Author: VD

John Derbyshire blows away Creepy McCrypto:

Piling on is a thing I hate to do, and Ms. Miers is obviously a pleasant, useful, hard-working & harmless person who’s been put in an impossible position by GWB’s blundering. But reading her thoughts, messages & speeches is dismaying. I mean, the sheer, dreary, numbing m–e–d–i–o–c–r–i–t–y of them.

This is a person who never had an original or interesting thought in her life. Reading Miers is like suffocating under a mountain of polystyrene packing blobbles. What on earth does it say about the President that, knowing as he must have how completely and irredeemably second-rate she is, he would put her name forward?

The world, certainly in places like the Supreme Court, is a never-ending war of ideas. To ask which side of this war Ms. Miers would fight on is pointless. She doesn’t know the war is under way; and if she knew, she’d probably think it could easily be brought to an end if we’d all just be nicer to each other.

This is a terrible, awful blunder by George W. Bush.

The latest in a long and distinguished line. I know second terms are traditionally disasters, but Dear Leader’s is really turning out to be a humdinger. At this rate, I’ll be surprised if he makes it to 2008 without stepping down.

It’s like watching the second coming of Richard Nixon.

Cedarford plays the weak sister’s advocate:

1. Marxist labor theory – VDs point is only true if you look at classic Marxism and believe no thinking on the subject has occured in the last 125 years. For we all know that CEOs will rip off the value of worker productivity as much as possible and seek to devalue labor as much as possible by use of illegal labor and wiping out debts owed to labor through planned bankruptcies. In Latin America, today, we are seeing the collapse of Crony Capitalism after it’s failure there – and it’s replacement by socialist, even quasi-marxist governments.

From whence comes value? If value does not come from labor, (as is increasingly obvious to all and admitted by most economists), then on what grounds does the Marxian -note the term, it reflects an awareness of post-Marxist thought- defend forced distribution? Turning more central power over to a state already demonstrably willing to engage in crony capitalism is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

2. VD kills me with his insistence that “because the outcome of the war was certain” internment or relocation was wrong because the dependents of enemy nationals lost a few “precious rights”. If nothing had been done, and several troop ships had been torpedo’d with the help of disloyal Japs here, thousands of dead soldiers washing ashore on the California coast – there would have been a bloodbath of Japs and their little born in the USA de-facto citizens. Led by Chinese and Koreans. As for their “precious rights” – 9 million Americans had their “precious freedoms” stripped away completely by the Draft. The whole country sacrificed and jobs were assigned by War Production Boards. War sucks, VD, fact of life.

What does this have to do with the military necessity, or the question of invasion raised by Malkin and revived here by Chuck and others? The Japanese military leaders didn’t plan an invasion of Hawaii because they knew it was impossible. The American military leaders didn’t plan for an invasion of Hawaii by the Japanese because they knew it was impossible. They not only planned for an invasion of the Phillipines, they planned for its fall in War Plan Orange.

They did, however, plan for the invasion of both Hawaii and the West Coast by the only power in the world capable of doing so. War Plan Red was the plan prepared in the event of an attack on the United States by England.

The baseless arrogance of clueless cretins who think they know more than the highest-ranking military leaders of both the past – on both sides – and present, despite knowing absolutely nothing about depth and scope of the historical military preparations astonishes me.

Since the glaringly obvious point seems to have somehow escaped these strategic geniuses, let me underline it for them. Even we ignore for the moment that the logistics were impossible, even if we lay aside the small fact that the entire Japanese carrier force couldn’t provide one-tenth of the air power required, even if we it pretend that the Japanese troop transport capability was so small that the Aleutian islands invasion required a substantial part of it, it would never, ever have happened, even if the Japanese had been the buck-toothed morons they were then portrayed as being.

Japan is going to invade America WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY OCCUPYING CHINA? Are you insane? 1.4 million Japanese soldiers – 67 percent of its total military strength – were fighting in China. They only had another 700,000 total to defend the home islands and the entire Pacific theatre. Furthermore, it took the Japanese THREE WEEKS just to complete their main landings on the Phillipines, and five months to successfully conclude their conquest.

3. Alterman is mostly wrong, but corporate ownership has meant the drive for profit has more and more supplanted serious news with tabloid fluff. 30% of cable “news” is hard news, 70% is now “cases” presented by infotainment lawyers about the latest pretty missing white girl.

Yes, I agree. However, this says nothing about the media’s bias with regards to the political spectrum, as Alterman would have it.

Concerned wants a walkthrough:

The problem is that the only time when catching someone in a mistake can possibly be conclusive is when that mistake concerns the central foundation of an argument – Marx’s labor theory of value, Malkin’s assertion of West Coast vulnerability, Alterman’s conflation of corporation and capitalism, etc. – otherwise, a simple admission of error and a corresponding correction of one’s argument will suffice to allow the debate to continue.

Explain the mistakes, please. Honestly, I’m interested.

1. The Marxian justification for distribution depends completely upon the notion of profit being “expropriated” from the workers. This stealing from workers by capitalists is supposed to stem from the capitalist’s profit, which Marx identifies as surplus value. Marx believed that the inherent value in any product stemmed from the labor required to produce it, and that the input of capital was merely stored value, ergo, also stolen from the worker who originally labored to produce it.

The problem is that this is now obviously a non-starter in an age of robotics, when information carries more value than physical material. Either one must place a staggering value on the last human’s labor involved in creating an assembly-line robot, or admit that value stems from some other source entirely and the basis for Marxian economics is complete balderdash. Modern leftists, being generally untroubled by logic and knowledge of Marxian theory alike, prefer to simply hold on to the moral outrage and distributionist ends and ignore the fact that since there is no initial expropriation, their house of cards has no foundation.

2. Malkin’s entire justification for the WWII-era internment stemmed from her belief that the West Coast was in danger of invasion, spot raids, spying and sabotage that could have, in her words, “crippled the war effort”. Since a) the US war priority was Germany, b) the Japanese Navy had no capacity for invading Hawaii, let alone the West Coast and c) the US manufacturing advantage was so great that even a second attack the size of Pearl Harbor could not have slowed the rate of the USA’s material advantage vis-a-vis Japan by a single day, there was no need for internment whatsoever. In fact, an informed analysis of her rationale would lead one to conclude that it would have more been reasonable to intern Americans of Germanic descent or even the U.S. Senate. (A leak from a Senator’s office led directly to a Fuhrerbefehl less than two later.)

3. Eric Alterman repeatedly argues that the media cannot be considered liberal because it is owned by corporations, which he asserts are inherently conservative. This not only ignores the proven political loyalties of those in the media and the ease with which their output can be categorized, but even more fatally ignores the fact that corporations have co-existed quite satisfactorily in revolutionary societies such as the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany and Communist China. Furthermore, one can find examples of corporations that are owned by the central government in almost every single country in the world.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the voluntary exchange of goods between parties. A corporation nothing more simply a legal entity, which can be a party engaged in capitalism or can be a socialist entity owned by and in service to the state. As with the two previous examples, Alterman’s argument is based on a fundamental fallacy and is therefore worthless.

I find it both typical and telling that after making copious comments containing accusations of intellectual dishonesty and demands for information, Chris, Halation and Jefe have all fallen silent and disappeared as soon as the demanded information was provided and the obvious flaws in their positions were exposed.

What they were attempting is the left’s third-favorite form of argumentation, catch-and-dismiss, in which the leftist tries to catch out his target in a mistake, however small, which he believes will then allow him to safely ignore the remainder of the target’s argument.

That this is a stupid and short-sighted form of debate never seems to trouble them much and is one reason why leftists are so handicapped whenever they find themselves in genuine debate before an audience. The problem is that the only time when catching someone in a mistake can possibly be conclusive is when that mistake concerns the central foundation of an argument – Marx’s labor theory of value, Malkin’s assertion of West Coast vulnerability, Alterman’s conflation of corporation and capitalism, etc. – otherwise, a simple admission of error and a corresponding correction of one’s argument will suffice to allow the debate to continue.

For example, my errant belief of 2003 that the Dow would be back around 7,000 by now does not fatally flaw my argument that the U.S. economy is on thin ice. It weakens it, to be sure, but doesn’t even come close to causing it to collapse. But if one were to practice catch-and-dismiss, one would vociferously argue that based on that single mistake, the U.S. economy is in great shape, although even Larry Kudlow, the bull of bulls, would hesitate to make that case at the moment.

Although it grows tiresome, the benefit of going through the motions with the catch-and-dismissers is that their tendency to leap on even the most minor mistakes allows one to locate any slow leaks in one’s position. So, they too serve their purpose, until, sufficiently ventilated, they disappear into the aether of the Internet.

MEDIA WHORES gets rejected again:

I ran your material past the powers that be for [political publishing imprint] The sample chapters give the readers a lot to chew on. However, the feeling is that your voice–while humorous–is too aggressive for the line at this point. At present, we’re looking for books that strike a measured tone. It’s unfortunate, but I’m afraid that I’ll have to pass.

I suppose I’d be disappointed, if I’d ever thought MW had a snowball’s chance in Hell of being signed by a liberal-leaning New York publisher. I was completely shocked that they even wanted to read it in the first place.

Anyhow, isn’t it interesting how Al Franken isn’t too aggressive when he’s kicking people in the crotch or calling people lying liars, but blistering, factual commentary is over the top?

If I was desperate to see my name on another book, I’d just write one proving that Hillary is really a moderate independent, albeit an intellectual one with a vision that will bring about world peace, zero-calorie chocolate that tastes good and television-induced orgasms via the Oxygen Channel.

Doggone it, there I go again!

The Minneapolis office of Dorsey & Whitney recently accepted the resignation of a woman posing as an attorney who had worked as an associate at the firm for about six months.

The woman resigned after an internal investigation by the firm revealed that the woman — who was working in a business group at the firm — was not admitted to practice law in any state and had produced a false transcript from the University of Minnesota Law School.

According to TPAM, a Minnesota lawyer, the woman is an Indian woman who recently dated a friend of his. TPAM wasn’t surprised to hear about her being a fraud, since she didn’t know a law professor at the U that she should have known.

The animals are plotting:

Matheys said a wild sow and four 60-pound piglets were recently discovered living in a swamp in an Eau Claire County forest. When DNR sharpshooters killed them, they discovered the pigs were living right in the middle of a wolf pack.

“I imagine the wolves hadn’t recognized them as prey or didn’t have a strategy for dealing with them yet. Eventually, I imagine the wolves would have figured it out,” Matheys said.

Or maybe they are thinking outside the reporter’s limited homo sapiens box and have already figured it out. Clearly, it is time to form a defense militia and defend ourselves from the nascent Porco-Lupine Anti-Human Liberation Front. Disturbingly, a quick survey of FEMA’s web site shows no signs of any federal preparations being made for this deadly threat to humanity.

I suggest paradropping Australian barby experts into the bush in coordination with a massive propaganda campaign, dropping cartoon leaflets of The Three Little Pigs into Wisconsin and Minnesota in order to drive a wedge between these allies of convenience.

There is little time. We must act soon, before those fearsome raccoons get into the act and it is too late! They’re related to bears, you know!

The Fraters Libertas point out a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the police.

With her husband and two sons out of town, what’s a smart, sensible city woman to do if she finds a rabid raccoon in the garage of the family’s weekend house?

Dial 911.

It was the obvious solution, or so thought Marie-Claude Stockl after discovering a foaming-at-the-mouth visitor at her Ancramdale, N.Y., retreat. Ms. Stockl, a pharmaceutical executive from the Upper East Side of Manhattan, accustomed to resolving apartment issues with a single phone call to the doorman, assumed the police would rush to her rescue.

Instead, the officer on duty expected her to exercise a little country self-sufficiency: “Just shoot it!” When she explained that she didn’t own a gun, the officer retorted impatiently, “Then use your husband’s gun!”

Their conversation went around in circles, and Ms. Stockl hung up, fuming. Ten minutes later, the raccoon died. Thinking that Dutchess County officials would want to track rabid animals, Ms. Stockl called again, asking the same officer if he would like to come by and dispose of the corpse. “Oh no, that’s fine – you can do that,” he drawled.

I always enjoy stories about Strong Independent Women. Note that she’s a not just a smart, sensible woman, she’s an executive, and yet she can’t even handle a DYING RACCOON!

I know, I know. I’m just saying that because I feel threatened and I can’t get laid.

I got an interesting call from my publisher yesterday. It seems that while THE WRATH OF ANGELS is going to be published in April, that’s going to be April 2007, a scant three years after I completed it. I can’t argue with their reasoning, or even complain about it, however. It seems Simon and Schuster is teaming up with another major New York publisher who shall remain nameless to create a new imprint. Not only will WRATH be one of the imprint’s lead titles, but they’re going to be re-releasing WAR and WORLD with new covers and whatnot.

In any event, I apologize for the continuing delay.

And yes, for those who are counting, that will make three different editions of WAR, which has to be some kind of record for a book that has not been translated or published outside the United States. What’s particularly interesting from my point of view is that there’s a very good chance that the editor of this new imprint will be interested in THE CHRONICLES OF KING DAVID which I’ve had sitting on the backburner for quite a while. Not only that, but there’s plenty of time to finish as I’m already some 40k words into it.

The only potential drawback is I don’t know exactly how I’ll do that while simultaneously writing another set of three novels for different publisher. Unfortunately, the fact that it’s a good problem doesn’t mean that it isn’t one.

One thing Halation, being relatively new to these parts, has yet to learn is that I write nothing without being able to back it up to at least some small degree. She calls what she apparently considered to be a bluff:

perhaps you can tell me: what rights have i lost? there are precious few modern writers i can find who oppose women’s suffrage, save those who propound the same overwrought fearmongering the ‘scholars’ are offering here – ‘because then the communists win! and then the terrorists win! plus they want to kill your babies!’

Very well, let’s list your supposedly unalienable rights. There is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are the Constitutionally enumerated Bill of Rights, including the rights to free speech, to a free press, to bear arms, to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the right to not have private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

How have those rights fared since women received the “right” to vote.

1. The right to life is under siege, for unborn children, disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already.
3. You still have the right to pursue happiness.
4. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
5. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
6. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
7. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
8. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an “enemy combatant” by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
9. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family “courts”, the tax “courts” and the immigration “courts”, none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
10. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 9.
11. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.

Now, I believe it’s your turn to provide that list of the rights you’ve gained under the suffrage-enabled regime of the last 85 years? Still think it’s been a worthwhile trade?

the only thing i’ve been able to find bearing a passing resemblance to a sensical argument is the argument that, as voting is not a right, denying it someone is not taking away their rights, as such. this appears to be what you are arguing, and as i’ve said, you can make that argument, but make it honestly. stop making the issue about women in particular, for when you do, your arguments are based on the same logic of emotion you accuse those ghastly gashes the feminists of using.

What emotion? I’m not appealing to emotion at all. Voting is manifestly not a right, it was never intended to be a right, and and history reliably demonstrates that if basic human liberties are to be preserved in any quasi-democratic society, women cannot be granted the privilege of voting.

you’re calling for controlled rule by an elite. vox has said as much, but he says it rarely; usually he speaks more about the grave threat that is Woman. likely he does this because it’s more fun, because it gets him more listeners, and because doing so allows him to manipulate the emotions of those who despise women and who’d far prefer to see them with limited rights or no rights at all – civil or natural. the loss of rights is, to many, implied in the anti-suffrage logic, and that’s why they like it. thinking is hard. smugness is easy.

I am not calling for a rule by an elite, I am simply pointing out that an elite has always and will always rule. In the USA, we have been governed for the last 20 years by the members of two families, all three of whom attended the same small university. The opposing candidate in the last election also attended that same university, while the leading contender for the next eight years also belongs to one of those two families. And you still can’t see an elite? The question at hand is what sort of elite do you prefer, an honest one that rules openly or a covert one that rules by manipulation?

i’ve asked before, and i’ll ask yet again, and ask until i get an answer: how many of your readers here will have the vote, vox? readers, how many of you care? are you, like spacebunny, happy to give up your vote to take away mine?

First, liberty is not voting, halation. Millions of people around the world have freely given up their “right” to vote in order to move somewhere else where they can live in more freedom. As immigrants and non-citizens, they cannot vote, and yet they demonstrably go very far out of their way to trade that vote in pursuit of liberty.

The historic estimate for those permitted to vote by the Founding Fathers was around 20 percent. I suspect the ideal percentage is closer to 10 percent, which approximates that of the historical Athenian democracy, but removing the most centrophilic fifty-two percent or thereabouts from the voting rolls would certainly be satisfactory.

I find it tremendously amusing that people who profess to be horrified by my opposition to universal suffrage are unaware that the democratic ideals they claim to revere are rooted in systems more strictly limited than anything I’m advocating. That is only one of the many reasons I am untroubled by the opprobrium of the Oprah-watching masses.