Finn Kveldulfr

Education in California

2009-11-20T06:44:38Z

From an article covering the UC Fees Increase (Los Angeles Times, 20Nov09, written by Larry Gordon and Amina Khan):

'After two increases by next fall, basic UC undergraduate fees will cost $10,302 a year, plus about $1,000 in extra campus charges. Room, board and books can add another $16,000.

UC President Mark G. Yudof said he wanted Californians to know that plenty of financial aid is available. "If people sit around the dining room table and say we can't afford the University of California, then we are in trouble," he said.'

"Then we are in trouble", Mr Yudolf says? I think he's dreaming... People already WERE sitting around the dining room table saying that they couldn't afford the University of California BEFORE this most recent round of fee hikes. And this ~~fat lazy stupid sonofabitch~~ University President wants us to know that "plenty of financial aid" is available? I'd like some of the drugs he's obviously taking, 'cause it's clearly stuff that will make you see and hear things that do NOT exist.... like a supposed abundance of available financial aid.

The question to also ask-- if by financial aid, Mr Yudolf means lots and lots and lots of (non-existant) student loans.... is a UC education really worth being in debt for the REST OF YOUR LIFE trying to pay it off at that ridiculously high price the Regents want to charge for it AFTER SOAKING UP FUNDS from the taxpaying public that should be going to UC in order to make education affordable?

That too is placing a UC education outside of most people's reach... the idea that am I really going to be able to pay back my loans after college if I had to borrow that much to get through it?

Personally-- I'm REALLY WONDERING, with all of the teacher cuts in the California Education System (not just at the UCs), all of the cuts in teacher pay, how come there haven't been more cuts in administrative and bureaucratic staff? And how come Mr Yudolf and his cronies haven't had major cuts in their salaries? I think that's an obvious step that needs to be taken, rather than putting up with cuts everywhere else while fat cats like Mr Yudolf and his cronies on the Board of Regents continue to enjoy their fat salaries year after year with no cuts and no effects on their job, serving themselves at the public trough while essentially stealing money from the taxpayers by doing such a piss-poor job as stewards of our Universities.

As for California and its Education system in general? We're in deep trouble.... the education system is continuously getting screwed, and it's getting down to the point where we are going to be failing most of the people seeking an education in this state. In about 20 or so years of this-- what kind of shithole is California going to be, with all of our young people entering the work force as ignorant, illiterate uneducated savages-- because that's all our schools will be able to turn out after ~~Herr Groppenfuhrer~~ the Governator has finished raping the K-14 system to fix budget deficits now by killing off California's future?

Basically, in this state, we suck.

BTW-- in the interests of proper disclaimers-- yes, a lot of these problems do personally affect me-- I'm a couple of decades out of high school, working trash jobs and trying to get through college, and finding it harder and harder thanks to the constant increases in Education cost and decreases in Education accessibility. But as someone who is studying history, I'm very concerned about how much of a problem our destruction of the K-12 system is going to cause as well.

Dave Arneson - RIP

2009-04-14T20:28:55Z

Dave Arneson passed away on 7Apr09 (or at least that's the dates I got), due to cancer.

If you don't know who he was....
One of two things applies:
1. You don't play role-playing games (Dungeons & Dragons, for particular instance)
or
2. You're not aware of the early history of role-playing games....

While much of the world was aware of E. Gary Gygax and his contributions to the hobby, including being one of the *co-creators* of the original Dungeons & Dragons game (the first role-playing game in existence, at least in the western world in the 20th century and after), a lot of people appear to have been unaware of Dave Arneson's contributions: he was the other *co-creator* of the original Dungeons & Dragons game. Furthermore, while much of the game mechanics of D&D were derived from the tabletop wargame 'Chainmail' (created by Gary Gygax et al)--
*Dave Arneson* was the first one to come up with the idea of each person playing a single character, and more to the point, playing a *character*-- personality, motives, and all, with personal goals to achieve in game, and with the potential (if multiple sessions were played) of the character growing and learning, and becoming more powerful from game to game...

While Arneson's first attempts at running such games (at Wargaming Conventions and such) were the prototypical original 'dungeon crawl' adventures-- nonetheless he was the one who came up with the core idea of roleplaying games in the first place (at the very least, the first person known to have done so AND who spread the idea to others). While Gygax's contributions were very significant-- really, I don't know if Arneson's idea would have taken shape in the form of D&D and been unleashed upon the world without his collaboration with Gygax-- IMO, the Roleplaying Game hobby owes at least as much if not more to Arneson as it does to Gygax.

They should both be remembered, and their contributions honored.

By all accounts, Mr Arneson had a good life... if I've got the information correct, he passed away at the age of 61-- not as many years as some get, many more years than others have had-- but his work has affected a lot of people, and the games descended from his original idea (in oh so many varieties of roleplaying games out there by now) live on.

Rest in peace, Dave-- and thank you for what you gave to all of us who play RPGs.

Losses in the Furry Community

2009-02-20T20:39:26Z

I didn't know 'Furp'-- I don't recall ever meeting him, but he was someone who was a good friend to friends of mine, and by all accounts I've seen, he was a very good man. He was killed a few days ago in a traffic accident near 29 Palms. The other driver, a Marine, was drunk. For all those of you who knew him-- you have my sympathies.

I'm deployed overseas right now, and while I'm not in the sandbox-- where I'm at is presumed to not be as safe as say, the good old USA-- there are plenty of reasons why I'm carrying a weapon and live ammo, pretty much 24/7. When I was in Iraq, about five years ago now, a good friend of mine back in the states was in a severe car accident, caused by the other driver speeding and running a red light, and t-boning my friend's minivan-- while that friend fortunately lived and is still with us, he's got pins holding several of his bones together and still walks with a limp. This is one more hit on the 'sheesh, I'm supposed to be the one at risk here...' I also knew a few people that I deployed with, who made it through the whole deployment, came home, and then got killed in some accident or another after they got home. I've read in several of the comments that people who knew him made-- that he too served in some of the war zones we're involved in around the world, made it through all that in one piece, and then something happened to him in the USA. All I can say to that is it really sucks, I don't know how to explain why the gods/goddesses hit us and take someone away before what we otherwise see as his proper time, and it does cut deep. Maybe later I'll find more coherent and eloquent words to say about it. Wish I'd known him.

I made a couple of comments on friends' pages-- after thinking about it a little more, I've decided to repost some portions of my comments here on my own live journal:

[This is] "one more notch on my personal list of reasons why I feel no tolerance whatsoever for drunk and/or otherwise intoxicated drivers. And one more reminder that home isn't all that safe, and that no matter how careful, skilled, lucky, etc, we may be-- death may still come calling when you least expect it. I'm still thinking the idea is to LIVE your life while you're alive, and to be the best person you can be-- not just exist, and not worry how much time you have left, and not leave regrets about the things you should have done but didn't because you thought you could do it tomorrow. From all the comments I've seen about him-- seems like Furp was someone who already knew that lesson and was putting it into practice."

(and in response to a post to someone who'd admitted driving drunk before and almost sounded like they were trying to defend the practice):

[here's] "the military answer (it's actually a good one)--
Doesn't matter how you feel, what you think of your ability to drive, whether you think you're sober or not--

When you go out (and all the way through the following morning/at least one good night's sleep/extended length of sobering up time):
IF YOU'VE BEEN DRINKING ALCOHOL, DON'T DRIVE. PERIOD. EVEN IF IT'S JUST ONE DRINK.

It ain't rocket science. And a F***ing Marine?! What pisses me off (a lot) while reading about this death in the community, is I know damn well that drunk driver got plenty of those briefings already, even if he was fresh out of basic, and CHOSE to ignore that simple rule-- because he KNOWINGLY did something criminally stupid, he deserves to be held fully accountable for his crime.
And, I have no doubt he chose to drive drunk, knowing that he had other options-- in this regard the Army and Marine Corps have some similar policies-- we encourage designated drivers. We tell young troops (and old) not to drive drunk. We tell them if they are somewhere and they've been drinking and don't have a designated driver, take a cab-- if you don't have the money, we'll find some way to cover it. Or call staff duty, call your squad leader, your platoon sergeant, your platoon leader, your first sergeant, even your CO-- we'll come and get you. We'd rather do that than have you drive drunk (this accident shows a key reason why).
I know Marine Corps leaders tell their Marines that, same as Army Leaders tell their soldiers that, and I tell my squad those same things.

There just isn't any fucking excuse for it. Of course, the poor bastard who did it is probably going to get a few years in prison to think about his crimes, along with a bad conduct discharge and the knowledge that by his conduct, he has dishonored himself, his unit, and the entire United States Marine Corps.

And still, my friends who knew Furp have to live with the loss. Whatever happens to the driver, it ain't enough."

Voting

2008-11-05T23:51:17Z

Oh, for those who might even think of making certain types of snide comment...
Yes, I voted yesterday.
Among other things-- I voted FOR Obama, against Ed Royce, and against Prop 8.... wanna know my other votes? I suppose you can ask me-- I may answer or I may decline to state, depending on who you are and how I feel.... one thing I won't do is lie to you about which way I voted.

And, as noted many times before, I am a veteran-- I've stood up to serve the United States of America and defend it, and I have served in a war. I know well the value of voting, AND the value of free speech, since I've put my neck on the line to preserve those rights. Too many other people in this country never have. You wanna criticize what I've had to say in the last several posts, fine-- that is part of free speech-- but do think about that-- What have you done to serve your country? And have you done anything to earn those rights instead of simply have them handed to you on a silver platter?

And what are you doing with your rights, and what are you doing to protect them?

Politics continued

2008-11-05T23:42:42Z

On other political news (now that I've gone off on California's gigantic mistake, probably soon to be followed to by many other states with similar failures to comprehend separation of church and state)--

It's good to see that Barack Obama won the Presidency-- I'd have loved to stand with John McCain, since he is a fellow veteran-- but as I've posted before, since he's a man who stabbed his fellow veterans in the back nearly every chance he got as a senator, he has no right to call on veteran's votes now-- since he's a ~~f***ing idiot~~ 'so-called' conservative who was preparing to pilot the "Ship of State" onto a reef and sink it, I was definitely in favor of Mr Obama as President.

For that matter, Barack Obama shows enough common sense, enough willingness to try to see the world as it is, instead of through ideologically-tinted glasses, that he just might really do some good for the world.

That, while much of the U.S.A. has proven to be thoroughly bigoted still regarding homosexuals, non-christian religions, and other issues, the U.S.A. overcame the pervasive influence of racism and actually elected a man who is partly Black, gives me a little hope for this country.

On the other hand... in my own (soon-to-be-former) home district the ~~f***ing sheep~~ voters, by a margin of over 60%, have kept Ed Royce, another backstabbing son of a b**** 'so-called' conservative who screws veterans every chance he gets and has made a congressional career of supporting the rich, screwing everyone else, and being a professional "NO" man-- I can almost make my choice on issues by seeing which side Ed Royce supports, and then go for the other side. Not happy about this one... it's time Ed Royce got thrown out of office.

Bigots and Religious Nuts in California

2008-11-05T23:26:49Z

Well, well, well.... seems like 52% of the ~~stupid f***ing sheep~~ voters in California have proven that we too still deserve the title of "Bigot State"-- likewise too many of these ~~morons~~ voters seem to have no comprehension of the idea of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE since their expressed opinion in voting on Proposition 8 (State Constitutional Amendment to redefine marriage as being strictly between 1 man and 1 woman) is essentially a drive to shrine their EXPLICITLY RELIGIOUS VIEWS in CIVIL LAW.

Okay, so whose religion is our Theocracy now going to be guided under? Whose commandments do we all need to bow down before and obey?

Lemme see, I got a quote here from the L.A. Times displaying one bigot's viewpoint (name erased since LJ might get annoyed no matter how widely the L.A. Times spread this quote with real name included):

"This has been a moral battle," said Ima Discriminator (not the real name), 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."

Mrs Discriminator is a prime example of the failure to understand that if you don't believe in marriage as other than one man and one woman, just don't get married to someone of the same gender or more than one person... don't ram your F***ING RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY DOWN EVERYONE ELSE'S THROAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She is also a first-class idiot who clearly either does not understand english, doesn't really believe what she's saying, or has trouble with the concept 2+2=4, since she claims that what she and other Prop 8 supporters were trying to do doesn't change anything that homosexual couples believe or want.

But no, they've gone and done that today-- started bringing their religions explicitly into civil law. Now that marriage is defined as a union between ONE (count 'em, ONE) man (meaning presumably adult male human being) and ONE woman (meaning presumably adult female human being)-- I'm waiting to see if some jokers are going to try to overturn a lot of issues regarding divorce, second (and subsequent) marriages, etc-- since after all from some points of view (Catholic, for instance) that's getting into MORE than ONE partner-- even if they are of the only acceptable gender.

No, 8 doesn't affect me personally-- except for watching a lot of citizens be overtly and explicitly discriminated against, quite a few of whom are friends of mine-- which is enough to really piss me off. That, and the whole idea, that we are going to defend explicitly religious values in civil law-- particularly when they are NOT religious values I'd ever subscribe to, really pisses me off.

This is one of those days that makes me ashamed of my country-- and really makes me regret the days I spent in the military defending it. When this is what the United States of America is coming to... it isn't worth defending when it won't stand up for the rights of its own people.

Action in the Caucasus

2008-08-31T20:48:20Z

I find myself greatly disturbed by all the 'sabre-rattling' our politicians are doing over the Russia-Georgia confrontation in the Caucasus. I think in this instance we're going overboard and are largely wrong in our criticisms. I know some of our politicians would like to feed the great U.S./Russian rivalry, but in this case the Russians aren't altogether wrong. A few little inconvenient facts/parallels on the situation over there:

1. Russia didn't instigate hostilities-- Georgia did, by first crossing the border into their "breakaway" province, and then by deliberately opening fire on Russian 'Peacekeepers' in the area-- yes, that's right, *Georgia* started the shooting. Whether or not we want to believe the Russians over-reacted or not, the Georgians STARTED IT, not the Russians.

2. So, in a way John McSame is right in that there isn't a real parallel between what we did in Iraq and what the Russians are doing in Georgia, but not the way he thinks-- we went after and took out a "sovereign nation" without an armed attack by that nation to use for an excuse-- Russians drove Georgian troops out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, bombed Georgia, and occupied a few Georgian towns close to the border of those breakaway provinces *AFTER* their troops were fired on by Georgian forces. Georgia is still largely intact (other than missing two provinces which broke away AND have been autonomously governing themselves ever since Georgia itself broke away from the Soviet Union)-- Saddam Hussein's Iraq is completely destroyed, dead, and gone-- who knows what the new Iraq is going to end up like?

3. The real parallel to draw is that South Ossetia, its relations with Georgia, Russian involvement, and the whole situation there looks very much like Kosovo, its relations with Serbia, and US/NATO involvement in the former Yugoslavia. What do y'all think would happen if Serbia (which still insists that Kosovo is a province of Serbia and has no right to break away, and objects to US/NATO 'Peacekeepers' in Kosovo) sent armed forces into Kosovo (again) to enforce their right to keep the province, and those Serbian forces deliberately opened fire on US & NATO forces in Kosovo-- just think about what our reaction would be. And we're surprised/shocked/appalled that the Russians decided to ~~blow the fuck out of Georgia for messing with them~~ shoot back, with a healthy dose of overkill (genuine US-style)?

4. There's way too much hypocrisy going on in general-- When Georgia broke away and declared independence from the Soviet Union, their provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia essentially right then and there broke away and started seeking independence from Georgia-- this isn't a new situation. We talk a really good game about democracy, self-determination, etc.... well, as near as I can determine after sorting through all the sources, propaganda and bullshit on all sides, the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia really do NOT want to be part of Georgia, and really truly would rather cast their lot in with the Russians instead-- self-determination does indicate that they should be allowed to separate from Georgia (whether we like it or not, IMO it should be their decision, and the rest of Georgia should not be allowed to force them to stay if they don't want to). Now, given these inconvenient facts:
A) If Georgia can decide to leave the Soviet Union, what right does Georgia have to decide that some of "their" provinces that did NOT want to leave the Soviet Union/Russian cannot subsequently leave Georgia? The precedent for being allowed to exit a Union has already been set.
B) Serbia, Bosnia, et al, were allowed to dissolve the former Yugoslavia-- so, why is it that Russia and Serbia insist that Kosovo cannot leave Serbia, even though an overwhelming majority of Kosovars want to be independent? And why is it that the Russians hold the position that Kosovo cannot be independent, but South Ossetia and Abkhazia can be?
C) On the other hand, the US and NATO say that Kosovo can be independent, but seem to want to insist that South Ossetia and Abkhazia cannot break away from "sovereign" Georgia territory-- it's a very inconsistent, hypocritical position that appears to be solely determined by misguided self-interest... and whether or not Russia is in the wrong here, I do not think we can defend any 'moral' position by giving the excuse that "the other guys are doing it too".

If I were in American politics-- I might be pressing for the Russians to go a little easier on the Georgians, but I'd acknowledge that the Georgians started the fighting instead of just pointing at the big bad Russian bear as the root of all conflict over there. That kind of accusation is IMO counter-productive. Since South Ossetia and Abkhazia do really appear to want to be independent, I'd probably also use this as an opportunity to point out the parallels between Kosovo and these two provinces and invite the Russians to rethink their position regarding events in the former Yugoslavia-- we might actually gain some ground and make both these regions more stable by our acknowledging some changes in the Caucasus while convincing the Russians to accept the new status quo in the Balkans.

Meanwhile, responses to these events-- and John McCain's utter inability to see that yes, our actions in Iraq do leave us on very shaky moral ground as far as questioning "Russian Aggression" goes-- continues to convince me that John McSame is an utter fucking idiot, and I'm ashamed to have to acknowledge that he is a fellow veteran (while I do honor his past military service-- what he seems to have learned from his time in the military, at least what he brought to congress, is lies, politics, and treachery while putting on a good public face-- not honor, integrity, duty... of course he was an officer.... should I be surprised?). One can also look at his voting record-- I'd love to stand with a fellow veteran in this election, but when the candidate who has spent time in the military is the same son of a bitch who's betrayed the military and his fellow veterans almost every time he votes.... I cannot stand with him. I am furthermore appalled that the American Legion's leadership appears to have endorsed him for President, when he has betrayed the American Legion's membership.

I am a VFW member, and a former Legion member-- I am going to be very disappointed if the VFW makes the same mistake the Legion apparently has-- Mr McCain cannot rely on being "one of us" when he turned his back on us in office.

Interesting quotes

2008-07-17T16:51:18Z

“,,,part of his delusion was the belief that mechanization and modernization are ruining the world...”
A Psychologist commenting on the real-life case of Theodore Kaczynski (the ‘Una-bomber’)

Though there are a lot of benefits to humanity and civilization that have resulted from 'mechanization and modernization'-- there are a lot of problems as well. On this issue, Ted Kaczynski wasn't entirely wrong...

The "NIMBY" impulse

2008-06-25T16:34:09Z

As I've been viewing the news and political arguments lately, one of the things that really disgusts me about living in America is the ever-present "NIMBY" (Not In My BackYard) impulse that seems to come up again and again and again and again....

Well-- if not in our back yard, then where?

Airports-- or not-- was a big local issue a few years back here in Orange County, California-- Lots of cities had ideas for an airport, or expanding operations at our existing airport-- BUT only so long as the option used was the one farthest from their own city limits.

Likewise-- we still have the issue of where to store spent nuclear fuel from reactors-- and everywhere we come up with a place to maybe store the stuff, the people local to the site scream bloody murder and try every legal and extra-legal means they can manage to ensure that the storage site will not wind up in their area.

And oil.... while I *AM* strongly in favor of protecting the environment, I'm also concerned with the global environment, and with our rising energy costs. WHY is it right to drill for oil in the muddle east, Russia, the Caucasus, etc.... but NOT in the USA? And even in the USA, why is it that non-Alaskans think it's okay to drill in Alaska, but not on the East Coast (for East Coasters) or West Coast (for West Coasters)--- or for our Alaskan friends-- why is it they think it'd be okay to drill off California or North Carolina, but "don't you dare touch those oil reserves up here in the Arctic Circle"?

This whole load of hypocrisy is utter fucking bullshit-- if it's okay to do somewhere else, then it'd better be accepted as okay in your back yard too. Our own cities and states are NOT so unique. The common thread to NIMBY is pure unadulterated and hypocritical selfishness, and IMO we need to stop behaving that way in our country.

And another excerpt from posts made elsewhere:

2008-03-31T03:27:19Z

(here's the other heavy bit of replying I've done lately-- one more excerpt from such posts on other threads, also regarding military matters and torture):

Regarding not caring about what potential allies think of us, and by extension, what the neutral parties of the world, and the population of areas where we're operating think of us-- there's two choices here: care about what the rest of the world thinks of us and take the steps necessary to 'win their hearts and minds', or be ready to commit genocide in order to win. You're incorrect about people hating us "no matter what we do"-- the majority of the world is unhappy with us now because we have a nasty habit of acting unilaterally whenever we damn well please while hypocritically insisting that everyone else play by the U.N.'s decisions and rules. Regarding useful allies, don't have many of those-- Britain, Australia, maybe Israel (they're useful, but are they allies?), maybe Germany and Canada (not too good at getting their forces where they need to be)... that's about it right now-- our other so-called allies aren't worth anything because they cannot project military force to the zones where we're operating. Back to the more direct concern-- either we: 1 win the hearts and minds of the Afghans and Iraqis, or 2 we kill everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan, or 3 we leave Iraq and Afghanistan in the hands of our enemies... Torturing really hurts our chances of achieving the first of those options, and I'm not happy with options 2 or 3 (that's not exagerrated by much). Are you? That's the problem with not caring about what others think of our actions.

But, to your statement of: "As for whether I am willing to ask someone else to do it for me, "it" being to keep me and my loved ones safe, well--isn't that what we pay the military to do?" My concern is that this attitude reduces the U.S. Military to the status of mere mercenaries there to see to your safety so you won't have to. The United States used to be the "Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave"-- now, it's the "Home of those who sold their freedoms for the illusion of security and land of the gutless who won't defend themselves but will pay others to do it." On the military side of the fence, it's one more step to a military that is completely disconnected from the society we're supposed to be defending, and which has more and more reason to despise the very people we're supposed to be defending. Keep following this road, and the U.S. Military is going to start looking like the Praetorian Guard, and some day, maybe not so far off, will be willing to sell the keys to the empire...

What are we supposed to do with the bad guys though? Kill them. That usually works-- the question re- torture, isn't a question of letting the bad guys get away, it's a question of how to effectively catch them without unduly harming innocents and our world standing. Yes, Reagan's threat of use of force worked well against the Iranians (particularly since he would have done it-- wasn't an idle threat). Destroying the Taliban and occupying Afghanistan did a pretty good job of setting Al-Qaeda back-- if we'd concentrated on finishing the job in Afghanistan and hunting down/exterminating Al-Qaeda instead of getting hung up on the sideshow in Iraq, we'd probably be a lot farther along on the task of eliminating the terrorist threat. I don't advocate playing nice with terrorists or letting them live after attempting to kill others-- capture and contain is a good solution for initial seizure of people until we can determine if they're terrorists or innocent civilians (which a lot of people we've grabbed in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT terrorists), but once we've confirmed we've got a genuine terrorist-- charge, try, convict (if guilty) and punish works pretty well for me. Dignifying them with legitimate POW status is not something I'd like to do for most terrorists-- on the other hand, if captured on the battlefield, while we're obligated to handle them as POWs, we're also entitled to try them for war-crimes (which most of them are guilty of) and then punish them accordingly.

Superior firepower is a good cure for enemies too stupid to realize that peace is better for their health. The deterrent effect of having superior firepower has been better for maintaining peace than nice words without firepower to back it up would have been.

Excerpt from replies to posts on Torture made elsewhere

2008-03-31T03:18:46Z

(this bit comes from a reply I wrote to posts made elsewhere-- more thoughts on the torture subject, and other military-related matters):

You don't know what I think about most issues, only what I think about this one (torture). And perhaps also my growing disgust with the 99% of this country that hasn't served in the military, but is only too happy to have that less than 1% of us who are serving or have served be the ones to continue to bear the entire burden of fighting these wars overseas (no, I don't count your very minimal share of tax money actually spent on the military as real contributions in that sense-- your lives are not at risk over there and you're not giving up your freedoms to go spend long stretches in horrible parts of the world so that the rest of the so-called free world can continue to enjoy life as usual, like there isn't a war on out there). That goes back to why is it right to ask someone else to do things that you cannot or will not do for yourself? (and, although it's a separate discussion for another time, if you get the idea that I'd be in favor of a draft, you'd be right)

There is one thing I've gotta give the terrorists-- they at least have the cajones to fight and die for what they believe in-- most Americans, and most other westerners, do NOT have that kind of courage. I do NOT approve of their methods, I do not agree with their goals and I have set my life on the line to ensure that they will NOT have their way with the world-- I view most or all of them as vile pieces of human garbage that ought to be exterminated. But in that one respect, of having courage, they are better than most of us.

This is, fortunately for all of us, still nominally a free country, and freedom of speech, including the freedom to discuss and express opinions on any subject, is an important part of that. On the other hand-- I do think one should consider how one is coming across-- I read, all too often, posts making such brave, super-patriotic language about how "we" need to deal with these terrorists-- such lines as "We have the moral right to defend ourselves"-- written by people who not going to practically exercise that right, who ARE NOT going to actually fight to defend themselves. I'm a veteran and I HAVE been to war already. I'm getting really pissed off, anytime I read anything about combat, killing, torture, war, etc, written by those who have NEVER been there and who NEVER will be there but are talking about it in such a way as to sound like they might actually pick up a rifle and do the dirty work themselves.

I do believe everyone has the right to discuss these issues-- I think, however, that y'all shouldn't write posts that come off like a John Wayne movie speech or some other sort of 'macho-man' pose-- I don't think veterans who have been there should write such posts either, but at least they've actually done it, instead of talking loudly about it without actions to back it up. Side example there-- as a citizen of the U.S., I am going to comment on Supreme Court nominees and decisions and what I sometimes see as the idiocy of our legal system-- but I am not going to present myself like a lawyer or otherwise expert in the legal field when I'm not.

I hope all of you reading this can understand why I'm getting more and more sensitive/reactive to writings perceived this way. Of course, if one chooses to express one's self deliberately as 'super-macho-patriot-man' on such issues-- I still respect their right of free speech, but at that point I AM going to exercise my right of free speech to express my utter contempt for such a stance.

On the specific question of interrogation techniques-- again, I'd not allow torture, as expressed in the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare. Nothing involving extreme pain, actual physical injury, loss of life/limb or severe risk thereof. Two reasons I'd stick to that, even in desperate circumstances: 1. doesn't work most of the time (and impossible to tell if you've got the truth once you've got the victim talking); 2. the eventual fallout for breaking the conventions is more than I'm willing to deal with-- NOT just in terms of personal cost, but also in terms of what it does to us in providing free propaganda for the enemy, lost ground in the 'ideological war', loss of 'hearts and minds'... (among my military specialties, I've been involved in PsyOp-- I have seen first-hand how much this kind of stuff costs us in trying to win over the locals...)

What would I allow? Damn near anything short of torture that that seems like it's got a good chance of getting correct information without any increased chance of getting bogus garbage-- interrogators are generally better at knowing that sort of thing than I would be. However-- sleep deprivation? Yes, It’s not torture, and often effective (disorients the subject and makes them less careful about what they say and don't say). Some stress positions probably qualify as torture. Some are not torture (annoying, yes-- really painful? No, and also do not involve actual injury either).
Waterboarding, as a specific example, IS torture-- extreme pain, risk of loss of life and/or severe injury-- so, no, not gonna do it.

Question?

2008-03-31T02:53:27Z

If there's a war on, how come the only people really affected by it are the people currently in uniform, while the rest of the country goes on with business as usual?

On Torture...

2008-03-30T05:24:38Z

Seems yesterday a lot of people blogged on the subject of Torture all around LJ yesterday... Here I suppose is my comment on it (as prompted by one of the other posts I read around the net, and also posted out there as a reply):

I'm willing to stand against torture under pretty much ANY circumstances, for a couple of reasons:

1. Torture doesn't work-- it gets you what the person tortured thinks you want to hear, so you'll stop torturing him/her-- doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not-- he/she will say whatever will make you stop. This doesn't make for actionable intelligence. While I have noted that someone above has claimed that that the GW Bush administration got actionable intelligence from waterboarding a few people, I don't believe they did-- as the person above can only refer to rumor and vague statements instead of specific points of actionable intelligence that were confirmed to be true-- sounds to me like he's reading from the propaganda page used to justify the administration's actions. This problem is even worse, in that so many of the people we've tortured or might torture are innocent victims caught up in the net in the first place-- we can get confession of all kinds of war crimes out of them by use of torture, but none of it's true.

2. If we torture people (as our country has done quite a few times lately), and it becomes public knowledge (as it has), we lose a lot of steps in the 'ideological war' we're engaged in-- it's impossible to get others to see you as any kind of good guy if you're the one constantly violating accepted standards of international law and common views of moral conduct. This is even more blatantly a problem when we've been catching and torturing innocents, and then using the 'confessions' to try to justify it. It's also very hard to charge people for war crimes that we've committed ourselves. Over the long-term, winning things like a 'Global War on Terrorism' does depend on winning over public/international opinion, 'hearts and minds', etc-- unless we want to commit genocide to win, part of 'winning the war' is going to be found in social/political solutions, not strictly military ones.
We can't find such solutions by taking stupid actions that turn the very people we're trying to get on our side against us. Every time we torture someone, it gives Al-Qaeda and their friends more propaganda issues to use against us.

I do not at all excuse the enemy for what they do-- I do not think their actions provide any justification for us to do wrong though.

On the subject of 'dirty hands' though-- I find a huge problem with our whole society. An awful lot of people are arguing in favor of using torture in at least some circumstances, but the same people are not the ones who will be torturing suspected terrorists in pursuit of 'information'. We also have a lot of sunshine patriots and oh-so-brave "conservatives" in this country who talk so much about the wars we need to be fighting here there and anywhere-- but always so long as it's someone else who's going to do the actual fighting. On the moral standpoint-- I do not think you escape any of the moral responsibility for someone else's actions taken in your name that you justified and approved of.

This statement in the original post, "I believe the problem of dirty hands is a serious moral issue and that, indeed, there are times when all choices cause harm. I tend to side with Camus in thinking that, in such situations, you do what one must to minimize the harm done - but you also must pay the price for having caused that harm," is generally a good point, but also seems to me to be used just as often as a cop-out, basically saying that I want someone else to do something questionable and hold themselves accountable for it.... so long as I'm not the one personally getting my hands dirty.

I don't think that anyone can or should stand up in favor of any of these actions-- torture, going to war, killing regardless of reason, unless that person is willing to do those actions themselves, not just send someone else to do it for you. If you're not willing to go do it for yourself, don't ask someone else to do it for you.

Gotta add-- my dead-set objections to ever using torture as expressed here are more practical than moral-- I do consider torture to be morally wrong. I do also recognize that there are situations where one has the choice of several evils... kill someone, or allow innocents to be killed, as one example.... and has to choose which is the lesser evil, and then go ahead and commit it.

I don't think there's much question here or elsewhere whether torture is morally wrong-- the question is whether you can justify committing that wrong or not, and for me the reasons why it can't be justified or used are practical ones.

(obligatory disclaimers: My opinions expressed here and elsewhere are entirely my own. However, I am a veteran , and I have served in Iraq during the current conflict. Take that however you like.)

Bad Milestones

2008-03-25T07:09:56Z

Heard on the news this morning...
As of yesterday, we've crossed the 4,000 mark-- more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed in action in Iraq since the current Iraq war began in March, 2003.

And on the same program, heard that Vice President Dick was once again crying crocodile tears for the media audience, making some false, bullshit statement about how he 'feels' for each and every family that has lost loved ones in this war. I don't believe a word of it.

Meanwhile, in a country that once was the land of the free and the home of the brave-- but which has become the land of those who sell their freedoms for the illusion of security and the home of the gutless who will not fight to defend themselves-- every last one of those 4,000 dead represents a sacrifice made by someone far better than anyone left here at home-- a sacrifice which this country is NOT worthy of by military personnel who are a far better defense than this nation deserves to have.

And all of it, in a war started on lies and deliberately falsified intelligence against an "enemy" who was NOT involved in the terrorist attacks against the U.S.A., while the real enemies, who WERE in Afghanistan, got away because the stupid fucking idiots we put in office in Washington were fixated on Saddam Hussein. We still don't have Bin Laden. Al-Zawahiri is still on the loose. Al-Qaeda is alive and well. Iraq is a total fucking mess. Put Iraq and Afghanistan's casualties together, plus non-combat fatalities, we're probably well over 5000 dead by now.

And the world is worse off, and a much more dangerous place, than it was before we got started over there in Iraq. To all of you who voted for George W. Bush, especially those who voted for him in 2004, the second time-- may the Gods damn you all. Go look in a fuckin' mirror, then go look up the names of the dead-- you're partly responsible for all of it, but you've paid none of the price, yet. Their blood is still on your hands.

Dark Thoughts

2008-02-24T17:55:35Z

(Korea trip, 23rd day)

Was reading on a message board site that I occasionally frequent-- bunch of the users over there started posting again on a 'simple pleasures' thread... this, that, the other thing... I started thinking about "simple pleasures", thinking if I could come up with anything worthwhile to contribute.

I don't think I even know what a "simple" pleasure is anymore. Maybe it's just where I'm at right now, or it's all the other things that keep running through my head... but of all the stuff that I enjoy and like and am into, if I try to explain it to anyone, even myself, it all seems complicated and quite complex.

The only simple things around seem to be the things I love to hate.

finnkveldulfr @ 2008-01-03T01:45:00

2008-01-03T09:47:56Z

2008.
May it be a better year than 2007

Good quotes

2007-10-08T01:33:02Z

I found this quote in a science fiction book (4th in a series)... seems applicable to a lot of situations happening right now in the modern world.

“But what Hank did was plain dumb. You can’t loose the hounds of war and expect to know the tree those puppies are gonna bark up. That’s why any smart man does his best to keep those sons ah bitches on a leash.”
--General “Trouble”, in Kris Longknife: Resolute, by Mike Shepherd

Keep the dogs of war on a leash, people-- never know what's gonna go wrong if you let them loose without thorough consideration of the consequences.

BTW-- Mike Shepherd's 'Kris Longknife' series is four books' worth of good reading, so far... Not too hard on the science, but really good characters and characterization, decent plots and situations... good as military fiction too. Check it out if you haven't already.

Three hits for the week...

2007-09-22T03:28:53Z

I noticed in the recent news that Yale University finally lost their case for banning military recruiters from campus *WHILE* requiring the Government to continue providing Federal funding to Yale (not sure if it was just trying to ban them from the Law School, or from the entire campus, on the claim that the military is engaged in illegal discrimination -- "Don't ask, don't tell"). Now, I think the courts made the right decision-- as they've said from the beginning, Yale does have the "right" to bar recruiters from campus (it's a "right" I don' t think they should have ever tried to use in the first place, but Yale is a private university and private property). What was at stake-- and is now once again decided-- is that Yale does NOT have an inherent right to Federal funding (grants, etc-- $300 million+ of Federal funds). Yes, if Yale had continued to stick to their 'guns', they would have lost all that money....
Of course, Yale, with such great integrity and commitment to principles that they are known for, knuckled under and agreed to accept military recruiters rather than lose the cash. Personally, I think the absence of Ivy League elites from the military verges on the criminally irresponsible, and they've fostered an anti-military climate for a long long time.... perhaps the Government should just cut off funding to Yale and Harvard and etc altogether anyway, and spend the money on supporting research and education at the public schools (none of which are fool enough to try and cut off military access).

On another academic bit-- the Hoover Research Institution at Stanford U. has appointed Donald Rumsfeld as a distinguished visiting fellow (apparently to assist in research and study of terrorism and anti-terrorism). Given Rummy's record, and his well known (lack of) integrity, I think he's got no business being involved in any academic institution. So much for any consideration of the Hoover Institution's integrity.

And.... MoveOn made an advertisement targeting General David Petraeus.... including the infamous play on words, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" The cowards in Washington now are screaming and crying on both sides of the aisle because someone actually dared to question whether the General, in his reports to Congress and the American people, was being honest and truthful with us. Personally, I think he needs to be questioned, and with all due respect to the General *I* don't trust him and *I* dont believe much of what he's saying. I found it particularly interesting that many "republicans", the President included, now seek to portray the *JUSTIFIED* attack on General Petraeus's character as an attack on the military as a whole and on the honor, integrity, etc, of everyone in it.
Personally, *I* don't feel that way. An attack on a General who is possibly betraying the soldiers who have to follow him just as much as he's betraying the rest of the American people is NOT an attack on the troops in the line. In fact, questioning any commissioned officer, IMO, doesn't feel to me like an attack on the enlisted soldiers who bear the brunt of the actual risks, work, and danger in carrying out the orders and plans that commissioned officers hand down to us to accomplish. NOT questioning officers when someone really should be questioning them is a far greater disservice to the men and women in the ranks than this 'attack' is.

Borrowed from DrewKitty

2007-08-27T00:34:54Z

(for reasons explained on his LJ... though in general I agree with the statement as is, other than possibly inserting "Neo-con" in place of the potentially too generalized "conservative")

"Liberals don't let liberal friends sleep with conservatives. If they must be so very dense, let them settle for their own hands, closeted gays, and what passes for sexuality among conservative women."

W - the Hypocrite strikes again

2007-06-22T03:39:23Z

June 21st, 2007 - Summer Solstice. Wish I had cheerful thoughts, but...

Here's a quote from the moron-in-chief, George W. Bush (this was plucked from an article in USA Today, so yes, the source is reliable-- he actually said this):

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," the president said.

Now, granted he was saying this while explaining why he vetoed the latest stem-cell bill a couple of days ago. But, for this stupid sonofabitch to even start talking about ethical behavior, and morality, and right and wrong... can this asshole understand English? Does he know what he's saying?! America's most incompetent strikes again.

Unethical to destroy human life in the hopes of saving it, huh? Okay, Mr President-- how the fuck do YOU EXPLAIN Iraq?

We HAD other options. And if we were going to act, we could have done a lot better. And let's take it from the good, "christian" point of view, Mr President-- it's not just the over 3500 Americans dead, and over 30000 Americans wounded... it's the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis (we probably have crossed the 100,000 mark by now, in fact). About the only excuse Mr Bush has left that might be true is that we're not as bad as Saddam (yet). But if that's what we have to go back to, that we're not as bad as Saddam or Al-Qaeda, we've already lost it on the world stage. So much for destroying human lives "in the hopes of saving human life".

Goes along with a bumper sticker I saw recently: "Pro-life and Pro-war? No thanks -- I'm anti-hypocrisy"

And Mr Bush's ideas of being moral, of ethical behavior.... Hmmm, I can see that in his administration: Dick, Scooter, Alberto, Don, Paul, Karl, Tony, Dana, Scott and the boys.... this administration makes Richard Nixon and his staff look like saints! Every fuckin' press release you can see the lies building on top of lies. Pissing on the Constitution and thumbing his nose at the people, and he gets away with it. So far, anyway-- because there's too many men and women in Congress (mostly Republicans) who don't have the balls, and who have no honor and no integrity whatsoever) who won't do their jobs-- who won't, in fact, undertake a very important responsibility of their jobs-- holding the President and Vice President accountable when they commit 'high crimes and misdemeanors' (I think that thresh-hold was reached a long time ago)-- too many honorless, integrity-free Senators and Congressmen who won't step up and impeach these bastards.

America is well and truly fucked... and the sheep who elected this sonofabitch, and who elected (and re-elected) the worthless sacks of shit in Congress who won't do their jobs, keep letting it happen. All of you who were a party to this... step up and look at you've done to the United States of America. If you voted for him, you ARE partially responsible.

June 6th, 1944

2007-06-07T05:25:38Z

67 years ago today, "D-Day", actually Operation: Overlord, finally kicked off in Normandy. The front was opened at last in France in World War 2-- when the landings succeeded, it was one step closer to the end for Nazi Germany. It was a day of brilliant successes for the Allies, punctuated with some very harsh and almost disastrous beginnings in some parts of the operation. Allied landings at four out of five beaches went fairly smoothly-- Allied landings at one (Omaha Beach) were almost a failure. Most of the D-Day casualties (the first day ones at any rate) were lost on or around Omaha-- around 2000 U.S. Soldiers killed in action there. We owe a huge debt to the citizen-soldiers of World War 2-- without them and the sacrifices they made, the world would be a much different, much worse place.

On a personal level-- one of the military units I served in (1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division) earned a Presidential Unit Citation at Omaha Beach during the Normandy landings. That unit had a good sense of its history and made sure we who served in it wouldn't forget those who'd gone before us. I also visited Normandy in 1994 (spent an extended weekend on an MWR-sponsored tour there while I was stationed in Germany). Seeing the old battle sites was both sobering and impressive. I don't know how many of you have even seen pictures of the Pont 'd'Hoc-- but having looked over those cliffs, the idea that a company of Rangers could *successfully* make an assault up those cliffs against enemy resistance (one of many small-unit actions during the overall battle) is incredible-- yet it happened. For Omaha Beach-- the 1st Infantry Division monument there says it all about the men who took the beach that day (it includes the official division motto: "No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great-- duty first"). Watch the first half hour of 'Saving Private Ryan' (I have some doubts about the rest of the movie, but the part covering the beach assault is outstanding)-- on the real Omaha Beach, the pill-boxes, German defensive emplacements, etc are long gone (though some remnants of concrete foundations can still be seen) and there's a boardwalk built up there now on the beach where there was none before-- but the cliffs are still the same, and they look VERY VERY much like the cliffs of the beach where they filmed the opening parts of 'Saving Private Ryan'. I saw many other sites of battle in Normandy that were made famous on June 6th, 1944.

I also visited the American Military Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer (overlooking the invasion beaches themselves on the Normandy Coast)-- close to 10,000 American Servicemembers (mostly Army and Army Air Corps, but some Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard as well) are buried there. The tombstones seem to stretch out as far as the eye can see-- visiting there really brings home some sense of the numbers of dead we lost in the Normandy campaign.

A little more poetry

2007-06-06T04:00:26Z

Yes, it's about a real person. No, I'm not naming names... After having read that particular comment of hers, this was my initial gut-feeling reaction. To all who read this, remember that-- this was my initial reaction, and is also me venting in poetic form-- don't take this as the be all, end all statement of how & what I feel, also don't take this as literal truth or written as a fair statement-- this is poetry, this is expression of how I felt (right or wrong, fair or not), this is the emotional view not the rational one. Really, with a lot of the poetry I write, those basic concepts should be remembered and kept in mind anyway.

Without further ado, here's the bit o' poetry:

Fear of Poetic Justice

The question asked, “What are you most afraid of?”

her answer, she wrote, “Being dumped by someone I’m in love with”—

Really. She writes that sincerely,

and I doubt she sees the irony—

not that she comprehends or cares

about the boyfriends she’s left behind,

love scorned, devotion disregarded—

she’s dumped more men who dared to love her

than most women date in a lifetime—

men she strung along, slept with and used first—

we’re not just talking day-dream boyfriends here;

she’s got a consistent record—the moment she knows he really cares,

she values him like a used tampon, disposable,

ready for the trash—soon discarded,

but she can still face the mirror of her computer screen

and proclaim to the internet

this is what she fears.

-Finn Kveldulfr /30May07, slight revision 5Jun07/

“Dare to dream… who dares, wins.”

Response to a post by Jordan179

2007-06-06T03:40:53Z

Okie, this is a response to a post by Jordan179-- the words in italics are his, the words not in italics are mine. I was gonna post it on his page, BUT since replies have a limited amount of characters (and even here I may have to put it into several posts, I've uploaded to my own page). I have, of course, left a comment on his page letting all who are interested know where to find it (I'd hate to be unjustly accussed of sniping behind someone's back). As I noted on his page btw-- I'm not a 'leftist', at least not as I see it, not as most who know me see it... certainly not as Jordan sees "the Left". I am feeling quite annoyed at the range of unjustified 'straw-man style' blanket attacks fired by all sides of the political spectrum at other sides of the political spectrum, and that's why I felt the urge to reply.

Here's the post:

Why Do Leftists Like Islamic Terrorists So Much?
(this started as a reply to Banner's posted question of the same name)

Introduction

Why do leftists (socialists/communists) like islamic terrorists so much?

The problem with this fantasy (and yes, it is a fantasy—it offers very little to argue against as well, not much to attack by name within it because it has no substance), is it’s begun with a fallacy. Your question assumes that “leftists (socialists/communists)” like islamic terrorists, and moves straight to trying to explain causes for that, without saying anything to offer proof of your initial assumption (Banner also offers no proof, grounds, or arguments for this assumption within his question either).

Right off the top, you’ve got one major problem—a continued assumption that the “Enemy of my enemy is my friend”, or rather, that that is the way you appear to believe the “leftists” think (whomever they are since the leftists you write of seem to me to be utterly non-existent bogeymen made up for the benefit of scaring people into voting your way).

In more than a few cases, the “enemy of my enemy” may well hate me more than he hates our mutual enemy and will not be working with me under any circumstances. Funny thing when one is dealing with total fanatics—they don’t compromise much, and they don’t’ work with people they regard as unbelievers or heretics even if they do share a mutual foe.

Which leads to two conclusions: the islamist terrorists that exist in the world (of all stripes—they are a real threat in various parts of the world but are NOT one vast monolithic group) do not like “the left” and are not going to work with them; and, such socialists and communists as still exist in the U.S.A. and Europe are not so stupid as to believe there is ANY common ground to be found with Islamists.

I think it comes down to their failure.

The 19th Century

Starting around the mid-19th century, Socialists and Communists began to displace liberals and democrats as the mainstay of the progressive, intellectual left. They proved, to their satisfaction, that "bourgeois" capitalist liberal democracies were just masks for domination by a plutocracy; as the 19th century progressed they "proved" that the middle-class order was doomed: all that they needed to do was to wait for The Revolution.

Jordan179 has begun with a blanket accusation without naming anyone—just uses some good, inflammatory target words – “The Left, Socialists, Communists”, another generality – “progressive, intellectual left”—but leaves no direction about what he’s talking about. Hmmm… I guess you’re talking about Marx and Engels?

Oddly enough—Marx’s assessment of the situation of the West and Capitalism in the mid-19^th century was fairly close to the mark. His idea of a solution—throw the whole thing out, start over with his Communist fantasies, was wrong. You ought to read Marx (and co) and understand what it is you’re arguing against rather than dismissing it out of hand without evidently having read any of it.

Not coincidentally, our present economic system is not a true, completely unregulated ‘Free Market’ system, nor does it allow the completely unrestricted practice of “Capitalism” (by those who have the Capital to engage in such business practices)—we regulate a lot of things, and our Government does a lot of things (both good and bad) with the idea at least of “leveling the playing field” and ensuring that the ‘common working man’ doesn’t get totally screwed. It works. so far, and regulation and adjustment while generally keeping a ‘Free Market’ and allowing the rich to engage in Capitalist practices was a better solution than that proposed by Marx and Engels (and later abused and misused by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc).

The World Wars

Come the Great War, come the spectacular crack-up of the Proud Tower of the old liberal European order. (It was actually the remannts of the Ancien Regime, in Germany, Austria and Russia that had cracked up, while the liberal democracies were more shaken than ruined, but wishful-thinking leftists didn't get this at the time). And, wonder of wonders, in Russia a Revolution actually happened!

Put strangely, but accurately enough. Except, again—Who are these “leftists” of which you speak? Your blanket ‘button pusher’ term tells anyone reading this nothing.

The European Left awaited the Millennium. Meanwhile, in Italy and Germany, elements of the European Right fused with defectors from the Left and came up with a new kind of socialism -- Fascism and National Socialism, which wanted a Millennium of its own, the Thousand-Year Reich.

Not a good summation of what happened to prompt the rise of Fascism (in Italy) and National Socialism (in Deutschland). Both were fueled by extreme Nationalists (if those are the ‘European Right’ you’re referring to, I suppose that works), disgruntled old soldiers, workers out of work because of the depression, etc…. I don’t see any monolithic group of ‘defectors from the left’ fusing with ‘elements of the European Right’ to point at. In Germany and Italy, the people went with National Socialism and Fascism because they offered solutions to problems in both those countries that worked at the time.

A couple of points: 1. Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy (first and last time in Italian history that’s happened)… more to the point, most of his people had jobs and were at least making a living wage. 2. Hitler was democratically elected (the people can be convinced to elect idiots, demagogues, and evil men—it ain’t the first time that’s happened). 3. Hitler did a good job of rebuilding Germany and making it an economic powerhouse no longer caught in the throes of depression. If he hadn’t got into a nice little world war when he did, his Germany might have lasted a long, long time and would be more of a problem than Russia turned out to be. 4. You mistake economic systems for political systems—Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy made great use of Capitalism and Capitalists, private ownership of wealth and property, etc—they did put some controls on the free market, but ‘Free Market’ and ‘Capitalist’ are NOT synonymous concepts—they often go together, but not always. Likewise their nations made some use of Socialist principles—but it would be far more accurate to say that much of the German and Italian economies was ‘Command-directed’ rather than ‘Free Market’—likewise, ‘Command economy’ and ‘Socialism’ are NOT synonymous concepts.

In the Thirties, nobody knew whether Communism or Fascism would be the New World Order. But everyone knew it would be one of them. Liberal Democracy was no serious contender: only demagogues like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and old fools like Winston Churchill took it very seriously.

Came not the Millennium, but World War II. And when it was over, Europe lay prostrate and America and Russia stood like victorious titans over the ruined continent. Two Superpowers contested the world -- one Communist, one a Liberal Democracy.

These two paragraphs—the basic point is exaggerated and I suppose the way you choose to express it is your idea of humor (as noted in one of your own comments below). Yeah, got it. BTW—a point I’m going to return to—Soviet Russia was never really Communist. Neither was China. Communism has never really been tried on a large scale because it doesn’t work on any scale larger than an Israeli Kibbutz (where it has been used within those communities, and worked quite well, and illustrated why it can’t be expanded to large groups). Unfortunately, when Marx, Engels, et al, came up with the idea of Communism, it sounded great but it was just an unworkable pipe dream that didn’t take human nature sufficiently into account.

The Cold War: Liberal Detente

Now, it was forgivable for Democracy to survive as long as it understood that its historic role would be to give way before the gradual Communization of the world. Only thing was, it was becoming obvious that Stalin's Soviet Union was far from "Communism" as Western Leftists hoped to see it come to pass. That, indeed, far from being a "dictatorship of the proleteriat," it was just a veneer of socialism over a garden-variety dictatorship, such as any Latin American autocrat would have been happy with ruling. And a society in which Western Leftists would be hard-pressed to survive, let alone publish slim intellectual journals and agonize over Art.

Your assessment of the Soviet Union is accurate enough. I’m still wondering who are these leftists of which you write?

The Left still nourished fond sentiments toward Soviet Communism (part of the reason they hated McCarthy and the HUAC so much was that they made it harder to be a Communist and pretend to be a patroitic American as well), but the system they decided on for the West was Social Democracy -- what the Fabian Socialists were building in Britain. They figured it could come here, given time.

McCarthy was hated in the end by most Americans, not just a mythical slice of “leftists” because his House Unamerican Activities Committee was a machine used to spread baseless slander and further McCarthy’s own political ambitions. If McCarthy actually caught and targeted any real communists, I’m sure it was quite by accident. Edward R Murrow and co did a pretty good job of proving at least some of McCarthy’s attacks were entirely baseless. On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing any of his attacks backed up by any proof produced by McCarthy and co.

On the other hand, I’ve noticed (repeatedly) that the U.S. Republican Party has made it easy to pretend to be a patriotic American (just wave the flag and slap a little yellow ribbon on the bumper of your car) while being a draft-dodging cowardly and gutless piece of shit who talks a lot of smack about opposing terrorism while hiding here at home and hoping other better men will go do all the fighting for you.

In the meantime, the task of the West in terms of foreign policy was to avoid war with the East. Not to liberate them -- oh no! -- for Communism was the form of Socialism appropriate to their society, one which condemned tens of millions of unfortunates to death (but don't think about that, close your ears to their cries!), and Democratic Socialism the one appropriate to ours, one which condemned ageing Old Leftists to comfortable pensions in housing estates (hey, they were suffering too!).

Huh? This could be used to target anyone. Corporate America was making lots of money off of the Cold War situation and likewise didn’t give a damn about the plight of the men and women trapped behind the Iron Curtain.

So, obviously, the postwar world would see America, the most liberally democratic of the liberal democracies, gradually evolve into a Social Democracy while Europe rose to world leadership because the Europeans were just plain more enlightened and progressive. Those Americans -- good when you needed to drive a Hitler off your lands, but such barbarians!

The Cold War was unfortunate, but obviously it would wind down with both East and West becoming similar, as Communism mellowed and Social Democracy spread.

Except that wasn't what happened.

Humor and fantasy and expresses no-one’s real view point. If it’s a real argument at all, it’s a straw man.

The Cold War: Capitalist Victory

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at first seemed to the Left like jokes.

She was the daughter of a greengrocer -- the sort of petit-bourgeois the Left had always found most contemptible (rich enough to be oppressors, too poor to invite to have tea at their salons). He was a mere actor -- and one not content to toe the Communist-front party line. Both had weird outdated ideas about liberal democracy, capitalism, and victory, of all the archaic things!

Obviously they would provide some comedy relief and fail. Or start World War III. Or both.

Instead, they succeeded. By the time Reagan left the stage, America, which had thought it was facing an end to national greatness, was rich, powerful, and admired once again; by the time Thatcher departed, Britain had recovered some of its former glories and been victorious in two wars.

The Soviet Union, hope of the East, had collapsed. (Hard Leftist British comedian Ernie Sayles did an unintentionally-funny dirge about this). China, New Hope of the New Left, was turning capitalist. And both America and Britain had turned decisively away from Democratic Socialism.

The Communist dream was dead. The Socialist dream was dead.

Liberal Democracy, stronger than ever, survived.

Huh? The above doesn’t say much that makes sense. China IS turning Capitalist/Free Market, but isn’t turning Democratic at all (Free Markets and Capitalism do not require democratic governments). Contrariwise, nothing’s happened to the ‘Socialist’ dream—Socialism is an economic system, not a political system, and both we and Europe are still playing with some Socialist ideas (whether that’s right or wrong is another question). Communism never was tried. Nearly pure Socialism (as actually tried by the Soviets) didn’t work—then again, none of these economic models, when attempted as the only system with all other models and ideas rejected, has worked well on its own.

The New World Order

The Western Left never forgave Thatcher and Reagan for succeeding.

Thatcher was hated by British intellectuals, to the point where they actually claimed that she had always been hated by everyone (and could not explain how she had stayed in power for over a decade, darkly hinting at CIA and MI6 conspiracies). Fantasy writers literally turned her into a demon.

As for Reagan, he was not even allowed the authorship of his own Revolution. The Left claimed that he was senile from the beginning, a simpleton, an amiable puppet dancing to the strings of Gray Eminences, the Secret Government.

But none of this changed what had happened. The Liberal, Democratic, Capitalist West had won, and formed the New World Order. Communism and Social Democracy had lost, and survived (where they did) on pure inertia.

And the second tier of leaders from the Thatcher and Reagan Revolutions (in Britain's case including the new moderate Labour leaders) were in charge.

The future was a face. laughing at the Left, forever.

Again, WHO ARE THE LEFTISTS of which you write? There’s nothing there to answer, because it appears to me (and probably not just to me) that every time you use the word ‘leftist’ you might as well be saying ‘the bogeyman’—your “left” either doesn’t exist, or if there are people out there who espouse the extreme fantasies you appear to target, they are in such small and insiginificant numbers that your attack doesn’t say much that’s useful. Meanwhile, I doubt they really like the Islamists as you claim they do.

For example—you ask a lot of Brits, the new moderate Labour leaders ARE the left—but they do not hold the views you ascribe to ‘leftists’.

You do sound very much like McCarthy’s general ravings on the Senate floor—lots of accusations and ravings about Communists, no proof offered, no examples shown.

Then came 9-11 ...

The Terrorist War

At first, the Muslim Fundamentalists seemed unlikely allies.

It was one thing to murder tens of millions of Russian or Chinese peasants. Those were nasty, smelly foreigners who couldn't have told the difference between James Joyce and Charles Dickens, after all.

It's another thing to murder thousands of people from Manhattan. Why, these were real people -- friends, family, relatives. Many had even voted Democrat!

And in the beginning, their ideology was rather obviously odious. The Western Left wanted women to get equal pay for equal work; the Taliban wanted to kill them if they so much as learned to read. Could one really take wine and cheese and discuss Sartre with someone who abhorred wine, preferred feta, and would respond to a witty "But God is dead, isn't he?" with a blunt "No, infidel, you are dead! Insh'allah!" and cutting off one's head with a sword?

Clearly not.

But then, they were fighting against America.

And, now, the flight into complete fantasy. They’re fighting America—yes, but the Enemy of my Enemy is NOT NECESSARILY my Friend. No matter how much you and so many others try to string together such arguments, in humorous or serious terms.

Nobody else was, not since the Soviets stopped subsidizing people who did so, back in 1989. Nobody else had done so successfully, especially since Saddam's "mother of all battles" had been so spectacularly childless.

(They didn't like to think of Somalia, because Clinton had screwed the pooch on that one, but that had also involved Muslims).

Might be interesting to remember that the Elder Bush (who was a good Commander-in-Chief, all things considered) got us into Somalia. Clinton presided over our exit (and made a few boneheaded mistakes along the way).

And the American leadership was Republican!. So, if we lost this war, it wouldn't be America who would lose, it would be the Republican Party!

And this is why I accused you of parroting Limbaugh. If you take him as an established and reliable authority—there probably isn’t anything I can say to convince you otherwise—he’s still an idiot with a complete disconnect from reality—and pointing to him as an archon of logic and fact just doesn’t fly. Regardless of one’s opinion regarding the war in Iraq, I don’t think there’s anyone worth taking seriously who takes the approach that it will only be the Republican Party which loses if we “lose” this war.

The American Left had to be a bit cautious here until November 2004, because if they had won the Presidency then, the American people would have been looking to them to win the war. But after 2004, all the stops were out: Bush was a fool and a demon and America's war effort was doomed, so badly doomed that if the Democrats won in 2008 surely no one would expect them to win it, right?

The global Left had even less hesitation. They firmly opposed America starting as early as 2003 (the invasion of Iraq); a loss for America would be a loss for Liberal Democracy and especially for Capitalism: with America cut down to size, surely the competent Europeans could end the threat with International Institutions, or the Russians with Realpolitik, or something, right?

This can be taken I suppose as pure exaggeration and an attempt at humor. It can’t be taken as a serious argument—you’re propping up ideas that no one actually believes or espouses as targets. Further, you’re now talking like any opposition to the War In Iraq must be opposition to America. And on that, again, you’re wrong—none of this is as simple as you’d like to make it out to be.

And again, you write in such a way as to try and tie ‘Liberal Democracy’ and ‘Capitalism’ together in your reader’s minds—they’re NOT the same thing.

Of course, there was a deeper current here ...

Conclusion: A New Hopelessness

It had about a century to succeed. From the German adoption of social welfare programs in the 1880's to the fall of the Soviet Union, it tried every variant of Socialism at least once: all failed. Some comically, some tragically, some financially, some bloodily. None could compete with Capitalism.

Total fantasy. BTW—“Pure” Capitalism was tried, and didn’t work too well. Not every variant of Socialist theory has been tried (I’m not advocating that we should try them either). Some things which could be labeled as socialist are still being tried—not coincidentally, some of the countries with nationalized healthcare systems are having trouble with them (I’m not so sure how well Britain is doing with that these days). Some other countries have nationalized public healthcare (Canada, Germany, Sweden) and are doing quite well with it… we also have public education in the U.S.A. (a socialist concept, actually) and I don’t hear very many people advocating that we shouldn’t.

Once, the Left was about building new systems. But it built its systems, and they didn't work.

Now, the Left is about nothing save tearing down.

The Left. The Left. The Left. Who?

The Muslim Fundamentalists are kindred spirits.

Do you ,mean Al-Qaeda? Do you mean Hamas? Do you mean Islamic Jihad? Do you mean the Mahdi Army? Do you mean the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Do you mean Hezbollah? (I could keep naming names here for a while….) Which ‘Islamic Fundamentalists’ do you mean? And no, most of them are NOT kindred spirits with any group that could be labeled ‘the Left’ in the Western World…

They are earlier in their revolution, but it's pretty obvious (from the viewpoint of the Left) that it isn't really going to work. They lack the military competence to conquer; their societies are too archaic to compete: all they can do is destroy, and kill, before their inevitable defeats.

But in doing so, they can punish the West.

And you utterly fail to understand our enemies (plural) if you take that simple a view of the various Islamist groups out there—and what they’re trying to achieve, how they hope to achieve it, and what they know (and don’t know) about their own and our capabilities.

Hitler wanted to punish Germany for the sin of failing to fulfill his dream of world conquest. The modern Left wants to punish the West for the sin of failing to sign onto the Socialist Dream.

Huh? Explain? Document this pipedream please?

And the peoples of the Mideast? They'll suffer, to be sure, but they too are smelly filthy foreigners, not people you would invite to a salon, and certainly not ones to know the difference between Proust and Dickens. The Left cares no more for them than they did for the tens of millions of Russians and Chinese who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao, just to (from the Western Left's point of view) give them a thrill, and a hero to cheer on.

Again, what left are you talking about? And, hmmm, you still choose to make a point (lack of caring for the tens of millions of dead Russians and Chinese) that could just as easily and with as much justice be pointed at everyone else in the West during the Cold War (especially the Capitalists and Businessmen—who after all, didn’t give a flying fuck how many people died elsewhere so long as they were making money, right?)

Once, they could dream of a World State, and trips to the Moon, and a Universe open to Man. Now, all they can dream of is destruction. What was once a hearty song of triumph is now a shrill whine of nihilistic despair.

I pity the Left, and how they have fallen from their greatness of but sixty years ago.

But I do not want to let them win.

Not even a little bit.

END.

Let who win? It’s been really tough to even construct a reply to your post, because you’re like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. How does one explain to someone so thoroughly locked inside their own delusions that their chosen target doesn’t really exist?

Anyway—here ya go. More of a reply than my last one. You’d do better with your energy writing about the problems with enemies and adversaries who actually are out there.

May the Gods damn all Politicians

2007-05-25T03:54:09Z

Congress has now surrendered and given the Moron-in-Chief the 'blank check' he's wanted all along for military war funding. Which makes him right-- all the posing and posturing Congress did earlier was just so much political theater and bullshit. I wanted to see action from Congress, not just EMPTY MEANINGLESS FUCKIN' WORDS about how they were going to set a different direction....
Most of Congress on both sides claim this was done "to support the troops"--
Speaking as someone who has been one of the troops involved-- this isn't supporting the troops-- this is ensuring that the rape of the troops by their own government will continue, and that it will be "business as usual" in the White House and the Pentagon.

I think Andrew Bacevich said it best (heard recently during an interview on NPR, and restated here--- I may not have the quote exactly, but this is the gist of it...) "What kind of democracy do we live in, where the people have spoken loudly and clearly, and yet their voices are not heeded?"

An Open Letter to Congress

2007-05-02T03:33:01Z

Okay, now that President Bush has vetoed the spending bill that would have funded the troops etc etc-- here is the text of an e-mail that I sent (via the usual contact pages) to my representatives in Congress:

I've been in the military (and am still in the National Guard), and I've been to Iraq (served a tour in 2004). I supported the Democrat's actions-- so far, the only thing "stay the course" and this new surge has gotten us is the assurance that the Iraqis will continue to procrastinate and do nothing to solve their problems, when they are the ones who need to step up and fix the issues in their country. We can't do it for them-- the solution is a political-civil one, not a military one.

So long as we're still there on an open-ended no strings attached commitment, we'll be spending American blood and money and accomplishing absolutely NOTHING of lasting value. Perhaps pulling out real soon isn't necessarily the answer, but benchmarks need to be applied-- the Iraqis must know there are going to be serious negative consequences if they do not start making progress.

Since President Bush vetoed this bill, I believe the best answer for Congress is to send the President incremental bills, funding this war one month at a time, and leaving everything subject to Congressional action by the very fact that Congress may or may not pass next month's funding depending on what's going on in Iraq.

Either that-- or do not pass a bill at all. We, the people of the United States of America, KNOW that the President is now to blame for the troops not being funded at the current moment, not Congress. Let the President pick that bill back up and sign it, or get no funding at all. Congress has 'the power of the purse'-- it's time Congress used it.