Category: Uncategorized

Scintan queries my consistency:

Vox told me that I was over the line when I wrote that Cedarford was a known racist and anti-semite. This was in the same thread where Nate had wondered how Cedarford would find a way to prove both sides wrong since they were jews and where Vox had said that’s why he liked reading Cedarford. So, after them typing that, I’m somehow over the line to note that Cedarford is known to be an anti-semite. Vox, on the other hand, is not over the line to call Shapiro a chickenhawk based upon nothing but a call for empire?

The difference, Scintan, is that I have repeatedly asked people commenting here not to launch personal attacks on others who are also commenting here. Regardless of whether Cedarford is “a known racist and anti-semite” or not, you were stepping over one of the boundaries I’ve laid down here. Had you written that Frank Rich was a racist and anti-semite, I might have disagreed with you but I would not have said that you crossed any lines. Had you quoted Cedarford and asked him to explain how a particular comment was not racist or anti-semitic, that too would have been perfectly acceptable.

It is not as if I accused Ben Shapiro of anything out of the blue, I was directly addressing the topic of his recent columns. Had he not written a second column on the subject for the second straight week, I doubt I would have paid it any attention. I did not, after all, comment on the first one. Dennis Prager and the Bush-bashers at the NYT aside, it is very unusual for a columnist to devote two weeks running to the same topic unless it is of great importance to them. And it would have been impossible to write about those columns without reaching a conclusion about the appropriateness of the contemptuous appellation as applied to him.

I read all 3 Shapiro articles, and I can’t stand his writing. But, in all 3 articles, the word duty came up only once. It wasn’t about military service. It said that we have a duty to be an empire. That was it. I know that Vox doesn’t like Malkin and He doesn’t like Shapiro, but he’s completely wrong on this…. As I said over there, Every military person I spoke to said he was wrong, and the former Colonel in special forces that I asked about it looked at me in disbelief when I told him the story. He couldn’t believe that Vox had even thought about using the term in this instance.

That may be, but it has been established that the majority of the past and present military personnel here and at Blackfive don’t agree with you, the special forces colonel or all the military people with whom you spoke. The chickenhawk concept is an old one, perhaps you missed when Dread quoted General Sherman’s famous words from 1879.

Shapiro does not come out and explicitly demand a draft or argue that duty demands every able-bodied male enlist immediately. To understand the depth of his hypocrisy, it necessary to follow his logic as he argues for the establishment of global empire as well as the invasion of at least five additional countries, one of which already possesses nuclear weapons. Now, it is remotely possible that he is contemplating the mass employment of Chinese mercenaries to this end, but it is rather more likely that he expects the American military to perform what he describes as a right and good national duty, specifically, other young American men between the ages of 18 and 30. How many would be required to occupy Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others?

I further note that the young imperialist has openly and explicitly cheered the sacrifice of American civil liberties, leading to the inescapable conclusion that in his opinion, the war is not important enough to require his personal services but nevertheless requires the sacrifice of your and my liberties.

Shapiro has a perfect right to express his opinion, just as I and everyone else who considers him a contemptible hypocrite have the right to tell him to shut up and put his money where his mouth is instead of towards tuition. The fact that one can so easily use his own words against him to that end just adds a delightful frisson of irony to the situation.

And chickenhawk or not, I will state that what Shapiro advocates is not conservativism. It is not furthering freedom or human liberty. It is the madness of incipient decline.

I seldom see eye to eye with Miss Fecalicious, but I share her sense of utter disbelief at the latest entry in the vaguely political book wars:

And speaking of bored housewives, I have a potential research subject for Armstrong: Annie Jacobsen! My theory is that she got palpitations from seeing a group of Arab men on her airplane because she had read too many Harlequin romances (see, for example, Stolen by the Sheik, The Sheik And The Runaway Princess, The Prince & The Pregnant Princess (Desert Rogues), etc.). But when the dashing Arabs refused to rock her casbah, she called the feds, who eventually went to her home to interview her. Did she greet them wearing a silk negligee … or perhaps nothing at all. Was she a sight of ineffable grandeur? Did her body rock big time? I think this is something that Armstrong shoudl investigated, particularly as she now HAS A BOOK COMING OUT!

Let me get this straight. The woman flew on an airplane. Some Arab men behaved suspiciously. The woman got scared. Nothing happened. FOR 208 PAGES! But at least you also get Ms Jacobsen’s theory of what was really happening. Or not happening.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Ms Jacobsen’s theory of a terrorist dry run is correct, although the fact that nothing has happened for over a year would tend to discount that notion since any information gleaned from the dry run would now be outdated, especially in light of how Northwest has been forced to alter its operations thanks to the mechanics strike.

On a completely unrelated note, what in the name of Jenna Jameson’s much-abused labia is a hoo-hoo-dilly? It sounds like a failed Dairy Queen product. And some conservatives wonder why liberals and libertarians alike tend to find them less than credible on matters sexual.

Nemo doesn’t appear to read German very carefully:

Heck, Malkin’s attitude is like that of someone who has argued that women’s suffrage leads to higher government expenditures, but won’t look at, or even address, a study that shows that women’s suffrage in Switzerland produced a decline in government expenditure, even after it is linked or pointed out to them multiple times.

Nice try. The problem is that you missed a very significant change in Switzerland which strongly supports my theory, namely, the transition from decentralized cantonal spending to centralized federal spending. So, women began to vote and there’s a corresponding increase in central power, imagine that. Cantonal spending did go down, but only because federal spending increased even faster. That paper only addressed cantonal spending and I’m wondering if you even read it since all of the charts were missing from both PDFs I downloaded.

Meanwhile, the CIA World Factbook reports:

2001
251.9 billion: GDP
140.4 billion: government expenditures (55.7% of GDP)

1989
171.2 billion: GDP
016.1 billion: government expenditures (9.4% of GDP)

That does seem like an insane increase, however, which makes me somewhat dubious as to how trustworthy those numbers really are. I’d be interested in seeing the government expenditures for 1970, but I could only find the GDP figure of 21.9 billion. I’ll also see if I can dig up the combined cantonal spending compared to federal for the corresponding years, which should settle the matter nicely.

Craig has a theory:

“I also notice that it seems the majority of people throwing around the term chickenhawk are not in the military and I think that says a lot.”

I imagine that’s only because almost no one in the media is or was in the military. But let’s take a poll and see if that’s the case.

This one is for those who have served or are serving in the military only. The question is as follows:

1. Ben Shapiro has asserted:

a) “If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn’t a choice: It’s a duty.”

b) “Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good”

c) “Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made…. taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.”

d) “Now’s the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up.”

2. Ben Shapiro is also a single, 21 year-old American male with no known physical disabilities who has chosen to attend Harvard Law School instead of making the personal sacrifice of serving his country’s military during what he describes as “the great battle of our time”.

Is Mr. Shapiro a “chickenhawk” or not?

Please give a simple “yes” or “no” answer and note the branch of the military in which you served. Again, I’m only interested in the opinions of former and present members of the military.

CR wonders if it might be cowardice, or perhaps mere predation:

Why do you feel the need to pick on the Shapiros and Malkins of the Right. Kind of reminds me of a hyena attaching the weakest one in the herd. Are you afraid to go up against someone with a little more expreience.

You said it, not me. But in answer to your question, I have schooled both Dr. Thomas Sowell and John Leo on their wildly inaccurate summations of Pearl Harbor’s effect on the US Navy. And have you so soon forgotten The Ballad of Brave Sir William? The reason I generally don’t pursue more eminent members of the nominally right-wing commentariat is that I agree with them far more often than I do with, say, Maureen Dowd.

I think it is very ominous sign for the Right when ignorant and shoddy thinkers such as Malkin and Shapiro are being groomed as the next generation of voices in the conservative media. I have already been deemed inadequate/inappropriate/undesirable by those who decide such things, so you can almost surely look forward to years of thoughtless repetition of Republican party talking points from them and a few others of the anointed in numerous papers around the country, culminating eventually in one of them claiming the coveted token nominally conservative Republican slot in the New York Times. My money is on Shapiro.

Remember, this is the young man who wants to “temporarily” restrict civil liberties during wartime in a war that is expected to continue for decades while America builds a global empire. Malkin, meanwhile, lionizes FDR. If this is conservativism, then I want no part of it and will oppose it with the same enthusiasm that I oppose their socialist and neosocialist cousins. It’s nothing of the sort, of course, it’s merely a new breed of neofascists mouthing platitudes of liberty as they work towards its elimination.

That being said, who do you consider to be the lions of the Right? If you can give me an example where one of these intellectual strongmen advocates something to which I am opposed, I’ll be happy to compose a critique for you.

UPDATE: Jealous much? With regards to the popularity postulate suggested by Craig, here’s the hard numbers from WND. The weekly average readership for my column is 1.2 times that of Mrs. Malkin’s and 4.1 times that of Mr. Shapiro’s. Miss Coulter is still handing me my proverbial head, however, exceeding my readership by a factor of 1.5.

Ben Shapiro really, really doesn’t want to go to Iraq:

Richard Bradley, one of the many cynical Sheehan-users over at Arianna Huffington’s website, expresses the “chickenhawk” argument this way: “Thanks in large part to Cindy Sheehan, people are starting to raise the issue of why Jenna and Barbara Bush aren’t serving in the military. It’s a tough question, but I think it’s a fair one.” This isn’t a fair question – in fact, it’s an un-American question….

And convenience is what the “chickenhawk” argument is really about. Pacifists don’t want to discuss real foreign policy issues – they want to call names. If you can’t win over the populace at large, the only solution left is to stifle the argument. That’s what “chickenhawk” is about. At the end of the day, “chickenhawk” is morally and intellectually chicken.

No, my young lawyerly WND colleague, that is a perfectly fair question and it is most certainly not an “un-American” one. Both you and President Bush have asserted that it is a matter of absolute priority for Americans to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet you seem to feel that it’s even more important for you to get a law degree from Harvard than to serve your country in its hour of dire need.

I am more than happy to debate real foreign policy issues with you. I would be delighted to discuss how the Bush administration’s handling of The Struggle violates the precepts of classic military tacticians such as Sun Tzu, Caesar and Clausewitz. Nor am I a pacificist, a liberal or anti-American.

And yet, I agree with those liberal, anti-American pacifists in labeling you a chickenhawk. Because, my young, cowardly WND colleague, regardless of who happens to be pointing it out, you most certainly are one.

PS: Lest anyone feel inclined to wonder about the pot calling the kettle black, on first day of Desert Shield, Big Chilly and I went down to the Marine recruiter’s office in the Pavilion Place and expressed our wish to enlist. We were thanked for our willingness to serve our country and were informed that our services were not required for the incipient hostilities as The Corps was looking for career officers, not patriotic one-term wonders.

Michael Yon puts Americans before journalism:

When I came back into the TOC, Major Michael Lawrence–who I often challenge to pull-up contests, and who so far has beat me (barely) every time–looked me square and professionally, in the direct way of a military leader and asked, “Mike, did you pick up a weapon today?”
“I did.”
“Did you fire that weapon?”
“I did.”
“If you pick up another weapon, you are out of here the next day. Understood?”
“Understand.”
“We still have to discuss what happened today.”

Writers are not permitted to fight. I asked SFC Bowman to look at the photos and hear what happened. Erik Kurilla and CSM Prosser were witness, but I did not want the men of Deuce Four who were not there to think I had picked up a weapon without just cause.

Michael Yon is writing fascinating stuff. His words capture the chaos and confusion of the urban battlefield in a way I would not have imagined possible, while his pictures show its surprisingly mundane character. His courage and his willingness to stand by the soldiers of Deuce Four is truly exceptional, and I encourage you to support him in his work.

I’d recommend having a look at this week’s Free Week at Elliott Wave International, as Prechter’s Elliott Wave Theorist of 8/24 is especially interesting. He lays out his theory of how asset managers, especially hedge fund managers, have prolonged this remarkably long top due to their willingness to take greater risks with other people’s money.

Click on the EWI ad on the right side if you want to check it out. There is a registration, but I don’t think they hound you continually. Perhaps someone who’s registered for a free week in the past could shed some light on that.

I’ve never been particularly impressed with their ability to predict the stock markets in the near term, but I’ve found them quite good in some of the commodity markets. Commodities and currencies are better for wave investors anyhow, since there’s no inherent upward bias as there is with stocks.

Full disclosure: I don’t get paid anything for this, but I do get comped on some of their services.

UPDATE: Jeanne notes: Prechter wrote a book a few years back called “Conquer the Crash” in which he predicts a upcoming super grandcycle that will result in a hugh deflationary depression. He predicts the DOW will go as low as something like 700. Of course, I have heard other experts claim that a depression cannot happen again and that the Fed has the ability to prevent one.

The monster question is inflation vs deflation. The vast majority of people think that the Fed will simply print money and inflate their way out of trouble. I have to admit that I always assumed this would be the case until I did some research on it.

The problem with the hyperinflation theory is that the Fed tried this in 1930-1934 and it didn’t work. Contrary to popular opinion, the Fed was not tightening the money supply during that time, but aggressively loosening it. Increasing the money supply is not a matter of simply printing money, it’s a matter of finding buyers for government debt. The Fed can’t create money without debt, hence the theoretical problem they call pushing on a string. The Law of Supply and Demand being what it is, interest rates will continue to rise in an attempt to interest creditors.

Since there is already something like a 37 trillion dollar debt hanging over the US economy, Prechter believes that it is not possible for the Fed to inflate its way out since there won’t be anyone interested in buying debt or taking on more debt. The fact that the Fed has now raised interest rates 10 straight times – even though they are still negative when compared with the CPI – tends to support his position.

If the Dow goes below 8000 and interest rates continue to climb while prices are falling, we’ll know that the odds favor Prechter (finally) being right. If prices continue to climb and we’re paying $8 per gallon at the pump, we’ll know that he’s probably wrong.

In light of contrarian theory, I found this article to be interesting. Since government is usually the last to respond, serious federal concern over rising prices would tend to be a signal that falling prices are just around the corner.

Minnesota Vikings center Matt Birk will try to play through the pain of a torn labrum in his hip this season if the team guarantees the Pro Bowler’s contract for 2006, the player’s agent said Wednesday night.

Birk needs surgery to repair the injury to his left hip, which came about as a result of his early return from a torn labrum and sports hernia in his right hip. The four-time Pro Bowl center has been cleared to play with the injury with the help of painkilling injections.

“He’s happy to play when he shouldn’t be playing, but he wants assurances that he will be with the team next season before that happens,” Birk’s agent, Joe Linta, told The Associated Press late Wednesday night. That would guarantee his nearly $4 million salary that is due him for the 2006 season. If the Vikings do not guarantee his contract, Linta said, Birk will have surgery that would keep him out of action for about three months.

Guaranteed contracts are a pox on sports – one of the many reasons why the NFL is far and away the best professional league – but in this case, considering what is at stake, Birk’s request for a guarantee is totally reasonable. Considering how he’s willing to let the Vikings rescind the guarantee if he ends up needing surgery, it should be an absolute no-brainer for the team’s management.

It’s not quite a make-or-break year for the Vikes, but having Matt Birk at center gives them a much better opportunity of winning an NFC that looks very up for grabs. Birk is smart, loyal and an All-Pro center. They can’t possibly screw this one up… can they?

Constantine comments:

Frustrated with the way the world works, you simply cling to the fiction that one day — poof! — all your problems will disappear in a full swoop of inevitability. We also saw this attitude amongst the Y2K-apocalyptics and the Marxists holding out for the Revolution.

Um, I’m the one that you left-wingers repeatedly dismiss as the rich guy, remember? I’m more than content with that which God has blessed me, or, if you prefer, the hand that fate has randomly dealt me. I’m just fine, thanks.

But stick to your theory if you like, by all means. I think it works for you.

The point is that very few people are capable of seeing the cracks in the foundation, even as they widen and spread. Thus, when the structure collapses suddenly, it is a surprise to most. This has happened again and again; when the tipping point for the West will arrive, it’s impossible to say. But unfortunately, no society lasts forever and ours will be no exception. One need not anticipate something negative in order to expect it.