perfidy

In the news: Gephardt Attacks Bush 'Unilateralism'....

"Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt on Tuesday issued a blistering criticism of the Bush administration's "chest-beating unilateralism" in its handling of the Iraq war, which he said weakened diplomatic alliances and squandered global goodwill following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Foreign policy isn't a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones and then everything fades to black," Gephardt said in remarks prepared for a speech to the Bar Association of San Francisco. "No matter the surge of momentary machismo - as gratifying as it may be for some - it is shortsighted and wrong to simply go it alone."

Want to know how little I think of Dick Gephardt? I love what he said here-- I've said the same thing myself before-- and I still think he comes off like a jerk.

Also, the Democrats really need to find a way to move beyond the Uranium thingy (thingy!!) and join it up with other trenchant criticisms, because Uranium is like sooo last week.

Oh wait, sorry-- I forgot. Clinton took the party's brains and moral compass with him when he left office. They are currently in a U-Stor-It in Passaic, NJ and are in need of a good cleaning, having sat untouched for eleven years.

Because the constant focus on tests cripples education. Teachers teach to the test, not to the students, the material, or the community, and useless pursuits like art and music get cut from the curriculum in the scramble to raise test scores and win funding.

The No Child Left Behind Act was a mistake. The public education system is broken, and it is only making matters worse.

Because .org has that authenticity that .biz completely lacks. We want respect, damnit.

When, at the end of the week, the perfidy.org domain name comes out of the .org registry's bizarre purgatory - none of you better take it. We lost perfidy.com to a wacko in Md who is now using it for "monetization". If you steal what is rightfully ours, we will hunt you down and glare at you. Then, we will accept our loss like the powerless, whiny bitches we are.

Buckethead,

Having finished Steven den Beste's twenty-page post (man needs an editor), I need to take some time to ruminate and compose a brief response.

You are correct-- SdB does articulate almost exactly what you've been saying since we started our weblog and before. My difficulty comes not with the overarching structure of his arguments, but in the half-truths, omissions, and arrogantly stated howlers he sometimes tosses off as asides, and with his choice to address his post to America-hating liberals (though such a tone may be an appropriate response to Hesiod, sure). I am not one of the Children of Chomsky. I'm an America-loving centrist who does not question the existence or worth of the Anti-Terror Bus we are all riding, but instead wonders if we shouldn't take the bypass rather than the business loop, and whether the driver really knows if this is the road to St. Louis.

One thing SdB did do exceedingly well was to remind me that we are in the early stages of a long, hard campaign, and that many things are still fluid. It is easy on the internet to become shrill and blinkered (easy?? I thought it was required!!), and in the interest of maintaining my sense of perspective, I'm going to take a break from the big-picture and warblogging and return to the anklebiting that comes so naturally to me.

Well, we know that millions of dollars were going from Saddam's government to Palestinian terror groups, and to the families of suicide bombers. I think we can safely assume that Bremer has not continued those payments. How deep an effect this will have remains to be seen, considering that the EU sends millions to the PA, at least a goodly chunk of which probably ends up in the hands of Al Aqsa or other terror groups; and Iran and Syria are still sending home the bacon to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On the flip side, America and other nations have seized or frozen millions from the accounts of suspected terrorists. That's gotta hurt.

But, as I might have mentioned, we are still in the early stages of the war. Lots more work to do.

Also apropos of nothing, I don't own a gun, but I am feeling happy today to be the owner of every Stevie Wonder album recorded between 1972 and 1976 plus a killer live version of "Fingertips, part 2" from 1963.

Mike "Screedy McScreed" Hendrix links to an interesting article which claims that the libervasion of Iraq has put the money squeeze on many Middle Eastern terrorist organizations, which had been receiving funding from Iraq.

Huh. The linked article, which is from WorldNetDaily and therefore not exactly without bias, doesn't cite any sources for this information, so I am taking it with an enormous grain of salt. Hopefully this is true; it would be a big victory in the War! On! Terror!, not to mention a nice bit of action-not-words to put the critics of Iraq policy to bed.

If it is true, I hope that very soon we see somebody from the Administration, maybe Rummy or Bremer, parading around with heads on sticks for all to see. That would be a big help.

Apropos of nothing, I am feeling happy today that I own a Savage Arms 1300 12 gauge double barrel shotgun and a Kimber custom .45.

Steven den Beste has a lengthy (even by his standards) discussion of the whole iraq invasion thingie. (Thingie! Thingie!) It sums up, no it explains in great detail most of what I think about the subject. That sounds pathetic, but it is convenient having someone like Clueless around - as he has vastly more time available than I do, and can write these articles while I am reduced to saying, "Yeah, what he said!" 

Despite Clueless' exhaustive treatment of the subject, I do have some comments.

If we are not complaining about the sixteen words in particular, but are saying that this is indicative of a larger misdirection-spin-maybe even lying pattern on the part of the Bush administration, there are certainly arguments that can be made.

But the reason that all of the rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration back before the livervasion centered on WMD is simple - because the diplomatic battles were being fought in and around the UN. I remember the administration saying that WMD was not the only reason to invade. I also remember that they were discussing WMD as a direct result of the decision to go to the UN for a resolution, and then a second.

Even from the bully pulpit, there is a limit to how much you can address. Given the international political situation (the domestic was never much of an issue - Congress had signed off months before) it is understandable that much of what they were saying was all about WMD. And they were trying to make the most persuasive case that they could.

I also remember that there was little if any debate over the fact that Saddam had WMD - those who were against intervention were saying that inspections could solve the problem - but they agreed that it was a problem. And Saddam was in clear violation of countless UN resolutions.

I never thought that going to the UN was a good idea, and one of the reasons was that we would end up here, having this argument. This is a war on terror, not on Iraq, or on Al Qaeda in particular. This is one part of it. And one reason we are there is because Iraq is low hanging fruit.

It is indeed a mystery where the WMD went, because we know for a fact that Iraq had them as recently as five years ago. But this was never the primary issue. It was merely the most convenient reason to focus on, of many. So, this doesn't bother me because I never thought it was the primary reason. (Although, it definitely was a reason.)

Moving on to some other issues, we have gotten terrorists in Iraq, and closed terror training camps. Most of this related more to the Palestinian terrorists than Al Qaeda, but that is not an issue - terrorism is terrorism. The ultimate fate of the WMD is important, and I think we'll eventually figure it out.

Heads should start rolling in the intelligence community. More on that later. We don't have enough troops, and more on that later. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are still allies, but look how Pakistan has altered its behavior for the better. I think some have hoped that the Saudis would do the same, but I think that given their internal politics that is unlikely. I fervently hope that the day of reckoning for those bastards is near.

Drudge is reporting that Cleveland's favorite ex-mayor was sleeping during Blair's speech to congress. Kucinich insists that he was taking notes. I used to give that excuse in High School.

Maybe he was planning the Department of Peace that he's going to create when he becomes President.

My favorite drink that I never enjoyed is the Marion Berry - which I mentioned once in a previous blog life. The recipe:

1oz Bourbon
1oz Jaegermeister
1oz Kahlua
1oz Coke

This drink was invented by Jonah Goldberg and his friends, who wanted to create a drink, "So black, not even the man can keep it down."

Aside from that, I have always enjoyed this nasty concoction - the gin gimlet - which I picked up from Raymond Chandler:

3oz Devil Gin
1oz Rose's Lime
mix, shake with ice, strain, drink and grimace

Dan Drezner has linked to an interesting discussion about the WMD/16-words debate. Drezner himself operates along Buckethead's lines, and has very kindly collected responses to his views. Kieiran Healy of Crooked Timber agrees with me in maintaining that in and of itself, the question of who let the African Uranium thingy into the State of the Union Address isn't that important. Rather,

The substance of the President's case for war is what matters, and it had everything to do with "the WMD issue." If that case was built on a series of lies - immediate threat, 45-minutes to deployment, uranium from Niger and all the rest of it - then that is something to get exercised about.

That pretty much fits with what I've been saying, and predictably many conservatives differ.

John Cole argues that there were four main arguments for going to war with Iraq: The Weapons of Mass Destruction; Iraq's being in material breach of UN resolutions; the humanitarian mission; and terrorist ties. Since the missing Uranium was only part of one of the reasons, it is insignificant.

I disagree with the importance and even accuracy of these arguments, as detailed elsewhere. What really sticks in my craw is this: the overwhelming message coming from Bush in early '03 was not one of humanitarian missions (otherwise we'd be libervading half the countries in the world). Nor was it Iraq's terrorist ties, which didn't get a whole lot of speech-time (I at least was never convinced, and believe me, I wanted to be). The argument that we were merely upholding the UN's own good name and reputation sort of fell through when the UN curled up and wept back in February. What is left? Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein's will to use them.

Interestingly, in the same discussion linked to by Dan Drezner, James Joyner helps me make my case. He attempts to minimize the Uranium scandal by reprinting the entire section of the State of the Union where the "16 words" originally appeared, and pointing out that Weapons of Mass Destruction in general were the front and center reason for going to war.

Interesting. Granted, these people are minipundits like me (albeit smarter and better established), and not "news" sources. But the fact that there exists such a large range of opinions on just why it was we went into Iraq to begin with suggests to me that there was no one clear reason, just a lot of muddled talk and mangled statistics.

Once again. I am delighted Saddam Hussein is gone. I am delighted that the humanitarian side-effects of our libervasion of Iraq will soon make that country a better place to live. But at the end of the day, the Weapons of Mass Destruction-- the fear of death raining from the sky or sneaking into Boston Harbor on a zodiac at 3 AM-- and the connected matter of Iraq's UN-noncompliance, were the main stated reasons for going to war. A thousand pundits spinning isn't going to change that, and all the chattering is starting to piss me off.

The chattering class can't seem to agree on anything, least of all why we libervaded Iraq. Some say WMD's. Some say a NeoCon plot. Many say that whatever it was, it was right. And need I mention that terrorism isn't in the top three topics of discussion on Iraq? In a perfect world we would have rolled into Baghdad and found terrorists and cans of Sarin cowering in the light like a teeming family of rats when you turn over a piece of plywood in downtown Baltimore. That we didn't begs some incredibly important questions, like "where are all the damn terrorists?" and "where the hell is all the goddamn anthrax?" I'm not interested in any more dog and pony shows or rhetorical magic. Where the hell did the anthrax go? And whose head is going to roll for losing track of it?

[moreover] Buckethead, I have heard your theory that Iraq is to be used as a wedge to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. It's a nice theory, but I don't believe it. We don't have nearly enough troops to pull it off, and, last I checked, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were still allies of a sort.

[moreover] This is not my most finely crafted argument. Perhaps when I have some time I will sharpen it. In the meantime, feel free to get out your long knives.

The good people over at Crooked Timber are all over the meltdown in the wake of David Kelly's suicide. More here and here.

All I can say is, I've seen this situation before. The hot potato drops because everyone is using both hands to cover their own ass. Shameful behavior all around, especially on the part of the drool-catchers at the BBC, but especially on the part of whoever let Blair and Bush run with this information.

Buckethead,

Being a linguistic descriptivist, I feel that whatever usage of "thing(y/ie)" butters your bagel is the one to use. Other usage would suggest both "thingie" and "thingy" as correct, since each is used interchangeably as a diminuitive: "bootie" and "booty" for baby's shoes, and "kitty" and "kittie" for small cat, for example.

But beyond such heady concerns, "thingy" is undoubtedly the correct term. "Thingie" is just wrong.

The Lord's Prayer has been translated into many languages. Until five minutes ago, I was unaware that it had been translated into what Will Smith once referred to as, "The Ebonic Plague." The site that hosts this abomination (along with many, many other translations of the Lord's Prayer) describes Ebonics as a "slang dialect used by certain groups of the African-American community." Without further ado, the prayer:

Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this here hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
Sos I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don't be pushing me into no jive
Ang keep dem crips away
Cause you always be da man, G
Straight up.
Aa-men.

For some reason, I do not feel closer to God.

(thanks to Memepool for the tip.)

Sages and scholars are locked in frightfull combat over this issue. What is the correct usage? Is it "thingy" or "thingie." Enquiring minds want to know.

I went to a friend's birthday party on Saturday (yeeees... I have friends) in Boston. The venue was a Chinese restaurant near Government Center, replete with muted decor, muted house music, and an extensive menu of tropical-themed novelty drinks. My unfailing instincts led me to order a "Suffering Bastard," which I can say with all confidence is the worst drink I have ever not enjoyed. Which is to say there are a great many bad drinks out there that I enjoy very much, but the "Suffering Bastard" was not among them. Perhaps I should have let the name be my first warning.

The recipe should have been my second:
1 oz Gin
1 oz Bourbon
1/2 oz Lime juice
1 dash Bitters
Top off with Ginger ale
Serve with pineapple slice, cherry, and lime slice

Yes, yes, Devil Gin in there mixing with Old Man Whiskey. A smarter man would have stuck with the Sake Martini or Kumquat Mojito, but I, not being the Sake Martini or little-umbrella type, am not smart. Luckily, the bartender reedemed himself with a perfect Sidecar (thanks to Spiral Dive for the pointer!) and I was able to stagger away unharmed.

Which brings me to my question. What is the best bad drink you have ever had?

Mine is the

Screaming Nazi:
1 oz Rumple Minze, ice cold
1 oz Jaegermeister, ice cold
Pour together in frozen cordial glass and shoot. Repeat. Stagger heaving for the garbage can. [n.b. This drink nearly killed me once. Your mileage may vary.]

though I am also fond of this drink, the name of which I shall not repeat here. The taste is great, though the... erm... texture... leaves something to be desired:

1 oz Bailey's Irish Cream
6 oz Orange Juice, chilled
Combine in Collins glass without ice. Drink, enjoy, then grimace.

"Pythagosaurus"

Came across this one in a compendium of stupid things that have appeared in college papers. I laughed so hard I almost had a seizure.

I'm thinking of changing my pundit alias to "Pythagosaurus." Rawrr! I smash you with logic and reason!! Rawrrr!

I'm not even thirty, and I have already been left behind by the great carousel of hipness. 

(Is hipness a carousel? If so, what an excruciating ride that must be. Hundreds of painfully skinny young people in ironic t-shirts and expensively dirty hair, riding the zebras and lions while trying their best to look bored, stealing looks at the brass ring as it floats by-- brass rings, how quaint, they think, but nobody (else) actually wants it, do they? Do they? A carousel does suggest the proper frivolity to describe hipness, and the circular insularity of the carousel is as good a metaphor as any for the self-referential scene-making intrinsic in any hipster activity. (Some days I really miss grad school, where shit like this was taken dead seriously and I could get away with spinning horseshit and snoozing.))

I am not yet thirty and have been left behind by the great carousel of hipness. I mean, seriously. Low-cut jeans? When I see asscrack peeking out of a women's jeans, I don't think sexy thoughts but rather ardently hope the wearer of the jeans has remembered to wipe thoroughly. Her message of sensuality unleashed translates to me as a plea for personal hygiene.

The ten-minute trucker hat craze left me totally bewildered... I know lots of places where you can pick up a mesh hat and a quart of oil for $1.25, yet in Manhattan it may yet be chic to pay $225 for the thing. Ashton Kucher is going to have a lot to answer for, some day.

And yet I still know funny when I see it.

Via Boston blogger Bradley's Almanac and Fear of a Female Planet comes this gem: Hipster Bingo! Where I work, I would win at this game every day. Damn kids.

That phrase once made me think of Forrest Whittaker. Now, I have to admit that I actually like the new show on Bravo, Queer eye on the straight guy. (Is Bravo now the queer network?) (You can't say that. - ed.) (Shut the hell up, nancy boy. - me) The episode with the artist guy Butch (seriously?) was quite fun. The fashion queer is over the top; snarky, bitchy and fun. The cooking queer is anal, like Phil Hartman's anal retentive chef. And I got a hair care tip from the grooming queer. Good all around.

I've been meaning to write about this all week. On the music network Fuse, which I was not even aware of until last Tuesday, they have a show called Kung Faux. It is hard to even begin to describe it, but it is kick ass, ass-whuppin' funny.

Basic concept: Take old kung fu movie. Remove soundtrack. Replace with hip hop. Redub movie with a new script, and all the actors sound like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Add psychedelic special effects whenever something gets hit.

Net effect: I fell off my couch and startled my 2 1/2 month old son he started crying. And I still couldn't stop laughing.

Check your local listings. 
 

Ross (Loyal reader #0006) and I have talked about this a lot. The scary thing is not so much that the boomers are going to eat their young, but the absolute lack of compunction or restraint they show in pursuing their goals. They see no need to justify what they are doing, assume that it is right, and viciously attack any who even question it. "Do you want grandma to have to eat cat food because she can't afford her angina meds?" Well, no actually. But I would like to have an income in 2020.

They are going far beyond simply providing for the needs of the elderly. As a group, the old are the rich. Now they want our stuff too? This is greed, pure and simple. But we have always known that the boomers were greedy and selfish. What two words from american culture best capture self centeredness and avarice? Hippies and Yuppies. Remember, these two groups were the same people, separated only by the me decade.

Unless these new benefits are means tested, it is generational assault.

I really don't see why the left is having such a hissy fit over this. The President correctly and truthfully stated that the British thought Saddam tried to buy Uranium from Africa. Apparently, the British based that conclusion on French intelligence - and surely they weren't trying to aid the cause of the American President. And the British government (backed by a parliamentary investigative committee) still maintains that its report is true.

And in any event, our decision to go to war was not based on those sixteen words. At most, they were a factor in our decision. And if it could be proved now that Saddam didn't try to buy the Uranium (and CIA reports going back several years indicated that he was trying to get it from three other African nations as well) that doesn't change the fact that we were acting on the intelligence available at the time, which included far more than just this one bit.

This tired refrain of "what did he know and when did he know it" is, well, tiresome. A democratic CIA director has accepted whatever blame there is to be had. Some of the more hysterical dem presidential candidates are talking impeachment, and using Clinton as a touchstone. Personally, I wouldn't have gone there, but it is a ridiculous comparison.

The defensiveness of some administration flunkies is to be deplored, honesty being the best policy, and forthrightness being a close second. But still, making such huge deal of this suggests to me at least that this is the largest caliber ammunition that they have. And to mix metaphors, it is a thin reed to lean on.

Buckethead, I read that bleat too-- good stuff. However, I think it's possible make too much out of the assertion that it's 9/12/2001 for a long time to come. Last time I looked at the calendar, it was July 18.

I recognize the point Lileks is making, and I even agree with him somewhat. Things are different now, and they always will be. The river only flows in one direction. I saw the news-recycled bits of Tony Blair's speech, and it stirred me. What a great speaker! But there comes a point when the bloody shirt has been waved once too often, and for me that point is coming soon. I have serious questions about our government's honesty, motives, and state of mind, and the ongoing needs of the libervasion of Iraq are not an excuse from clearing the air.

From a President who promised no more Clintonian hair-splitting (and no nation-building), we have gotten both. I'm in favor of advancing the cause of democracy in Iraq, but I'm also in favor of finding out what the actual story is. Although many claim them to be, these actions are not mutually exclusive. The fact that we are now actively involved in fighting terrorists does not imply a vacation from accountability and simple straightforwardness. We seem to be entering a phase of the bickering where the following happens:

Curious Critic (possibly traitor): So did you know the uranium line was shaky when you used it in the State of the Union? 

Administration flack: We lowered taxes! 

CC(pt): Well, when did you know the uranium line was unreliable? 

Af: Perscription drugs! Education! 

CC(pt): Who okayed that line in the SOTU? 

Af: Well, that depends on what your definition of "in" is. 

CC(pt): I don't mean to sound like an a-hole here, but things aren't super-great right now what with the job market and all, and my kid was supposed to be home from Iraq three months ago. Also, my paycheck doesn't really look any smaller than it was. What gives? 

Af: We're at WAR here, people!

Tony Blair's speech was beautiful, a marvel of modern oratory and composition. But talk is talk, and I'm waiting to see what actually happens (and, for that matter, what actually happened.) I'm not a knee-jerk Bush hater, but over the last six or eight months I've started to get that feeling where you look around the poker table, and you can't tell who the sucker is. 

[moreover] 1:30 PM: Everything else aside, Lileks is right on about Tony Blair. What a class act. Unreconstructed socialist or not, he's a good person to have in charge right now. 

[moreover] 1:45 PM: One thing our President is very good at is doublespeak. "Clean Air Act," my foot.

In his most recent bleat, Lileks tosses this out:

When I hear a speech like Blair's, I have to check the calendar. And the calendar is usually wrong. It may say 2/23, or 7/16, or 4/30. But I know what the date is, and the date is 9/12. It's going to be 9/12 for a long time to come.

While I'm on the subject of Lileks, I should mention that we shamelessly stole the name of our blog from one of his bleats. In a bleat shortly after the beginning of the war, but before American troops reached Baghdad, Lileks had this to say:

These pictures are fascinating - it's a capital in wartime, and it looks like it's had a few bad gas main leaks, nothing more. The giant black plumes of fire come from oil trenches set alight by the Iraqis, and looking at them from above you realize they make excellent visual markers for incoming bombers. (If they needed such a thing, which they don't.) The first picture shows a Presidential Palace - two words that ought not cohabitate, really - and it's had the crap blown out of it. Across the street is a gigantic assembly building of some kind, perhaps the National House of Enthusiastic Rubber Stamping. It's untouched. I'd wager a five-spot that they left it for whatever legislative body comes next. There's no sign of bombing anywhere else, except for a small building down at the bottom of the picture; perhaps that was the Ministry of Minor Perfidy, or the State Bureau for Interrogative Dentistry. Something naughty happened there, in any case. I'd thought that the first phase of the air war would see the atomization of all the palaces, but perhaps that's not so; good. Turn them into bed & breakfasts. Give every Iraqi citizen a coupon good for one free night in a room in the palace. Thin Mints on the pillow, courtesy the US Military.

The phrase just caught us, and we ran with it. If you're going to steal, steal from the best.

From Creative Loafing in Atlanta comes this heart-warmer. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but it is a depressing little story.

"The FBI is here," Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny. . . . Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."

Yeesh. Now, I understand that the FBI need to follow up diligently on leads-- and in fact they probably could be about 150% better at that basic task-- but c'mon!

Reason has a good piece up on how old people are determined to loot the store before they die.

"We have been hearing for years about economic fallout that will surely result from the coming social security binge, but few could have anticipated the real threat baby boomers represent. Not content to suck resources from a dying system, the Me Generation has formed a massive voting bloc willing to grant itself one-size-fits all benefits. Last month, in an orgy of self-love, the 108th congress (average age: 55) helped itself to the one resource younger generations will always be good for: future earnings. Every great legislative push needs its welfare queen, and this time around the subject is a hypothetical elderly widow, forced to decide between food and pharmaceuticals. She exists, surely; the small segment of the population too wealthy for Medicaid yet too poor to make ends meet is more than a trick of rhetoric. Unfortunately, she is being used to extort benefits for everyone over 65, the vast majority of whom don't need them, many of whom are active voters. The elderly are easily the wealthiest segment of society, with a poverty rate little more than half that of the under 18-set who will help foot the bill."

This is deeply troubling, and totally outrageous. I'm beginning to think that the greatest legacy of the 'boomer generation was not social revolution, not civil rights, not orchestral Album Oriented Rock, but rather an overweening, nasty, vicious, grasping, deeply rooted sense of entitlement. 

The Baby Boom generation is the last generation of American citizens who can reliably claim that they have it better than their parents. They were raised in a time of unprecendented growth and plenty, and feel themselves to be both the heirs of greatness and the architects of the good aspects of today's America. 

Partly this circumstance can be attributed to the boomers' placement at the natural endings of a great number of intiatives, social changes, and economic successes. The greatness they think they chose was rather handed to them on a silver platter. That is beyond their control. What is not beyond their control, however, is the conscious choice to be generous, to leave a crumb for future generations. To, in short, live up to the rhetoric they invented. 

The exact same crowd that forty years ago wasn't trusting anyone over 30, who planned breakfast in bed for 400,000, and who wished to bring an Aquarian age of equality and love, are now a mass of bitter greedy Croesuses determined to have everything regardless of the consequences. They were the last generation to grow up in the true boom years, and they can't seem to let go of the idea that there will always be more, more, more. 

Has the hippie ethos-- always a minority view, though vocal-- permeated the 'boomers so thoroughly that they no longer care about consequences? It sure must feel good to have the power to pass laws! It sure must feel good to vote your way to comfort! 

The party ended thirty years ago, the money has run out, yet they don't seem to have noticed. Or maybe they just don't give a crap.

Now this is a worthwhile waste of time, if such a thing can be said to exist! Meet the Oracle of Baseball, companion to the more well known Oracle of Bacon. It's like Six Degrees of Babe Ruth.

I'm feeling pretty clever, because I found seven-step relationship between Texas 3B Hank Blalock, and dead ball era OF Dummy Hoy (incidentially, the only deaf-mute to play professional ball). For well-known players, I've apparently done pretty well. Go me! 

• Hank Blalock played with Rob Bell for the 2002 Texas Rangers
• Rob Bell played with Jose Rijo for the 2001 Cincinnati Reds
• Jose Rijo played with Tommy John for the 1985 Oakland Athletics
• Tommy John played with Early Wynn for the 1963 Cleveland Indians
• Early Wynn played with Cecil Travis for the 1947 Washington Senators
• Cecil Travis played with Nick Altrock for the 1933 Washington Senators
• Nick Altrock played with Dummy Hoy for the 1898 Louisville Colonels

From last year, I think:

"Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept along the east wall: "Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep."

I see that Johno has gotten off to a quick start. Meanwhile, I have been laboring laboriously behind the scenes, whipping the hamsters that power this site, and replacing fuses in the server so that you may behold its glory. 

Well, most of that is done now - the only thing we need now is a photoshopped version of a government seal or logo - something like the obverse of the great seal (the pyramid thingie) or from Adm. Buster Poindexter's naughty, naughty (and defunded, yes!) Total Information Awareness Initiative. It needs to have our name, and some sort of latinish slogan. <beg> So if anyone wants to save Johno and I a lot of work, because we can't really use photoshop, feel free to jump in.</beg> (that is so 2002. -ed) 

Now, I can rip off this mask, and become... 

Oh well, it's still me. 
 

The National Bureau of Economic Research have declared that our once-and-current national recession actually ended back in November 2001 (Coverage in the Boston Globe here).

Ohhh, that's why unemployment is up and everyone from AOL to the state of Massachusetts is broke.

Interestingly, the NBER had a hard time with this decision, and according to the piece acted now mainly to set the 2001 downturn apart from any future downturns. "The main reason that the committee's decision in this episode was particularly difficult was the divergent behavior of employment,'' the NBER said. ''The committee felt that it was important to wait until real GDP was substantially above its pre-recession peak before determining that a trough had occurred.''

The NBER also qualified its claim, saying "In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month. A recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. The trough marks the end of the declining phase and the start of the rising phase of the business cycle. Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion"

Possible Translation 1: "The bleeding has stopped, sir, but may I suggest you not try boxing a tiger again for a while?"

Possible Translation 2: "We are as baffled as the rest of you. Can I borrow a fiver?"

Over at Reason, writing about Christopher Hitchens, Michael Young hits the nail squarely on the head.

"It is to Hitchens' credit that he broke with the left before engaging in the verbal gymnastics of his former comrades. His story, however, is a microcosm of a greater problem faced by Western radical intellectuals: An inability to define what radicalism truly means today and to confuse it all too often with anti-Americanism."

Exactly. Read the whole thing. Not incidentally, the obverse is also true: Many Conservatives fail to include spirited, healty skepticism in their definition of patriotism, confusing it all too often with anti-Americanism.
 

The winners of the 2003 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest have been announced. ("Huh?", you say with slackened jaw? The history of the contest is here, you clod!)

This year's winner:

They had but one last remaining night together, so they embraced each other as tightly as that two-flavor entwined string cheese that is orange and yellowish-white, the orange probably being a bland Cheddar and the white . . . Mozzarella, although it could possibly be Provolone or just plain American, as it really doesn't taste distinctly dissimilar from the orange, yet they would have you believe it does by coloring it differently. Ms. Mariann Simms Wetumpka, AL

Mmmm... outrageous fiction....

Johnny Two-Cents is now experiencing what marketroids call rebranding.

From this point on, you can read the same penetrating analysis, effervescent wit, and banal restating of the obvious at a new home, The Ministry of Minor Perfidy. We thank blogger for providing a (free) home for our observations and bloviating, with (free) customer service and excellent (free) archiving.

Come see our new digs, graciously hosted by Bloghouse.

Why 'Juan Gato' Rules Us All: His line of the day-- "the Bush administration's 'it wasn't lies, it was just...bullshit' dance."

Is it just me, or is there something overwhelmingly, erm, Clintonian about the President and his apologists' gyrations? An example: as Ross at Spiral Dive notes, the President said recently, "We gave [Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Oh, really? Funny, I was paying attention at the time and I thought, excuse me, I thought that the UN weapons inspectors weren't finding anything in Iraq, that that was the problem. Bad on me for trusting my eyes and ears. And I seem to remember something to the effect of inspections not being good enough, that letting them continue would be useless. But now I see the error of my ways. There were no inspections. Hussein wouldn't let them happen. I apologize, Mr. President. I got my history wrong.

Christ, if this was Clinton, the Republicans would be bathing in his entrails right now. The Democrats are even deader than I thought.

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy welcomes you to, well, the Ministry of Minor Perfidy.

Some of you will know us from our former blog, Johnny Two-Cents, now defunct. The manifold faults of blogger impelled us to move to the more salubrious climes of Bloghouse, whose proprietor Kathy is extraordinarily helpful, kind and wise. (Kind word for blogger: It's Free!)

Others of you will be seeing us for the first time, and again we welcome you. Our unique style of fast paced witty commentary, laced with rare and precious insights, uncommon wisdom, total idiocy and wrongheadedness will no doubt keep you coming back for more. For more information about your hosts, kindly click on the member profile links in the menu bar to your left.

This message from the Minister of Minor Perfidy: Thank you for your cooperation!

Errata:

We will be slowly moving our blog archives from Johnny Two-Cents over to this site. That way, we can self reference with much greater ease and reliability.

We will be slowly making improvements to the look and feel (tm) of the site, and periodic announcements will be under the "Ministry" byline.

Feel free to comment, but the usual common sense rules apply - don't be foul, abusive or exceedingly rude; lest ye be banned and your comments condemned to the outer darkness.

You can email general comments to the Ministry general account, perfidy@perfidy.org. For more intimate communication, send mail to either john@perfidy.org or steve@perfidy.org. 

Enjoy your visit!

From Buckethead and Johnny Two-Cents:

Farewell, Mike.

Johnny Two-Cents started as a fun project, three friends arguing about the world, as we had often done together over beers back in college. Johnny and I have enjoyed discussing with Mike the state of the world, things important and trivial, things comic and tragic. That this blog has become an engine for the clarification of beliefs and goals is an remarkable thing, and as we pause in our amazement, we are both happy that it has helped to give Mike new focus and a stronger belief in his capacity to do good in the world.

Since we have known him, Mike has ever been strong in his arguments, honest and honorable in his actions, and has always looked for the truth. His desire to act rather than speak demonstrates the depth of his commitment and the strength of his beliefs. He has challenged us in our beliefs and thoughts, for which we will always be grateful. As Johnny once said, having Mike on the blog means always having to bring your "A" game. We will dearly miss him.

We wish Mike the best in all things.

And Mike, if ever you are in the eastern reaches; be sure to seek us out so we can stand you to a beer or twenty, and hear you fiddle.

A Farewell Post

One cloudy, uncharacteristically cool spring day, as I was sitting in a bar with a friend, we discussed my participation in this newfangled Blog business. He offered an observation, that I seemed to get something out of doing this despite my near constant frustration with it and unending battles with one of the other members that drove me dangerously close to fits of apoplexy. I thought about what that was, what benefits I perceived from yet another net technology that allowed people to broadcast thoughts, opinions, and beliefs over this medium. I responded that the Blog allowed me to keep my writing and debating skills sharp.

But more and more, I returned to my early suspicions of the Internet, first experienced through listservs, usenet, and other such strange things that have been with humans for such a short period of time. It seems like only yesterday that our primitive ancestors wielded a bone for the first time to kill another of our own kind, a la the opening sequence of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now we are increasing our technology a hundredfold with every revolution around the sun. Somehow, our primitive, atavistic impulse to smash the skull of another human with a blunt object, however, remains, despite our advances. Civilization, as the adolescent tome Lord of the Flies teaches, is a thin veneer that is rented asunder with but the slightest tug.

That impulse, I think, has been channeled into the primary function of Internet communications. With every online discussion group or listserv, I gave up in frustration as someone either misinterpreted what I had written or simply attacked me outright. The bone is still there. It's a keyboard now. The urge to kill is right outside my window, in all its glory of primitive, naked rage. It's in me, and every other human as well. We are by nature angry, savage killers who will smash the brains from the head of another human to possess his food, shelter, or his woman.

But the sort of thing that goes on the net is a different manifestation. It's an opportunity for people who haven't the guts to wield a bone in deadly combat, to square off with another shaggy, hunch-shouldered, human ape, when the prize is their own survival, and perhaps the meager possessions of the vanquished. The Internet allows people to mouth off at others with anonymous impunity, take all their frustration out on someone they cannot perceive with their senses over the vast gulf of cyberspace, hurling insults and vitriol across that same unseen chasm, physically as imperceptible as the air we breathe. Some people aren't even taking out their frustrations on the faceless other, on the opposite side of the cable. They're just mean, and they don't have the balls to be mean to other people to their face, lest those they verbally attack take up the bone in lieu of the keyboard.

I return to the original question, why did I Blog? I came to understand that allowing me to polish my writing and argumentative skills was in fact but a penultimate objective. The Blog, in truth, allowed me to rediscover who I really am, what I think, and what I might believe.

In the last four years, I have been accused several times of being a sexist, racist, conservative, and lastly, a right-wing extremist. At an Irish studies conference years ago, I tried to make small talk with a conference participant. This is always a mistake. Conference participants are typically keyboard wielders as opposed to bone-wielders, if you follow my conversational drift. But I digress. The other conference participant and I got to talking about political perspective. When I offered that I had in my early adolescence fancied myself a Communist, but that age, experience, and increased knowledge had brought me to a perspective akin to that of Social Democracy, or a Social Democrat, the other participant rolled his eyes and rocked back on his heels, ensconced in expensive, glistening, leather shoes.

"Oh," he drawled, the attempt at condescension left uncamouflaged, "so you've moved way to the right," extending his arms widely to indicate that I had fallen far and fast, a distance traversing an entire ocean. I gave up trying to talk to this person, and most other people at the conference.

Since enlisting at a certain Jesuit university that shall remain nameless, I have been accused, in so many words and directly, of also being sexist, racist, ethnocentric, what have you, in addition to a right-wing extremist. I have puzzled repeatedly over how this could be true. Since I do not believe that all men are evil and should be castrated, by some people's standards apparently, I am sexist. Since I am white, I am automatically a racist. The extent to which I am white could have been a subject, perhaps, of a discussion here, specifically whether or not near easterners and people of near eastern descent are truly afforded white status now. But the sun is setting with alacrity, and if that subject be discussed, I will be unable to weigh in.

Back to the matter at hand. My pale skin, a genetic takeover by Irish ancestry when in the past I had a robust olive complexion indicative of my coexisting near eastern descent, does not alone make me a racist. What has made me a racist in the recent past are the abominable thoughts that have entered my mind over the last four years as I have watched members of another ethnic group firing weapons at each other and indiscriminately, screaming at the top of their lungs in the middle of the night, threatening to kill me, attempting to kill me, trying to kill other people, trying to hurt other people, taking up the bone, leering with a maniacal grin at the prospect of a satisfying smash of bone against bone.

But just as I am not racist because I have pale skin, rather for other reasons, the people I have described do not engage in violent actions because their skin is dark, rather for other reasons. They do it because they are desperate, angry, poor, hungry, left out of the American dream. They also scream in the middle of the night because they have no consideration for other people. Not all members of their ethnic group stand on the intersection near my building screaming and shooting. Or perhaps, as my Dad once told me long ago, "There are only two ethnic groups. Assholes, and people who aren't. Skin color and geographic origin has nothing to do with it."

As I have written, for this Blog, however, I have noticed myself eschewing racist interpretations and statements. It was not conscious, so much as innate, a natural inclination. The disgusting racist, or at least prejudicial, thoughts creeping into my head as of late, were unnatural, and not really me.

My political orientation, like my impulse contrary to racism or prejudice has similarly been confirmed. It appears that accusations leveled at me by the keyboard-wielding members of the asshole ethnic group populating the Ivory Tower are patently false. I'm a union man. A son of the working class. Each according to her or his need, and I demand that need be met. I call for an end to foreign war, and an initiation of global peace. I call for justice for workers, and jobs for the unemployed. I call for an end to all forms of discrimination and injustice. I demand that the narrow wealthy oligarchy that dominates this country make themselves accountable, and pitch in what is their due. I call for the downtrodden to raise themselves up from their knees and spit in the faces of those who held them there in chains. I am, unflinchingly, a leftist, and I proudly puke bright red. I never thought I really believed in anything, but having done this Blog, there are ideals in which I have made a leap of faith. To shift gears slightly, as a leftist, I look forward to one of my part-time jobs because it's akin to manual labor. It's honest work.

I also look forward to my other part-time job as a teacher because society has left the underclass with little to advance themselves. Education is one of the keys that have fallen onto America's dirty floor, forgotten by those who would keep the door locked tight. I also look forward to it as an ideological great grand-child of the Enlightenment. Reason above all else, and the dissemination of reason and knowledge. Liberte, Egalite, Franternite, et vive les droits des Hommes et Femmes.

I wish to wield no keyboard to vent my inconsequential frustrations against faceless others rather than having the balls to face them. As much as I often desire to wield the bone, with a flame so blindingly crimson as all of perdition burning behind my wounded eye, I choose not to do so. I will wield the education key, and help others through the door that I have entered, been ejected from, entered again, and ejected from once more.

Steve, I cast aside the bone that I briefly shook at you with increasing rage as my face sight-unseen twisted in murderous anger and hatred. We are enemies now, you and I. I invite détente, and in that interest, I will not throw more accusations at you or complain further, but I will never discuss matters political with you again. Like a job that I recently had briefly for two days, I simply don't have the right personality for it. I do not want to wield the bone unnecessarily, or if I can help it, ever again. For that, and because I do not wish to wield the keyboard in a cowardly, undignified fashion, to become what I dislike, a simpering, insult-hurling denizen of this damnable Internet, whining about small matters on a luxury item while others much less fortunate starve and face suffering, war, and death, I withdraw from the discussion.

John, thank you for the opportunity, the forum, your patience, and the gentle kindness which I find so characteristic of you. But this I cannot do.

Adieu.

-Mike

A question for opponents of marriage/civil unions for homosexuals. If, as I often hear, the only true reason for marriage is to procreate, then what of all the couples in the world who choose to remain childless? Let's posit a heterosexual, standard-issue young married couple who do not intend to have childen though they may adopt at some far future date. Moreover, let's posit that their marriage ceremony contained not one reference to a higher spiritual power. As these people did not get married under the auspices of a religion, and as children are neither expected nor wanted except through possible future adoption, the marriage is indistinguishable from what's being called a "civil union" such as is legal for homosexual couples in Vermont.

So I ask you. Based on that information, how is this marriage, between a man and a woman, different in any way from a civil union between homosexual partners?

ZM should get a fair trial. If they were going to go the route of military tribunals, they should have gone that way from the start, and then it wouldn't have the feel of a Kafka novel, where rules change randomly, and never to the benefit of accused. The accomplices of the Rosenbergs weren't brought to trial at the same time because the gov't didn't want to reveal the fact that we were reading the Soviet's communications. (Btw, McCarthy and Cohn began their hearings to try and get info on those same people.)

Since I'm not a lawyer (my degree is in video game testing), I can't say with 100% accuracy, but probably not. It would be worse. The DoJ may refuse to comply with the standards of the civilian court in which they wished to try him, and then move the proceedings to a military tribunal.

At least in double jeopardy you get a real freaking trial, albeit twice. The filthy terrorist Zacarias Mossaoui won't get the one which our fundamental principles say he deserves.

[moreover] Calpundit has more punditry:

This whole thing is way too much like the Salem witch trials for my taste, where guilt is preordained and nothing a defendant can say will prove otherwise. I don't have much sympathy for Moussaoui, who's certainly an al-Qaeda terrorist of one kind or another, but considering what we've learned lately about the quality of U.S. intelligence in matters like this, I'm also not inclined to simply accept the government's word that he was a participant in the 9/11 conspiracy. Moussaoui should be allowed a fair trial.

(comments weren't working) Is it double jeopardy if he was never tried in a civilian court?

I see via South Knox Bubba that the Federal Government have ruled that Zacarias Moussaoui may not bring a witness in his defense. Well, great!

Even better, if this ruling results in dismissal of all charges-- because, after all, in a court of law, you get to have witnesses-- Atty Gen Johnny A has promised to declare ZM an enemy combatant and start a military tribunal. Hey, now that can't fail! Ha haaaa! We'll get this bastid! Double Jeopardy? Fair and Speedy Trial By One's Peers? Fifth Amendment? Sixth Amendment? Our dignity? What use have I for these? I am John Ashcroft! The Law Is My Plaything!

Why not have a damn regular trial, bring a solid case, and convict him? This military tribunal BS smacks of the third world.

Who gave a hand with the HTML for the new category images.

The problem with cesspools is that there are so many of them, and the temptation to try to drain them all is so strong. You can try all you want, but you'll just end up covered in filth.

Mmmmm, pithy!

Mike, in my opinion the case for libervading Afghanistan was much, much more compelling than that for Iraq. In September '01 all that was clear was that al Qaeda had planned the attacks, that they were currently being housed and supported by the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, and that swift action was called for. Fair enough. Ass-whupping and libervasion to follow. And, despite what I have said in the past about the US's role in muddling the situation in Afghanistan, I'm willing to count many things as total improvements there. Life is better. That being said, the libervasion of, and the improvement of life in, Afghanistan are two separate issues. The improvements are merely welcome side-effects to the real mission of crippling al Qaeda and their backers.

The same applies to Iraq. The difference is that, in the case of Iraq, the stated reasons for needing to invade at the moment have not, in my opinion, proven compelling.

Buckethead, I disagree with you on three fronts. First, you wrote in response to Windy City Mike, "Is it impossible for you to imagine that there might be good in this, and that the effect on the Iraqi people is net positive?" That's not the point. Of course there is good in this! But the effect on the Iraqi people is not the question at hand. The question is, was the President being straight up about the threat that the Hussein regime's Weapons of Mass Destruction posed to the US and other nations, and was he being straight up about Iraq's deep and abiding connections to Islamic terrorism? As I've said before, the net postive effect on the Iraqi people is a fabulous boon, but diplomatically, and for the purposes of whether Bush's case to the world was sizzle or steak, it doesn't enter into the question, for us or Bush. In his State of the Union address, the President devoted two paragraphs to Hussein's human rights violations. He devoted sixteen-- about 1,200 words-- to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On that matter, you write, "But remember, this is not a court of law. We simply do not have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these nations are threats. So, the fact that we haven't found (yet) ironclad evidence of WMD is not that significant." I disagree totally. The Weapons of Mass Destruction were the main reason that Dubya offered to the American people and the world in the SOTU. Bush was careful to frame his argument in the context of Hussein's noncompliance with the UN, but also expressed certainty that Hussein was intending to use his WMD's shortly. His closing statement was "We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Fine. We led the coalition. Now where the hell are the 30,000 warheads, 25,000 liters of Anthrax, and the 38,000 liters of Botulin toxin? And why did he cite the "significant quantities of uranium from Africa," knowing as we now do that the intelligence behind it was shaky? I find it disturbing that the President may have overstated his intelligence for the sake of a Grand Middle East Plan (as you posit), and horrifying that absolutely none of the material we went into Iraq to find has been located. 25,000 liters of Anthrax is pretty damn significant, whether diplomatically or otherwise.

Furthermore, our failure so far to find them has concrete results-- for example, India's decision not to send troops to Iraq to relieve the 3rd Infantry, currently in their 10th month of continuous deployment. India will send troops only under an "explicit UN mandate." Oooh-- burn!! That's not to mention the heat that Tony Blair continues to take for his bold decision to back the US. When you say that international opinion simply doesn't matter, you are simply dead wrong. We needn't be slaves to it, but it bears remembering that those once bitten bite back.

Buckethead, you also wrote: "We were attacked, and we are taking steps to assure that it does not happen again. If, in the process, we violate some nations' soveriegnty, so be it. If, in the process, we sledgehammer some fascist regimes and liberate their people, great. Eliminating international terrorism is doing a favor for the world. Like eliminating the international slave trade was when Britain did that in the nineteenth century." What are we, the Incredible Hulk? "Hulk smash! Napster bad!" Like the Onion put it, you are limiting our choices to two: blind rage, or measured, focused rage. Are these really our only choices? Besides, does defining our mission in this way excuse us from attending to the complexities of the situations we create? In the past, you have conceded that "with great power, comes great responsibility," adhering to the Spider-Man thesis of American foreign policy. Why ignore that now?

We both have engaged in a significant amount of moral finger pointing. This person is bad, this person is evil, this person is more diabolical than this other person, naughty, naughty. If you want to level such accusations, feel free. I'm just unwilling to continue it myself.

As to the leftist protestors, I see a consistent amount of vitriol directed at leftist protestors, in so many words liberals who do this, liberals who do that, liberal stupidity, idiot socialists, in actual words "Commie Tommie Daschle" (as if), leftist "ass-hatted fuckwits," and so forth. Extremely negative comments are consistently directed at people whose ideas and statements fall to the left of the political spectrum, and it gets personal. Just because there are occasional caveats, fine shades of meaning, and distinctions, when someone in so many words or in plain language denigrates and insults a group of people to which I belong I am in turn and by extension denigrated and insulted. I don't recall offering myself specifically as a punching bag. Nor do I recall making blanket statements about the stupidity or ass-hatted fuckwittery of conservatives, or people right of center, what have you, of any stripe.

I have made specific criticisms of Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher, and much further outside the realm of credibility herself, Anne Coulter, but when have I extended those criticisms to any group of right-winged people? I have criticized Fox News, not for being on the right, but for reporting inaccurately, and for such instances as when they have a guest who believes that EYE-rack is "full of Buddhists," without correcting that guest, or offering a retraction or correction. The New York Times, many of whose staff members appear to hold leftish beliefs, has also dropped the ball on accurate reporting. Have I defended the NYT and attacked Fox News solely on the basis of political orientation? If you can find evidence that I have done these things I claim to be innocent of, I'll make a public blog apology.

I have after all, in times past, said, in so many words, "Okay, fine, fair enough, alright." When have points ever been conceded to me? Are you still holding a belief that Nazis fell on the left of the political spectrum? Was there smoldering in silence without concession?

Back to the leftist protestors, personal liberties in America were not created in America, but rather maintained in America by people with leftist ideas and through protest. The American Civil Liberties Union is largely left in character, for want of a better term, and has defended personal liberty to the point of arguing that Neo-Nazis should be permitted to march in Skokie, Illinois. Leftish reporters who refuse to reveal their source protect freedom of the press. Anti-war protestors who seized control of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago defended their right to freedom of assembly while simultaneously protesting the war.

And where do those ideas about personal liberty really come from? America? Don't make me laugh. Ideas about freedom of the press, assembly, and speech, as well as societal egalitarianism and responsible government with separate branches came collectively from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was Swiss, Voltaire, who was French, John Locke, who was English, and various other European thinkers, most of whom were your arch-nemeses as Frenchmen and women. And correct me if I'm wrong, but ardent supporters of those rights in the political field, such as Georges Danton, sat on the LEFT side of French assembly houses, hence the term. And let's see, Alexander Hamilton, a rightist of his time and place, OPPOSED the Bill of Rights! Hmm, gee I wonder, who, oh who must have pushed for that Bill of Rights? Well, if Hamilton the rightist opposed it, then maybe it was the left of that particular time and place? You think? Thus, both the creation in Europe and the maintenance in America of individual liberties come from the leftists of the past, the recent past, and even the current time, as I've argued, are thanks to filthy, puking leftists.

As foot-notes:

1) Morocco did not oppose, and technically invited, the American military presence in 1942. The World War II analogies don't work. That was there and then, this is here and now. History is not the present, it is the past.

2) The pronunciation of Iraq is not the same as Paris. Paris in English is Paris. Roma in English is Rome. Deutschland in English is Germany, Espana is Spain, (please forgive the lack of an appropriate diacritical mark), Eire is Ireland, Italia is Italy. Those things are all fine. EYE-rack is not the English word for Iraq. Saying EYE-rack is roughly the same as saying, "last night I had EYE-talian food at the Olive Garden." Which has more than a grain of truth.

3) Hussein has been removed from power. Fine. But there was nothing altruistic about the U.S. government and military initiating his removal. When a consigliare wants a Capo whacked, he gets whacked. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Capo was selling drugs to children in his own mother's neighborhood. All I've asked is that the administration, for once, tell the truth about why it went to war. Improving the lives of Iraqis no longer under Hussein wasn't it. They could give a damn about the lives of Iraqis. That was an unintended consequence. I doubt, for that matter, the Iraqis killed by American bombs and various other American weapons of mass destruction feel all that liberated. Whether or not Iraq was truly liberated has yet to be seen. It depends on what follows. An American puppet state won't protect the liberties of Iraqi's, seeing as Hussein didn't back when he was still taking orders from Washington. There's good in this, and there's also bad. How much bad remains to be determined. Bad in that the administration has lied to the American people and the world. Bad in that civilians were killed. Bad in that American military personnel lost their lives, and their families will never see them again.

4) I do not believe the UN is a cesspool. I think it's a good step toward a single world government. The kinks have yet to be worked out, but these things take time.

5) World opinion is not irrelevant. Americans, though many of them seem to think so lately, are not on this planet alone. We live with other nations. I think we should work with them rather than against them.

6) Dictators are problematic. Perhaps working with the international community might alleviate that.

7) As to salving the fragile egos of the Middle East, it's got nothing to do with that. I'm just tired of people who reveal and indeed revel in their ignorance with gratuitous mispronunciation.

I was unaware that I was guilty of moral finger-pointing. I was careful to limit my comment to the pathetic leftist protestors, not merely leftists in general. I notice that you did not challenge the other parts of that sentence, so I assume that you agree with the fact that the UN is a cesspool, and world opinion is irrelevant in regard to the cynical European governments and third world dictators.

And, I was unaware that leftists had anything to do with all those liberties I like so much. Did socialists write the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I imagine it would read rather differently if they had. Socialists didn't exist until after Babeuf (and weren't even called that until Owen), and the left began with the French revolution. The Constitution was written two years before that began. The only significant "new" rights since then came out of the civil war, and that was hardly a leftist enterprise. Abolition and Civil Rights were largely Christian in their origins. And, it seems odd that all these people are mistakenly calling themselves leftists and communists despite your conviction that they are not.

As for Iraq, why did we ruthlessly invade Morocco in '42? They had never invaded us. As for Afghanistan, it was the home of all those Al Qaeda training camps, and the Taliban was in tight with bin Laden. Afghanistan did not attack us, true, but it harbored those who did. And I guess we were completely wrong to liberate Iraq. We should find Saddam, apologize, and reinstall him in Iraq, so his son can go back to feeding dissidents into wood chippers feet first. Is it impossible for you to imagine that there might be good in this, and that the effect on the Iraqi people is net positive?

Most of the hijackers were Saudis. And I think the time or reckoning for Saudi Arabia is long overdue.

Buckethead wrote that, "The UN is a cesspool, and world opinion is irelevant when it is being generated by cynical european governments, third world dictators and pathetic leftist protestors." Really, do tell? You know, a lot of those freedoms you're fond of might not exist had it not been for leftist protest at various points in recent history. Admittedly, there are people these days masquerading as leftists who want to restrict various freedoms and make us wear helmets, but as I'm reiterating, those people constitute le gauche faux.

Buckethead also wrote that, "We were attacked, and we are taking steps to assure that it does not happen again." Indeed? When did Iraq attack the United States?

For that matter, the U.S. appeared unable to offer any solid, hard evidence that Afghanistan in fact had a hand in attacking the United States. Most of those hijackers were Saudis. What the attackers of 11 September 2001 did was extremely wrong, but I will not belabor this point as I've tired of this moral finger-pointing that tends to go on with this blog. But I'll point my finger one last time and say that what the U.S. did was wrong, too. There was no verifiable evidence that the nations the United States has attacked had anything to do with the attack on the U.S. itself.