A mesolibertarian voice.
What is a mesolibertarian? Not a paleo or a neo. The traditional principled kind. notanempire@aol.nospamcom (you know what to do with the "no spam")
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
March, My Words
It turns out I was wrong (see two posts down) in specifics but not wholly wrong in general about the anti-Iraq war march in Washington last Saturday. The noxious pro-Palestinian signs were not there, thank goodness. There was a hackneyed "X dies/Y lies" rhyme but that's to be expected. And the new "Make levees not war" is clever. And not too much pro-Chavez stuff. On the other hand, openly pro-Communist stuff (explicitly so) floated about; a non-ANSWER type organizer later bemoaned to me that every type had to show up.
I was a fellow-traveler (of the march not Communism). For a few minutes downtown I walked alongside the demonstrators, in agreement with their goals on Iraq but not their world view. I walked past the counterprotesters who were too busy baiting the marchers for a serious discussion. A person or two among the counterprotestors was painted and decked out in red white and blue in a way that would be as offensive as flag-burning when done by the other side.
But here's what struck me. The counterprotestors, the mostly normal-looking ones (which were most of them), had American flags, while precious few American flags were in the anti-war march. For those of us who may have non-conformist opinions but conventional political esthetics, and even an old-fashioned patriotism, stuff like that is very noticeable.
More important was the fact that ultimately this was not an anti-Iraq rally or even an anti-war rally. It was just an anti-Bush rally, with Iraq as the accusation du jour. One cannot help but think that for many demonstrators their real problem with the war is not the American life, limb or resources lost, or the Iraqi lives destroyed and disrupted, or the falsehoods advanced to justify it, but simply that all that carnage was initiated by the loathed personage of George W Bush. And looking at the demonstrators one could feel that, for at least a great many, they hate Bush primarily because he simply reminds them of some jock/religious-devotee/fratboy/whiteguy/rich-kid who made them feel like rejects for being a hippie/woman/gay/minority/nerd/working-class-person, etc. And that's a dumb reason and way to fight a dumb war.
UPDATE, SORT OF:
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in a column I have only in hard copy, shows what I mean in a way. He harangues the White House for not taking note of the import of the antiwar movement, and compares the current administration to the White House of Johnson failing in Vietnam to notice the protest songs. Then Robinson adds "did everybody in this administration spend the whole Vietnam era listening to Pat Boone or whatever it was they grooved to in the frat houses?"
And did Mr. Robinson spend the '60s in an Afro listening to James Brown in the 'hood?
Maybe there could be a stereotype competition. Sheesh.
It turns out I was wrong (see two posts down) in specifics but not wholly wrong in general about the anti-Iraq war march in Washington last Saturday. The noxious pro-Palestinian signs were not there, thank goodness. There was a hackneyed "X dies/Y lies" rhyme but that's to be expected. And the new "Make levees not war" is clever. And not too much pro-Chavez stuff. On the other hand, openly pro-Communist stuff (explicitly so) floated about; a non-ANSWER type organizer later bemoaned to me that every type had to show up.
I was a fellow-traveler (of the march not Communism). For a few minutes downtown I walked alongside the demonstrators, in agreement with their goals on Iraq but not their world view. I walked past the counterprotesters who were too busy baiting the marchers for a serious discussion. A person or two among the counterprotestors was painted and decked out in red white and blue in a way that would be as offensive as flag-burning when done by the other side.
But here's what struck me. The counterprotestors, the mostly normal-looking ones (which were most of them), had American flags, while precious few American flags were in the anti-war march. For those of us who may have non-conformist opinions but conventional political esthetics, and even an old-fashioned patriotism, stuff like that is very noticeable.
More important was the fact that ultimately this was not an anti-Iraq rally or even an anti-war rally. It was just an anti-Bush rally, with Iraq as the accusation du jour. One cannot help but think that for many demonstrators their real problem with the war is not the American life, limb or resources lost, or the Iraqi lives destroyed and disrupted, or the falsehoods advanced to justify it, but simply that all that carnage was initiated by the loathed personage of George W Bush. And looking at the demonstrators one could feel that, for at least a great many, they hate Bush primarily because he simply reminds them of some jock/religious-devotee/fratboy/whiteguy/rich-kid who made them feel like rejects for being a hippie/woman/gay/minority/nerd/working-class-person, etc. And that's a dumb reason and way to fight a dumb war.
UPDATE, SORT OF:
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in a column I have only in hard copy, shows what I mean in a way. He harangues the White House for not taking note of the import of the antiwar movement, and compares the current administration to the White House of Johnson failing in Vietnam to notice the protest songs. Then Robinson adds "did everybody in this administration spend the whole Vietnam era listening to Pat Boone or whatever it was they grooved to in the frat houses?"
And did Mr. Robinson spend the '60s in an Afro listening to James Brown in the 'hood?
Maybe there could be a stereotype competition. Sheesh.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Slogan Zeros: Predicted Silly Antiwar Demonstration Themes
On Saturday, large numbers of protestors will show up in D.C. and around the country to protest the Iraq War. (A few among them will throw in other wars to protest as well.) As to Iraq, my sympathies are there to the extent that I consider the Iraq Attack one our Greatest National Boo-Boos Ever. And some of the folks involved and participating in Saturday's events are those I know, respect, like, or love.
Still, with groups like ANSWER involved you know it’s going to get really silly. And fast. It’ll quickly devolve into an assemblage of largely militant secular leftists convinced with all their hearts that while there is no God, George W. Bush is nevertheless the Antichrist.
The way to tell the silliness is the slogans. I predict the need-to-be-retired-yesterday themes laid out below will be out and about. They will appear and be notable as chants, signs, and speech themes. (Can anyone suggest others to add? But I don’t want to hear from the pro-war folks for whom everything about the demonstration is bad.)
Silly slogans and themes:
No blood for oil. Retire this one please. Sure oil’s a central consideration in Mideast geopolitics (as it should be) but the stale Leninist/degraded Marxist view – rich people start wars to steal foreign wealth -- is sooooooooo early 20th Century. Discretionary wars actually serve to satiate popular revenge sentiment, economically serve to meet more immediate needs of a military-industrial complex and mass news media, and also help implement ideological visions of superiority. Greed is often central but the greed will be for the gainful employment of the glib political class and professional military suppliers, and may not be for local resources primarily. To assume so is actually bad Marxism, even. (As if it mattered.)
And sometimes a war can be necessary and forced upon one too, even if profitable to some. (Iraq isn’t necessary or forced on us, however).
X lied, Y died. Ok they rhyme. On aesthetic grounds this has to go.
Hey hey, ho ho, occupation’s got to go. Same thing: aesthetic grounds.
Anything with “corporate” in it. “Corporate” has become the softer progressive left’s euphemized garble for the old socialist-Communist epithet “capitalist” (which, folks, is actually kind of a good thing, capitalism). Yes evil “corporate” interests help drive wars, but guess what? Evil doesn’t become better if done by a limited liability partnership, or a sole proprietorship. Most important, it takes a government, not a capitalist, to make wars happen. And a thought: what or who is it that people bring up when they rave about “corporate” pro-war media? Well, Rupert Murdoch, mainly. But he as far as I can tell, is not a corporation but an individual. And who often brings up this corporate evil? Well, groups like Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, to which ANSWER is associated, and which is apparently funded by a … corporation (and a tax deductible one too!)
Sharon = Hitler OR [Star of David] = [Swastika]. From the pro-Palestinian crowd. I recall an earlier antiwar demonstration in DC in 2003 where there were chants of “death to Sharon” in the middle of this antiwar(!) rally, not to mention Arabic chants about bombing Tel Aviv (few knew this if they weren't Arabic speakers or, in my case, around an Arabic speaker). Now, while I think the Israeli record is far worse than Israel’s knee-jerk fan club will concede, and worse than conventional wisdom appreciates, such noxious and counterproductive sloganeering is basically pro-Palestinians just getting their rhetorical rocks off by offensively and inarticulately trying to say “F.U. Jews and pro-Israelis for bringing up the Holocaust when we state our case.”
Free Mumia. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the apparent cop-killer who got convicted on possibly less-than-reasonable doubt evidence will be lionized. Good Lord, why?
NEW! A Chavez slogan. Something obscenely nice may be said about the Venezuelan generalissimo and Castro-to-be Hugo Chavez.
NEW! Something about Katrina being a sign of racism. I’m kind of sympathetic to the charge of government and Administration serious blundering in regard to the Katrina plans and even to how Iraq detracted from the resources of responsible protection. But the spirit of Kayne West will probably prevail and the whole mess will be blamed on a fantasy regarding George W. Bush’s alleged racism.
On Saturday, large numbers of protestors will show up in D.C. and around the country to protest the Iraq War. (A few among them will throw in other wars to protest as well.) As to Iraq, my sympathies are there to the extent that I consider the Iraq Attack one our Greatest National Boo-Boos Ever. And some of the folks involved and participating in Saturday's events are those I know, respect, like, or love.
Still, with groups like ANSWER involved you know it’s going to get really silly. And fast. It’ll quickly devolve into an assemblage of largely militant secular leftists convinced with all their hearts that while there is no God, George W. Bush is nevertheless the Antichrist.
The way to tell the silliness is the slogans. I predict the need-to-be-retired-yesterday themes laid out below will be out and about. They will appear and be notable as chants, signs, and speech themes. (Can anyone suggest others to add? But I don’t want to hear from the pro-war folks for whom everything about the demonstration is bad.)
Silly slogans and themes:
No blood for oil. Retire this one please. Sure oil’s a central consideration in Mideast geopolitics (as it should be) but the stale Leninist/degraded Marxist view – rich people start wars to steal foreign wealth -- is sooooooooo early 20th Century. Discretionary wars actually serve to satiate popular revenge sentiment, economically serve to meet more immediate needs of a military-industrial complex and mass news media, and also help implement ideological visions of superiority. Greed is often central but the greed will be for the gainful employment of the glib political class and professional military suppliers, and may not be for local resources primarily. To assume so is actually bad Marxism, even. (As if it mattered.)
And sometimes a war can be necessary and forced upon one too, even if profitable to some. (Iraq isn’t necessary or forced on us, however).
X lied, Y died. Ok they rhyme. On aesthetic grounds this has to go.
Hey hey, ho ho, occupation’s got to go. Same thing: aesthetic grounds.
Anything with “corporate” in it. “Corporate” has become the softer progressive left’s euphemized garble for the old socialist-Communist epithet “capitalist” (which, folks, is actually kind of a good thing, capitalism). Yes evil “corporate” interests help drive wars, but guess what? Evil doesn’t become better if done by a limited liability partnership, or a sole proprietorship. Most important, it takes a government, not a capitalist, to make wars happen. And a thought: what or who is it that people bring up when they rave about “corporate” pro-war media? Well, Rupert Murdoch, mainly. But he as far as I can tell, is not a corporation but an individual. And who often brings up this corporate evil? Well, groups like Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, to which ANSWER is associated, and which is apparently funded by a … corporation (and a tax deductible one too!)
Sharon = Hitler OR [Star of David] = [Swastika]. From the pro-Palestinian crowd. I recall an earlier antiwar demonstration in DC in 2003 where there were chants of “death to Sharon” in the middle of this antiwar(!) rally, not to mention Arabic chants about bombing Tel Aviv (few knew this if they weren't Arabic speakers or, in my case, around an Arabic speaker). Now, while I think the Israeli record is far worse than Israel’s knee-jerk fan club will concede, and worse than conventional wisdom appreciates, such noxious and counterproductive sloganeering is basically pro-Palestinians just getting their rhetorical rocks off by offensively and inarticulately trying to say “F.U. Jews and pro-Israelis for bringing up the Holocaust when we state our case.”
Free Mumia. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the apparent cop-killer who got convicted on possibly less-than-reasonable doubt evidence will be lionized. Good Lord, why?
NEW! A Chavez slogan. Something obscenely nice may be said about the Venezuelan generalissimo and Castro-to-be Hugo Chavez.
NEW! Something about Katrina being a sign of racism. I’m kind of sympathetic to the charge of government and Administration serious blundering in regard to the Katrina plans and even to how Iraq detracted from the resources of responsible protection. But the spirit of Kayne West will probably prevail and the whole mess will be blamed on a fantasy regarding George W. Bush’s alleged racism.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Ways Government Can Suck
Please get it, non-libertarian people.
The reason we libertarians don't want uninhibited government is that we fear unshackled power. Being a government agent is no immunity to human nature, it just allows the worst aspects to be practiced with impunity. It doesn't matter if it's George Bush or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.
From Yahoo news (via Radley Balko):
(Second Amendment sidelight: That's the dis-armers talking to the dis-armees, by the way.)
OTOH, the reports of volunteer rescue workers being given sexual harrassment training at FEMA look less looney now.
Please get it, non-libertarian people.
The reason we libertarians don't want uninhibited government is that we fear unshackled power. Being a government agent is no immunity to human nature, it just allows the worst aspects to be practiced with impunity. It doesn't matter if it's George Bush or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.
From Yahoo news (via Radley Balko):
A group of female hurricane survivors were told to show their breasts if they wanted to be rescued, a British holidaymaker has revealed.Ged Scott watched as American rescuers turned their boat around and sped off when the the women refused.
(Second Amendment sidelight: That's the dis-armers talking to the dis-armees, by the way.)
OTOH, the reports of volunteer rescue workers being given sexual harrassment training at FEMA look less looney now.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Dept. of Closing the Barn Door After....
Good news, two weeks too late; and bad news, never timely . . . .
Good news, two weeks too late; and bad news, never timely . . . .
"Repairs on New Orleans Levee Completed
By DOUG SIMPSON, AP
NEW ORLEANS (Sept. 5) - A week after Hurricane Katrina, engineers plugged the levee break that swamped much of the city and floodwaters began to recede, but along with the good news came the mayor's direst prediction yet: As many as 10,000 dead."
Friday, September 02, 2005
Lileks explains the wrong error
James Lileks writes to explain why he wrongly slammed the French for not doing anything in regard to the Katrina hurricane damage in New Orleans. Lileks reports that he had acted . . .
"without doing any research, since I was in a black mood and disinclined to back anything up."
Wait a minute, isn't that more likely a superb explanation of the politics of the entire recent invasion of Iraq?
James Lileks writes to explain why he wrongly slammed the French for not doing anything in regard to the Katrina hurricane damage in New Orleans. Lileks reports that he had acted . . .
"without doing any research, since I was in a black mood and disinclined to back anything up."
Wait a minute, isn't that more likely a superb explanation of the politics of the entire recent invasion of Iraq?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Talking New Orleans and Hurricanes in 2002
Check this out, the full text is even more detailed and prescient --
From Bill Moyers show in 2002
DANIEL ZWERDLING: We've tried to find scientists who'd say that these predictions of doom could never really come true and we haven't been able to find them. The main debate seems to be, when the country is facing different kinds of threats, which ones should get the most attention? The federal government has been cutting money from hurricane protection projects. Partly to pay for the war against terrorists.
DANIEL ZWERDLING:Do you think that the President of the United States and Congress understand that people like you and the scientists studying this think the city of New Orleans could very possibly disappear?
WALTER MAESTRI:I think they know that, I think that they've been told that. I don't know that anybody, though, psychologically, you know has come to grips with that as-- as a-- a potential real situation. Just like none of us could possibly come to grips with the loss of the World Trade Center. And it's still hard for me to envision that it's gone. You know and it's impossible for someone like me to think that the French Quarter of New Orleans could be gone.
. . .
JAY COMBE: I think of a terrible disaster. I think of 100,000, and that's just my guess. I think that there's a terrible lack of perception. The last serious hurricane we had here was in 1965. That's close to 40 years ago.
So, we've dodged bullets three times since Betsy and I'm not sure we can keep counting on the hurricane changing its mind and going someplace else.
DANIEL ZWERDLING: Stories about disasters in America usually end on an optimistic note. People rebound. The nation rebuilds. Life gradually gets back to normal. But officials in Louisiana are facing another possibility: If a monster storm strikes New Orleans, this city might never come back.
Check this out, the full text is even more detailed and prescient --
From Bill Moyers show in 2002
DANIEL ZWERDLING: We've tried to find scientists who'd say that these predictions of doom could never really come true and we haven't been able to find them. The main debate seems to be, when the country is facing different kinds of threats, which ones should get the most attention? The federal government has been cutting money from hurricane protection projects. Partly to pay for the war against terrorists.
DANIEL ZWERDLING:Do you think that the President of the United States and Congress understand that people like you and the scientists studying this think the city of New Orleans could very possibly disappear?
WALTER MAESTRI:I think they know that, I think that they've been told that. I don't know that anybody, though, psychologically, you know has come to grips with that as-- as a-- a potential real situation. Just like none of us could possibly come to grips with the loss of the World Trade Center. And it's still hard for me to envision that it's gone. You know and it's impossible for someone like me to think that the French Quarter of New Orleans could be gone.
. . .
JAY COMBE: I think of a terrible disaster. I think of 100,000, and that's just my guess. I think that there's a terrible lack of perception. The last serious hurricane we had here was in 1965. That's close to 40 years ago.
So, we've dodged bullets three times since Betsy and I'm not sure we can keep counting on the hurricane changing its mind and going someplace else.
DANIEL ZWERDLING: Stories about disasters in America usually end on an optimistic note. People rebound. The nation rebuilds. Life gradually gets back to normal. But officials in Louisiana are facing another possibility: If a monster storm strikes New Orleans, this city might never come back.