Thursday, August 8, 2013

The Pact: An Exegesis

When I write something like "The Pact," I often feel as is I'm indulging a personal need: a yearning for an unrealizable fantasy world populated by superhumans and heroes. There's some truth to that. My protagonists are usually larger than life. I prefer to leave the dreary musings upon the fancies and failings of ordinary folk to the "literary" set.

All the same, a story such as "The Pact" expresses an important insight, one that today's gray heads of international relations and diplomacy will not suffer to be mentioned in their presence:

In relations between nation-states,
Power and the will to use it are all that matter.

Statesmen dispute this at their peril.


Power -- the capacity to compel, prohibit, and expropriate by the use of force and / or intimidation -- is the antipodes of freedom.

It's not as widely known as it should be that the Founding Fathers were extremely reluctant to permit the federal government a standing army. Standing armies had been for centuries the bane of the common people of Europe. They were seldom used in "defense of the realm," but rather as instruments of oppression and depredation against the very populations that were taxed to fund them. When Article I of the Constitution was finalized, the major reactions against it, from within the Convention and from persons outside privy to its deliberations, was that allowing Congress both the taxing power and the power to maintain a standing army constituted an obvious threat to the people's newly won liberty.

Hearken to Patrick Henry, orating to the Virginia Convention:

Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by the control of the militia, has the sword in one hand and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both; they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and the purse were given up by the people? Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained liberty after giving up the sword and the purse.

Yet in a world partitioned into quarrelsome nation-states, each poised and ready to encroach upon the territory and prerogatives of the others, no security is possible without a substantial military establishment. Indeed, the much-discussed condition we call sovereignty is a consequence of the possession of such an establishment. A nation without the power to enforce its borders is not and cannot be sovereign. It exists solely at the sufferance of other nation, and will cease to exist upon the instant another nation perceives advantage in molesting it.

So long as nation-states exist, there will be standing armies, and navies, and air forces, and strategic deterrents, and war colleges to train their commanders, and intelligence establishments to inform them, and squabbles over just how much military the nation needs and can afford. A nation whose people are largely free and want to remain so must accept that, or confront the loss of all freedom to the first predatory nation under whose lustful gaze it comes.

Military fiction author Tom Kratman, in his recent novel Countdown: H Hour, put it most memorably:

"People band into nations, real nations -- not travesties like TCS, gangs that fancy themselves nations -- to defend themselves. It requires an emotional commitment. The limits of nations are not how far their borders can reach, but how far their hearts can. People with tiny hearts, people like TCS, can never reach very far, can never gather enough similar hearts together to defend themselves. Only real people, and real countries or causes, can do that."

There's more wisdom in those seventy-six words than in the entire Congressional Record.


If we go solely by the size and capabilities of its military establishment, the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, indeed in all of history. But capability is not enough; it must be mated to the willingness to use it when the occasion demands it.

When I had President Stephen Graham Sumner say:

“The United States has seldom played the diplomacy game as well as your nation, Ambassador....We have this problem, you see. We’re habitually honest with others, even when those others have displayed no penchant for honesty themselves....But in the usual case, once we’ve discovered that we’d been lied to, we ceased to talk. I dare say you’d rather we kept talking, wouldn’t you, Ambassador? Considering the alternatives, that is?”

...he was articulating one of our severest deficiencies in international dealings: our desire to accept the other party as sincere in all his representations. We don't rise above that desire nearly as often as we should. In a typical diplomatic interchange between nations, the sincerity level seldom rises above 25% and never reaches 50%. Yet our diplomats habitually take the other fellow's word as reliable and sincere.

[If you'd like to read more about Sumner and his rise to power, go here.]

That desire to believe the other guy good-hearted has been our undoing on several occasions. We'd probably have fought half as many wars had our diplomats managed to pull off their rose-colored glasses at the appropriate times. That includes those occasions when the diplomat in question was the president of the United States.

A provocation such as the one described in "The Pact" is a probe: an exercise undertaken specifically for the purpose of eliciting a response to be analyzed. The aggressor nation seeks to gauge its target's willingness to court open conflict. If the will is there, the probe is unlikely to be repeated; if not, further, deeper probes are guaranteed, possibly culminating in a full-scale war.

“Probe with a bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.” -- V. I. Lenin

Whatever his failings as an economist, Lenin understood the dynamic that governs international relations.


Along with the view of international relations I've explicated above, I had another goal in mind with "The Pact:" to depict the conduct I want to see in a president of the United States when confronted with an aggressive probe. In recent years, only John F. Kennedy has exhibited firmness anywhere near that -- and he had to suffer a number of painful international humiliations to convince him that a strong stance was necessary if the U.S. was to thwart the threat posed by Soviet nuclear-armed IRBMs in Cuba.

A president with Stephen Graham Sumner's grasp of reality and a strength of will to match it would be a hero of a sort we haven't had since long before Kennedy -- and Americans are starving to death for a genuine national hero. The parade of sports poseurs and celebrities "famous for being famous" has failed to nourish us, as we should have realized.

In my view, any man who accepts the duties and responsibilities of Commander-In-Chief has made a pact with the nation that elevated him: to represent its interests fearlessly and in full confidence that the government, the military, and the people are wholly behind him. Many a president has failed not just one of those criteria but all of them.

Yet it was not always so. Before World War II, even men who disputed the wisdom of this or that international sally, or of our entry into this or that conflict, would close ranks behind the government while negotiations progressed, and behind our forces when a decision to go to war was reached. The presidents of those times could wage both diplomacy and war in confidence -- justified confidence.

May it be so again...and may we have presidents worthy of such wholehearted support.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Mishandled 2008 crisis, god-like bureaucrats.

The [United States Department of Justice] may also be attempting [in preventing a deposition of Mr. Bernanke] to preclude an open investigation that will show how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner mishandled the 2008 financial crisis. This is not a secret. Books by Sheila Bair and David Stockman, as well as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (by the FCIC) have already done so. Yet, the media continues to report how we "must thank Bernanke (or the others) for saving us from a nuclear winter." These advocates have avoided the evidence.

A segment of Bernanke's ignorance was discussed in "The Professor Who did NOT Save the World."[1]

Mr. Sheehan chokes on the Department of Justice's claim that the proposed "deposition would interfere with Mr. Bernanke's important duties in managing the nation's economy and fiscal policy." All by himself. Managing the economy and fiscal policy. Here's a short take on the Fed's ability to to that. Since the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the value of the dollar has declined by 95%. [2]

I'm so jaded by the avalanche of evidence of our cultural and moral decay and our complete indifference to the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution, I can't be bothered to place an exclamation point at the end of the sentence at the end of the preceding paragraph. If you had a dollar in the bank in 1913, the government stole 95 cents from your account in the intervening years.

And why is it again that we're so darn exceptional? Because we're a vigilant, independent citizenry jealous of our liberties? If the Central Nebraska Consumer Protection Product Safety Commission SWAT team (Jamaica Provisional) breaks down our door, well then, maybe . . . we'll rouse ourselves to defend our liberties.

Maybe. But certainly not before.

Me? I'm thinkin' it's way past time for a Chinese brewski.

Notes
[1] "David Boies v. Citizen Ben S. Bernanke." By Frederick J. Sheehan, Authority Contrarian, 8/1/13.
[2] "The contention that a central bank run by private banking interests would promote a safer financial system and a stable currency is laughable. The Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it have created three stock bubbles, the largest housing bubble in history, a bond bubble and the mother of all debt bubbles, while destroying 95% of the dollar’s purchasing power in the last 100 years." "Trying to Stay Sane in An Insane World – Part 2." By Jim Quinn, The Burning Platform, 8/4/13.

The Pact: A Short Story

     [History puts it beyond serious dispute that those who seek power value power above all other things. Many such cannot be satisfied by a fixed amount of power; they demand an ever-increasing sop to their world-bestriding images of themselves, no matter at whose expense it must come. Since World War II, it’s fallen to the United States to deal with such aspirants to empire...and we haven’t always done as well at it as we might.]

* * *

    The MiG-31 had launched from Klyuchi Air Base on the Kamchatka peninsula. It was equipped with range-extender tanks and two visible air-to-ground missiles. Even had it not been marked as a Russian warplane, its silhouette and radar signature would have made it plain to any interested observer.

    The observers along the Distant Early Warning line were more than merely interested. As the MiG approached the American reflex-defense zone, Elmendorf Air Base scrambled a pair of F-15E Eagles to meet it. Their orders were to warn it away from an airspace in which it was unwelcome.

    The pilot of the MiG had other ideas.

    As it approached the twelve-mile border at which the United States’ sovereignty begins, the MiG turned sharply to starboard. According to Lieutenant Colonel Donald MacDougall, the pilot of the trailing Eagle, the Russian flew tauntingly right along the border, as closely as a military-grade GPS might allow.

    The tactic is called “trailing your coat.” It’s not a military maneuver per se, but rather a statement of dominance over an international adversary. In its purest form, it involves sending an armed platform–a warship or warplane—into and through the periphery of that adversary, in demonstration of indifference to that adversary’s sovereignty and contempt for its ability to mete out punishment.

    An aggressive government will often use such a maneuver as a precursor to demands upon the adversary: for example, for trading privileges, for port accommodations, or for support in international fora. The aggressor power, having exhibited its superiority, might well threaten further and deeper incursions should its “requests” be denied. As such incidents have led to wars in several cases, it’s a tactic that’s seldom overlooked and unsafe to ignore.

    Undaunted, Colonel Tadeusz Warshovski, piloting the lead Eagle, decided to “show the Russian so-and-so a thing or two.” The consequences of his decision reinforced a pilots’ maxim of long standing: There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

    Colonel Warshovski zipped up to the invisible line in the sky, matched courses with the MiG, rolled his Eagle ninety degrees to port and held it there, showing his underside and armaments to the Russian in a counting-coup gesture possible only for an airman of the first quality. Warshovski’s ability to hold his Eagle in that posture while maintaining altitude, course, and speed was among the best-known marks of his proficiency. It was enough to cause the Russian pilot, a bare hundred feet away, to gawk in grudging admiration.

    Warshovski’s Eagle was still “riding its wing,” and the pilot of the MiG was still staring, when a pocket of turbulence seized the Russian fighter and slammed it into Warshovski’s.

    Owing to the planes’ munitions and the large quantities of unexpended fuel, the conflagration from the collision was visible for many miles. Shards from both aircraft were later found as far away as the Alaskan coast. There were no survivors.

    Such incidents, including the loss of life, were not unprecedented. Russian and American war platforms had collided several times before, though not in so dramatic a fashion. On previous occasions, the sequel had been diplomatic: cosmetically angry, though always with the fixed intention of averting war among all parties. But such a thing had never before happened on Inauguration Day.

* * *

    Stephen Graham Sumner, inaugurated the forty-seventh president of the United States only hours before, was greeted at the door to the Oval Office by the White House press secretary, the majority of his Cabinet secretaries, and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Their faces were uniformly tight with dismay.

    Sumner displayed no surprise. He waved the group inside, waited until all had found some seat or place to stand, and propped himself against the antique desk that had first graced the Oval Office during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.

    “I’d thought I would have some time to get acquainted with the place.” He grinned. “From the looks of you gentlemen, that’s not going to be the case.”

    “Mr. President,” said General Leslie Maclaurin, Army Chief of Staff and JCS Chairman, “there’s been an incident.”

    Sumner’s eyebrows went up. “Details, General?”

    “A Russian MiG-31 was trailing its coat along the twelve-mile line when it collided with an Eagle out of Elmendorf. There were no survivors.”

    “Shit.” Secretary of State Ernest Tyszczenko’s face had turned a dark red. “On Inauguration Day? This wasn’t—”

    “Of course not, Ernie,” Sumner said. “Coleman prepared the ground for this months ago. Frankly, I should have expected something of the sort.” He drew himself up, crossed his arms over his chest, and scanned the gathering. “Your assessments, gentlemen?”

    “What’s there to say, Steve?” Secretary of Defense Isaac Guillory’s casual use of Sumner’s name drew starts and stares from the others. “It’s what the Russians do. They’re perfectly confident nothing will come of it...from us, at any rate.”

    “Then why, Isaac?”

    Guillory started to reply, but Tyszczenko leaped ahead of him.

    “It’s an intimidation play, Mr. President. Ragozin has promised his insiders the recreation of the Warsaw Pact, albeit not in name. The former satellites aren’t interested, and NATO has promised to react to any overt moves toward them, so he’s trying to weaken their resolve by a display of dominance over us.” Tyszczenko shook his head. “Though I doubt he intended it to cost lives.”

    “It happened whether he intended it or not,” Air Force Chief of Staff General Louis Laperrier growled. “Warshovski was one of my best. A thirty-year man with a spotless record and a long string of walks-on-water evals.”

    “No doubt,” Guillory said with a humorless smirk, “Ragozin will say the same about the MiG pilot. So what now?”

    “We do have a couple of things Ragozin doesn’t have, Mr. President,” General Laperrier said.

    “And those are?” Sumner said.

    Laperrier smiled coldly. “Eyewitnesses and film.”

* * *

    As the video ran to its anticipated conclusion, Sumner rose from his seat and turned to the Russian ambassador.

    “Well, Ambassador, are you satisfied?”

    Maxim Lichnowsky frowned. “Entirely so, Mr. President. Your pilot performed a most hazardous stunt at extreme proximity to our aircraft, which was entirely within its rights—”

    “If you want this conversation to remain pleasant, Ambassador,” Sumner said, “you will refrain from using the word ‘rights’ when referring to the deliberately provocative maneuver of your aircraft.” His expression was unreadable. “And if we’re going to be precise in these matters, the collision occurred within America’s twelve-mile air and sea zone of jurisdiction. By seventy-eight feet.”

    “Nevertheless,” Lichnowsky pressed, “had it not been for your pilot’s—”

    “Ambassador Lichnowsky,” Sumner growled, “you’re treading on extremely dangerous ground.”

    Lichnowsky’s eyebrows rose. He fell silent.

    “The MiG wasn’t on a joyride, was it?” Sumner said. “I’d find it hard to credit, at any rate.” He circled his desk, went to the fireplace, and gazed up at the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington that had hung there for two centuries and more. “The United States doesn’t send its pilots to taunt other nations by trailing our coat along their borders. They do their proficiency flying entirely within our borders. At all other times, they’re under orders. Specific orders.”

    “A wise policy, Mr. President,” Lichnowsky allowed. He smiled nastily. “It averts the possibility of angering a stronger, more resolute power and triggering a reprisal.”

    Sumner stared at the Russian. His face lost its inscrutability as it lit with delight. He gestured to Lichnowsky to rise. The Russian ambassador did so and stood uncertainly in the middle of the Oval Office.

    “Diplomacy,” Sumner said, “has always struck me as akin to fencing.” He reached for the foil that hung below the portrait and dismounted it from its hangers. “Do you fence, Ambassador?”

    Lichnowsky’s smile darkened. “I do not, though I am familiar with the sport.”

    Sumner flexed the foil, testing its springiness, and struck a garde position. “A great deal of what a fencer must master is feints and misdirection.” He slowly moved the foil through the standard octave. “How to persuade the opponent to look elsewhere, really.” He returned to garde, moved quickly to a mid-line attack stance, and advanced toward Lichnowsky with a series of showy cuts. The Russian, seeing that the foil’s tip was unblunted, raised his hands defensively. His expression morphed toward alarm.

    “The United States has seldom played the diplomacy game as well as your nation, Ambassador.” Sumner had brought the tip of his foil within inches of the knot in Lichnowsky’s tie. He forced the Russian steadily back, oscillating the tip of the foil delicately back and forth. “We have this problem, you see. We’re habitually honest with others, even when those others have displayed no penchant for honesty themselves.” He backed Lichnowsky into the wall and laid the tip of his foil against the Russian’s chest with the greatest of delicacy. “But in the usual case, once we discover that we’ve been lied to, we cease to talk. I dare say you’d rather we kept talking, wouldn’t you, Ambassador? Considering the alternatives, that is?”

    “Yes, of course,” Lichnowsky quavered.

    Sumner smiled. “I was sure you would. So please, convey my compliments to President Ragozin and tell him I expect to see him here, in this office, no more than seven days from today.” He looked away briefly in mock surprise, as if he’d suddenly remembered something of modest importance. “Oh, and please tell him that until I have the pleasure of hosting him here, the strategic forces of the United States of America will be at DEFCON Two. Would you give him those messages for me, please?”

    “Of course, Mr. President.” Sweat from Lichnowsky’s brow dripped into his eyes. He blinked frantically. “Will that be all?”

    Sumner stepped back and raised his sword in parting salute.

    “For the present, my friend. Have a safe trip home.”

* * *

    Nikolai Stepanovich Ragozin, President of Russia, had clawed his way bloodily to the top of his government over the bodies of more adversaries than anyone could remember. He had openly proclaimed a Russian Empire Reborn, a realm to humble even what the Tsars had ruled. No one expected him to react well to Sumner’s “invitation,” nor did he. He didn’t acknowledge Sumner’s summons in any way. Fearing the possible consequences, Ambassador Lichnowsky refrained from contact with the White House.

    When seven days had elapsed, a squadron of B-52s lifted off from Edwards Air Force Base. They rendezvoused with F-15E escorts from Elmendorf over the North Pacific, flew to just outside the Russian defensive perimeter around Kamchatka Peninsula, and launched sixteen cruise missiles. Those missiles were state of the art: smarter and stealthier than any of their predecessor generations. They flew barely above sea level, completely undetected, to within a mile of Klyuchi Air Base before initiating their terminal pop-up maneuver.

    Sixteen warheads detonated at points evenly spaced along Klyuchi’s military-grade runways. The quarter ton of Octol each contained dug a broad, wide crater in the concrete, throwing chips and dust for two hundred feet in all directions. When the air had cleared, the bodies of the unfortunate collected, and the debris swept away, it became clear that the runways had been reduced to uselessness. Given the difficulties involved in getting heavy equipment and supplies to Kamchatka overland, it would be many months before another plane took off from or landed at that field.

* * *

    “Mr. President.”

    Sumner pressed the TALK key on his intercom pad. “Yes, Sally?”

    “President Ragozin of Russia is on line one. He’s very agitated and has demanded to speak with you at once.”

    Sumner nodded. “I see. Sally, I’m about to ask you to do something difficult.”

    “Anything, Mr. President.”

    “Make that two things.” Sumner grinned in anticipation. “First, I’d like you to call me Steve. I like to be on a first-name basis with the people around me. It might help to keep me from getting a swelled head. Besides, I call you by your first name, don’t I?”

    “Mr. President, that’s...going to be difficult.”

    “Well, you can’t say I didn’t warn you. But perhaps this next part will be a little easier.” Sumner took a deep breath. “Please tell President Ragozin that I’m unwilling to speak with him other than face to face here in my office. Then hang up without waiting for a reply.”

    “Mr. Pres...Steve? Are you sure about that?”

    “Perfectly, dear.”

    “As you wish, Mr....Steve.”

    Sumner sat back and chuckled to himself.

* * *

    It took the best efforts of the best men on the Presidential Detail to keep the four huge thugs accompanying the Russian president from forcing their way into the Oval Office. Nevertheless, they succeeded, albeit with much clamor and many concussive thuds of burly Russian bodies upon the anteroom carpet. When the action was over, Nikolai Stepanovich Ragozin, who had inspired mortal terror in his enemies for thirty years, stood alone before a semicircle of edgy Secret Servicemen, all of whose guns were pointed directly at his head. His retinue was uniformly down for the count.

    Senior Agent Ryan McFarlane, commander of the Detail, scanned his men, holstered his weapon and stepped forward to address the Russian. “Mr. President, the invitation was for you alone.”

    Ragozin gaped. His mouth moved, but no sound issued forth.

    The door to the Oval Office opened and Sumner stepped forth. His gaze landed immediately on Ragozin, and his face lit with pleasure.

    “Niki! At last!” He extended a hand toward the Russian, who clasped it dumbly. “You can’t imagine how much I’ve looked forward to this moment. Come,” he said, ushering Ragozin inside, “let me fix you a drink. Vodka, I assume?”

* * *

    “A long time since someone’s pointed a gun at you, eh, Niki?” Sumner set the vodka over ice before the Russian president with a flourish and seated himself on the facing sofa. “Exhilarating, eh what?”

    “My men—” Ragozin faltered.

    “They’re alive,” Sumner interjected. “Which is more than I can say for Colonel Tadeusz Warshovski and Major Franklin Oporto. Who gave the order, Niki? Was it one of your half-bright lieutenants, or did it come directly from you?”

    Ragozin merely stared at him.

    “Cat got your tongue, Niki?”

    Sumner’s repeated use of the demeaning diminutive stirred something in the Russian. He straightened and firmed visibly.

    “You killed one of my best pilots,” Ragozin growled. “You threatened my ambassador with a sword. You summoned me to this room as if I were a peasant to kneel before you.” He rose and glowered down at Sumner. “Your missiles killed twenty-three Russian workers and did billions of rubles of damage to a Russian military base. And now you hold me here like a hostage to your whims!”

    “You must understand something, Niki.” Sumner knocked back his Scotch in a single draught and set down his glass. “Ah! That hit the spot. You see, I’m not Walter Coleman. I’m not Andrew Purcell. I’m not any of their predecessors, either. In fact, I plan to make Reagan look like a pansy, at least when it comes to dealing with morons like you.” He rose from his seat and stared the Russian in the eyes. “Sit down.”

    “How dare you—”

    “I said sit down.” Sumner took two steps forward, placed a hand on the incredulous Russian’s chest, and shoved. Ragozin fell backward heavily onto the sofa, eyes wide in astonished outrage.

    “You’ll get it before you leave here, I promise you,” Sumner’s eyes had gone hard. “You’re not my equal. You’re not my partner in negotiations over matters of mutual interest. You’re a bully who seeks to prop up his regime with the riches of others. Your country is little better than a Third World satrapy. And I am not going to follow in my predecessor’s footsteps in trying to placate you. Tell me, Niki, how well do you know the history of the Soviet Union?”

    “I am...familiar with it,” Ragozin murmured.

    “Then perhaps you already know the story I’m about to tell you,” Sumner said. He resumed his seat. “It comes from the Seventies, when things were breaking loose in the Middle East and your fatherland was approaching a transition of its own.

    “It seems that, back then, Islamic terrorists preferred to ransom infidel captives rather than kill them. They took quite a number of such captives, and for a while they received a great deal of money for them. One group that had made a pile kidnapping and ransoming Westerners decided to try the game on a Soviet agent. But the KGB didn’t respond the way their Western victims’ governments had. Instead it performed a counter-kidnapping of one of the group’s members, and returned him to his confreres in pieces, in a plastic bag. There was a note on the bag, in Russian and Arabic. It said, ‘This is the way we play.’ The kidnapped Soviet agent was back with his comrades within twenty-four hours, alive and whole. No Soviet agent was molested ever again.

    “I was told that story by a marvelous campaign advisor, a young woman who knew far more about power politics than I, and probably still does. She was trying to make a point to me about my personal safety, but it was clear that there was more than one lesson to be drawn from the tale.

    “We learned from your predecessors, Niki. Unpleasant lessons, but ones we needed to absorb if we were to deal successfully with you and others like you. Some of my predecessors failed to internalize those lessons. We needed to drive them so deeply into our institutional psyche that we would act on them without hesitation, as I did the day before yesterday.

    “You and yours respect only power, Niki. Don’t bother to deny it; it’s plain from your history. You react to concessions and accommodation by pressing for more. When my nation has treated yours like honorable bargaining partners, we’ve always come away regretting it. You’ve shown no regard for the truth. You’ve taken advantage of every little chink in every deal, every word that could be interpreted to your advantage. The spirit of an agreement has never meant anything to you, only the most you could possibly squeeze out of it. You’ve cheated outright when you thought you could get away with it, and much of the time you were right.

    “I can’t bring my airmen back to life, but I can prevent a recurrence. I can teach you the lesson the KGB taught those Muslim kidnappers. Your provocations toward the United States are going to end here and now. Any further ones will be repaid tenfold, upon Russian soil, Russian assets, and the Russian people, just like the one that brought you here.

    “The forces of the United States have been at DEFCON 2 for nine consecutive days, Niki. That’s a wearying posture to hold, but I know the quality of those forces, and they’ve met my nation's needs superbly. I could give a single order and those forces would reduce Russia’s strategic force to radioactive ash, make Russia the globally irrelevant Third World country it deserves to be—and believe me, I’d very much like to give that order. So don’t test me again.

    “But I called you here for more than one reason, Niki. One was to demonstrate to you just how feeble your pretensions to empire really are. Another was to put you on notice that to the United States, you are no longer the potentate of a ‘great power’ whose whims and rages must be included in our decision making, but an enemy to be closely watched until the day your people tire of you and depose you in favor of some new tyrant. But the third reason is the most important one. We’re going to sign an agreement together.”

    “What sort of agreement?” Ragozin murmured.

    “A treaty,” Sumner said. He went to his desk and picked up a pair of stapled pages. “A treaty that makes Russia a co-guarantor of the political independence of all the nations of Eastern Europe.” He handed the papers to the Russian.

    Ragozin’s gaze fell on the pages. He read the first few lines of the top sheet, then looked away. “Why should I sign such a thing?”

    Sumner shrugged. “For one thing, you’d get to leave here when and as you choose, and with your little retinue intact. For another, I hear your people really like bread. And I’m told that they make most of it with flour milled from American wheat. You wouldn’t want them to lose access to that wheat, would you? Besides,” he said through a grin, “I have lots of cruise missiles.”

* * *

    “Did you mean it?” Adrienne Sumner said.

    “Every word. Though I must admit, the Scotch helped.” Sumner forked up the last of his broccoli in cheese sauce and savored it. “What on Earth was Bush the Elder ranting about? Broccoli is one of the few vegetables with real flavor.”

    His wife chuckled. “Stop trying to change the subject, Mr. President.”

    Sumner groaned. “Not you too, Brutus.”

    “Bruta.” Adrienne rose and started to gather up the dishes. A Navy steward appeared out of nowhere, swooped down on her, relieved her of the dishes, and vanished to whence he had come. She chuckled again and reseated herself.

    “It’s going to take me a while to get used to that.”

    “What, ten days hasn’t been enough?” Sumner grinned. “Seriously, though, we won’t be here for long, and we don’t get to keep the stewards.”

    “I know. But Steve...” Adrienne’s expression was troubled. “Didn’t you think you might be taking a big chance?”

    He started to reply, checked himself. There was a long moment of silence.

    “I suppose I tried not to think about the downside,” he said at last. “But the previous three administrations did a lot of damage to America’s international stature, and I knew that had to be set right. Ragozin made a perfect demonstrator. He’s a bully through and through. Handing him his head was the best imaginable way to tell the world that we’re not taking any more crap—from anybody.”

    He stood and surveyed the little room in which they took their meals. Like most of the rooms in the White House, it was smaller than a room of the same function in a private home. Yet it was both beautiful and calming, appointed tastefully yet without opulence, a perfect place to dine and to begin the process of decompression from a president’s working day.

    They all had the same resources with which to face down thugs like Ragozin. Why didn’t they use them?

    “This is a tough job, sweetie. But refusing to use all my tools and weapons would only make it tougher. Ragozin thought I’d be another Coleman, or maybe another Purcell. A cream puff he could chew up and spit out at his pleasure. I had to prove him wrong, so completely that he’d never even fantasize about crossing me again.” He cringed briefly. “We simply can’t afford for the wolves of the world to look at us and think ‘lunch.’ So I risked a global war...but had it come to that, my finger was already on the button. Ragozin was my prisoner, for as long as I cared to keep him that way.”

    He thrust his hands into his pockets and gazed somberly at his wife.

    “Besides, didn’t we have an agreement of our own? That if I was to take this job, I’d never back down, never compromise on what I believe is right? Don’t you believe that was on my mind at the time, along with all the other stuff?”

    Adrienne Sumner rose from the table, went to her husband, and folded his hands in hers.

    “I do, but...”

    “I know, sweetie. I was a little scared, myself. But a promise is a promise.” He smiled down at her. “I know it’s early, but would you like to make love?”

    She nodded.

==<O>==

No-Comment-Required Dept: The "Nudge Squad"

I'm sure Miss Maya Shankar is a perfectly nice young woman -- with a dollop of emphasis on young -- but I greatly doubt whether she's wise enough to cross the street without a minder. The hubris displayed in this initiative should make my case:

When does a nudge become a shove?

Americans may find out in coming years, as the federal government is setting up a 'behavioral insights team' to tinker with the way we accomplish everything from saving money and staying in school to losing weight and becoming more energy-efficient.

A document from Maya Shankar, a late-20s Yale graduate and former violin prodigy, sketches out the Obama administration's grand plans for behavioral science....

'[I]nsights from the social and behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,' says her proposal, first spotted by Fox News when Shankar sought help from a university professor....

Shankar's mandate is to reproduce a British pilot project in the U.S. Launched in 2010, it identifies and tests 'interventions' that can save the government money, and drives ordinary Britons to embrace behaviors that the government finds desirable and cost-effective.

Now the concept is poised to enter America with a formal structure consisting of a team to oversee clinical experiments to see what works and what doesn't. Shankar's memo suggests the project is already up and running.

'We are already working with over a dozen federal departments and agencies on newly-designed behavioral insights projects,' the document reads, 'including the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Veterans Administration, Department of Treasury, Social Security Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the United States Department of Agriculture.'

Shankar did not respond to a request for comment....

Utah State University economist Michael Thomas said he was 'very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies' in Washington.

'Ultimately, nudging ... assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.'

Professor Thomas's observation, while obvious, absolutely needed to be said. Add to it this observation by Glenn Beck:

"First they nudge, then they shove, then they shoot."

Why?


"The lust of government is the greatest lust." -- James Harrington

I cannot say this often enough:

Persons in "public service" have made the acquisition of power over others their highest priority.

It simply doesn't matter what they say. Neither does it matter how noble their intentions might be...as if we had some way of objectively gauging the sincerity of such things. What matters is the "lust of government:" the desire to dictate to others with coercive force at their backs.

I must concede that in recent years, the economic desirability of government jobs has risen relative to private-sector employment. All the same, the work itself must be sufficiently attractive to persuade the applicant that he can endure it...and the institutional incentives of government employment will rapidly filter out any who cannot bear to override the preferences and prerogatives of private citizens.

A Michael Bloomberg pursues his Nanny State fantasies with overt ukases. Soberly considered, that approach is preferable to covert "nudging," for two reasons:

  1. It's overt;
  2. A Bloomberg -- an elected official -- can be openly rebuffed by legislative bodies and disciplined by electoral defeat.

In contrast, Miss Shankar's notion of "nudging" Americans away from behaviors her bureaucracy would like us to avoid and toward ones she'd like us to adopt is covert. If it remains subtle, it could have severe economic effects before Americans generally were aware of what was being done to them. But worse than that, if the "nudges" should fail to produce the results a Maya Shankar seeks, it's a short step to coercive imposition: regulation, taxation, and the erection of quasi-judicial bodies with the power to haul Americans and our voluntary organizations up by the scruffs of our necks.

Do not doubt that the failure of a Shankarian "nudge" to garner the desired public "adjustments" would engender sufficient resentment to elicit a coercive response. The defining privilege of government is its pre-indemnified use of force upon its subjects. The willingness to use that privilege is an absolute requirement for entry into "public service."

Think EPA.


That the Obamunists are permitting such a development to be at all visible suggests that they no longer fear that they might evoke sufficient public outrage to expel them from power, whether electorally or by other means. It's a far darker matter than it might first appear.

Fear is a powerful motivator: it inhibits motion in the direction of the thing feared. A government that ceases to fear the displeasure of its subjects is prone to running wild. The one we suffer today has already transgressed its proper bounds in several directions. If it feels sufficiently invulnerable to begin the re-engineering of Americans -- a New Soviet Man project for the Western Hemisphere -- we cannot exclude any imaginable development from the sphere of plausibility, including the indefinite suspension of the Constitution in all particulars.

"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

We must make the State fear us once again.
There can be no further delays.
The hour has come.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Yes-Buts: How Much Good Cancels One Evil Act?

Among the persons politically reachable with logic and evidence are the "sincere yes-buts:" those who find the logic of the pro-freedom / limited government position attractive, but who have sincere, nagging concerns about particular conditions that appear (to them) to demand State intervention. It's not easy by any means, but since their concerns are focused, they can often be addressed in a focused manner.

Unfortunately for us, there's a moral conundrum to be faced, one that's especially stiff when institutions are involved, and not everyone agrees on the solution.

In an individualized context, most persons find a common way out of the maze: It doesn't matter how much "good," by anyone's standards, Smith has done; his evil acts require the application of justice. Justice requires that Smith's philanthropy, or his artistic achievements, or his inventions, or what-have-you be ignored in considering the proper penalty for his evil deeds.

Consider the recent case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the "Crips" street gang, in 1979 tried and convicted for two murders and sentenced to death. Williams claimed, with some substantiation, to have undergone a complete transformation during the 26 years of his incarceration on Death Row. He became something of a prison anti-gang evangelist, though to what ultimate effect remains a matter of dispute. Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor of California, wrote this in his review of Williams's clemency petition:

"Williams has written books that instruct readers to avoid the gang lifestyle and to stay out of prison...(h)e has also...tried to preach a message of gang avoidance and peacemaking...(i)t is hard to assess the effect of such efforts in concrete terms, but the continued pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams' message."

Schwarzenegger's ultimate decision was that whatever good Williams might have done, his murders fully demanded the penalty to which he'd been sentenced. Williams was duly executed on December 13, 2005.

If we omit the protests of those who claim that Williams was in fact innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted, and the representations of those who claim that the death penalty is inherently wrong, what skein of logic would lead to any other outcome? Had Williams written his books and undertaken his anti-gang evangelizations before committing and being convicted of first-degree murder, would the proper course have been different?

I can't see it.

Similarly, film director Roman Polanski has been convicted for the anal rape of a thirteen-year-old-girl. Those who would like to see Polanski escape the penalty for his deed cite his artistic accomplishments...but why? Can any number of well made, entertaining movies offset the violent evil deed Polanski committed? What chain of reasoning would lead to that conclusion?

Good acts, whether creative, intellectual, philanthropic, or other, are always discretionary; the avoidance of evil acts is mandatory -- and the reason for having a justice system at all.


The above discusses individuals. When we turn to the crimes of institutions, the focus becomes blurred...and the yes-buts are there to remind us.

Consider this horrifying story from the recent news:

ROCKDALE, Texas (KXAN) - A foster parent in Milam County is in jail charged with murder after the two-year-old girl she was taking care of died in her custody.

According to Rockdale police, emergency crews responded to Sherill Small's home in Rockdale when they received a 9-1-1 call on Monday evening stating that a child was not breathing and unresponsive.

The child, Alexandria Hill, was flown to Scott and White McLane Children's Hospital in Temple where she was placed on life support.

Doctors determined that Alexandria had brain hemorrhaging and retinal hemorrhaging in both eyes.

Detectives said the explanation Small, 54, gave of the child's injuries were not consistent with the nature of the injuries determined by the doctors.

The child was removed from life support on Wednesday and Small was arrested for murder the following day.

Small admitted to authorities that she threw Alexandria to the ground.

An autopsy is being performed by the Dallas County Medical Examiner's Office to determine the child's official cause of death.

None of this would have happened, were it not for the intervention by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services:

Alexandria was taken from her Williamson County home and placed into Small's foster home in January; according to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service (TDFPS), Small was a licensed foster parent through Texas Mentor.

"She was placed into foster care for neglectful supervision because her mother and I smoked pot at the time," explained [Alexandria's father Joshua] Hill.

According to court records, Alexandria's mother had a medical condition that does not allow for the child to be left alone with her. The TDFPS also received allegations that Hill used marijuana on a regular basis and on one occasion Hill almost dropped Alexandria while going down the stairs of the home as he was trying to hand the child to his sister.

During the month of November, Alexandria was being cared for by her paternal grandmother before the State intervened on Nov. 26.

The TDFPS concluded that "Through the assessment of the Department and family members of the parents, it appears the parents have limited parenting skills and need to develop their understanding of being protective of their child. Until these services are offered, the Department does not feel either parent can be the sole caregiver for the child."

The article says nothing about why Alexandria's grandmother was deemed unsuitable as a custodian for Alexandria.

Residential Child Care Licensing is investigating the foster home and the agency, Texas Mentor.

"We rely on the child placing agencies to do their due diligence in doing background checks and home studies and training for potential foster parents," explained Julie Moody with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service. "There was one allegation of a previous foster child in her care that had bruising and lead poisoning, but no deficiencies were found."

According to State records, during the last two year Texas Mentor has 15 deficiencies ranging from lack of updated background checks to leaving children unattended for extended periods of time.

[Thanks to Vox Popoli for the citation.]

A government agency with unbounded coercive powers it uses to part children from their parents brought about the death of a two-year-old girl.

Can any amount of "good" offset the evil that was done in the above case?

The "yes-buts" will argue that such an institution is necessary, as are its coercive powers. There are too many neglectful and abusive parents, they will say. There are too many children suffering too many evils to allow private arrangements as the be-all and end-all. Besides, the argument will continue, it's the individuals responsible for this atrocity we should pursue, not the institution itself. The institution is concerned with the well-being of children, and nothing else.

Ponder those arguments for awhile. How would you evaluate them? If you find them specious, how would you respond?


Over time, government agencies become adept at averting the odium for bad results and for bad secondary consequences of their operations. Such maneuverings sometimes involve choosing a "sacrificial lamb" upon whom all the blame for a tragedy will fall. However, an agency of some duration will have learned to minimize such occasions: even when it's plausible to isolate all fault onto a single individual, to accept blame at all negatively affects the agency's prospects for increased power and funding.

In summary, government agencies are efficient machines for thwarting justice -- justice as you and I understand it, Gentle Reader. Since unjust acts will always conduce to someone's benefit, for a government agency to exist at all guarantees that over time, the "good work" it was ostensibly formed to do will dwindle, while its failures and depredations increase.

Quite a lot of "yes-buts" will fail to grasp the logic...until they confront a case like the murder of Alexandria Hill.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Has This Person Read The Constitution?

If he hasn't, what is he doing in Congress?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) told a gathering of Democrats, "The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it."

Ellison was discussing his 'Inclusive Prosperity Act' measure at the July 25th Progressive Democrats of America roundtable in Washington.

"People like, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sax, Dean Baker, Robert Poland, Larry Summers have said they all support a transaction tax," Ellison said.

"The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it," Ellison continued, "The government has a right, the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing – all these things." [Emphasis added]

Keith Ellison (D, MN) isn't just any old Congressvermin, of course; he's also one of the two professing Muslims sitting in the House of Representatives. From that fact we can reliably infer all sorts of things about his intentions for these United States...foremost among them, as the Koran demands, that its Supreme Law shall no longer be the Constitution but Islamic shari'a.

But let me return to my main point. I emphasized a phrase in Ellison's lunacy for a specific reason. Perhaps you already know what it is. But if you don't, answer me this:

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that "the government" has any rights?


The Founding Fathers understood rights. They knew them to be counter-propositions to the use of force, which is the characteristic method of the State. That's why they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: to make clear that individuals' rights should be secure against government's forcible intrusions and infringements.

Congress's legislative powers were explicitly stated as protection for individual rights.
The powers of the other two branches were made explicit for the same reason.
Every clause of the Bill of Rights speaks of individual rights.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments say plainly that the powers of the federal government are strictly limited. By contrast, the rights of individuals are not.

Needless to say, "progressives" reject all of that. Nancy Pelosi, one of the darlings of the Left on Capitol Hill, said openly that she believes that the "necessary and proper" clause grants Congress unbounded power to legislate on any subject, and to any effect, whatsoever. But it took Keith Ellison, who might be the least skillful dissembler in Congress, to claim that "the government has a right" -- an unlimited right -- to your money and property.

The taxing power isn't enough for this clown. But then, he's just developing a line of thought introduced long before him. Some years ago, the Dishonorable Barbara Mikulski (D, MD) openly stated her own version of Sutton's Law. In raving about Congress's need for more revenue, she noted that the middle class was "where the money is," and that Congress should simply "go in there and get it."

It wasn't original with Mikulski, either. It's a prime tenet of all collectivist notions that the State owns everything, just like an absolute monarch. The State merely permits us groundlings to retain a fraction of our earnings out of "legislative grace."

That phrase "legislative grace" appears in some rather important Supreme Court decisions about the extent of Congress's taxing powers under the Sixteenth Amendment. When the question was put before the Court whether there is any limit on how high income tax rates could be set, the majority decision was that no such limit exists -- that whatever percentage of one's income Congress allows one to retain is an act of "legislative grace."

And you thought you had property rights.


Nothing on Earth is quite as certain as the voracity of the State. It wants everything. It will take whatever isn't nailed down. If it can, it will pry the nails loose and steal them as well. Frederick Douglass pinned this some years ago:

Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they have been resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

The time has come to deny the State its pretensions to legitimacy. The "progressives" will eventually get the upper hand once again -- indeed, the whole point of the Obama Administration's expansions of government is to bring that about and make it irreversible -- and now that their intentions are out in the open, they will act on them.

As difficult as the first step will be:

Simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all the libertarian attitudes will fall automatically into place. [Murray Rothbard, For A New Liberty]

...it's only the first step.

Are you ready for the ones that would follow?

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Sunday Sadness

I really have to stop reading National Review Online. It no longer stands for anything wholesome, or genuinely conservative. Even its leading lights run from demonstrated, well confirmed facts in fear for their reputations -- their reputations, that is, among slanderers, antisocials, and rabble-rousers.

Have a gander at this deplorable passage from a piece by Victor Davis Hanson, written in reply to an attack by some scrofulous clown at the New Yorker:

Pace Sanneh, I did not have to mention John Derbyshire’s essay on race, because long ago I had already objected to it.

Any sober reader can see why I did, and why Derbyshire’s essay was far different from my own: I do not share, inter alia, his thoughts on the relationships between race and IQ and the suggestions of genetic inferiority, and on more than one occasion I objected to his blanket generalizing about all African-Americans. As I wrote of Derbyshire’s essay: “As for Mr. Derbyshire, he surely must have known that what he wrote was way over the line, and, besides, did not follow his own usually rigorous standards of statistical logic. He knows that purported IQ per se is not necessarily proof of competency; if it were, the stellar Steven Chu would be a great cabinet secretary rather than on his way to be the James Watt or Earl Butz of our age. And if crime rates for young, black urban males prove disproportionately high, why would one use them as probable cause not to lend assistance to blacks in general when stuck on the side of the road? That it is statistically iffy to walk alone in downtown Detroit at night is certainly no reason to pass by a black person on the road in dire need of assistance, given the vast majority of blacks are not urban/young/male/with criminal records, and to treat them as if they all were by virtue of their shared race seems not merely wrong and racist, but, to someone of Mr. Derbyshire’s intellect, statistically illogical.”

Until today, I hadn't read Hanson's "objections" to Derbyshire's now famous piece: "The Talk: Nonblack Version." Nevertheless, I think I qualify as a "sober reader," and I found nothing of substance to object to in Derbyshire's piece. All of it was founded on established statistics and observable phenomena.

In particular, it's clear from the above passage that Hanson, for all his achievements in his own field, is no statistician.

When conscription was imposed upon the nation for the purposes of World War I, persons of Ashkenazi Jewish descent -- i.e., Jews from Eastern Europe -- measured statistically well below other Americans on IQ tests. That difference in the means was reversed within two generations. It might yet come to pass that American blacks achieve similar gains. Nevertheless, the current facts are as Derbyshire has stated them.

Hanson tosses up an egregious straw man in supposed refutation of Derbyshire:

[Derbyshire] knows that purported IQ per se is not necessarily proof of competency; if it were, the stellar Steven Chu would be a great cabinet secretary rather than on his way to be the James Watt or Earl Butz of our age.

No, IQ does not correlate 100% with one's academic or professional altitude -- at any point in life. But statistically, it correlates strongly with success in the "symbolic occupations," whose practitioners deal principally with abstractions rather than with raw materials or subassemblies. Concerning Steven Chu, the man's problem isn't his intellect, but rather his assumptions, priorities, and prejudices. No amount of raw intelligence will get you anywhere good if your premises are mistaken and you're averse to questioning or correcting them.

Hanson is also afflicted with a version of "the knowledge problem." Specifically, he dismisses the costs and risks involved in learning more than one already knows, on the chance that the added information might alter his decision making. Yes, yes, yes: "the vast majority of blacks are not urban/young/male/with criminal records." But how is one to know this as one passes a "black motorist in distress" at highway speed? Atop that, how many of us, black, white, red, or yellow, in this era of the ubiquitous cell phone would be incapable of summoning professional assistance in such circumstances? Surely it's a very low figure, so why take an unnecessary risk? Especially given recent, well documented incidents of black violence against white motorists?

In a crowning irony, the bulk of Hanson's piece attempts to defend Hanson's own factual observations and statistical citations against Kelefa Sanneh's imputations. But then, Hanson is the one Sanneh has most recently called a racist; Derbyshire, his reputation irretrievably blackened by National Review Online among others, isn't much concerned with such accusations these days.

It is appropriate to end this brief, sad piece with an observation from Sir Harold Bowden: "Facts that are not frankly faced have a habit of stabbing us in the back." Victor Davis Hanson, a historian by trade, has no excuse for not knowing that.

Recklessness without cost.

The Late Man, according to [Oswald] Spengler, acts like a mouse-sized, self-adulating simulacrum of the god whose existence he dogmatically denies but whose role of unmoved mover he wants to assume. Guided by his theories, the Late Man, as liberal-socialist, tinkers persistently with the social and moral universes, while granting no possibility of unforeseen or untoward consequence in respect of his agenda. The Late Man, with his contempt for the past and his narcissism, cannot acknowledge that anything inherited, whether custom or institution, has ever justified its function.[1]

This isn't new. The ancients knew all about hubris. Icarus is the template. More than ever before simpletons, thugs, naifs, connivers, and liars now have income, leisure, a megaphone for their views, and, of course, access to the ballot and the public treasury.

Folly unleashed.

I recently had occasion to mention the medieval Church to a new but elderly acquaintance. Her immediate reaction, and I do mean immediate, was that it "did a lot of bad things." She had a professed interest in theology but had blithely cast off from 2,000+ years of effort to establish workable moral and theological ideas to guide imperfect humans.

She's not an opinion leader herself but she and millions like her enable this deadly toying with our civilization.

Notes
[1] "Oswald Spengler On Democracy, Equality, And 'Historylessness'." By Thomas F. Bertonneau, The Brussels Journal, 5/31/13 (emphasis added).

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Religious Tests?

It's not that long ago that I repeated, for the uncountableth time, that all knowledge propositions fall into one of three categories:

  • Mathematics: In principle provable or disprovable.
  • Science: Only disprovable.
  • Religion: Neither provable nor disprovable.

Anyone who takes a serious interest in religion, or in propositions about religion, or in the history of religions and religious affiliation, must accept ab initio that he's dealing with propositions for which neither proof nor disproof is available -- ever. That postulate imposes some strict rules upon his undertaking:

  • He is forbidden ever to advance a religious proposition as a matter of incontestable fact.
  • He is forbidden to characterize a religious proposition as "unreasonable" or "debunked."
  • He is forbidden to exalt himself over others, by word or deed, whose religious convictions differ with his.

(Of course, in enumerating those rules, I've leaned heavily upon my partition of the categories, which some persons would reject. That doesn't trouble me; all such objectors are either idiots or aspiring tyrants. Bear with me; we'll get to that.)

Consider, for example, a test proposition about the death of a religious figure. If that death was witnessed, and the witnesses can be certified as both honest and not deluded, the contention about the death is a statement of fact. It is not a proposition about knowledge; a knowledge proposition is a statement of implication, most commonly about cause and effect. But the manner of that death and what it implies might qualify: for example, the proposition that since Jesus of Nazareth was returned to life three days after His Crucifixion, He therefore possessed the authority to proclaim His New Covenant for Mankind.

Note well: Christ's death and His Resurrection could have been closely and unimpeachably witnessed, beyond all possibility of doubt, yet the proposition that He is therefore the Son of God with Divine Authority would remain neither provable nor disprovable. There is no clear chain of reasoning from the fact to the implication that can be either established as logically and empirically sound, or refuted on the basis of bad logic or faulty evidence.

Therefore, no matter how passionately we Christians believe in the Divinity of Christ, our convictions fail to provide a basis for demanding that those who dissent must admit to error, or to submit to us in any other way. Similar proclamations about the Authority of this or that figure -- Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius -- being neither provable nor disprovable, are equally incapable of compelling agreement or submission from those who disagree.

Keep all that in mind while I fetch some decaf.


Some of the most brutal events in Mankind's long and bloody history were propelled by religious propositions advanced as if they were incontestably factual. The usual citations begin with the Spanish Inquisition, beyond all question a terrible, criminal undertaking. But far more blood has been shed by Muslims' military sallies at compelling the whole world to submit to Islam. Those slaughters continue today; indeed, they might have reached their apex in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century.

Islam, alone among the world's major religions, teaches that it is Muslims' right and duty to spread their faith "by the sword." Don't bother to cite me the superseded "Meccan" Koran verses about tolerance of others' beliefs; all of them, under the Islamic doctrine of naskh (abrogation) have been nullified by the later, Medinan verses that exhort the believer to use any and all means, including force and fraud, to impose Islam upon the whole world. This proposition makes Islam a totalitarian scheme founded upon a religious proposition -- i.e., the proposition that Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah, possessed divine authority to promulgate Islam and its dictates, and that that authority included the sanctification of deeds by Muslims that would be condemned as criminal if performed by a member of any other faith.

That religious proposition, like all others, can neither be proved nor disproved. Yet in Islamic theology it is considered impermissible for anyone to question the divine origin of the Koran or the absoluteness of any of its decrees. Those things are advanced as incontestable facts, along with all their moral and ethical implications.

Which should help to explain the following.


Recently, Fox News's Lauren Green interviewed Reza Azlan about his recent book on Christianity:

Lauren Green is probably the last of the religion correspondents in the news media. Religion is now taboo unless you are a Muslim.

After Green interviewed Azlan, the liberal media went on a Green-bashing tirade that is growing legs. It should prove another worthless distraction from the Obama scandals and the economy.

One of the obvious and harmless questions she asked of the author [Azlan] was:

“Now, I want to clarify: You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”

Azlan’s response was condescending and obnoxious but that seems to have escaped the left’s notice....

Among the accusations made by Azlan in his book are that Jesus Christ is not the son of God and the Crucifixion was the result of Jesus Christ’s attempts to foment violence. Azlan said ‘what a trouble maker he [Christ] must have been’ to have been crucified; crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists, he said.

Azlan also wrote that the historical Christ and the Catholic Church’s mythical Christ are nothing alike.

No one cares that those statements by Azlan are very insulting to Christians. They only care that he was asked questions about the book.

Azlan also claimed his research was based on 1,000 books. Really? Seriously? I want the bibliography.

This issue brings up serious First Amendment issues. Does a journalist have the First Amendment right to free speech any longer? Green’s real crime was asking a Muslim why he wrote a Christ-bashing book which Azlan condescendingly claimed is not what it obviously is.

We can omit consideration of the left-wing media's attacks on Miss Green. They seize on every pretext, however flimsy, to mount such attacks. What's more significant here is that Azlan claimed to have been insulted -- at close to a mortal level of offense -- for Green's having challenged his authority, however indirectly, to make the Christ-denigrating statements in his book.

Azlan is merely adhering to one of the ethical precepts of Islam: No matter who does so, to question Islam or any of its dictates is blasphemy against Islam, which is a crime deserving of the severest imaginable punishment.

Naturally Azlan and Islam refrain from granting Christianity and Judaism the same degree of authority; as all the execrable "Highlander" movies say, "there can be only one."

We're not talking about something that happened centuries ago. We're talking about the present-day contentions of Islam's imams, its mullahs, its ayatollahs, and its muftis. Every last authority in the Islamic world maintains that Islam is incontestably true, suffused with Divine Authority, and entirely within its rights to subjugate the whole world by force, fraud, or whatever other means come to hand. Azlan is merely conducting himself in accordance with those preachments. No one who accepts Islam can publicly argue otherwise without fearing for his life.

What other scheme of thought or belief claims such latitude...such altitude above the ethical precepts that bind the rest of us?


It is true, and well verified historically, that various powers and populations of self-nominated Christians have also used force against unbelievers and "blasphemers." The last of those crimes occurred in the Sixteenth Century. Note that I call the perpetrators "self-nominated Christians:" Every last one of them violated the explicit teachings of Christ himself:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [The Gospel According to Matthew, 5:43-48]

To use force to impose the Gospels upon anyone, for whatever reason, is the most blatant violation of that teaching anyone could possibly devise.

Christians have learned better, but then, it's one of our precepts that Man is "fallen," and therefore must rise above his natural, sinful state. Muslims, clearly, have not: They persist in maintaining that it is their right and duty to put "the black flag of Islam" over every nation on Earth, by whatever means come to hand. Not all take an active hand in that effort, to be sure, but rare is the professing Muslim who willingly says that he believes otherwise. Indeed, it is Islam's "religious test" for authority of any sort, from the lowest degree to the highest, that the wielder must be a Muslim.

That representation is so clearly vile, so clearly premised upon a religious conjecture about the will of God, that it can only be maintained by force -- including the heaping of denunciations and vilifications upon anyone, of any faith whatsoever, who dares to question it.

Which is why I advocate the swift expulsion of all professing Muslims from these United States, and the immediate closure of our borders to any others, including the ambassadors of Islamic states. We Christians might be enjoined to love them, but for the sake of our societies we must contrive to do so at a distance -- and the greater that distance, the better.

Friday, August 2, 2013

Short course on Marxism.

During the first stage of his intellectual rebellion, [Polish intellectual Leszek] Kolakowski relied on Karl Marx’s early philosophical writings. Later, he moved away from Marxism altogether. He saw Marxism as a sophisticated rationalization of social and political resentment, a gigantic, cosmic fantasy of redemption bound to beget new forms of slavery. One of the most impressive essays included in the anthology [Is God Happy? Selected Essays] deals with the Marxist roots of Stalinism. Many on the Left were (and still are) ready to accept the Leninist heredity of Stalinism, yet they found unacceptable connecting the advent of the Bolshevik dystopia to the ideas of Karl Marx. Kolakowski was suspicious of any mechanical determinism, not only in political history, but also in the history of ideas. He did not claim that Marxism did inevitably bequeath totalitarian hubris. But he found in the Marxist dream of complete unity, in the repudiation of pluralism, the premise for the authoritarian experiments that followed. Leninist neo-Jacobin absolutism was rooted, in Kolakowski’s interpretation, in the absolute rejection of the rule of law and the demonization of private property.[1]
Gigantic cosmic fantasy seems strong but it, Marxism, has been a something that has gripped the minds of many otherwise intelligent people who abased themselves in the service of a pathetic revolt against poverty, inequality, downright meanness, or, more to the point, some transient, unchangeable, or inconsequential facet of life common in any age on this planet. Squire Wright better off than you? More influence? More privilege? Why, then. Time for a complete makeover of society. Wife have an irritating laugh? Cheeky kids? Get rid of them. Out and away!

Countless millions have lost their lives in the service of totalitarian regimes, no small number of which murdered and enslaved millions upon millions of their own citizens as a direct result of deliberate state policy devised by thugs and hideous sociopaths handed power to commit great crimes by intellectuals, journalists, artists, operatives and citizens joyfully carrying the banner of Marxist "liberation." An expensive and bloody "liberation" if ever there was one.

Kolakowski, the later philosopher of the Polish Solidarity movement, may not have believed that Marxism inevitably led to totalitarian hubris but that has certainly been the way to bet in light of the slaughter of the last century. Considering how limited government has been destroyed by all manner of constitutional subversion, one can only ponder how a supposedly sovereign people in the home of the brave and the land of the free – with the absolute ultimate of constitutional protections and independent courts with centuries of law protecting individual rights to call upon – could so easily have been head faked and neutered.

Their metrosexual, globalist, secular, historically-ignorant, power-loving, contemptuous, educated elites grasped at globalist mist, embraced scientific and economic flapdoodle, and stole their liberties and it all went down with hardly a whimper of protest. See any unruly street protests ever? God bless Glenn Beck for his work in highlighting the progressive's hate for normal America but he could only organize polite tapioca nothing gatherings centered on "restoring honor." It fires the blood.

Kolakowski was overly generous in thinking that totalitarianism was not the inevitable result of Marxist practice, though I doubt the sum of the man was as naive as that. The piecemeal drift to statist gluttony is unstoppable even without an overt Marxist rationale. Mindless Western populations have loved every step taken in the direction of evisceration of their liberties and in the pursuit of statist fiscal and economic madness.

Perhaps there is some tectonic political interface that is about to shift and restore constitutional government and forever bring to an end the adulation of parasites and revolutionaries (seething with hatred for nature and nature's God), but I don't see it. The re-election of Barack Hussein Obama – the very name of the man alone stuns anyone whose mind is not addled – is a simple but clear indication of the current mile marker on the road to anarchy and tyranny. Considering the disdain the person has for his supposedly native country ("God damn America! God damn America!") and his far-left, terrorist connections, it's a high number indeed.

Pretty much, you can put a fork in the American Republic of old. It had few protectors and the educated classes slobbered over every subversion of it.

Notes
[1] "Why Kolakowski Matters." By Vladimir Tismaneanu, FrontPageMagazine.com, 7/19/13.

A Day On The Road

Forgive me, Gentle Readers. I'm headed out of town in less than an hour and won't have time for a new post today. However, I find myself in an exceptionally good mood, and I want to leave you with something, so have an old favorite of mine from the early days of Eternity Road.


Totalities

As with most wage earners, my early-morning routine is essentially invariant: get up, get clean, feed the livestock, gulp down some coffee, and drive to work. It's so regular that I sometimes wonder if I'm awake when I do it. My conscious record of the day's events doesn't really start until I'm ensconced in my office and pounding away at the keys.

Now and then, I do wake up...if what I'm about to describe isn't in some larger sense a kind of dream.

I'd had an unusually good night's sleep, and woke free from the usual complaints of an aging male body. The morning routine proceeded smoothly, with no hassles. I packed my lunch and other impedimenta, kissed the C.S.O., and got into Chrissy the Chrysler feeling as good and relaxed as a middle-aged man can feel on a Thursday morning. Out of the garage, onto the road, and light the afterburners: the workday looms ahead.

There's a flat, straight stretch of divided highway, starting not far from my house, which is part of my commuting route. Long Island being the traffic nightmare that it is, even at the early hour at which I travel (5:30 AM), that road is usually quite full. Hundreds of cars go clipping along at 65 MPH while their drivers attend to such last-minute needs as shaving, toothbrushing, or checking their investments in the Wall Street Journal.

Not today. By some coincidence, everyone in the area slept late this morning, except for your humble Curmudgeon.

There was no one else on the road. The darkness was a blanket of peace. By another coincidence, the road had been resurfaced only a few days before; the humming of the tires against the asphalt was a perfect, smooth hum, a single low cello note played by a bow of infinite length. I was doing what I was meant to do, in an appliance perfectly mated to its application, under conditions that could not have been better.

I broke free of time.

What meaning has time, when all is exactly as it should be? What function has the time-binding element in human consciousness, when there's nothing to think about, worry over, or work on? At such a moment, those things, seemingly an inseparable component of Man's earthly experience, cease to trouble us. For that brief space, they are not.

Where do they go? No one can say. But go they do.

It didn't last long. How could it? Eventually, I encountered traffic lights, and other drivers, and ultimately, my destination. But it was real: a moment clipped free of the bondage of time and stretched out to eternity.

A moment of bliss on Eternity Road.


If you've ever had such a moment, no doubt its character has posed you some problems in recollection. It's an unnatural state for human consciousness. Our dominant mental mode is time-bound: memory, prognostication, and cause-and-effect reasoning. One cannot apply that mode to an experience that utterly omits the time element from its matrix. Such a moment will remain forever opaque to our understanding.

Yet it was real. It had its own character, distinct from the sequential progression of the instants we experience in normal reality. It left traces in my psyche that I can still feel. In some ineffable sense, I remember it, though describing it seems impossible and I could not recreate it by any purposive means.

Do all persons have such experiences? What do they mean? Is it even fair to ask if they have a meaning?

Under that cloak of timelessness, do we devolve to some lower, animal-like state from which Reason must win free, or do we approach a higher one, in which all things are complete, all knowledge is known, and eternity is revealed as a single event?

Only one thing about it is certain: it is good. That's not a conclusion drawn from any rational evaluative process, but a direct perception of quality, a news flash hot off the nerve wires. In all other ways, it teases at our reason, being the very antithesis of the faculty that strains to encompass it.


It is good, but it is not a good. It cannot be grown, mined, manufactured, or hunted down. It comes on its own schedule, and its own terms.

It's a brief immersion in totality.

M. Scott Peck observed in his book The Road Less Traveled that the experience of reality as a oneness is the goal of all mystical and spiritual yearning. This corresponds exactly to the obliteration of time. But if such an experience is beyond our powers to produce by conscious effort, then what is its genesis? Is it coincidental, a product of the fortuitous collision of just the right temporal elements at just the right moment? Is it entirely subjective, a matter of possessing a particular mental state independent of one's objective circumstances? Or is it a teaser? A foretaste of the totality to come when we have at last shuffled off this mortal coil?

When You and I behind the Veil are past,
Oh, but the long, long while the World shall last,
Which of our Coming and Departure heeds
As the Sea's self should heed a pebble-cast.

A Moment's Halt -- a momentary taste
Of Being, the Well Amid the Waste --
And Lo! -- the phantom Caravan has reach'd
The Nothing it set out from -- Oh, make haste!


From here on out it will be an ordinary Thursday, I'm sure. I have meetings to attend, memos to write, and assorted persons to wheedle and cajole. If I'm lucky, I might even get to write a little code; it's a blessing I don't often have in these latter years. But however the trials and travails of today or tomorrow might eventuate, I have my gift from this morning: one instant of timeless perfection, when all was exactly as it should be. I shall savor that gift for as long as I may.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow.


And may God bless and keep you all.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Long Game

I had another topic to write about this morning until a conversation with the CSO -- for those of you unfamiliar with that designation, it refers to my beloved wife Beth -- got me thinking about time horizons: specifically, their overwhelming importance to human thought and social structures.

Beth and I were exchanging observations, drawn from our divergent paths through life and commerce, about the shortsightedness of so much managerial thinking. The problem appears to be worst in the middle layers of management: above the front-line supervisors but below the corporate officers. If you've got a boatload of similar stories to tell, Gentle Reader, rest assured that you're not alone; virtually everyone I've ever chatted with about management practices and pitfalls could say the same. More, the perils are just as much moral and ethical as they are pecuniary. I once wrote in a short story that:

    Everyone who ever works for a sizable company eventually faces an ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemmas are created by middle managers; a company whose top bosses were in direct contact with the peones and knew what they were doing could never have one.
    There’s really only one ethical dilemma for an employee: a middle manager tempts you to suppress something you know you ought to broadcast. He’s invariably trying to advance at the expense of his equals in the organization. Deny him, and he’ll vow revenge. Accede to him, and he’ll own your soul.

Yet shortsightedness in the private sector is as nothing compared to the phenomenon in government and government-affiliated institutions.


Government is inherently a parasite upon the private efforts and enterprises of ordinary persons and their voluntary associations. To function, it must draw sustenance from the private sector: in the usual case, through taxation backed by the threat of punishment for noncompliance. (The phrase "voluntary compliance" has always made me want to lock, load, and draw a bead on the utterer.) This is so obvious that it embarrasses me somewhat to state it explicitly...yet persons in government, far more often than not, behave as if it were not so.

A successful parasite, bred for the optimal exploitation of its host and habitat, must contrive to keep the host alive and well. It must function, if not symbiotically, at the very least non-destructively toward its host. This, too, should be utterly obvious, for if the host dies, the parasite will need a new host if it's not to die shortly thereafter. Parasites that "rape" their hosts rely upon a huge supply of nearby, easily exploitable alternate hosts...a strategy that works only until the ratio of parasites to hosts reaches 1:1.

One government: one jurisdiction. The government that rapes its jurisdiction has nowhere to go for a new host...so why do nearly all governments do it?

You know as well as I.


If we confine the discussion to politicians in elected office, our focus can be made painfully sharp. Such persons must forever concentrate on their electoral health: i.e., their prospects for being returned to their seats at the next election. That compels them to "serve their constituencies," which usually means attempting to rape the larger polity for swag to be distributed to "the folks at home." (We shall pass in silence over the irony implicit in that phrase.)

In a system such as ours, only two elected officials have any reason to regard the entire nation as their constituency. In these latter days of the Republic That Was, even the president feels compelled to serve a partial constituency: first for his shot at a second term; later for the health and future prospects of his party, whose viability rests on a regionalized "base." So even he is not immune to the pressure to pander, which recent developments should make quite clear.

The original design, wherein popular votes only elected the members of the House of Representatives, was an attempt to prevent the emergence of politically powerful factions, in which category the Founding Fathers included political parties of the sort we suffer today. Madison and the rest understood that factions give rise to squabbles and pandering. Those were among "the dangers of democracy" they were determined to avert.

Politicians being what they are, from the earliest they strove mightily to "correct" that aspect of the Constitution. The effort culminated with the Seventeenth Amendment. After that, parties, factions, and pandering became the Unwritten Supreme Law of the Land, trumping even the Constitution's clear constraints on the scope of the federal government.

The contraction of the politician's time horizon was completed.


"As above, so below," say the ceremonial magicians. As power has been sucked out of the county, municipal, and state governments and into Washington, those smaller governments have reproduced the predatory patterns above them, in service to the careerism of those at their helms. And so we have come to a point where everyone, at every level of government, is playing beggar-thy-neighbor in service to his own aims. "An honest politician is one who stays bought," runs the cant cynicism. The notion that there might be honest men somewhere in the corridors of power is sneered away far more often than not.

And why not? Haven't the 88,000 governments of these United States made it quite plain that they're "in business for themselves" -- ? Haven't the discrepancies between promise and performance made it plain that they're not to be trusted -- that they'll say anything to gain the support of 50%-plus-1, but having done so will do whatever is in their electoral interests? It's simple good sense that when a seemingly good and principled man, a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz, appears on the scene, our first impulse should be to ask "What's he hiding from us? What's his real agenda?"

They all face the same political dynamic, and the same schedule of elections -- and most would rather roast in the fires of Hell than lose the positions they fought and pandered so hard to attain.


Many years ago, G. Harry Stine, then the editor of Analog magazine, wrote a brilliantly perceptive article in which he noted that "you can get away with anything," provided you can change The System swiftly enough to prevent it from recognizing and penalizing your transgression. This observation, as blindingly pure as it is critical, vaults us from the "short game" of electoral viability to the "long game," played for the ultimate political stakes: power made permanent.

Consider the late Hugo Chavez as a case for study. Chavez rose to power over Venezuela through relatively ordinary electoral processes. Once installed, he immediately began to alter Venezuela's political and economic infrastructure, every move aimed at solidifying his grip on power and weakening or destroying any forces that might rise to oppose him. When all was accomplished, Chavez had become The System: the law was what he said it was, and no one entertained any serious notions about displacing him from hegemony.

Franklin D. Roosevelt did much the same, albeit behind a better facade of "public service."

Just now, Barack Hussein Obama and the machine that raised him to the presidency are maneuvering toward a similar bloodless coup. Some fear that Obama, the quintessential self-worshipping malignant narcissist, might attempt to set aside the term limits imposed by the Twenty-Second Amendment, on the grounds that the nation's "ongoing economic crisis" demands continuity in the White House. Even without that prospect, the Obama regime's many moves have all squinted toward permanent power for the Democrats: by creating an ever-larger population eager for Washington to redistribute the earnings of producers into the pockets of loyal Democrat voters; and by weakening and vilifying those forces that might rise to thwart that outcome.

Obama's partisans on Capitol Hill are all aligned behind those efforts, few of them unwillingly. They're aware, one and all, that their futures are indissolubly tied to the overall program...and that the Obamunists would happily destroy any of them for daring to diverge from it. Those who realize they'll never move to the front of the pack can nevertheless aspire to a place of safety and privilege in the nomenklatura to come.

Which is why I don't laugh at the sight of a "Hillary Clinton / Michelle Obama 2016" bumper sticker.


Ultimately, the thing must crash. The State has developed so great an appetite for the wealth and freedom of its host that the host will soon cease to struggle for life. For a short time thereafter, the United States will most resemble the terminal stages of the nation portrayed in Atlas Shrugged: It will be hagridden by openly thuggish rulers, beneath which will swarm a second tier of parasites:

These were the men whom official speeches described as "the progressive businessmen of our dynamic age," but whom people called "the pull peddlers"—the species included many breeds, those of "transportation pull," and of "steel pull" and "oil pull" and "wage-raise pull" and "suspended sentence pull"—men who were dynamic, who kept darting all over the country while no one else could move, men who were active and mindless, active, not like animals, but like that which breeds, feeds and moves upon the stillness of a corpse.

Their long game is our death sentence.
The time has come to fight.
Are you ready?