaimers. When you know a question will be raised, answer it. If you support the war, but still wish to criticize certain aspects of it, say that in so many words.

For example...

Posted by: Harvey at 08:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

Owen of Boots & Sabers is feeling a little pessimistic about our country's future:

I truly believe that we will see a revolution in America within my lifetime, but probably at the end of it. The increasing pressures of the welfare state, the continued loss of liberty, the declining faith in government, and the rise of China will make the conditions ripe for revolution. A painful economic depression will be the spark.

He *is* right in a way. There WILL be a revolution in this country, but it will happen at the ballot box, every 2 years, just as it has for centuries.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant political historians, and they realized an important truth about governments: revolutions are inevitable. Sooner or later, even the most benevolent power structure will eventually become entrenched, corrupt, and interested more in its own enrichment than in protecting its citzenry. At this point it becomes

"the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

The true genius of the Founders was that they devised a method whereby such alterations and abolitions could be done bloodlessly, without the need for open warfare. In America, when a sufficiently large majority of people think the government is doing a crappy job, they can disentrench the establishment with new representatives more in line with their own way of thinking. For example, in 1994, the nation's response to Clinton's promulgation of a socialized health care policy was to give Republicans a majority in the House.

However, such a voter revolt only becomes necessary when the government stops listening. Normally, the mere THREAT of such an action is a big enough cattle prod to keep the congresscritters in line. Up until a few years ago, though, it was sometimes hard to make that threat HEARD.

Feedback used to be limited to letters & phone calls, which are private, discreet, and ignorable. But now there are e-mail & blogs to contend with.

10 years ago, if Dick Durbin called US Soldiers "Nazis", it might've gotten 2 seconds in the press, only to be immediately forgotten, never to be brought up again and leaving him free to yell "Nazi" all he wanted.

But now, such a faux pas gets noticed, blogged about, e-mailed all over the place, and the conversation itself becomes newsworthy enough for the Mainstream Media to mention. Within a week, Durbin apologized, having received the feedback that such indiscreet commentary could get him fired.

So, thanks to blogs, I don't think there will ever be a violent revolution in America. When politicians start losing touch, bloggers will ramp up the volume on the discussion until the issue is too loud to ignore, raising the specter of electoral consequences.

Blogs are the shock collar on the pit bull of government - a first line of defense that keeps us from having to blow its damn head off if it turns on us.

But DO keep your powder dry, just in case I'm wrong about this.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:04 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 3 kb.

Deep in the comments to this post at Right Wing News, Uowe10000inBushdebt (2005-07-11 09:22:25) asks this question:

Can some one tell me what the endpoint of the war is? Ideally Iraq will one day be a stable blossoming democracy. OK that's a little hard to picture but lets say Bush pulls this out of his ass. Then what? Do the terrorist just suddenly go away...would we have killed them all? Or do they just go to the next country? and the next? How many countries can we invade at this cost.....someone please explain the final outcome...

It was probably meant to be rhetorical, but I'll take a stab at it.

The goal is to have every government of every nation on earth have as explicit policy - and actual practice - that no terrorist organization will be knowingly financed, aided, or harbored within their borders.

The goal is NOT to invade countries and kill people. That's just one method. It may or may not be necessary in every specific case.

The goal is to have each nation's government police its own territory and perform its own terrorist eradication so that America doesn't have to protect itself by doing it for them.

In practical terms, this means that the war stops when every country on earth has a constitutional republic as its form of government. A system based on the rule of law, and protective of its citizens' individual rights.

It also means that every country pursues a capitalistic economic system. Look at Germany & Japan. 60 years ago, they pursued a policy of international pillage & plunder. Today, their citizens are too busy making a buck for themselves to give war a second thought. That's the attitude that needs to course through the veins of every human being on this planet. "Pursuit of happiness" is the antibody that will eventually kill the disease of terrorism.

The war stops when "kill or be killed" is replaced by "trade and be prosperous".

The war stops when people reach for a lawyer instead of a gun to settle disputes with annoying neighbors.

The war stops when we become a planet of civilized nations, where money and contracts speak louder than pistols and ammunition.

The war stops when individual labor for personal gain - rather than brutal violence for personal power - becomes universally regarded as the higher human virtue.

When the world has learned, the war will stop.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:10 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

As much as it pains me to disagree with Matty O'Blackfive, I have to say he's wrong on this one, even tongue-fairly-well-in-cheek as it is:

An idea for Kerry, Kennedy and Soros - All it would take to show genuine care for the troops...all it would take to show support...all it would take to increase credibility...

Would be for Kerry or Kennedy or Soros to spend $100,000 on kevlar blankets for the troops. That's pocket change for them...a birthday party costs less in their world.

Don't get me wrong. I think the 100 large would be a good thing for the troops and I'd be glad to see it happen.

Trouble is, I wouldn't give them any moral credit for it.

Yes, my heart is so black and my soul so shriveled that I couldn't choke down the bile long enough to croak out a grudging "thank you".

I would pile on invective, spitting curses like "hypocrite" and "grandstander" and accuse them of using the troops as an excuse to buy themselves publicity through the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy of the Mainstream Media.

After all that's been said and done by these limosine liberals, I wouldn't have the grace or decency to give fair acknowledgement to whatever petty good thing they might do for the wrong reason.

Maybe I'm just bitter & jaded, but I simply can't pretend that the gap is bridgeable any more.

Posted by: Harvey at 01:30 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Rob of Say Anything, guest-posting at Wizbang, points out that famous radio newsman Paul Harvey is getting a little heat for some comments he made regarding America's rise to international power.

One line jumped out at me:

And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves.

Mostly because of Rob's reaction to it:

Yes we rode to the status of global economic powerhouse, partly, on the back of slaves. But was that neccessary? Couldn't America's dearly-held capitalistic ideals have brought us here without engaging in the terrible institution of slavery?

No, because slavery was a traditional institution dating back to the beginning of recorded history.

There were lots of justifications for it, from the Biblical to John Locke (ch 15 para 172). It was pervasive. It was everywhere.

America didn't start it, but America fought a war to stop it.

And - in the long, brutal annals of man's inhumanity to man - slavery, as an institution, wasn't that bad. Undignified and not a proper way for men to live, but the vast majority of slaves were given sufficient food, clothing, and shelter to keep them healthy & breeding. As far as day-to-day living conditions were concerned, plenty of free men were living worse.

I'm not defending the concept of slavery, but I *am* going to point out that there are reasons that - as a cultural fait accompli - it lasted for as long as it did, perpetuating itself down through the ages. It's easy to sit in a comfortable, modern nation, spitting on the history of the slave trade, but keep in mind that it was once the Abolitionists who were the target of derision, and the transition from "lunatic pipe dream" to "conventional wisdom" was neither quick nor easy.

America has a history of letting fads come and go. The fact that this nation had the depth of character for this belief to take hold says SOMETHING about who we are.

In short, if you're going to condemn America for engaging in slavery when it was as common as sea water, don't forget to also bless this country for leading the fight to dry up that abominable ocean.

Posted by: Harvey at 05:08 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

1 BTW - there is still lots of slavery in the world... why do we keep beating on the US for something we managed to abolish over 100 years ago? Especially when there are still cultures that condone such behavior. I don't hear any of these people standing up and condemning actions that are CURRENTLY taking place... no - they want to reach waaayyy back in our past - to tell us how lousy our great great great grandparents were and that we should feel guilty about it - forget it! Oh yeah, and the cultures that condone slavery - they aren't really doing so hot economically speaking. (check out how wonderfully well Africa is doing... yeah not so good) Neither did the South for that matter - way back when. The North - where there was no slavery, and industry was thriving... that is what made this country great. Slaves were used for farm work and house work (for the most part) - not in ways that would help build and modernize the country. One of the reasons the South lost the Civil War was because they didn't have the industry available to win it... they didn't have the industry because they had slaves to do stuff for them that people in the North either had to pay for or find a better way to do things... Just a few thoughts.

Posted by: Teresa at July 05, 2005 05:58 PM (nAfYo)

2 Great post. Some people seem to conveniently forget that America and the ideals held therein are a work in process! We are working toward equality and have been since the beginning -- and that should mean something. Too often within the "blame America first crowd" is doesn't though. I would say more but Teresa beat me to it. :-)

Posted by: Richmond at July 05, 2005 06:11 PM (WkF4B)

3 The arguement can be made that slavery itself is not inherently evil. If it is a self induced situation. ie, someone who willingly gives up control of their life in order to be provided for by a 'master'. However, the de-facto slavery of people because of their skin color is an abomination. Which is why a war was fought to abolish it.

Posted by: GEBIV at July 05, 2005 07:25 PM (bcjM+)

4 One other thing that needs to be noted while slavery was a driving force in the Southern Economy, I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that Slavery was the motor that drove the Northern Industrial Machine. The next question is where is the damning of the European traders who introduced Slavery to North America. The United States ended Slavery in 1860's while it could be said that Slavery still was around in Europe as last as 1914. In my book Serf=Slave Yes the United States has parts of its history that we are not to proud of but find one other nation that achieved the status of having a Hegemony which has a human rights record better than the United States. I can think of a few nation off the top of my head whos history is alot darker than the US I am looking at You Germany, Russia and Japan.(yes I know none of these three nations was a hegemon but they will do) The Hegemons which came before the United States all engaged in some forms of Slavery if not at home in their colonies. So the Spanish, Dutch, Portugese and the English all have blood on their hands also. Thanks for letting me rant Harvey GBfan Opps I see Teresa did mention the no slavery in the North thing well damn it she is right

Posted by: gbfan001 at July 05, 2005 07:32 PM (H2p2v)

5 I was about to add my four ha'pennies to this and it turned into a long screed that I'll be posting on my blog soon. Keep in mind that Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclaimation until the war between the states was in full tilt (war started 4/12/1861, Proclaimation was 1/1/1863), not beforehand and thereby creating the catalyst for the war (which is what the majority of the historically ignorant believe). The real reason that slavery was non-existant in the north was because it was economically unfeasible to house, feed, clothe, and accept the responsibility of ownership over their workers. Lincoln was a socialist bastard who almost destroyed this nation.

Posted by: Graumagus at July 05, 2005 11:12 PM (46Oh+)

6 My ancestors were slaves--of the Romans, in Trier, Germany. I'll be suing Italy for reparations any day now....

Posted by: Susie at July 06, 2005 04:06 AM (PWYyH)

7 A few weeks ago I was at Borders bookstore checking out the history section. I would say that there were 3 times more books about the American Civil War as there were about any other history subject. The opinions on slavery and the cause and effect of the war are so vast, that it would be flat out stupid to assume that we've got a handle on the facts about American slavery and the war that ended the practice in the United States. I will point out, however, that not all of our slaves came from Africa. Our first slaves were already here when the first boats landed. ...Some of our slaves even had slaves of their own before we got here. But can we please stop with the justification of the American past? The early Americans were bastards. We don't need to put it up on a scale of bastards to see if we were better or worse than the Saxons or the Egyptians. A bastard is a bastard and a slave is a slave. No matter how they were treated, we shouldn't have done it. Oh, and President Lincoln was a republican, not a socialist. Just like President Bush is a republican and not a fashist. Please don't disrespect the office, Graumagus.

Posted by: Sarah The Penguin at July 06, 2005 08:58 AM (tju6+)

8 Slavery wasn't the problem, it was the fact that we based the decision of whether or not a person should be a slave on race. I often wonder if there shouldn't be a form of slavery today - more an 'indentured servitude.' Basically instead of declaring bankruptcy, a person has to go work off their debts as a slave/servant to their debtor. The problem would be keeping people from abusing the system and horribly mistreating those working under them. Not that this would be high on my list of reforms, but it's still a recurring thought.

Posted by: Patriot Xeno at July 06, 2005 08:58 AM (SXM2F)

9 When I do my post over at Frizzen Sparks, Sarah, feel free to argue with me on how I show Lincoln to be a socialist at heart. I'll send you an e-mail and invite you to the debate. Just because he got elected with an -R after his name doesn't mean his platform was the same as what we think of with Republicans today. It's almost considered heretical to have these beliefs, but the fact remains that Lincoln pretty much destroyed the concept of Federalism in this country, violated the US constitution, took us off the gold standard and printed money like it was going out of style causing massive inflation, caused the biggest increase in federal power over that of the states up to that date, and used the Emancipation Proclaimation and slavery in general not out of some saintly regard for the freedom of his fellow man (regardless of skin color) but as a lever to keep Europe from recognising the CSA as a legitimate nation (and in hopes of causing a black rebellion in the south, which never materialised). After the war, Lincoln wanted to set up the freed slaves in their own country in South America and deport them. He pretty much thought racial equality was impossible. I depise slavery. Th very idea that another human being can be considered property like a tool, or a piece of clothing, sickens me at a fundamental level. But revisionist history Really. Really. Pisses. Me. Off. Oh yeah, those "Early Americans" that were such bastards had names. English. French. Spanish. Those European nations abolished slavery before we did not out of enlightened ideals, but because slavery was no longer economically feasible as an institution. (BTW I'm not arguing that they weren't bastards, just saying that EVERYBODY were bastards.)

Posted by: Graumagus at July 06, 2005 12:15 PM (Xl+X7)

10 I'm a slave to the holder of my mortgage. Not unlike sharecropping or indentured servitude I guess. What culture didn't at one time in their history gain from slavery? Slavery was a fact of life. It was an institution since tribes captured prehistoric POWs. W.Africa was no exception. I believe native americans even had it in some form within their nomadic warrior culture. Thanks to the Yankees (and even a few Southerners) who demanded that we be better than that. The EUROs didn't 'abolish' slavery out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course England abolished slavery. They had still had the lower castes of India to grow their tea. That's not 'slavery' is it? 'tis a crying shame that we couldn't have resolved this without the war. Lincoln was trying to encourage change gradually. The Abolitionists wanted it yesterday and the Democrats wanted it never. As divided as the country was we were doomed as my southern forebears wouldn't listen and instead decided to legally seceede in order to protect their way of life. I wonder how a better information distribution system (aka the internet, telephones, TV) could have helped us bypass the bloody war. Instead we citizens could only rely on isolationistic hyperbole from our local newspapers, gossip, and convenient biblical interpretations. The more efficient conveyance of opionions and ideas could have led to a dialogue at the citizen levels and saved this nation a world of hurt.

Posted by: TBFlowers at July 06, 2005 05:30 PM (DCr1n)

11 Child labor & work conditions in the northern mills/factories also gets conveniently overlooked (and rightly so in the big scheme of things) since the evil South was up to it's old ways. The northern industrial machine gets a nice whitewash since it wasn't slavery. The long standing Yankee discrimination against the Irish, the orientals, freed slaves, etc.. doesn't speak well of northern values either. None of these things were good, but they were they way it was. I prefer to look back in amazment and with pride at how far we've come. Heck, we've even surpassed our founding nations combined in economically, militarily and arguably morally. We can't change history. Let's just do our utmost best not to repeat it.

Posted by: tbflowers at July 06, 2005 05:42 PM (DCr1n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment