Author: VD

MEXICO CITY – The US drugs czar has admitted that Washington’s anti-narcotics policy in Latin America has so far failed.

Mr John Walters, who heads the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, acknowledged that billions of dollars of investment over many years have failed to dent the flow of Latin American cocaine onto US streets, but he predicted progress would be seen soon.

It’s not working, so of course, efforts will be redoubled. After almost 25 years of the War on Drugs, with nothing to show for it except hundreds of thousands of innocent people in jail and numerous American liberties destroyed, you’d think pro-drug war conservatives would consider pulling their heads out of their posteriors and wake up to how they’ve been helping destroy America.

“But what if we legalized drugs,” they gasp in horror. “Surely the country will collapse in a maelstrom of crack whores and coke fiends!” Well, Mr. Historical Ignoramus, seeing as how society and individual rights were in better shape back when the government was less powerful, rope was made of hemp and cocaine was legal, I don’t think we have a whole lot to fear, not from drugs, anyhow.

Using the power of the central state to control human behavior is always a mistake. As with the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs was designed as a weapon to be used against the American people. Don’t believe me? Fine, email me your telephone number and I’ll phone in an anonymous tip about the meth lab in your garage. Then you can discover firsthand just how well your Constitutional rights protect you.

Are you noticing a pattern here? We must throw out the Constitution because the Japanese are going to invade across 5500 miles of ocean! We must throw out the Constitution because Billy might smoke pot! We must throw out the Constitution because someone might send money to their bank in the Caymans! We must throw out the Constitution because someone is killing someone else in Iraq! We must throw out the Constitution because someone blew up two buildings in New York! We must throw out the Constitution because we need to promote economic growth!

Americans deserve precisely what they’re getting, which is to say a nation sans Constitution and individual rights. Ben Franklin warned us from the start, but no, we knew better! Things are different now, in this, the modern age. Sure, there may have been conspiracies in Rome, Byzantium, China, Greece, France, Spain, Germany, Russia and every other state power in the history of the world, but you’d have to be a crazy wearer of tinfoil hats if you think anyone would conspire after power in America! Why would anyone want to control the richest, most militarily powerful nation the world has ever known?

So, vote for Bush or vote for Kerry if you like, it makes no difference. Truly, it doesn’t. The die is cast and it has been for some time, probably since 1971 and Bretton Woods. I’m voting Libertarian because I believe there is value in acts of defiance, and because it is better to grasp at the slimmest of slim chances than to lend my hand and my consent to the devastation.

Politicians like to say they’re bullish on America. But odds are high that it’s those who short it that will reap the profits. In forty years, when the United States abandons its sovereignty to become a state of the American Union, (as the Free Trade Area of the Americas will likely be known as it follows the model of the European Economic Community), you will not be able to say that you weren’t warned.

But perhaps the most striking of all the differences between American and European working patterns, however, relates to working hours. In 1999, according to figures from the OECD, the average American in employment worked just under 2,000 hours a year (1,976). The average German worked 1,535 – 22 per cent less.

According to a recent American study, the average Frenchman works a staggering 32 per cent less. The journalist Madeleine Bunting has recently lamented that British workers are being pushed towards the American model, but the British worker is still working 12 per cent less than his American counterpart. This gap between American and European working hours is of surprisingly recent origin; 25 years ago, it didn’t exist. Between 1979 and 1999, the average US working year lengthened by 50 hours, nearly four per cent. But the average German working year shrank by 12 per cent. The same was true elsewhere in Europe.

How are we to explain this divergence? The obvious answer is European legislation such as the French 35-hour week or the recent British reduction of the hours worked by junior doctors. Another theory points to differences in marginal rates of taxation. But I cannot resist suggesting another possible explanation – one that owes a debt to Weber’s famous essay The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which he wrote almost exactly a century ago.

Weber believed he had identified a link between the rise of Protestantism and the development of what he called “the spirit of capitalism”. I would like to propose a modern version of Weber’s theory, namely “The Atheist Sloth Ethic and the Spirit of Collectivism”.

Interesting concept. It makes sense that atheists would be less inclined to work hard, since if this life is all they’ve got before vanishing into oblivion, there’s no point in slaving away instead of devoting oneself to an Epicurean philosophy of eat, drink and be merry. Oh, sure, some misguided non-souls among the godless might be inclined to work hard to make a better life for their children or something, but in general, it would be logical for the soulless to employ the same parasitic attitude towards societal wealth that they do towards societal mores.

I can’t say I entirely disagree, either. As I’ve written previously, I don’t think anyone ever went to his Maker – or into the dark bowels of oblivion – wishing he’d spent more time at the office.

Rich Lowry scratches his head:

It’s always a kick to speak at a YAF events. Any eye-batting aside, what was most notable about this year was just how many smart young conservatives out there seem to think that there are no important differences between Bush and Kerry–whether this election really matters was a question that came up repeatedly. I find it hard to fathom how someone can think that, but there you are…

Gee, I have no idea. Perhaps it’s because they’re the smart ones.

JS sends a timely email:

My change-of-party form is now making its way through the bureaucracy. As soon as they process it, I’ll be officially registered Libertarian. Ironically, it appears the government has trouble even processing a simple form. I got a call saying the processing was delayed because the portion of the form which had my address on it had been “cut off by their letter opening machine”.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the part your blog and columns have had in helping me make this decision. Six months ago I fretted over the decision to leave the Republican party. However, given impetus to think it through, I realized I had always preferred George Washington’s America over George Bush’s. The final “decision” was no decision at all, with little fretting necessary. I’m less a “convert” to the Libertarian Party than one who simply (and finally) noticed which party walked the walk instead of just talking the talk.

This is by no means the first email of this sort that I’ve received, but I thought it was worth posting considering the recent conversation about what libertarians are doing. The most important things don’t involve getting involved in formal party politics, but in convincing those around you that principle matters.

And JS, you are very welcome. The battle won’t be won, tomorrow, November or the next election cycle, but it isn’t lost until the last man quits.

Fred praises the Mexicanas:

Now, young and beautiful has its charm. Men do not, as a rule, seek out withered crones. But—and I know many of these men well—what draws them is the warmth and womanliness of the Mexicana. In Mexico you don’t marry one of the guys. You don’t marry a child-support bomb waiting to explode without visitation. You don’t marry a hundred pounds of irrational anger looking for an excuse. You marry a woman. The difference…my God, the difference…. Yes, money is the only effective aphrodisiac, anywhere, as any man knows who has been in the Philippines with a paycheck. Drive a flashy car in Washington and leave hundred-dollar tips and you will have women all over you….

Violeta was suddenly, utterly, and in the short term irremediably without work or money. She also had a daughter of nine to care for. For a long time it was beans, tortillas, and water. Mexico does not have the social safety net that Americans rely on. So they stayed home and read. Violeta got through the Decameron and four volumes of Borges.

While I don’t even know that I’ve ever met a Mexicana, I can’t help but wonder how many of the self-professed strong, educated American women, who require intense therapy and Prozac the first time someone dares to disagree with them, have even heard of Boccaccio, still less the Chinese Encyclopedia.

A word of advice. If men tend to smile nervously and back away from you on a regular basis, it doesn’t mean that they’re intimidated by your stupendous brain, it means they think you’re a lunatic.

As one reader here recently noted, cheerleaders of the Bush administration defend the Patriot Act even though they admit that they have neither read it or know what it contains. They presume that it is good because it is against terrorism. I’d be interested to know how they defend the following provisions, which have nothing to do with terrorism:

Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:

Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.

Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of “any crime of violence.” Sec. 503. The provision adds collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also adds collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of “any crime of violence.”

Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of “exceeding the authority” of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.

Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.

As was the case with the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act means that simply redefining things, like website graffiti, as terrorism, the government now has another weapon in its arsenal which will be used to assault American liberties.

Laughing Elephant writes:

If I did see more LP and CP voters like that, maybe I’d have more confidence in the LP and CP and would be inclined to join your lot. Perhaps I just haven’t met the right members yet. Thanks for articulating a coherent argument in favor of voting with the LP & CP parties. Almost everything else I’ve heard here these past few days has been the case about why not to vote for Bush, which is entirely different.

I don’t see how that last statement can possibly be true. I’ve repeatedly stated that people should always vote their principles. The Libertarian Party is the only party with an ideological dedication to small and limited government. The Constitution Party is ideologically dedicated to the U.S. Constitution, (also good, but one step removed from ideal, in my opinion), whereas the Republican Party has an ideological dedication to strong interventionist government that dates back to its founding, the brief shining moment of the Goldwater-Reagan years notwithstanding.

That is a broad point which has next to nothing to do with Bush, except in that Bush’s governance has been a reflection of the GOP’s historical ideology.

Perhaps you still remain unconvinced, but judging from the emails I’ve received, there are hundreds of Republicans who are planning to vote for the LP and CP for the first time this November. Change will never come from those who are unwilling to abandon the status quo.

ZT questions the timing:

My biggest problem with the Interment issue is the US military is guided, or a better word would be hampered, but US public opinion. Fear of Japan hitting American soil was the root cause of the Japanese internment. It doesn’t matter what the General or Admiral’s knew. The Political powers that be caved to the fears of the populace. The population had no idea of what the Japanese military was capable of even if the US military did….

Feb 19, 1942 the Order 9066 was given creating the internment camps. March 1942 the Japanese had conquered many place in the Pacific leaving only the Philippines fighting for its life. It isn’t until Midway, which was after the start of the Interment camps, that the US force begin to have a hope of stopping the Japanese advance. So my question to VD is which point in time did the US military know the Japanese fleets abilities and when did they think they could stop them? Was it before Feb 19, 1942 or after?

Let’s look at the facts. To invade a much smaller country, the USA and Britain required 5,000 ships and 4,000 landing craft to cross 21 miles of sea in the D-Day landings. The Japanese never possessed a tenth that many ships and they had almost the entire Pacific Ocean to cross. Nor did they have the industry to even think about building such a fleet. Their top naval priority after Midway was to replace the carriers they lost, but throughout the course of the war they managed to produce only 10. In the same period, the US produced 150.

But let’s pretend that a general with no clue about supply lines and whatnot seriously believed that the Japanese were going to roll the dice and throw their entire Navy into a wildly risky invasion of California. While the internment order went out before the Battle of Midway ended on June 7, 1942, at which point the Japanese lost their offensive ability. The internments and relocations had barely begun in May, even so, the last internment camp was not closed until August 1948, although all Japanese were cleared [to return to the West Coast] sometime in 1945.

An encyclopedia entry – with which I don’t always agree, as they use a statement of the Secretary of War to offer support of the policy even though he opposed it – states “Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not subject to the internment policy, despite the fact that they were closer to essential military facilities than most of the Japanese Americans in the western states. The main reason for this was the territory was already virtually under martial law. Also, given that about a third of the population of Hawaii was Japanese American, it is likely that wholesale detention of Japanese Americans in Hawaii would have crippled the local economy.”

So, the military situation was so dire that the local economy of Hawaii took precedence? That’s interesting. Even more damning is the fact that unlike the English and French coastlines, the American coast was never prepared to resist an invasion, because the military strategists knew one would never come. A raid, a submarine lobbing a few shells, sure, but an invasion? Never.

The politicians didn’t give in to popular fears. Instead, as has always been the case, the government simply used the fear of the public to throw off its restrictions. It worked in 1942, and judging by the attitudes of those supporting past violations as well as current abominations such as the Patriot Act – as if the name itself isn’t a giveaway – it will work equally well in the future.

AJW explains patiently:

As I understand it, the Japanese-Americans weren’t rounded up till Midway. It wasn’t a kneejerk reaction, it took time. Things that take time usually have a plan or logical reason. What happened behind the scenes that lead to the Battle of Midway? We broke the Japanes Naval Code.

Hmmm? I wonder, does breaking the code, learning the enemies secrets, have any thing to do with this. Would our counterintelligence agencie(s?) have used this information to identify Japanes agents operating in California? You bet they would have. Now we have a delimma. How do you isolate the enemy agents operating on American soil without giving away the fact that you can read the enemies code? You round them all up.

I see, it was necessary to put aside the Constitution and the rights of the American citizens involved because this was in the military interests of the government. Now I understand. And since warfare and communication codes are modern inventions, it’s pretty easy to see why the Founding Fathers never considered that it might be necessary to fight a war or deal with spies, otherwise they surely would have made sure that the government had this ability to suspend habeas corpus and whatnot in time of military conflict.

From Matt Drudge’s report on UNFIT FOR COMMAND, a book by Swift boat veterans opposed to the bemedaled Jean-Francois.

According to Kerry’s Silver Star citation, Kerry was in command of a three-boat mission on the Dong Cung River. As the boats approached the target area, they came under intense enemy fire. Kerry ordered his boat to attack and all boats opened fire. He then beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. In the battle that followed, the crews captured enemy weapons. His boat then moved further up the river to suppress more enemy fire. A rocket exploded near Kerry’s boat, and he ordered to charge the enemy. Kerry beached his boat 10 feet from the rocket position and led a landing party ashore to pursue the enemy.

Kerry’ citation reads: “The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission.”

Here’s what O’Neill and the Swiftees say: “According to Kerry’s crewman Michael Madeiros, Kerry had an agreement with him to turn the boat in and onto the beach if fired upon. Each of the three boats involved in the operation was involved in the agreement.” O’Neill writes that one crewman even recalls a discussion of probable medals.

Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army veteran, recounted what happened that day to O’Neill, “Far from being alone, the boats were loaded with many soldiers commanded by Reese and two other advisors. When fired at, Reese’s boat–not Kerry’s–was the first to beach in the ambush zone. Then Reese and other troops and advisors (not Kerry) disembarked, killing a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number of weapons. None of the participants from Reese’s boat received Silver Stars.

O’Neill continues: “Kerry’s boat moved slightly downstream and was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. . . .A young Viet Cong in a loincloth popped out of a hole, clutching a grenade launcher, which may or may not have been loaded. . . Tom Belodeau, a forward gunner, shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun in the leg as he fled. . . . Kerry and Medeiros (who had many troops in their boat) took off, perhaps with others, and followed the young Viet Cong and shot him in the back, behind a lean to.”

O’Neill concludes “Whether Kerry’s dispatching of a fleeing, wounded, armed or unarmed teenage enemy was in accordance with the customs of war, it is very clear that many Vietnam veterans and most Swiftees do not consider this action to be the stuff of which medals of any kind are awarded; nor would it even be a good story if told in the cold details of reality. There is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched. Likewise, the citation simply ignores the presence of the soldiers and advisors who actually ‘captured the enemy weapons’ and routed the Viet Cong. . . . [and] that Kerry attacked a ‘numerically superior force in the face of intense fire’ is simply false. There was little or no fire after Kerry followed the plan. . . . The lone, wounded, fleeing young Viet Cong in a loincloth was hardly a force superior to the heavily armed Swift Boat and its crew and the soldiers carried aboard.”

“Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who sent a Bravo Zulu (meaning “good work”), to Kerry upon learning of the incident, was very surprised to discover in 2004 what had actually occurred. Hoffmann had been told that Kerry had spontaneously beached next to the bunker and almost single-handedly routed a bunkered force in Viet Cong. He was shocked to find out that Kerry had beached his boat second in a preplanned operation, and that he had killed a single, wounded teenage foe as he fled.”

“Commander Geoge Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry’s Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he, nor anyone else in the Silver Star process that he knows, realized before 1996 that Kerry was facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth. While Commander Elliott and many other Swiftees believe that Kerry committed no crime in killing the fleeing, wounded enemy (with a loaded or empty launcher), others feel differently. Commander Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts.”

This could finish Kerry off. He already looks like a self-serving quasi-psycho with his self-directed home movie heroics. If it’s the word of Monsieur Flip-Flop against veterans who were on the scene, Kerry is pain grillé