Category: Uncategorized

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

TH writes belatedly:

Let me begin this note by saying that although the American political scene is interesting (and many times amusing) I do not spend a great deal of time reading the newest latest political doctrine nor do I spend hours and hours of my time pouring over the Internet doing research on each issue like many of my politically minded friends. However, this may soon change due to your article “Janeane Garafolo is a short, fat idiot.” And, by the way, Ms. Garafolo should thank you for that, as it is your article and others like it that have made me turn away from the GOP in disgust.

Tito, get me a hanky!

I have no intention of arguing each tiny issue point by point, as I admit that I am not an expert on each issue nor do I wish to be. But you do have to respect the person, be they Democrat or Republican or even Ms. Garafolo, that actually takes the time to read and digest the issues. And you especially have to respect Ms. Garafolo for having the courage to be willing to make herself a media target by publicly standing for her beliefs. (After all, there are those that may call her unflattering names simply because she speaks her mind politically as she is guaranteed by her American birthright. Can you imagine that?) I respect open discussion of valid, relevant issues. It’s difficult to believe that you would support that viewpoint when those who do not agree with you are termed as “short, fat idiots.”

One is wise not to argue on matters of which one is ignorant. But I call someone short when they are short. Fat when they are overweight. Idiots when they demonstrate that they have not only failed to digest the issues, but don’t have a clue of what they are talking about. In JG’s case, the title happened to fit very nicely. Perhaps you dole out your respect with all the reluctance of an intoxicated Tri-Delt, but mine must be earned; it is not freely given.

I realize that a title like “Janeane Garafolo is a short, fat idiot” brings the reader’s attention to your article; sure that tactic works, but it’s still a cheap shot. And in my opinion, undermines the more serious messages your article attempts to address.

Yes, this is the school of thought that suggests Ann Coulter would have more of an impact if she would only comport herself in a manner that would ensure no one read her books and columns. And what serious message? I wrote that article in 15 minutes. I can’t be forcing esoteric eschatology and economics down everyone’s throats every week.

Recently, in the midst of the Democratic National Convention, I have heard a lot of rhetoric and read a lot of articles about the Bush campaign and found that they operate like you; cheap shot name-calling tactics aimed at anyone who isn’t “one of them” as a substitute for valid discussion. In my opinion, these cheap tactics work best for politicians that have nothing to say and nothing to boast. They cannot champion their own ideals or successes because they have none. I’ve heard enough bashing by Bush, and I am waiting for substance……….and I’m still waiting……….

Yeah, well, don’t hold your breath. Even the platform will be substance-free, from what I hear – not that George Dole will read it. You’re not seriously suggesting that there was any substance at the Democratic convention, though, I hope. That wasn’t so much a lack of substance as it was anti-substance, which is to say, complete dishonesty. Whatever happened to that whole Senate career anyway, Jean-Francois?

Now, I’m always happy to discuss ideas, of course, the problem is that it’s a little difficult to discuss the impact of inflation with someone who’s never heard of the CPI, much less hedonic adjustment or the history of fiat money in France. But go ahead and throw down if you’ve got something to bring. If I wasn’t afraid to go head-to-head with the economist that Nelson Mandela flew in to advise him on the current South African constitution or to smack down the professor who wrote the Econ 101 book we were using my freshman year, I’m certainly not worried about you.

I skipped reading Powerline for a few days and was a few sentences into this post when I realized that far from being an indictment, Michelle Malkin was apparently defending FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in her new book. Scrolling down to the previous Powerline post revealed that the title: In Defense of Internment is not a sarcastic appellation in the Erasmian mode, but a straightforward justification of American concentration camps.

Needless to say, I haven’t read the book yet, but once I get my hands on one I will review it here. I very much doubt I’ll find her case convincing, as no amount of clear and present danger justifies the complete abrogation of the U.S. Constitution, much less the farcical possibility of a serious Japanese threat to the U.S. mainland. As one Powerline reader wrote in to comment:

“It amazes me that self-professed conservatives still insist on carrying water for the greatest American icon of the left, FDR, on the issue of WWII internments. The internments were morally wrong, practically unnecessary, and unconstitutional. As far as its unconstitutionality, I know that Justice Scalia ranks the [Korematsu] decision as one of the worst in American jurisprudence (I take Scalia over Malkin). As for its necessity, J. Edgar Hoover reported to FDR that the FBI had found no evidence for even a single act of espionage or sabotage amongst Japanese-Americans and Japanese nationals. It was immoral because it deprived tens of thousands of people (including tens of thousands of American citizens) of their unalienable right to liberty (as well as effectively depriving them of most of their property) without anything close to due process. FDR’s attorney general was against it, as was the rest of his cabinet (the closest one of them came to concurring was Sec. Of War Stimson who believed that Japanese nationals, but not American citizens, should be interned).

Nor is there a direct correlation between mass internments and the use of profiling in law enforcement/homeland security. The one deals only with a temporary administrative inconvenience versus the violation of fundamental rights. I’m for the use of profiling, but I don’t see how Malkin’s quixotic effort to justify the historical side issue of WWII internments will do much if anything to further that cause.

“Self-professed” being the key word. I’d previously thought that Malkin was nothing more than another cute Republican media whore, but apparently she’s something worse, a strong government “conservative” in the Bush mode. Conservatives really need to be a little bit more aware of who is climbing into their beds and who they embrace as their intellectual champions. What’s next, the conservative case for Stalin’s socialism in one country? Or perhaps for a sequel, Malkin can champion FDR’s seizure of the nation’s gold and his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

I have no problem whatsoever with private companies being allowed to profile and discriminate to their hearts’ content. I have no problem with the states closing the national borders to immigrants. I do, however, have a massive problem with those who defend the federal government’s right to put American citizens in concentration camps. To paraphrase the words of a true conservative, PJ O’Rourke, advocating the expansion of central state power isn’t just treason to conservativism, it is treason to the human race.