America's Army - book

America’s Army: Making the All-Volunteer Force, Beth Bailey (Harvard University Press, 2009).

Beth Bailey is a Professor of History at Temple University. This book is, I think, good example of what a competent historian can do with a topic of this kind.

I confess I had never thought seriously about the change from the draft to a Volunteer Army, other than to initially believe I didn’t think it was a good idea. This was partly because I was out of the country during much of the serious controversy, and partly because I just didn’t really think much about it. I had no idea how complicated, complex, difficult, and far-reaching a job it was to make this switch. First, there were moral problems involving the basic obligations of citizenship, then there was race, and after that the problems of gender, and after that the practical problems of just how to go about bringing such monumental changes, and then even after that, questions about what skills were really necessary to serve in a modern army. That this was accomplished at all I find almost miraculous.

I did not understand that the issue of changing to an all-volunteer army came about because of the combination of Richard Nixon’s opportunism and the Chicago School of Economics. Nixon understood the disenchantment with Vietnam and the draft, and realized that doing away with the latter would be an astute political achievement. The argument for doing so quickly became one of the market place. It would be economically sensible (that is, cheaper) to have an all-volunteer army than to continue the draft. Furthermore, because of modern technology and the probabilities of the “wars” of the future, it was obvious that the army would require soldiers with more education than previously, and with more intelligence than previously. There was a fear that an all-volunteer force would inevitably consist of Blacks lacking these qualities, along with the poor and less educated. The problem became one of how to recruit the kinds of individuals the modern all-volunteer army would want. It was quickly decided that in order to achieve this goal it would be necessary to raise the pay of soldiers, and also to do away with some of the more onerous and unpleasant aspects of army life, such things as KP, unnecessary “policing” of the area picking up trash, polishing the interior of belt buckles, to say nothing of the bullying of drill sergeants, and so on. But of course this new image of army life had to be sold to recruits and so became a marriage of Madison Avenue and the Army. It would be left to the marketplace.

Much of this book is a record of just how the Army (with the help of the advertising industry) went about this change. It is actually quite fascinating to see how the ads changed with changing perceptions of young people and their values, and how they changed over time from the 60’s to the 70’s to the 80’s and 90’s and to the present time. Not the least of the problems had to do with gender and what to do with female enlistees. There was, of course, great resistance to having female soldiers at all, and then, when it became obvious there would have to be such soldiers (as the quotas could not be met otherwise), what, exactly would they be required (or allowed) to do. Here again technology entered into the equation. As women were not perceived to be as physically capable as men, and therefore not as able to be infantry troops or engage in hand-to-hand combat, how could they be allowed to perform the same MOS’s (Military occupational specialties) as men. If they couldn’t be ordinary foot soldiers why could they not fly fighter planes or drop bombs that did not require basic physical strength?

I believe it is true, as Bailey suggests, that the Army was actually far ahead of American culture in general, when it came to working out these problems of race and gender. I think it is pretty much the case that race is no longer much of a problem in our military, but gender differences still are working themselves out. And now, of course, there is a renewed emphasis on gays in the military (but it, too, I am sure, will soon be a forgotten issue).

I was initially opposed to an all-volunteer force because I feared it might easily have more loyalty to those who paid it than to the country or constitution (as in the case of that nitwit graduate of one of the right-wing law schools who admitted she had vowed loyalty to George W. Bush, apparently even unaware of how totally inappropriate that was). Now I don’t believe this need be a problem as long as our volunteers are made to swear an oath to the constitution and understand where their loyalties must lie. By far the most serious problem is with the mercenary troops that have been more and more a part of our military adventures around the world, a problem that is just now receiving the serious attention it deserves. Bailey does not deal with this at all, but it is totally unfair to criticize someone for not writing about something she was not writing about. America’s Army is a fine and detailed account of how it is we arrived at an all-volunteer army and makes you appreciate just how almost impossibly difficult and cleverly this transition was achieved.

I am still not completely convinced that an all-volunteer army is the best solution to national defense. The best solution is probably to have an all-volunteer cadre readily available for most defense problems, while at the same time having some form of national service whereby all young people are at least minimally prepared to serve in one capacity or another if necessary. The issue of national service, having to do with basic questions of citizenship, is far too controversial and complicated to be dealt with here (maybe later).

The Crazy American Health Care Plan

Woman, 37, admits strangling
daughter, 18, because she
“pushed my last button.”

Welcome to the Crazy American Health Care Plan. I believe the Health Care Bill now under consideration and coming up for a vote on Sunday is going to pass. I guess, like many, in general, I think that is probably a good thing, barring any alternative. Let me review this business as I think I understand it. In the United States, roughly speaking, some 20% of the population suffers 80% of the health problems. The insurance companies do not insure the 20%, opting instead to only insure the 80% that is healthier. Then, when someone in the 80% does happen to develop a health problem, the insurance companies find a way to cut them off, either by claiming some previously undisclosed pre-condition or finding some other loophole. This is basically how insurance companies make their profits. Under this new bill this is going to change. Insurance companies will be forced to cover everyone, including the 20%, and they will be no longer be allowed to cut people off when they need it most by claiming pre-existing conditions or whatever. In order to make these changes economically feasible it is necessary to mandate that everyone be insured (or pay a fine if they are not). I am not enough of a mathematician or statistician to know if adding an additional 32 million people to the health care business is sufficient to make up for the profits that would otherwise be lost. I assume it would be or otherwise it would not happen. What I do know (or at least think I know) is that it doesn’t much matter, because as I understand it, the insurance companies will still be allowed to skim of some 20% or more as profit. This means that health insurance in the United States will still cost 20% (or more) than it would have to if we had a single payer system. If this is so, why do we allow it to happen? The answer, I guess, is that America is a capitalistic society that puts privatization and profit ahead of everything else, and Americans have been taught to believe that anything else is either socialism (an absolutely terrible, unthinkable, horrible thing), or that government is too incompetent to do anything right (like Medicare, Social Security, the Post Office, Public Schools, the Veterans Administration, and so on). Opponents argue that you should not want a Government bureaucrat to come between you and your doctor. They seem to believe that having an Insurance company bureaucrat, interested only in generating a profit out of your misfortune, between you and your doctor is fine. This is a view that to me is either totally irrational or a deliberate preference for profit over people (which is, I believe, a pretty standard Republican position). Thus, if a public option or some functional equivalent is not added to the current bill you can just assume it is a gift of billions to the Insurance industry.

Apparently some “porn star” is now threatening to make public some racy messages she received from Tiger Woods. This is, of course, after the worst of his scandalous behavior has been pretty much put to rest. So why would she do this? Either she is just mean, or she seeks publicity, or she thinks she will stand to gain monetarily, or perhaps all three, or more likely, the last two. I am always reminded of Somerset Maugham when I see things like this: There is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror ( W. Somerset Maugham).

It is being claimed by Obama and Hillary there is no serious disagreement between Israel and the U.S. If that is so it means that the status quo will prevail, which also means there will be no peace in the Middle East and the U.S. will continue to scratch the back of Netanyahu and bow to Israel once again. Obama has it within his power to insist that Israel stop its slow genocide of Palestinians, stop building more settlements, stop their blatant racist imperialism, and make a serious attempt at peace and a viable Palestinian state. Apparently this is not going to happen. It has been suggested that there be a new “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy wherein no one is supposed to ask if Israel is violating International law as usual, and they are not going to tell. This is absolutely disgusting and means we will continue to participate in Israeli war crimes and be the major obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It has been said that Obama is going to be too busy to meet with Netanyahu when he arrives next week. I hope he is. I hope every leader of every country on earth will be too busy to meet with this racist warmonger until he gets the message: STOP YOUR OUTRAGEOUS GREED AND RACISM!!

LKBIQ:
An autobiography is only to be trusted when it reveals something disgraceful. A man who gives a good account of himself is probably lying, since any life when viewed from the inside is simply a series of defeats.
George Orwell

TILT:
The coyotes that have been missing for a while are now back, and close to the house.

Stupid, or What?

New Jersey ex-con
arrested for urinating on
women at bus stop.

Are people really stupid or what? At a meeting of the U.N. to discuss a ban on fishing for bluefin tuna, because they are rapidly disappearing, the ban was turned down because many nations felt it would harm their fisherman. What in the hell do they think will happen to their fisherman when there are no tuna? Commercial fisherman for years have refused to practice any genuine conservation and are now coming under increasing pressure to do so. This is the source of the absurd claim that Obama is going to stop recreational fishing, because commercial fisherman have tried to drag recreational fishing into the argument to bolster their opposition to any controls. People seem to have learned nothing from their hundreds of years of experience, they still seem to believe that you can cut all the trees, catch all the fish, use all the oil, dam all the rivers, kill all the animals and birds, and so on, without having to pay any consequences. There actually are some pretty smart humans. You can tell who they are, they’re the ones being ridiculed and laughed at by the no-brainers. The idea “there’s always more where that came from” wasn’t appallingly serious when there was still a frontier, it is humanicidally serious at the moment.

When someone becomes known as a genuine loony-tunes, like Michele Bachmann for example, or an always wrong pathological serial liar, like Dick Cheney, or a pathetic idiotic bumpkin like Glenn Beck, or a disgusting witch like Ann Coulter who would suck the blood out of children for a buck, or even an evil, dishonest, bloated, blowhard, druggy hatemonger like Rush Limbaugh, why does the MSM continue to inflict them on the public at every opportunity? It must be simply because there are a lot of people like them out there (a thought so frightening I don’t like to think about it). But what this really means is (I guess we should already know) the networks will do anything for money, anything at all. Nothing seems beneath them anymore. They don’t even pretend to offer news now that they have discovered how well “infotainment” pays off. While this makes the purveyors of all this pig pucky lots of money, it is truly a disservice to the broader community, and does, in fact, contribute to the break-up of communities. I guess it is pretty silly to speak of the American community as any sense of community was lost quite some time ago. We still are a nation, however, and as a nation we are not well-served by any of the above “celebrities” who serve no useful purpose while constantly promoting hate and conflict. They make shouting “FEAR” in a crowded theatre look like mere child’s play.

Somewhere on the Internet today someone suggested there must be a Republican “Stupid Farm” someplace in the South that produces all these stupid Republicans. I hadn’t thought of that but it could be true. I wonder if Bachmann spent some time there? Maybe she had a scholarship. I wondered for a long time why so many Republican “Spokepersons” were dumb blonds until it finally dawned on me that because the Republican Party is almost exclusively White there would naturally be a lot of blonds (sometimes it takes a long time for something to dawn on me). I think they must be required to attend the Stupid Farm in order to become Spokespersons as they tend to always say the same things the Party tells them to say, they’re like parrots. Instead of saying “Polly want a cracker,” they just mindlessly repeat “Tax breaks,” “Socialism,” and “Big Government.” By the way, how does one get to be a Spokesperson? There seems to be an endless supply of them, mostly all blonds. There are also an inordinate number of Democratic Spokespersons, but at least they are much more diverse. Does merely claiming to be a Spokesperson make you one? Is it a real job? Do you volunteer or have to be drafted? Does it pay real money? Does it pay at all? Does anyone pay attention to whatever these Spokespersons say (I know I don’t).

Well, after all these months and all the speeches, and all the arguments, and all the lies, it appears that on Sunday we will finally get a vote on a rather questionable bill on Health Care. No one seems to like this bill but everyone will hold their nose and vote. It will probably pass by a slight margin. Some say it has lots of good things, some say it’s awful. It will certainly be awful if it is not seriously improved by reconciliation.

On the 43rd State Blues: Democracy for Idaho blog today there is a wonderful short piece by Sisyphus. Idaho Republicans should be forced to read it, at gunpoint if necessary. Perhaps they might at least partially come to their senses (probably this is beyond hope). They apparently are proud of the fact that Idaho is going to be the first state to sue the Federal Government if the Health Care Bill passes and mandates insurance for everyone. This will be another lost cause, a complete waste of time and money, and just another stupid thing for Republicans to do. I’m not sure I understand the logic behind this move, but I think they will claim it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force people to buy insurance. They will no doubt do this while on their way to their insurance company to pay for their mandated auto and truck insurance. Sigh.

April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
T.S. Eliot

Flat Earthers

Drunken Kentucky man puts
five-week old son in oven, calls
911 to ask what charges he faces.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard any Republican spokesperson say ANYTHING that is actually true in the past few months?

Now, after I guess about eight or more years of failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Republicans are worried about him being tried in our criminal courts. This has forced Eric Holder to say that bin Laden will never be taken alive, so not to worry. I should think the odds are that bin Laden will not be captured or killed at all. He will probably die of old age in bed wherever he may be (I tend to think he’s in Constantinople, my wife thinks Belarus). I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I might make an exception in this case. There must be a reason why bin Laden has not been captured or killed in all this time, and it can’t be simply because he lives in a cave somewhere in Pakistan. If I had to explain it, I’d bet it’s probably because he is still a CIA asset and still being kept alive because (1) perhaps he knows too much to be captured, (2) we would not have any excuse for continuing our absurd “war” in Afghanistan, and (3) maybe the CIA and the Bush’s don’t want to give up their cut of the drug money. But what do I know, I’m just another idiot trapped in a culture of constant lies, dishonesty, and misinformation.

I sort of like the Ed Show, although I didn’t at first. I thought he was much too abrasive. But last night he did something I found truly irritating. He does this telephone poll where he asks a question and people vote yes or no by phone. Apart from the absurdity of such a poll in the first place, last night his question was: If the Democrats fail to pass Health Care Reform who will be the most guilty, Pelosi or Obama? How absurd can a question become? How about big Pharma, big Insurance, big Hospitals, or big Doctors? How about all the Congresspersons and Senators on the receiving end of all that largesse? How about the anti-abortionists? How about all the nutcases that scream socialism at the top of their lungs? How about the Republican Party that has done everything they can to not only stop Health Care but also bring down the Obama administration (and our country along with it)? Sorry, Ed, you blew it big time last night and made stupid look stupid.

For the first time in a very long time there is developing a serious problem in U.S./Israeli relations. In retaliation for the Israeli insult about building 1600 new illegal units in East Jerusalem, Netanyahu has been seriously challenged and apparently asked to rescind the order. So far he has refused. So now we will finally see if the U.S. will actually stand up to Israel and insist they comply with the law and the wishes of the International community, or if, once again, they will blatantly ignore us as they always have. Personally, I believe if we cannot or will not insist they stop the illegal building and settlements this time, there will be no hope whatsoever for peace in the Middle East, probably ever. Apparently some of our Generals have finally perceived that Israeli intransigence and arrogance is negatively affecting our own attempts in the Middle East, and that our interests are not always the same as those of Israel, so perhaps something positive might actually occur. Please Great Mystery, let it be so.

We have here in our county a restaurant at a truck stop where every morning our local members of the Flat Earth Society meet for coffee and conversation. Usually the topic has something to do with the latest Rush Limbaugh horse poop. I doubt that any of these people read anything to speak of, and whatever information they have is limited to Limbaugh and Fox News and is then just passed on between each other. I do not ordinarily patronize this place, but the other morning I needed to meet someone there so I could not help overhearing part of the conversation. It had to do with the claim that President Obama was about to stop them from recreational fishing. He was going to stop them from fishing in our lakes, rivers, streams, oceans, or wherever fishing might occur. Their blind hatred of Obama (and all “Liberals”) is apparently so great they were unable to appreciate the utter absurdity of this claim. I guess that as Limbaugh and Beck had repeated this fantastically unbelievable horseshit they accepted it as fact. I guess as Obama has not yet taken away their guns they had to shift to a new absurdity. These guys are all of an age where you can safely bet they are all getting money of one kind or another from the Federal Government, either Social Security, Medicare, Farm subsidies, or whatever, while at the same time bitching incessantly about the evils of government. They invariably vote Republican against their own best interests and then complain about what happens to them. I would not characterize them as stupid, merely incredibly ignorant, and I guess too lazy to bother to question the hate mongers that besiege the airways and provide them with their daily topics of conversation. I find their behavior and beliefs so bizarre someone should study them, just as you might study a colony of monkeys or baboons (not me, I couldn’t stand it).

LKBIQ:
One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork.
Edward Abbey

TILT:
The turtle lives 'twixt plated decks
Which practically conceal its sex.
I think it clever of the turtle
In such a fix to be so fertile.
Ogden Nash

Please Explain

Louisiana man, angry with
wife, arrested for firing
shotgun blasts at his fence.

I heard some newscaster today say that conditions were now favorable for the Republicans. Perhaps that is so, but if so, I would like someone to explain it to me. His remark was in the context of the outcome of the 2010 elections. I understand why people might be upset with the Democrats, and I understand they might want a change, but please, what have Republicans done that would make anyone in their right mind want to vote for them? A third party I could understand, even a vote for a Green party, or Socialists, or perhaps even Communists I might understand, but Republicans? I defy you to tell me one thing the Republican Party under Bush/Cheney, or even now as the minority party, has done for the American people (this is what government is about, isn’t it, unless, of course, you believe, like Republicans, that government is really for the corporations and the wealthy). The Bush/Cheney career is well known for its war crimes, tax breaks for the wealthy, and privatization...period. The current Republican Party is basically treasonous in their wish to see our current administration fail. Thus I fail to understand how, even if one wished to vote against Democrats, one could possibly vote for Republicans, who created this unholy mess we are in and have advanced not a single viable or feasible alternative idea about anything, unless you believe their usual nonsense about tax breaks for the rich, limited government, the privatization of everything, and unbridled capitalism (the very problems that are threatening to destroy our country).

I believe that expanding health care for some 30 million citizens who do not now have it is a very worthy cause. Similarly, I believe that keeping Insurance companies from their terrible abuses is also a worthy cause. I believe that saving 45,000 lives a year by expanding health care is a worthy cause. The question that tugs at my mind is: is giving the Insurance companies further billions upon billions of profit worth it? I suppose one might argue that saving all these lives and expanding health care is worth whatever the cost may be. But this is not very satisfying when one realizes it does not have to be that way. We could have a workable, efficient, economic, single-payer system that would be far better than what we will have if this bill actually does pass, and will not require giving billions more in profits to the insurance companies. Even a public option will not exclude the insurance companies from participation in health care, a situation you can be sure they will exploit to the utmost. As I have said before, many times, some things are too important to be left to the private sector, health care is surely one of them. The profit motive, which is the backbone of the American enterprise system, is basically incompatible with a truly Democratic society. Privatization ought to be reserved for things like cosmetics, jewelry, fashion, and other non-necessities, not vital human needs like health care, energy, water, food (except maybe junk food), prisons, and education.

It appears that even our stalwart, Dennis Kusinich, may have been sweet-talked into voting for this terrible billion dollar gift to the insurance industry, with, of course, the promise that it will be changed over time into something that actually may resemble genuine health care reform. I confess I wonder if we are about to be betrayed by those who have claimed to support the public option. As I understand it, the Senate has said they would pass a public option if Pelosi would produce one out of the House, but it is not at all clear that she will do so. This in spite of the fact that the public is in favor of a public option, Pelosi has claimed to be in favor, Obama has likewise claimed to be in favor, and it would seem at the moment to be entirely possible – but may not happen if, as Pelosi claims, she does not have the votes, which I find almost impossible to believe.
I think about “States’ Rights” pretty much the same way I feel about privatization in general. If we are going to allow States any rights they should be restricted to picking a state flower, animal, fish, or fowl. Some of them have in the past, and are proving again at the moment, they are unwilling to enter the 21st century along with the rest of us. Texas is about to rule on changes to the textbooks their children will be allowed that essentially will keep them immersed in the 18th century, and they wish to re-write history according to religious and other nut-cases. As Texas is an important buyer of textbooks there is some chance their changes might eventually affect other states (textbook publishers have no more morals than anyone else actively engaged in the profit business). Personally, I think Texas should be encouraged to secede and take Oklahoma, and perhaps another couple of Southern States along with them. I’m beginning to think winning the Civil War may have been a mistake.

LKBIQ:
It cost about 75 cents to kill a man in Ceasar's time. The price rose to about $3,000 per man during the Napoleonic wars; to $5,000 in the American Civil War; and then to $21,000 per man in World War I. Estimates for the future wars indicate that it may cost the warring countries not less than $50,000 for each man killed.
Senator Homer T. Bone

TILT:
Horses have the largest eyes of any land mammal.

No End in Sight

Argument in car results in
her beating him with phone book
and shooting him in genitals.

There is no end in sight. This is not meant as a pun, although you make think otherwise when you read this. As the Massa story has lost its interest, and as there is little else going on except speculation about health care, my semi-active mind has led me to think about trends in American culture. The trends I have in mind all seem clearly to lead in the same direction, to revealing more and more about everything. Think of an obvious example, women’s bathing attire. When I was a boy, women still dressed in almost full length bathing suits, then one-piece suits began to get smaller and more revealing and then, horrors of horrors, the bikini appeared. Now the bikinis have turned into thongs and become so small one wonders what can possibly happen next. It seems unlikely in this case that bikinis will be abandoned for full nudity (a possibility) because that would leave no mystery at all. Not that there is much of a mystery, everyone knows what is concealed. It’s true there are all nude beaches here and there but they seem not to have captured more an a few aficionados.

Consider also the case of ads for things like toothpaste, mouthwash, and such. They used to be mentioned by name but that was about all. Now, of course, we witness people actually brushing their teeth, gargling, singing about their dentures, shaving and perfuming their armpits, shaving their legs, removing their corns and bunions, and so on. Granted these are things people have done for a long time, it has been only recently that we have been so privy to observing them.
There are other, perhaps more serious acts, that never even used to be mentioned, let alone witnessed. Hemorrhoids, for example, formerly not even mentioned in polite company, are now commonly mentioned in ads for suppositories and things to alleviate the discomfort. We now see people on bicycles or sitting on benches moaning about the fact they did not use such and such a remedy. These ads get more and more revealing as time goes by. I fully expect it will not be long before we will be shown the particulars of how these things are supposed to be used, pictures of them being inserted and so on (hence the not intended pun). We also see now problems with the prostate, illustrated with pictures and explanations of urinary problems and etc. The same thing, I suspect, may also happen with tampons and other protective pads for women. Why should the directions for use not be shown in the ads for those too dimwitted to know how to use them? I recently saw an ad for condoms. The first such ad I have seen. I saw this on a program someone else was watching, so perhaps these ads are more common than I think, I just don’t know. The ad almost revealed exactly how one would use a condom, except that the details were obscured by an artificial sort of fog.

This, of course, leads to perhaps the most obvious place to look for more and more revealing ads, the artificial erection ads that now appear almost constantly. Not long ago such a topic would never have been mentioned, let alone widely publicized. It would have been someone’s guilty little secret. But now, with Viagra, Cialis, and other ads virtually dominating the airwaves, this is apparently a topic generally accepted by most everyone. At first these drugs were just mentioned in ads, then couples were hired to act in them, and then they became more and more suggestive, even leading her to the bedroom door. So what will come next? The obvious answer is to actually enter the bedroom, then perhaps a scene of disrobing and maybe even some foreplay, and then no doubt we will witness the actual act itself. You don’t think so? Don’t bet against it.

I see no reason not to believe these developments will be inevitable. We’ve already seen all of this in the movies and on television where nudity and sexual intercourse are quite commonplace. This is a far cry from that terrible moment when Rhett Butler uttered the absolutely shocking word “damn” at the end of the movie, Gone With the Wind. The Hays Office did everything they could to protect the public from just about everything but that, too, is gone with the wind. Now it appears that anything goes. We have not only sexually explicit scenes but scenes so bloody and gory and terrible it makes you wonder what it is about people that motivate to witness this stuff.
I do not bring this up to necessarily condemn these trends, merely to observe that they are occurring and it seems there will not be any turning back. I do believe there is far too much superfluous violence on television and in the movies, but as far as the rest goes, I’m willing to just wait and see where it ends. Maybe we’ll eventually get to see naked ladies thrown to the lions, or mating with giant slugs, or being beaten (sorry, we already have this), or performing “unnatural acts” (oh, yeah, we have those too if you know where to look). I’m certain my limited television viewing, and my hardly ever going to movies, has not allowed me to understand the full range of this stuff, but I do wonder where it all leads.

LKBIQ:
The cable TV sex channels don't expand our horizons, don't make us better people, and don't come in clearly enough.
Bill Maher

TILT:
An asparagus patch, properly planted and tended, can last for 20 years or more.

The Ground Truth - book

The Ground Truth The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11, by John Farmer (Riverhead Books, N.Y., 2009)

John Farmer was senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Now that further information has surfaced about the unfortunate tragedy of 9/11 he has attempted to further straighten out the facts of the matter. I don’t want to say this is a bad book. In many ways it is useful and insightful, but I think it also contains a serious flaw.

Farmer believes that what occurred during 9/11 was basically a systemic failure. That is, our various institutions were simply not up to the job. He carefully traces the movements of the hijackers as they traveled to and from the United States prior to the hijackings, and shows how they rather easily penetrated our country even though there were obvious reasons why at least some of them should not have succeeded, and points out various instances that were either not reported or investigated as they should have been.

More importantly, he analyzes the organization of the most important players, The CIA, FBI, DOD, and NORAD. He demonstrates, successfully I believe, that none of these organizations were prepared for the terrorist attacks that occurred. They were, he points out, still oriented towards the Cold War, and had not managed to re-organize themselves for the new situation that had been developing for some years. Even when they attempted to change they did not always succeed. For example, even when George Tenet sent out memos specifically instructing his personnel to change their focus and concentrate more on terrorism, they failed to do so, at least quickly enough to matter. There was, Farmer suggest, a fundamental disconnect between the leadership and the organization being led. Much the same thing was true of the FBI, whose major preoccupation has always been domestic law enforcement, and had not completely embraced the newer emerging problem of international terrorism. At the Department of Defense, where, after the fall of the Soviet Union they were attempting to restructure, they had not completely succeeded. The joint Canadian-U.S. command, NORAD, that had been designed to protect our joint airspace, and at one time had a thousand fighter planes available for that purpose, by 9/11 had been reduced to a mere fourteen planes. In effect, our entire defense system was not prepared for the job it was compelled to attempt. There was little or no communication between the various agencies, jealously over their own turf, and a dysfunctional chain of command.

Farmer goes on to argue that although we should have learned from our experiences of 9/11, with respect to organization and preparedness for national disasters, we did not, and the same systemic failures occurred during Katrina. Even though Katrina was a totally different disaster, and even though the various organizations involved were not all the same, the same problems arose. He makes a good case for this.

Farmer acknowledges that what we were told by our government about 9/11 was not true. It was “spin,” designed to make us believe that the system had actually worked when in fact it had not. Basically, the story we were told was designed importantly to absolve anyone from responsibility for the tragedy that ensued, once it had been planned, presumably in the caves of Afghanistan, and once it had been successfully completed and the towers collapsed and the 3000 killed. What I find so unsatisfactory about The Ground Truth is that Farmer does the same thing, only in reverse. Whereas we were initially led to believe the system worked, and no one was responsible, Farmer argues that the system did not work, but he does not speak to the issue of responsibility or accountability. In both cases everything is blamed on “the system.”

But systems don’t operate on each other, they do not fail independently of those whose job it is to make them operate. At no point does Farmer truly suggest any individual person was a fault, except perhaps in a couple of cases where the individual made a presumably “honest” mistake. There is no suggestion that Tenet did anything wrong. He mentions Michael Brown, of course, but there is not even a hint that Brown was completely unsuitable for the job he was supposed to do. Even when Farmer reports on Brown’s testimony that he was told by the White House to lie, he does not raise any question about who lied. It appears that the White House itself, along with the other institutions involved, are reified, made into concrete objects that can speak and act on their own. But someone at the White House told him to lie, and that person was probably told to tell him to lie, the “White House” does not itself speak, nor does the “FBI” or the “CIA.” Without speculating wildly, it has to be the case that there were lies and misinformation passed along during the whole terrible misfortune and up and down the whole chain of command. Otherwise the “spin” could not have been created. When the Governor of Louisiana was told the levees had not been breached, when they had been even earlier, she was not told the truth (for whatever reason). Lies were clearly told about the New Orleans Police Department that basically disintegrated when some of the Officers began looting, and reportedly even shot some innocent civilians on a bridge. Lies were told about whether or not one of the hijacked planes was shot down, about who gave the order (in fact this order was never even communicated to the relevant pilots), about what supplies were being furnished to the disaster area, and when, and so on. I will concede that in many cases lies might have been told because of misinformation, but it cannot be the case that no one, no single individual, at any level, had anything whatsoever to do with the failures of 9/11 and Katrina. There has been no accountability, and will never be any as long as everything can be blamed simply on the system, “the system did it.”

Farmer does offer what I think is sound advice for what went wrong with the systems. Basically, he believes that people present on the ground at the time need to have more authority and power. The system has to function from the ground up rather than from the top down. Those at the top may be able to design and put into place the kind of system required, but they cannot deal with the practical realities when they occur. I had a bit of trouble puzzling over the title “The Ground Truth.” What farmer has in mind is that what is happening on the ground is the truth and should be respected above all else. I thought at first he might mean something like the truth ground into the ground, or the truth ground up and fed to us like bad hamburger, and frankly, when we are told the “system done it,” that is what we are being fed. As long as there is no individual accountability for failure there will never be a system that will work. Accountability was not valued by the Bush/Cheney administration, and it is not being valued by their current defenders either.

Taxes

Woman in reverse runs over
husband; unaware, she goes
forward, runs over him again.

It is that awful time of year again when taxes become due. Income taxes, that is, other taxes go on all the time. Gas taxes, taxes on clothes, taxes on booze, cigarettes, guns, and just about anything you can think of. Here in Idaho we even have a tax on groceries. Can you believe a tax on food, a basic necessity? Now I hear they are considering a tax on pizza. We already have that so I suppose it will just increase. The income tax is the worst.

I don’t object to taxes in principle. You know, when you live in a complex culture taxes are a necessity. We have to have policemen, firemen, roads, bridges, schools, stuff like that. I don’t object to the income tax when I assume it is being used for some useful purpose. I object, however, when I realize my taxes are being used to kill innocent people all around the globe for more often than not completely unnecessary “wars.” I find it morally reprehensible that my taxes are used primarily for the military/industrial/political complex that now has control of our lives. I especially resent it when I think about the fact that I am helpless to do anything about it. Of course I could refuse to pay my taxes, but that would only result in lots of trouble and potentially even prison. I don’t even hate the IRS. They are just doing their job, disgusting as it is.

What I really hate is the fact that having to pay income taxes makes me feel so completely stupid. I don’t have a lot of money, and I don’t have a very large income, but it is just large enough, and comes from enough different sources, there is absolutely no way I could possibly do my own taxes. I have to hire an accountant and put up with his/her paternalism (and hope that they actually know what they are doing). As it appears to be the case, probably no one in the entire United States actually understands our complete tax code, and it becomes more difficult and complex year after year, non- stop. I don’t cheat, I try to be as completely honest as I can, but I absolutely dread the fear of being audited and how complicated and difficult that would be. I have no doubt an auditor, if they wished, could find me in violation of rules and regulations that neither I nor my accountant were aware of. This whole procedure is basically just a non-written, unstated agreement that I will try to do the best I can and they will overlook most of the errors, as it is much simpler that way. As I am not in a high bracket I doubt they care very much as long as it appears to be reasonable. Aside from the fact that I have to pay, the whole enterprise is basically a farce. I know it, my accountant knows it, and the IRS knows it, but we all conspire to pretend it makes sense. As long as you pay, and as long as it appears within reason, it makes enough sense to continue year after year until you mercifully pass away (no one dies anymore, they all just “pass away,” or, more rarely, “are called to meet their maker”). I look back fondly to one of the tax experts I had in California. He was recommended to me by friends on the faculty and agreed to come to my office. I looked with amazement, even awe, when he first appeared, a large heavy-set Black man with one eye that seemed to have a life of its own, his shirt open to the navel, displaying a pair of heavy gold chains. He had a large diamond ring. The first question he asked me was “How do you feel about paying your taxes?” He was not only an accountant but also a lawyer. I loved him.

You know there was no income tax in the United States until 1861 when one was created to help pay for the Civil War. The first tax was 3% of anything over $800. Until 1941 the tax rate for the lower bracket was never more than about 4%, it went up that year to 10%. It was not until well into the 1930’s that the income tax was considered much of a problem for ordinary folk. I remember when I was a child overhearing a conversation between my father and another man. My father asked him how he was going to get around paying some tax. He replied, “I’ll just claim I made this money before there was a tax and kept it in a safe deposit box.” I don’t know why this stuck in my memory all these years but it has. It was not uncommon in the 1930’s and even into the 40’s for people in my father’s “business” to keep their money in cash rather than deposit it in a bank (not unwise, given all the bank failures in those days).

When the Tiger Woods scandal first occurred and there was doubt about whether he would ever play golf again, I said he would play in the Master’s. I am sooo smart! It was obvious he would play in the Master’s. He has an excellent chance to beat Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 majors (I believe he has 14 already) so I knew he would not take a chance of missing every opportunity to win every possible Major Tournament. So now, having done his obligatory penance, attended some pretentious “sex clinic,” apparently more or less made up with his wife (or at least convinced her to stick with him), he is ready to go. The tour will make more money than ever, Tiger probably will also, and if he wins and keeps on winning no one will care how many affairs he had. And really, why should they? What does his private life have to do with his golf? He is the greatest golfer in the world, quite probably the greatest that will ever be. It would be unthinkable for him not to continue his quest. I wish him and his wife well. I hope he wins the Master’s.

LKBIQ:
The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling.
Paula Poundstone

TILT:
My cats will not eat corned beef.

Outwitted?

Korean man marries his
huggable pillow in special
wedding ceremony.

Now there is an international “to-do” about the slap in the face Biden experienced in Israel. Headlines are proclaiming that Netanyahu outwitted President Obama again, that the announcement of 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem was an insult to the U.S. and, indeed, to the international community. It is also being said that “we” will no longer overlook the settlement issue, the Palestinians are close to unilaterally declaring an independent state, Biden has declared solid U.S. support for a Palestinian state, the U.S. is said to be outraged over this development, and so on. Would that it were all so, talk is cheap, it will be interesting to see if anything whatsoever changes with respect to Israeli intransigence. I believe it is true that international patience with Israel is running out at last, but unless the U.S. takes some action nothing will happen. So come on, Obama, let’s see some sanctions on Israel.

Still another case where most probably nothing will ever be done has to do with war crimes. It was interesting tonight when Rachel Maddow, interviewing Nancy Pelosi, asked her if she was upset about any of the actions of the previous administration. Pelosi, much to her credit, suggested that she was upset about the lies that were told to bring about the “war” in Iraq, and also about the torture. But she did not indicate that she (or anyone else) was about to take action to bring about accountability. She, like I guess most everyone else in Congress, seems to just want to shrug it off as something “regrettable.” I suppose all crimes are regrettable, but surely war crimes are far more regrettable than others, regrettable enough to warrant more than a shrug of the shoulders.

I wonder what price we may have to pay for health care if it passes now, which most seem to think it should? If it passes without a public option or some functional equivalent we may pay far more dearly that we anticipate. It seems to be true there are some very good things in the bill, coverage for millions of more Americans, an end to some of the worst abuses, like stopping your health care just when you finally really need it the most, doing away with pre-existing conditions, being able to take it with you, and so on. But with no public option what control will there be over the cost? With millions more having to have insurance, what will keep the insurance companies from just raising premiums whenever they wish? Passing a bill because it is the best we can get at the moment, and we probably won’t have another chance for(ever), and banking on being able to fix it, is quite a gamble it seems to me. It seems a gamble that we are now being forced to take because no one seems to care about anything but contributions to their campaigns and profits for the corporations. It’s America, 2010.

A nice try by Republicans and the MSM to keep Massa the gift that keeps on giving. All the attention on him has certainly kept us lately from having to think about anything else. But now that he has proven to be some kind of loony-tune I guess we’ll soon hear the end of it. Now that it has gone to the ethics committee it will probably just fade away, and rightly so, who cares whether Massa is homosexual or not? Washington, D.C. is no doubt full of them, just like the Vatican and the Church. I must say, however, I am surprised at just how many gays there seem to be, and how many pedophiles (no, I don’t believe there is a relationship between being gay and being a pedophile, I rather suspect there may well be an inverse correlation there).

I am always amazed at some of the contradictions we find in our culture. Take guns (again), for example. One of the common reasons for buying a gun (especially a handgun) is for personal or home protection. But at the same time you are told by the manufacturer and others that guns should be kept locked up, have trigger or other locks, be kept unloaded, and away from children. So what do you tell the burglar or intruder when they break in? Please wait until I unlock my gun safe, unlock my gun and load it? Does this make sense? Hey, its America, lots of things don’t make sense.

LKBIQ:
One pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it.
Persian Proverb

TILT:
Female rabbits do not ovulate until after breeding.

Greed

A New Jersey “Midnight Knitter”
Is covering tree branches and
lampposts with miniature sweaters.

It must be just plain greed. I have no other explanation for much of human behavior, especially the kinds of behavior we are seeing at the moment here in the U.S. and in Israel. How can so many Americans not want their fellow citizens to have health care? Some say we can’t afford it, but that is not true as we can afford to pay for two completely unnecessary “wars,” military bases all around the world, a defense budget so bloated it is completely absurd. Apparently some people regard all this killing and war as far more important that allowing our fellow citizens to have adequate health care, a ridiculous argument if ever there was one. It is true we have had to borrow money to pay for our aggressive behavior, but we could just as easily borrow money to pay for health care. Those who do not want their fellows to have health care are those who already have it for themselves and do not wish to pay anything to help others. In short, they are greedy and selfish.

In fact greed seems to be the primary motivating factor in our economy in general. Why do our corporations outsource jobs to Asia and other places? Obviously because labor is cheaper there and by outsourcing they can make greater profits, and as greater profits are better than lesser ones, greed can know no bounds. Think, too, of the obscene salaries our CEO’s are making. No one needs a salary of several million dollars a year, far more than they can even spend on anything other than making even more money. This has to be a system based basically on naked greed. I can see no other explanation. Here in the U.S. the more money you can make the better. We pay our coaches far more than any of our Professors or even University Presidents. Professional athletes like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods make so much money there is no way they can possibly need it or spend it. And once they make their first few millions they just keep on making more and more and more. Is there any other explanation than greed? I can’t think of one. Prestige maybe, but prestige comes with the money.

Look also at the case of Israel. Vice-President Biden has flown to the Middle East to try to arrange peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So what does Israel do? They announce they will build an additional 1600 illegal homes in Jerusalem, making it clear they are not in the least interested in peace. They are also building illegal homes elsewhere in the West Bank, thumbing their nose at both the U.S. and the Palestinians who will not consider peace talks until the illegal settlements stop. Why do the Israelis not want peace? Greed, that’s why. They have systematically stolen Palestinian land and water and want to continue to do so as long as possible, indeed, forever if they can, and if they can rid themselves entirely of Palestinians by whatever means possible they will do so. Obama suggested early on that Israel should stop the settlements. They have simply ignored him with a monumental slap in the face. And what is worse, he has turned the other cheek. The U.S. is the only country that could make the Israelis stop their greedy march to apartheid but does nothing, thus just fueling further Israeli greed.

I would be happy to consider some other basic motive than greed for most of human behavior, but a look at the historical record offers little in the way of a viable substitute. Every European country, without exception, that at one time had a colony or colonies, committed acts so vile and atrocious it makes you ill reading about them. England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, even Belgium, along with the U.S. were all guilty of atrocities almost beyond imagination. Why did they behave in this way? Greed has to be the most basic motive. Of course at first the motive was claimed to be spreading the gospel to the heathens. Then a bit later it was said to be to bring “civilization” to the “savages.” Then for some it was to help them to help themselves, to better their lot, so to speak (or conversely to save them from themselves). Nowadays it is to spread democracy (or save them from themselves). Imperialism was always excused under the guise of some noble motive, but you notice they didn’t leave behind any gold, or rubber, or diamonds, or ivory, and they always captured slaves and took over foreign lands and whatever else they wished. And they killed and tortured at will, from the beginning to the end, in Asia, Africa, Australia, Tasmania, the U.S., even Siberia, wherever they went. During the Colonial Period no one was safe from marauding Western-Europeans. The historical record is clear and most unpleasant, and where some noble motive was claimed, the real motive was greed (perhaps with a bit of sadism mixed in). This is not to say that other people in Africa, Asia, the Middle and Far East were not equally as rapacious, murderous and destructive, but theirs is a history I know too little about, but I suspect that their motive involved the same greed but without so many noble excuses. If you want a single explanation for all of human history, stick with greed, it works.

LKBIQ:
It is partly to avoid consciousness of greed that we prefer to associate with those who are at least as greedy as we ourselves. Those who consume much less are a reproach.
Charles Horton Cooley

TILT:
Mae West was born Mary Jane West.

Suckered Again?

Reviewing his cell phone
history, she reaches for knife
and stabs ex-husband.

Dennis Kucinich is apparently refusing to vote “yes” on the Health Care Bill. He says it is merely a huge gift to the Insurance companies who are themselves the problem. What he did not say, perhaps wasn’t given an opportunity to say, or maybe would not even agree with me, is that we have been cleverly maneuvered into another terrible Hobson’s Choice. As it stands, starry-eyed liberals like me have a choice of voting for a bill that will provide some 30 million or so uninsured Americans with health insurance, obviously a good thing. But as this is to be mandatory it will in fact benefit the Insurance business enormously, especially if there is nothing like a public option. So the choice is clear, vote for the bill and give the Insurance industry 30 million more customers to fleece with terrible health care, or vote against the bill and maintain the status quo. In either case the Insurance industry wins. The only way the Insurance companies would not win is if they were left out of the health care business entirely, as they ought to be. As long as the Insurance companies are players there will be no meaningful health care reform, none, nada, zip, zero. Kucinich says Obama claims to want a public option but really doesn’t. Apparently this is so, as he has not fought for such an option and did not even allow a single payer system to be discussed or offered. Even a public option would not deal the insurance companies out, although it may make it a bit more difficult for them to continue ripping us off so outrageously. We need a single payer system if we are to truly have an efficient, economically sensible, and equitable plan. This could have been achieved by expanding Medicare to all, a system that works, is popular, and does everything that is required. This could have been phased in, first to 55 year-olds, the 45 year-olds, and down the line until everyone is covered. Kucinich is right to vote against this bill, but what is worse, it doesn’t matter which way you vote, you lose and the Insurance companies win, clever, no? Here we are, suckered again. This is too sophisticated a scam to have come about by accident. Insurance companies have no business in the health care industry, other than to make a profit, but why should we allow anyone to make a profit on illness and death? Oh yeah, I know, we pass the Senate Bill, the gift to the Insurance blokes, and then through reconciliation we improve it. This may or may not result in a public option, is going to delay the whole process, and delay is the name of the game for the opponents, and, as above, will still not rid us of the problem that is the Insurance companies. Assuming there does eventually emerge a public option, some seem to think this will eventually lead to a single payer system. Fine, but why not a single payer system now, why wait for thousands and thousands more to die because of lack of adequate health care just for the sake of Insurance company profits? Some complain that companies put profits above people, of course they do, that’s what a profit system is all about, it’s in the nature of the case, as inevitable as the sunrise and sunset, where do you think profits come from? Profits always come from some form of exploitation, they are not a gift from the heavens.

Profit is the name of the game here in the U.S. The same thing is going on with the Student Loan Programs. Why should government loans not be made directly to students? There is no reason why they should not, except that the banks would not make a profit by servicing these loans. Why should banks make a profit our of financing education that is vital to our nation’s health and success when there is no compelling reason they should do so? They shouldn’t, but they do, and they are not about to give up their profits if they can possibly help it. Banks and Loan companies exploit students and taxpayers, that’s how they make their profits. It’s not complicated.

Sometimes I think Dennis Kucinich is the only honest person we have. He is criticized for being too idealistic. I guess that is true, he would like to stop the “war” in Afghanistan, that is pretty idealistic as there seems to be no chance it will happen anytime soon, if ever. I find it impossible to believe that anyone with a brain larger than that of a bluebird believes Afghanistan is going to become a democratic nation, or that there will be a national Afghan army capable of, or even interested in defending the present government (or even any government at all, for that matter). There is no military solution to the “problem” of Afghanistan. So why do we continue to waste billions in the attempt? Because it has nothing to do with making Afghanistan into something it is not and will never be, it is because we have to continue to feed the military/industrial/political complex that has become the central feature of American culture. What would happen if we did not continue to manufacture tanks and planes and Humvees and cannons and bombs and stuff? Our economy would grind to a halt, not that it hasn’t already, but it would be much worse. And if we didn’t keep buying all the junk we buy what would we have to put in the millions of storage facilities that are springing up everywhere? And our landfill businesses would fail and there would be less demand for garbage collectors. We can’t keep just putting more and more of our surplus population in jail, the jails are already overcrowded. We have a true dilemma. I guess we’d better just keep fighting and creating “wars” as best we can because otherwise I guess we might be doomed. Too bad Dennis, don’t you see where idealism leads?

LKBIQ:
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
Oscar Levant

TILT:
Liechtenstein is one of only two doubly landlocked countries in the world.

The Lexicographer's Dilemma - book

The Lexicographer’s Dilemma The Evolution of “Proper” English from Shakespeare to South Park, by Jack Lynch (Walker and Company, N.Y., 2009)

Did you ever worry about not speaking “proper” English? Or became confused when trying to write it? How about your mastery of English grammar? Do you wonder about the difference between English and American English? How about spelling? Anyway, if you have any doubts about your ability to speak and write your native language, read this wonderful book and relax. I know I overwork the word fascinating, but this is truly a fascinating, marvelous, informative, and enjoyable work that everyone should probably read. Jack Lynch is a professor of English at Rutgers University and a specialist on Samuel Johnson, he has produced a wonderful and most useful book on the problems of lexicography.

The Lexicographer’s Dilemma is on the one hand a history for the search of proper English, but it is also a history of dictionaries. There were no rules for speaking or writing English even in Shakespeare’s time. The question of proper English was not even a question until the Industrial Revolution when people were moving from the country into the cities, especially London, and, being upwardly mobile for the first time, and not wanting to appear as country bumpkins, knew they should learn to speak more properly. But what was proper English? Basically, at first, proper English became what the wealthy spoke, but as that did not turn out to be a very useful standard, eventually dictionaries began to appear that attempted to prescribe proper speech. Although there were smaller attempts at dictionaries prior to Samuel Johnson’s monumental work, his became the standard for many years to come. Samuel Johnson was a most unlikely choice to attempt a Dictionary of the English Language, but he did, and when you read this account of his attempt you will appreciate the enormous difficulty of creating such a book as a dictionary, the problems you have probably never even imagined, and the difficulty in actually defining a word. Johnson was smart enough to realize that he was not in any position himself to just arbitrarily make up meanings and usages, so he used the works of the greatest writers of his time as a standard.

After the American Revolution, when the U.S. became independent of England a similar problem arose, was America simply to use the English language as it was spoken by the mother country, or should it have a language of its own? Noah Webster, a great American patriot, decided there needed to be an American Dictionary of the English Language, and set out to create one. He knew there were many words spoken in America that were not included in English English, and vice versa, and he also attempted to improve on both spellings and definitions. Later came many attempts by different authorities to dictate proper writing styles, rules of grammar, the development of the thesaurus, and other developments that have led to Roget and the Merriam-Webster that are current today, as well as the modern version of the greatest dictionary of all, The Oxford English Dictionary. Following these developments you learn the difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries and linguistics, as well as the enormous problems involved in lexicography in general. You will also learn a great deal about grammar, where the rules originated and why, and also why it is that spoken and written English are so incredibly different. Along the way you will find discussions of how and why different authorities attempted at various times to define proper usage, and how they inevitably failed. There are myriad truly interesting examples given of where words originated, how they changed over time, and how it is there can be no permanent standards. There is also a fine discussion of vulgar speech and words that are to this day not allowed on television (as George Carlin, following Lenny Bruce made clear), as well as some hints as to what will become of our language in the future as a result of computers, globalization and other developments.

You may or may not be pleased to learn that no one knows how many words there are in the English language, and that, indeed, it is impossible to know that. You will also be relieved to know that the rules of grammar and our written language are nowhere near as absolute as you may think they are, no matter what your English teachers have insisted they should be for so many years (you will not really go to hell for split infinitives, for example). I found it most interesting, even comforting, to learn that it is possible to say things that are perfectly grammatically correct (supposedly) but are at the same time completely meaningless, and that meaningful statements can be said and written that are not grammatically correct. The fact is, and has been for a very long time, most speakers of English know the basic rules of proper speech, and even writing (although less so) although they do not know that they know them. Being one of that multitude I found this book to be one of the most useful I have ever read.

Genocides

Woman driver shaving her
private parts before meeting
boyfriend causes two-car crash.

Bubblehead: It is comforting to know you are still around and looking after Bush/Cheney and Minnick. As far as Minnick goes, I believe he is basically a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. As he won’t vote for Health Care reform or controlling Wall Street or Corporate abuses I doubt I will vote for him. I probably won’t vote. But don’t forget, this is Idaho, I am a Liberal, how I vote isn’t going to matter one iota. If there was a chance of my vote making a difference I would reconsider. Actually, when I made the comment about Rachel Maddow “being allowed to continue,” I was thinking of the corporation that controls the network. Yes, I was also thinking about Wellstone and flying. Perhaps Bush/Cheney didn’t have killing squads going around assassinating Liberals, they apparently had them assassinating others here and there around the world, or at least tried to. I don’t recall saying I thought they might be preparing martial law, but I could have. I wouldn’t have put it past them. As confessed war criminals they might well have done anything (I guess you probably think waterboarding isn’t torture, or they didn’t encourage it or confess to it?). Of course they wouldn’t have done anything bad, they were obviously pure, “pure as the driven snow.” I guess if we didn’t have that Black, Socialist, Anti-Christ in the White House things would be better. Just wait till after the coming elections when the Republicans take over again. I bet it will just be “happy days are here again.” And maybe, if we’re really fortunate, we can have Silly Sarah for President in 2012.

I gather the White House is trying to prevent a vote on the issue of Armenian genocide, apparently for purely political reasons (our relations with Turkey). I don’t exactly understand why Congress is so concerned about a genocide that happened so long ago when there are current genocides and near-genocides going on right now. Having read the fine book, Armenian Golgotha, I am convinced it truly was genocide, and having read it I also understand why Turkey does not want to admit it, but pursuing it now seems less than fruitful to me. I also just watched part of the CNN program on genocides. I thought it was particularly fine but it caused me to wonder how one really defines genocide. That is, how many deaths have to occur before something becomes genocide? Does an entire population have to be destroyed for genocide to be successful? Does driving people out of their homes to relocate elsewhere count as genocide or do they have to actually die? How about a slow, methodical, destruction of a people, like what is happening in Gaza, is that genocide, near-genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just business as usual? It seem to me genocide has to be defined just as importantly by the intent as well as how successful it is in actual numbers of deaths or displacements. Even the Nazis couldn’t kill all the Jews, but they certainly intended to do so, and it appears that contrary to popular belief, even all of the Tasmanians were not killed (although almost all were), even though the intent was clearly present. Does the fact that one Indian tribe may have been completely destroyed whereas others were only partly destroyed mean that the first case was genocide but the second one was not? Are we supposed to live with the fact that genocides occur and the world just looks on helplessly (unless, of course, oil, diamonds, or other important commodities are involved)? If you missed this CNN program you should try to see it. I think Christiane Amanpour is terrific (I guess I shouldn’t say that, after all she is an Iranian, and all Iranians must be bad, what with all those nuclear bombs and stuff).

I don’t mean to be so obsessive compulsive about this, but there is still a mystery about the White House that I would like to have solved. I’m beginning to think I’m the only person who thinks this was strange and that kind of bothers me. Nonetheless, I would like to know why a known male prostitute, Gannon/Guckert, was allowed to come and go at the White House apparently almost at will, not always even signing in and out? I’m not really concerned about the homosexuality (I’m sure there is plenty of it in Washington, D. C.), nor am I concerned about whether he should have had a press pass or not, but, rather, by the obvious breach of security that had to have been involved. Either no one else was in the least bit concerned about this, or some very powerful individual must have arranged it and did not allow any investigation of it. If there has been an investigation specifically about his coming and goings in the White House I have not heard about it.

LKBIQ:
What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue: Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.
Douglas Adams

TILT:
Housecats eat ants.

Metacriminals

Philadelphia couple rob
Jewelry store, leave
four-year-old son behind.

The prefix meta means, among other things, something that comes later and transcends something that came before. Thus we have things like metalinguistics, metapsychology, metamathematics, metalanguage, and so on, developments that have transcended their originals. It seems to me we might wish to refer to metacrime, metacriminals, metacorporations, and perhaps even metainterrogations, for all of these developments seem to have surely transcended everything that came before. It is true we sometimes speak of megacorporations, but mega just means they are big, meta implies that not only are they big, they are unprecedented in scope and power and international in a scope far transcending any corporations before. Similarly, metacrime ought to describe what has now become more or less legal in the banking and insurance industries. These businesses have been systematically fleecing a gullible public for years and mostly getting away with it in ways that would make Al Capone blush. And surely we have never before experienced true metacriminals like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and others who have carried crime far beyond the likes of Jesse James, John Dillinger, and even the great Charles Ponzi himself. Metacriminals of this scope were probably made possible for the first time by the rise of metacorporations, but also by the increase in complexity of trading made possible by the computer revolution. Metacrime and metacriminals also emerged and became possible because corporations grew so large and so wealthy they could in fact make their own rules, thus far transcending previous criminal enterprises that were still regulated by ordinary laws. I suggest that what has happened to our economy and the international economy is not merely the result of a quantitative change but has, rather, resulted in a qualitative change as well. Metacorporations do not function like the piddly little ones of the past, in that they are far more complex and virtually oblivious to outside interference. They make their own rules and for the most part get away with whatever they wish, aided by our Congress and others that are now part of the same system. Indeed, in some sense you might even consider that Dick Cheney created the first metagovernment that seems to have transcended what we ordinarily think of as our government. Because of the secrecy and power of this “shadow” or (I prefer) metagovernment we still do not know how extensive it was and how and what it accomplished (other than torture, treason, and war profiteering, that is).

Liz Cheney apparently has gone so far in her various bizarre claims and rantings she has even alienated some of those who worked for her father. Her latest claim that the seven lawyers recently hired by the Justice Department are al Quaida sympathizers because they defended some of the Guantanamo inmates truly requires a feat of logic heretofore unknown in legal circles. To believe this you would have to also believe that all lawyers who defend rapists, burglars, and murderers are themselves sympathetic to rapists, burglars and murderers. Perhaps there is a bit of wishful thinking involved here, maybe she wants to believe that lawyers who defend war criminals will be sympathetic to war crimes. Like my neighbor says, “who knows what goes on in the mind of a baboon?”

It appears that Obama is about to cave in to pressure from the Republicans to try the terrorists in Military Courts rather than in our regular Criminal Justice System. I hope he does not. Indeed, I don’t see how he can and still claim to have any real authority. All kinds of terrorists have already been tried in civilian courts, some 300 or so I believe, and there is absolutely no reason why this current batch of terrorists should not be so treated. To back down in this seems to me to be the most flagrant act of impotence and cowardice I have ever seen. Even worse, it strikes me as utterly ridiculous. Is Obama our President or just some flunky for Republican whims no matter how dishonest they are? Obama has already given Republicans far more than they deserve, and he has backed down from his demands on Israel, continued some of the worst of the Bush years, and in general gives the impression of being spineless. That’s not who I voted for and I am sorely disappointed.

I sincerely hope that Rachel Maddow has a cadre of really excellent bodyguards, and I also hope she doesn’t plan on flying anywhere soon. How refreshing it is to have a newsperson actually report the outright lies and deceptions of our politicians and others, but it is dangerous as well. I’m rather surprised that she has been allowed to continue as far as she has. Olberman and the Ed show are okay, but even they don’t compare with Maddow. Chris Matthews doesn’t count, he’s so in love with himself he rarely listens to anyone else and he’s kind of a dim bulb anyway.

LKBIQ:
The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility.
Eric Hoffer

TILT:
Barbary apes are actually monkeys.

Single Issue Voters

Swiss condom manufacturer
designs small condoms for
the 12 year-old crowd.

I am wrestling with the problem of single-issue voters, or voters who consider one or two, or perhaps even three issues to override all else. Granted there are many, many issues of all kinds that our politicians have to deal with nowadays, can some issues simply be considered more important than others and thus influence voting in important ways. Abortion, I suppose, would be perhaps the best example. Is abortion such a singularly important issue that it will determine who a person will vote for? Or, in the current situation, will the abortion issue possibly derail the Health Care Bill? Pelosi and others try to make it clear that the Health Care Bill is not an abortion bill, but does that convince everyone? In the case of abortion I suspect not.

I know someone who is vitally concerned about our drug laws, and our failed war on drugs. He measures candidates on whether or not they will consider making all drugs legal. There are other issues that might affect his vote, such as the death penalty and immigration reform, but drugs are clearly the most important issue in his mind. If a candidate supports the continuation of the war on drugs, and their illegality, he is doomed as far as this voter is concerned.

How about the case of Walt Minnick, a Democratic Congressperson from Idaho? Idaho is a very conservative state and the fact that a Democrat was even elected is somewhat of a miracle. But Minnick is very conservative and does not always vote Democratic. This evening I heard an argument in favor of Minnick because he voted Democratic 85% of the time. But does that 85% necessarily make up for the other 15%? It is most probably the case (I don’t have the time to research this carefully) that many of those Democratic votes were in cases where his vote was known to be irrelevant. In other cases his Democratic votes were quite likely for bills or issues that were simply not very important. He voted against the stimulus, and he is voting against health care, important votes that make a real difference. Is he to be forgiven these votes because he voted Democratic 85% of the time on votes of little or no consequence? Not for me.

What about President Obama? I think he has done many things that I agree with that are important and needed to be done. But he has not done some things that I think of great importance, such as withdrawing from the absolutely absurd and unnecessary “war” in Afghanistan, and, more importantly, not investigating and prosecuting the war criminals, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others, including the toady lawyers who simply did what they were instructed to do. If Obama succeeds in passing health care reform and doing away with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, in addition to the many other positive things he has done, will I feel obliged to vote for him again? In my case I don’t think so. I just don’t think I could in good conscience vote for someone who has gone out of his way to defend war criminals. But, of course, this is the kind of situation that we get repeatedly trapped into voting for the Hobson’s Choice. If I don’t want to vote for Obama, just who will I vote for? I don’t care who the Republican candidate may be, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him or her. The thought of voting for Sarah Palin or even Mitt Romney makes me sick to my stomach, and I cannot foresee any other Republican candidate that would be any better. So, I either vote for Obama who defends war criminals, or I just don’t vote. But just not voting is essentially a vote for someone I don’t want. As there most probably will not be a viable third party candidate, I will be confronted with this terrible problem, either leave the country, commit suicide, or withdraw to some remote community and simply ignore the continuing madness that seems to infect our political system. I find this frustrating and depressing beyond belief. I do not expect any candidate to share all of my beliefs, or to act always according to my desires, but there are some issues that seem to me to be so vital, so overridingly important, so basically moral and ethical, that they cannot simply be ignored. Here there is that difference that we so often find between quantity and quality. Are some issues qualitatively more important than others? I believe the answer is yes. For me, allowing Bush/Cheney and the others to escape accountability for their terrible crimes is simply unforgivable, and it doesn’t matter what else Obama accomplishes. In fact, I truly believe that if Obama and Holder do not investigate and prosecute these known criminals, they themselves become war criminals, “fellow travelers,” as it were. I hate this and I cannot understand it, or if I do understand the why of it, I do not approve and think it is a terrible mistake.

LKBIQ:
The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class. It is not the realization of a political ideal; it is the discharge of a moral obligation.
John Dalberg

TILT:
Reason seems to have little to do with human affairs.

More Guns

Naked Tacoma woman found
tied to a tree was part of
a “consensual rendezvous.”

I am not opposed to people owning guns, even handguns, although I have real problems with AK 47’s, .50 caliber machine guns, and “anything big enough to be towed by a truck.” I am not, in principle, even opposed to the NRA, but I really think they are carrying things to extremes that are just plain silly. Now they apparently think it is necessary for people to wear their guns when they go to Starbucks for coffee. I gather this is merely to prove that they can do so, at least in some states. Why do they need to prove this? I have no idea. Starbucks, not wanting to be caught in the middle of some controversy over gun rights and such, have simply said (reasonably enough) that if it is legal in such and such a state to carry a gun into their store it’s okay with them. This development is just a continuation of these extremist gun owners demands to be able to carry their guns everywhere (I bet a lot of them wear them to bed, or at least keep them under their pillows). They carry them now into our National Parks, into churches, bars, stores, and wherever they wish. Why they do this I do not know. I do know that it is completely irrational to claim you need to carry a gun into Starbucks, churches, theatres, or bars, these are not dangerous places, there is no reason, realistically, to suppose you are suddenly going to be attacked while drinking a martini or attending services. If you’re out in the woods, or entering a danger zone, or alone on the highway late at night, or something like that, I can see why you might wish to bear arms. But, really, this is getting silly.

And speaking of silly, Her Silliness is having a ball. On Leno last night (I don’t watch Leno but of course I heard about it) she actually performed as a stand-up comedian for the first time. While her routine was pretty corny her presence was quite relaxed and confident. She is getting huge speaking fees and her book was a financial success. I may be wrong but I believe her lighthearted behavior suggests she has no intention of running for President. I would think if she was serious about it she would conduct herself in a much more thoughtful and serious manner. Silly Sarah knows what she is about and she is milking it for all its worth. When it runs out she’ll take her money to the bank and perhaps continue to comment on the political scene, but I think that’s as far as she will go. Actually, I hope I am wrong and she will run for President where she’ll really provide some laughs.

Well, Obama has now thrown down the gaunt let, so to speak. There is no going back. Either Congress will pass the Health Care Bill or they won’t. My belief is, they will, as they can hardly do otherwise without dooming themselves to premature oblivion. I do not ordinarily pass on jokes, but this one seems to me to be so pertinent I cannot resist:

“Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.
The first one, from New York, says, ‘I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.’

The second, from Chicago, responds, ‘Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.’

The third surgeon, from Dallas, says, ‘No, I really think librarians are the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order.’

The fourth, from Los Angeles chimes in: ‘You know, I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over.’

But the fifth surgeon, from Washington, D.C. shuts them all up when he observes: ‘You’re all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There’s no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable.’”

LKBIQ:
Congress consists of one third, more or less, scoundrels; two thirds, more or less, idiots; and three thirds, more or less, poltroons.
H. L. Mencken

TILT:
We need a history of apple pie.

Within Reason?

Bride attempts to run over
Groom’s previous lover,
newlyweds spend night in jail.

What does it mean when someone says, “that is beyond the bounds of reason,” or “that is within reason,” or “let us reason together,” or “don’t be unreasonable?” This way of speaking implies that “reason” is some kind of standard or measure that can be used to determine something, namely whether or not something is “reasonable.” But unlike other measures, reason cannot be precisely defined. It’s not like a standard measure, say a foot, or a mile, or a cup or a tablespoon or something. Those are measures that can be agreed upon as measures. The problem with using reason as a measure is that, like so many other human issues, not everyone agrees on what is reasonable. Yet we use this standard all the time, at least I do, or try to do. This is what often puts me at loggerheads with others.

For example, I think the idea that either Iran or North Korea is a danger to the U.S. because they have or might have nuclear weapons is an idea that is not within reason. It is, that is, an unreasonable supposition. In the first place no nation (except of course the U.S.) has ever used a nuclear bomb as an offensive weapon. This is obviously because nations that possess nuclear weapons know that the U.S. or Russia would respond with much more massive nuclear weapons, thus making the attempt foolhardy in the extreme. The idea that either Iran or North Korea would use nuclear weapons against the West, if anyone actually believes they would, is fundamentally a racist notion that implies Iranians or North Koreans are somehow more stupid than other people. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that if they have such weapons they, too, will use them only defensively, and it is unreasonable to believe otherwise, but obviously not everyone agrees with me.

Another idea, recently expressed by Senator Kyl of Arizona, claims that unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work, presumably because they just sit around enjoying living near the poverty level. This, again, I believe to be far beyond the bounds of reason. Besides indicating that Kyl has little grasp of the realities of life in the U.S., this, too, is, if not a racist idea, is a prejudice against what he must believe are the lower classes of our society. It seems to me if he was a reasonable man he would understand that the 10% of Americans out of work (the figure is probably closer to 20%) are out of work because there are not enough available jobs, rather than because they are by nature lazy, shiftless, and content to live on the margins of an otherwise thriving society.

Unfortunately, when I use my idea of reason as a standard, I come to the conclusion that my country acts contrary to reason perhaps more often than not. I find the idea that you can have a relatively inexpensive, efficient health care system run by the private sector beyond the bounds of reason. As long as the insurance companies siphon off some 30% of the costs for nothing more than a bit of paper shuffling, the goal of universal, inexpensive, efficient, health care will always be impossible. Similarly, I find it beyond reason to believe that democracy can be forced upon other nations at the point of a gun. This is particularly unreasonable because past experience has shown that it cannot be done. Then there is the idea that a “war on drugs” will solve the drug problem in the U.S. This, too, has been proven totally unrealistic, and yet we keep on fighting it. I find the idea that a homeowner might want to own a handgun for personal protection easily within the bounds of reason, the idea that homeowners or hunters should have .50 caliber machine guns or AK 47’s clearly beyond the bounds of reason. Having a President of the United States in the 21st century who does not believe in evolution seems to me to be far, far from the bounds of reason, but others do not seem to think so. That humans existed contemporaneously with dinosaurs is a belief so unreasonable as to be laughable, but at least some people believe this.

I believe I am a perfectly reasonable person, and yet not everyone agrees with me, at least not always. If humans are distinguished from other creatures by their capacity to reason, and if reason is a standard of measure, why does not everyone agree? I guess the reason is obvious, reason, or reasonableness is not in and of itself a goal. Something is reasonable or not depending upon some goal that is meant to be reached. If people do not share the same goals, they may be equally reasonable, but motivated by the attainment of different goals. If one does not understand the goals involved one cannot truly know what is reasonable. Thus, what if the goal of promoting the fear of Iran is to set the stage for war against that country, rather than merely their possible possession of nuclear bombs, I guess it might be reasonable. What if the goal of the war on drugs is to keep those with vested interests employed rather than doing away with drugs? If the goal of the near perpetual “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan are really meant to profit the military/industrial/political complex rather than bring democracy, perhaps they, too, are reasonable. It seems to me we are forever being kept in the dark as to what the goals of our government are, and as a result their behavior appears to be completely beyond the bounds of reason. Reason can be a measure only if everyone agrees on what goal is to be reached. In some cases, where the goals seem to be obvious, it is possible to conclude whether the means are reasonable, as in the case of the “war” in Afghanistan or the war on drugs. If the goal of interrogation is to learn the truth about something it would appear that torture is not a reasonable means. But can you think of any other motive for torture (other than sadism). But if goals are secret, as they seem sometimes to be, they may not be as unreasonable as they appear. But how would we ever know? I used to believe that thinking government is evil (a la that moron, Saint Ronnie) was beyond the pale of reason, but the nightmare years of the 21st century have put some doubt in my mind.

LKBIQ:
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
Sir William Drummond

TILT:
In the 19th century caribou were apparently still found in Southern Idaho.

Guns, Guns, Guns

Man with “divine calling”
puts clock in microwave,
shoots up hotel room.

Guns, guns, guns. This appears to be one of those issues that just doesn’t die, I suspect because there seem to be extremists on both sides of the argument. I know from past experience that if you express any opinion at all on this volatile topic you can expect to hear from someone who believes you are an absolute idiot. Nonetheless, I will approach it once again, with the warning that I am of two minds about it (perhaps even three or four).

I received a call today from someone representing the NRA. I sometimes receive mail from them also, imploring me to support one position or another having to do with guns, the 2nd amendment, and such. I think the reason they approach me is because they just automatically assume that if you live in North Idaho you must be an NRA supporter or sympathizer. Anyway, this young man (I think he must have been a young man from the sound of his voice) began by asking me when was the last time I could have fired a gun or hunted. I told him every day, if I wished. He then proceeded to tell me that our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was pushing a bill that would take away our rights to own guns. He wasn’t too clear on this point because he also said the bill would require gun owners to have an ID with a photo and a thumb print, a somewhat different thing than taking away our guns. He wanted me to pay $120 dollars for a five-year membership in the NRA. When I said I didn’t wish to join, he then offered me a two-year membership for less money. I still refused to join, but I did tell him that if Holder was, indeed, going to try to take away guns I would not be amenable.

I could not find anywhere on the web where it said Holder was pushing such a bill, although there is to be a Supreme Court decision having to do with gun rights. As I understand it, one argument is that the 2nd amendment only applies to Federal legislation, not local. I think this has to do with a case in Chicago where the question has to do with whether or not Chicago or any other city can regulate guns independently of the Federal Government. I confess I don’t really understand all this very well. However, I have given some thought to the issue of guns and gun control. I believe the NRA is much too extreme in their protection of gun rights and related issues. For example, I think the recent decision to allow loaded guns in National Parks is ridiculous, just as I believe it is ridiculous for people to have guns in churches and bars. On the other hand I think it is equally ridiculous for people to want to ban guns, even handguns, completely. I have never been a proponent of States Rights as I am fearful that if such rights were allowed too easily they would still be hanging people in the South and so on. Furthermore, it strikes me as impractical for States, or Counties, or Cities to claim certain rights. For example, a few years back the “Wise Use” movement thought that counties should be able to control everything, especially their natural resources. This struck me as absurd because of course the rivers and forests don’t begin and end at the Country lines and such. In the case of guns, however, I think a good argument can be made for local control because guns are a much greater problem in some areas than others. In the inner cities, for example, handguns do seem to be a very serious problem, linked to crime and drug dealing and gangs. It seems reasonable to me that in places where guns are a serious problem the local governments should be allowed control over them. In rural areas, like North Idaho, most everyone has guns, often of all kinds, but they do not constitute the same kind of problem, if, indeed, a problem at all. A Federal ban on guns, even handguns, does not seem necessarily reasonable to me when it applies to everywhere, especially where there may not be problems in the first place.

The argument that everyone should be entitled to own a gun for self-protection is not as simple as it appears. I believe that fundamentally it is basically correct, people do have a right to self-protection. But I run into difficulty when I consider what a definition of self-protection might be. A legitimate homeowner, for example, ought to have such a right, but what about criminals and drug dealers? If they are out on the street committing crimes or peddling drugs or gang banging, is their having a gun a legitimate case of self-protection? Do you really have a right to self-protection while you are out committing crimes? This seems to me quite absurd. But realistically, how would you control who has a legitimate right to a handgun and who does not? I suppose hypothetically you could do this, but practically it would seem a nightmare.

Still another problem with handgun ownership for self-protection has to do with the practical realities of protection. For example, there are attempts to insist that all guns should have trigger locks, or be kept locked up or at least unloaded and safe from children. But what is the point of having a locked, or locked up gun if it is to be used for self-protection? This doesn’t make sense. You might as well just have a club. Much of the problem, I think, has to do with the fact that there are, roughly speaking, two kinds of people in the U.S., those who have never had, or even seen guns, and those who are completely familiar with them. I personally have known people who, having never seen a gun, are horrified at even the thought of guns, and have no understanding whatsoever as to why anyone would have one. I suspect that many of those who are actively into gun control are people like this. I do not believe it is much of an exaggeration to say that such people are on another planet from the gun owners they seek to control. Neither side seems either willing or able to see the other’s point of view.

Although no one seems to know precisely how many guns there are in the U.S., I have seen figures that suggest 192 million guns, 65 million of which are handguns, and they are still being manufactured and sold. This suggest to me, even compels me, to believe that any attempt to “take away our guns” will be a completely lost cause. It seems to me it would be totally impractical to try to register all of these guns, many of which are illegal to begin with, and the resistance on the part of gun owners would be immense. It would be just another case of prohibition that could not conceivably work. The prohibition on alcohol was a dismal failure, the prohibition of marijuana is a dismal failure, and the attempted prohibition of guns would be the same. At best it would result in converting millions of U.S. citizens into criminals, would create an enormous black market, and would simply fail. Thus when I hear these claims of a Federal ban on guns I simply shake my head and say it will never happen. This does not mean that I think all attempts in all places to place some controls on guns are misguided.

LKBIQ:
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
C. S. Lewis