When John G. Roberts Jr. prepared to ghostwrite an article for President Ronald Reagan a little over two decades ago, his pen took a Civil War reenactment detour. … A fastidious editor of other people’s copy as well as his own, Roberts began with the words "Until about the time of the Civil War." Then, the Indiana native scratched out the words "Civil War" and replaced them with "War Between the States."

Becker reveals that "The handwritten document is one of tens of thousands of pages of Roberts [sic] files released over the past several weeks from his 1982—1986 tenure as an associate counsel to the president." Nevertheless, these are obviously the most interesting among the millions of words scribbled by Roberts — and let’s keep in mind that Becker or more likely some pitiful graduate student or Post intern pored through these hand-written manuscripts to find such a delightful revelation.

Bring on the "experts"! Becker continues,

Sam McSeveney, a history professor emeritus at Vanderbilt University who specialized in the Civil War, said that Roberts’s choice of words was significant.

You see, it’s really all psychological:

"Many people who are sympathetic to the Confederate position are more comfortable with the idea of a u2018War Between the States,’" McSeveney explained. "People opposed to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s would undoubtedly be more comfortable with the words he chose."

Oh, of course, how could we not have known? The history of political science begins in the 60s, the 1960s that is. And everyone knows what nefarious images are to be conjured from "opposed to the civil rights movement."

But I have to give Becker props for an attempt at fairness:

John M. Coski, the historian and library director of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, said the term was commonplace in the South until the 1960s or early 1970s. He said some people use "War Between the States" out of habit, others think it quaint or iconoclastic, and still others use it because they believe the Confederacy was right to secede.

"You can’t always draw the inference that someone who uses the term does so with an ideological intent, but at the same time you can’t be blind to the fact that some people do," Coski said.

What is hysterical about all of this is that it’s supposed to be such an anachronism (at best) to use "War Between the States." The article misses the historical point: It doesn’t have a thing to do with one’s sympathy, but rather very simple objective historical analysis. The war in question shouldn’t be called "The Civil War" because it wasn’t a civil war, but rather a war of secession, or independence — two completely different, and one might say opposite, things. The former necessitates violence by the attempt to control everything within and without its sphere of influence, while the latter, if allowed, can take place in the context of peace.

Granted, this subtlety is lost on some. I overheard a Texas Aggie telling an errant Yankee that, "You’re lucky we didn’t win the war, or the U.S. capital would be in Richmond!" (The big irony being that this is a college where Robert E. Lee’s picture was recently removed from prominent sight for PC reasons.)

At least there are some that appreciate the difference.

Last summer I was in D.C. "testifying" before a well-known panel on science, and one of my charts stated, "What caused the failure? … The answer to the question, u2018What caused The War Between the States?’ is not u2018Bullets.’" The panel member sitting to my left smiled and commented, "The War between the States — you’re not from the South, are you?" The man on the other side of him wryly said, "Don’t you mean The War of Northern Aggression?" The former added, "Do you mean the Civil War?" I said, "I’m not familiar with that term."

I should have given them a real Foggy Bottom answer: "Sir, I am unaware of any such designation or formulation, nor would I be disposed to discuss such a designation if it did in fact exist, sir."

During my next visit to D.C., I stayed out ’til four in the morning with three Zoroastrians I met in Georgetown. (I love the Georgetown Zoroastrians.) One of them had attended one of the fine local universities, and informed me his history professor announced that "You will never hear the term u2018Civil War’ in this class, only u2018The War of Northern Aggression’!" (Incidentally, I prefer The War for Southern Independence — I think The War of Northern Aggression is too whiny.)

Well this summer I got into it with a West Pointer about The War for Southern Independence after he asked me who I thought the worst president in American history was. I told him I felt that Lincoln was the most destructive president, not only in life and treasure, but essentially brought an end to the Republic — that a strong argument could be made that any rights we appear to have are an illusion, with abundant evidence that "constitutional rights" come and go at the pleasure of the federal government.

Then I asked the question I love to ask, especially of those that consider themselves American patriots, "So you don’t believe the original thirteen colonies should have seceded? If one doesn’t believe that the southern states had the right to secede from their voluntary union, one certainly shouldn’t believe that the colonies had a right to secede from the British Empire, with the egregiousness of taxation by the Northern Empire far, far outweighing that of the British?"

I’ve been surprised at the honesty and openness of true patriots of whom I’ve asked this question.

But the bigger picture is clear, as clear as it has been in synthetic states such as “Yugoslavia” and “Iraq.” As the world gets larger and increasingly complex, political devolution is inevitable. There are innumerable serious, peaceful, secession movements afoot from Quebec to Corsica to Okinawa, and it is the duty of freedom-loving peoples everywhere to facilitate autonomy bloodlessly.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

I couldn’t help but note Mr. Alford’s involvement in the Confederate Air Force (CAF) — many of my friends here in the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) community derive great joy in the annual air show at Ellington Field, of which the CAF is a major participant.

This was originally going to be a quick note to Lew, to convey my appreciation for the article, but when I realized I was writing with the same manner and speed as I did the other column I wrote for this site regarding aviation, it occurred to me how much aviation had gotten into my blood.

But the aviation infection is easy to get here. An old friend who grew up in the area described it as a neighbor on the street screaming, "Hey y’all, come on, we’re going to build a space ship!" And they did.

(This is not intended as any kind of anarcho-capitalist thesis — God forbid that I have contradictions in my soul!)

Surely the astronauts typify this spirit, and there’s a degree of astronaut worship among some, but that’s not in my nature. But I’ve worked with my share of astronauts, most closely during advanced space suit tests. One of those was Sonny Carter, and if he wasn’t an over-achiever, I don’t know who is.

Sonny was a professional soccer player for the Atlanta Chiefs, a well-decorated Marine, Top Gun pilot, expert SCUBA diver, and a surgeon. He was also very easy to work with, and thorough, and went so far as to attempt surgical knots with the prototype gloves we were testing underwater.

And I certainly had my share of fun as a test subject, including space suit testing at vacuum and on the KC-135, the "Vomit Comet."

It’s not called the "Vomit Comet" for nothing. During two-minute parabolas (the 0-g portion only lasts around 25 seconds), the modified 707 (and its wary contents) undergoes 1-g, 2-g, 1-g, 0-g, 1-g … then over and over and over again. It’s the roller coaster from Hell.

Now it was well known that Sonny was not fond of the KC-135, and he was trying to avoid the tests we had planned for him on it. "Uh, someone needs to try to talk him into it," as they looked at me. "Alright, I’ll do it."

After a friendly chat (I know he knew what was coming), I made my case. Now remember, this is a Top Gun pilot talking, "Brian, I’d rather eat live roaches off the floor than fly on that plane." After that comment I acquiesced, but he lost in the end — the Engineering Director called the Mission Operations Director and that was that.

In the very end, the JSC Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory was named after Sonny, as while he was on NASA business, the passenger plane he was aboard crashed in his home state of Georgia. (Sen. John Tower was also aboard that plane.)

(One more little nugget: All the astronauts that have met their Maker did so while they were doing what they wanted, and were profoundly aware of the risks. Mourning is one thing, whining is another. Their deaths may rip the hearts from some of us, but a tragedy it isn’t.)

To be certain, I could not not get my pilot’s license in this environment. It was ontological.

In fact, my first flight instructor was really into the Zen of flying, and had me read poetry aloud before lessons. He also insisted I read Night Flight, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, a metaphysical treatise for aviation if there ever was one. The work was later made into a 1933 film with Clark Gable, Myrna Loy, and Lionel and John Barrymore. The plane of Saint-Exupéry, who was best known for The Little Prince, disappeared on a reconnaissance flight that left Corsica for the south of France, and was found just this month.

But I digress.

A good thumbnail history of the CAF is found here (be sure to scroll down to see the CAF blood chit!):

The origins of the Confederate Air Force date back to 1951, with the purchase of a surplus Curtiss P-40 Warhawk by Lloyd Nolen, a former World War II Army Air Corps flight instructor. In 1957, Nolen and four friends purchased a P-51 Mustang, each sharing in the $2,500 cost of the aircraft. With the purchase of the Mustang, known as Red Nose, the group was unofficially founded.

On September 6, 1961, the CAF was chartered as a nonprofit Texas corporation in order to restore and preserve World War II-era combat aircraft. In 1965, the first museum building consisting of 26,000 square feet was completed at old Rebel Field, Mercedes, Texas. The CAF created a new Rebel Field at Harlingen, Texas, when they moved there in 1968, occupying three large buildings. The CAF fleet continued to grow and included medium and heavy bombers such as the B-29, B-25, B-17 and B-24.

Today, the CAF is comprised of over 11,000 members, several hundred of whom serve as pilots and flight or maintenance crew members committed to preserving World War II American aviation heritage. The CAF is responsible for operating a fleet of more than 140 airplanes known as the Ghost Squadron.

The dynamic and patriotic O.P. Alford III died in 1996, and I’m glad he didn’t live to see the CAF lose its name.

Not long after 9-11, the name change was announced at an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) annual banquet across the street from JSC. I was really looking forward to the guest speaker from the Confederate Air Force, but my fragile mood had already been made sullen by a military officer at my table that seemed to be looking forward to kicking some towel-headed ass.

And at the end of the very entertaining CAF presentation, the announcement: Because the word "Confederate" is offensive to some, after fifty years, the CAF was to change its name within the next few days. I know it wasn’t just the evil eye I cast in his direction, the presenter knew this wasn’t right, as cowardice was written all over his face.

So if you want to link to them in all their cowardly glory, the old URL for the CAF still works, but it now takes you to the home page of the "Commemorative" Air Force.

But don’t look for the word "Confederate" in the "Commemorative Air Force History" page, or anywhere else on the site. You won’t find it. In their defense, what would they say? "Because the collective huevos of the CAF are the same as that of a little girl, in the year 2002 the word u2018Confederate’ was removed from the name of the organization."

To hear the old CAF lore, long ago a group of South Texans chose the name Confederate Air Force as kind of a joke. Well, it’s no joke now.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

As a matter of fact, it was quite similar to the Academy Awards — a rigged election process with no critical thought, just different Orcs.

So here we are, more than eight months away from the presidential election, and it has already been decided by our apparatchiks which two plutocrats will represent the political monopoly this coming November. The suspense is killing me.

But can a case be made for discernment? If you’re not one of the cult members who enthusiastically casts votes for their respective parties, it’s difficult even to imagine.

Tsunami-like issues, still far offshore, but whose arrival and destructive power are certain, are not even openly discussed. For example, the insidiousness of our immigration policy, or lack thereof, is the issue that dare not speak its name. As the saying goes, demography is destiny, and we will simply wake up one day to find ourselves in a nation not our own.

But because foreign interventionism and its resultant blowback seem the most immediate threat, that one aspect of national security is on everyone’s radar screen. In fact, even some conservatives and libertarians are climbing on board the "anyone-but-Bush" bandwagon. I deeply sympathize with them.

However, a frightening case against the idea of significant foreign policy differences between Bush and Kerry administrations was made this last week by Mark Hand (and expounded by John Pilger). It appears that the Democrats have their own radical leftist democracy-worshipping interventionists, and Senator John Kerry is front-and-center.

In what Hand calls a choice between "Coke and Pepsi," he presents the New Democrats’ Progressive Policy Institute as an analogue to the neocons’ Project for a New American Century. The PPI’s "progressive internationalism" sounds an awful lot like the neocons’ Global Democratic Hegemony. The PPI’s manifesto calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

They claim that their foreign policy strategy relies upon the Democratic Party’s tradition of "muscular internationalism" and aims to "rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America’s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy."

Apparently the Democrats have become weary of the Republicans trying to take all the credit for Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman.

Surely the two parties are the same in kind, even in their penchant for foreign interventionism, but what of degrees? There may be a discernable difference there.

Who wields the most power over the current president’s foreign policy? Unquestionably, the neoconservatives and dispensationalists. The former want to usher in The End of History, while the latter want to usher in The End of The World.

The interests and political connections of both intersect in Israel, which make it one spectacularly dangerous axis of evil. But as ubiquitous and powerful as these two interest groups are, neither of them would hold nearly as much sway in any Democratic administration.

Yes, the Democrats may have their repellant PPI manifesto, but can they be compared to the neocons, the intellectual inheritors of Albert Wohlstetter, one of the inspirations for Dr. Strangelove, and father of the current policy of tactical nuclear weapons and preemptive invasion?

Also, don’t the neocons and dispensationalists strongly depend upon one another for political power? Can their chariot thunder across the Fertile Crescent with one wheel missing?

But unlike Charley Reese, I’m not going to tell anyone for whom they should or should not vote. Voting for whomever our overlords tell us is a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism.

And I would think that Mr. Reese, whom I greatly admire, would take down the shingle of his voter consulting service after his "anyone-but-Gore" 2000 election strategy, the irony of which was that casting a vote for Buchanan might get Gore elected.

But I’m no better — in my first and final ballot for president I cast my vote for Pat Buchanan. I’m proud of my vote, and never held any illusions about Bush’s fondness for interventionism (despite his weasel-words to the contrary), open immigration, big government, etc., but I never imagined the difference in degrees between Bush and Gore, which I’m now convinced are quite significant.

Knowing all that, I’m still not certain that voting accomplishes anything other than legitimizing an abject plutocracy whose goals are almost exactly the opposite of the vast majority. Voting is a designed distraction for the "vulgar masses" while those who would rule over us do what is in their own best interests.

Do we not judge a tree by its fruit?

Year after year, decade after decade, regardless of whom we elect, who can deny the trends of action: hindering trade, stifling speech, abolishing liberties, being bought off by foreign interests, expanding intrusive government, annihilating the law and reading into the law that which isn’t there, practicing unnecessary war with increasing frequency, inflating the currency, indoctrinating the young toward unquestionable obedience and banality, creating enemies who have never offended us and alienating allies, bankrupting the nation, allowing aliens to pour over our border and sap our resources, and obfuscating every conceivable historical and spiritual truth.

This voting season, will you legitimize the criminal gang running the country?

As Dr. Phil would say, "How’s that workin’ for ya?"

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

On the morning of Ash Wednesday, I was greeted with a "review" on my doorstep of The Passion of the Christ by the Houston Chronicle’s Eric Harrison. To be fair to the balance of film critics, his reaction seems exceptional in its immoderation, but perhaps it’s a good case study. He begins with an ad hominem attack dripping with psychoanalytical condescension:

We’ve known for some time that Mel Gibson has a martyr’s complex. In film after film, he’s subjected himself — or, rather, his characters — to gruesome tortures that stretched past the point of entertainment. He threw himself into these pummelings, disembowelings and symbolic crucifixions with such fervor we saw a deep-seated need we dared not question. It felt private, embarrassing to watch.

Let us pray that making The Passion of the Christ helped him work through those issues. …

James Caviezel portrays Jesus here, but Gibson has played the martyr during the long countdown to the movie’s release.

These words are self-refuting — this is obviously someone with an axe to grind. He continues with the usual allusions to anti-Semitism:

A traditionalist Catholic who rejects church reforms of the past four decades, Gibson has had ample opportunity to assuage Jewish fears about the film. Instead, while acknowledging the Holocaust, he said, for example, "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."

The selectively chosen words were extracted from an interview with Peggy Noonan, but they don’t sound quite so dismissive in context:

I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened.

War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.

It is hardly a crime to recognize that many millions of people of multiple races under various wicked men — all of them government officials — died horrible deaths. But to the blithering press, that’s the same thing as Holocaust denial.

Mel Gibson has repeatedly affirmed the fact that millions of Jews perished under the Nazi regime, but others have been far more unscrupulous, trying to implicate Gibson through his aged father, to whom his proper loyalty has been heartrending. (But this is nothing new. Nightline’s Ted Koppel trying the same thing with Pat Buchanan’s father comes to mind.)

Then this riotous statement by Harrison:

He also kept his movie away from reviewers for as long as he could. It now appears he may have recognized that it would disappoint anyone viewing it through anything but a narrow, religious prism.

Apparently Gibson was able to play the "martyr during the long countdown to the movie’s release," while at the same time keeping "his movie away from reviewers for as long as he could."

For a solid year the scathing attack on Gibson has been relentless — never mind that the accusers had not yet seen the film or script. That is, until an early release of the confidential script was stolen from him. This incomplete pirated script was then distorted by all the usual suspects. Even unsolicited ecclesiastical "intellectuals" audaciously proposed changes that Gibson might make to his work.

It can’t be the violence that bothers Harrison — he "praised wildly" Kill Bill: Vol. 1, the Quentin Terantino film of the abject Pulp Fiction genre, and gave it a rare "A."

But what doesn’t Harrison like? The unparalleled genius of the Farrelly brothers earned a "C" with Stuck on You. What earns even less? The famously moronic Dumb and Dumberer earned a "C —." A little research reveals that out of the 474 films that Harrison has reviewed during his stint with the Chronicle, he actually found films worse than Dumb and Dumberer: twenty-nine received the miserable grade of "D," but a mere two received the prize of "F" (way back in Feb 2001, films I’ve never heard of).

And what grade reflected the artistic merit of The Passion of the Christ, based purely on Harrison’s objective critique?

"F."

What makes people behave this way?

Some Hollywood executives have weighed in as well, threatening never to work with Gibson again:

Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men. The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of The Passion of the Christ and the star’s remarks surrounding its release. Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn’t matter what I say. It’ll matter what I do. I will do something. I won’t hire him. I won’t support anything he’s part of. Personally that’s all I can do."

In a land where religious beliefs of diverse races are practiced with freedom, from atheism to the most conspicuous and reverent orthodoxy, what are some folks so afraid of?

The Other Cheek

After seeing the film on opening day, I was even more mystified.

But I realized my perception of reaction to the film would not radically change since the reaction was almost entirely based upon preconceived notions to it. The negative reactions were largely in the form of persecution, and the positive reactions were largely in the form of apologetics.

The balance of reaction wasn’t a reaction to the film, it was a reaction to the Christian religion. And the brilliant and moving film made me think less about the reaction, but about the reaction to the reaction, and most certainly that of myself.

First, are Christians exactly persecuted in this nation? Surely, persecution can be identified in degrees, but at what point do we sound ridiculous?

The apostle Paul recounts that the prophets of old

… were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

Might we insult our Hebrew and Christian ancestors by complaining that The Passion of the Christ, a multi-million dollar film documenting the last hours of Our Beloved Savior by one of the most successful voices in American film was distributed without the slightest hindrance to thousands of theaters to be viewed by millions of the faithful and future converted?

And what if we are persecuted?

If there is any power in the film, it is the power of forgiveness and transcendent love, epitomized by the words therein:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?

In the film, Caiaphas is present at the crucifixion, and is included in Christ’s forgiveness: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what to do."

Are these words likely to incite violence? It seems impossible.

But the undiluted Truth is too beautiful to bear, a fearful light so bright as to be blinding. As Pilate struggles in the film, do we even know truth when we hear it, and see it?

If He were here now, even knowing what we know, would we recognize Him? Even the very elect, would they defend Him?

If it is often difficult for even the faithful to conceive the incomprehensible, what of those outside the faith? Must not the beliefs of the faithful seem bizarre? I can certainly remember when I thought so!

Malcolm Muggeridge once marveled at that most prominent symbol of Christian faith. He imagined an ancient meeting with an ad exec, upon which the Christian client begins, "You see, we have this cross …"

Perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised at the reaction of some when crucifixion nails are marketed with the release of the film!

Some have suggested that the Passion will only be received by a Christian audience, especially since the Passion is revealed without context. This isn’t exactly true, as there are several flashbacks to the most powerful words of scripture, but aside from that: are conversions intellectually conceived? Have not many known less, but believed more?

Surely faith enhances intellect, but it is not of itself intellectual. The miracle of conversion is the catalyst of faith, and the beginning of wisdom.

Note to Self: Stop Whining

In one of the most moving scenes in the Passion, Satan tempts Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, that the burden of sacrifice for the sins of all for all time is too great, and that no one can accomplish it, ever.

Wishful thinking, and the devil’s days are numbered — it is accomplished — and ours is the easy part.

What do I take from the film? I’m certain I could use a lot of work on my patience, and think less about defending turf, and more about being an ambassador for Christ.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

A member of my cabal alerted me that Jon Stewart’s interview with Richard Perle would be replayed later in the day, 27 January 2004, 18:00 CST. Perle was on The Daily Show promoting his book, An End to Evil, co-written with David "Axis-of-Evil" Frum. From the interview that followed it could be deduced that about the only thing understated in the book is the title’s indefinite article.

An End to Evil — I will be very relieved when the grocery clerk no longer glares at me when I ask for paper instead of plastic, but I’m as yet skeptical.

Regarding Jon Stewart, alright, I’ll admit, I’d never watched The Daily Show full through, and I’ve always assumed Stewart is just another smart-alecky leftist Gen-Xer. Well maybe he is, but after watching his performance with Perle, I was nonetheless impressed. He is well-informed and/or well-briefed, and he’s quick — I wouldn’t enjoy being his target.

When Perle attempted to credit Qaddafi’s recent acquiescence to the Iraq invasion, Stewart rebuffed, "Wasn’t his willingness to settle the Lockerbie case sort of the first white flag, and wasn’t he trying to get himself back into international standing?" Yes, overtures and negotiations had been years in formation, predominantly with the British, with recent pre-Iraq war culmination.

Score one for Stewart.

Perle then moved the focus to Saudi Arabia: "They have been spending billions, literally billions, to support, subsidize extremist institutions all over the world." Stewart specifies, "Now you make the point that it is difficult for us to confront them because they also spend a lot of money on our politicians."

Without intentional irony, Perle responds: "On our politicians, on officials who have responsibility for making policy that affects them. There’s hardly a law firm in Washington that doesn’t have one Saudi account or another." Stewart displays less than prefect credulity, "Now are all those accounts, in your eyes, a method for them to grease the wheels, so to speak." Perle expounds that "… they do that by employing so many people who have influence in Washington [clears throat]."

Yes, you know all the old clichés. Washington is virtually controlled by Arab lawyers and special interest groups. They also threaten to dominate the entertainment and banking industries.

Score two for Stewart.

Now for the set-up. Stewart asks, "Is Iraq — is that setting an example? Everybody talks about weapons of mass destruction, and all these things. Is the real issue there that we have to make them an example — they’re sort of like our first death penalty case?"

Perle, tripping over himself with enthusiasm, barely allowed Stewart to finish, "Absolutely, absolutely."

At this point, for the first time, I realized that Perle may not be quite as formidable as I thought he was. His famous genius may be as synthetic as Karl Rove’s. Stewart nailed him, luring him to pontificate a mindless "kick-ass" foreign policy, replete with a death penalty analogy as a wink to his at-least-quasi-liberal audience, and Perle didn’t even know it.

Score three for Stewart.

When Stewart asked why, when there were so many other pressing interests, did Bush pursue Iraq? Perle answered: "Well, in part because he was in open defiance of UN resolutions, and we hadn’t …"

Stewart, already smelling blood in the water, struck: "Who’s not in open defiance of UN resolutions! I mean that is like, in some respects saying we have to go to war with Iraq in defiance of the UN to protect the UN." Beautiful.

Score four for Stewart.

Perle defended with the old shell game: "the question of imminence … changed on September 11, because we waited too long, we knew what bin Laden was up to …" I thought we were talking about Iraq?

Perle exuberates, if you don’t meet the U.S. criteria: "Sooner or later you’re going to run into the United States — we’re back!" Stewart finishes, "We’re back, unless you’re our ally, like Pakistan — and then, u2018Would you like some food relief?’”

Score five for Stewart.

As I watched the former campaign manager for Benjamin Netanyahu sucked into the Stewart vacuum, I realized why Perle is so amused by the moniker "The Prince of Darkness." It’s complimentary.

I’m reminded of Dr. Zhivago, when the powerful and nefarious Victor Komarovsky (played by Rod Steiger) convinces the young Lara (played by Julie Christie — sigh) that she is no more than a slut. He subdues her, she proves his point, and as the well-seasoned Komarovsky takes his leave of her, he calmly adds, "Do not consider calling it rape — you would flatter us both."

But to be sure, the charmless Perle is no Komarovsky, but if only by pretension.

Aside from being an altogether scary presence on television, Perle seems to lack the patience and bearing necessary to participate in The Great Conversation, even for a neocon.

I remember a Perle appearance on Meet the Press. Tim Russert pulsed the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board "about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq." Russert read a long quote from a Washington Times article by Arnaud de Borchgrave:

The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The destabilization of "despotic regimes" comes next. In the Arab bowling alley, one ball aimed at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would discombobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Emirates and sheikhdoms. The ultimate phase would see Israel surrounded by democratic regimes that would provide 5 million Israelis — soon to be surrounded by 300 million Arabs — with peace and security for at least a generation. … The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." … Israel, according to the 1996 paper, would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein … Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.

Russert bravely asked, "Can you assure American viewers across our country that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"

Perle responds defensively,

I don’t see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we’d live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.

Setting aside this ridiculous ahistorical statement … in a spar with Perle moments before, Representative Dennis Kucinich suggests that the war is linked to oil, but the moment has passed, and flared tempers have subdued. But when Perle continues, he releases an hysterical ad hominem attack altogether out of context in order to diffuse the focus on Israel:

But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it.

Perle’s performances are quite unlike those of his partner in crime, Dick Cheney. I at least understand the appeal of Cheney’s seductive tones, his conveyance of calm control and comfy-coziness. He lies with perfect unselfconsciousness.

Speak unto us smooth words, prophecy deceits.

I watched Cheney make the dubious claim of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda on Meet The Press in 2001, then was astonished he was still pushing it on the same program in 2002. Coffee came out of my nose when the shameless Cheney was selling it in 2003. He is like that Iraqi Minister of Information that refused to admit that Baghdad had fallen:

Russert: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

Cheney: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

Russert: But is there a connection?

Cheney: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

Yes, Cheney is still trying to sell the dead-tired Mohamed Atta link, discredited long ago by the U.S.’s own security agencies. But of course, U.S. intelligence doesn’t have the benefit of Cheney’s stove-piped intelligence.

Though despite Cheney’s smooth words, his undisclosed days are numbered. But Perle’s appearances make even less sense. Like the real Prince of Darkness, success is hindered by revelation of the messenger’s existence.

Perle’s talents seem better suited to the underworld, spinning dark unseen threads of esoteric knowledge.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

The
blip that Secretary Powell’s presentation
to the United Nations registered on the War Party’s recorder has
quickly become a distant memory.

Crossing the threshold of credibility perhaps
one too many times, that drum beat is beginning to sound less like
a respectable march to war than a red-faced bureaucrat pounding
his desk.

They’re slipping.

To my surprise, I’m even hearing
familiar voices, friends and family who have been loyal to the
president, those
whom I never expected to cast a shadow of doubt on his policy,
at last reflect that the looming war might not be the best direction
for this nation.

Our government and their paid ministers of wisdom can dismiss the broad and
genuine consensus against the war as the subversive activity of Marxist revolutionaries, and
virulent neocons can call for courts to be convened against patriots in the
name of treason, but it just doesn’t ring true.

And when the president cannot claim
support at home, he mocks support he should be seeking, and brags
about support
that doesn’t matter. Nearly every European state refutes him, every
European nation reviles him, and even Middle East nations who despise
Saddam Hussein are filled with dread.

Demonstrations subsequent to the
administration’s
best presentation of evidence were estimated
at thirty million people worldwide; and even in the two most
important Western states whose leadership backs the president,
Blair’s London filled the streets with a million protesters, and
in Berlusconi’s Rome, two million.

When nothing seems to be going right for the New
Rome, it even appears that the
bribe being offered Turkey is not sweet enough.

But as embarrassing as the president’s self-imposed
position is, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems to be doing
a pretty good job of running interference. The Beltway boys have
all been having great fun over Rumsfeld’s repeated derisions of
France and Germany as "Old Europe."

But they didn’t know he was serious.

In response to Europe’s criticism of US foreign
policy, Rumsfeld explains, "You’re thinking of Europe as Germany
and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe. If you look at
the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting
to the east." Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Poland? What
on Earth is this man talking about?

Wherever the center of gravity
is, who can forget that the proud ministers of Portugal, before
joining the Economic
Union, visited the grave of Charlemagne? No, the Old World isn’t
dead yet.

Time for Dissent

Tim Russert, asking
General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander,
about his plans to run for president, the general responded with
the usual well-I-may-have-considered-running-for-president-but-during-this-crisis-is-not-the-time-to-discuss-it
statement. He made it clear, based on the president’s imperial
foreign policy, he couldn’t see himself running as a Republican
candidate (besides, he’d have to wait another four years).

We’re at a turning point in American history here. We’re about
to embark on an operation that’s going to put us in a colonial
position in the Middle East following Britain, following the Ottomans.
It’s a huge change for the American people and for what this country
stands for.

This is an interesting
statement from the Saladin of Serbia, but however cynical one might
view
the general’s statement,
it’s obvious there’s a strong and growing anti-war sentiment in
America upon which he hopes to capitalize.

How can this administration hope to survive in
the face of this dissent, before even the first casualty?

Do they hope to wage war at all cost, to save
face at the expense of national security, and at the expense of
our finest sons? This reasoning is often entertained, but what
kind of monsters adhere to this kind of calculus?

Isn’t that the greatest accomplishment of Vietnam — body
bag after body bag — in order to save face? As this government
recently sent scores of thousands of body bags to Europe in anticipation
of their worst fears, are they willing to see history repeat itself?

What vital national interest is worth sacrificing
the lives of our brave soldiers, innocents abroad, and victims
at home?

Today I spoke to a young reservist
who’s on his
way, but he doesn’t know where — "Kuwait, Afghanistan, even
Korea?", he said. And Ariel Sharon
says the U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria.

Just
what is going to sustain this martial culture? Does the War Party
imagine soccer moms as Spartan women, substituting
the martial arts for Jazzercise, whose only passion will be to
give birth to warriors?

What are they thinking? They’re always telling
us that things are different now — cheerfully singing "It’s
a Small World after All" — indeed so. So how do they hope
to fulfill their own Wilsonian agitprop when every corner of the
world is visible, and no temptation of their righteousness is hidden?

But no quarter should be given to any temptation
of these hopeful masters, even when wild-eyed men fearful for war
accuse patriots of being traitors.

The Time for Dissent is timeless — it’s never
time to pretend you believe your government when you know you don’t,
but especially when life is at stake.

February
22, 2003

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

For starters, our beggars for war seem just a little too eager
for news of terrorism.

Now
we learn that the captured al Qaeda "informant" failed
a lie detector test, days after every hardware store in America
sold out of plastic sheeting and duct tape with which Americans
can seal themselves in latter-day
sarcophagi, now they finally tell us the upgraded
alert was based on false information. Well, partly, they say.
They have other, verified, information as well, they assure us,
so there are no plans to change the alert status.

And if their eagerness
to find an excuse for war seems desperate, their interpretation
of the bin Laden tape is pathetic. I happen
to believe the tape is real, only because the administration’s
explanation of it is so convoluted.

First, of course bin
Laden would want to associate himself with Saddam Hussein. He
hates the pagan "infidel" Hussein,
and knows any linkage with him almost surely means a US invasion.
He also knows that the chaos that will ensue will radically increase
the probability that he’ll get his hands on all manner of ammunition,
and if there are any to be found (doubtful), weapons far nastier.

Except, that’s
not what he really said. He "urges u2018true Muslims’ in
Iraq and elsewhere to u2018act, incite, mobilize … in order to
break free from the slavery of these tyrannical and apostate
regimes.’ Not in support of the u2018infidel’ Saddam but for Islam
and the jihad."

And the Sunday
Herald reports that,

Try as it might, the
UK has been unable to produce any evidence clearly linking Saddam
to bin Laden, and the French have positively
ruled out any connection. Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France’s leading
terrorist investigator, says years of investigation into radical
Islamic terror groups have not produced a trace of evidence linking
them to Iraq. … We have not found any link between al-Qaeda and
Iraq. Not a trace. There is no foundation to our investigations
for the information given by the Americans.

CIA director George
Tenet seems to agree, concluding that "the
only reason Saddam would use WMDs against the United States was
if he was backed into a corner — due to a strike by the American
military — and realized he was about to fall." Some believe
this is the reason why scores of thousands of body bags are being
made ready.

Commenting on specious
interpretation of CIA intelligence by Congress, Lee Hamilton,
former chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee, "added pointedly: u2018It’s an overwhelming temptation
to manipulate intelligence to serve policy and, to some extent,
I think that’s what’s happening here with Iraq.’"

Stop Doing What I Ask!

The Bush administration
was already suffering badly from Secretary of State Colin Powell’s
presentation to the UN. It impressed the American War Press,
but no one else.

One simply had to peruse
the worldwide press to get the consensus opinion: more of the
same "proof" that had already been
refuted, plus cartoons. The day before, Powell had already
admitted there was no "smoking gun" in the presentation.

But in the days following
the Powell pitch, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, after
talks with Iraqi officials on 9 February, said
he saw signs of a "change
of heart" from Baghdad over disarmament demands. "In
two days of meetings with Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, Iraq
officials handed over documents on anthrax, VX nerve gas and missile
development." Later
in the week, Iraq agreed to overflights by U-2 surveillance
aircraft.

This news strengthened
calls by France, Germany, and Russia to allow more time for inspections.
In an interview with French television,
Putin rejected "regime change" in Iraq, and stated that "there
is nothing in the UN Charter that would allow the UN Security Council
to make a decision to change the political regime of one country
or another — whether we like that regime or not."

The Bush administration was not moved.

In an utterly dismissive
tone, Bush replied in unintended irony, "It’s
a moment of truth for the United Nations. The United Nations gets
to decide shortly whether or not it is going to be relevant in
terms of keeping the peace, whether or not its words mean anything." He
also said, "Given the fact that Saddam Hussein is not disarming,
time is running out."

But the fact is, for
all the world to see, the prospect for Iraq looks at least temporarily
brighter, while the US looks all too
enthusiastic to attack. But it’s also plain to see that even if
Iraq instantaneously disarmed, it would still be in the position
of trying to prove a negative, and the invasion would go on as
has been planned from the very beginning. The United States would
never be caught all dressed up with no place to go.

Europhobia

If the dictum "those who are not with us are against us" is
taken to its logical conclusion, Europe had better gird itself — indeed,
the Bush administration has already threatened it with economic
sanction.

The frustration, paranoia,
and recklessness of The War Party has fully manifested itself
in Francophobia, Teutonophobia, perhaps
we could just call it Europhobia — inasmuch as England is not Europe.

And why wouldn’t the little island be America’s
best friend? We share common law and common language (sort of),
and common love
of imperialism. But to be fair, whether by choice or not, the little
island seems to have outgrown its love for imperialism. Mr. Blair
seems to be in the marked minority, an emperor with no clothes.

Perhaps Mr. Blair believes
London is still the capital of a magnificent empire, and a great
force to be reckoned with — he might even remember
the old story (or old joke) of a turn of the (last) century London
newspaper headline: "English Channel Still Shrouded in Fog:
Europe Isolated." Or, maybe he lives vicariously through the
exploits of Emperor Bush.

America, who vowed
to escape the fate of Fortress Europe, is instead ruled by those
who deride "Old Europe" because she won’t
help them get what they want. So jealous of the power they need,
they have adopted the hatred of England’s old enemies, the "Frogs" and
the "Krauts."

But competitive Americans will not be outperformed by their English
counterparts; and oddly, France, that early friend and savior of
the American Republic, and more recent ally, seems to receive yet
more bile than any other.

Even to the point that
Richard Perle, former political advisor to Prime Minister of
Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and, more recently,
chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, recently blurted, "France
is no longer our ally." The 10 February 2003 American Conservative editorial "Richard
Perle Must Resign" adds, "Of the French, delicately courted
by Powell in an effort to win Security Council support, Perle blustered, u2018I
have seen diplomatic maneuver but not moral fiber.’"

The Guardian takes
note of some of more virulent Francophobic (and generally
Europhobic) statements:

The "petulant prima donna of realpolitik" is leading
the "axis of weasels," in "a chorus of cowards." It
is an unholy alliance of "wimps" and ingrates which includes
one country that is little more than a "mini-me minion," another
that is in league with Cuba and Libya, with a bunch of "cheese-eating
surrender monkeys" at the helm.

The last phrase was
uttered by the great American philosopher Bart Simpson, but made "acceptable in official diplomatic
channels around the globe by Jonah Goldberg." The poor souls
that visit Goldberg’s columns know that he has made Francophobia
a favorite pastime.

In The Washington Post,
George Will described the French foreign affairs minister, Dominique
de Villepin, as "oily," but
that’s nothing compared to one of his diatribes during a Sunday
broadcast of This Week, where Will mocked the entire history
of France, sparing (or forgetting) only Jean d’Arc.

Charles Krauthammer
added on Fox television: "I’m all in
favor of gratuitous hits at France and Germany."

Even though they’re not a permanent member of the UN Security
Council, let’s not forget Germany.

Responding to Germany’s lack of enthusiasm for a pre-emptive war
against Iraq, Richard Perle replied, "Germany has been subsidized
into a moral numbing pacifism," and called for Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder’s resignation.

Not to be outdone was Richard Galen, who
recently appeared on CNN’s Talkback Live. Galen was
press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich, and also communications
director for the latter. He casually referred to Gerhard Schroeder
as "a German thug, which may be a redundancy," and
that "the French have been, as usual, a bunch of weasels."

These are the sober minds to whom Americans are entrusting their
fate?

Going it Alone?

So where do the friendless go? To church perhaps.

But the Bush administration seems to be a little confused as to
the relationship between Man and Church.

As The
Age notes,

the most intriguing, and most futile, part of the US diplomatic
offensive is being directed at the oldest institution in Old Europe,
the papacy. The Vatican has resolutely refused to endorse either
the notion of preventive war in general or an invasion of Iraq
in particular. From the Pope down, every significant official in
the Vatican has insisted, in accordance with a long tradition of
Christian teaching about a just war, that the conditions for such
a war cannot be said to exist in the standoff with Iraq.

Instead, the Vatican "rolls
out the red carpet for Christian Aziz," and strengthens
her Chaldean faithful in Iraq. This must come as a great
shock to our governing body.

But if the US government
is not going to listen to "Old Europe," it’s
certainly not going to listen to the "Old Church." The
experience of thousands of years does not impress the boy wonders
of our imperial government. It sends its emissaries to both Church
and State not to converse, but to threaten.

It’s not that we should yield our sovereignty to any nation or
entity on Earth, but that’s not really the point, is it?

When nearly the entire
world sees our folly, doesn’t only a fool
utterly disregard its counsel?

Bush is already seen
as a "cowboy" president (an insult
to cowboys) throughout the world. If America attacks a nation that
has not attacked it, it will be morally discredited, not only in
the eyes of the Islamic world, but in Europe and Asia. What credibility
will America have then?

This has all the ingredients of a diplomatic and political disaster.

If it becomes impossible for the US to invade, it will appear
that peace was accomplished despite American will. The administration
knows that window is rapidly closing, which is why they have the
propaganda machine working overtime, and are demanding immediate
invasion. But it appears that they have already lost the momentum.
And just what will Bush do if the UN inspectors refuse to leave?
Bomb Iraq anyway?

And if the US does invade, in what will almost certainly appear
to the rest of the world as naked aggression, the damage to foreign
policy could be permanent. What the world will remember are the
lies and dashed hope.

Is our government really willing to pit the whole world against
us?

Who will be "irrelevant" in the future? It’s hard to
imagine America’s prestige being compromised any time in the near
future, but this may be the first irreversible step down the long
road of imperialism, which inevitably ends in decline and fall.

This administration is rapidly turning this self-made crisis into
a lose-lose situation for America.

February
15, 2003

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

Houston press has reported
that Lowe’s and Home Depot stores throughout
Harris County have sold out of the plastic sheeting, duct tape,
and other supplies recommended by the Office of Homeland Defense
(OHD) in order for citizens to be better prepared in the event
of an terrorist act. It’s the same all over the nation.

This is a very serious health issue.

"Place a dry cleaning bag over your head and await further
instructions." This may as well have been the instructions
by the time they filtered down to Betty Sue in Omaha. But we all
know Betty Sue doesn’t have anything to worry about, does she?
Well, she does if she follows the instructions from OHD.

The cause for most
concern is the OHD plan for "What
to do during a chemical or biological attack":

Seek shelter in an internal room, preferably one without windows.
Seal the room with duct tape and plastic sheeting. Ten square feet
of floor space per person will provide sufficient air to prevent
carbon dioxide build-up for up to five hours.

And Good Morning America’s
Home Improvement Editor, Ron Hazelton, assured
his viewers:

Don’t worry about running out of air. Every ten square feet of
floor space will last an adult about 5 hours. And don’t leave the
room until you get instructions from the Emergency Broadcast System
to do so.

But
notice the discrepancy in the phrases "to prevent carbon
dioxide build-up" and "don’t worry about running out
of air." Hazelton is actually correct (probably accidentally)
that the amount of oxygen corresponding to a ten square foot space
is probably sufficient (though marginal) to sustain an adult for
about five hours, but the critical issue is not oxygen consumption,
but carbon dioxide generation and accumulation. The OHD statement
is correct in identifying carbon dioxide accumulation as a concern,
but its conclusions are surprising, to say the least.

Assuming
an eight-foot ceiling (yielding eighty cubic feet per person)
and a subject metabolic rate of 800 BTU/hr, after five
hours the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (ppCO2) would be ~67
mm Hg (if the initial ppCO2 were zero). It cannot be understated: this
is very high.

(Note:
800 BTU/hr (3.36 kcal/min) is not unreasonable for a very excited
person in a hot and humid enclosure with elevated carbon
dioxide (more on that in a moment). For this case, a bare (but
irresponsible) minimum might be 600 BTU/hr (corresponding to a
ppCO2 level of 50 mm Hg after five hours). Consider that NASA Environmental
Control and Life Support (ECLS) engineers typically assume a waking
metabolic rate of 450 BTU/hr for moderate intravehicular activity,
and this is with very physically efficient subjects (astronauts)
not using major muscle groups (e.g., legs) in microgravity.)

Keep
in mind that the maximum operational limit for the Shuttle Orbiter
is 7.6 mm Hg, and is actually lower for the International
Space Station. The NASA Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration
(SMAC) for carbon dioxide is 10.0 mm Hg for a one-hour period.
Similar values can be found among the literature of the various
military branches.

The
NASA Bioastronautics Data Book (Second
Edition, pp. 48–49) indicates that after only 80 minutes, at
a ppCO2 level of
~18 mm Hg, the subject can experience "mental depression,
headache, dizziness, nausea." At ~45 mm Hg (after 80 minutes),
the subject experiences "marked deterioration leading to dizziness
and stupor, with inability to take steps for self preservation.
The final state is unconsciousness." (The level in our case
would not reach 45 mm Hg after 80 minutes, but the threshold of
the aforementioned symptoms would be at a much lower CO2 level
at the end of five
hours.)

Industry literature is similar.

The W.E. Kuriger Associates
web page titled "Carbon
Dioxide Fact Book," states that,

Several studies have
indicated that CO2 does not seriously impact human health until
levels reach approximately 15,000 ppm [7.5 mm
Hg]. … At extremely high levels, i.e., 30,000 ppm [15 mm Hg] (these
concentrations are usually never reached in a standard home), the
symptoms can include nausea, dizziness, mental depression, shaking,
visual disturbances and vomiting. At extremely high levels, loss
of consciousness may occur. … Finally, CO2 is an asphyxiate, a
condition in which an extreme decrease in the amount of oxygen
in the body, accompanied by an increase of carbon dioxide, leads
to loss of consciousness or death. Concentrations of 100,000 ppm
[50 mm Hg] or more of CO2 can produce unconsciousness or death.

And carbon dioxide is hardly the only physiological concern.

One would probably pass out from heat exhaustion before he passed
out from exposure to high carbon dioxide concentrations.

It’s
probably not a bad assumption to consider the system adiabatic
(no heat transfer — there would be very little heat transfer via
conduction, which is the only mechanism for heat transfer to the
environment in this scenario), and considering the thermal capacitance
of the subject (the thermal capacitance of the surrounding air
is only about 1% of that of the subject), suffice to say that the
subject would have very serious core temperature problems long
before five hours time (a three, four degree elevation per hour?)

And
within about ten to fifteen minutes after being in this enclosure
the air would
become saturated, that is, 100% relative humidity
(and condensate would start forming on the plastic). As the air
temperature and humidity increases (deteriorating the mechanisms
for rejecting the subject’s metabolic heat), and carbon dioxide
levels increase, and as oxygen is depleted (at the end of five
hours, at 800 BTU/hr the subject would be at an altitude equivalency
of ~19,000 feet (0.47 atm.), at 600 BTU/hr ~14,000 feet (0.60
atm.)), his metabolic rate will increase, in turn increasing the
metabolic heat and perspired and respired water vapor he generates,
creating a vicious cycle.

And, of course, children and elderly can withstand much less of
this kind of environment than adults.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the dissemination of this information
is that the balance of the press, including network news broadcasters, didn’t
even mention a time limit at all.

Other aspects of the
OHD statement are very odd — how many folks are wealthy enough
to have an inside room with no windows (other than a closet,
which would, according to their recommendations, only
be sufficient for one person)?

And plastic sheeting?
That’s awfully vague. Surely there are permeability
and robustness issues here. The
Washington Post reported that in a local D.C. hardware
store "plastic dropcloths were being evaluated with one aim
in mind: Would they work to seal a room?" Good question, but
not likely.

Considering that only
a very tiny proportion of the population (and obviously no one
at the Office of Homeland Security) are trained
to make these calculations and decisions, and remembering that
a significant portion of the population doesn’t know their "right
hand from their left," may God bless them, the instructions
from the OHD are cause for very serious concern.

So please give
this wide circulation — there is a high
likelihood that there are plenty of folks already out there
sitting in an enclosure that they believe to be safe, unknowingly
endangering the lives of themselves and their children.

February
14, 2003

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

But as the War Party runs interference, President Bush delivered a State of the Union Address that would make Karl Marx blush, and it seems that few pundits or pols are willing to challenge a president and Congress that continue to increase spending at twice the rate of Clinton.

While the president proposes sleepy tax cuts that change the lives of no one, he also proposes multi-billion dollar program after multi-billion dollar program that ultimately diminish the lives of those he presumes to help.

But nothing sells like the promise of extended life and painlessness: "We must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need." I don’t know where the president lives, but even our scores of millions of non-citizens have the benefit of these promises, starting with our overflowing emergency rooms.

And in an attempt to socialize a drug industry that has saved an unprecedented number of lives and has increased the quality of life for all by virtue of their profit and research, the president promises to give "seniors access to preventive medicine and new drugs."

But a little suggestion of kickback to his fellow pols never hurts: "And just like you — the members of Congress, and your staffs, and other federal employees — all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs."

Except our telescopic philanthropy doesn’t see far enough, so he asks "Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." And when a pol says "new money" he means "new money" — fire up the presses.

After he’s greased the skids by promising freebies to every kind of voter he can think of (but especially the ones that wield the most power), he moves to his pet project, the hardest sell and most expensive program of all, not only in capital and operating cost, but in terms of long-term negative return on investment: The war on Iraq.

The president told us that "the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others," meaning foreign nations; that is, after millions upon millions of dollars worth of traveling and begging, he’s not found anyone important to sign on.

Confirming that the administration has no solid evidence for WMD, the president scares us with tales of "anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague," and tells us that "We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us." In what makes Star Wars sound enormously credible, he proposes "Project Bioshield" to guard against "one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." They can’t keep out millions of illegal aliens, but they’re not going to allow one vial of poison to cross any border or enter any port.

In a moment of unintended irony, the president told us that "As we fight this war, we will remember where it began — here, in our own country."

Pushing credulity to the limits, the president tells us that "Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations." Picture this: pathetic little starving Iraq, who not for lack of trying has not hit one American plane for years and years of continual bombing missions after thousand of sorties into their territory, is "blocking" U-2 flyovers.

And the coup de grce:

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

To be certain, I wouldn’t invite Saddam Hussein to my garden party, but this sounds awfully desperate — this description makes the Marquis de Sade look like Mr. Rogers. It’s a blatant attempt that exceeds even tales of babies on bayonets and overturned incubators, neither of which turned out to be true — why should we believe this government now?

And even though dear David Frum has moved to greener pastures (he stayed long enough to accumulate source notes for a spiffy new Bush bio), the president couldn’t depart without setting the stage for war with the remaining elements of the dreaded "axis of evil": Iran and North Korea.

Perle of Wisdom?

The one segment of the president’s speech that probably drew the longest sighs from thinking Americans is that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." They never give up.

But what else do they have?

Even Bush’s English lapdog would like him to concentrate on the WMD angle — at least they can slap satellite photos on the overhead projector and subject them to whatever interpretation fits the bill.

In the hours leading up to Colin Powell’s address to the U.N., there was fierce debate about what emphasis was to be placed on links to al Qaeda. I would think so — the links are still terribly vague, nowadays usually referring to al Qaeda agents in areas of Iraq under Kurdish control.

But even with respect to WMD, there is nothing really new in the evidence that Powell provided, and interpretation of that existing evidence has indeed been quite varied. The day before he delivered the speech, even Powell admitted his report contained no "smoking gun." Part of the temporary "success" of the speech among some quarters is due to the perceived credibility of Powell. As one observer commented, the U.N. presentation was 40% evidence, 60% Powell. But to most concerned, this administration lost its credibility long before Mr. Powell ever stepped foot in the U.N.

No one really believes that Iraq is accumulating WMD in order to start a worldwide bloodbath, but the most important point is nearly always obfuscated: Even if Saddam Hussein does have WMD, it does not jeopardize this nation’s security. It just doesn’t.

And this explains why the administration keeps returning to the hopeless links with worldwide terrorism — without it, the case for war to preserve national security just isn’t there.

But the message is mixed — the president occasionally lapses into neoconservative Wilsonianism, proudly claiming that America shall carry the banner of freedom for the whole world, defending the security of every nation and soul, whatever the cost. On that basis, he could probably make an argument for invading any nation on the planet, including his own.

The U.N. responded to the president’s address by declaring that "the majority of the council is in favor of disarming Iraq by peaceful means, and the majority of the council is in favor of giving the inspectors more time."

Nevertheless, even though European leaders have rejected the flimsy evidence (that we’re not allowed to see) offered by the president time and time again, Bush achieved a small coup by virtue of the letter signed by eight European leaders in support of the United States that appeared this last Thursday (30 January). The letter was signed by England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

According to the letter, the reason behind the "support" of America is because the values of "democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law … crossed the Atlantic" to America from … Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic?

Probably not. It’s not likely that any European nation is any more convinced than they ever were that there is evidence sufficient to warrant immediate invasion of Iraq. Truly, they just want an end to the prolonged instability that this "crisis" has had on the European economy. They’re hoping beyond hope that an end to this most immediate crisis will at least bring temporary stability to their respective economies. Regardless of what small and insignificant states such as England and Hungary say they believe, their current primary concern is economic security. England doesn’t want any more “fuel protests” (except that the last panic sprang from overtaxation of fuel).

But since the U.S. has made it clear it intends to invade, why not get on board? Why be on the wrong side of America, especially since it’s brash enough to spend blood and treasure to get rid of a nasty character? At least these foreign leaders are looking out for the interests of their own nations, which is certainly more than can be said for ours.

But the powerful economies of France and Germany still beg to differ.

The premier Pentagon advisor, "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle, frustrated by France’s status as permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, blathers "France is no longer our ally." This is what passes for intelligent persuasion and diplomacy in latter-day D.C.: whether Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or France, instead of discourse and trade, isolation is the mantra of the Beltway Elite.

But to be sure, foreign markets have not been fooled — they all tanked the day after the State of the Union Address.

Just what has this self-induced obsession with Iraq done to the already ailing world economy? Gold is soaring, busting through years-old resistance levels, bonds are benefiting from safe-haven buying, and no government stimulus package nor interest rate cut by any Fed wizard will be able to help it.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

Have you ever had such "comforters" during times of tribulation? Unlike many of us, Job had no trouble telling his comforters what he thought of them:

I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all. Shall vain words have an end? or what emboldeneth thee that thou answerest? I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul’s stead, I could heap up words against you, and shake mine head at you. But I would strengthen you with my mouth, and the moving of my lips should asswage your grief. Though I speak, my grief is not asswaged: and though I forbear, what am I eased?

When Trent Lott’s "comforters" spoke "on his behalf," their utter lack of sympathy reminded me of the above passage.

But beyond that, all similarity ends. Job’s miserable comforters, albeit obtuse and without any apparent sympathy, were perhaps at least sincere. Job clearly recognizes their callousness, and tells them so, but he certainly doesn’t apologize for sins he did not commit.

With Friends Like These …

Every demagogue that can divine the smell of a struggling victim of political correctness has been teased out of his lair, and their reactions have been unsurprising; but no less surprising are the reactions of those who one would expect, in perhaps another time and place, might come to his defense.

Our brave and wise president affirmed that "Recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. He has apologized, and rightly so. Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals." Another chapter of Profiles in Courage.

But I don’t want to give the impression that I think the president is only a fool, or coward — there seem to be fairly clear motives for his statement.

On the 22 December 2002 Meet the Press, David Broder of The Washington Post observed,

This was a coup, and it was brilliantly executed on the part of the White House because, so far, nobody has actually been able to find White House fingerprints on this. But the president ends up with the very person that he most wanted as majority leader, Bill Frist, in the job.

Broder later added that "we [the press] allowed anonymous sources from the administration to use us to take down Senator Lott."

Cut to Frist, with no apparent sense of propriety, or at least not able to hide his glee, beams for reporters as he exits the gated protection of his home.

Colin Powell chimes in, "I was disappointed in the senator’s statement. I deplored the sentiments behind the statement. There was nothing about the 1948 election or the Dixiecrat agenda that should have been acceptable in any way to any American at that time or any American now." In case anyone is in any doubt regarding the Secretary of State’s feelings, there were four superlatives in that last sentence.

Among the profane things that were included in the 1948 Dixiecrat platform, those things about which "nothing … should have been acceptable in any way to any American at that time or any American now," were "protection of the American people against the onward march of totalitarian government [that] requires a faithful observance of Article X of the American Bill of Rights," resisting "the gradual but certain growth of a totalitarian state by domination and control of a political minded Supreme Court," opposing "the totalitarian, centralized, bureaucratic government and the police state called for by the platforms of the Democratic and Republican conventions" and the "usurpation of the legislative function by the executive and judicial departments," and support of "home rule, local self-government, and a minimum interference with individual rights."

Aren’t these the principles that all freedom-loving Americans cherish?

But we don’t need to be selective in the voices of those who verbally stabbed Lott in the back. "When his comrades spoke, they spoke with knives, and when there was silence, the silence was deafening."

The Washington Post reports that "longtime friend and ally, former housing secretary Jack Kemp, called Lott’s remarks u2018inexplicable, indefensible and inexcusable.’" Pat Buchanan adds that "Not only was Lott abandoned by his president and his old friend Jack Kemp, he must have been even more disheartened at the sickening silence of his Republican caucus. He was their leader, he was under savage attack, and they never rode to the rescue."

To be certain, I hold no brief for Lott, but the repellent cowardice and slimy opportunism evidenced by his comrades would be almost enough to elicit sympathy for any victim.

The Killing Fields

The Killing Fields recounts the horror of the 1975 Cambodian revolution though the eyes of the impossibly heroic Cambodian journalist Dith Pran, and his New York Times counterpart, Sydney Schanberg. This is one of the most moving and disturbing films I have ever seen.

(If there is anyone who has not seen this film, I offer one caveat: I know many serious and unsentimental people who had difficulty seeing the film to its conclusion. One scene is reminiscent of The Apocalypse.)

A low point in the film is when the French Embassy hands over the monarchy of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge, at whose hands they will surely meet their death. In the film, at least, the only sympathy the French ambassador could muster was a sarcastic, "Adieu, ancien regime."

The U.S., in another of its brilliant play-one-against-the-other strategies, preferred the Maoist Khmer Rouge over the stable Cambodian monarchy because of its hatred for the Vietnamese. Even after the horror of the killing fields the Reagan administration backed Pol Pot in exile, so that in the words of one U.S. official, "we can achieve a better result" in the "last battle of the Vietnam War."

In the film, an attempt is made at distributing blame. A fellow journalist asks Schanberg, with the cameras rolling, "How do you respond to the accusations that you and other journalists underestimated the brutality of the Khmer Rouge and so share responsibility for what happened in Cambodia afterwards?" He responds defensively but accurately, "We made a mistake. Maybe what we underestimated was the kind of insanity that seven billion dollars worth of bombing could produce."

During one six month period in 1973, U.S. B-52s dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on this mostly Iron Age culture, killing as many as hundreds of thousands.

The only thing that doesn’t quite ring true about the journalist’s question appearing in the film is the astonishing complicity with which the Western press concealed these brutal events. In How Democracies Perish, Jean François Revel notes the near-absence of headlines in the Western press that would give any indication that the Cambodian terror even took place.

In Modern Times, Paul Johnson describes how "Sartre’s Children" (as he refers to the intellectuals that orchestrated the revolution), the Angka Loeu ("Higher Organization"), overtook Phnom Penh with shocking swiftness and brutality:

On April 17 over three million people were living in Phnom Penh. They were literally pushed into the surrounding countryside. The violence started at 7 am with attacks on Chinese shops; then general looting. The first killings came at 8:45 am. Fifteen minutes later troops began to clear the Military Hospital, driving doctors, nurses, sick and dying into the streets. An hour later they opened fire on anyone seen in the streets, to start a panic out of the city. At noon the Preah Ket Melea hospital was cleared: hundreds of men, women and children, driven at gunpoint, limped out into midday temperatures of over 100 Fahrenheit. Of twenty thousand wounded in the city, all were in the jungle by nightfall. One man carried his son, who had just had both legs amputated; others pushed the beds of the very ill, carrying bottles of plasma and serum. Every hospital in the city was emptied. All papers and records in the city were destroyed. All books were thrown into the Mekong River or burned on the banks. The paper money in the Banque Khmer de Commerce was incinerated. Cars, motorbikes and bicycles were impounded. Rockets and bazookas were fired at homes where any movement was detected. There were many summary executions. The rest were told, "Leave immediately or we will shoot all of you." By evening the water supply was cut off. What gave this episode its peculiar Kafkaesque horror was the absence of any visible authority. The peasant-soldiers simply killed and terrified, obeying orders, invoking the commands of the Angka Loeu. Nothing was explained. The intellectuals who had planned it never appeared.

One of the journalists in the film observed that half of the revolutionaries "were under fifteen." Surely, it is hard to imagine other than children being as uncompromising, and as cruel.

When the revolution was accomplished, and the "re-education" camps were organized, the most prized souls were the very young, those who had not been exposed to the wickedness of their fathers, those who had not been corrupted by the former culture. Conceived in sinlessness, only they were pure enough.

In a monologue, Pran imagines that he is corresponding with Schanberg, and tells him of his experience in the camp:

They tell us that God is dead and now the party they call the Angka will provide everything for us. Angka has identified and proclaims the existence of a bad new disease — a memory sickness — diagnosed as thinking too much about life in pre-Revolutionary Cambodia. He says, we are surrounded by enemies. The enemy is inside us. No one can be trusted. We must be like the ox and have no thought except for the party. No love, but for the Angka. We must honor the comrade children whose minds are not corrupted by the past.

During this recitation, a child is shown in front of a classroom blackboard, on which is drawn in chalk the scene of a home, with family members holding hands. The child responds to the image by drawing an "X" through the mother and father, and erasing the point at which the parent’s and child’s hands intersect. At that moment, the watching students applaud.

In one memorable scene, a little girl examines the hands of an old man who apparently was not working hard enough. She orders him to be taken aside, where a blue bag is placed over his head, and he is shot.

According to Johnson, the details of Angka’s plan had been acquired by State Department expert Kenneth Quinn, which described "total revolution,"

The scheme was an attempt to telescope, in one terrifying coup, the social changes brought about over twenty-five years in Mao’s China. There was to be a "total social revolution." Everything about the past was "anathema and must be destroyed." It was necessary to "psychologically reconstruct individual members of society." It entailed "stripping away, through terror and other means, the traditional bases, structures and forces which have shaped and guided an individual’s life" and then "rebuilding him according to party doctrines by substituting a series of new values."

Pran, an educated man who knows French and English, continues his monologue,

Angka says that those who were guilty of soft living in the years of the great struggle and did not care for the sufferings of the peasant must confess because now is the Year Zero and everything is to start anew. I’m full of fear. I must show no understanding. I must have no past. This is the Year Zero, and nothing has gone before.

A quarter of the population perished in that revolution.

Republican Rouge

Obviously the heartbreaking revolution in Cambodia depicts the most dismal conception of the State of Nature, and I don’t expect bloodbaths any time soon on American soil by atheist revolutionaries; but I’m always reminded of these scenes when I see the results of our own re-education camps: the public school system, the popular culture, and the press. There may be little carnage in our system (its insidiousness makes it unnecessary), but its subtlety probably provides more efficient and comprehensive results.

I feel my gore rise whenever I hear the latest lecture on the latest glorious step in social progress and the unmitigated evil that it replaces. However, the putridity of L’Affair Lot has crystallized how degenerate our "leaders" and "intellectuals" have become.

The Republican Party is beginning to look more like Angka than the party of Robert Taft. And to the neocons that control it, the "Year Zero" is 1964, and no one can spew enough bile at their ancestors to satisfy those that were born in the purity of time marked by the passage of the Civil Rights Act. And anyone who disagrees with them suffers from the Memory Sickness, and must be removed.

Bill Clinton spewed,

How can they jump on him when they’re out there repressing, trying to run black voters away from the polls and running under the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina? … I mean, look at their whole record. He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the backloads every day.

This is to be expected from the former Slimeball in Chief, but how are the neocons any better?

According to The Washington Post, editor of The Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said, "Oh G– … It’s ludicrous. He should remember it’s the party of Lincoln."

For once Bill Kristol has it right: The Republican Party is indeed The Party of Lincoln. Lincoln did the dirtiest work, murdering the infant republic in its crib, but The Party of Lincoln tirelessly continues the work of expanding the American State, while still taking credit for American rights while it in fact excises them. At least in its recent history (the last half-century), there were Republicans patriotic enough to warn of the coming theft, but those days are long gone.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review could not hide the admiration of his Leftist fellow-travelers: "The mainstream press missed the story for days and were it not for the highly acute ears of the civil-rights establishment, the story might have been missed entirely." Goldberg moralized that he cannot excuse Lott’s "indefensible comments."

But Goldberg’s admiration is disingenuous. Surely he knows that it wasn’t the "civil-rights establishment" that whipped up this story — it was his neocon buddies that did so. Perhaps he’s being clever, including himself and his compadres in the "civil-rights establishment."

On the 22 December 2002 Meet the Press, David Broder lamented, "I think many of us in the news media also did not acquit ourselves terribly well. Took a long time for this story to develop. Many reporters at the event did not write about it in the first instance." And Robert George of the New York Post added that "… the internet journalists and the web site bloggers and so forth kept this story bubbling in that very first weekend."

Steve Sailer of VDARE.com goes further:

The fundamental fact is that this disaster was almost completely self-inflicted by Republican pundits. It was the "right wing" mouthpieces, not the liberals, who went hysterical.

Soon afterwards, two of Clinton’s attack dogs, Sidney Blumenthal and James Carville, sent out mass emails trying to peddle the story. The websites of a few Democrats picked it up. But the big-time liberal media still wasn’t interested.

Sailer quotes the 17 December New York Times as identifying the real culprits:

Early, widespread and harsh criticism by conservative commentators and publications has provided much of the tinder for the political fires surrounding Senator Trent Lott. … Conservative columnists, including Andrew Sullivan, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and publications like National Review and the Wall Street Journal have castigated Mr. Lott …

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz confirmed Lott’s assault by bloggers David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, and Glenn Reynolds.

Deadly Confession

Dith Pran concludes,

The wind whispers of fear and hate. The war has killed love. And those who confess to the Angka vanish, and no one dares ask where they go. Here, only the silent survive.

In the camp, confession is encouraged. In one "meeting," a couple confesses their past "sins," surely expecting salvation from Angka. They are embraced by the camp elder, and those in attendance applaud. Later, when no one else is looking, Pran sees them being dragged away, blue bags placed on their heads, taken away to be shot.

Angka always demands a confession of sins that have not been committed — in the form of a public apology. In this perfect antithesis of Christian confession, forgiveness and salvation is replaced by damnation and death.

In one of the most disgusting displays in the history of the republic, after already confessing ad nauseam, the Senate Majority Leader of the United States of America appeared on Black Entertainment Television to complete the humiliation. BET host Ed Gordon asked, "What about affirmative action?" "I’m for that," answered Lott enthusiastically. "Across the board?" "Absolutely, across the board."

If anyone believes that Angka is satisfied with confession, Lott’s confessions are instructive.

At the end of it all, what was gained? Was he respected by anyone for his prolonged prostration before the high priests of egalitarianism? Those who believed the confession wasn’t necessary certainly don’t respect him, and those who believed it was do not believe him anyway.

In confessing false sins, no one believes the apology of the accused, nor waits for the forgiveness of the accuser.

And as anyone could have predicted, the oblation was not enough to save him, and it only spurred the pursuit of reparations and other inanity.

Poddy Trained

The "blue bag" that our modern leftist revolutionaries use to suffocate anyone who is not in sync with their domestic and foreign policy agendas is the accusation of racism, and the neocon preference is anti-Semitism. It is meant to forever silence the victim, and the results are usually devastating.

Goldberg again: "Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race." Neocons like Goldberg have very good reason for feeling that way. Many of the neocon doctors are "converted" Trotskyites, whose ideology may have changed slightly, but their methodology hasn’t changed a whit. They play the race card with the best of them, and play it often.

He continues, "This event represented the death rattle of conservatism’s racist fringe, not its reemergence. The most-prominent exception, predictably, is Pat Buchanan, a man who had to leave the Republican party entirely because his views, not just on race [emphasis mine] …" In reality, Buchanan is the most prominent exception of those who have not been utterly destroyed by hysterical neocon finger-pointing, and they hate it.

But even Mr. Goldberg is not that ignorant. Pat Buchanan did not "have to leave," but left the Republican Party out of disgust; it had nothing whatsoever to do with race; and probably the most controversial aspect of his 2000 bid swirled over his interpretation of the events surrounding WW II in A Republic, Not an Empire.

And while we’re at it, Goldberg thinks, what the hell, let’s go ahead and call the entire Old Right a bunch of racist kooks: "In fact, prior to Trent Lott’s idiocy, most conservatives I know would have assumed it did not exist at all — except among the fever swamps of the so-called paleo-Right."

The Party of … Trotsky?

But should any of this be surprising?

In the 13 January 2003 issue of The American Conservative, J. P. Zmirak makes the case that "Neoconservatism owes more to Trotsky than to Burke."

Zmirak points out that:

Because [the Trotskyites] supported a global Marxist revolution, and a system which had no national host on which it could feed, they were able to function much more in the mold of Jacobins, of "pure" revolutionaries unfettered by national interest and realpolitik.

The Trotskyites who mutated into neocons "carried a strong tendency towards pure abstraction" and tended to see America "not as our homeland, as the particular place where a people and their treasured institutions took root, but rather as the (almost accidental) spot where certain ideas had taken hold."

Zmirak quotes a Wall Street Journal editorial writer as saying "Where you’re born … is of no ideological significance." He continues, "For Cold War conservatives, anyone, anywhere, who will sign on to the Declaration of Independence is already an American."

Anything that doesn’t fit into this neocon formula goes down the memory hole, including

… the Anglo-Celtic roots of the Founding, the specifically Christian (mostly Protestant) identity of America, the very existence of the Confederacy, and the profoundly Western roots of our culture. For this reason, [historian David] Gress argues, Cold War conservatives have rendered themselves helpless against multiculturalism — and undermined the concrete foundations upon which the edifice of American freedom stands.

This is the intellectual heritage of the neocons — they have no real nation, no real roots. And the younger seem to know very little even about their own immediate predecessors — they stand on the shoulders of no one.

God Is Dead

According to Paul Johnson, Friedrich Nietzsche saw the "death of God" as a casualty:

Nietzsche saw God not as an invention but as a casualty, and his demise was in some important sense an historical event, which would have dramatic consequences. He wrote in 1886: "The greatest event of recent times — that u2018God is dead,’ that the belief in the Christian God is no longer tenable — is beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe." Among the advanced races, the decline and ultimately the collapse of the religious impulse would leave a huge vacuum. The history of modern times is in great part the history of how that vacuum has been filled. Nietzsche rightly perceived that the most likely candidate would be what he called the "Will to Power," which offered a far more comprehensive and in the end more plausible explanation of human behaviour than either Marx or Freud. In place of religious belief, there would be secular ideology.

In Nietzsche’s Also Sprach Zarathustra, he envisions the letzte Mensch ("last man"):

Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal; he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

"Formerly all the world was insane," say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

Reading this, it’s hard to imagine that Nietzsche never read National Review, The Weekly Standard, or Commentary.

Goldberg blinketh,

Similarly, this episode will no doubt be seen by younger conservatives as a "teaching moment." They will see that the voices of the conservative movement rejected a past best represented by a 100-year-old man being put out to pasture and few comments made in his defense.

Yes, another lesson for the re-education camp. David Frum agrees:

I think one reason so many of us in the conservative mainstream have reacted so strongly to the Trent Lott affair was our shock and surprise — we all assumed that the attitudes Lott expressed had vanished from our midst twenty and thirty years ago. Then, suddenly, they ripped the door off the crypt and emerged nightmarishly into the daylight again, rotten but undead.

Shocking! It’s hard to imagine that such times even existed — twenty, even thirty years ago, even before Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Frum were even born!

With all the deep and mature perspective one might find in the films Footloose or Pleasantville, our comrade children at National Review don’t even seem to be aware what the intellectual forefathers of their own magazine once believed in the dim recesses of the latter half of the last century.

As Paul Gottfried recently pointed out,

Throughout the sixties, moreover, NR featured multiple pointed attacks on the civil rights movement by James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Will Herberg, Jeffrey Hart, and its editor-in-chief. Frum’s attempt to associate the paleos, and more specifically The American Conservative, with obsessive anti-Semitism because of their criticism of Israeli foreign policy, overlooks the willingness of NR’s editors in the old days to engage even more forcefully in "Judeo-critical" commentary. Burnham did so throughout the sixties; and in 1961, Buckley himself attacked the Israeli showcasing of the Eichmann trial for nurturing Teutonophobia and for expressing Jewish vengefulness. In the fullness of time, Buckley would preside over a publication that specialized in both.

And Lew Rockwell recognized that no one was fooled about the real intent of Civil Rights legislation:

Everyone, both proponents and opponents, knew exactly what that law was: a statist, centralizing measure that fundamentally attacked the rights of property and empowered the state as mind reader: to judge not only our actions, but our motives, and to criminalize them.

What the little letzte Menschen at NR don’t seem to understand is that all those wicked people who warned against Civil Rights legislation saw clearly into the future, and they have been clearly vindicated.

Steve Sailer concludes that

racial quotas are the inevitable by-products of our anti-discrimination laws. When Barry Goldwater explained how the 1964 Civil Rights Act would lead to quotas, Hubert Humphrey famously promised to eat a printed copy of the law if it ever happened. But merely a half-decade later, quotas were commonplace.

Nunquam Fidelis

During the 12 January 2003 Meet the Press, Tim Russert informed Mr. Frist that in the University of Michigan admissions process, being a "person of color" gained one twenty points (out of a possible 150), while a perfect SAT score was worth only twelve points.

Frist was asked by Russert what he thought about all that. Mr. Frist said he couldn’t comment on it because he didn’t know anything about the Michigan admission process.

In a party that claims to be against racial quotas, in the clearest imaginable example of such, our Republican president (after a great deal of time) hasn’t seemed to be able to make a decision on it, and the Republican Senate Majority Leader pleads ignorance.

When the president finally did make up his mind, it was in the form of political double-talk. He and his staff made it sound as though the president was against quotas, but also that it was awfully clear that they had better be diverse. 1964 all over again, except that the president is one of the bad guys — he believes diversity goals are just swell.

In a later piece by Sailer, he quotes Bush explaining helpful schemes to achieve "diversity":

Some states are using innovative ways to diversify their student bodies. Recent history has proven that diversity can be achieved without using quotas. Systems in California and Florida and Texas have proven that by guaranteeing admissions to the top students from high schools throughout the state, including low income neighborhoods, colleges can attain broad racial diversity.

The Bush brothers’ "X-percent solutions" that were introduced in Texas and Florida are "blatant schemes for achieving quotas." Ensuring that a percentage of students are admitted from even the worst schools is even worse than outright quota systems, which at least admit the highest potential students within each race.

Yet worse, Bush continued, "Schools should seek diversity by considering a broad range of factors in admissions, including a student’s potential and life experiences." Even though heroic neocons like Bill Bennett went to all the trouble of traveling clear across America to defeat a proposition in a state that’s not his home, the Proposition 209 ban on racial preferences passed by a wide margin. But, of course, the government ignored the people’s wishes, and found ways to sidestep the law. The solution that Bush praises for California is yet another subversion of Prop. 209, where applicants get extra credit for hardships, such as receiving gunshot wounds. That’s probably taking "the school of hard knocks" a little far.

Could the president’s policy be any more disastrous? Isn’t this a states’ rights issue anyway? (The Bush brothers and the "conservative" members of the Supreme Court made it pretty clear how they felt about states’ rights during the 2000 presidential election.)

And the president’s State of the Union address was filled with proposed multi-billion dollar program after multi-billion dollar program — imagined rights of every shape and size — a leftist’s dream. And he means what he says — the president’s spending rate increase is double Clinton’s.

I ask my Republican friends, when they seem frustrated (which isn’t often enough): "So, what else did you expect?" The invariable answer comes: "What else is there — the Democrats?" This is supposed to be the slam-dunk question.

I tell them that there isn’t anyone else, or any other solution, nor will there ever be as long as they continue in their miserable and pathetic co-dependent relationship with the American State. They believe their lover when he tells them he’ll never cheat on them again, but not only does he continue to cheat, he has the habits of a satyr, and to add to the humiliation it’s carried out in broad daylight.

But they still keep believing.

Whether by cowardice, cynicism, or cluelessness, it’s irrefutable that both parties are dead set at removing every last remnant of Old America. It’s gone far beyond the possibility for "compromise" — it’s not that our leaders’ hearts aren’t in it any more, it’s not even that they’ve surrendered the battlefield. It’s that they don’t even show up for battle because they’re fornicating with the enemy.

Isn’t it far past time to break it off?

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

I must have read or heard four references to it in the space of about thirty hours; but, even though it pushed all my buttons, I resolved to forget about it. That is, until I saw it mentioned on the (18 January) Saturday Night Live "Weekend Update" segment. Somehow, that was the last straw — not that Weekend Update is a serious news source (but then again, what is), but when something ends up on SNL it does tend to indicate that it has reached the saturation point.

According to the article, a paper on LOT was published in Science in 1995 by Michael K. McBeath, et al., which sought to explain why baseball outfielders "run along an arc rather than straight toward the ball. The roundabout path enables fielders to keep the ball’s image rising in a straight line."

Wow. That’s really something.

Arizona State research scientist Dr. Dennis M. Schaffer has continued the research with his Frisbee-catching Springer spaniel. The article informs us that "… dogs use the same instinctive arithmetic to catch a Frisbee as outfielders do to catch a fly ball."

As I was reading the article, I was making mathematical calculations in my own little brain, specifically, what fraction of this complete waste of time was funded by government grant. My calculations were guided by the Corollary of Scientific Silliness, which holds that the fraction of research project cost that is funded by government is inversely proportional to its degree of seriousness. On this basis, I calculated the fraction to be approximately 0.92. (If government funding is not the cause, please don’t tell me.)

Aside from their stating the obvious, I have some serious problems with their "findings." At least one purely technical aspect of the research sounds suspicious — that regarding the biophysics of optics.

The article quotes Dr. Shaffer as saying "both dogs and humans seem to have the innate ability to track an object flying through three-dimensional space by using information in the two-dimensional image on their retina."

This is either sloppy communication at best, or sloppy science at worst. The statement implies that the exquisitely sophisticated operation of human sight produces only two-dimensional perception, and that depth perception plays no role. Surely much of the ability to catch a ball (or Frisbee) is dependent upon the capacity for depth perception. If you don’t believe me, try catching a ball or Frisbee, or driving a car, with one eye closed. You can certainly infer distances from experience, but it is nevertheless a scary experience.

But this is all really obvious. What seems to have caught everyone’s attention is the preposterous claim that the tracking is the result of "instinctive arithmetic":

Of course, neither dogs nor baseball players use the strategy consciously. Their brains take in the image of the moving target, perform split-second computations to estimate their required speed and direction at any instant and make them act accordingly. These computations are what lie beneath the outfielder’s grace and reflexive magic.

This is pure hogwash.

As an engineer, I live in a world of mathematics; but I assure you, subconsciously or not, when I’m throwing a Frisbee, nowhere in my mind are mathematical calculations taking place, and certainly not at the speed necessary to prevent the Frisbee from whacking me in the face. It is intellect and experience and reaction — it has nothing to do with math.

Control of one’s faculties or things external to the self does not at all necessitate the use of mathematics; but of course control theory does employ mathematics. Changing direction — or any process control — does not mean that the process control algorithm described by mathematics is the same thing as that which it is describing.

Mathematics were developed by human beings in order to describe, understand, model, and imitate natural processes.

Perception can no more be linked to a mathematical algorithm than can "green," which can be defined as a point or range on the electromagnetic spectrum, be described to someone who has been blind from birth.

And what is true of intelligent human and canine systems is equally true of inanimate processes. Chemical reaction kinetics are predictable, and can be described by mathematics, but are the chemicals making the calculations?

A Unified Field Theory of existence is hopelessly illusive, though Aristotle was among the most promising. But Aristotle wasn’t wrong, it’s simply that a better mathematical representation of nature came along with Newton, and likewise with Einstein. But none are comprehensive.

That these scientists watching Frisbee-catching dogs think that mathematical calculations are being accomplished subconsciously, whether instinctual or learned, reveals much. Why do they confuse observing for being?

I wanted to learn a bit more about the credentials of the people working on this "research," so I did a little research of my own.

The only Dennis Shaffer I found at Arizona State is an Assistant Professor in their department of "Social/Behavioral Science." Ah — now we’re getting somewhere.

Social Science isn’t exactly a "hard science" — I’ve always had a little problem with it being called "science" at all. After all, "social science" is a rather new invention, founded on the whole by philosophical materialists.

Dr. Shaffer’s ersatz "discoveries" reinforce my belief.

But here we get to the crux of matter:

A question that interests scientists is whether navigational strategies are a product of evolution or experience. Researchers say there is no clear evidence to show whether organisms have an instinct for the calculus involved in pursuing a target, or whether they learn it unconsciously, by trial and error. Some believe that while the neural mechanisms used in computing an interception course are hard-wired in the brain, specific tasks must be learned.

It is not surprising that the same strategy seems to be used by dogs and baseball players, said Michael Land, a researcher at the University of Sussex in England.

"There is a lot of convergent evolution in sensory-motor tasks among very distantly related animals," Land said. "For example, flies and primates can track targets with their eyes using similar basic strategies, though those of primates are more elaborate."

Again, aside from stating the extremely obvious, it is evident that this research is seen through the typical evolutionary looking-glass. Is it any wonder that the current godless university environment only deteriorates science?

Because they cannot truly understand the nature they worship, much less the sensual qualities of man and beast, they ascribe to it mysterious abilities of subconscious mathematics.

That the universe exists and acts according to consistent and observable principles, regardless of human interpretation, is arguably the most important philosophical principle undergirding science. Implicit in that consistency is a Creator that created with purpose.

Aristotle is often given much credit for this thought, but I believe Abraham, who walked the Earth one-and-a-half millennia before Aristotle, is the father of modern science.

In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus records Abraham, according to Hebrew oral tradition,

If these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions, but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain, that insofar as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to Him that commands them; to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honor and thanksgiving.

There are possibly other interpretations (but I’m not certain that Josephus’ interpretation of this passage is correct), but does not this passage suggest that if there is any irregularity to the action of earthly and heavenly bodies, it is because they are subject to decay and destruction? And, that as subjects of creation they cooperate with man in consistency of purpose, functioning for his utility?

The monotheistic faith that sprang from Abraham received the blessing of not only faith but also this utility.

As Noahide Law is known by all through instruction, is it unreasonable to believe that even the Greeks benefited from the knowledge of the Hebrew faith, as Philo of Alexandria suggested? And as the Greeks discovered the thinking of the Hebrews, Islam re-discovered the thinking of the Greeks, and in turn Christians from them.

Is it any coincidence that Science flowered in the West, in effect only among the intellectual sons of Abraham? Generally, only after exposure to Western thought, did the remainder of the world make significant discoveries of their own. The exceptions prove the rule.

Indeed, even Sir Isaac Newton, who "stood on the shoulders of giants," credited his understanding of the physical universe to his Christian cosmology (as did others).

Modern man has been led to believe that before the instant of The Renaissance, or even The Enlightenment, man was an ignorant savage, enslaved to a Paleolithic church; but there is a bit more of a continuum from the educational system of the church (whose love of truth extended to the sciences) to that of the "modern" university than that which is usually reflected in pop modern history.

But as the formerly great universities reject God, what is seen in the face of so many scientists is a vain contempt for the past, seeing every living being as a random mutation of atomic impulses — a sterility of thought that could devolve any dog-lover into a cold Cartesian.

Rejecting the roots of truth, they threaten to usher in a new Dark Age.

The eyes are among the most mysterious of organic systems. Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution reveals the concept of "irreducible complexity," which precludes the existence of systems (of which eyes are among the most obvious example) that could have evolved by random mutation because multiple elements had to be in place simultaneously in order for them to operate at all. In other words, there is no "transition phase" to the visual system, nor are any found in nature. There are eyes of varying complexity, but they all are fully functional and irreducibly complex.

Our researchers might learn something from Behe about sight — who knows, they might even improve their LOT in life.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

“Uh-huh,” I replied, which was followed by a silence of significant length. He already knows how I feel, but he doesn’t stop trying. “Oh, Brian …,” he begins. I respond, “Well, if you mean the probability of shrinking the government with the Republicans in control of the Senate is increased from one in a billion to one in a million, I would have to agree with you. But I don’t think history provides much encouragement.”

Well, it wasn’t to be — Landrieu won.

But did you hear? There’s been talk of election fraud. Imagine that — election fraud in Louisiana!

At least they like to keep their fraud local, unlike their neighbor Florida. If a state wants to select a government official by reading tea leaves, that’s their own damned business.

But there are far more interesting things to consider as I look toward my friends to the east.

They’re fierce independence, for starters. Some time ago (between three and seventeen years) I had to laugh when I crossed the border on I-10 into Louisiana from Texas (I swear there’s a time warp when you cross that border). Even without a sign, it was pretty darned obvious when I’d crossed. “Chu-chunk, chu-chunk.” They refused to cave-in to the feds, so they lost the fed money that would have kept up their interstates. I believe at the time the sticking point was the drinking age — Louisiana wanted to keep it at eighteen.

In contrast, a former governor of Texas who happened to become president sold out to the feds for an amount approximately equal to the operating budget of the University of Texas for one day. As reward, Texans received a reduction in the Blood Alcohol Level (from 0.10 to 0.08%) by which the State can ruin your life for violating the rights of no one. Incidentally, a few months ago the legal driving age in Texas was increased from sixteen to eighteen. (Overnight, the high school parking lots are empty.)

Of course, the ferocity of these ragtag Bayou folk (including Jean Lafitte, who spent a lot of time here on my home of Clear Lake) repelled the English in The Battle of New Orleans. (Providential weather also surely played a part.)

Sadly, until The Battle of New Orleans, the war was all but won by the English (with the White House, Capitol, and War and Treasury buildings in flames, British generals are said to have been making toasts at Rhoades Tavern, in proximity to the famous Old Ebbitt Grill), and New England was ready to secede and rejoin the “mother country.” Oh, so close.

Just think how U.S. history might have gone without New England in the fold — no radical and violent revolutionaries trying to tell everyone what not to drink, what to think, with whom to associate, etc. Probably no War Between the States. And perhaps best of all, no Kennedys, and no Bushes. (Sigh.)

(Oops, I had better shut my big mouth — this is how Trent Lott got into hot water. I don’t want to end up in the same re-education camp as he.)

But of course neither the famous English-hater Andrew Jackson (he had very personal reasons for being so) nor any of his brave comrades could have foreseen any of this. And after all, they meant well — at least they were trying to re-expel the British Empire.

New Orleans culture is so complicated that I won’t even attempt to scratch its surface — it alone could be four nations. But I feel I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the classic John Kennedy Toole novel A Confederacy of Dunces, especially because it comes so highly recommended from Louisianans. The Vieux Carré comes alive in this novel.

The world owes so much to Louisiana culture — musical, literary, and culinary — it’s in fact obvious to say so.

But I must say the greatest influence on me has been the culinary.

I would hate to think of life without my morning Café du Monde coffee. Aside from the wonderful smooth taste, the chicory makes it easy on my sometimes acid stomach, especially when I’ve just returned from Margaritaville. (And no, I don’t prefer the burnt offerings found at Starbucks.)

(The French also introduced this coffee to the Indochinese — so I’m able to buy it a local Oriental market (no, I won’t say Asian) for about half the price I would pay in the yuppie markets. When one walks into the market, crates and crates of Café du Monde and sweetened condensed milk are stacked near the front of the store.)

And one of my very favorite restaurants in Houston is Brennan’s.

My preferred meal there is the three-soup sampler (including the world’s most heavenly turtle soup — you wouldn’t believe how many ingredients go into that soup), Southern Pecan Fish with a Creole Meunière Sauce, accompanied with Popcorn Rice and a sauté of green vegetables. And naturally, complemented with champagne throughout. To top it all off, bread pudding with coffee. (My only complaint is that they stopped serving coffee with chicory, supposedly because of customer preference.) As you’re leaving, a giant mound of pralines (the taste of which is not to be believed) is present, which the proprietors encourage their customers to stuff into their pockets as they depart. (You can learn how to make all of this with Brennan’s of Houston In Your Kitchen.)

I prefer the Sunday brunch. When I was last there, entertaining the guests was a small jazz ensemble and a vocalist — a charming and very rotund black woman who looked and sounded as though she were right off the plantation.

I haven’t attempted very much Creole or Cajun cooking, but I have developed a recipe for gumbo that suits my taste. And, as with so many great Louisiana recipes, it starts with bacon drippings, from which the roux (fat, flour, and seasoning) is made. Just as Julia Childs starts with a stick of butter, Cajuns are more likely to start with a glob of bacon fat. (Of course, when we East Texans aren’t making gumbo, we’re making Tex-Mex — chili, refritos, etc., which starts in the same glorious way — but that’s a whole ‘nother subject.)

(Incidentally, I believe there’s a movement afoot in Louisiana to nominate Dr. Atkins for sainthood.)

Now all sorts of stuff can go into a gumbo, and as the jokes go, Cajuns will eat anything — which reminds me of one of the jokes. (Of course, I’ll get all sorts of correspondence informing me that I’ve told the joke wrong.)

Here it is: Two Cajuns are sittin’ out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night sippin’ Whiskey, when they see a bright object descend from the sky. “Boudreaux, wot dat?” “I don know, Pierre.” The object lands, a hatch slowly lowers onto the ground, and a strange alien creature makes its way down the gangway. “Well look at dat, Boudreaux!” “Pierre, wot is dat?” “I don know, Boudreaux, but you betta start the roux.”

I often think that if Texas seceded we would be able to better establish our rights of association and property; that is, control our borders. Sometimes I also think that we’d be safer if not only our border to the south, but also to the east were a little less porous. (New Orleans is a long way away — seven hours hauling butt — but Acadiana is just a stone’s throw from Houston.) I love both the Mexican and Cajun cultures, but I’d like to see them stay put, thank-you.

I’ll be blunt — Cajuns scare me a little. They’re more than “different” — they’re, well, a little “off.” One never really knows what a Cajun is going to do. And you can’t really believe anything they say, especially because they’re brilliant raconteurs and usually stewing in alcohol.

During my junior year at college I lived next door to a Cajun, and he was typically off-kilter. I remember one day he walked by my window with a big bag. He yelled, “Come on over!” Apparently, the bank where he did his business had offended him in some way, so he withdrew all of his money, and made them pay him in nothing but small bills. I recollect there was about $50,000 there. He dumped it all on his bed, and we stood there and looked at it for a while.

But since I had known him for quite some time, this seemed normal.

I also got to know another couple of Cajuns here in Clear Lake pretty well. They didn’t know each other until they met at our apartments — one was in his mid-twenties, the other around fifty. And they were both Looney Tunes.

I remember one “get together” with the three of us. I noticed they wouldn’t stop talking about food. They said that whenever a new Louisiana cookbook came out, they would get together and cook every recipe in the book. The younger taught me all about the Methode Champenoise (dosage, tournage, degougement), the process used to make all genuine champagne.

I’ve never met a Cajun that wasn’t superstitious. I don’t remember how we got on the subject of voodoo, but being intelligent and educated men, they laughed it off as silly superstition. But in the span of a moment, both of their faces turned from joviality to darkness. One of them said, “But I’ve seen things,” and shook his head. The other reluctantly agreed. “Like what?”, I asked with fascination. The older Cajun looked down and quickly said, almost under his breath, “I don’t want to talk about it.” The younger shook his head in agreement.

I also never met a Cajun that didn’t love to dance.

The younger Cajun related to me what I now call “The Pope Story” (emphasis on the word “story” — you can’t believe anything a Cajun says, or did I already say that?). My friend told me that while the Pope was visiting Louisiana, there had been some terrible flooding. He and his friends took the opportunity to find some muddy place where they all got drunk and danced and sloshed in the mud to Zydeco. Momentarily alarmed at their depravity, the younger Cajun screams out to his friends, “Don’t you realize that the Pope is less than fifty miles away?” Everyone stops in a moment of reflection, then resumes their revelry.

Laissez le Bon Temps Rouler!

Even though John Fogerty was not Born on The Bayou, but in The Bay Area, Fogerty hybridized the sounds and feelings of Louisiana into a musical form that, to me, is Louisiana. In an interview with Fogerty, he says “Well, all of my growing-up years, I had, you might say, a literary fascination. And the musical fascination was really from people like Archibald, and Professor Longhair, or Clifton Chenier. Or even Jerry Lee Lewis. It was from their music. I didn’t know it would come out of me that way …”

If anyone deserves the title of Louisiana’s “adopted son,” it is he. But his music seems to even more closely fit the attitude I’ve seen from Cajuns.

Now, when I was just a little boy,
Standing to my Daddy’s knee,
My poppa said, “Son, don’t let the man get you
Do what he done to me.”

‘Cause he’ll get you,
‘Cause he’ll get you now, now.
And I can remember the fourth of July,
Running through the backwood, bare.

And I can still hear my old hound dog barking,
Chasing down a hoodoo there.
Chasing down a hoodoo there.

There’s something so proud and stubborn in the lyrics and music that it seems to say, “I was born on the bayou, this is my home, I’m never leaving it, and you had better leave me alone.”

The Acadians (Cajuns) were originally kicked out of Canada because they would not pay homage to the crown of England. They still seem pretty intent on doing things their way.

So who gives a flip who won the runoff?

May God Bless Louisiana, and may God Bless Acadiana.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

Hill is a confidence man who sells instruments and uniforms for boys’ bands, and wants "to go wherever the people are as green as the money." But, after learning from a fellow traveling salesman how Iowans were full of guile, he considers it a challenge, and departs the train at the next stop, River City. The play is set in 1912, before WW I, and the death of innocence.

Hill claims to be a graduate of the Conservatory of Gary, Indiana, Gold Medal Class of ’05 — except that Gary wasn’t even built until ’06. He teaches music according to the "Think System," which means: without musical notes, without sheet music, and without musical instruments. Typically, when the town folk have paid their money, and have received their uniforms and instruments, but before they realize they can’t play, he’s long gone.

Aren’t the charlatans inside the Beltway more than just a little like Hill? Their pretense at expertise is a diversion while they pick your pocket, they have no real home and no true loyalties, and they’ll sell anything for a buck. They even have their own "Think System," which they employ to sell their war without pretext, without evidence, and apropos of nothing. Nothing, that is, beside their own interests, which they hope to keep well hidden.

Now as any good swindler knows, he must create a dire need, better yet a "crisis" for which he, and only he, can provide the "solution." As Professor Hill exclaims, "I will only pass this way but once!" Observing the peaceful town, which is wary of strangers, Hill tells his partner in crime, "We’re going to have to create … a desperate need in your town for a boys’ band!" Hill quickly conjures a plan to focus the community’s natural suspicion on a newly arrived pool table.

He gathers up a crowd, and stirs their moral sensibilities with dire predictions about gambling, smoking, drinking, and wild women, facilitated by internal and external dangers that abound. And, he wraps it all up in a message of pride, patriotism, and faith:

Well either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a pool table in your community. Well, you got trouble my friend right here I say trouble right here in River City. Why sure I’m a billiard player, certainly mighty proud to say I’m always mighty proud to say it. I consider that the hours I spend with a cue in my hand are golden. Help ya cultivate horse sense, and a cool head and a keen eye. Did you every take and try to give an iron clad leave to yourself from a three-rail billiard shot? But just as I say it takes judgment, brains, and maturity to score in a balkline game, I say that any boob, can take and shove a ball in a pocket. And I call that sloth, the first big step on the road to the depths of degreda- I say first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! And the next thing you know your son is playin’ for money in a pinch-back suit and listening to some big out of town jasper here to tell about horse race gamblin’. Not a wholesome trottin’ race, no, but a race where they sit down right on the horse! Like to see some stuck up jockey boy sittin’ on Dan Patch?! Make your blood boil? Well I should say. Now friends, let me tell you what I mean. Ya got one, two, three, four, five, six pockets in a table. Pockets that mark the difference between a gentleman and a bum with a capital "B" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "Pool"! And all week long your River City youth will be fritterin’ away I say your young men will be fritterin’, fritterin’ away their noon time supper time chore time too! Get the ball in the pocket, never mind getting dandelions pulled or the screen door patched or the beef steak pounded. Never mind pumping any water till your parents are caught with a cistern empty on a Saturday night and that’s trouble. Yes you got lots and lots of trouble. I’m thinking of the kids in the knickerbockers, shirt-tailed young ones, peeking in the pool hall window after school you got trouble. Folks! Right here in River City. Trouble with a capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "Pool"! Now I know all you folks are the right kind of parents. I’m going to be perfectly frank. Would you like to know what kind of conversation goes on while their loafing around that hall? They’ll be tryin’ out Bevo, tryin’ out Cubeds, tryin’ out tailor mades like cigarette fiends! And bragging all about how they’re gonna cover up a tell-tale breath with Sen-Sen! One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin’ for the dance at the armory, libertine men and scarlet women, and Ragtime — shameless music that will drag your son, your daughter to the arms of the jungle, animal instinct, mass ‘steria! Friends the idle brain is the Devil’s playground. Trouble! Right here in River City! With a capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "Pool"! We surely got trouble! Right here in River City! We gotta figure a way to keep the young ones moral after school. Mothers of River City, heed that warning before it’s too late! Watch for the telltale signs of corruption. The minute your son leaves the house, does he rebuckle his knickerbockers below the knee? Is there a nicotine stain on his index finger? A dime novel hidden in the corn crib? Is he starting to memorize jokes from Cap’n Billy’s Whiz-Bang? Are certain words creeping into his conversation? Words like "swell," and "so’s your old man." If so my friends, ya got trouble! Right here in River City! With a capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "Pool"! We surely got trouble! Right here in River City! Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and The Golden Rule!

The Stock and Trade of the Politician?

But surely the analogy ends there.

Hill’s solution to idle hands is a trombone, while The War Party’s solution is a Tomahawk missile; and just as the Maine was a dubious pretext for war (but at least many sincerely believed it to have been attacked), our modern counterparts are still desperately scraping around for any pretext that will stick.

Above all, it would be quite a stretch to compare Harold Hill to the charmless bureaucrats of D.C. That politicians lie with ubiquity and without conscience or reservation is so obvious that it has become platitudinous, but what is remarkable is that of late they lie so very, very badly. When one considers that this is the stock and trade of politicians, one would think they would at least put forth a little effort. They expect the public to swallow explanations, as Pat Buchanan put it, "that wouldn’t satisfy a second grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are democratic and free and good, and we have low tax rates."

But perhaps we can somewhat forgive the National Greatness "conservatives" (who invariably confuse Power for Greatness) their lack of talent — they’re just beside themselves regarding their future prospects. Eyes rolling back into their heads, they have the blood fever. As President Bush, looking forward to the many joyous wars of the future, exclaimed in his New Year’s message, "This is the first war of the 21st century."

Lest there remain any negative connotations of the word "war," the warmongering wordsmiths are hard at work putting the best spin on what the less enlightened might consider unpleasant. They employ the moniker "WW IV" for their invasion of the whole of the Moslem world, retroactively renaming "The Cold War" to "WW III." This way, when bothersome alarmists ask, "What are you trying to do, start WW III?", they can disdainfully reply, "Of course not, WW III is over, and we won, as we always do." In this manner they can avoid the dreadful stigma and apocalyptic imagery associated with a WW III, while increasing the total number in the WW sequence (thereby diminishing each in the sequence). This will make it even easier for them to propose WW V (Africa), WW VI (the subcontinent), WW VII (the Orient), etc.

As terrible as The War Party is at lying, they are peerless and perhaps without precedence in the audacity and sheer volume of false witness they bear. It would be impossible to do more than scratch the surface of outright fabrications, sins of omission, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and careless speech seen daily by our purveyors of doom; and it does not help that the Manichean George W. Bush, if not the least intelligent president we’ve ever had, is certainly the least intellectual. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he seems to swallow uncritically every kernel of bogus history he’s fed as if it’s coated in castor oil.

History Is Bunk

When the student of history Henry Ford claimed that "history is bunk," he was merely expressing the obvious. But usually it takes some time for the court historians to convert history into bunk — a millennium, a century. In terms of our modern celebrators of war, it only takes a matter of years, months, or even days to corrupt the truth beyond recognition. Our modern day Memory Hole is working overtime digesting the volume of lost truth.

Before we study the pseudo-history The War Party has created for us, let it not go unsaid that our current Hitler of the Month, Saddam Hussein, is not a very nice guy. One of the sanest commentators on our current mess, the former Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter, told an interviewer he was reluctant to describe some of the prison conditions he witnessed for fear it would be used as war fodder. Being a smart man, and a patriot, Ritter knows that however mean Saddam Hussein may be, of itself it has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with American National Security. Turning once again to the Spanish American War as an example, the Spanish were not exactly lovers of freedom, either, and so the "legitimate" press of yesteryear used this to stir up American righteous indignation toward getting rid of the "bad people." But it seems we never run out of "bad people," who are more times than not only those whose interests are different from those of our government.

I was pleasantly surprised this last Sunday (8 December) that one of the subjects of 60 Minutes was U.S. government propaganda. They began the segment with a recount of the various ploys used to manipulate Americans into entering war: The Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, etc. (I was wondering if 60 Minutes would have been so free with their reporting if the current administration had been Mr. Clinton’s.)

I don’t recall if catching Belgian babies on bayonets was mentioned, but I was certainly reminded of it. As 60 Minutes was exposing the lie regarding Iraqi soldiers turning over baby incubators, I was reminded that it sounded so much like the infamous WW I propaganda that there are a lot of dead journalists that should get writing credits.

It’s difficult to imagine how we got here from the days of 11 September. The encyclopedic volume of lies could not be contained by a book, much less a column. But perhaps we can review just a few of the many layers of hypocrisy and outright lies told in the last few decades, and repeated more recently as a pretext for war.

The President’s address to the UN is a perfect template of The War Party’s pseudo-history; but yes, surely our president is not aware of at least some of the false "details."

In the beginning, we are told, Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people." This mantra is repeated so often as to become a cliché. The truth is that he probably gassed Iranians during the war with Iran. But this action, known by the U.S. government, was not criticized — after all, at this time he was our "SOB." And suffer not to mention that the gassing would have been accomplished with technology given to Iraq by the United States. (There are some who believe one of the reasons for the coming invasion of Iraq is to establish a staging ground for an invasion of Iran.)

He is also accused of gassing Kurds, who can hardly be accused of being "his people." That is, the Kurds are "his people" inasmuch as the Chechens are the Russian president’s "people." The Kurds were, and still are, fighting for their freedom, and are allied with Hussein’s enemies. All this aside, experts at the U.S. Army War College dismissed these charges when they were first raised, and no bodies were ever discovered in connection with this supposed event. And again, the government of Bush I welcomed Hussein as an ally and trading partner after this theoretical confrontation with the Kurds.

Then, we are told, "Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation." On this, there are lies stretching back a hundred years. The victors of WW I carved up the Near and Middle East like a big birthday cake (while promising Arab allies independence that was pretty slow in coming). Kuwait had always been considered part of Iraq, but Iraq has hardly been in a position to argue.

The catalyst for the invasion was Kuwait’s slant drilling of the Iraqi oil field of Rumallah. Kuwait rejected overtures for negotiation, feeling secure in its reservoir of powerful Western oil and banking friends. On meeting with Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, United States Ambassador April Glaspie gave what was interpreted as tacit approval for the invasion of Kuwait, "…we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq (to presumably force weapons reduction compliance) that accomplished what they always do, desperation and death to the weakest — the young, the old, and the sick.

Who can forget what Madeleine Albright infamously said she was reminded that over a half-million Iraqi children had died as a result of the sanctions?: "It’s worth it."

Bush II has said that "Saddam Hussein has subverted [the oil for food] program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself and to buy arms for his country." This is utter nonsense. As has been pointed out by the U.N., the revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil are delivered directly to Iraqi markets by the U.N. team. It is recognized by virtually every government and NGO on the planet that the U.S. government has been responsible for the annihilation of the Iraqi infrastructure. It’s the U.S. government, not Saddam Hussein, who has been effectively turning over incubators.

Military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999 that perhaps more people during the decade of sanctions have died "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history."

How about a sanity check? If the over 100,000 innocent Iraqis that have died per year for ten years have done nothing to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and have done nothing to allow inspections, why are the sanctions still in place? Why is the coalition of nations that put the sanctions in place falling apart? Why have three senior UN officials resigned rather than participate in what they refer as a genocide? If sanctions haven’t affected what the Iraqis need for survival, why did a complement of the French party Front Nationale (led by Jean-Marie le Pen) travel to Iraq on a humanitarian mission, which incidentally was opposed by the U.S. government? Why does former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter claim that Iraq has no capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction? Why did he eventually resign in disgust and protest of these inspections? Why does former Reagan advisor Jude Wanniski believe that the sanctions wouldn’t be lifted even if the inspectors were let back in? Why do the UN’s own officials cite that vital drugs, painkillers, chlorine and equipment for infrastructure rehabilitation have been blocked or delayed over and over again? Why is the Pope against the sanctions? Why is Colin Powell against the sanctions? Why are the most vocal proponents for war in the Middle East for the sanctions, and those for peace against the sanctions?

Iraq is hardly a garden paradise, but the picture of it as a hopeless nightmare is obviously specious. In addition, until Christian and Jewish Zionists began to push for a state of Israel in the late nineteenth century, a large Jewish population lived in Iraq in relative peace. And to this day, a significant Christian population lives in secular Iraq, of which Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz is numbered.

And to add to the hypocrisy, the United States isn’t exactly forcing Israel to abide by its U.N. resolutions, namely Council Resolution 242 (calling for an immediate end to the occupation of the West Bank), which it has been flouting for thirty-five years.

Despite all the lies, other nations seem to be cautiously falling in line — they don’t want to be perceived as renegades; that is, next on the list.

Phantom Evidence for a Phantom Menace

To be honest, I’m not that worried that Iraq might have nukes or other Weapons of Mass Destruction. There are dozens of nations that have them already, and nations that want them, including Iraq, who want them for prestige and security, not to instigate their own obliteration. And regarding the nations that have them already, some of them worry me — aside from Israel, there’s one nation who has already used them, and recently announced that it is now policy that they would be used conventionally and preemptively.

The search for WMD has become quite a comic opera. Every time the U.S. government says there’s evidence, no matter to whom they try to sell it, no one is buying. I’ve heard well-meaning folk try to tell me, "Well, they may have evidence, but because of security reasons they cannot disclose it." Setting aside for a moment the extreme convenience of such a scenario, wouldn’t our government let other heads of state in on their little secrets? Of course they would. But every time our "representatives" in government go overseas to beg for alliance based on their "evidence," they have been categorically rejected out of hand — except of course for our lapdog in England and dominatrix in Israel.

And why were American inspectors (within UNSCOM) removed in 1999? It was revealed that Washington had used agents to spy on Iraq, specifically to gain intelligence that would aid in the assassination of Saddam Hussein. (Ritter claims that former weapons inspection chief Richard Butler was complicit in the spying.) The new UN team was specifically designed to reduce American influence on the inspections.

More recently, the current U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has stated that there is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is trying to build them. Atomic energy experts have for years said that it’s not credible that Iraq could be secretly developing nuclear weapons because the large power grid necessary for such production would be easily seen by satellite. But the administration keeps trying.

My favorite is the "we know you have them" method. It’s rather obvious that our government doesn’t believe Hussein has any significant weapons, as they usually seem confident that they will be given the pretext for invasion they so desperately want.

I laugh every time negotiation with Saddam Hussein makes progress. I can see them in the Oval Office, pulling their hair out. Then in front of the cameras, they say, "It doesn’t matter, we’re going to invade them anyway." As if anyone believed that invasion was linked to inspection in the first place.

In case actions weren’t clear enough, an official White House statement revealed, "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime’s compliance with all other Security Council resolutions." Hmm. I thought disarmament was the whole point of inspections?

And Powell has said it’s too late for Iraq to negotiate (are the days of good cop, bad cop, over?), and Cheney said that even a return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq will not deter an invasion.

Nevertheless, Iraq offered to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors immediately, to which the White House responded that, "We’ve made it very clear that we are not in the business of negotiating with Saddam Hussein."

What is truly remarkable is the number of times that Iraq is expected to prove a negative.

Yet even more desperate, our government stated that, "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown." This is a new one! Darnit if they can’t find something that Iraq can’t fulfill!

The well-worn method of all professional liars is this: if you repeat something enough, it becomes true. Nothing could illustrate this principle more than the assertion that Iraq was in some way responsible for 9-11. Polls reflect that from one-half to two thirds of the American people believe this is so.

It’s not that this government is at all good at lying, it’s just the sheer volume of lies issuing forth. And, perhaps not paying attention, the average American just might be thinking, "Why else would we be invading Iraq, and why now?"

Anticipating the absence of a smoking gun, within weeks of 9-11 the proponents of bombing Baghdad immediately declared that the absence of a clear link did not matter: we were waging a "war on terror."

They keep parading the same tissue-thin "evidence" over and over and over: that hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer. Subsequent investigations revealed that this Iraqi regularly met with a man in Prague that looks very much like Atta, a man who is apparently a used car dealer. You would think government agents would be able to recognize one of their own.

But even if Atta had met with this agent — can one imagine invading a nation on this ridiculous pretext?

No luck with anthrax? The answer is always the same: "We’re going to invade anyway."

Because they can’t make up their minds if the stated reason they’re attacking is because Saddam Hussein is evil or for national security, they decide to cover both, but only by pure assertion.

The Biggest Lie of All

Just as the Pentagon was attacked because it lies at the heart of the political capital of the U.S. (and arguably the world), the WTC was attacked because it lies at the heart of the financial capital of the U.S. (and arguably the world), and from which foreign wars have been financed ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve System. They don’t call it The Empire State for nothing. And, it certainly isn’t lost on Mideast terrorists that NYC is the home to many Jewish people, many of whom they perceive as having strong political, financial, and intellectual connections to American foreign policymakers.

I believe the argument can be made that the people of other nations, especially when they consider their own tyrannies, understand the difference between the American State and the American People. I have seen poll after poll that suggests that Arab intellectuals and ordinary folk alike offer the same answer: it’s United States policy, not the American people.

Even if one tends to distrust polls, does this not ring true?

Is this cognitive dissonance? Hardly. Observing their own States, the more intelligent of them have no difficulty in perceiving the State’s interest, or at assigning fault. Sometimes I believe there’s better understanding elsewhere than here. There are too many here that still live under the delusion that we live according to some form of representative government.

Both elements of the answer offered point to the desire for a better life. They hate the intrusiveness and oftentimes barbarity of the American State, but look up to the enviable Western engines of progress.

The biggest lie of all, and one that I suspect even George Bush doesn’t believe, is this: al Qaeda did not attack the people of the United States of America. Those brave and civilized souls who perished and survived in Manhattan and elsewhere were not the target of terrorism.

They were simply "collateral damage." The real target was the American [sic] Gothic plutocracy that abuses them. Please forgive the poor terrorist buggers for not understanding all the subtleties of the term "collateral damage" — the definition is, after all, a work in progress. We’re so fortunate not to have religious fanatics in the United States.

And religious fanatics they were. But most of the Arab world has not been radicalized — yet. The United States government is resented, while "America" is admired as symbol of freedom and material progress.

Most folks are just trying to get by, and want to be left the hell alone.

When the question gets asked, "Why do they hate us?", it might be good to remember who the "they" are and who the "we" are. "They" are fanatics, not the rest of the Moslem world, and "us" is the government of the United States.

I only hope that America wises up before we experience another terrorist catastrophe, after which American public perception will be fixed and dilated. There will be no more reasoning, I fear; not until after much bloodshed.

Salvation for River City?

As charming as "Professor" Harold Hill is, there’s a definite pathos about him — on some level, he actually believes in the "system." In a moment of sincere reflection, he says, "Oh, I always believe there’s a band," but he’s buried himself so deeply in the role, he doesn’t know how, and really doesn’t want, to do anything else.

Except Hill has met has match in the perfect love of Marion Paroo, who was wise to him from the beginning, but saw something redeemable in the man. Near the end of the play, the brokenhearted little Winthrop, the fatherless boy who has idolized Hill, discovers he’s a fraud, and asks, "Can you lead a band?" He answers, "No." Winthrop pursues, "Are you a big liar?" He answers, "Yes." "Are you a dirty rotten crook?" "Yes!"

But, he tells Winthrop that he can’t bring himself to leave, and explains, "Well, for the first time in my life, I got my foot caught in the door," and he is moved to stop trying to separate the good people of River City from their money, and the good Marion from her virtue; and only then do "Seventy-six Trombones" play their glorious tribute to goodness and honesty.

Only in the movies.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

In a publication from my very own town of League City, the town elders advertised a Veteran’s Day ceremony with the flag of … uh … well, approximately, The United States of America.

In the beautiful field of loyal blue are five rows of ten stars. At least they got the numbers of stars right, and they’re even staggered. But the fold in the flag that’s in the proximity of the right side of the field hides a multitude of sins. With an equal number of stars in an odd number of rows, I believe even the artist of this flag would have found that the configuration of the stars on the right side of the field looked a bit odd. And well, the artist just wasn’t quite sure about the number of stripes that fall below the field of stars. So, in a method having little to do with perspective, he goes with the average: five rows below the left side of the field, six below the right. Perhaps if the fold wasn’t placed where it was, the artist would have been forced to get off his lazy butt and visit an encyclopedia.

I wish I could say that this was the first oddball flag I’ve seen since 9-11. I’ve seen similar “designs” in advertisements, on t-shirts, in paintings, and even on a Christmas card I received last year. Gotta get those cards printed quickly for the Christmas bonanza!

I even saw an inspirational watercolor painting (commemorating 9-11) that had five rows of unstaggered stars, with each row containing stars numbering 1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9-10-11-12-13 … and on and on.

I didn’t realize what a problem this was until I showed the above flag to some quite intelligent patriots — they couldn’t immediately tell me what was wrong with it.

(With awful irony, at the moment I’m writing this, up pops the Wrangler television ad I’ve seen for the umpteenth time, but never ceases to get my ire up. The music that sells the jeans is the great anti-state song by John Fogerty (of which he no longer has the rights), “Fortunate Son.” As the stars and stripes wave, the lyrics are heard, “Some folks are born made to wave the flag / Ooh, they’re red white and blue.” End of commercial. The whole story is:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they’re red, white and blue.
And when the band plays “Hail to the chief.”
Ooh, they point the cannon at you,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no.

The song could have edited by the White House.)

This is what the flag of the United States of America looks like.

Seriously, the fifty stars are arranged in nine staggered rows: 6-5-6-5-6-5-6-5-6. And if you hadn’t looked closely, and someone asked, you would be inclined to say the field is about half the height of the flag, and guessing, knowing that there is an odd number of stripes, you might be inclined to answer that the field is slightly less than half the height, that is, six stripes. Not knowing, that would be my inclination. It’s an interesting optical illusion — it looks as though the field is exactly half the height of the flag. But, the field is actually more than half the height — seven stripes: four red and three white.

I suppose what bothers me about these ersatz flags is their “approximate” nature. Surely those that carelessly display these corrupt images are often the same folks that rarely visit their own heritage, or their own law.

An amorphous flag for an amorphous heritage, an amorphous constitution, and an amorphous faith.

I continually ask myself, “Where were all these flag-wavers before 9-11?” The Houston Grand Opera now opens each opera with a giant flag displayed over the stage, and with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Something about the avant-garde HGO conducting this liturgy I find a little hypocritical.

Fear is a miserable motivator for patriotism, which isn’t patriotism at all. Fear protects neither ancestry nor progeny, only one’s own cowardly skin.

Perhaps I’m overly sensitive to all of this. I learned how to fold and otherwise handle a flag as far back as I can remember. I was one of two “flag guards” for my two remaining years in grade school. My Dad was a scoutmaster, and my older brother and I were both Eagle Scouts. And if possible, my respect for what the flag stood for increased as I entered my twenties.

I would never presume to know the heart of any flag-waver, whether it’s displayed out of patriotism, nationalism, or some admixture. Flags certainly mean many different things to many different folks. But it now saddens me that every time I see the United States flag I only see United States imperialism. I genuinely hope I don’t always feel that way.

Our current flag reminds me of the Imperial State from which we fought so hard to free ourselves. The flag of the United Kingdom seen to the left was an effort to symbolize the “solidarity” of the English, Scottish, and Irish peoples by including the crosses of their respective national patron saints: George, Andrew, and Patrick. But to be sure, the bold red cross of St. George lies atop the diagonal crosses of St. Andrew and St. Patrick. (In 1801 King George III added the cross of St. Patrick to the Union Jack, and the flag has remained the same since.)

But as I consider the Union Jack, I think of its constituents. The Irish and Scottish have been fighting for centuries to be free of the yoke of the English. And even many of the English people themselves, weary of empire, and jealous of the freedoms that their own elected “representatives” seem to be throwing away with both hands (to the EU and to deep space), are bringing back the old English flag. (The English and Scottish national flags are shown to the right.)

Well if the members of the UK can revert to their own colors, how about us? Are we so married to the idea of the Imperial State we can fly no other flag?

Fortunately, I believe I can fairly say that I live in a state that is more proud of their flag than any other. Visiting relatives from other states remark how one is more likely to see a Texas flag flying, alone, than the Stars and Stripes.

To the left are the flags that currently have the most meaning to me, in chronological order: the Betsy Ross, the Lone Star, and the Third National of the Confederate States of America. (I’m still looking for a sewn cloth Third National for less than $200!)

Houstonians were recently (13 January through 28 April 2002) afforded a wonderful display of thirty-two historic Texas flags at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston (MFAH) entitled “Texas Flags: 1836—1945.” My expectations were high, but the display was even much better than I expected, in part due to their great size (on the order of 5′ x 8′).

One of the display’s cocurators was Robert Maberry, Jr., author of
Texas Flags, a great companion to the display. Mr. Maberry was present on opening night, so I acquired my signed copy of the book, of course.

Because of the many flags on display that contained the dreaded cross of St. Andrew (around half of the total, it seems), I expected some kind of controversy. But, I am aware of none. However, I did find it odd that the MFAH supplement to The Houston Chronicle included images of fourteen of the flags from the exhibit, but not one with St. Andrew’s cross.

Similarly, in Texas Journey (the magazine of AAA Texas), there are ten images, only one of which is based on St. Andrew’s cross.

Nevertheless, Mr. Maberry seems to get his point across in this picture that appears at the end of the Texas Journey article.

Texas Flags was fittingly published by the Texas A&M University Press.

Oh, but even Texas A&M is not immune to the PC that floods our culture. I was told last week by an Aggie alumnus that, as the result of a student complaint, a picture of a former University president was removed from an out-of-the-way building because in the picture’s background could be seen a painting of Robert E. Lee. I’m not easily surprised, but I was astonished that in one of the most reflexively patriotic campuses of the South, a picture not the subject of a painting of one the most respected men in human history (not an exaggeration) was removed because some idiot found it offensive. But I digress.

Two of the flags from the exhibit are among my favorites because of their unabashed slogans for the preservation of faith and family. And both are variants of the Stars and Bars (First National). (Not to be confused with the Southern Cross (the field of the Third National above), which almost invariably is incorrectly called the Stars and Bars.) The flag above contains the slogan, “STRIKE.FOR.YOUR.ALTARS & YOUR.HOMES,” which pretty much says it all. The ten stars orbiting the Texas star each represent a state in the Confederacy, and the stars in the four corners each represent one of the four “civilized” nations of the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) to which the Confederacy was allied by treaty. (This and subsequent images from Texas Flags.)

Unlike the previous flag with its homemade quality, the flag on the right is a work of art. The slogan on this flag of the Twentieth Texas is “OUR HOMES and OUR RIGHTS.”

One flag that reminded me of good times was the U.S. flag that was flown aboard the U.S.S. Texas (below), which was in service during both World Wars. The Battleship Texas is next to the San Jacinto monument in Houston. (It recently underwent a very expensive renovation.) The good captain of the ship occasionally allowed our Scout troop to “camp out” on the ship. We had the run of just about every inch of it — we were able to see far more than the tourists did, and unsupervised to boot.

We explored the engine room, sick bay, and galley.

A buddy of mine and I found officer’s quarters to bunk in (we were Patrol Leaders, after all). When I pulled the drawer open next to the bed, the drawer was lined with an “ancient” (to an eleven-year-old) newspaper. I carefully removed it from the drawer; it said “Japs Bomb Pearl Harbor.” My jaw dropped. (A masochistic game I like to play involves time perspective — more time has passed from the moment of that discovery ’til now (32 years) than from the bombing of Pearl Harbor ’til that moment (29 years).)

Some of the flags that were at the MFAH exhibit can be seen at the Museum of Southern History in Sugar Land. (Alas, I heard on the radio today that for the first time since 1843, the Imperial Sugar plant in Sugar Land will be no more .)

From the Museum of Southern History’s web site:

On display through June, 2003 can be seen twenty Confederate and Union flags that touch upon Texas history during the War Between the States. Provided by the generosity of the Texas Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, these flags are unique both as to design and as to what they convey about the character of the units themselves. Included are the flags of illustrious units like the 4th Texas Infantry, 8th Texas Cavalry and Good’s-Douglas’ Texas Battery. Other, unusual types, or those having extraordinary artistic flair reveal the significance such emblems played in the lives of those serving under them.

Several variations of First through Third National flags vie with those of Bonnie Blue, several non-descript types, and even a homemade U.S. flag an Austin family displayed in the latter stages of the war. Accompanying the tastefully arranged flags are cases displaying artifacts and memorabilia that relate to the “Lone Star” State, or its neighbors prior to, during or after that conflict. All in all the exhibit presents a striking look at the part of how flags have served as patriotic symbols in American history.

A closing note: as we send our fathers, brothers, and sons to fight in some Godforsaken place on the other side of the planet, perhaps the least we can do is fly the right flag.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

It’s quite difficult to imagine a more idiotic statement, but of course I’m sure if given the chance he’d express even greater derision for the loyal Confederate slaves whose graves I’ve visited, who were shot, hung, and mutilated by marauding treasure-seeking Yankees for not revealing the location of their masters’ gold.

Even if White House—slave Powell was only playing good cop to the warmongers’ bad cop (I’m fairly certain it’s a little more complicated than that), at least he’s been one of the few interesting counter-balances to the daily drip, drip of monotonous drivel from the White House and civilians at Defense.

But in the mind of Belafonte (a misnomer if there ever was one), I’m certain Secretary of State for the United States would be considered quite a lowly profession for a Jamaican-American, as would be any profession in The Evil White Man’s World, except for perhaps maybe the very intellectually demanding career as member of the American entertainment industry, waiting for one’s accountant to "tally me Mercedes." But maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Belafonte, he’d probably be just splendid as Zimbabwe Minister of Agriculture.

Ah, but what a wonderfully crystalline moment Mr. Belafonte has provided for us. He makes it too easy — I believe I even heard the children say, in unison: "What. An. Idiot."

So while we’re talking about good news, I was delighted to see that some folks can think outside the context of slavery. I have to admit, when I heard the buzz about Barbershop, I knew it was my kind of movie — very conversational — but perhaps a bit more lively than My Dinner with Andre. It was better than I expected, and deeper and funnier to boot.

The film went far beyond the usual self-deprecating black humor (which, when not vulgar, is endearing enough). To be certain, this is not a complex film. I can hear the typical film critic, oozing pretentiousness, "It was both maudlin and jejune…" But in fact, it’s more than simple, it’s a fairy tale. And may God bless fairy tales, especially among tidal waves of miserable social pathologies.

Like many, I have had the opportunity to observe these pathologies first-hand. My "little brother" in Houston’s Fifth Ward, through the course of one conversation, revealed to me that he did not personally know, even peripherally, one married couple.

The purpose of this film is to help invert many of these pathologies.

Barberhop tells the story of Calvin (Ice Cube), who flits from one get-rich-scheme to the next, lacking the discipline to dedicate himself to one calling. His longsuffering pregnant wife clearly sees his virtues and his shortcomings, and scolds him — but gently — no bossy stereotype here, and it is understood she will stand by him whatever he does.

What he sees as his ball-and-chain is the barbershop that he inherited from his father. He’s been running it for two years, but now runs the risk of losing it. Through the very short space of time covered by the film, he realizes the shop is a community institution, and discovers its value.

It’s clear from the outset that this is a film about community, about tradition, about culture, even to the extent that outsiders are not always welcome. And not just outsiders from the private little clique that runs and frequents the shop, but outsiders from their own race. What do they call that these days? Xenophobia?

This is culture beyond the sterile university constructs of "African-American Studies" — it’s not indifference masquerading as tolerance.

The characters of the film are in fact strongly driven by their prejudices — sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly, but always in the context of protecting their community.

Isaac Rosenberg (Troy Garity), the shop’s lone white guy, is an ersatz black rapper, with dreams of owning his own black barbershop. My first thought when I see this pathetic character emulating an alien culture is that he has no culture of his own. The actor playing the part is the son of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. No comment.

Even though quite well played, I thought the character was a clumsy addition, too improbable and obvious, even for a fairy-tale. It’s clear why the character was formed — in the end, his snobby black adversary finally takes pity on him, and accepts him on his merit. But even if the vehicle was forced, the message is: tolerance exists, but only among persons of difference and quality.

Eve (played by Terri Jones) is a bit more of the stereotypical black female (though more complicated — I worked with a young professional quite like her) — she’s aggressive, irritable, loud — not exactly warm & fuzzy. She is pursued by a recent African immigrant, Dinka (Leonard Earl Howze), but she won’t give him a moment’s notice. But when he woos her with the poetry of Pablo Neruda, her animated character is subdued — she admits the poetry makes her "feel all squishy inside." Author’s message: males are supposed to pursue with gentility, and females are supposed to be non-aggressive and feel squishy inside. Come to think of it, how about more "white" movies with this message?

But Dinka is even marginalized by the other male barbers. When he attempts to offer his opinion on bar-b-que, he’s slammed: "Yeah you’re new here." It’s the culture, stupid.

Perhaps Ayn Rand wouldn’t have found a hero in this film — it places a much higher value on culture, in of itself, than commerce. But then again she might have found heroes in the real-life filmmakers, who heroically found a market for selling traditional values to a mass-culture audience.

Surely the most "controversial" and heroic character of the film is "Eddie" (Cedric the Entertainer). Eddie is an exceedingly cantankerous older gentleman with very interesting hair (according to Gen-Xers, a bit like mine) who uses the status of his years to their maximum advantage. He was friends with Calvin’s late father, rents one of the barber stalls, but never cuts hair. He just hangs around the barbershop because he feels at home there.

When Eddie’s pontificating, it’s often hard to determine where sincerity begins and provocativeness ends. Eddie is clearly just having fun, but is also trying to get some of the regulars to think for themselves. He offends older folks much more than younger — but what appears to be nihilism is really conservatism.

Eddie is not a big fan of idolatry.

He enrages some by telling his captive audience that "I wouldn’t be saying this if there were white folks around — but there are three things blacks got to admit: Rodney King deserved to get his ass beat, O.J. did it, and Rosa Parks wasn’t that special, just tired." He expounds by linking Rosa Parks to the NAACP.

When someone asks about reparations, he asks, "Isn’t welfare, food stamps, reparations?" He adds that reparations would only "make Cadillac the number one dealership in the country."

Oh, but then he assails the holy of holies. He professes that Martin Luther King Jr. was a "ho." "On Martin Luther King’s birthday I want everybody to take the day off and get your freak on," he shouts.

Yet he even delves deeper into the abyss of blasphemy — against living saints — he even directs an expletive at (gasp!) Jesse Jackson.

Eddie seems determined to diminish what is sacred; that is, except for that which should be.

When it is feared that Calvin might lose his shop because of bad judgment and misplaced priorities, Eddie tells him that "The barbershop is the place where a black man means something — cornerstone of the neighborhood, our country club. … Now, your father — he had integrity, he believed in somethin’."

Slavery, Inc.

But not to mislead, the movie revolves around Calvin; but whether about Calvin or Eddie, the movie is about freedom. It’s about that which no one can take from you: heritage and soul.

This could not stand. The NAACP branch of the CP, by whom a morality play was subsequently performed (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Parks and King families, et al., performing), did what commies always do: they demanded an admission of sins that had not been committed — in the form of a public apology. If they were in charge of the American State, surely the films’ creators would never be heard from again.

Not content with removing that which is, it is that which was that also must be removed. The mandarins of political correctness also wanted the film to be removed of all un-PC text, all sacrilege, forever.

I’m still trying to get a handle on all this — I have to blink my eyes a few times to focus. Since when can someone be assailed for opining on a historical figure? I just read that Moslems are suing Jerry Falwell for calling Mohammed a terrorist — who says immigrants aren’t assimilating?

How can someone be threatened against their livelihood for simply voicing their opinion in the name of freedom? If this doesn’t scream slavery, what does?

The greatest danger to Jackson and his few partners and minions are the three pillars of freedom: thought, speech, and association.

And speaking of the Trinity of existence, the very last words of the film belong to Eve, who complains that, once again, someone has drawn from her personal stash of apple juice. She lets loose a blasphemy (the only one I remember from the film).

Well, I’m not a Minister of The Lord like the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, but I couldn’t help but notice the lack of public response to this blasphemy. It just seems that maybe, just maybe, the Reverend Jackson and all his holy men might defend the holiness of Christ as vigorously as they do the priests of race politics.

It’s obvious which blasphemies are allowed and which are not. Idolatry is slavery.

From my experience, this is not lost on those Jackson purports to represent, including the "brothers and sisters" in Houston — they think he’s a joke. And the joke is on white "liberals" who wallow in guilt that isn’t theirs, CEOs that have to endure extortion and the penance of publicly kissing Jackson’s backside, the press who propagate and relish this charade, and certainly the rest of the black illuminati that want to keep their "brethren" in slavery.

But I’ll not feign shock at this particular development.

What made me truly sorrowful was the reaction of the film’s creators to their persecutors. It was that sick feeling you get in your pit, when you see the underdog finally assert himself, even to a right cause, with victory in his sights, only to be smashed like a bug (kaffir) by his masters. When the mandarins screamed, the creators of the film acquiesced.

I can’t blame the creators their reaction. How can I? It’s hard to put myself in their position. Their ultimate goal was to do good, to elevate, to invent, to establish. Better to preserve a little now, to build on something for a greater conquest, than to lose it all forever.

But I can let my imagination run wild, can’t I?

I can only imagine that producers Bob Teitel, George Tillman, and writer Don Scott sent a telegram to the Jacksons, Sharptons, Parks, and Kings: "You can sell your forty acres and a mule somewhere else — we will be slaves no more."

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

At any rate, I’m glad the president was able to leave his inspirational message.

Hello, this is President George W. Bush.

As Americans, we have a duty to participate in the political process. By voting, you can help make America stronger, safer, and better.

So this Tuesday, November 5, remember to vote. And when you do, please support John Cornyn for senate, Rick Perry for governor, and the rest of our great Republican team.

One person can make a difference. Your vote matters. Thank-you.

I’ve always tried to study politics carefully, but have always resisted voting — I’ve never been a big believer in democracy, at least not in the context in which it’s usually applied.

Friends and family often seem to be mystified by my apparent cognitive dissonance. My brother comes close to understanding when, playfully trying to insult me, declares, "You’re such an elitist." I always reply, "Yes, I am — and your point would be …?"

Monarchy or Democracy?

I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t actually an elitist — the only variance is in the degree of hypocrisy. We all select mates and friends, leaders and employees, and every type of consultant and craftsman imaginable within an "elitist" framework. It doesn’t mean this or that person is ontologically "better" than another, it’s merely the principles of specialization at work.

It’s unfortunate that within the modern culture of self-esteem the word "elitism" has become almost synonymous with the always pejorative word "snobbery." In the context of monarchical government, elitism simply reflects the hierarchy and specialization of government by heredity.

And yes, the arrangement of what feminists rightly observe as the "patriarchal" culture was indeed reflected in ancient government and family.

But this form, at least far more than its democratic counterpart, fosters a sincere familial and sacrificial obligation for the governed.

In a Firing Line interview with William F. Buckley, Eric von Kühnelt-Leddihn explained that "… the monarch, of course, has the advantage not only of heredity to a certain extent — and that is a little bit speculative — but on the other hand, he is from childhood trained for that job. He’s not a haberdasher."

Buckley sarcastically responded, "Like the Duke of Windsor?" As Buckley’s guests often did, K-L got the better of him:

Of course that is one of the most despicable creatures, because the man wanted to be happy, and a monarch has no right to be happy. He has to bear a cross. … As a matter of fact, Otto von Hapsburg was asked, … "Whom do you despise most as a contemporary figure?" And he said, "The Duke of Windsor that has abdicated." Rightly so. … A Christian monarch has no right to try to be happy. I mean, to marry the woman he loves — he has to marry the woman that state interest demands. See, in other words, it is not an easy proposition, but he is trained for it.

And now if you ask somebody whether a costume or a suit he would order from a miserable tailor or from a brilliant surgeon, well, the miserable tailor still produces a miserable suit, but the brilliant surgeon, nothing like a suit at all. And not being, as I just started to say, a haberdasher who sells underpants and neckties and then throws out A-bombs like confetti, you know? I know you heard me talking about after Japan has desperately tried, through the Vatican first, and then through Moscow in April ’45 and in July ’45 to get peace conditions and the answer was "unconditional surrender." And how many Americans died due to this idiotic formula?

Unfortunately, perhaps in part due to the obligation the monarch feels for his people, or perhaps in part due to too much exposure to modern university thought, the modern constitutional monarch often seems to be a bleeding heart liberal. Prince Charles comes to mind.

And the late King Hussein of Jordan and the beautiful Queen Noor, his American (half-Syrian), Princeton-educated wife, expressed their intentions to convert the Hashemite kingdom into a democracy. I believe the king’s son has made similar suggestions. Dear king, don’t do it! I’m certain the wise young king knows better — it would be an unmitigated disaster.

Could we do worse than heredity? We certainly seem to do so without much effort.

Of course all States are counterfeits of The Holy Spirit. But at least a monarchy attempts to mirror heavenly order and familial love. Conservative monarchical cultures were far more peaceful than the governments born in the twentieth century. Who has murdered more? The dissolution of four monarchies as a result of WW I sowed the seeds of future war, perhaps every major war since, and we’re still fighting them (Serbia, Iraq, etc.). Surely the kings did better at preserving blood and treasure than our current presidents and mullahs.

Worshippers of democracy seem to confuse monarchy and tyranny, not that the two terms are mutually exclusive. But the balance of power was distributed across a broad network of dukes, counts, barons, princes, and kings. They were at all times subject to intrigue, and assassination was often the reward of misrule.

There is little promise of such justice in the modern democratic nation-state.

Vote them out of office? There seems to be little evidence that this produces any change. There is little difference among our "leaders," and most of our government consists of unelected bureaucrats anyway. The power that a medieval emperor wielded was nothing like the monolithic control of the modern democratic state.

The beliefs of the balance of those who claim to be on the American right run counter to every classical tradition. The great Greek philosophers eloquently noted that democracy always devolves into egalitarianism and tyranny. The few Saints who might have approved of democracy clearly did so in the context of a true social relationship, where the governed personally knows the governor.

And the generally monarchist founders of the American State were highly and openly suspicious of democracy, so in turn carefully and brilliantly designed a republic containing measures they hoped would insure against the usual pitfalls. Of course these measures were quickly removed by Lincoln and subsequent state-hungry presidents, legislators, and jurists. The Founders would recognize very little in our modern American State.

Another misconception I’ve noted among (especially American) modernists is that the representation presumably found in a democracy is not present in an hierarchical system. The exact opposite is true.

Just as in a business venture, there is chain-of-command communication moving in both directions. By far the most important communication is the measured and selective personal communication between each link in the hierarchy. By virtue of that communication, influence is exerted in both directions.

No one would presume to know (or at least should presume to know) the character, intellect, or ability of one who is more than two or three links away, in either direction. However, a democracy operates on the presumption that "the people" (slaves) know the character, intellect, and ability of the "the leaders" (slaveholders). The idea that one can cosmically jump twenty links in the chain of command, effect intelligent change at that level, and better yet install the proper leadership at that level is preposterous.

The end result of democracy is at best a statistical celebration of mediocrity, rule by an idiot savant with no special gifts.

Of course, the press is supposed to help with this communication — except that they rarely know "the leaders" either, and have only contempt for "the people."

Yes, it has been said that cream rises to the top, but in democracy a more fitting analogy would surely be that which is most oily wiggles its way to the top. The shysters and confidence men that reside inside the Beltway continue to sell the illusion of "the power of the people." They increase technical democracy (e.g., direct election of U.S. Senators, the primary system) while finding new ways to steal our money (e.g., central bank, income taxation, confiscatory taxation, etc.).

The Triumph of Hope over Reason

But, regardless of my feelings about democracy, at the ripe age of forty-two, I decided to cast my first vote for president. However, I was only going to do so in the context of leadership — I planned to take at least a few others with me.

So playing the role of true believer, I pushed the obvious futility to the back of my mind, and engaged.

I remember one conversation I had with a young man I had just met at my favorite haunt, Café Adobe. He was a conservative in good standing, loved and preferred Pat Buchanan, but was going to vote for George W. Bush. I was soon to discover that this was a nearly ubiquitous problem — in fact, I would say it was the problem. (Even more than all the poor fortune Buchanan had getting off the mark.) It also didn’t help that others didn’t have the extreme reservations that I did about having a frat rat president. "Don’t waste your vote!" he yelled from across the crowded patio as he was leaving. I replied, "Don’t waste yours!" It was all I could think of.

A very cantankerous and exceedingly bright and energetic eighty-something-year-old I know said, "Brian, Pat Buchanan is my soul mate, but he just doesnu2018t have a prayer of winning!"

Almost every conservative I knew preferred Pat Buchanan over "the other" candidate, but the response was always the same. "I’d love to vote for Pat, but we just can’t let Gore get elected!" I would ask each of them in turn, "Don’t you understand that everyone says the same thing? Doesn’t this beg the question? If all of y’all really want to vote for Buchanan, but won’t, aren’t you defeating yourselves? Isn’t this why the Founders were wary of political parties? Does Bush really represent any of your beliefs — on smaller government, on immigration, on constitutional values, on non-intervention, on anything?"

But to no avail.

When shown the right way, the typical American conservative may be converted, but he still won’t stop visiting the whorehouse.

All this made me long for a parliamentary system.

As it turned out, I was one of the very few that voted for Buchanan — and yes, I believe I got it out of my system.

But it started me thinking. Am I really too idealistic? I’ve certainly been accused of being so.

So what if I had been more pragmatic? Surely the evidence amassed over the last century clearly demonstrates neither major party, at least corporately, will lift a finger to slow the progress of the welfare-warfare state. Words mean nothing.

And if I had made the pragmatic choice, wouldn’t it have been one that might, at least by the smallest increment, reduce imminent danger?

So what of the awkward alternative I might have considered, and the traditions of the state that candidate once represented?

Wasn’t a twentieth century politician from that state a partner in the deliberate deception that led us into a miserable war the American people did not want, a war that brought us further down the imperial path, and the effects of which we are still suffering? But at least before he sent young men to die, he could claim to have served his government in the armed forces during earlier conquests.

As well, didn’t the candidate’s own father fight in WW II, while his son escaped later military action? Unfortunately, the horrors of war didn’t seem to quell daddy’s internationalist impulses in the dark corridors of American power, which were certainly colored by the big oil money that bankrolled his political career, and that of his son.

And aren’t the son’s impulses far worse than the father’s?

On the other hand, at least during the 2000 Presidential debates this candidate chose two out of eight interventions he didnu2018t approve of, which is twice as many as his opponent.

And I have to admit, I like the idea of having voted for a man whose state produced so many heroes of the Alamo. And, there’s a lot to be said for the state’s music (its capital is also one of the nation’s great music capitals), not to mention the state’s good Southern faith.

So after this consideration, I’m beginning to think maybe I should have chosen that awkward alternative — the one that perhaps would do slightly less harm in the world.

Yup, I should have voted for Al Gore.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan. See also Hans-Herman Hoppe’s Democracy: the God That Failed.

Brian Dunaway Archives

I was in college, but I had always considered myself a rather levelheaded person. I loved The Beatles’ music, but frankly, by the time of Lennon’s death, I didn’t think much of him as a person. After all, he had dumped his attractive wife, taken in with some ugly and wacky Japanese dominatrix, which subsequently sowed the seeds of The Beatles’ breakup, and which also seemed to sow the seeds of a nonsensical philosophy.

I’d rather liked his older philosophy, like the jaundiced tone found in "Revolution":

You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You’d better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow

In a few short years, the message found in "Imagine" seemed altogether nihilistic:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky …

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too …

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man …

In one fell swoop, he managed to disdain God, all religion, and capitalism.

Nevertheless, when he died, I heard "Hey, you’ve got to hide your love away," and wept. Why, I wondered? I attended a candlelight vigil at Zilker Park in Austin. My best friend just wanted to stay alone in his dorm room.

No, I actually don’t even feel silly about it now, and today I realize, with a little perspective, I was only feeling nostalgia. I was leaving something behind that I knew I could never retrieve.

I think that was the last time I felt nostalgic. I think younger folk tend to be more nostalgic than older — maybe after a while we learn it’s a waste of time. Better to look forward. So, no sappy Lennonesque retrospective here.

But we can still learn something from these working class blokes from Liverpool.

All in all, they did pretty well keeping themselves centered, despite their dabbling in backward Eastern religions; and they did, after all, eventually find themselves contemptuous of the Maharishi.

Yes, and they weren’t foolish enough not to appreciate the money that talent, work, and fortune brought them. But when they reached their first success, such naïve working-class chaps as these were astonished at the 95% tax rate with which they were being assailed.

In one of my earliest musical memories (I was seven), the best friends of my brother and I brought home a new album, Revolver. The first track on this album, titled "Taxman," was written by Harrison; and even though at the time perhaps all I appreciated was McCartney’s wicked bass line, it is the best anti-tax song ever written:

Let me tell you how it will be.
There’s one for you nineteen for me.

u2018Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Should five percent appear too small.
Be thankful I don’t take it all.

u2018Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

If you drive a car,
I’ll tax the street.
If you drive too sexy,
I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I’ll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I’ll tax your feet.

u2018Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Don’t ask me what I want it for.

(Ha-ha, Mr. Wilson)

If you don’t want to pay some more.
(Ha-ha, Mr. Heath)

u2018Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And my advice for those who die.
Declare the pennies on your eyes.

u2018Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
And you’re working for no one but me.

But despite their early tax problems, they all did well for themselves; and for example, both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were fortunate enough to have father-in-laws who were ultra-wealthy businessmen, and taught them how to manage their money.

This financial success and artistic success certainly inspired those close to them. Though all four contributed to The Beatles’ artistic success, George Harrison, seeing the song-writing brilliance of Lennon and McCartney, said, "I can do that!" By the last Beatles album, Abbey Road, two of the most popular songs on the album, "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun," were composed by Harrison. I’m fairly certain I remember Perry Como, or Frank Sinatra, or both, singing "Something" at one time or another.

Perhaps one thing the British government could have handled much worse was how they handled The Beatles’ blatant illegal drug-taking. They could have harassed The Beatles much more than they did, but I guess there’s some benefit to being a national treasure. (It’s too bad our government didn’t treat our poor toking national treasure, Willie Nelson, with as much deference.)

Besides, I think, left to their own good sense, they left behind the more dangerous abuse of drugs that destroyed many with similar status. I found this interview with George Harrison that appeared in The Beatles Anthology revealing:

You know, I went to Haight-Ashbury, expecting it to be this brilliant place, and it was just full of horrible, spotty, dropout kids on drugs. It certainly showed me what was really happening in the drug culture. It wasn’t what was I thought of all these groovy people having spiritual awakenings and being artistic. It was like the Bowery, it was like alcoholism, it was like any addiction. So, at that point, I stopped taking it, actually, the dreaded Lysergic. I had some in a little bottle, it was liquid, and I put it under a microscope, and I looked at it, and it looked like rope, just like old rope, and I thought I’m not going to put that in my brain any more.

Not many years after this interview, at the advent of music videos, I remember Harrison criticizing them. What television is to literature, music videos are to music. He felt this new medium disallowed the mind’s imagery, conceived from the musical form, and he hated it. He almost sounded like an old fuddy-duddy. I loved it.

The bottom line is that George Harrison, and the other Beatles, despite all the rebellion of the sixties, appreciated what the West could give them — wealth, luxury, peace, and the ability to raise and enjoy families unhindered by the fear and dread seen so often in Eastern nightmares.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

The Truth Needs Your Support
Please make a donation to help LewRockwell.com tell it,
no matter what nefarious plans Leviathan has.

But
that was long ago, right? Surely, with all the current woes
resulting from convoluted alliances, laying tripwires all across
the globe, no one would dare entertain such notions today.
Certainly, with hundreds of years of evidence refuting the benefits
of colonialism, no one would contemplate such a thing. And of course,
most of all, no one claiming to be a conservative, whose first principle
is to beware the unintended consequence, would even imagine such
exploitations. Right?

Oh,
but, haven't you heard? Colonialism is back, baby!

At
least in the minds of the All The Usual Suspects.

No
more nebulous concepts of imperialism, no more “spheres of influence.”
We're talking full-bore colonialism. We'll be running everything.

Ah,
yes. Those halcyon days of colonialism. Rumpled cotton khakis, servants
for two bits a month, cricket, caning the wogs. And, of course,
teaching the rudimentary elements of civilization to the natives.

And
let us not forget passing along all those skill sets that will make
them invaluable assets in the global economy — skills that they'll
need in order to make sneakers and snow globes — skills that will
put money in their pockets, and allow them unhindered access to
American fast food and entertainment. We shall make the world
safe for McDonald's and MTV. The ignorant heathen just doesn't know
a good thing when he sees it.

Of
course, we'll also carefully consider their spiritual needs. Instead
of Dervishes spinning upon their right foot, whirling into a state
of communion with God, their left eye will become fixated upon by
the gyrating navel of Britney Spears.

But
why colonialism, and why now? Apparently, in an antithesis to Paul
Kennedy's much-referred thesis “imperial
overstretch,” we are experiencing imperial understretch.
You see, it's not that we have become too entangled in the world,
it's that we haven't been entangled enough, and haven't been
bold enough in doing it. And let's face it, the noble savage, well,
needs a bit of “tough love” to realize his nobility.

Truly,
I'm not exactly for the Indian tradition of the immolation of widows
on their husband's funeral pyres. It's not that I don't think we
have nothing to offer, temporal or spiritual. Trust me, I'm the
last to equivocate on the value of cultures.

But,
that's not really the point, is it?

The
point is, our designers of the Newest World Order will repeal the
human condition employing the usual modality: Force.

But
we are told, in the end, the natives will be grateful. Yes, we have
plenty of evidence that they're all are so grateful. So grateful
that when I not long ago was reading travelling tips for the Middle
East and North Africa, the author strongly recommended against wearing
shirts with epaulettes … and wearing sunglasses … because, you see,
it reminded the natives of, well, colonialism. The recommendation
given, and worded approximately, was, regardless of the sun's intensity,
“Just let your eyes burn out.”

I
must admit, bringing enlightenment to the heathen via freedom through
force sure has a big selling point, at least in the short term.
It certainly eliminates a lot of messiness … at least on our part.

Let's
take a look at an alternative — for example, teaching The Invisible
God, and later God Incarnate, the faithful were viciously persecuted
for it.

To
be sure, the faithful withstood

…
trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds
and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were
tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins
and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented …

I
admit, this sounds not at all like living the good life in the south
of France, so it tends to be a pretty hard sell. But, I suppose
that's the Christian's cross to bear.

Malcolm
Muggeridge, that great and hilarious man, once marveled at that
most prominent symbol of Christian faith. He imagined an ancient
meeting with an ad exec, upon which the Christian client begins,
“You see, we have this cross …”

But
to be certain, our modern proselytizers are not altogether interested
in the finer points of what Dietrich Bonhöffer called The
Costs of Discipleship. But who needs Bonhöffer when
we have The Modern Christian State?

So
how do we sell our modern hybrid (which isn't actually a hybrid
at all)? We need a slogan — wait a minute — how about: Bombs
for Jesus! Maybe not. Perhaps we should be thinking more along
symbolic lines. Imagine … Polycarp
with a Howitzer. I'm sure a competent graphic artist could come
up with a convincing poster. Just think, instead of showing Christian
hospitality to his brethren and executioners alike in the hours
preceding his death (as did Bonhöffer), just think how Polycarp
could have kicked ass with a little modern materiel.

And
for the intellectuals, I'm sure we can twist some words from the
Summa
Theologica into some convenient theses. (Or considering
our current enemy, maybe the Summa
Contra Gentiles is more in order?)

In
this welfare program writ large, our latter-day do-gooders would
accomplish in the Third World what has been accomplished with the
Third Estate — but of course, always with the best of intentions.

But
I understand the neocolonialists' frustration. I suppose since the
protection racket isn't working out, they would like to find some
new clients, and give them an offer they can't refuse.

But
before we find out what the boy geniuses have been considering for
us, let's take a quick look at the track record, and America's first
steps toward imperialism.
 

Reflections
on Early American Empire

A
Splendid Little War

I've
recently had more than a few of my Christian brethren refer the
following passage to me:

Thus
saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel,
how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass.

No,
it's not from National Review, it's from The Holy Bible.

And
I fear that the reason my brethren point out this scripture to me
is that they feel it is evidence that we can do as we please, because
The Lord is on our side. Oh, dear. However, if any of my brethren
have been receiving Direct Instruction on this most current matter,
I certainly hope they make me privy to His Pronouncements — I don't
want to be left in the dark.

However,
this wouldn't be the first time we have Received Permission to invade
another nation.

In
A
Republic, Not an Empire, Pat Buchanan records the words
of President McKinley, who came down to a press conference to deliver
these words:

I
walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight,
and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down
on my knees and prayed [to] Almighty God for light and guidance
more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way
— I don't know how it was but it came. … that there was nothing
left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos,
and uplift them and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's
grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for
whom Christ also died.

Imagine
for a moment the reaction of the cynical Washington Press Corps
of today hearing these words from the lips of President George W.
Bush. But who knows, perhaps The Fourth Estate could swallow their
vanity long enough to see their aspirations fulfilled.

Buchanan
notes “that baptisms had begun in the islands fifty years before
the English landed at Jamestown, and that two million Filipinos
had already been received into the Church …”

In
what can only be described as Manifest Destiny turned Manifest Madness,
Albert Beveridge, Indiana's newly elected thirty-five-year-old senator,
delivered these words as the nascent American Empire was considering
the invasion of The Philippines:

It
is elemental, it is racial. God has not been preparing the English
and Teutonic-speaking peoples for a thousand years for nothing
but vain and idle self-admiration. … He has made us the master
organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns.
… He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government
among savage and senile peoples.

In
a counterfeit echo of the aforementioned words to Saul, William
Allen White's Emporia Gazette didn't mince words: “It is
the Anglo-Saxon destiny to go forth as a world conqueror. He will
take possession of all the islands of the sea. He will exterminate
the peoples he cannot subjugate. This is what fate holds for the
chosen people. It is so written.”

But
perhaps what is more important is that “the man on the street” was
heady about the prospect of expanding America's domain and dominion.

So
we took The Philippines from Spain, with the support of the Philippine
people, because (in a very familiar pattern) they believed that
America was helping them throw off the yoke of the Spanish Empire.
Instead, we installed a colonial government, with William Howard
Taft as Civil Governor. Unfortunately, the Filipinos hadn’t understood
the first principle of geopolitical intercourse: Trust no one —
otherwise, simply trade one master for another. 

When
the Filipinos realized that they had been betrayed, they revolted.

In
Anti-Imperialism
in the United States, 1898 — 1935, Jim Zwick recounts that
after the Filipinos were victorious at Balangiga, Gen. Jacob Smith
issued the following orders: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to
kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better you will please
me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in
actual hostilities against the United States.” Gen. Smith later
clarified that all Filipinos on Samar over the age of ten should
be killed. 

By
the time the war was over in 1902, and The Philippines defeated,
as many as (estimates vary greatly) a half-million Filipinos perished,
mostly civilian, from the effects of war.

Not
everyone was bedazzled by the war effort, and the opposing voices
were powerful, but few. The Anti-Imperialist League included such
luminaries as H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and William
Jennings Bryan. 

In
Columbia
magazine, James B. Dahlquist adds “Soldiers also assisted the
cause. Their letters, sometimes describing cruelties committed by
both sides, were used to educate the public about the war, which
had started out with humanitarian goals but had now lost its moral
compass. Even some conservatives debated whether the Philippine
policy was consistent with the ideals upon which the United States
was founded.”

Congress
was to conduct hearings on military conduct, but the war was over,
and the American people weary.

Not
a very good first step for American Empire and American Colonialism.

Lawrence
of Arabia

The
War to Make the World Safe for Democracy was fought on many fronts.

WW
I has also been called The War that Killed God, as so many of the
post-WW I congregation left the church after the horrors of the
war, remembering their pastors beating their pulpits as war drums
for righteousness' sake.

I
do not know how my great-grandmother, who died when I was six, would
have expressed her feelings on the outcome of this war. She was
a church-goer, and certainly knew her scripture. (It doesn't seem
possible that her life spanned from horse buggies to bikinis — but
she stoically and patiently watched the world's peculiarities to
the very end.) I would dearly love to have been able to speak to
her about her times, and her faith.

But
I wonder if her thoughts might have been reflected in her son, who
not long before he died, recalled to me a man whom he had admired
deeply, a banker in their hometown of Binghamton, New York (the
burial place of his great-grandparents). A vigorous and inquisitive
man, my grandfather always had the gift of the gab, and the expression
“hail fellow well met” was invented for him. I can only imagine
how this precocious lad entertained his idol.

He
would have been about nine years old at the outbreak of the war.

He
reminisced the brave soldiers marching in parade, off to right the
wrongs of humanity; and the man he admired was one of them. He then
told me that he didn't return from battle, and he said no more —
but as I looked at his face, the implicit meaning of his expression
seemed to be, “for what?”

But
there is never a shortage of charlatan newspapermen to do the bidding
of The State, then as now. As journalists were reporting that Germans
were throwing Belgian babies in the air and catching them on their
bayonets, an American journalist was journeying the Near East to
find a hero to help bring America into the war, whom he would eventually
dub, Lawrence of Arabia.

Since
childhood I had simply admired Lawrence
of Arabia on its merits as a film, but I had not until fairly
recently realized that David Lean's masterpiece about T. E. Lawrence
was also the quintessential expression of the folly of imperialism
and colonial rule.

What
makes the story especially powerful is that Lawrence, though only
a lieutenant at the start of the conflict, is an extraordinary scholar,
knowing the geography, history, religion, tribal customs, dialects,
and dynamics of the disparate Arabian Bedouins.

(A
brilliant man with a corresponding ego? The editor's notes that
precede the text of Lawrence's Revolt
in the Desert are hilarious reading. The editor continued
to complain about the inconsistent spellings of various proper nouns,
to which Lawrence continued to provide convoluted and exasperating
explanations of why it must be the way it is. The editor finally
acquiesced.)

It's
astonishing that we vainly enter into conflicts with far-flung nations
when our best advisors have less than one-hundredth the intellect
or applicable education that Lawrence had. The U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan was seriously delayed because our government couldn't
even find a translator to speak the language of the tribesmen with
whom they were expected to ally themselves.

What
makes Lawrence of Arabia so compelling is that it's a story
of honor, loyalty, leadership, friendship, and bravery … and yes,
vanity of every sort.

But
in the end, Lawrence realized that for all his intellect, education,
and qualities of leadership, he was not the man who could lead Arabia
to sustained freedom.

He
pinched the skin of his fair breast, and told Sherif Ali (played
by Omar Sharif) that he could not change this thing, and
told him, “You lead them — they're yours. Trust your own people,
and let me go back to mine.”

But,
after Lawrence returned to Cairo, the clever Allenby manipulated
him into agreeing to return to the battlefield, and they discussed
Lawrence's strategy of guerilla warfare paralyzing the Turks in
Arabia:

Allenby:
Well, if we can see it, so can the Turk. If he finds he's using
four divisions to fend off a handful of bandits, he'll withdraw.

Lawrence: He dammed withdraw. Arabia's part of his
empire. He gets out now, he knows he'll never get back again.

Attending Officer: I wonder who will?
Lawrence: No one will. Arabia is for the Arabs now
… That's what I've told them anyway. … That's what they think.
… That's why they're fighting.
Allenby: [Allenby looks distant, snatches a cracker,
and throws it to the birds.] Oh surely.
Lawrence: They've only one suspicion — we let them
drive the Turks out and then move in ourselves. I've told them
that that's false, that we've no ambitions in Arabia. Have
we?
Allenby: I'm not a politician, thank God. [Turning
to his attaché] Have we any ambition in Arabia, Dryden?

Dryden: [After a long draw on his drink.] Difficult
question, sir.
Lawrence: I want to know, sir, if I can tell them
in your name, that we've no ambitions in Arabia.
Allenby: [He puts down his drink, emphatically.]
Certainly!

(It's
difficult to know at this point who is more cynical, Allenby or
Lawrence. Lawrence is far clever enough to know the subtleties of
language. Near the end of the film, Dryden accuses Lawrence of intellectual
dishonesty (though in my opinion, in a somewhat specious and self-serving
way) in this vein: “A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides
the truth. But a man who tells half-lies has forgot where he put
it.”)

After
the meeting's end, and Allenby and his entourage have left Lawrence:

Dryden:
Are you really going to give them artillery, sir?
Colonel Brighton: I was wondering that sir — might
be deuce divil to get it back again.
Dryden: You give them artillery, and you've made
them independent.
Allenby: Then I can't give them artillery, can I?

The
duplicitousness is obvious, but at least these betrayers seem wiser
than our own political geniuses, who seem never to think that their
own artillery will be turned against them, as with Al Qaeda. Or
maybe they don't care?

Nevertheless,
with the help of the Bedouins, Lawrence captures Damascus, and Allenby
captures Jerusalem.

And
so the waning empire of England was like the waxing empire of America
— as The Philippines were betrayed, so was Arabia betrayed.

Powder
kegs

Before
Allenby and Lawrence accomplish their historic victories, two “civil
servants” (in the words of Dryden), one Sykes of England, and one
Picot of France, have already carved up the Eastern World in a manner
that has caused us sorrow u2018til this day, and may well lead to WW
III.

The
European theater was being handled no better. Synthetic and imaginary
nation-states were being created that would breed the hatred leading
to WW II.

In
Leftism
Revisited, Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn (another ironic
proponent of colonialism) notes the profound lack of knowledge President
Wilson had in matters that would shape at least the next hundred
years:

The
ignorance of the former president of Princeton in matters of history
and geography was simply prodigious. The Italians at one point
showed him a spurious map on which a mountain, fittingly named
“Vetta d'Italia,” appeared in the very heart of Austria; it served
as proof, they claimed, that “historic Italy” (there was never
such a country) extended right to that spot. As a result the Italians,
for the first time ever, received the South and Central Tyrol
with the Brenner Pass. (The second time occurred in 1946, with
the result that the shooting and dynamiting in this restless,
tortured area continues to this very day.) Harold Nicholson, who
was at the Peace Conference, expressed in writing the current
feeling that “if Wilson would swallow the Brenner, he would swallow
everything.” Terrified later by his own mistakes, Wilson strove
to prevent the annexation of Fiume (predominantly inhabited by
Italians) by Italy, and somewhat undiplomatically toured the country
to appeal to the Italians over the heads of their government.

Is
our current knowledge any better?

Visions
of the Future?

All
right, let's look at the arguments of our wannabe intellectual leaders.
It would seem that since the “English and Teutonic-speaking peoples”
have had their run, it's America's turn at colonialism.

The
Usual Suspects

I
have to compliment these folks on one thing: audacity. With
unparalleled didactic exuberance they describe the omnipresent empire
of their dreams. 

In
the 15 October issue of The Weakly Standard, Max Boot, the
Features editor for The War Shriek Journal, makes “The
Case for American Empire: The most realistic response to terrorism
is for America to embrace its imperial role.”

You
know, I haven't been around that long (please do not attempt
to discern my age from the retouched photograph at the bottom of
this essay), but I remember a time when the strongest admonition
regarding manners was that you might do as you please, “as long
as you don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.”

And,
because of the insidiousness of our culture's decay, I'm not even
shocked by the behavior of the characters on the nation's favorite
television sitcom, Fops and Sluts (I believe the working
title is Friends); but, I am utterly amazed at the brazen
use of the words “imperialism” and “colonialism,” and I fear it
might indeed frighten the horses. Youngsters across this great land,
I assure you, not many years have passed since these words would
not dare be uttered in mixed company.

But,
if I can be certain that only adults are present, let's take a look
at Boot's thesis:

MANY
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE September 11 attack on America was payback
for U.S. imperialism. If only we had not gone around sticking
our noses where they did not belong, perhaps we would not now
be contemplating a crater in lower Manhattan. The solution is
obvious: The United States must become a kinder, gentler nation,
must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan’s
phrase, “a republic, not an empire.” In fact this analysis is
exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient
American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more
expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.

And
you thought I was exaggerating!

Mr.
Boot is careful to distinguish himself from such marginal radicals
as Pat Buchanan and the former President Bush. He mocks eschewing
quixotic missions abroad, but Mr. Boot is indeed tilting at windmills.
What does he hold up as the shining example of American imperialistic
accomplishment? Why, the Balkans, of course!

We
had better sense when it came to the Balkans, which could without
much difficulty have turned into another Afghanistan. When Muslim
Bosnians rose up against Serb oppression in the early 1990s, they
received support from many of the same Islamic extremists who
also backed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The Muslims of Bosnia
are not particularly fundamentalist — after years of Communist
rule, most are not all that religious — but they might have been
seduced by the siren song of the mullahs if no one else had come
to champion their cause. Luckily, someone else did. NATO and the
United States intervened to stop the fighting in Bosnia, and later
in Kosovo. Employing its leverage, the U.S. government pressured
the Bosnian government into expelling the mujahedeen. Just last
week, NATO and Bosnian police arrested four men in Sarajevo suspected
of links to international terrorist groups. Some Albanian hotheads
next tried to stir up trouble in Macedonia but, following the
dispatch of a NATO peacekeeping force, they have now been pressured
to lay down their arms. U.S. imperialism — a liberal and humanitarian
imperialism, to be sure, but imperialism all the same — appears
to have paid off in the Balkans. 

This
is deeply embarrassing — in one paragraph: we have helped Bosnian
Moslems free themselves from “Serbian oppression” (“The West” had
such “evidence” as a faked (not
irresponsible, faked) television documentary on “Serbian
concentration camps,” the “Srebrenica
Massacre,” etc.); we were fortunate, because the Bosnian Moslems
were free of religious fervor from their days under the Commies
(Praise Allah for the Commies!), and because they were in no way
influenced by Islamic mullahs (I don't buy it); forced the Bosnians
to (apparently not) expel the mujahedeen, arrested four “men” linked
to terrorism (read four “Moslem men,” out of probably thousands
operating there), and (very temporarily) squelched Albanian ambitions
in Macedonia.

And
what he doesn’t bother mentioning is that we destroyed one
of the world's oldest Christian states, large-scale ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo by Moslems has taken place, 100,000 Bosnian passports
have gone missing, there’s that funny little linkage to Al Qaeda,
and Greater Albania is growing still.

And
let us not overlook the most obvious: we're still there, and
there's no sign we're leaving anytime soon.

But
in what sounds more like a fashion statement than a strategy, he
tells us that “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out
for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided
by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.” Note:
watch out for all words that contain the syllables “en-light-en”
— this seems to be the preeminent obsession of leftists. (Mark Steyn
also announces that “colonialism is progressive and enlightened.”)
Indeed, he calls bin Laden a “holy warrior who rejects the Enlightenment
and all its works.” I’m sure we can be expecting the pagan equivalent
of a fatwah from Mr. Boot any day now against LRC.

And
under what auspices will this enlightened foreign administration
take place? “This precedent could easily be extended, as suggested
by David Rieff, into a formal system of United Nations mandates
modeled on the mandatory territories sanctioned by …” Yes, that’s
right, you guessed it, more of the same from all those fine folks
who brought you WW II, and probably WW III: ” … the League of Nations
…”

As
much fun as The Weakly Standard is, let’s take a look at
our beloved Irrational Review.

Of
course, Jonah Goldberg read the Boot piece, and was he thrilled.
In Goldberg's 12 October column titled “Raise
the flag on a new American empire,” he lauded the Boot piece,
but also takes care to recognize his fellow travelers on the left:

Washington
Post columnist, E.J. Dionne, the intellectual conscience of
the Democratic Party, has already declared this a “just war.”
The liberal New Republic is hectoring President Bush from
his right and demanding a broad commitment to rearranging the
global chessboard.

Perhaps
the most revealing canary in the liberal coal mine, Scott Simon,
the host of National Public Radio’s “Weekend Edition” and a Quaker,
recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that his fellow
pacifists must abandon their knee-jerk anti-militarism and support
the war effort.

Brother
Jonah still seems to think that warmongering (as opposed to defense)
is a characteristic of the right, and he almost seems to be surprised
to find he's in agreement with National Propaganda Radio and the
War Shriek Journal! (And I guess The Friends Church isn't
what it used to be.)

Of
course, Brother Jonah has been harping for a return to colonialism
for quite some time. His 3 May 2000 column, “A
Continent Bleeds,” and his follow-up 10 May column, “Jonah
Goldberg's African Invasion,” are, um, interesting.

Like
his friends at The Weekly Standard, Brother Jonah's foreign
policy sounds more like high school football.

He
asks “What Good Is Being #1?” This reminds me of a story about a
high-level meeting Chairman Powell was attending. Mad Madeleine
Albright, angry at Powell's reticence to use the military, whined
(I'm paraphrasing), “What good is it to have the world's most powerful
military if we can't use it?” As Mr. Powell related this incident,
he also reported a rise in his blood pressure. Seriously, sir,
stay away from the salt — we need you. But, Ms. Albright's question
is a good one. I wonder if the answer lies in the founders' not
favoring a standing military? If there is one universal tenet regarding
any government agency, it is this: if it exists, there will be found
a use for it.

Like
his namesake, Brother Jonah misses the point. The prophet Jonah
is given the power to witness to Ninevah their impending destruction
according to their grievous sins. But the most unusual and extraordinary
thing happens — they listen to Jonah, and of their own free will,
they repent. So The Lord spares them. But because the prophecy doesn't
come to pass, Jonah feels like a fool, and mourns the loss of the
power that was never his.

Similarly,
there seems to be little room in Brother Jonah's mind for free will
conversion.

What
he wants to make clear to us is that his form of colonialism, as
he so graciously expresses, doesn't “mean ripping off poor countries
… [and] setting tribes against one another and paying off corrupt
u2018leaders' to keep down unrest. I mean going in — blazing if necessary
— for truth and justice.” He left out “and The American Way!” I
really would not have expected an übermensch such as Brother
Jonah to make such an oversight.

But
he obviously has at least some advertising acuity. He notes that
“I think it's time we revisited the notion of a new kind of Colonialism
— though we shouldn't call it that.” Indeed, this would be a very
poor pr move.

Actually,
his campaign to colonize the whole of Africa is perfect for Madison
Avenue — lots of form, and no substance. He admits that the idea
of “American Greatness … mostly pushed by our friends at The
Weekly Standard, is a fairly amorphous notion …”

I
admire Brother Jonah's honesty regarding the amorphousness of the
imperial plans of the leftists at The Weekly Standard and
National Review, but the debate on “American Greatness” has
not been among (real) conservatives, and has most certainly not
been about its inherent merits.

Of
course, those pesky little details can be worked out later. 

But
to be certain — Brother Jonah and his marauding monks may not know
exactly what they want, but they sure do want it. “We should
put American troops in harm's way. We should not be surprised that
Americans will die doing the right thing.” Interesting language
— perhaps a bit Freudian? Isn't the purpose of a military goal to
accomplish mission success while minimizing harm to our American
troops? It almost sounds as though we must make an oblation of blood
to the god of American Greatness.

Far-fetched?
The aforementioned Max Boot recently made a similar complaint in
The Wall Street Journal:

This
is not a war being won with American blood and guts. It is being
won with the blood and guts of the Northern Alliance, helped by
copious quantities of American ordnance and a handful of American
advisers. After Sept. 11, President Bush promised that this would
not be another bloodless, push-button war, but that is precisely
what it has been.

And
in what sounds a lot more confused than amorphous, Brother Jonah
says his American Dream “would be a display of arrogance of historic
proportions, even a crusade,” but “wouldn't be a military one,”
but then again “cannot be merely an armed invasion…” (All
these phrases were actually in one paragraph.) Huh?!

But
in order to prove his conservative credentials, Brother Jonah takes
a few perverse stabs at the right, such as this: “I'm as romantic
as the next guy about preserving traditional cultures and communities.”
You see, it's not about that old-fashioned idea of sovereignty,
it's really all about quaintness. He also instructs us that
the United States should be Equal Opportunity Murderers: “We should
not be squeamish, either, about the fact that (mostly white) Americans
will kill some black Africans in the process.”

Brother
Jonah would also like to enlist “evangelical churches.” Cute. He
knows that among the “evangelical churches” are likely to be found
the most patriotic citizens in America. I suspect he's also hoping
they won't think too much. He's likely to be disappointed on all
counts. I believe the balance of American Christians know the difference
between nationalism and patriotism.

I
also suspect he wants to enlist the churches only inasmuch as they
are of the variety suggested by that Bombastic Barbie Ann Coulter,
that would champion “killing all their leaders and converting them
to Christianity.”

But
for the most part, it's difficult to find even a pretense of anything
resembling the right in his assertions. Instead, we find comments
like “America should do big things to fulfill its destiny, and conservatives
should not shy from the idea that government must do these big things,”
and “We should spend billions upon billions doing it.”

And
since the raison dêtre of our new crusaders is to “mount
a serious effort to bring civilization” to the dark corners of the
world, Brother Jonah includes an homage to his intellectual forebears,
noting that “there are, of course, ingredients to civilization other
than the rudimentary scientific assumptions
of the Enlightenment.” More references to the atheistic Enlightenment?
I'm glad, at least, that our new crusaders are all on the same page.

Yes,
as Brother Jonah proclaims, “The whole point is to enlighten, not
just dominate.” That's right, not just dominate, but dominate
with a reason — as opposed to those that dominate with no
reason.

Brother
Jonah assures us that the new colonialists won't make the same mistakes
as the past. “It might also be necessary to erase a lot of the pernicious
boundaries created by the colonialists…” Yes, those were the
old colonialists. We'll draw new borders, because we know so
much now about the entire African continent, their history, their
grievances against one another, their claims to territory — just
like Woodrow Wilson did about the obscure European continent.

He
also assures us that “being imperial is not necessarily a bad thing.
The British Empire … didn't care about the u2018sovereignty' of other
nations when it came to an evil institution. They didn't care about
the u2018rule of international law,' they made law with the barrel of
a cannon.”

I'm
glad Brother Jonah knows his Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung:
“Every Communist must understand this truth: Political power grows
out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the party commands
the gun; the gun shall never be allowed to command the party.”

Speaking
of commies, Mr. Buckley told us some half-century ago that his brand
of “conservatism” was only a transitional form, but necessary, because
even the radical growth of the state was necessitated by the threat
of communism. Well, the threat of communism is gone — and we're
still waiting.

But
what of new threats, real or perceived? The state was still growing
by leaps and bounds before 11 September, and it's demonstrative
of the carelessness and cowardice of so-called “patriots” that they
vote for bills that sew the seeds of tyranny.

O.K.,
enough of Brother Jonah.

But
on a closing note, he does admit that “… most of the founders would
probably be horrified by my proposal, and that should make any conservative
pause.” Let's leave it at that.

Modern
Times?

Unfortunately,
not all proponents of colonialism are youngsters. There are some
quite older fellows that wish to pass along the worst habits of
the last century.

The
inestimable historian Paul Johnson is one such man, and he is, among
many other things, a contributor to National Review.

Oddly
enough, Johnson is no stranger to the folly of man. If there is
only one thesis that his eloquent history Modern
Times expresses, it is that social engineering, treating
man like so much concrete, is the great tragedy of the twentieth
century. (One of the chapter titles is “Experimenting with half
Mankind.”)

Indeed,
Modern Times was obviously named after the famous Charlie
Chaplin film, where the worker, attempting to oil the gears,
is caught in, and becomes part of, the machinery.

Let's
explore his vision of tomorrow in the 18 April 1993 column in The
New York Times Magazine, titled “Colonialism's Back — and Not
a Moment Too Soon : Let's face it: Some countries are just not fit
to govern themselves.”

The
irony of this article is that it was written after 4 December 1992,
when Bush I launched the Somalia intervention, but just before the
escalation and subsequent disaster in Mogadishu. It was such a disaster
that both candidates Bush and Gore expressed unique regret, among
all interventions, with respect to Somalia. Now this begs the question
— should we be listening to people like Mr. Johnson?

Johnson
writes that “a historic line was crossed when American marines landed
in Somalia — without any request, because no government existed.”
No government? Oh, I'm sure someone was around to steal their
money!

Nevertheless,
unrequested intervention is held up as the goal for the Ultimate
Power. 

The
new order “would be empowered not merely to impose order by force,
but to assume political functions. They would in effect be possessed
of sovereign powers.” I guess there are some pretty stringent requirements
in acquiring membership in that club of “sovereign powers.” Incidentally,
Johnson's “not merely to impose order by force” sounds a
lot like Brother Jonah's “not merely an armed invasion.”
Has Mr. Johnson been tutoring Brother Jonah? This is what I’m afraid
is so.

He
reminds us that “in the 1980s … Western powers showed a renewed
willingness to use force in what they believed to be right.” This
force was demonstrated by England and America against the colossi
of the Falklands and Grenada, respectively. But, I suppose it's
time to think a little bigger.

Like
Goldberg, Johnson doesn't want anyone to think he's racist, so he
assures his audience that “the new colonialism is not just about
white men running the affairs of nonwhite countries but can involve
intervention in Europe …” Well thank heavens for that! Indeed, like
Boot, Johnson holds up the “direct military intervention in the
internal affairs of the former Yugoslavia” as the epitome of success.

Johnson
reassures us that “Happily, the civilized powers need not get stuck
in the old colonial quagmire, because they have the example of the
trusteeship system before them.” Trust us, it's all worked out
now.

“Trusteeship,”
he tells us, “was a notion derived from English common law in which
a child was made a ward of the court until attaining the age of
21.” This harkens a commandment that our new colonialists would
do well to heed: “Thou shalt not provoke your children to anger.”

Johnson's
vision is that “their mandate would usually be of limited duration
— 5, 10, 20 years, for example — and subject to supervision by the
Security Council; and their ultimate object would be to take constitutional
measures to insure a return to effective self government with all
deliberate speed.” It's not that I don't trust that they'll do some
quite smashing things on their little excursions, it's just the
“all deliberate speed” part of which I'm a little wary, especially
when Johnson throws out lengths of time like “20 years.” He continues,
“The trustees should not plan to withdraw until they are reasonably
certain that the return to independence will be successful this
time. So the mandate may last 50 years, or 100.” Say what?
50, 100? That's not colonialism — that's more like a high colonic!
And if we employ a typical MCM (for those not familiar, that's Mission
Creep Multiplier) of 10, then we can be out of there in only one
millennium.

They
are our little children that we're supposed to train to be independent?
Talk about empty nest syndrome!

But
in the end, we'll have the “unspoken gratitude of millions of misgoverned
or ungoverned people.” Personally, I think ungoverned people are
already happy. But doesn't the phrase “unspoken gratitude”
sound a little suspicious?

Mr.
Johnson also recently voiced his opinions in the 15 October 2001
National Review in a column titled “u2018Relentlessly
and Thoroughly' The only way to respond.”

The
object of this piece (or any pro-colonial piece) is to paint a picture
of Islamic backwardness, so that their defeat and subsequent colonialism
are justified.

He
begins by telling us that “Islam is an imperialist religion, more
so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism.”
Wait a minute — I'm confused. Imperialism good, or imperialism
bad? Incidentally, I think this sentence is a little awkward.
Christianity imperialistic? So the trumped-up charges against
Jesus were legitimate? I think “so-called Christian states”
might read better than “Christianity.”

Referring
to the Quoran, Johnson tells us that “These canonical commands cannot
be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because
there is no such science in Islam.” This isn't exactly consistent
with the scholarship of Alan
Jones, who taught Arabic and Islamic studies at Oxford from 1957-2000,
and who states that the main difference between the Quoran of the
Sunni and the Shi'is

lies
in exegesis (tafsir), which is crucial: for although the
Koran declares itself to be “clear,” its rhetorical nature often
calls out for explanation, and through the centuries pious and
learned scholars have written a whole series of commentaries that
show scholarship of the highest quality.

Johnson
continues, “Unlike Christianity, which, since the Reformation and
Counter Reformation, has continually updated itself and adapted
to changed conditions, and unlike Judaism, which has experienced
what is called the 18th-century Jewish enlightenment, Islam remains
a religion of the Dark Ages.” We are to now envision the most filthy
and barbaric conditions, and shudder. No education. No clean water.
No underarm deodorant. No table manners. None of the blessings of
modernity.

This
is a particularly peculiar statement since the Islamic world of
the early Middle Ages far exceeded the culture, science, and technology
of the contemporaneous West. And in fact, it was the Arab races
who preserved the Greek classics, which allowed the “re-discovery”
of them by the West.

But
now Johnson delivers the coup de grace, “The 7th-century
Koran is still taught as the immutable word of God, any teaching
of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is
essentially akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism.”
Gadzooks! Not that! We all know how backward those people
are!

He
knows that when the word “literalism” (whatever that means) is employed,
we're to picture those ignorant in-breeding Appalachian Christians
who take the Bible seriously, of whom obviously the Wahabbi Muslims
are our close theological cousins.

But
ultimately, Johnson misses the point. In fact, I cannot figure out
why he included this passage:

The
Crusades, as it happened, fatally weakened the Greek Orthodox
Byzantine Empire, the main barrier to the spread of Islam into
southeast and central Europe. As a result of the fall of Constantinople
to the ultra-militant Ottoman Sultans, Islam took over the entire
Balkans, and was threatening to capture Vienna and move into the
heart of Europe as recently as the 1680s.

I've
decided the first casualty of war is not truth, but irony.
How about an alternative reading of the above?

The
Balkan War, as it happened, fatally weakened the Serbian Orthodox
Christians, the main barrier to the spread of Islam into southeast
and central Europe. As a result of the fall of Sarajevo to the
ultra-militant Albanian Moslems, Islam took over the entire Balkans,
and was threatening to capture Vienna and move into the heart
of Europe as recently as the 1980s.

Well, not
exactly, but close enough — and in ways, worse. Aside from America's
illegal, immoral, and ignorant persecution of Serbia, the tidal
wave of Islamic immigrants into the “heart of Europe” threaten
the existence of the Western World. (E.g., Sam
Francis on VDARE.com informs us that Berlin is the third largest
Turkish city in the world.) And let us not forget the Bosnian
connection or the Albanian connection to Al Qaeda.

We
Will Not Be Silenced

I
never before appreciated the dictum, “War is the health of the state,”
as now. Before 11 September, I was able to discuss these same
issues with the same people, and they were mostly in
agreement with me; but now they can't be broached. Not just specifically,
they can't even be discussed in theory.

I've
received heartfelt letters, some from active and retired military
personnel, who have experienced the same thing.

But,
as the weeks pass, things seem to be loosening up a bit. 

In
the meantime, here's a November
1993 letter to First Things editor Richard John Neuhaus
from Thomas Molnar, another who has served his country, but is not
afraid to criticize its government. Molnar is responding to Fr.
Neuhaus' thoughts on Paul Johnson's “new colonialism.” I am
compelled to include it in full:

Anglo-Saxon
regimes and races have a curious urge to “save the world” — from
sin and its secular variants like non-democratic regimes, and
now, in Fr. Neuhaus' words, from the status of “failed nations.”
A strange recommendation in view of the failure of Woodrow Wilson,
Franklin Roosevelt, and George Bush to save the world, make it
safe for democracy, abolish fear, and institute a new world order.
The recommendation is even more misplaced in the eyes of one like
me who saw the Congo in the early 1960s occupied by UN troops,
mostly from India, who plundered the territory, appropriated UN
material and weapons, and whom the population feared and detested.
From the Congo to Somalia, Cambodia, and Bosnia, the UN has done
precious little to be entrusted with rule over “failed nations.”
Besides, who is going to define “failure”? Big Brother?

On
a more theoretical plane, why not consider that failure in the
Third World may be, just may be, the consequence of Western imposition
of political structures — democracy, pluralism, even statehood
— that are alien to local tradition and mentality. If so, the
Western doctor cures with one hand and causes disease with the
other. I shudder in anticipation of the day of UN tutelage over
the “failed nation” of Hungary, decided, let's say, with the votes
of Bucharest and Belgrade.

Finally,
is the United States so pure (elsewhere in the issue Fr. Neuhaus
speaks of the “stench of decaying empire”), so secure from failure
itself, that we can confidently dictate to a world that has recently
gotten rid of another uninvited tutor?

Our
future?

After
T. E. Lawrence had occupied Damascus, he was approached by a medical
officer. The MO was complaining that the Arab Council (which was
rapidly disintegrating) had overlooked the Turkish Military Hospital.
Lawrence looked into it.

In
one of the most memorable scenes of the film, Lawrence approaches
the makeshift hospital, which is an open-air structure, filthy,
and fly infested. He desperately tries to find water, finds a spigot,
turns the knob, but nothing comes out. English medical officers
arrive. A pompous-ass officer approaches the hospital, and as he
sees the conditions, is filled with righteous indignation, “This
is outrageous. OUTu2014RAGEOUS!”

He
looks at Lawrence (who is still in Bedouin dress, with his face
covered), and yells “Outrageous!” Lawrence, exhausted, frustrated,
and seeing the irony of the officer's reaction, starts laughing.
The officer screams, “You filthy little wog!” and slaps Lawrence
to the ground, but he continues to laugh.

(This
is the last time we see Lawrence in Bedouin dress.)

Let
us be convinced, all empires finish exhausted and unappreciated.

In
the last dialogue of the movie, Dryden remarks on the final draft
of negotiations between England and Prince Feisal, “Well, it looks
as though we're going to have an English water works with an Arab
flag on it!” Prince Feisal asks, “Well, Mr. Dryden, you seem to
be the architect of this agreement, what do you think of it?”

He
dryly answers, “On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells.”

Speaking
of Englishmen, dear Mr. Johnson, might you, kind sir, eschew regaling
the lads at National Review and The Weekly Standard
with tales of the salad days of English colonialism? You see, they're
at that impressionable age. You understand.

I'm
certain you can find something else to amuse yourself, perhaps even
in your native England. Perhaps gardening? That's a good English
gentleman's pastime, isn't it?

November
29, 2001

Brian
Dunaway [send him
mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

The
Truth Needs Your Support
Please
make a donation to help LewRockwell.com tell it,
no matter what nefarious plans Leviathan has.

With regard to the level of abuse delivered by our
innumerable federal agencies, the FAA has no reason to feel inferior.

I believe a personal experience I had with the FAA
illustrates this well.

About ten years ago, I decided to combine two of my
favorite passions, aviation and photography, into a money-making
venture. I decided to take photos of homes, focussing on areas with
a high concentration of half-million-dollar-plus homes in order
to minimize flight time.

I chose a medium format camera to maximize clarity,
and deciding on the Pentax 6 x 7 over a Hasselblad or Mamiya was
easy — it was much easier to handle (its shape is similar to a typical
35 mm SLR), its 400 mm lens had the lowest f-stop (f4 vs. f5.6),
it had the fastest speed (1/1000 vs. 1/400 sec.), it produced the
largest image size (6 x 7 cm.), and it even costs less (far less
than the Hasselblad).

I flew a Cessna 172 because I wanted a high wing,
which would allow me to photograph ground-based objects without
wing obstruction. It took a little while to work through a procedure,
and get used to the ten-pound camera body and lens, but I soon found
a methodology that seemed to work well.

Once at the site, and at 1000 feet AGL (Above Ground
Level — this elevation is the minimum over a populous area), I would
trim the plane for level flight at a thirty degree banking right
turn. Once this was accomplished, my hands would be free to take
photos.

I was easily able to reach the passenger window to
open it, and the air stream was such that once opened, the window
would remain forced against the starboard wing.

I would make occasional adjustments in flight attitude
to get my subject lined up with the open window, or to avoid other
planes (of which there were usually none) — my circling pattern
was also perfect for minding other planes.

Since I was the pilot, the photographer, and the developer,
my first survey produced a profit.

One afternoon I decided to take a long lunch and get
some shots in at The Woodlands, a suburb north of Houston. I was
able to get to the airport, fly from Clear Lake to The Woodlands
(about fifty miles away), shoot four rolls of film, return, and
get back to my desk in two hours.

I was very pleased with myself.

But only minutes after returning to my desk, I received
a phone call. It was an FAA investigator.

The bemused voice said, "Hey, I heard you were
flying at two-hundred feet over The Woodlands!" I'm sure the
patent absurdity of the complaint was intended to put me at ease
— it did. I laughed, and said, "Yeah, I must have been clipping
the branches out there!" I told him what I was doing, and we
continued a friendly conversation. I assured him I was at least
1000 feet AGL, and then assumed the issue was over.

Well, a few weeks later I received another phone call
from the FAA — apparently, someone took a video of my plane as it
was circling. I could just imagine the suburbanite, who obviously
didn't have enough to do: "Martha, just what's that whippersnapper
doin'?"

I told the investigator that, of course, a home video
cannot prove anything because videocams zoom, that is, they have
variable magnification. With no knowledge, record, or proof of the
magnification, there's no way to ascertain elevation.

I also told him that since I was using a telephoto
lens with fixed magnification, the scores of photos I had taken,
in combination with a little high school trigonometry, would prove
that I was flying at no less than 1000 feet.

He informed me that he would arrange a meeting at
the Hobby Airport office — no big deal, just an informal get-together.
He asked if I had an attorney. I told him I didn't, but that I would
get one.

To my extreme good fortune, when I renewed my Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) dues only a few weeks before,
I decided, for the first time, to opt for the legal representation
option.

I called AOPA, and they assigned a local attorney
that specializes in this type of representation. In addition to
being an attorney from a top law school, he was also an Airline
Transport Pilot (ATP — the highest commercial aviation rating).

What I didn't know at the time is that in addition
to being an attorney and an ATP, he was an ordained minister of
a church organization with which I had long been familiar. I didn't
discover his other vocation until I ran into him at a church function
months after the legal matter had been "resolved."

I had always admired this particular organization;
but what is interesting in this context is that this group is particularly
pacifist, passive, and respectful of Caesar's law.

In light of my attorney's unimpeachable integrity
and qualifications, I found what he told me particularly interesting.

He had always told his clients to be up-front and
fully cooperate with the FAA as an act of "good faith."
But, he told me, it had become quite obvious that the FAA now maintained
an adversarial relationship with general aviation.

He was still involved with a case which I believe
changed the way he thought of the FAA for good.

He was representing a man who was both a pilot and
flight mechanic. Initially, the FAA was cordial, and asked if they
could see his records. My attorney advised him that if he had nothing
to hide, to do so. His client complied. As time went on, the FAA
agents' attitudes became increasingly adversarial, the FBI was brought
in to question him, followed by threats to seize his property, after
which they shut down his shop.

I could see the sorrow and helplessness in his eyes
as he recounted the bizarre and nightmarish details.

And here's the corker: they never told the poor
gent why they were investigating him.

I think most folks never really believe that
a government agency would blatantly do illegal or tyrannical things
to ruin an innocent person's life — until it happens to them. The
vast balance of law-abiding citizens assume that where there's smoke,
there's fire.

Nevertheless, this story put the fear of God in me.

My attorney informed me that every pilot has a once-in-a-lifetime
"pass" for dealing with the FAA. Under certain circumstances,
if the FAA accuses a pilot of wrongdoing, he can take the pass —
a "Get out of Jail Free" card, if you will — and the FAA
will absolve the pilot of his sins. I thought this rather odd, but
I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

My attorney advised me not to go this route, since
I had done nothing wrong, but it was nice to know I had the option
as a last resort.

So, the time of the meeting came, and it was indeed
informal, and I presented my evidence.

They were not at all interested. It wasn't that they
were unimpressed with the evidence, they simply didn't examine it.

I was beginning to "get it" — no matter
what evidence I presented to them, they intended to press charges.

It didn't matter that I had done nothing wrong. It
didn't even matter that they knew I had done nothing wrong.

The message was loud and clear — if we get any
more calls we'll take away your license.

I had a certain amount of time to make a decision,
and claim the pass. My disappointed attorney advised me to take
it, and from what I witnessed at the meeting that was the smartest
thing to do. If I went to court, and lost, it could very likely
mean permanently losing my license. I wasn't willing to risk that
— especially since I didn't know to what kind of kangaroo court
I would be exposed.

So, that ended that little business venture.

Not long afterward I was able to witness the more
dim-witted aspects of the FAA and its parent organization, the Department
of Transportation (DOT). I don't remember the catalyst, but due
to "concerns" about airspace control, a "blue ribbon"
panel was authorized under then-DOT Secretary Liddy Dole.

One of the things that they "discovered"
was that over-worked flight controllers were a factor in flight
accidents.

So what did these geniuses do? They dramatically increased
the volume of controlled airspace! What a perfect analogue to Imperial
Overstretch.

Aside from the disreputable and daft aspects of the
FAA, they are like any other government agency — they have to bend
to inane political pressures that all but prohibit them from doing
what's in the best interest of those whom they ostensibly serve.

A competent private security agency hired to protect
its clients is a lot less likely to allow the multicultural zeitgeist
(re: profiling) or the anti-gun lobby (re: pilots carrying guns)
to cloud their judgment — they will simply do what it takes to get
the job done (or be fired), and of course, they'll do it far more
cheaply.

Federalizing
all airport security is not the solution, and I can't think of a
better candidate for privatization than the FAA.

October
18, 2001

Brian
Dunaway [send him
mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

But
it doesn't approach the melodrama embodied by the post-9/11 cover
of National Review: In gigantic bold caps: "AT WAR:
THE FIRST GREAT WAR OF THE 21ST CENTURY BEGAN SEPTEMBER
11" then continues, "seemingly out of the blue. The United
States is a target because we are powerful, rich, and good. We are
resented for our power, envied for our wealth, and hated for our
liberty … continued on page 6." [Cue John Williams theme music.]

I
couldn't help but think of the opening of Star Wars, the
gigantic words scrolling away into space, portending a magnificent
universal battle of good and evil.

Some
of the roles are easy to identify — Jonah Goldberg as young Luke
Skywalker, William F. Buckley, surely, as Obi-Wan Kenobi. Needless
to say, the role of Darth Vader (for this issue) is played by Osama
bin Laden. Perhaps the only honorable character in the cast is Florence
King, playing the troll-ish Yoda. (I think the whole misanthropy
thing is a gimmick.)

From
here it gets difficult — I just can't think of anyone manly enough
to fulfill the role of Han Solo; and judging from the surplus of
hysterical columns I've seen in NR in the last few weeks,
the competition for Princess Leia would be pretty fierce. Actually,
the saucy Ann Coulter might fit the bill — as I recall, Princess
Leia was pretty ballsy. It's just too bad she's on the dark side.

[Update!:
When I wrote the above words, Ms. Coulter had not yet been canned
by NR. Her characterization of the tender stems at NR
as "girlie-boys" was too perfect. The irony of
it all is that what she wrote is no more wacky than anything else
written by the editors or other columnists on the NR payroll.
In fact, if one considers the large doses of obvious hyperbole normally
injected by Coulter, what she wrote was probably not even as bad.
What really makes the label "girlie-boys" stick is that
NR freely posted her column, the contents of which is their
editorial responsibility, then dumped her when the kitchen got a
little hot. That she was let go because of substance or style strains
credulity. Now that's editorial integrity!]

Inside,
front-and-center, is a piece by David Pryce-Jones, where he tells
us "Why They Hate Us": "They are possessed by hate,
a simple thing that reduces everything and everybody to a simple
perspective."

This
is the kind of objective analysis we have come to expect from NR.

NR
Online certainly isn't any better.

Just
days after the attack, Rich Lowry did a hit piece on Powell, called
"Empty Powell," which attempts to make the case that Powell
has no ideas. Right, Mr. Lowry, spoken like a true social worker.
The NR boys must be apoplectic that, for now, Powell appears
to have won the argument.

In
another recent column, Jonah Goldberg tells us that he's "beginning
to believe that the central source of animus from the Arab world
is, quite simply, envy." Wow, except for every single soul
I've seen on the boob tube (which is developing a whole new meaning),
I've never heard that before!

While
the regular contributors at NRO have been developing the
script for The Empire Strikes Back, a parade of guest columnists
have been given the go-ahead.

The
term "war fever" seems somewhat understated when I read
what flows from the pens of normally rational people and fine writers.
David Gelernter, in his 14 September column, wrote, "Their
goals are to create suffering and death. Suffering and death for
their own sakes are what they believe in."

Instead
of the slanty-eyed, demon-faced Japs depicted in WW II propaganda
posters, we're to see nefarious turban-headed darkies with deep-set
eyes. He continues,

Our
ultimatum should read: You have so many hours to turn him over,
or prove to our satisfaction that he’s not in Afghanistan. If
you don’t, we’ll declare war and systematically destroy everything
you own, every building and field, every shop and sheep in Afghanistan,
one by one, until you hand the man over or there’s nothing left.

I
was truly quite surprised at this. I was under the impression that
sheep were highly valued at NR; not only for companionship,
but in the event that the senior editors are called to don their
priestly robes, they have a ready sacrifice for the re-dedication
of the Lincoln Memorial.

No,
"war fever" doesn't do the term justice. But NR
has been toiling in the fever swamps of The American Hegemon for
so long, what else can one expect but an epidemic of the most virulent
agents?

Proof
of the defenestration of all editorial judgment at NR is
abundant, but the coup de grâce has to be from NRO
guest columnist Newt Gingrich.

Don't
get me wrong, I cancelled my subscription to NR years ago,
and haven't broken a binding since. I don't visit NRO, either,
unless I'm referred to it for morbid curiosity.

My
friend came by my desk when I got in, "You need to read this
Gingrich piece on NRO."

Concealing
a heavy sigh, I said to myself, "Do I have to?"

"O.K.,"
I said. My friend returned, "You need to have a drink before
you read it." "Alright." "No, really, you need
to have a drink before you read it. It made me physically ill."

It
was only ten o'clock, and my boss frowns on screwdrivers at the
desk before eleven.

I
scanned the article, and concurred with my friend's assessment.

So,
I thought, it's been a long time since I visited my old haunt, Café
Adobé, so I'll print it out and read it over margaritas.

I've
been going to Café Adobé for twenty years, ever since
it opened. (I once figured out that I've dropped about $20K there.)
Through all this time, it has continued to be the best place in
Houston for people-watching — and what people! Always a very eclectic
crowd, of every stripe, age, and color.

It
was a beautiful Fall day, so I knew I had better get there by four
o'clock (when the upstairs patio, called "The Acapulco Bar,"
opens) to get a table. When I arrived, there was already a small
group of souls at the bottom of the stairs anxiously waiting. Then,
a loudspeaker announcement: "The Acapulco Bar is now open."
Walking up the stairs, I said to the gentleman behind me, "What's
that? — I've never heard that before!" He replied, "Yeah,
it sounds like an Astroworld ride." I agreed, "Exactly
— and I think that's an appropriate analogy!"

I
sat at my usual table — where I could view all the scenery there
was to offer.

I
immediately began to read.

Principles
for Victory

Defeating
terrorism is an enormous task.

By
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, is CEO of The Gingrich
Group.

September
28, 2001 9:15 a.m.

The
attack on September 11 was a 21st century Pearl Harbor committed
by a 21st century enemy, and launched a 21st century war. [Since
we haven't heard from Mr. Gingrich since the 20th century,
he wanted us to know that he knows what century it is. ... Hmmm.
East Asia then, South Asia now -- yeah, I can see the similarities.
Then it was to make the world safe for British and European imperialism,
now to make the world safe for Halliburton. Then, as now, American
citizens were pretty much kept in the dark as to what was being
done in their name. I'm thinking of a line in the movie Pearl
Harbor -- as the Zeroes were flying at low altitude, dropping
bombs, two men run for safety -- one says to the other, "I
didn't even know they were sore at us!" ... A beautiful waitress
with long blond hair comes over. "Frozen, with salt, please.
Thanks." When she returns, I talk to her for a while, she
remembers me from before, she's going to school, etc.]

The
president was exactly correct when he said u2014 We are not about
punishing those who did this one thing. We are about defeating
terrorism. He said in his Texas way, We will “whip” them. “Whipping”
isn’t the same as punishing. “Whipping,” in Texan means defeat.
[At least he knows his audience, who fits
approximately the same demographic profile as those who saw the
film Dude, Where's My Car?]

Secretary
of State Colin Powell at a State Department press conference also
had it exactly right when he talked about the coalition forming
[sic] of nations willing to work
with us, but that we will act unilaterally whenever necessary.
[That's always a splendid diplomatic strategy
for consolidating an alliance.] Our opponents are terrorism
[sic] and the states that support
them. Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon also got it exactly right
when he explained that it is not just the terrorists, nor the
structures, but the states that harbor and protect the terrorists.
[And now Mr. Wolfowitz was been told by
his boss (Mr. Rumsfeld) to pipe down. I am gleeful. ... Holy Cow
-- a gorgeous young thing just came in -- she's passing to my right,
toward the late afternoon sun -- I'm having trouble seeing her
for the glare (the sky contains not a hint of turbidity), and
I'm trying not to be too obvious by covering my eyes. Oh who am
I kidding, at my age I don't care about being obvious ... oh never
mind, she's joining friends at the far side of the patio.]

In
August of 1990, we orchestrated [sic]
28 countries for eight months, put 500,000 American troops in
the field and bombed Iraq for 42 days [I
think it's more like 4200 days] over the invasion of Kuwait
[and never-mind that Iraq was an ally, and
that our State Department gave Saddam its passive assent to grab
the Kuwaiti oilfields]. If that was the appropriate-scale
campaign over the invasion of a distant country, then for the
most powerful nation in the history of the world [he's
so modest], the question is, what is the appropriate-scale
campaign after thousands of American civilians have been killed
in our own cities? It is important to understand this. This is
not about a tiny thing. [O.K, O.K., we get
it.] This is not about a few Tomahawk cruise missile strikes.
This is not about three special-forces teams performing magical
missions. [Actually, every special forces
expert I've heard says that this is exactly what it is, and that
anything else would be futile and disastrous. One SAS type, after
providing a laundry list of dire warnings, was asked "Are
you saying we can't win?" He responded, "We can
win." -- but his expressive eyes seemed to belie his words.
... "Are you a professor?" asks a girl to my left, observing
the text from which I'm reading, which is beginning to look like
a palimpsest under all my mad scribblings. "No, I just play
one on television." Reading at Café Adobé has
begun many a conversation ... The waitress comes by again -- "Yes,
please, another one. Right, with salt. Could you bring some queso
with that? Thanks." I look around and my eyes rest on a large
table of nice-looking people. An attractive young man looks in
my direction, at which time I realize it's more than a friendly
glance. I return a smile that communicates "hello-I'm-actually-a-heterosexual-but-I'm-not-judging-you-and-have-a-good-evening,"
then I return my eyes to my reading.]

Defeating
terrorism is an enormous task. In [sic]
may be closer to the Second World War in terms of scale and complexity
to any conflict since then. [But not to
worry about the scale of casualties.]

In
that context, there are ten principles that will create the potential
for victory. [All of a sudden I feel weary.]

Principle
One: We are at war.

We
have been at war at least since 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
[Finally, something I can agree with.]
Terrorists have been continually killing Americans since then.
[I should have known better -- I thought
he was going to mention something like the sanctions and the almost
daily bombings.] This time terrorists crossed the threshold
of killing enough Americans in our own country that it cannot
be avoided by our political system. [That
is, we can no longer hide what we're doing.]

As
of September 11, terrorists have come into American territory
to use American aircraft to kill thousands of innocent Americans.
That was an act of war more despicable and more costly in American
lives than Pearl Harbor. [Well, at least
this is a lot better than what I've been hearing elsewhere. I
can't tell you how many times I've heard that we haven't been
invaded since 1812 -- I think it kind of depends on who "we"
are (re: 1861).]

We
are at war. We have to defeat terrorism or they will end safety,
freedom, and civilization [don't forget
about democracy!], as we know it. We have no alternative.
We must win.

[A
very pretty girl in her mid-thirties walks onto the patio, accompanied
by two girls in their mid-twenties. I usually try to hold out
for Helen of Troy and her handmaiden, but I usually end up feeling
guilty for taking up a whole table. It was already crowded -- not
a table left -- so I invite them to sit down. I find out that the
older girl is the supervisor of the others, has been trying for
months to get them together for some "bonding." A few
more girls in their mid-twenties follow shortly thereafter. The
waitress tells them that it's restaurant policy that customers
being added to an occupied table must pay in cash. I can't blame
them, it can get pretty complicated -- one night I sat at no less
than five different tables. I later found out that my waitress
once chased down a group of customers that tried to stiff her
eighty bucks, and jumped on the hood of their car -- I was surprised
-- she doesn't look like the type.]

Principle
Two: In wars your enemies are allowed to be clever, courageous,
and determined. [I don't know what this
tortured sentence means.]

On
the Washington Post website there was a headline that read,
"Taliban warns of revenge. Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban warned
of revenge if the United States attacked their country in retaliation
for this week’s devastating terrorist assaults."

Well,
why shouldn’t they? If the Taliban, given the choice of being
on the side of civilization and the side of terrorism chooses
terrorism, and we are so foolish as to only bomb their country,
why shouldn’t they seek revenge? [Didn't
French radicals invent the word "civilization"? Do we
all want to become like snotty Parisian waiters?] When
you go to war, you seek victory, so that they are no longer in
power, so they do not have the power to take revenge, so they
cannot threaten you. Time is always on the side of the evil. [No,
time is always on the side of patience. Evil only fights in desperation.]
It is an important premise of history. Time is always on the side
of evil because they can wait, they can plan, and they can look
for vulnerabilities while the good go about their daily business.
But in order to defeat terrorism, the good have to mobilize for
decisive victory.

[I'm
getting bored with my reading assignment. "This is a beautiful
spot isn't it?", I ask my new friend. "Yes, it's been
such a long time since I've been here." I continue, "I
love the Spanish architecture of St. Anne's church [across the
street], especially as the sun is setting." My eyes move
down to the red Spanish tile roof that covers the first-floor
patio below. "Last year some drunk girl threw a magazine
I was reading on that roof." "What?!", she asked
incredulously. "Yeah, I was sitting in this exact spot —
she had a real attitude problem — and maybe a drinking problem.
Apropos of nothing, she just grabbed it and threw it on the roof.
I considered for quite some time walking out on the roof and getting
it, but I wasn't certain of the structural integrity of the roof
and tiles, and didn't want to come crashing down upon the hapless
diners below — and I also figured it wasn't worth a night in jail.
On subsequent visits to Café Adobé, I would look
out over the roof, and see it still sitting there. Then we had
some rainy weather, but it was still there — a big mushy pulp.
After several months, it finally disappeared." It so happens
that the magazine I was reading was Chronicles, the issue
containing responses to Pat Buchanan's book, A Republic, Not
an Empire (which I also read at Café Adobé).
About six months after this incident, I attended the Second Annual
Antiwar.com conference, and knew I'd be meeting Thomas Fleming,
the editor of Chronicles. I approached him, "Hey,
I'm a subscriber to Chronicles, and I was wondering who
to contact regarding a replacement issue — you see, I was at a
bar and some drunk chick threw my copy on the roof." I received
the expected laugh, and he quipped, "Well, at least she appreciated
what you were reading." … I'm going to need another margarita
to continue this. One rapidly appears before me. (I didn't even
need to ask.) I ask the waitress, "Could you bring a bowl
of refritos?" She smiles, "Well, we're really not supposed
to [because it's not on the upstairs menu], but we can do it just
this once." They've been giving me the same answer for twenty
years, so I play along. "Thank-you so much, you're so
sweet."]

Principle
Three: In war, your vision of success is decisive for the rest
of your achievement. [This is beginning
to sound like a management seminar.]

It
is important for this administration to codify what the president
has said.

In
World War II we picked a very specific goal u2014 unconditional surrender.
[I'm glad he mentioned this, since the concept
of "unconditional surrender" is (or at least was until
recently) considered to be quintessence of barbarity. But regardless
of the vanity and immorality it epitomizes, it just doesn't work.
It didn't work in Germany, it didn't work in Japan, it didn't
work in Iraq, it didn't work in Serbia. It only entrenched the
populace, even those that hated their own governments.]
It was quite clear. We occupied Germany, Japan, and Italy. We
created democracies. [There it is! Democracy!
And we've kept troops there ever since to make sure those funny-lookin'
people keep those democratic systems. A quick note on "democracy":
the word is constructed from demos (people) and krátos
(a fist) -- ancient political scientists didn't think much of it.
And it seems that monarchies (even absolute ones) may lean toward
the benign and freedom-loving, or they may lean toward tyranny.
Democracies, which are created with the promise of "risk-free"
government, always devolve into tyranny, throwing away
freedom for "security." The balance of our great founders
were monarchists ... As the ethanol is starting to take effect,
thinking of the founders in the context of this article leads
me to consider a permanent solution to our energy problems. We
simply harness the energy of the founders who, by my best calculations,
are spinning in their graves at the rate of approximately 146,400
revolutions per second.] The world has been better ever
since. That was a direct goal.

In
the Civil War [The incorrect use of the
phrase "civil war' is instructive. A civil war is a war among
factions for control of the same territory and government. The
War of Southern Secession was fought over the preservation of
sovereign territory (the southern states). The obvious parallel
with current U.S. imperialism is that the U.S. government wants
control of land that is not theirs.], Lincoln chose a specific
very, very hard goal u2014 unconditional victory, and he paid with
more lives to achieve that goal than in any other American war.
[I like the unintended irony of the term
"unconditional victory." In other words, Lincoln didn't
even want "unconditional surrender," he wanted annihilation.]

In
Korea, we tolerated the goal of stalemate because we thought the
geopolitical consequences were too great. We have had troops in
the Korean Peninsula since 1950. Korea has been a long campaign,
this is the 51st year. [Here Mr. Gingrich
entertains us with his mathematics skills -- this is beginning
to sound like a grade school primer. ... It's interesting that when
North and South Korea first started making overtones toward normal
relations, our State Department said, "Hey! You can't do
that! This is our show!" Yes, and those damned North
Korean peasants are still getting to the tree bark! Save
the trees! Send in the Sierra Club! Korea -- what a superb example
of our magnificent foreign policy successes! Just think -- if we
can do that well in Korea, just think how well we can do elsewhere.]

In
Vietnam, we decided that defeat was preferable to the risk of
victory, not that we could not win [God
forbid], but the nation, the body politic [to
paraphrase The Simpsons, isn't "body politic"
the kind of phrase you use when you don't know what you're talking
about?] after a decade of agonizing internal struggle,
decided that defeat was preferable to the cost of victory. [The
hallmark of foreign policy progression: escalation, destabilization,
and futility.]

In
Desert Storm, we arranged a coalition for or [sic]
a limited goal u2014 kick Saddam out of Kuwait and weaken him. That
was a very specific goal. It turned out, in my judgment, in retrospect,
to have been wrong, and I think all of the architects of it would
now agree. [No they don't.] They
thought he would fall as a consequence, an underestimation of
the survival mechanisms of dictators. [It's
the survival mechanism of peoples made desperate and often radicalized
by war.]

It
is vital that we have the right vision. It is not going after
bin Laden, who is trivial in this larger context. [There
are at least tens of thousands of family members of those who
perished in that recent little act of barbarity who might disagree
with you.] It is not going after the specific terrorist
organization that launched the attack in New York. Yes, it would
be useful to know who they are, yes, we should get them, but they
are a symptom of the disease. [Which incubates
under those turbans, right?] If we eliminate them, we will
simply create martyrs. They will be the bin Laden brigade. [Madison
Avenue is now scrambling their talent.] There will be a
new generation of their children who decide to fight us. [So
drop the bomb! Exterminate them all!]

The
only legitimate vision is the defeat and the destruction of the
system of terrorism [Oh, it's the system
of terrorism, not terrorism itself.], and that requires
that we declare terrorism to be a crime against humanity [Dang,
how come no one else thought of that?], just as we did
with piracy [... to the shores of Tripoli!
...], and that we refuse to accept the existence of any regime
which harbors, supports, or protects terrorists. [Well,
that would include us, since our ridiculous immigration policy
"harbors, supports, or protects terrorists." Incidentally,
since there are around a million Moslems living in Chicago, maybe
we should carpet-bomb Chicago? Hell, they'd understand, I'm sure
the windy city wouldn't mind a little "collateral damage"
in the name of freedom.] Anything short of that simply
sows the seeds so that in a few years organized terrorism will
come back.

["Why
are you doing this?", my companion asks, looking down at
my notes. "Because Newt Gingrich is an idiot." I realize
by the expression on her face that she doesn't necessarily question
this, but that she might have expected a less metaphysical answer.
So I add, "Oh, I'm writing something that might be posted
on the web." I tell her that what I'm beginning to realize,
aside from the little amount of thought that was put into this
piece, is how horribly written this is.]

I
was on the National Security Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission
[I wouldn't brag about it], and we
spent three years studying the world of 2025 [That's
right, not in theory, they actually visited the year 2025
-- but unfortunately they spent their whole visit stranded in Sri
Lanka]. Our number one unanimous conclusion by a bipartisan
panel of 14 people was that the most significant threat to the
United States is a weapon of mass destruction going off in our
cities, biological, chemical, or nuclear. [That's
quite a conclusion -- that must have been some brain trust. I'm
glad our money was put to good use.]

We
know today, that Saddam Hussein is willing to accept any level
of sanctions to keep his program for weapons of mass destruction
[You know, this one really bugs me. From
what I've been able to observe, the most educated and best-informed
of U.S. citizens almost invariably assume that the suffering of
the Iraqi people is at the hand Saddam Hussein, and that U.S.
policy is blameless; and treat with a high level of skepticism
a suggestion of anything different. The following questions are
usually a good start at turning that around: If the over 100,000
innocent Iraqis that have died per year for ten years have done
nothing to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and have done nothing
to allow inspections, why are the sanctions still in place? Why
is the coalition of nations that put the sanctions in place falling
apart? Why have three senior UN officials resigned rather than
participate in what they refer as a genocide? If sanctions haven't
affected what the Iraqis need for survival, why did a complement
of the French party Front Nationale (led by Jean-Marie
le Pen) travel to Iraq on a humanitarian mission, which incidentally
was opposed by the U.S. government? Why does former UN weapons
inspector Scott Ritter claim that Iraq has no capacity to manufacture
weapons of mass destruction? Why did he eventually resign in disgust
and protest of these inspections? Why does former Reagan advisor
Jude Wanniski believe that the sanctions wouldn't be lifted even
if the inspectors were let back in? Why do the UN's own officials
cite that vital drugs, painkillers, chlorine and equipment for
infrastructure rehabilitation have been blocked or delayed over
and over again? Why is the Pope against the sanctions? Why is
Colin Powell against the sanctions? Why are the most vocal proponents
for war in the Middle East for the sanctions, and those for peace
against the sanctions?], that Iran has a massive program
underway, that North Korea, while its population is starving despite
being the largest recipient of U.S. food aid in Asia, has a massive
program of weapons of mass destruction.

You
read what these countries are saying [Well,
no, not in the American press.] and you wonder why no one
understood Hitler in the 1930′s [No one?],
just as we don’t understand our generation’s Hitlers [No
one?]. So we have to take their words and their programs
seriously. [Hmmm. That's interesting. I
see bin Laden's lips moving and I hear the translator talking
and I hear words about injustice in Palestine, dying Iraqi children,
and American soldiers profaning holy Saudi soil. Then I hear every
last American journalist, talking head, and politician saying
that "they" hate us for our freedom, democracy, and
fast food. Go figure. "Yes, another one, please."]

Principle
Four: The stakes are enormous.

The
Second World War we understood. [No we didn't.]
Our way of life was threatened. [No it wasn't.]
A world in which the German Nazis [as opposed
to the Newark Nazis], the Imperial Japanese [Damn
those Japs for being imperialists in their own backyard!],
and the Italian Fascists had won would have been a stunningly
different world. Today we face a similar stark choice. There are
principles at stake on two grounds. [I'm
waiting with enraptured anticipation for the revelation of this
brilliant taxonomy.] The first is the very fabric of a
free worldwide economic political structure, the ability to travel,
the ability to have a decent job. Also consider the necessity
in the global economy to have just-in-time delivery where Taiwan
or Thailand or China or Mexico is making something that arrives
at the auto factory exactly on time for production. [For
those that don't understand what "just in time" means.
You know, the more I think about it, "just in time"
delivery truly is the archetype of human civilization -- this cannot
be overstated. Truly, Mr. Gingrich should consider a ghostwriter.
If this is a ghostwriter, he should be fired.] Terrorists
are directly threatening the entire fabric of the world we have
built for the last 60 years. [The entire
fabric of the world in 60 years? -- so long Noah, Abraham,
Moses, David, Aristotle, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Leonardo, Columbus,
Newton ... At this exact moment I've realized the unintentional
wisdom of the friend who suggested alcohol was a necessity when
reading this nonsense. My attitude has been all wrong -- this
stuff is really funny!]

Second,
if we do not defeat terrorism while it is still using conventional
weapons, we will inevitably in our lifetime be faced with terrorism
using weapons of mass destruction. This is a tragic, but providential
warning [Here it is, I knew he was
talking to God through his toaster!], of a much worse future.

Principle
Five: Issue a series of ultimatums. [Now
here's a phrase that one will find in every diplomatic
briefing!]

Sudan
will cease to house terrorists or we will replace the government
of Sudan. The Taliban will cease to house terrorists or we will
we replace the Taliban. [And we won't finish
until we've replaced every government on Earth.] This does
not mean you have to be stupid. [Well, some
of us don't have to be stupid. Where is that ghostwriter when
you need him?] It does not require us, for example, to
decide that we will put seven American infantry divisions in Afghanistan.
It may mean we decide to allocate $3 billion to hire every Afghan
who does not like the Taliban and arm them and then help then
with American firepower. And in less than a year, my guess is
American air power, combined with armed Afghans, would drive the
Taliban from power. [Sounds like a plan
to me!]

Similarly,
in Iraq, we should not do something indirectly with volunteers
as guerrillas. We are the most powerful nation in the world. [That's
right, just keep saying it ...] If we want to eliminate the
regime of Saddam Hussein, we have the capacity to eliminate it.
We did not say, let’s set up a free Japanese guerrilla movement
in 1942. We did not say the OSS could liberate Europe. We said
the OSS is a helpful addition while we land at Normandy and bomb
German cities. [Call 1-800-GHOSTWRITER.
Extraordinary analysis. Yes, that's right, the OSS couldn't have
possibly accomplished the terror-bombing of Dresden, etc., without
the help of bombers. What was the point again? Oh yeah, we
must terror-bomb our enemies.]

This
is a serious nation, and if this is a serious war, then the message
is simple. [The message is: we're serious!]
Saddam will either close down all of his efforts toward weapon
systems of mass destruction, and he will expel all of his terrorists
or we will create a government in Iraq that will agree not [sic]
to do this. [That's the ticket! We should
be able to find a plethora of willing towelheads that will agree
to our terms at the end of a gun barrel! Then we can train them
and support them with money and arms, and they can fight our enemies,
and then ... never mind ... we've already been there.] We must
insist on change, because we now have vivid proof in New York
and Washington of the future if we do not. [Change,
yes. But don't you dare discuss foreign policy!]
The next time it will not be an airplane. The next time it will
be a chemical weapon or it will be a germ agent or it will be
a nuclear weapon. We must take this seriously. [Remember,
we're all serious now] No one should say they have not
been warned by the facts of their own life during the week of
September 11. [We've been warned for years
and years -- article after article, book after book, has been written
about "blowback" -- and if pinheads like you had listened
there probably wouldn't be thousands of people dead right now.
... O.K., it's time for another margarita. I look up, and my pretty
friend is standing up, doing soulful dance moves to a soulful
song. She looks over and winks, knowing that I know she's trying
to be "one of the girls." It seems to be working. When
she sits back down, I whisper "Good job." She whispers,
"I'm trying." I notice that one of the youngstresses
for whom she was performing is looking at my cell phone. It's
all of five inches long, but I know what she's thinking. I guess
that looks pretty big to you, huh?" "Yeah, I was noticing
that." I decide to have some fun with her. "Yeah, it's
three whole years old ... And years and years ago, my parents even
had one that was ten inches long, and weighed five pounds ..."
Then I lower my voice, "And long, long ago, concealed beyond
the mists of antiquity, we used to have phones that had wires
that went into the wall!" She has a good sense of humor --
she mocks, "Reeeeeeally?" Then she adds, "You are
so sweet to let us take over your table like this." I tell
her that "I wouldn't have it any other way."

Principle
Six: To achieve victory we must plan for a coercive, not a consensual
campaign. [... or, "Diplomacy? What's
that?"]

In
a consensual campaign you say, I really wish the Sudanese would
be nice, but they won’t do more than X. In a coercive campaign
you say, anyone not doing X, anyone not doing the minimum we have
set, we will have to replace. [Right, replace
everyone. Haven't we covered this?] So we just need to
know which team you are on, and there are only two teams [Rah!
Rah! Rah!] on the planet for this war. There’s the team
that represents civilization, and there’s the team that represents
terrorism. Just tell us which team you are on because there are
no neutrals. [I'm laughing so hard I'm crying
-- people are beginning to stare.]

The
Swiss banks have to now break their secrecy law to find out everything
we need to know about terrorism, period. If not, we should isolate
the Swiss banks, and they will not be part of the world banking
system. [Oh perfect! That's it --
destroy what is arguably the only working democratic system in
the world! Destroy the crown jewel of the worldwide banking industry!
This is saying a lot, but this may well be the most stupid thing
he's said thus far. Oh, those evil secret banks, which
protected not only the assets of the Nazis, but also the Jews!]
Again and again, across the planet, when the United States is
serious, it is amazing how many people decided that they are on
the side of civilization. [My head is in
my hands, and I'm just shaking my head in astonishment. "Are
you having fun?", she asks. "This is really hilarious
-- read this sentence." She purrs, "Wow ... that's deeeeep"]

This
is not asking permission, this is stating a fact. There are two
scorecards, which scorecard do you want? We are going to replace
the government who choose [sic] the
terrorist scorecard, so if you would like to be on the replacement
list, we need to know it because we have a planning process underway,
and we already have two lined up, and you know if you want to
be third, we need your information. ["Am
I really reading this? Is it me? It seems like the more I
drink, the drunker he gets! You just have to read this
paragraph." She cheerfully obeys. "I really see what
you mean!"]

The
key word is replace, not punish. You do not punish governments
that are dictatorships because they do not care if you kill their
civilians. [This is of course utter silliness.
The Czar of Russia, who once was an absolute dictator, settled
disputes over such things as the ownership of a chicken. That
doesn't make it an efficient or equitable system of government,
but that doesn't make it evil. Hasn't he ever read The Bible?
Or anything?] They do not care if you kill their infantry.
If we have killed 100,000 Iraqis, and it has not replace [sic]
Saddam’s dictator ship [sic] it should
teach us something. [Memo to Goldberg, Lowry:
I proofread for booze. No, really. Will send references.]
Saddam could not care if every Iraqi died, as long as he was the
hero of the myth. We have to talk about replacement, not about
punishment. [We seem to have once again
stumbled onto the thesis of this brilliant work. We shall rule
the world!]

Principle
Seven: The campaign has to be comprehensive. [I
think we've covered this, too. We will eradicate all evil everywhere
always. And to think those ignorant towelheads were offended by
the clarity of such phrases as "Infinite Justice." You
know, Newtie really didn't need to take his other hand out of
his pocket for principles six through ten ... but then again, I'm
really beginning to enjoy this.]

We
should reach out economically, diplomatically, and militarily
to all Muslims who oppose fanatical terrorists. We should offer
the future of a better way of life for every Palestinian who would
like to live in peace and prosperity. [What
manifest hypocrisy. Yes, "a better way of life for every
Palestinian who would like to live in peace and prosperity,"
as long as Jewish settlers can keep bulldozing their homes and
groves, and keep stealing their land.] We should be clear
to every Muslim country that we are not anti-Muslim. We are anti-fanatic,
and we would like to have good relations with every non-fanatic.
It is as important to be prepared to be economically supportive
as to be militarily effective. [That's right,
bread in one hand, a gun in the other.]

One
of the keys to winning the Cold War was the Marshall Plan, which
was at least as important as creating NATO or the CIA or the Strategic
Air Command. We should have a comprehensive understanding that
in this war, we will be the proactive [I
think he's been far under-using the management buzz words]
ally of creating prosperity, and safety and freedom for the entire
Muslim world [but what do we do after
lunch?] that wishes to live in civilization [as
we define it. I'm surprised that NR posted this -- Mr. Gingrich
obviously lacks the required imperial fervor -- after all, only
those that "wish" to live in civilization?].
We will only be coercive and focused on those fanatics who give
us no choice, including governments that give us no choice [like
Switzerland]. It cannot be only a military or an intelligence
campaign. It has to be an economic, military, diplomatic, and
political campaign.

Principle
Eight: The coalition must be the largest willing to support our
plan.

It
is a very important distinction. We cannot write a plan designed
to have a big coalition. We have to write a plan to win and then
recruit to the plan. Countries that are not willing to participate
but also not harbor any terrorists are fine. [This
sentence encapsulates the sum essence, the very breadth and amplitude
of magnanimity of which National Review foreign policy
consists.] This is a passive support we will tolerate.
But, we should not tolerate opposition. For example, Uruguay may
decide they’re not in this fight. That’s fine, as long as they
do not harbor terrorists. [You know, I u2018m
planning a trip to Montevideo to look at bare-breasted beach bunnies
-- if Newt scares them off, I'm going to be pissed.] No
country can harbor terrorists and claim to be out of the fight.
["Aren't you tired of lookin at that?",
my friend impatiently asks. "I'm almost finished, darlin'."
The waitress brings another margarita.]

Principle
Nine: We have to sustain freedom every day. [I'm
disappointed in his resolve -- we have to sustain freedom every
second!]

A
worldwide economic system and a high-speed prosperous free society
are inevitably vulnerable to a deeply committed state-supported
terrorism. It is inevitable. [The key word
is: "inevitable."] Whatever we brilliantly figure
out how to stop this time [sic],
they will study, and they will look for the one thing we have
not figured out because they only have to hit once. [Well,
with respect to say, entry/exit immigration tracking, we already
figured it out, but it was nixed for the sake of multiculturalism
by Sen. Spencer Abraham. The FAA (after 9/11!) has stated that
they will not engage in racial profiling. As Sam Francis has observed,
racial profiling is at least a hundred years old, and is called
... criminology. (E.g., a serial murderer is likely male,
Caucasian, in his twenties.)] They do not have to hit every
day. We have to sustain freedom every day.

It
is unavoidable, if you intend to remain a prosperous, free society,
then [sic] our campaign must be 90-percent
offense and only 10-percent defense. [Yeah,
that's the problem, we've been so darned passive.] Our
job is to root out the terrorists, root out the organizations,
and root out those governments which support them because only
by pursuing evil abroad can we stop evil from entering the United
States. [... and preserve our precious bodily
fluids ... "Another glass of pure grain alcohol and rainwater,
please!"] We cannot ever passively build a system
[You can never passively build
anything -- that's what "passive" means.]
that will stop evil from entering the United States. We can only
slow it down. [That's right -- whatever were
doing wrong, it's irreversible -- we can only leave the most horrible
aspects of it to our children.]

Principle
Ten: We must continuously communicate to the American people and
most people around the world about what it means to be on our
side. [Submit or die.]

This
war will be fought in the age of 24-hour news channels. The powerful
wrenching images of Americans dying on September 11 will gradually
fade as new images are projected on a daily and even hourly basis.
Our opponents will maneuver to maximize civilian casualties in
any American action. The timid and the undecided will seek every
opportunity to explain why we should accept minimal results, be
patient, and avoid aggressive action.

Mistakes
will happen. It is vital that the right explanations and the right
language are available within the news cycle. [The
media must be controlled!] It is also vital that those
words and explanations fit both the American people and audiences
around the world. [The people must be deceived!]

[Dis]Information
campaigns are the decisive campaigns of the 21st century. They
have to be organized, resourced, and led just like any other aspect
of warfare. This campaign to defeat terrorism will only last as
long as the popular support sustains it and that support will
require a substantial continuing information campaign both at
home and abroad. [Or, in other words, when
the people of the United States of America find out what we're
up to, we had better do some freakin' fast talkin' or our heads
(or worse) will be on a stick!]

Former
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States
of America. Second in line for presidential succession. Hard
to imagine. I don't think I want to.

Well,
it's only six o'clock, and there's still plenty of night left …
Wow, you should see the four beauties that just walked out here.

I
sure do love this place — it has even facilitated the discovery
of a much-needed solution.

I've
finally learned how to read National Review: only when drunk,
and only for comedy.

October
12, 2001

Brian
Dunaway [send him
mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

These
are the words spoken by the Member of Parliament, Edmund Burke,
at the advent of the English Imperium.

Following
yesterday's carnage, I've listened in vain among hundreds of television
and radio voices, waiting for words that approach the wisdom of
Burke's.

The
penultimate occupation of the "experts" seems to be encouraging
acts of vengeance against anyone (or everyone), as long as they
have brown skin.

Following
the attack in New York City, the city that reviles John Rocker and
rails against Southern "racism," any midtown or uptown
cab driver with a "towel on his head" was pulled out of
his taxi and beaten. (All the police are downtown, so the rest of
the city is largely unpatrolled.)

This
seems to echo the foreign policy analysis of our nation's brightest
leaders. Among this analysis is the usual flatulence from one of
the neocons' favorite warlords, Robert Kagan. In The Washington
Post, he admonishes Congress to declare war … with someone …
with anyone. He said "It does not have to name a country."

However,
the first priority of the pundits is evidently to discuss security.

During
a web search, I ran across this: "The World Trade Center’s
security program is unmatched by any other commercial or government
building in the U.S. … It is a national model for security."
When I clicked on it, nothing appeared but a blank screen.

Surely
the World Trade Center's "model" security was the perfect
attraction for a hopeless act of terror.

Endless
numbers of experts have crossed the television screen (including
the widely respected Tom Clancy), every one uttering the same dreary
pronouncements: More security, less freedom.

More
security. We all know what that means.

We
can look forward to more government intervention into the lives
of those it purports to represent, and more government intervention
into the lives it doesn't, continuing a vicious cycle.

I
find discussion of security a particularly bizarre obsession in
light of this specific act of barbarity. What were the implements
of this destruction?

Will,
and box cutters.

How
is "security" going to eliminate this kind of threat?

And
compared to this complex feat, which took extraordinary skill and
planning, isn't bio-terrorism a much more simple method?

How
many remember that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was
"unsuccessful"? If the chemical bomb had deployed its
poison properly instead of burning, that attack could easily have
been as tragic as this one, perhaps more so.

And
can anything better prove the folly of "Star Wars" missile
defense?

Ever
since Nimrod created The First State, and the first security system
— the tower that was to reach the heavens and protect his throng
from another devastating flood, man has sought security from The
State.

But
as thousand of years of human history have borne witness, security
is an illusion.

Yes,
we can put bars on the windows, and improve our intelligence, but
what good is "security" in the face of waves of hate and
chaos?

It
reminds me of the fantasy of "the thin blue line." If
some community decides, en toto, not to abide by any rule
of law, no number of police can stop them. I think Los Angeles appreciates
that fact.

And
so it is with foreign relations. No amount of military intervention
or "security" can control all the seething peoples who
hate us.

"For
when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh
upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not
escape."

So
do we just fatalistically throw up our hands? Is hatred of America
an Eastern ontology?

In
recent years there have been no few number of warnings regarding
the linkage of foreign intervention and domestic terrorism, and
the voices have been powerful, but these voices often seem like
voices crying in the wilderness. They have asked, "Will we
soon ask the question, as a result of some horror: u2018Will we ever
feel safe again?'"

Has
anyone been listening? Does anyone remember the Founders' warnings
about "entangling alliances"?

A
gaze across the political landscape does not provide encouragement..

During
the Republican primary debate of 15 Feb 2000, Larry King asked candidate
Bush, "Governor, in what occasion could you describe where
you would use arms?" He answered, "When it's in our national
strategic interests. Europe is in our national strategic interests.
The Far East is in our national strategic interests. Our own hemisphere
is in our national strategic interests. The Middle East — protecting
Israel is in our national strategic interests …" In sum,
there is no corner of the Earth that is not in our national strategic
interests.

King
asked John McCain, "What if it wasn’t? What if it was a moral
question, Senator?" The Senator replied "I just want to
say, it's not that simple. It's not that simple because we are driven
by Wilsonian principles as well as others. There are times when
our principles and our values are so offended that we have to do
what we can to resolve a terrible situation…"

He
actually said "Wilsonian."

During
the Bush-Gore televised presidential debates, George W. Bush proudly
claimed he was an anti-interventionist; though, his own words betrayed
his "non-interventionist" position.

The
moderator listed eight military engagements, asking each candidate
how they felt about them. On Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf,
Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore both enthusiastically
agreed with each intervention. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore both expressed
regret and caution with respect to Somalia. The only exception to
their agreement was Lebanon, which Mr. Gore thought was a mistake,
Mr. Bush did not. (President Reagan himself realized (too late)
the folly of that adventure, and pulled out our troops.)

As
if enough warning wasn't offered before the election, one doesn't
have to look that closely to see that the interventionist policy
of President Clinton is being continued by President Bush.

The
big post-election question was: To whom will the president lend
his ear? The interventionist Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz wing at Defense,
or the less interventionist wing at State? (Supposedly, Mr. Powell
wanted someone other than Wolfowitz in the Deputy Secretary of Defense
slot.) We seem to have received our answer.

Secretary
of State Colin Powell, most recent news reveals, is rumored to be
increasingly pushed out of the inner circle.

Assuming
for a moment that Mr. Bush truly is as non-interventionist as he
claims, he certainly does not have the necessary intestinal fortitude
to counter the predominant Beltway culture, in the Executive and
Legislative branches, who have designs on every corner of the planet.

And
suffer us not to forget the "conservative" press. While
William F. Buckley was still heading up National Review,
he could not tolerate the blasphemy of Joe Sobran — who questioned
the wisdom of The Gulf War — and sent him into the wilderness (or
so he had hoped).

And
things have become much worse. We have the editors of The Weekly
Standard who have been desperately mourning the arrival of The
End of History, so have never seen a war they didn't like. We have
National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg advocating the
virtual colonization of the whole of Africa, etc., etc.

Assuming
he wanted, can Mr. Bush stand against this great tide of "benevolent
global hegemony"? I sincerely doubt it.

I
know a number of right-thinking folks who consider themselves "conservatives,"
but are deceiving themselves into thinking that we have not reached
the nadir of American political discourse. Before the election,
these conservatives believed that they had "found their man"
because some empty suit parrots a very few of their favorite soundbites,
while avoiding an analysis of the symptoms that foretell the decline
and fall of nations.

"Prophesy
not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy
deceits …"

Of
course, I'm not laying all the blame at the feet of Mr. Bush — but
as one president once said, "The buck stops here." The
next time he summons his formidable "brain trust," we
can only hope he asks the right questions, and we can only pray
he listens to the right voices.

The
president, in our hour of mourning told us, "America was targeted
for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity
in the world."

Dead
Wrong — America was targeted because its government diminishes the
freedom of foreign peoples, murders its innocents, is the friend
of its enemies, and whose press participates in the obfuscation
of truth.

What
can be done about terrorism? Nothing.

Nothing
except one thing: America Come Home.

September
14, 2001

Brian
Dunaway [send him
mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

"What?",
my friend asked me, incredulously. "Meters?!"

I
couldn't believe I had committed such an abomination — I had actually
employed the dreaded metric unit for linear measurement.

What
humiliating hypocrisy!

You
see, I am self-designated Keeper and Defender of The English Units
of Measurement (Houston Office).

In
my defense, I had just returned from beautiful Nova Scotia. Perhaps
my guard was down, witnessing Nova Scotian pride, the Gaelic language,
Celtic music, bagpipes, kilts, and endless pubs. ("Halifax
has the greatest number of pubs per capita in Canada!", the
Haligonians claim, which is saying a lot.)

I
also noted the high ratio of Nova Scotian flags (a blue St. Andrew's
cross on a white field) to the Maple Leafs, which is similar to
the ratio of Lone Star flags to the Stars and Stripes found here
in Texas.

Somehow,
when one observes a culture that rich and proud, their use of the
metric system seems not so important. And, once the Maritimes secede,
they'll no doubt revert to the English system.

But
I've always thought the whole push to convert to the metric system
was very intrusive and largely pointless — even as a wee lad in
grade school, aside from being irritated, I sensed something was
being taken away.

It
wasn't until many years later that I learned the metric system was
first implemented by atheist French revolutionaries (talk about
being redundant!).

And
the revolutionaries weren't satisfied with "standardizing"
measurements of space and substance — they wanted to compromise
temporal measurement as well, which gives one a hint as to what
they were really up to (and probably also provides a hint as to
what my grade school was up to — that was way back when schools
could still post the Ten Commandments).

Specifically,
they wanted to "digitize" all forms of temporal measurement,
which included a ten-day week called the "decade."

It
has been observed that the week is the only unit of measurement
(temporal or otherwise) not based on nature. Indeed, the spiritual
implications are manifold:

Remember
the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour,
and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the
LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exod. 20:8-11)

(About
one third of the space dedicated to the first Ten Commandments is
reserved for the Sabbath. It should also be noted that Revolutionary
Policy was in no way deficient in ignoring the other nine commandments.)

There
are also seven "feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations"
(Lev. 23), which outline God's plan of salvation, personally and
universally.

And,
these seven festivals span seven months. The holy year begins on
the first day of the first month (the first yearly convocation is
on 14 Nisan, Pesach, Passover, signifying, among other things,
the payment of our sins in the sacrifice of Christ, Lord of Lords,
head of the Church), but the civil year begins on the first day
of the seventh month (1 Tishri, Rosh Hoshanna, The Feast
of Trumpets, signifying, among other things, the return of Christ,
King of Kings, the eventual head of Government).

So,
the revolutionaries not only completed the brutal murders of the
crown and clergy, but by implementing a decimal temporal system,
they were removing the remembrance of God, and in turn worshiped
nature instead of nature's God.

The
nature and history of the metric system was perfectly crystallized
during a presentation I attended about five years ago. The presenter,
a Ph.D. no less, but an engineer of course, said, "You will
notice that I only use Good Christian Units."

I'm
not certain how literal he was intending to be, but one thing is
certain, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of that phrase.

Just
a few months ago I was submitting a few technical papers for an
international conference, when one of the conference organizers
reminded me to employ metric units whenever possible (it's often
extremely impractical to use metric units). Well, I laid the whole
Good Christian Units thing on him, and told him that I intended
to report values in English units, but would include the Pagan Units
in parentheses. (He laughed heartily, fortunately.)

Of
course, The Constitution does allow the Federal Government
to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Certainly
among the primary motives was to remove hindrance to free trade
among the (sovereign) states. But why not the English standard?

I
understand the theory (and simplicity?) behind the metric system,
but frankly, I just don't see the technical benefit in most applications.
But, there are notable exceptions.

For
example, the Systeme Internationale (SI), which is an "improvement"
and expansion of the metric system, has its useful aspects. From
personal experience, I can affirm the SI chemical naming convention
is very useful in conveying the exact structure of a molecule.

Even
so, I really don't see the point in calling a commonly known substance
such as TNT (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) by any other name. If I remember
my organic chemistry correctly, the SI name would be 1-methyl-2,4,6-trinitro
benzene. But, I don't believe you would accomplish the desired level
of terror if you told someone they had better think twice about
messin' with ya u2018cause your packin' 1-methyl-2,4,6-trinitro benzene.

(Hmmm
… maybe the SI form actually is more intimidating; nevertheless
I'll bet he'd cold-cock you before you ever got the name out.)

Having
qualified my disregard for the metric system, I believe many have
misinterpreted the big goof regarding the mix-up of units associated
with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Mars Climate Orbiter.

It
was stated that "the u2018root cause' of the loss of the spacecraft
was the failed translation of English units into metric units in
a segment of ground-based, navigation-related mission software."
Well, yes … and no.

I
believe the real underlying cause is more cultural — engineers tend
to be more "conservative" (of the many hundreds of engineers
I've known, I've met maybe one that strayed far from
political conservatism), while (egghead) scientists tend to be more
"progressive." Thus, in general, engineers, like those
more likely to be found developing the navigation software, prefer
English units, and (non-engineer) scientists, like those more likely
to be found at JPL, prefer the metric system.

(It's
difficult for me to consider scientists in the field of astronomy,
like the late Carl Sagan, without remembering Swift's Laputians:
"Their heads were all reclined either to the right or the left;
one of their eyes turned inward, and the other directly up to the
zenith. Their outward garments were adorned with the figures of
suns, moons, and stars …")

I
would also like to add: In the first chapter in the first course
of any engineering curriculum are lessons in: conversion of units!
It's not that difficult — this is not rocket science!

This
incident says much more about project management than it does about
universal standards of measurement. (They did say they were
squeezed for time, money, etc.)

Now,
aside from the blasphemous and nihilistic aspects of the metric
system, forcing these units upon the populous is just plain silly.

For
starters, many of these units of measurement don't mean anything
to the vast majority of us. I've known how to convert from degrees
Centigrade to degrees Fahrenheit for a quarter-century, but I can't
tell you how many times I've said to myself after watching a European
weather briefing: "So, what's the real temperature?
Let's see … 23 C is … 1.8 times 23 … which is about 41 … plus 32
… Hey it's 73 degrees outside!"

Also,
since weather briefing temperatures and dew points are almost always
reported in integer numbers, and since degrees Centigrade are 80%
larger than degrees Fahrenheit, the values will always be 80% more
coarse when reported in Centigrade rather than Fahrenheit.

And
Pascals as a unit of pressure? Gimme a break. Yeah, 101,325 Pascals
is soooo much better than 14.7 lbf/in2.
(Poor Blaise Pascal — of course he deserved the honor to have a
unit of pressure named after him, but I have to wonder how thrilled
he would be to be associated with the Atheist System of Units.)

Plus,
I can just imagine the scene at the National Weather Service after
converting to the metric system, as the first killer hurricane of
the season bursts into the Gulf of Mexico: "Hey, this system
has sustained winds of 76 meters per second … is that bad?"

On
top of the cultural, comprehension, and safety issues, one of the
first things that crosses my mind when someone discusses converting
to the metric system is the nightmare it would be to convert (more
likely replace) billions of scales, meters, etc., costing
untold billions of dollars!

This
kind of conversion might be practical for Swaziland (though I doubt
it), but certainly not for us.

Anyway,
I've always suspected that the desire to convert to the metric system
was deeply Freudian — due to either anal-retentiveness or the insecurities
of short-changed bureaucrats who would like to measure in centimeters
instead of inches.

So
what's wrong with having more than one standard? One based on long-held
traditions and history, the other(s) employed by science, when it
so wishes?

Yes,
it is always a challenge to determine whether any given government
is more evil or more stupid.

A
superlative example is the saga of Steven Thoburn of Sunderland
and Peter Collins of Sutton, the English cause celebres who
have been dubbed "Metric Martyrs."

For
those unfamiliar with the story, the EU passed a law prohibiting
the sale of goods in anything other than metric measurements. Mr.
Thoburn (as well as other greengrocers) thought (first mistake)
that since many of his customers would be uncomfortable with the
new standard, a proper solution would be to install a scale that
weighed goods in both metric and Imperial units. Mr. Thoburn was
even so thoughtful as to price his items using both systems of measurement.

Ah,
but his thoughtfulness earned him the wrath of the local Procrustean
officials, so they prosecuted poor Mr. Thoburn. The judge said that
the case should never have been brought before him, commented how
hard-working and decent Mr. Thoburn is, but said his hands were
tied.

The
prosecution (not including an appeal) cost Sunderland taxpayers
over $110,000, and his defense cost over $50,000 (raised through
donations).

(For
tons (Imperial, not metric!) more on all of this, visit http://www.bwmaonline.com.)

The
words of Mr. Thoburn, before judgment was passed, are plaintive:

All
I did was sell a pound of bananas to a woman who asked for a
pound of bananas — what’s wrong with that? … I wake up at
night in a panic and try to work out how we got to this state
and how my mates and I could find ourselves persecuted for doing
nothing more than selling fruit and veg. It’s a nightmare from
a sci-fi horror movie and we’re living through it right here
in England.

Well,
it's a "sci-fi horror movie" that George Orwell and Aldous
Huxley would have sadly recognized.

Next
thing you know they'll be dragging Mr. Thoburn off to The Hague
for a show trial, citing Crimes against Humanity. But of course,
they'll first need to set up the International Criminal Tribunal
for The Former England.

You
know, that Old Tyrant King George is beginning to look like a dream
compared to Tony Blair — at least George didn't sell his subjects
into European slavery!

There
are many of us that wish you well, Mr. Thoburn.

I
lift my glass to you … would someone please pull me a pint?

August
22, 2001

Brian
Dunaway [send him
mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Four
score and seven hours ago, I had some interesting things to say.

And,
as many as the number of hours that have passed I had points to
make on the subject of the Sobran-Jaffa (and, uh, Kemp) debate.
But, as I suspected, as I survey this weekend's postings, 96.6%
of these points have been made.

Alack!
Childhood admonitions regarding my procrastination bubble to the
surface.

Nevertheless,
I did indeed just return from a trip, and am about to depart for
another, and I had to complete my taxes, and there's a hurricane
in the Gulf of Mexico. Really!

But
enough of my excuses.

It
would be very difficult to add to the erudition of the past three
and some days. Truly, I celebrate that these points are made so
freely, responsibly, and eloquently — which reminds me of a recent
incident.

Not
long ago when visiting a friend of mine and his family living in
the far reaches of The Empire, we were discussing the history of
tyranny and the like, so naturally Abraham Lincoln entered the conversation.

Well
it so happens that, some time prior, his wife had entered into a
“discussion” with a female member of her church – we'll call
her The Church Lady. Now of course, since my friend and his family
attend A Good Christian Church, The Church Lady was in agreement
with all points of The Received Text of The Civil War.

To
boot, it turns out that the father of The Church Lady was an historian.
But despite the fact that The Court Historians print history like
The Court Economists print legal tender, it sounded as though my
friend’s wife more than held her own, and felt pretty fired up about
it.

She
said that The Church Lady seemed ready to Lay on Hands to heal her
errant Sister in The Lord. She said, “I'm just fortunate to have
a Southern Boy for a husband!”

Well,
of course she is, but I immediately had the following thought:
She should also be thanking Lew Rockwell.

I
probably first heard something other than The Received Text from
Mel Bradford, then Pat Buchanan, and later in the pages of Chronicles,
but it's difficult to even begin to assess the impact of a web site
like LewRockwell.com.

I
have passed along many, many articles from LewRockwell.com
(a great many of those regarding the "Civil War") to my
friend (and others), at least some of which I know in turn were
passed along to his wife. It was very satisfying to see the results
of this work.

In
addition, LewRockwell.com has become quite a reference volume.
There's a whole lot one can learn by clicking on that button: "Search
lewrockwell.com." This Very Average Reader uses it as a resource
quite often.

Now,
I will make the very difficult attempt to not rehearse what others
have already said about this most immediate debate.

First,
I would like to respond to Jaffa's ad hominem attacks on
Sobran.

Ad
hominem attacks, generally, and charges of racism, specifically,
seem to be the favorite of Straussians, Neocons, and other Leftists.
And oh please help me they're always the same. Here's Jaffa
playing the race card:

The
head and front of Sobran's indictment of Lincoln is that he
"launched a bloody war against the South, violating the
Constitution he'd sworn to uphold." This is the kind of
wild and mindless assertion that those of us in this business
associate with unreconstructed Confederates, and old line politicians
of the Jim Crow South.

Oh
dear — unreconstructed Confederates and old line politicians of
the Jim Crow South — we all know what that means!

I
particularly like "unreconstructed Confederates." I would,
in fact, take that as a badge of honor. But Jaffa shouldn't fret
— our re-education camps (The Public School System) are far more
successful than even Pol Pot could have dreamed. If only he'd had
a little more patience and a little more time.

But
this from Jaffa I found incredibly ironic,

To
understand [colonization] however requires some historical imagination
— putting oneself in the place of someone in an earlier age
— something Sobran seems unable to do.

Someone
as I, who has never met Harry Jaffa or Joe Sobran, can only attempt
to know them by what they say and write (notwithstanding the necromancers
and diviners that discern the unspoken thoughts of those long since
passed).

Here's
a Jaffa quote from Sobran's 20 April 2001 column: "Never, perhaps,
since the drama that began in Bethlehem, had someone risen from
so low an estate to play so high a role in deciding the fate of
mankind." And another: "And Never since Socrates has philosophy
so certainly descended from the heavens into the affairs of mortal
men."

This
goes well beyond hyperbole. Are these the words of a responsible
historian?

On
the other hand, we have Joe Sobran. What has always struck me about
Sobran is his even-handedness, his abundant honesty and fairness,
and his ability to capture the many facets of any human being. His
descriptions never appear flat — and they always seem to
ring true.

Sobran's
18 July 2001 column on Margaret Mitchell's novel Gone
With The Wind is a good example. Sobran calls it "The
Great American Novel," but says "Gone With The Wind
is anything but a glamorization of the Confederacy; just the opposite."

Even
more revealing is Sobran's 29 June 2001 column:

In
my recent columns and speeches on Abraham Lincoln, I've several
times repeated the story that in 1861, shortly after taking
office, Lincoln issued an order for the arrest of Chief Justice
Roger Taney. If true, it's one of the most high-handed acts
of any American president.

Now,
to my chagrin, this story has been called in question. Mr. Joseph
Eros of New York City has done some intense research, and he
finds it very dubious.

Now
there's an honest historian for you! (Sadly, this should
not be that remarkable.)

Anyone
that has read Sobran's work could not help but be impressed at his
ability to "[put himself] in the place of someone in an earlier
age." And, I might add, it's impossible to do if one is an
ideologue.

Now,
David Dieteman and others know vastly more than I about contracts
and rights, but This Humble Reader has a few things to add. Jaffa
writes:

Consider:
marriage is a voluntary agreement, or contract, between a man
and a woman. Prior to the marriage, each is free to contract
alliances with other parties. After marriage, they are entitled
to no such freedom. To say that a partner in marriage can end
the union, and co-habit with another partner, is in effect to
deny that there ever was a marriage at all … Under the law of
contracts, obligations freely undertaken can never be disavowed
unilaterally.

This
is a terribly odd argument. Isn't he making our argument for us?
That is to say, all contracts are contingent upon both parties
adhering to the contract, aren't they? Isn't that the point, that
the government of the United States, among other things, imposed
absurdly disproportionate taxes upon the South? From The Declaration
of Independence:

…
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government …

That
seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Even
The Lord God Almighty enters into contracts in like manner:

If
ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall
yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their
fruit … But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do
all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes,
or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all
my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will
do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption,
and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause
sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your
enemies shall eat it … [Lev. 26:3-4,14-16]

Well,
you get the idea.

And
of course, even the Mosaic Law allowed for the dissolution of marriage
— would He allow the dissolution of the most critical form of human
government, but not lesser forms (which radiate outward from man
and wife)?

It
appears that the Straussians still believe that The Declaration
of Independence is The Founding Document of United States Government.
(You might even say that Lincoln was a Straussian before being a
Straussian was cool.)

But
I'll play along. Regarding rights and equality, Jaffa states that

Lincoln
… believed that all men are created equal, and that because
of this, the just powers of government are derived from the
consent of the governed … In nothing was greater perfection
to be sought than in having the American people understand that
the rights for whose vindication they fought in the American
Revolution were rights they shared with all men everywhere —
that there were no "inferior races."

It
is so profoundly obvious that Jefferson was not speaking to some
kind of genetic equality, but to English Rights under
The Law.

If
Jaffa had only read down a little further in The Declaration of
Independence:

[The
King] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Does
this sound consistent with the egalitarian blather of Jaffa?

And
oh yes, it was Merciless Yankee Savages "whose known rule of
warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and
conditions."

Was
there ever a person with less revolutionary spirit than Edmund Burke?
Yet, he abhorred The Revolution in France, but sympathized with
United States independence. Why? On the basis of English Rights
under The Law.

Is
it credible that the colonies had a legal and moral right to secede
from a state that had evolved for millennia, but not a confederation
of states whose constitution had existed for only three-quarters
of a century?

One
final point: Jaffa took great exception that Sobran accused Lincoln
of "violating the Constitution he'd sworn to uphold."
Of course, this can be taken in the context of the North or the
South.

In
the North, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, instituted the
draft (followed by draft riots), jailed tens of thousands of dissenters
without due process (including the mayor of Baltimore, a Maryland
congressman, various editors, etc.), centralized the bank, instituted
the income tax, etc. (Thanks to Karen De Coster, et al., for much
in this list.)

And
those were the people he liked.

In
The First War of Humanitarian Intervention, he gave the modern world
the gift of Total War, targeting (murdering and starving) civilians,
including women and children. This is considered a war crime in
the context of the modern nation-state. (Read "small nation-states
only.")

Then
there was Reconstruction …

Before
closing, I feel I must say a few kind words for Jack Kemp, since
no one else has had anything to say about him at all.

Indeed,
even though the original debate (in this most recent branch) was
ostensibly between Kemp and Sobran, I do believe he was quoted not
even once during this entire exchange. Even Professor Jaffa only
mentions Poor Jack in the first paragraph, then lists his own books,
over and over and over …

But
to be fair, Kemp shares a lot with The Great Emancipator. I remember
someone once saying that Kemp knew a lot about race relations. After
all, the speaker shared with us, "Jack has taken showers with
more black men than most of us have shaken hands with."

(I
believe Jack belonged to some kind of athletics club.)

This
was about the same time that Kemp was telling us all about Free
Enterprise Zones. I didn't attend any rallies, but I can only imagine
the enraptured faces of the welfare bums as he shared his Vision
of The Future.

Perhaps
he is sitting peacefully at home. I wish him well and hope he's
having many Great Thoughts.

August
7, 2001

Brian
Dunaway [send him
mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

This is the first time I’ve sat down to watch anything on MTV, which I understand is one long commercial. And yes, as I was nearly universally assured, The Osbournes was rather funny. That is, the idea is inherently funny.

How can it not be? A man who is filthy rich via his role as principal echo-chamber of the most sensationally nihilistic elements of our so-called culture seems to have the same problems that virtually every middle class father has — he can’t hook up the DVD player, his kids won’t listen to him, his pets are sick, etc.

But I get the joke. I’ve seen it once, and I predict that will be just about it for me.

Hearing bleeped-out expletives every other word ceases to be entertaining rather quickly, even in spite of the rich tapestry of personalities that comprise The Osbournes.

Don’t get me wrong — there is far, far worse television programming than The Osbournes; and I don’t think that Ozzy Osbourne’s Birmingham “working class values” could stomach most of what’s currently served on television. I can imagine him scrunching up his face when approached with any number of the repulsive scenarios that are common fare on network television sitcoms, just as he does when he’s served what he apparently considers the next alien course of the fancy dinner to which he is obviously unaccustomed.

But in many ways it typifies television programming, whose exact purpose is to celebrate mediocrity in the face of the culture of self-esteem. Why read a serious book with exceptional protagonists and complicated moral decisions when you can turn on the tube for reassurance: we’re really all the same, aren’t we?

But, if Viacom wants to pay the Osbournes twenty million dollars for two more years of this, and if their marketing wizards want to capitalize on it, and if there are enough Western Minds who want to watch it, they can all knock their lights out.

But surely our lofty leaders in the press and government are different — right? Exhibit A is an invitation for Ozzy Osbourne to attend the 2002 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner as the guest of the great legal mind Greta Van Susteren.

At what might be called “Mr. Osbourne Goes to Washington,” Jennifer Harper of The Washington Times noted:

He was rude. He was endearing. He swore, he mumbled, he stood on his chair. Mr. Osbourne inspired huge amounts of appreciative prose in the aftermath from journalists giddy over pomp, circumstance and studied misbehavior.

Not all were enthralled:

Mrs. Cheney was “embarrassed” over the fact that Washington’s power elite rose on its hind legs to laud Mr. Osbourne, now the focal point of a bizarre but engaging cable TV show, and still a working musician.

“He’s hardly someone to be applauding — not a role model,” Mrs. Cheney was heard saying, at least according to Mr. Drudge, who also attended the soiree.

It is truly mystifying how grown people, especially the ostensible elite of the free world, can treat a man like Ozzy Osbourne as Elvis Presley. But then again, I don’t understand grown people treating Elvis like Elvis, either.

And to be sure, watching the program is one thing, but acting like bobby-soxers is another.

But I’m just as mystified at Mrs. Cheney’s response. She thinks Washington parasites are good role models?

And why wouldn’t they celebrate a television icon as their own? Aside from perhaps relating their own mediocre skills to Mr. Osbourne’s, why would they not celebrate the true god of leftist ideology, Mediocrity, with its cosmology that none can be happy until all are equally ignorant, equally base, and equally decadent?

But surely poor Mr. Osbourne was way out of his league — no one can out-Goth the Gothic Ghouls inside the Beltway.

Main Street America was not as thrilled as the attendees, but I don’t believe in this case the president should be faulted for being polite:

Reaction to Mr. Osbourne’s Washington debut was darker on talk radio, with some listeners expressing their disappointment in President Bush’s recognition of Mr. Osbourne from the podium.

To be honest, Mr. Bush was just being friendly. If someone thought inviting Mr. Osbourne was in good taste, what’s Mr. Bush to do? Besides, when Osbourne managed to get Bush’s attention by yelling to him “You should wear your hair like mine!”, I thought the president’s reply was pretty funny: “Second term, Ozzy!”

If one wants to fault Mr. Bush for lack of propriety, how about when he was Texas governor, in 1997 he honored ZZ Top by naming 15 May “ZZ Top Day in Texas.” Yes, I know I’m impossibly old-fashioned, but I just think it’s not quite right for the governor of Texas to honor a band whose greatest hits include “Tube Snake Boogie” and “Pearl Necklace.” And to be sure, ZZ Top highlighted the “The Best Little Ball in D.C.” on inauguration day.

It doesn’t make the president particularly wicked, it’s just a sad sign of the times.

“Oh, the Republicans need to lighten up and follow their leader and realize that entertainment is entertainment,” said conservative activist David Horowitz, also by phone. “Any kid who has good core family values can listen to Ozzy Osbourne and just be amused.”

Of course, there is a kernel of truth to this. The first rock album I ever bought was by Black Sabbath, and I seem to have turned out alright. (Or did I?)

But one would think that Mr. Horowitz of the Center for the Study of the Popular Culture would have a different view. He has spent much time and effort railing against the depraved Clinton.

Well, specifically because of what our children “learned” about oral sex from the president, and from the generally cavalier approach to the “scandal” from the popular culture, there is an epidemic of oral sex even among very young teenagers who have about as much respect for themselves as Monica Lewinski. But wait, isn’t Monica Lewinski a successful spokesperson now?

And who was talking about “kids” anyway? The staggering aspect of this story is that it was not kids who were behaving like kids but the “elite” who attempt to control our minds and lives!

For a little perspective, they might listen to Mr. Osbourne: “I’m not proud of taking drugs … biting the heads off rodents … I’m just an ordinary guy.”

Well, let’s just say not extraordinary. And who would have thought otherwise? Apparently, quite a few folks in Washington — with perhaps the exception of Mrs. Cheney, whom commentator Bill Press said was the “fuddy-duddy” contingent.

But alas, Mrs. Cheney didn’t stick to her guns, lest she be seen as “morose and authoritative”:

Reports of Mrs. Cheney’s offense are greatly exaggerated, however.

“This is all untrue,” said a spokeswoman from Mrs. Cheney’s office yesterday. “I don’t know where this report came from. She never made any comments about Mr. Osbourne at all.”

Mr. Drudge remains adamant.

Who can blame her? Certainly anyone, that is, anyone, who acknowledges the concept of propriety in any context is a prig. Even if the prig in question is widely observed to be correct, they’re nevertheless a prig for saying it, even in good humor. (I will no doubt be called a prig for writing this column.)

And we wonder why simple manners, much less “core values,” are not being passed down from one generation to the next?

How does this happen? In this exchange from The Republic, Socrates and Plato recognize a social inversion:

… the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect nor reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and the metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.

… And these are not the only evils … there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loath to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.

This pretty much sums up the predominant cultural, intellectual, and political environment in The West.

Why?

There are those who have better manners, but are afraid to speak, perhaps because they don’t know who they are. But if they do know, and still say nothing, their sins are far greater than those of the young and ignorant to whom they pander, and of whom they are so afraid.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

LewRockwell.com needs your help. Please donate.

As hard as that might seem to top, it has become evident that The Therapeutic State has devised a plan for an injection of national self-esteem so magnificent that it will last us centuries.

The events of the last few months have been quite convincing that the current “crisis” will be the catalyst for what is becoming The Perfect War.

What is The Perfect War, from the perspective of The State? It is simply that which is the opposite of what a patriotic people desire. If war is necessary for their defense, The People want closure, they want a war that will minimize the loss of life, treasure, and time.

So in short, The Perfect War is perfectly indefinable, ineffective, and unresolvable. It is open-ended, perfectly consuming every resource of humanity, substance, and productivity.

How does one design The Perfect War? Let’s examine the most recent evidence.

I Will Return! … Again … and Again and Again …

Above all else, the definition of mission success must be sufficiently vague. For example, phrases like “make the world safe for democracy” or “defend freedom and all that is good and just in the world” or “root out evil wherever it appears” do quite nicely, especially since they properly convey the omnipresent characteristic of Empire.

But if one gets trapped into defining mission success (someone might ask, but don’t hold your breath), there’s no need for alarm that one was compelled to do so. If at some later time the definition of mission success becomes inconvenient, simply change the definition.

For example, the majority of American people considered “success” as the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. But, in slapstick comedy worthy of Charlie Chaplin or The Marx Brothers, Mullah Mohammed Omar escaped The Supreme Force of the Western World on a rickshaw. (Rumors are that they’re getting closer.) And of course, Osama bin Laden also escaped (perhaps by canoe).

So, when it appeared they would not be found, at least in the near future, our government immediately moved the propaganda campaign away from “chasing the shadows” of bin Laden and Omar, and toward conducting the War on Terror elsewhere. This is the real reason for discussions of imminent attacks on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, The Philippines, etc., not because of any serious perceived threat.

And since the parameters of success can be recomposed any number of times, The Perfect War is self-propagating and self-perpetuating.

American military ubiquity will not hinder the creation of future military conflicts. Since the United States has troops in around 160 nations, and al Qaeda has terrorist cells in around 60 nations, the uselessness, at best, of American military presence is manifestly seen.

And, it’s obvious there’s no time frame for departure, because, in fact, we never leave any place where we set foot. Have we left the Balkans? Of course not. We haven’t even left Germany and Japan. Or for that matter, we never really left The Philippines — and we’re returning with greater force to fight the same Moslem Filipinos (who have only the most tenuous connection to al Qaeda) we fought over a hundred years ago.

With an amorphous and atemporal definition of mission success, our government ensures an infinite regression of conflicts in space and time. What more could The State want than an everlasting international blood feud?

Martin Luther, Call Your Office

When American soldiers were captured in Vietnam, they were threatened with torture. According to the film Return with Honor, they asked their captors, in light of their rights under the Geneva Convention as prisoners of war, “How could this be?” The reply was, “What war?”

This seems to be the same line of reasoning that Bush & Co. have employed with respect to The War on Terror. In The Perfect War, it would seem that the manipulation of language is the preferred modality for razing the rule of law, and you can’t run The Empire until you’ve done so.

In what makes Newspeak sound like Clearspeak, our government wants to conduct a thing called a “war” on “terror,” and it’s a “war” because it’s been declared by Congress against those who support “terror” or harbor “terror” or know about “terror” or think about “terror”; but if the nation-state is sufficiently old and/or powerful, by definition the nation-state cannot commit “terror,” though these activities are sometimes called “terror,” e.g., “Le terreur,” Dresden “terror-bombing,” etc., which is not the same as a “war on terror,” and is certainly not a “war” against the Afghani people or other passers-by, who are the victims of “war,” except not “terror,” because it’s actually “collateral damage”; but to be sure, the “combatants” are “illegal,” because they don’t dress right and they didn’t properly “declare war,” but we did “declare war,” even though we don’t always, but we always dress right; anyway, the “illegal combatants,” which are now “detainees,” were not accorded rights under the Geneva Convention as “prisoners of war,” because it’s not really a “war,” even though we declared it, but it’s just called a “war”; but our government changed their minds, and now the Taliban “detainees,” who didn’t “declare war,” would receive treatment as “prisoners of war” consistent with the Geneva Convention, but not al Qaeda “detainees,” who did declare “holy war” on the decadent West, but that’s not real “war,” but still, neither Taliban nor al Qaeda “detainees” will be treated as “prisoners of war.”

That sounds pretty clear, doesn’t it?

United States citizenship does not seem to make one immune to this mercurial rule of law. One may have no special sympathy for John Walker, but he is an American citizen, and thus is presumably accorded legal rights as such.

Once wounded and captured, Walker was by all reasonable accounts denied medical treatment for serious wounds, denied adequate food and water, escaped intentional incineration and drowning (those not able to stand died), threatened with more torture and death, etc., and finally was not told that legal counsel had been arranged for him by his parents.

If anyone needed a comprehensive medical plan, it’s Mr. Walker. Where’s Hillary Clinton when you need her?

Under the law, this is an innocent man, and somewhere during this ordeal his identity became known.

But what’s in store for more ordinary citizens? The USA PATRIOT Act gives us ample indication. The Act defines “terrorist association” as any criminal activity that may “relate” to supporting terrorists, and “terrorist activity” as any criminal activity that “participates” in “World Markets” that terrorists may use or depend on for their support.

What does this mean? The environment that this creates is evidenced by the disgusting Super Bowl commercial that equates using drugs with being a terrorist. And speaking of drugs, why would The War on Terror be any different than The War on Drugs? Perfectly innocent people are routinely jailed and all their possessions confiscated for the sin of crossing the path of a drug user. Isn’t The War on Terror likely to be far worse?

Our Great Protector of The Rule of Law, Attorney General John Ashcroft, told the nation, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists.”

This is a chilling statement from the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. This is not indicative of a nation that enjoys the rule of law.

President Bush declared that “No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.” Indeed.

But one doesn’t have to connect too many dots to realize that aiding and abetting terrorists can be defined in virtually any way, context, time, and place — and that no one is immune from that midnight knock on the door.

War Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry

The Perfect War cannot be conducted if there is any significant resistance to it.

But the solution is simple, and The State has devised The Perfect Culture that has the same self-propagating and self-perpetuating characteristics as its war abroad.

The Therapeutic State continually informs The Culture of all the awful things The Culture has done (and is still doing), and thus fills it with self-hatred. But as The State creates the psychological pathology, it provides the psychological remedy. As partners, The State and The People set sail in The Campaign of Goodness, fighting Worldwide Evil. In the president’s recent address, he provides an example:
The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free, and are part of Afghanistan’s new government, and we welcome the new Minister of Women’s Affairs, Dr. Sima Samar.
Yes, there’s nothing
that can’t be accomplished by a social worker.

In The Perfect War, our government heralds its great concern for the human rights and freedoms of all peoples; except their own, of course, because both The State and The People agree that they don’t deserve it, lo, The People cannot be punished enough. Or in the case of “conservatives,” because of their manliness, they don’t really want it at all. One would suppose that “conservatives,” who by nature of their name, would defend the rights laid down by the Founders. Nevertheless, they roll their eyes at the mention of the loss of rights and freedom, because you see, they know that, as pragmatists, they alone have the capacity to “do what must be done.”

But to be certain, wherever we tread abroad, human rights abound. Human rights in Afghanistan have risen to spectacular heights.

Burkas have disappeared, though some still voluntarily wear them — they have yet to be indoctrinated in less modest Western dress. But not so Afghanistan’s new leader, Hamid Karzai. Gucci’s creative director Tom Ford is said to have described Karzai as the world’s “most chic man.” When such things are offered for public consumption, it demonstrates the absolute proof that The Campaign of Goodness is just and fruitful.

Less reported are other great strides in civil justice of which the average American would surely approve. Stonings are still the preferred method for adultery, for males and females (no hypocrisy here — NOW must have already made great inroads in Afghanistan), but Judge Ahamat Ullha Zarif has told Agence France Presse that they now will use smaller rocks. Also, “the Taliban used to hang the victim’s body in public for four days. We will only hang the body for a short time, say 15 minutes.”

Perhaps they need more time to come up to sacred Western standards.

It looks like the Balkans could use a little more time as well. The Kosovo Liberation Army — in case you forgot your playbook, those are our al Qaeda terrorist drug dealers — are busy ethnically cleansing Kosovo of Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, Turks, etc.

But see, that’s the beauty of it all — no one is paying any attention. In the age of information saturation, attention flits to and fro at the speed of an electron. So the ephemeral Seeds of Goodness do not have to bear much fruit or for very long, because the press is never around long enough to notice. They have better things to do, like aid The State in continuing The Perfect War.

You Supply the Picture, I’ll Supply the War

Yes, speaking of the press, The Perfect War could not be complete without a Fourth Estate who will submissively look the other way.

One often hears of the revolving door between the military industry and government, but it seems the lines between The State and The State Press are becoming increasingly blurred.

The Weekly Standard has elevated this haze to an art form. For example, once David Frum tired of writing for the Standard, he became a speechwriter for President Bush. After all, why write for a political journal that Bubba wouldn’t even use to paper train his Retriever when one can write speeches for The President of The United States? How many ears were elucidated by Frum’s “axis of evil”? Surely many orders of magnitude more than if he had written them in the pages of the Standard.

And Frum’s former associate and Weekly Standard editor-in-chief Bill Kristol used to draw on the order of $50K a year for two years on an Enron advisory board assembled by CEO Kenneth Lay. I truly admire Mr. Kristol’s efficient use of time, being editor of the Standard and doing all that hard work for Mr. Lay as well. But alas, that didn’t work out to be a permanent gig — about as long as his stint on This Week — so maybe he’ll follow Frum’s lead and work for the puppet president.

So, as The State Press spends more time influence peddling and less time looking under rocks, they’re not likely to discover the real axis of evil: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey, who, as suggested by former Iraq arms inspector Scott Ritter, will never waver until they have fashioned the evidence that links al Qaeda to Iraq, no matter how dubious. But leave such details to real investigative reporting, like the Christian Science Monitor — after all, how many people outside The Beltway read the Monitor?

But in fact, why wouldn’t The State and The Press seem like the same thing? They both purport to work for the interests of The American People and both claim to know what is best for them, both are ontological liars, obfuscate their real agendas, and are as sincere as serpents, both are hell-bent on the destruction of The Culture, both are hopelessly self-righteous busy-body do-gooders, both love war but pretend that they don’t, both take huge amounts of money for doing nothing except creating chaos, both say a great deal but communicate little, and both claim to be in a competitive environment but their members behave without phenotypical variance.

And if anyone can appreciate the entertainment value of The Perfect War, it’s the press. Aside from precision bombs with video cameras and night vision, even the obsessive daily details of war can fill the vacuum of any mindless venture. The Wall Street Journal has called the Rumsfeld press conference the “best new show on television.” So “Must see TV” is no longer Friends, but DOD press conferences.

During The Good War, the press was not allowed to say unpleasant things about “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Now, The State Press seems more than happy to comply with any request — “for the sake of security.” So in the Perfect War, The State Press will hardly be predisposed to provide a brake on The State.

Hey! Don’t You Know There’s an Undeclared War On?

The War Party goes by more than one name, but make no mistake, it is of one voice and purpose. No more of that which is the dream of every free, democratic people: legislative gridlock.

Of course, our entire precious security is predicated on the federal budget.

No budget increase is too large, such as the proposed overall budget increase of nine percent, including a $48B increase in defense spending (only $10B is for Homeland Defense) — the largest increase since 1966.

And no expenditure is too pointless or absurd. Missile defense, which has consistently been shown to be highly unreliable, is opposed by every government on the planet (except ours), will only accelerate worldwide increases in missiles and technology, and is utterly useless against the most probable types of attack, will be under next-to-no oversight. Donald Rumsfeld just announced this program
… will be exempt from regulations that compel military commanders to specify requirements for new weapons. The agency also will not be subject to traditional reporting about program timelines and costs. And many of its testing efforts will be free from oversight by the Pentagon’s test evaluation office.
Apparently, modern
technology has overcome all hindrances to time, space, and substance,
as the president proclaimed “America is no longer protected by vast
oceans.” Obviously, since the post-modern world worships at the alter
of technology, this is an easy sell. There’s no need to change behavior.

But always thinking of The Little People, our president stated that, “Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training, and they also deserve another pay raise.” In that order — let’s not get carried away by salary increases for the indentured servants of the military.

Of course the president linked the Warfare and Welfare State: “We have clear priorities and we must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas: We’ll prevail in the war, and we will defeat this recession.”

It is heartening to see the president and long-time Senator Ted Kennedy become such fast friends. This is the cue for all legislators that under the cover of war anything can be accomplished beyond a socialist’s dream.

“Security in retirement,” “new safeguards for 401(k) and pension plans,” “patients’ bill of rights,” “sound Medicare system,” “coverage for prescription drugs,” “broader home ownership, especially among minorities,” “every American the dignity of a job,” …

In The Perfect War, no assertion can be too audacious or condescending. Be bold! Our president provides the example: “When they got their checks in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right.” And in an unparalleled moment of inspiration, he boomed, “Let’s make these tax cuts permanent!” [Thunderous Applause.]

In this way, the president will surely defeat this recession. After all, everyone knows that wars are good for the economy.

Notwithstanding the “broken window fallacy” writ unimaginable, The State will self-propagate and self-perpetuate The Perfect War from the economic front as well.

Just as the dollars of the American people financed the tunneling of Tora Bora — their dollars are used to destroy it. Spend millions “protecting the borders” with one hand and converting another three million non-citizens into citizens with the other.

It’s the perfect system for The Perfect War.

The End of History has been Postponed

With cooperation from The International Community, all states not powerful enough to stand alone will be subdued. Even in The West, The International Community was ready to re-enact the Anschluss when they did not approve of Austria’s democratically-elected government. The International Community has even threatened the crown jewel of banking, Switzerland, with sanctions for its free-market banking system.

But alas, when all nation-states have been made submissive to The International Community, there will only be The End of History, synonymous with boredom.

Nevertheless, there is always hope for The State. Does The State even need conflict among nation-states to justify its existence?

Surely, even with one world government, The State could entertain itself with quashing subversives, intellectuals, dissidents, and undesirables of every kind that will be seen to threaten the Omnistate. Wherever passivity exists, The State will always be there to synthesize the perpetual and controlled tension required to justify its existence.

Could The War on Terror be a template for, or even a prototype of, this form of State?

“Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

In the State of the Union Address, President Bush instructed us that
We have no intention of imposing our culture, but America will always stand firm for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law [as long as it retains the capacity for capricious and constant change], limits on the power of the state [including, contrary to the conception of some, controlling the weather], respect for women [as long as women see themselves, and are seen by men, as helpless victims], private property [as long as you allow the government to confiscate over half of it], free speech [as long as you don't tell the truth], equal justice [as long as you have plenty of money] and religious tolerance [as long you're not a Boy Scout, or want to display a Christmas crèche, or pray at a football game, or …].
Sounds
like a great place. I’d love to live there.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

LRC needs your help to stay on the air.

It was around that time I decided to begin my first earnest participation in presidential politics. I felt that was the last chance to roll back the State before the Empire took its final grotesque form. And concordantly, though there were (and are) many directions from which the assault on our culture and sovereignty were coming, my biggest fear was the certainty of cataclysmic terrorism. You know the rest of the story.

I realized at the time I was probably deluding myself, but I didn’t let myself believe it, and I didn’t want to say I hadn’t been there for a noble lost cause.

A lot has happened since then that might take the wind out of the sails of an enemy of the State. The 2000 presidential election process could not have been more pointless and puerile — surely it would have shocked the most cynical political analysts, had there been any.

But something Lew Rockwell wrote in his recent column, “Dawn Will Follow This Darkness,” I found particularly optimistic:

Our tradition of thought is deeply rooted in European and American history. It flourishes today among students, faculty, and professionals all over the world. Those who seek to stamp it out through intimidation are no match for a body of thought that has withstood every crisis that has befallen it for centuries, survived and flourished, as new young minds join its cause.

I must admit, seeing my beautiful, healthy new nephew certainly inspires new hope, and reminds me how I felt just before he was to be born.

Three years ago, my brother, an expatriate Texan (who I suspect wants to return some day), became fixated upon the idea of his son being born “on Texas soil.”

I wasn’t going to disappoint him. And when I hung up the phone, I had an inspiration. I resolved to go to the San Jacinto battleground, and procure the soil from there.

So the next weekend I went to the battleground, and dug up some soil at the base of the marker where “General Sam Houston was wounded, his horse shot out from under him.” Look, that’s what the marker said — why would someone lie about a thing like that? (And don’t anyone make any jokes about ole Sam being drunk and falling off his horse.)

I took the soil home, dried it in the oven, pulverized it, and put it in a plastic bag. Needless to say, I had far exceeded my brother’s expectations — he was thrilled.

At the proper time, when no one was looking, he sneaked it under his wife’s birthing mattress at the hospital. A Texan was born.

With the soil, I had enclosed a poem that I intended as a blessing for my nephew, with the hope that he will only find freedom and peace in this world.

Now when I see him, it’s a little easier to remember: for every Alamo, there is a San Jacinto.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

LRC needs your support. Please donate.

He was speaking in regards to the case of The United States of America vs. John Walker.

As I listened, the words passing his lips brought forth a torrent of thoughts. They were not respectful thoughts.

I truly don’t like feeling this way. It goes against my grain — my sense of respect for authority, my impressions of hierarchical structure. It’s just not the way I was brought up. As a child, I never heard my parents say anything disparaging of neighbors or relatives.

Authority is sacred, or at least a reflection of the sacred; and leadership is the rarest of commodities. Special wrath is reserved for shepherds who lead their flocks into wilderness, and into danger.

His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Much more often than not that seems to reflect life in Washington D.C.

But why, exactly, does our government hold such special enmity for Walker?

According to Reuters, “In one training camp in Afghanistan in June, Walker learned from one of his instructors that bin Laden had sent people to the United States to carry [out] several suicide operations.” Also, “… Walker learned by radio on Sept. 11 or 12 of the attacks. It was his understanding that bin Laden had ordered the attacks and that additional ones would follow …”

If true, it does seem fairly clear, and I’m most certainly not speaking legally, that he is an enemy of the people of The United States.

But the specific charges enumerated against him seem to have something to do with citizenship. Our government obviously considers him an American citizen, as he is not to be tried in a military court — President Bush has said military tribunals will be used against only foreign nationals.

But I have to admit, I’m having trouble with this whole notion of citizenship.

Just what is a citizen?

When the Apostle Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, the authorities bound him, as a preparation for torture. Paul asked them, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” The centurion made haste to tell the chief captain that Paul was a Roman citizen; for which the captain replied to Paul, “With great sum obtained I this freedom.” Paul countered, “But I was free born.”

The chief captain straightaway changed his tune, ensured that Paul would receive an immediate (next day) hearing, and “was afraid … because he had bound him.” The result was also that Paul would receive a change of venue in Cæsarea to increase the probability of a fair trial.

Paul did not hesitate to play the citizenship card. Earlier, before his arrest, he appealed: “I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a [Roman] citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.”

So this citizenship thing, at least in certain times and places, even in the pagan Roman Empire, would seem to be something important.

Citizenship by Proximity

However, I find it quite difficult to reconcile this concept of citizenship with that which our current State seems to recognize.

For example, one aspect is that which might be called “citizenship by proximity”:

A female foreign national can issue forth her child one foot and one minute across the United States border, and the child is an “American citizen.”

Despite the World Trade Center tragedy, millions of illegal aliens continue to pour across our border, with as many as ten percent of those being from Islamic nations. But the Multicultural State is undeterred: once again, amnesty for three million more illegal aliens is being considered.

Hardly anyone seems to notice, or care, about massive voter fraud in our local and presidential elections. No one knows how many illegal aliens vote in our elections, nor how many foreign legal residents. No one seems to worry about the Mexican illegal aliens, legal residents, or American “citizens” that vote in Mexican elections; nor do they discourage El Presidente Fox from campaigning on our own soil.

This is no subterranean conspiracy. The Multicultural State is openly thrilled beyond expression that there will be no majority race in the United States by 2050. The estimate for my home state of Texas has been enthusiastically revised to the left, to 2006; and, according to The Death of The West, Mr. Clinton was delighted to announce in a speech to Portland State in 1998 that my hometown of Houston has joined New York City as having no majority race. And my goodness, Houston is, as they say, Houston Proud — or at least Houston’s distinguished leaders are. During the recent debate between mayoral candidates, Lee Brown railed against opponent and Houston City Council member Orlando Sanchez for enforcing immigration laws. (Brown won.)

To top it all off, it has been observed that there is a new euphemism afoot for illegal aliens: citizens!

So apparently, a person’s citizenship, and the rights pertaining thereof, change the moment he crosses the border of a nation-state.

So understanding our new definition of citizenship, why is the U.S. so angry with John Walker? Since the newest immigrant coming to America can cherish all the longstanding traditions of our nation the moment he steps foot on our soil, and since all cultures are equal, can we be surprised at all by Walker’s affection for his new home and loyalty to his new government in Afghanistan?

Some Citizens Are More Equal than Others

I’m also a bit confused on who has what rights.

Lets take a look at our government’s accusations against John Walker. He is accused, among other things, of:

Providing support to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.

Knowingly and purposely allying himself with certain terrorist organizations.

Embracing fanatics.

Providing support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Engaging in prohibited transactions with the Taliban.

One of the more interesting things to recently come to light is that the Taliban spent several days visiting Unocal headquarters in Sugar Land, Texas, in December 1997. (This was not the Taliban’s first opportunity to receive the royal treatment from Unocal.) The trip was made in order to secure a contract for constructing a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

What eventually interrupted the negotiations was not a concern with cozying up to a state that sponsors terrorists, but the increasing instability caused by the civil war in Afghanistan.

In fact, there has been increasing evidence that the United States had planned to intervene in Afghanistan last summer. An explosive new book (still only in French), Ben Laden: La vérité interdite (Bin Laden : The Forbidden Truth), by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, offers an explanation as to why these plans changed.

In a CNN interview about the book, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler tells Paula Zahn that “The most explosive charge … is that the Bush administration … slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on … an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.” He adds, “… the FBI’s deputy director, John O’Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was obstructing the prosecution of terrorism.”

According to James Ridgeway of The Village Voice, Brisard and Dasquié know their stuff. Brisard “prepared the West’s first report on al Qaeda back in 1997, at the request of the French government.” Their sources include Laili Helms, the Taliban’s unofficial emissary in the U.S., and the niece of the former CIA head. She “described one incident after another in which, she claimed, the Taliban agreed to give up bin Laden to the U.S., only to be rebuffed by the State Department.”

The U.S. continued to covertly support the Taliban, hoping that Supreme Leader Mullah Mohammed Omar would break with bin Laden. As recently as March 2001, Omar’s personal representative came to Washington, accompanied by Helms.

But now that America and Afghanistan have furnished the blood oblation of its innocents, things are back on track.

Amidst great salutation, the United States’ new special envoy to Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, has arrived in Afghanistan, and “condemned the Taliban as sponsors of terrorism.”

Mr. Khalilzad is an interesting fellow. He was born in Afghanistan, was a State Department official for Reagan who “argued vociferously in favour of providing surface-to-air missiles and other sophisticated weaponry to the very mujahedin groups that later gave birth to the Taliban,” was Undersecretary of Defense under Bush I, and was a defense analyst for the Rand Corporation.

In 1997, “he urged the Clinton administration to take a softer line on the Taliban.” You see, he was a paid advisor to: Unocal. And now he’s come home. And he is “an influential adviser to President Bush.”

And around and around we go.

Now, taking a look at our government’s accusations against John Walker, don’t they sound just a teensy bit hypocritical?

And who is pretending to act in our self-interests, pretending to protect our rights — Mr. Walker, or the members of our government?

John Walker’s greatest sin appears to be that he was only a so-called “private citizen” as opposed to a so-called “public servant.”

Citizenship Is a One-way Street

Mr. Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis report for Unocal, as any good businessman would. Does anyone draw up risk analysis reports for American citizens? If they do, you couldn’t prove it by me.

United States intelligence has long known the risk to American lives, and from where the danger comes, why it exists, and how to remedy it. The answers may not always be very palatable, but to be certain, the murders at the World Trade Center were not made possible by intellectual obfuscation, but by hubris, stubbornness, and conflicting interests.

John Walker pays the price for his own actions, but We The People pay the price for the actions of our government.

Whatever remnant of rights we once had, purchased by patriots’ blood — the right of association, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms — they exist only inasmuch as they do not hinder the Empire’s designs.

And it’s so obvious a child can see it: You are a citizen of The United States of America when they want you to be. Only when they want your money, your freedom, your sons and daughters, or your life.

To the State, citizenship is a one-way street.

“We may never know why [Walker] turned his back on our country and our values, but we cannot ignore that he did. Youth is not absolution for treachery …” Perhaps not, Attorney General Ashcroft.

What’s your excuse?

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

LRC needs your support. Please donate.

I was travelling with my parents, who, like myself, look as swarthy as any folk of ancient Celtic and English heritage. So, we were treated to a “random” (every fifth passenger) search of our checked luggage.

I had to wonder, would a twenty percent probability of failure deter a fanatical terrorist? Did it discourage “Robert Reid,” who had been detained on the occasion prior to the discovery of his corrupted sole?

The thought also occurred to me, I hope no terrorist attempts to hide plastique in his nether recesses — I’m not looking forward to full body cavity searches as a requirement for air travel.

In Dallas, I also witnessed the efficient search of a Caucasian gentleman whose age I would estimate was between 114 and 117 years old — and to be sure, extra care was taken to examine his wheelchair. I missed the interrogation. It was probably something like: “Has this wheelchair been with you at all times? …” I doubt if he could have blown up a balloon, much less an airplane.

But I must admit, in my case there were no significant delays, and everyone I met throughout my travels was quite friendly, trying to make the best of a difficult situation.

However, I can’t say that anything that I encountered on my trip made me feel more secure, much less make me so.

Frankly, I don’t worry about these things — I know the probability of dying in an automobile accident is far greater than being the victim of a terrorist attack, almost no matter how horrific.

Nevertheless, our government wants us to know they’re on top of it. Houston Hobby was in no way deficient of military personnel carrying automatic weapons, wearing their new black berets emblazoned with a blue crest with thirteen stars — which is said to represent the Continental Army, a star for each of the original colonies.

Now of course I’m paranoid, but I couldn’t help noticing that the shade of blue is not at all the traditional navy shade found in the Continental Army flag, or in the flags of the Confederacy or Texas for that matter, but rather is exactly the sickening pale blue found in the flags of the EU and the UN.

And I know the army generals would like to convey their best “hands-on” image, but, despite all those al-Qaeda cells here in The Homeland, does Gen. Tommy Franks have to wear his camouflage dress for every State-side press conference? Wouldn’t he better off in black camo, so as to blend in with all those limousines?

Brazil

“Happiness — We’re All In It Together.” So read a State propaganda poster that appeared in Terry Gilliam’s film Brazil. Or it might have read “United We Stand.”

On the advice of a friend, I rented this Franz Kafka-meets-George Orwell-meets-Monty Python dystopian satire the night before my trip — he said the parallels with our current state were noteworthy. I was not disappointed. I had seen it years ago when it was first released, but I had forgotten much.

The film even takes place during the Christmas season. The usual symbolic references to Christmas commercialism are exercised. In a Christmas parade, the pilgrims hold up a banner, on which is a cross emboldened with a dollar sign. In the background one can hear Santa asking a child: “What would you like for Christmas?” The innocent exclaims, “My own credit card!”

But neither Kafka nor Orwell, nor even Gilliam in 1985, could have foreseen the cynical abolition of the most oblique allusions to Christian holiness — the film’s blatant references to Christmas illustrate the most pessimistic predictions often fail to anticipate the present State Culture.

Much of the film, such as the obsession of the “hero” with a forbidden female, with whom he is caught en flagrante delicto by the State police, as well as the ubiquitous presence of State-sponsored video, certainly reminded me of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

But also much seems to have been borrowed from the film Brazil.

One of the early scenes is of industrious mayhem — a great deal of movement and very little productivity, and could easily have been the inspiration for a similar early scene in the Coen brothers’ The Hudsucker Proxy. The cinematography is strikingly similar.

And as for plot twists, well, I can’t say much without giving away the farm for all three films, but if you see it, keep this in mind — one plot convention employed in Brazil is very reminiscent of Abre Los Ojos and the English-language re-make Vanilla Sky.

Brazil takes place amidst a state of terror. There are real terrorists in their midst, but it’s obvious the State is a far greater danger than the terrorists.

The film begins with a television interview of the Deputy Minister of Information, and which with no effort at all could be transposed into our time and place. In fact, the interview is so apropos it doesn’t seem like satire at all.

The interviewer asks the DM: “What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings?”

“Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain old-fashioned virtues, and just can’t stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game, they’d get a lot more out of life.”

This sounded so much like “They hate us for our freedom, democracy, and goodness,” I winced.

The interviewer persists, “Nevertheless … there are those that would maintain that the Ministry of Information has become too large and unwieldy … And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister, 7% of the GNP.”

Another satirical understatement — I suppose Gilliam couldn’t bring himself to imagine that there would be a press so lacking in accountability that they would no longer ask responsible questions, like these.

The DM responds, “I understand this concern on behalf of the taxpayer, they want value for money, that’s why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges … They’re absolutely right — that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and for the information retrieved [during] the periods of interrogation.”

What this means is that those who are suspected of giving aid and comfort to terrorists will be arrested without warrant, confined without due process, tortured (“information retrieval”) until they receive the confession they desire; and, the “convicted” man and/or his estate is responsible for reimbursing the government for all their trouble.

Sounds a bit like the USA PATRIOT Act, doesn’t it?

Later in the film, an Information Retrieval supervisor attempts to coerce a victim: “Don’t fight it, son. Confess, quickly. If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating.”

The interviewer closes, “Do you believe that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?” The DM answers, “Ah yes … I’d say they’re nearly out of the game.” A bit skeptical, the interviewer asserts, “The bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year.” The DM guffaws, “Beginner’s luck.” Although fear must be maintained, the citizenry must believe that the State is taking care of business.

The story line is put into motion by a bug which gets squashed in a printer, causing a typographical error unjustly identifying an innocent citizen, one Mr. Buttle, as suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle (a small part played by Robert De Niro).

Information Retrieval storms Mr. Buttle’s house in a scene that looks like the storming of Elian Gonzalez’s house.

After putting him in a strait-jacket, the officer in charge informs Mr. Buttle that he “has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries, and that he is liable for certain financial obligations …”

The hero of the film, Sam Lowry, is an intelligent and imaginative chap that works for Information Services. Lowry innocently investigates the Tuttle-Buttle glitch, but winds up becoming an enemy of the State as well.

Sometime during his investigation, Lowry has a “heating emergency,” so he calls Central Services — but CS informs him that they don’t make house calls between 23:00 and 08:00. But it so happens that the “real terrorist,” Harry Tuttle, intercepts his call, and offers to fix his ducting problems. He opens an access duct, operates on a seething mass that looks like an animal bowel, and repairs it.

After some odd conversation, Lowry asks “Wouldn’t it be simpler to work for Central Services?” Tuttle tells him he can’t stand the paperwork: “I came into this game for the action — the excitement — going in — travel light — get in — get out — wherever there’s trouble — a man alone — now they’ve got the whole country sectioned off — you can’t make a move without a form.”

Indeed, as a result of the torture, Buttle is dead. (The Information Retrieval specialist griped, “I can’t be held responsible if Buttle’s heart condition didn’t appear in Tuttle’s file.”) Lowry was brought into the case because Information Services is in a panic because they’ve overcharged Buttle (i.e., Buttle’s estate, i.e., his wife and children) for interrogation, and they don’t know what to do with the check. Lowry’s practical solution is to hand the check to the widow personally, something that never occurred to IS.

CS has always suspected Tuttle of “freelance subversion.” That is, this is his real crime: entrepreneurship.

Our anarcho-capitalist Harry Tuttle, after repairing Lowry’s ductwork, reassures him: “We’re all in it together.”

Yes, we are, let’s just remember who “we” are.

Brian Dunaway [send him mail] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Brian Dunaway Archives

Support LRC