Vox Popoli

Thomas Sowell writes:

Polarization is a high price to pay for high voter turnout. But efforts are already underway to scare old people that their Social Security is threatened, in order to get out their vote, when in fact nobody in his right mind is going to touch their Social Security….

That is an enormous responsibility at a time when Americans are in greater peril than even during the nuclear stand-off of the Cold War. After all, the Soviet Union could be deterred by our nuclear weapons but suicide bombers cannot be deterred by anything. And it may be only a matter of a few years before they have nuclear weapons….

Those who vote on the basis of what the government can do for them are especially short-sighted during a war against worldwide terror networks. What good would it do to get free prescription drugs forever if your forever is likely to be cut short by more attacks like those on September 11, 2001?

So, scare tactics about Social Security – which is mathematically doomed anyhow – are off-limits, but scare tactics about suicide bombers who don’t possess nuclear weapons and aren’t presently active in the United States are appropriate? The average American’s odds of being killed by terrorists over the last three years run at about 0.00033 percent, or 3.3 per million, including 9/11. Those are odds that not even the most inveterate purchaser of lottery tickets would consider “likely”. Moreover, the notion that nuclear armed suicide bombers are more dangerous than the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal ever was simply asinine.

I like Dr. Sowell and I own several of his books, but he has been on a very feeble streak of late. An intellectual with his grasp of history should immediately recognize the old, old scare tactic of tyranny through safety, not further it.

Liam the Obscure breaks his silence:

“I think taking a jab at punctuation or spelling always weakens your arguement.”

I don’t. I think systematically using improper punctuation and spelling brings the author’s ability to think and breadth of knowledge into question. The occasional typo or habitual error – I always want to write judgement, judgment just looks wrong to me – is a complete non-issue, but serial and simple mistakes are another matter.

This doesn’t necessarily discredit the author entirely, but it does serve to raise a red flag. One can be wise and ignorant, especially with the benefit of age and experience, but the two don’t generally go hand-in-hand.

In any event, I loathe all these “weakens your argument” assertions. An argument is as strong as it is, all the rest is just window dressing. If someone seriously thinks my case against socialized health care is weakened by my prediliction for calling Hillary Clinton “the Lizard Queen”, I have zero regard for their ability to reason. I’ve noticed that this school of thought often expresses the notion that Ann Coulter would be more “effective” if she would tone down her rhetoric, which is, of course, the height of idiocy given that it is Ann’s rhetoric and style which have made her the most successful political writer in the nation.

Anonymous fails to penetrate the veil:

I will never understand why Vox takes such pleasure in twisting someone’s hind most hairs. It’s perverse. heaven forbid that someone should accuse him of being inconsistent. You might as well say he lied.

That’s an interesting metaphor, and no doubt a Freudian would make great hay of it, but if you can’t understand the pleasures of literary sadism, well, then you’re probably not a writer. And considering that the column was fundamentally nothing but more homeschooling advocacy, inconsistency is a strange charge to level given my past record on the issue, unless one is focusing solely on the petty bits. Which Rat Spleen was, of course, doing.

The world is full of people that are going to misinterpret what you said no matter how clearly you say it. And there are some that are going to think you’re just plain wrong. Get over it. Reality bites.

Now, this is ironic. As Rat Spleen himself writes: “Here’s the neat part Vox, it was perfectly obvious only to someone with a good grasp of your personality and your viewpoints.” Like, perhaps, the regular readers of my column? You see, I not only am not surprised that many people will misinterpret my writing, but I have learned to expect it. After three years, it doesn’t even bother me anymore.

You’re so defensive. Did Ratspleen have a point maybe? Could you be wrong? Could you be inconsistent? Heaven forbid…that would make you human. We wouldn’t want that now would we? We’d all be terribly crushed.

Wrong about what? That children in public schools are at greater risk of terrorist attack than those being homeschooled? That the possession of the San Diego school district plans by an Iraqi in Iraq supposedly linked with terrorists is highly suspicious? I certainly CAN be inconsistent and incorrect, I just don’t see any explanation of HOW I was either, except in utilizing the fear-mongering tactics of the other side, which I certainly did in sarcasm.

As for being “defensive”, I am simply defending myself against Rat Spleen’s charges, as it would be both inconsistent and hypocritical to fail to do so in light of the way in which I have deplored Mrs. Malkin’s ostrich imitation.

Rat Spleen’s attempted fisking goes horribly awry:

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Vox has abandoned his principles and partaken of the koolaid quagmire of fearmongering and situational ethics. To wit:

Then again, if one considers how TV shows such as “Law and Order” see fit to preach that homeschooled children are malnourished and abused little freaks, it seems only reasonable to point out in like manner that public schooled children are brainwashed, quasi-illiterate savages, with targets painted on their chests to boot.

The finest situational ethics one could hope to uphold, and perfect delivery to boot. In no uncertain terms Vox should quit his luvrative writing career and pursue career advancement as a political advisor (truth and sarcasm at once). Look at the impeccable logic. The nuance. The spin. Because a TV show makes fautuos accusations, I will to… Nice glass house there Vox, perfect for nurutring the indoor greenery.

Of course, if my column was facetious, which its over-the-top language from beginning to end should have made perfectly obvious, Rat Spleen’s entire point about my abandonment of principle is incorrect. I was simply mocking the other side’s typical argumentation by using its methods. A tad below the belt? Probably. I found the whole thing quite amusing, myself.

The terrorists have raised the stakes once again, targeting children to demonstrate how much they envy our freedom or whatever highly implausible motivation the Bush administration is imputing to the enemy today.

Hi, ho Silver! Away! The Religion of Peace (TM) has only ever had one target – the most emotionally expedient. No stakes were raised. The world didn’t change on 9/11. It is as it always has been. Without a doubt, as someone with Vox’s impeccable knowledge of history and current affairs, knows children have always been on the buffet table. It is truly a shame to watch this great luminary of Truth fall afoul of his own damnations.

Nothing changed on 9/11? You’d better tell the entire punditocracy that, not to mention the “we are at war” crowd. Have we been giving up our civil liberties for nothing, then? The possibility of children being targeted has always been there, but the reality was that only Jewish children had hitherto been actively targeted. Breslan and the South Baghdad bombings demonstrated that this possibility had become an actuality. There is a difference.

I’m just curious to know what the FBI has concluded that an Iraqi man was doing with the information in the first place, given that it is so sure that the thought of attacking a school had not even begun to consider the merest possibility of thinking about the prospect of crossing the man’s mind. Perhaps it was an innocent coincidence, the gentleman simply happens to be in charge of crisis planning for the local madrassah and only wanted to be sure that its emergency plans were up to date and in line with those belonging to schools run by the Great Satan.

The final nail. (I believe this makes three – for the symmetry) This was public information you feckless dolt. What the heck were you doing with information on the wonders of war time production so recently? If you want to cry foul, cry foul at the fact that this information was public in the first place. In other words, suck it up and plainly state that the government should censor this information from the parents themselves – relieving them of full disclosure and input on the State’s for the children – or stuff it.

That’s nonsense, which Rat Spleen admits in the very next sentence that he does not believe. You have a perfect right to possess a butcher knife, but if you happen to possess a butcher knife while sneaking in your neighbor’s window, you will likely be charged with far more than simple breaking-and-entering, especially if you have previously announced that you want to kill him.

In truth, I believe in my paranoid core that this cavedweller had purchase of the information for nefarious purpose, but it is the height of ignorance to condemn him for perusing public documents. It is no less the equivalent than supposing that an Iraqi with a copy of the Bill of Rights in his possession was looking for ways to undermine it to his advantage in overthrowing the Great Satan.

It doesn’t mean you have to like the circumstance, but you have to acknowledge it with honesty. Doubly so, if you set yourself up as the paragon of The Truth and then engage in petty hysterical fearmongering. Three nails it is – the gauntlet is thrown – and your up on your cross, Pal. I hope you have enough integrity to state your position clearly – whether it be that of reason or of situational ethics.

My position on the public schools is quite clear. Liberate the students, demolish the buildings and send the teachers to Cuba. Perhaps if Rat Spleen’s ability to identify sarcasm and black humor was not as limited as his ability to utilize proper punctuation, he would have realized that my column last week was nothing more than a wake-up jab at public school parents in the vein of the notorious ode to the Yellow Bus of Doom.

Jay Nordlinger, when not confessing to extreme homoerotic affection for Dick Cheney and George Bush, complains:

Over and over, Edwards said that the administration had not told the truth. Basically, he called them liars, all night long. I was hoping Cheney would respond to that even once — with a little indignation, with a “How dare you?” But no.

I find it interesting that Three Monkey Republicans of Mr. Nordlinger’s stripe never manage to even contemplate the possibility that the administration’s representatives don’t deny such charges because they are fully aware that they have, in numerous ways and with regards to numerous matters, failed to tell the truth.

…since Wife Swap and Trading Spouses focus on how each mom performs on the cooking/cleaning/childcare front, it’s no surprise the stay-at-home moms look like wizards, while the working (or shopping) moms bumble around like Abbott and Costello. This is, of course, hilarious, but it ignores the fact that most women work because they have to. Turning those women into villains moves the feminist debate sideways, rather than forward.

The surprise in both shows is that some people actually do change. When Jodi simply offloads all the cleaning and cooking onto Lynn’s husband, Brad, he does it. And suddenly realizes what his wife has endured for years. He recognizes what a jerk he’s been in expecting either Jodi, or his wife, to do all the housework alone. Even Jodi has a tender moment with the Bradley girls and some cookie batter—generously recognizing that both cooking and children are not just for poor people anymore.

Steve Spolansky has no such revelation—not even when his young son’s face lights up like heartbreak in Yankee Stadium on learning his dad might actually be dining at home for a week. Steve dismisses Lynn and her values as “hillbilly.” He’s worked hard for the right to neglect his kids and disparage his bride. Confronted with a “good mom,” he writes her off as an anachronism. Steve’s failure to learn anything from the swap stands in stark contrast to Brad’s realization that he treated Lynn like a doormat, to Lynn’s realization that she allowed herself to be treated like a doormat, and to Jodi’s realization that her kids aren’t short houseplants.

This is all a vaguely interesting form of social experiment as long as I don’t have to watch any of it. But what I found interesting about this article on Slate was the admission that “most women work because they have to.” And why is that?

Because inflation and taxes have dramatically increased the family cost of living. Why have inflation and taxes increased?

Because the government is creating and spending more money. Why is the government creating and spending more money?

Because the voting populace demands it. Why does the voting populace demand it? I’ll answer in the form of a question. What is the single greatest change in the voting populace in the time that government spending per capita has increased 250-fold and the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value after remaining essentially stable over its first 120 years?

I leave it to you to figure it out.

Chuck Colson writes:

According to Wesley J. Smith in the Daily Standard, Groningen University Hospital in the Netherlands now officially allows doctors to euthanize children under twelve, “if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness.” That includes non-fatal illnesses and disabilities. Whether or not the child can consent is irrelevant—what child under twelve would have a clear idea of what he or she was consenting to?

As Smith writes, “For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of medical ethics in the Netherlands, this isn’t at all shocking. . . . Doctors were [already] killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately eighty to ninety per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least ten to fifteen of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.” Smith adds that at least a fifth of the killings were performed without parental consent.

There are those who still believe that the United States is a blessed nation, that it is somehow a morally superior country. They believe this mostly because the USA is materially prosperous. They should keep in mind that so are the appropriately named Netherlands.

THE 1997 SPECIAL EDITION release of Star Wars included a new scene where Han Solo encounters Jabba the Hut on Tatooine. Solo owes Jabba money, and has just killed a bounty hunter sent after him by the Hut. Running into one another in a hangar, Solo and Jabba banter and eventually reach an agreement whereby Jabba lets him go on the condition that Solo repay him with hefty interest.

This seems like a small change, but it sets off a chain reaction which undermines the basic arc of Han Solo’s character: Throughout the Star Wars series, Solo is on the run from an implacable gangster who wants him dead. This deathmark influences his decisions and is what makes him a skittish, mercenary scoundrel. Solo is the type of guy who has to look around every corner. But now that he has a deal with Jabba the Hut, none of that makes sense. Han isn’t being chased by bounty hunters and can go square with Jabba any time he likes. As a result, his character loses a good bit of danger and romance.

(As an aside, it’s worth noting that this new scene also manages to confuse the character of Jabba himself. When the great Hut made his first appearance in 1983 in Return of the Jedi, he

is a crass, stupid bully. In the Special Edition scene grafted onto the original Star Wars, he’s a smooth-talking, genial Mafioso. Will the real Jabba please stand up?)

…it is a measure of the deleterious effects of Lucas’s tinkering (and the awfulness of the prequels) that it is difficult to care about Star Wars anymore. Twenty years ago that would have sounded like heresy. People growing up in the 1970s and ’80s committed Star Wars to memory and developed a cult around the movies (for instance, the band which performs the theme song to Buffy the Vampire Slayer is called “Nerf Herder,” an epithet Leia uses to describe Han in Empire). Strangely enough, the cultural space Star Wars occupies has shrunk in recent years. People who were weaned on the originals have become disenchanted, and Lucas’s revised versions aren’t minting many new fans.

Count me as one of those burying their heads in the sand, pretending that the “prequels” never happened. I loathed the first prequel and have so blocked it out of my memory that I can’t even tell you what it’s called off the top of my head. I didn’t bother seeing the second one. As a matter of fact, I thought that Jedi pretty much sucked when it came out too. The Ewoks throwing rocks at Storm Troopers was just too stupid for words, even if the jet bikes were pretty cool. (Perhaps a bigger problem was that I was old enough to realize that Princess Leia was not, in fact, attractive in any way, shape or form except perhaps to stocky female softball players.

I don’t think there’s any question that the faithfulness Peter Jackson showed to The Lord of the Rings – even his errors must be excused as the sort made in good faith – make the LOTR movies far superior to even the original Star Wars trilogy. I will always love those first two movies, but it would have been better if Lucas had left us bereft and wishing for more instead of revealing that there was, after all, no magician behind the curtain.

Recently, when John Kerry brought up the possibility of a return to the draft, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld was quick to respond that Kerry was full of it. But my take is that Kerry is right on the mark. Not only because Rummy has been flat wrong on every major military call regarding Iraq, but because this is a war that won’t be won by smart weapons or the sledgehammer firepower we see every night on the tube….

Rumsfeld, in fact, has already kicked off the anti-draft campaign by denigrating the draftees who fought in Vietnam. The SecDef, who prefers sycophants who don’t ask questions, recently stated that Vietnam-era draftees added “No value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services … because … it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”

Wrong once again. I led draftees for almost four years in Vietnam and for several years during the Korean War. If well-led, there are no finer soldiers. Ask the Nazis, the Japanese and the Reds in Korea and in Vietnam, where “no value” draftees cleaned their clocks in fight after fight. Israel, a country that has lived under the barrel of the Islamic terrorist gun for decades, has the most combat-experienced counterinsurgent force in the world – and boy and girl draftees are its major resource.

Count on it. We will follow their lead.

I’ve already written volumes on internment, but a draft is an equally unconscionable violation of life and property rights. If a society will not defend itself voluntarily, it deserves to fall. I suspect that unless the “war” is dialed down, and soon, Hackworth’s logic will become undeniable. But it’s not a Democrat vs Republican thing; both parties will join forces in declaring that it is necessary and cram it down America’s throat while the sheep on both sides bleat their approval because their masters have spoken.

By the way, I’ve noticed in the past that some knee-jerk Republicans who pride themselves on their “support for the troops” don’t hesitate to sully themselves by slinging mud at Hackworth for doing what he has always done, standing up for the enlisted whose lives are on the line, even in the face of the military and civilian leadership. Take a good close look at his record and examine his well-documented expertise before embarrassing yourself by criticizing him rather than his arguments.

Rumsfeld on Iraq, on Monday:

On whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war, Rumsfeld said flatly Monday that intelligence about such weapons before the invasion was faulty – a markedly different statement than what he told a television interviewer just a day earlier. “It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction,” Rumsfeld said Monday in the speech to the foreign affairs group. “Why the intelligence proved wrong I’m not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail.”

…In Monday’s speech, Rumsfeld said President Bush had taken the position that “it was unwise for the civilized world to allow Iraq to continue rejecting” U.N. resolutions demanding that Saddam’s “vicious regime,” which previously had used weapons of mass destruction on its own people, to give them up…. Asked to describe the connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

Rumsfeld on Iraq, later that same day:

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

* We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

* We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

* We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.

It’s interesting to note that if you read both statements closely, there’s no serious contradiction between the two. There may be “links”, after all, there are plenty of “links” between France and the USA. But the evidence is neither strong nor hard. There are far too many weasel words, “could” “what we believe” “what we consider” and so forth. After all, al-Qaeda members were also in Germany, among many other countries, but we have not yet bombed the Bundesrepublik.

I’ve always liked Rumsfeld, to a certain extent. He’s beginning to strike me as a man who is distinctly uncomfortable with what he has done and on whose behalf he has done it.