Herewith a suggested script that Mr. Bush should have used last night, and which I would be pleased to see him recite on live television at any time in the future (preferably sooner, rather than later):

My fellow Americans. I am here to tell you that I have lied. I have lied about weapons of mass destruction, and about Iraq posing a threat to American freedom. In lying, I have sinned.

I have already accepted responsibility for the failures in the war on Iraq. And I am responsible. I am therefore resigning my office today, as are Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

All three of us will sell our belongings and travel to Iraq to work at a subsistence level providing humanitarian aid to persons injured during the invasion. In lieu of keeping any wages I am paid, I will repay the cost of my flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Please understand that I step down not only because of the harmful and expensive war which I unleashed, but because the federal government has exceeded its revenue by more than $450 billion this year. California Governor Gray Davis is being recalled for a much lesser shortfall, and he does not have Alan Greenspan or a printing press. I am, therefore, stepping aside to allow others to right the fiscal ship of state.

I have spent months and years practicing the look of the late Charles Bronson, the chiseled, tough guy image that waffling independent voters and soccer moms crave. I will now practice the look of Mother Theresa. I will care for the poor and wounded with my own two hands. I will be the field worker for my own faith-based charity, right in Iraq.

In order to prevent further senseless loss of life, and to minimize hatred of the United States in the Middle East, in my last official act, I will bring the troops home. And I will bring them home not only from Iraq, but from Europe and Japan as well.

My legacy to you, my fellow Americans, is to restore the notion of peaceful independence to the forefront of American political life, a place which it has not occupied since the regime of another George, our first president, Mr. Washington.

As Mr. Washington put it in is farewell address, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. … It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

I have learned the error of treating war as simply another means of foreign policy. I regret having ignored such a good and peaceful man as Pope John Paul the Second, who counseled against the war on Iraq. My fellow Americans, let us not forget that war is a terrible evil. As the dying dwarf king Thorin told Mr. Tolkien’s hobbit, “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. But sad or merry, I must leave it now. Farewell!” And indeed, farewell.

Exit stage right. Fin.

As for Mr. Bush’s request for an additional $87 billion to be wasted upon killing, destruction, and allowing the incompetent U.S. federal government to run the lives of Iraqis the way it runs the lives of Native Americans, there can be only one reply: no.

Mr. Bush, you have already overspent by nearly $550 to $600 billion this year (that “deficit” thing). The national debt of the United States federal government is approaching $7 trillion.

Any plans to pay off that debt, Mr. Bush? Here’s a hint: start now. $87 billion “war on terror” spending request: denied.

Mr. . Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

First, the war was begun under false pretenses. I previously wrote (see “Liars vs. Liars”) that the war pitted lying American politicians allegedly lying Iraqi politicians.

The White House hardly took the moral high road with such flagrant pro-war propaganda as “Iraq: Apparatus of Lies” and “Why We Know Iraq is Lying” (by Condoleeza Rice).

(As an aside, Condoleeza Rice’s essay includes a link headlined with the graphic “DENIAL AND DECEPTION.” Following the link, however, brings the reader to a page entitled “Renewal in Iraq,” replete with photos of smiling Iraqi children and tales of “100 days of progress.” Draw your own conclusions.)

The title of the White House paper “Apparatus of Lies” (linked in PDF above) does not refer to the White House itself, or to the American media (which, before the war, resisted the administration’s fatuous propaganda about as vigorously as a strumpet resists a tanned millionaire in a Mercedes), but to the now-deposed Iraqis.

Given the manifest blunders of American and British “intelligence,” if not outright fabrication, one must now ask whether the “Apparatus of Lies” was in Baghdad or Washington.

The Iraqis claimed not to have “weapons of mass destruction.” The Bush administration claimed that the Iraqis did. Now, more than three months after the war, with the American military in control of Iraq, the “weapons of mass destruction” have not been found.

The Bush administration cannot, on the one hand, publish documents entitled “Apparatus of Lies,” “Denial and Deception,” and “Why We Know Iraq is Lying,” and then complain that its case for war is being scrutinized, or that it is accused of fabrications.

The American central government accused the Iraqi central government of lying. The evidence now indicates that the American central government lied instead. Having accused the Iraqi central government of lying, the American central government cannot now be heard to complain that it is accused of lying.

Fair is fair.

Moreover, the Bush administration simply cannot credibly claim that it “believed the intelligence at the time.”

The evidence does not indicate that the war on Iraq is a case where the Bush administration was innocently misled despite relentless, valiant efforts to triple-check and confirm the accuracy of the accusations against Iraq.

Instead, the “intelligence” used to “justify” the war was largely fabricated. Worse, there were numerous commentators before the war who complained that the evidence for war was exceedingly thin at best, and fabricated at worse. Claims to have “believed” such fabrications “at the time” are thus preposterous after the fact rationalizations. This is especially true in light of the fact that the Bush administration’s own pre-war rationalizations shifted over time, as various “trial balloons” were floated to see which would resonate with the public. (See my previous article, “Foolish Rationalizations for a Foolish War,” from August 2002).

Second, there is the human cost of the war. On average, there is an American soldier dying each day in Iraq. Moreover, innocent Iraqis, both children and adults, are dying as well. As Charley Reese relates:

An American officer came to the home of an Iraqi family. American soldiers had killed the family’s young son by mistake. The boy was taking his mattress to the roof to sweat out the hot Baghdad night when a nervous American on patrol mistook him for a sniper.

“How much compensation would you accept?” the officer asked.

“Ten dead Americans,” the father replied.

This sort of “foreign policy” is perhaps the best advertisement for Al-Qaeda that one could imagine. And yet these kind of human evils are nearly unavoidable in the present occupation of Iraq.

All that having been said, there are two practical issues raised by the impeachment of George Bush. First, the partisans in Congress (i.e., those of his own Republican party) will never vote to do it. Such a vote would arguably require them to commit political suicide, and lose face, which they are highly unlikely to do.

Second, the Congress did not actively oppose the war. Although perhaps not as complicit as the American media in cheerleading the war, the Congress let Mr Bush and his cabal of advisors push the nation into a foreign war without reasonable justification.

In closing, in the event that the Congress could muster the votes, I do not expect that I would object to the impeachment of George Bush. Such an action, however, would leave two questions.

First, who will impeach the Congressmen who supported the war? Second, how many of those who elected those Congressmen (or Mr Bush) plan not to re-elect those incumbents?

Americans are right to blame those who lied the United States into war. Those who blindly accepted such lies, however, ought to have a long, soulful look in the mirror as well.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Setting aside the artificial definition of “assault weapon,” the issue is this: man’s rights are not dependent upon his needs (at least not in the way my reader implied).

Consider the case of a crusading Republican putative messiah, not the Commander-in-Chief but rather the federal Surgeon General, Richard H. Carmona.

As reported by the Washington Post, the Mommy State’s tolerant top-doc testified:

at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on smokeless tobacco and “reduced risk” tobacco products [that] he would “support the abolition of all tobacco products.”

How thoughtful of him.

As an aside, one wonders whether the Commerce committee of the federal Congress will compensate tobacco companies and tobacco farmers for putting them out of business, if such a ban were enacted.

One also wonders where the health commies would come up with the money, even if they did decide to provide compensation for such a deprivation of the right to grow and sell tobacco. Wait, I’ve guessed it: taxes! But taxes on products other than tobacco, which tobacco taxes currently fund significant portions of state budgets (not to mention the odd professional sports stadium in Cleveland).

The tolerant doctor Carmona, at any rate, went on to state as follows: “If Congress chose to go that way, that would be up to them. But I see no need for any tobacco products in society.”

Which, of course, misses the point entirely.

Must there be a “need” for tobacco in order for tobacco to be beyond the power of the prohibitionist state? Must I “need” tobacco in some strict, presumably biological (and not merely psychological) sense, which need cannot be controlled by prescription drugs forced on me by the government like Ritalin, in order to have the right to use tobacco? No.

Similarly, it is not necessary that I “need” an AK-47 in order for me to be entitled to own and shoot an AK-47.

In both the case of tobacco and firearms (and alcohol, to round out the bailiwick of the federal BATF), it is specious to contend that political rights can only flow from absolute necessity, i.e., from “need.”

As the prohibitionist Dr Carmona’s remarks indicate, if “needs” are required to justify rights, one can expect the state to take a very narrow view of what any man “needs.” Farewell tobacco. Farewell firearms. Farewell alcohol. And who knows what else. If Al Gore ever gets elected, perhaps automobiles. As in the seminal free exercise case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), perhaps government will once again criminalize private and religious schools. After all, does anyone “need” to be taught in a religious institution?

As the Supreme Court explains in Society of Sisters,

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

Similarly, adults (those who procreate to make the children over which they have rights concerning educational decisions) have the right to smoke or not to smoke.

That government which would deny the very idea of individual rights denies liberty, and thereby denies its own legitimacy. As the Society of Sisters court put it, liberty is that “upon which all governments in this Union repose.”

The rights of men are not dependent upon any prior showing of need. Men, by nature, have the right to consume products (such as tobacco), and the right to own property (such as firearms). They are free to decide how much, if any, of such products they “need.”

Who needs a federal doctor to control their lives? Nobody.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

On the other hand, if you take the politicians at their word, the conclusion of large-scale combat in Iraq is merely the end of one battle in the American war for “cosmic justice” and “victory over terrorism,” which war has no definable ending point.

At any rate, the federal government finds itself with an apparent problem. What is this problem? The people of Iraq do not appear to want to have their government selected in Washington, DC.

Although the Iraqis intend to pick a transitional government, the United States would prefer to appoint an “interim advisory council” to run Iraq.

Iraqis, being unaccustomed to American politics, appear to continue to think differently than the Bush administration. As the Washington Post reports,

“The U.S. cannot cancel a conference that is led by Iraqis,” said Entifadh Qanbar, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, a coalition of exiles that had opposed former president Saddam Hussein’s government and now is seeking to shape the country’s new political system. “We believe it is very important for Iraqis to go on with this.”

Poor Mr. Qanbar’s statements bring to mind one of my favorite federal Supreme Court cases, Virginia v. West Virginia (1870). In that case, Virginia sued to recover territory taken (with the predictable blessings of the federal government) during the War for Southern Independence.

As Justice Miller writes,

The first step in this matter was taken by the organic convention of the State of Virginia, which in 1861 reorganized that State, and formed for it what was known as the Pierpont government — an organization which was recognized by the President and by Congress as the State of Virginia …

At this point, one might justifiably wonder: when did the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia in Richmond approve this reduction of its territory? Answer: it didn’t.

The Supreme Court simply pretends that the citizens who sided with the Lincoln administration’s war were an “organic convention of the State of Virginia,” and that the state therefore had really “approved” the creation of West Virginia.

Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. The case, however, is a cautionary tale to those Iraqis who would rather order their own affairs than have them ordered by crusading Republicans from Washington, DC.

There is a clear lesson for Iraqis to take from the failure of American democracy encapsulated by Virginia v. West Virginia: self-determination is a legal fiction to the federal government.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

The money, however, will only last six months.

And so, taxpayers, with personal income taxes having been due on April 15, it is necessary to ask: are you getting your money’s worth? (Ignore, for the moment, that taxation is not the only means to pay for a war; there is always the debasing of the dollar).

To answer that question, of course, one must know what it is one is buying. “I’m buying war!” a Fox TV “personality” might say.

But why? one must ask. As payback for September 11? Or to kill Saddam Hussein? What will either of those things get for you, Mr. Taxpayer? Psychic enjoyment, at most.

Those who died on September 11 will not be brought back to life by the war in Iraq, and the conquest of Iraq (even if it results in the death of Saddam Hussein) will not decrease Arab dislike for America.

What is Mr Bush’s exit strategy? If we’re buying into a war, what is the time period for which we are “budgeting?” Does it include a war on Iran and Syria? Or does Bush the Beneficent plan to make Iraq the 51st state (ahead of Puerto Rico)?

If the Iraqis think the American government is belligerent now, wait until Iraq becomes the 51st state and tries to secede. The Union, after all, is older than Iraq, and older than Mesopotamia, as various court historians can attest. And arms are the highest tribunal known to man (as President Ulysses S. Grant famously stated). Ergo, Iraq can never leave the American union.

But I digress.

As Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State put it on January 29, 2003:

We want to say to America: is it worth it to you? Won’t you have, afterwards, decades of hostility in the Islamic world?

Memo to the Vatican: many American voters cannot spell “Islamic world,” let alone: (a) find it on a map; or (b) think farther than 14 days in advance. Regarding point (b), see “next paycheck” and “negative savings rate.”

Methinks the voting/couch potato public is neither listening to Cardinal Sodano, or the Pope, nor is such public thinking beyond the next segment of FoxNews or whatever sitcom happens to be popular. One hopes the predictable consequences will not materialize.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

First, the Detroit Free Press reports that:

In a sign that an early end to the Iraq war is unlikely, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has ordered 120,000 more troops to begin moving to the war zone. When they arrive, more than half of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps will be in Iraq. (Emphasis added.)

Second, despite the fact that more than half of the army and Marines will shortly be in Iraq, Mr. Rumseld has threatened to “hold the Syrian government accountable” for alleged sales of military equipment to Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld has also criticized the Iranian government for allegedly supporting the Iraqis.

Moreover, as the Guardian reports,

Syria is commonly mentioned, along with Iran, as one of the first regimes that would be expected to crumble or reform radically as a result of the installation of a new government in Baghdad — or alternatively as a potential future target of US military force.

Last month John Bolton, the administration’s undersecretary of state for arms control, was quoted as telling Israeli officials that it would be “necessary to deal with” Syria, Iran and North Korea after a war on Iraq.

Third, consider the way the war on Iraq has played out to date. The named-for-TV “shock and awe” campaign has turned out to be less than the blitzkrieg which was promised by the Bush Administration.

Why?

As retired U.S. Army colonel Jack Jacobs opines on MSNBC.com, the U.S. went to war without sufficient force to do the job.

As Jacobs writes,

It is difficult to understand the tactical or strategic philosophy behind the incredibly small number of troops employed so far in this campaign. … Unless the public is being treated to an exceptional misinformation campaign, the coalition is stretched to the limit. There is not enough combat power to achieve the combat mission, control the population and protect the troops.

It does not matter that precision-guided missions may be perfectly precise, which they are not, or that the military may have perfect knowledge of enemy targets, which it does not. In the end, the campaign will only succeed when U.S. and British ground troops defeat Iraqi ground troops and occupy the land.

Given the forces currently at the command of Gen. Tommy Franks…that is not possible. With only two divisions in Iraq and one in reserve, there are no soldiers available to exploit successes, put down major counterattacks, protect interior lines or assault enemy formations along multiple and differing axes.

There are a number of items from Jacobs’ piece which merit attention.

First, notice that Jacobs wonders whether the U.S. government is conducting a “misinformation campaign.” For shame! To imagine that the government might attempt to deceive the public, Col. Jacobs must be “with the terrorists!”

Second, Jacobs points out an eternal verity of war: infantry is ultimately required to pacify an enemy.

Third, the Bush administration has failed to put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to do the job at this point.

Finally, as Jacobs concludes,

One would think that the military experience of planners would have inculcated the wisdom of applying overwhelming combat power from the very beginning of the conflict. Events thus far demonstrate either that they have forgotten the lesson or that CENTCOM has been overruled by those with less combat experience and a more reckless approach to war.

Query, then, who was “planning” the war? The generals or the politicians?

Given the Bush administration’s pre-war “diplomacy,” and given that politicians appear to typically interfere in the planning of generals, I will bet on the “reckless approach to war” option where the Bush administration is concerned.

Why, one wonders, did the Bush administration choose to start the war when it did? Rather than properly build up for war and do the job right, it appears that the Bushies treated it as a rush job — a war that had to begin before international opposition could coalesce sufficiently to stop the war or else firmly paint the United States as belligerent.

Mr. Bush went from a one-week ultimatum to the United Nations, to abandoning the effort to win U.N. approval for the war, to a two-day ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

Now, with the administration brain trust realizing that: (a) the war is for real; and (b) it appears unlikely to be the promised cakewalk, Mr. Rumsfeld is threatening Syria and Iran.

At the same time, the BBC reports that North Korea has cited the American invasion of Iraq as grounds for refusing to cooperate over its nuclear weapons program.

Why threaten Syria and Iran when the North Koreans are nervous, there are not enough troops in Iraq to do the job right, and half the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is soon to be busy in Iraq?

If the rush to make war on Iraq is not sufficient evidence, then the Bush administration’s present foreign diplomacy appears sufficient to support Col. Jacobs’ charge of “reckless approach to war.”

One hopes that disaster may yet be averted. How many believed, in 1914, that a war which began in the Balkans might last until 1918, and see the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well as the Russian Empire?

How many believed, in 1918, that the Allied partition of the Middle East, including the creation of the artificial state of Iraq, would cause repercussions until 2003?

Time will tell where the Bush administration’s plans will lead the world. Based upon the track record to date, there is little cause for confidence.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Shockingly, a sovereign nation such as France — which is also considerably older and more experienced in diplomacy than the United States of America — has its own opinions on the war.

Americans are outraged that, having helped the French retain their independence in two world wars, the French now dare assert their independence.

And please never mind the mess the United States helped to cause for France in Indochina by arming the Vietnamese to fight the Japanese during World War Two.

Boycott France is the unthinking man’s rallying cry.

But why not boycott everyone opposed to the war?

So far, the Orwellian-titled “Coalition of the Willing” (if you follow the link, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page) includes the following nations:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

The majority of these nations are not producers of goods consumed in the United States.

But, if one must shout “Boycott France,” it would seem that one must also shout “Buy Japanese!”

So let’s hear it, war fans — Buy Japanese!

More to the point, consider that none of the Francophobes have called for a boycott of the Mass. Pope John Paul II, after all, has repeatedly stated that the American war on Iraq is (to use his words), without moral or legal justification.

And so boycott the Mass?

The idea, of course, is stupid. As is boycotting France, Belgium, Germany or any other nation which exercises its sovereign right to determine its own affairs.

Mr. Bush has the war that he wanted. Unless Americans are prepared to buy only goods produced in the “coalition” countries, it is time to let the French go their own way or confess to hypocrisy. Laissez-faire, you might say.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Consider the foreign policy that Osama bin Laden — the declared malefactor behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — would like to see adopted by the United States.

Would bin Laden like to see the United States peacefully abstain from meddling in the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Or would bin Laden like to see the U.S. military topple an Arab regime and occupy an Arab nation for an extended period of time, likely killing many civilians (however unintentionally) in the process?

Without a doubt, Mr. bin Laden (if he is alive) would like to see Option Number Two: the U.S. military topples an Arab regime.

Why?

The reason is that such a course of action, in all likelihood, will provoke widespread and lasting hatred of all things American in the Arab world.

Regrettably, and predictably, the Bush Administration is playing into the hands of bin Laden and others who despise the United States by doing exactly what those genuine anti-American types want to see: the Bush Administration is set to invade Iraq.

Worse, the White House “brain trust” is willing to invade Iraq without widespread international support.

Ah, yes, you add: Britain is with Bush.

False. Tony Blair, and other British politicians are with Bush. The overwhelming majority of the British population is not. The same goes for Spain.

What will become of the support of these “key allies” when their democratic elections toss out unpopular rulers? Shall the Bush Administration invade these nations for “siding with the terrorists?”

(As an aside, “testosterone trust” may be more appropriate than “brain trust” to describe the White House foreign policy wizards, given the disproportion between brawn and braggadocio versus brains exhibited on television by Bush, Rumsfeld, etc., but that is an insult to males of the species).

In closing, one can reasonably expect an American invasion of Iraq to produce widespread and lasting dislike (if not hatred) of all things American in the Arab world, and perhaps in other nations as well.

Worse, the dislike and hatred to be expected in the Arab world — if the history of Palestine since the 1940s is any indication — is likely to be violent.

And so George Bush, rather than “defeating” terrorism, Osama bin Laden, or any other “enemies” by invading Iraq, will almost certainly produce: (1) more terrorists; (2) another man to take bin Laden’s place; and (3) more enemies of the United States.

Unsurprisingly, then, by casting aside peace and freedom to make war on Iraq, Mr. Bush and his cohorts are casting aside peace of mind and a significant measure of freedom for all Americans for years to come.

Those who will cheer for this war are free to do so. I will not join them.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Dubya had vowed to give Saddam a push.
He was not afraid to fight,
he was elected president, and besides,
the belligerent man from Yale
answered only to himself.
"Forget the separation of powers,
I’m calling the shots in 48 hours."

The Pope and the Bishops had warned Mr Bush,
"War’s not simply a ‘choice.’ War’s an evil, it’s death, it’s not what is good;
when the fighting is done, and you think that you’ve won,
what feelings toward America,
will be felt by the littlest boys and girls
all throughout the Arabic world?"

"Others must explain themselves," said Mr Bush, "not me."
(That is the essence of Republican diplomacy).
So Dubya gave Saddam choices three:
"Do what I say, leave your country, or die — why won’t you listen? Tell the world why!
Give up your sovereignty, just do as I say,
and DO IT RIGHT NOW, or else bombs away!"

But Saddam Hussein simply would not be budged,
despite the Bush family’s personal grudge.
And so the war started (please don’t mention the oil),
to the joy of the powerful, the corrupt, and the mad.
The neo-conservatives cheered — they were glad!
"Just imagine the spoils when we conquer Iraq!
We’ll silence our opponents, we’ll live lives of ease.
With a war on, who cares about pleas,
from Jeffersonian cranks?
No libertarians we know have a division of tanks!"

Now that war has begun,
how will it all end?
With peace on Earth,
and goodwill toward men?
Or with Americans hated, in faraway lands,
and more innocents dead at terrorist hands?

George W. promises to give us safety;
but notice, dear reader, there is no guarantee.

Instead of a war, Dubya just might have heeded,
old George Washington, who recommended,
not foreign intervention and war, but peace and free trade.

"Peace and commerce with all, an alliance with none,"
So said old George in his Farewell Address.
This, once, was called "principled neutrality,"
But it’s gone by the wayside, fallen into disfavor,
for it’s WAR that appeals to our Maximum Leader,
and the men in his party who think only of cheering.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Although Dreher notes seven “high points,” only three will be considered here. (“High points” is in quotes because it is as sensible to look for high points in Bush’s speech as it is to look for high points in cheerleading. As with cheerleading, Bush’s speeches tend to be thoughtless repetitions of mantras and incantations designed to sound pleasing to the foolish. But I digress).

First, Dreher quotes Mr Bush to the effect that: ‘Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course for safety. … This danger will be removed.’ Dreher adds that: “America is not going to sit around waiting to be hit again; we’re going to do something about it.”

To which one can only respond: do something about what? It is not at all clear.

Worse, assuming for the sake of argument that Iraq poses a danger to the citizens of the United States, will an invasion of Iraq produce “safety” for American citizens? If anything, it appears that an invasion will make Americans more despised – and thereby more likely to be subject to terrorist attacks.

Second, Dreher writes that: “America is coming not as the conqueror of the Iraqi people, but as their liberator.”

Puh-lease. Unless I missed it (and I have not), there have been no requests by massive numbers of Iraqis (that democracy thing, you recall) for the Bush Administration to replace the Iraqi government.

Indeed, in a debate held March 13 between students at Davidson College in North Carolina and at the University of Baghdad, the Iraqi students were clearly unhappy at the notion of the United States generously proposing to “give” the Iraqis a new government.

As one female Iraqi student stated with regard to Iraqi views of social change:

Yes, there are things we want to change. I, for example, would like to see cleaner streets. But right now, were focusing on major changes. We’re focusing on a war, we’re focusing on surviving a blockade. It’s just like when the tragedy of 9/11 happened, you stopped criticizing the government, you stopped criticizing everything in general. It was a crisis. And that’s exactly what we have right now.

How odd. How would Americans feel about a Chinese proposal to “give” America a new constitution? Except for those persons who are complete and total collaborationists, one imagines that most Americans would be angry at such an idea.

The United States, then, cannot reasonably claim to be “liberating” the Iraqi people.

Finally, Dreher closed with the following (Mr Bush’s words are in single quotation marks):

Given the realities of the world we live in today, there is more risk in not acting against tyrants like Saddam than in acting. The president recalled the 9/11 surprise attacks, and said that given the existence of [weapons of mass destruction], ‘a policy of appeasement can bring forth a destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.’ America’s enemies today don’t play by the old rules. ‘Responding to those enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense; it is suicide.’ (I hope the Pope was listening to that.)

How does one quantify the risk of invading Iraq against the risk of not invading Iraq? Although Mr Dreher does not explain, it would seem that we must balance: (a) the prospect of reasonably certain, long-lasting hatred of the United States in the Arab world, and the significantly increased potential to encourage future terrorist acts against Americans; against (b) the hypothetical possibility that Iraq might attack the United States in some way.

In which case, the risks of invading do not outweigh the risks of pursuing peaceful resolution.

Moreover, how does Mr Bush distinguish between: (a) legitimate self-defense; and (b) suicidal self-defense? Or is it always suicidal to defend against an attack after one is actually attacked? If so, then to not hit first is to commit suicide. Pretzel logic, anyone?

One wonders why, although North Korea appears to have nuclear weapons capable of reaching California, Mr Bush is not preparing to invade North Korea, if waiting until one is attacked is “suicidal.”

Also, Messrs Bush and Dreher fail to explain what it would mean to “appease” Saddam Hussein. Has he made any demands on the United States, or on neighboring countries, for territory? There is no contemporary Neville Chamberlain, dear sirs. There is a difference between: (a) not attacking Iraq militarily; and (b) appeasing Iraq.

As for Mr Dreher’s comment about the Pope, I am willing to bet that John Paul II listened to the words of the successor to John Hanson. I cannot imagine, however, that the Pontiff could have been impressed.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Is Hussein advocating birth control, as the American government has done around the globe? Is he promoting and subsidizing millions of abortions, as the US government has done? Is he teaching promiscuous and perverted sex to school children? That is not reported.

Is Hussein denying the doctrine of the Trinity? The immaculate conception? No.

Predictably, the Times has seen fit to editorialize on the notion of a “just war.”

Sadly, the Times’ editorial is on the level with a freshman’s first paper in Philosophy 101.

The allegedly conservative Times, after quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then goes on to argue that, pace the Pope and the Bishops, two American theologians — Michael Novak and George Weigel — are better interpreters of Church teaching than the Pope and the Bishops.

Thus, the Times relies for its opposition to the Pope and the Catholic Church upon “Mr. Weigel, who has written a biography of the pope…an internationally recognized scholar on matters involving the Catholic Church.”

Can a rational person rely upon those who comment upon the Church as opposed to the Church when there is a debate about what the Church itself teaches?

No.

Why, then, does the Times seek to have Catholics in the United States heed the words of two laymen instead of the successor to Saint Peter?

Because, the Times argues, Weigel and Novak have shown that “a war to liberate the Iraqi people from a cruel and vicious dictator like Saddam Hussein is in the best spirit of the catechism.”

For an allegedly conservative paper to make such a claim is simply astounding. Forget the words on the paper — let’s follow the “spirit” of the document.

Is this not how the United States was perverted and destroyed — while denying that any transformation had taken place — by the Supreme Court? Is this not the very “rule by the judiciary,” if not rule by men (instead of laws) which is allegedly anathema to conservatives?

Worse, the Supreme Court is not infallible. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that on matters of: (1) faith; and (2) morals, it teaches infallibly — it is protected from error by God Himself. (Note: whether you agree with the Church on this point or not, that is, in fact, the teaching of the Church. And the editors of the Times appear blissfully unaware of the fact.)

The Times, sadly, is not to be deterred by the successor of Saint Peter.

Instead, citing Michael Novak, the Times argues that the Bush administration should decide whether war is justified because only the Bush administration has all the facts.

In which case, what is the value of democracy when war is in the air? Will the citizens of a democracy ever have all the facts, Mr. Novak?

Worse, it is painfully clear that the Bush administration has not been forthright, either in relying upon a forged research paper to make the case for war (as Colin Powell did in front of the United Nations) or in claiming that Hussein has gassed his own people — when the former CIA officer who investigated the atrocities blames the deaths on Iran — as battlefield casualties during the Iran-Iraq war.

Musn’t mention those inconvenient versions of administration propaganda, it seems.

By the way, the express words of paragraphs 2307 through 2309 of the Catechism state as follows:

(2307) The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

(2308) All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war….

(2309) The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: (1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; (2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; (3) there must be serious prospects of success; (4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Concerning paragraph 2309, it first cannot be said that Saddam Hussein is an aggressor. Sophistry aside, at most, the Bush administration (and Messrs. Novak and Weigel) can contend that Hussein might be an aggressor at some point in the future.

Second, it cannot be said that all other means of avoiding conflict have been exhausted. If anything, the other means (U.N. inspections and disarmament) appear to be working. Third, there are no serious prospects for success in a war against Iraq, unless the United States is ready to make Iraq the 51st state and permanently govern the place. In the absence of such drastic (and ridiculous) measures, how do Messrs. Bush, Novak and Weigel intend to prevent young Iraqis from growing up to hate the United States and become terrorists? This has not been explained.

Fourth, with respect to the evils to be produced by the use of arms, what are Catholics to weigh such evils against? The evil to be eliminated.

Which is what? Ah, yes, a hypothetical, future evil which does not yet exist. But this is alleged to be “no problem” for the moral theories of Weigel, Novak, and the Times.

On this, the Feast of Saint Patrick, Catholics would do well to recall George Bush’s ties to the not-exactly Catholic-friendly Bob Jones University (and the Reverend Ian Paisley), and to ignore the false moral exhortations of the Washington Times.

The Bush Administration’s hoped-for war with Iraq is immoral, and must be avoided.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity. …We do not know — we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

During his remarks for those who died on the space shuttle Columbia, Mr. Bush again made references to God. First, to the families of those who died:

In time, you will find comfort and the grace to see you through. And in God’s own time, we can pray that the day of your reunion will come.

Second, he concluded his remarks with these words: "May God bless you all."

Lest anyone be led to believe that the American government is anything other than hostile to actual religion, actually exercised, the February 8, 2003 edition of the Washington Times reports the following item of interest:

A Vietnam combat veteran was fired from his job as an honor guardsman at a New Jersey veterans cemetery after he said the phrase “God bless you and this family” during a burial service last fall.

As the Times continues, the veteran, Patrick Cubbage of Philadelphia, spoke the words because they were contained in a Defense Department pamphlet: the Flag Presentation Protocol.

Despite that fact, the Times adds,

After other honor guards objected to the religious blessing, a supervisor told Mr. Cubbage in mid-October that he no longer could say the blessing unless the deceased’s family formally requested it…Mr. Cubbage followed his supervisors’ orders and stopped saying the blessing until Oct. 31, when at the request of a deceased veteran’s relative, he offered the blessing at a graveside presentation. He was fired that day.

What’s going on here?

First, the federal government remains as hostile to genuine religion as it has been since Bill Clinton and Janet Reno were in power.

Second, Mr. Bush enjoys the best of both worlds. The secular state continues to be secular, and none of the left wing, anti-religious progressive types are offended.

Mr. Bush himself, of course, invokes the Divinity at the appropriate opportunities. In doing so, he runs against himself. Voters can say "the rest of that faceless bureaucracy may hate religion, but he doesn’t."

And yet Mr. Bush does nothing to reverse the federal bureaucratic hatred of all things religious — unless it is to take over religious charities through "faith-based initiatives!"

Politics, after all, is about power. It is, therefore, also about hypocrisy.

Mr. Cubbage has been fired, while Mr. Bush will continue to invoke the blessings of God on whatever cause happens to be popular with the voters and the donors (so long as the voters and donors being courted are God-fearing).

A final note: this is not to advocate that Mr. Bush should do anything positive, i.e., constructive, in the field of religion, unless he wishes to privately found his own church and quit the presidency to serve as minister.

As the First Amendment to the Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Mr. Bush, like any president (despite their pretensions to be Caesars), is nothing more than the executive officer of the federal government, assigned to carry out the laws made by the Congress. Hypocrisy with respect to the exercise of religious beliefs is one thing. Repeating the reign of Henry VIII in the United States would be something else entirely.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Unfortunately for the human race, and more specifically, for those unfortunate men, women and children living in Iraq, politicians are not known to have an affinity for truth-telling, and are very fond of calling one another "liars."

The White House web site has a helpful link to the provocatively titled document: "Iraq: Apparatus of Lies."

American national security adviser Condoleeza Rice has authored a piece provocatively titled: "Why We Know Iraq is Lying."

In this piece, Dr. Rice writes that:

Iraq’s declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text.

Clearly, any regime which participates in such "unabashed plagiarism," by copying texts word-for-word, and presenting it as "original text," is populated by liars.

And yet Colin Powell’s United Nations speech was based upon 12-year-old information which the British government plagiarized from a private research paper.

As CNN reports, Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge, told a British television station that ten of the 19 pages were taken from an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a researcher in California. As Rangwala told CNN,

The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old.

The British government’s response: "We have learnt an important lesson."

One would have thought that British government officials had learned about plagiarism, as well as outright acts of deception, a long time ago.

Not to be flustered, the spokesman for the British Prime Minister sought to save the case for war by adding a bit of propaganda: "this issue does not take away to any degree from the accuracy of the information in the report nor does it negate to any extent the core argument put forward that Iraq is involved in deliberate acts of deception."

Preposterous. First, if the information reported by Colin Powell is 12 years old, it is not accurate. Second, notice that the spokesman claims the act of deception "does not negate the core argument" for war. This is a very different thing from claiming that the document affirmatively supports the American position.

And yet that is precisely the claim which Colin Powell made to the United Nations. As CNN also reports, it is the plagiarized and outdated British document which was "highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a u2018fine paper…which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.’"

Please never mind that the document is based on information from the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi politicians are liars, shall we follow lying British and American politicians to war with such liars?

Remember, Condoleeza Rice herself condemns as "unabashed plagiarism" the lifting of text word-for-word and presenting it as "original text." This is precisely what the British government has acknowledged doing. And this is precisely the basis of Powell’s speech to the U.N.

In this regard, consider the Bush administration’s stance of war at all costs in relation to the cheerleading, sycophantic, lap dog American media (sorry to be repetitive; there is a point to be made). As Nobel prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek notes in The Road to Serfdom (see Chapter 11 — "The End of Truth"),

If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to. (p. 168)

George Bush and Jonah Goldberg repeatedly tell us that "Americans are free people," do they not? Nothing to worry about here!

The deception practiced by politicians comes with a terrible price, Hayek argues:

The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda which we must now consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth. (p. 170; emphasis added)

As Hayek continues, totalitarians must propagandize not only about values (e.g., placing the government above individuals), but about facts as well. The government’s "values" must be connected to genuine values held by the people, and the people must be spoon-fed government’s view of the "facts" so that the government’s desired conclusion appears inevitable. (See page 170)

So politicians tell myths (or, to use Plato’s term, "noble lies") to con the people into supporting certain acts.

In the process, however, Hayek observes,

The whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them. (p. 174)

The word "truth" itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it. (p. 178—79)

Hayek, writing in 1944, provides a helpful analysis of where the West stands today. Hayek warned of the dangers of propaganda in The Road to Serfdom.

His warnings about "totalitarian propaganda" apply very nicely to the propaganda currently served up for gullible consumption by the American and British governments.

Lying American and British politicians proclaim that Iraqi politicians are liars, and that such lying justifies war.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

What are men of good will to make of this possible war? To what principles and persons may they turn for wise counsel?

One source of wisdom is Pope John Paul II. Why the Pope?

First, a practical reason: over the years of his pontificate, John Paul has traveled the world in an effort to bring peace. He and his travels are properly credited with aiding in the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe (very fitting for a Pope from Poland).

Second, where the Middle East is concerned, the Pope’s guidance is based on personal experience. Recall that after a Turk, Mehmet Ali Agca, shot the Pope in an assassination attempt, the Pope visited his attacker in prison, and forgave him.

Contrast the Pope’s conduct with the drumbeat for war emanating from Isengard on the Potomac, the "White" House, namely, that Saddam Hussein allegedly tried to assassinate the first president Bush.

Which approach is more likely to bring peace, let alone lasting and genuine peace, to the Middle East? (The question is rhetorical).

As the Pope stated in a January 13 speech,

War is…always a defeat for humanity. [F]aced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East…the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.

To be clear: Pope John Paul is not supportive of American "foreign policy."

Could it be that American foreign "policy" consists of little more than the notion that "might makes right," and is thus not a "policy" at all? If it is a "policy," then playground bullies and street thugs have as much "policy." And yet it is little more than the morally repugnant idea of war as simply a "different" policy tool that the "White" House has been trying to foist on the American citizenry.

The Pope’s call for a truly just solution to the human problems of life in the Middle East, of course, has been echoed in the Church. Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, for example, told the National Catholic Reporter that "there are neither u2018the motives nor the proof to justify a war.’"

Contrast the message of the Pope and Cardinal Kasper with the words of George Bush. In Bush at War, Bush is quoted as saying that:

We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.

How charming. Perhaps the famous inscription at the Statue of Liberty — "Give me your poor," etc. — should be re-inscribed with Mr. Bush’s words.

Why do the White House and the Vatican hold different values? The answer is found in Plato.

Near the end of Plato’s dialogue The Gorgias, Socrates tells a myth about the afterlife. The point of the tale, perhaps surprising only to the American media, government, and certain voters, is that it is better to do good than evil.

In the course of his tale, Socrates pays special attention to the fate of politicians in the afterlife. As Socrates relates, when dead politicians are judged, the judge often

finds that there is no soundness in the soul whatever; it is a mass of weals and scars imprinted on it by the various acts of perjury and wrong-doing of which the man has been guilty; it is twisted and warped by lies and vanity and quite out of the straight because truth has had no part in its development. Power, luxury, pride and debauchery have left it so full of disproportion and ugliness that when he has inspected it Rhadamanthus [the judge] dispatches it in ignominy straight to prison…

In fact, Socrates continues, the majority of those incurable souls who are hung up as examples, who suffer "an eternity of the most severe and painful and terrible torment," are

drawn from among dictators and kings and potentates and public men, whose power gives them the opportunity of committing the greatest and most deadly sins.

Lest Americans be tempted to think that Socrates is not referring to democratic politicians, like Mr. Bush, think again.

As Walter Hamilton relates in his introduction to The Gorgias, "Athens in 416 B.C. demanded the surrender of the small and unoffending island of Melos, and on its refusal killed its men and enslaved its other inhabitants."

News flash, 2400 years overdue: the mere fact that a government is democratic does not mean that a government is incapable of evil. The same goes for politicians who are democratically elected.

What to think about war with Iraq? The words of the Pope merit reflection: "in the Middle East…the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution."

To support a war on Iraq is to accept the notion that, with respect to questions of peace and justice, the wisdom of those in the American government is greater than the wisdom of the Pope.

To be charitable, such a notion is highly unlikely at best. Pray for Mr. Bush, and pray for peace.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Now there is a blank check to make war as a matter of routine public policy.

First, consider what Friedman has asserted. It is acceptable to make war for oil, i.e., to seize natural resources by combat.

Friedman, of course, qualifies the notion of a "just war" for natural resources with the idea that one must not waste the resources acquired by bloodshed.

Second, consider the logical implications of Friedman’s statement. If a war for oil is justified, then Japanese aggression in the Pacific in the 1930s and 40s was justified. The Japanese, after all, were motivated in part by the need to acquire natural resources.

Moreover, consider what other actions would be "justified" by the twin desire to: (a) seize natural resources; and (b) conserve resources.

The Bush administration, to be logically consistent, could invade any nation anywhere to seize resources. Mr. Bush could start with nations possessing large amounts of gold and silver, or perhaps uranium.

Why uranium? Well, why not invade nations to seize "human resources," i.e., talented people, in addition to natural resources? (As an aside, aren’t human beings "natural" resources; perhaps Bush could not invade to seize persons conceived in test tubes.)

The Bush administration, then, could do the really responsible and conservationist thing by not only seizing all the world’s supply of uranium, but also all the nuclear scientists necessary to discover clean, safe nuclear power. Then, having also seized the world’s supply of oil, the United States could ban the use of oil and make the eco-crowd very happy. This hypothetical course of action, however, cannot be justified.

There are a few problems with Mr. Friedman’s idea.

First, the idea of war to seize natural resources is immoral. War is a great evil, for the reason that human life is precious, and that human lives are necessarily destroyed during war. Men, women and children will die. War, then, may only be justified for grave reasons, namely, defense.

Second, it makes no difference whether a thief intends to make wise use of the item he steals. Theft is immoral. It is therefore wholly irrelevant to a moral evaluation of the proposed American war on Iraq that the United States would be a "good steward" of any conquered oil.

Third, what standard does Mr. Friedman propose for deciding which nation gets to make war to steal natural resources? Are the United States justified in making war for oil, while other nations are not? If so, are the United States justified by some alleged moral superiority to other governments?

In the end, the attempted justification for the American war on Iraq, whether for oil or not, is based on the repugnant notion that might makes right.

Might does not make right. Oil or no oil, war on Iraq is not justified in the present circumstances.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Perhaps you have seen the news, where another demand for one billion dollars has been made. President Bush, taking an apparent break from his efforts to turn Iraq into the 51st state and combat "cosmic injustice," is reportedly "seeking" one billion dollars for that worthiest of causes — the eternally under-funded public schools.

"Seeking," my eye.

Mr. Bush knows where his billion dollars of sugar-daddy cash will come from: compulsory taxation.

In his weekly radio address, the president put it this way: "Too many students and lower income families fall behind early, resulting in a terrible gap in test scores between these students and their more fortunate peers."

The obvious political solution (i.e., obvious to the political class), then, is to impoverish everyone else by increasing spending on tax-funded schools.

Query whether factors other than family income and educational spending might be responsible for educational failure. In that regard, consider the federal government’s hometown, Washington, DC. The city with the worst public schools in the nation (Washington, DC) spends the most on education per pupil.

Funny that.

The Democrats, of course, are yet more despicable than the crusading Bush. One noted paragon of American freedom, Ted Kennedy, predictably branded the billion dollars of additional federal spending as "pocket change."

Mr. Kennedy has apparently not considered how many peoples’ pockets are picked to provide the federal government with one billion dollars.

What is at work in the phony "debate" over how much more money to throw down the black hole of the public schools is the nature of contemporary American democracy, namely, base pandering for political gain. This base pandering is to be distinguished from the pursuit of any genuine notion of the common good.

As Plato put it in the Gorgias, American politicians are gluttons: men who regale the American people by giving them what they desire, in the way that fools feed only junk food to children who prefer junk food to nutrition.

The masses clamor for "more money for schools" — never thinking where such money is to come from — and so the enlightened despots in Washington shall shower the masses with cash. Free cash!

The result? Government at every level is bloated, and American society, in places, is rotten to the core.

As Socrates put it, our politicians:

have glutted the state with harbours and dockyards and walls and tribute and rubbish of that sort, regardless of the requirements of moderation and righteousness…

No one but the educational establishment will benefit from giving more money to the public schools. Rather than give up one billion dollars, the American public should demand a different course of action, namely, that the government get out of a business in which it has no business: education.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2003 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

They overspent on frivolous items, and now, unable to pay for such excesses, they need expert help.

I am referring, of course, to the federal government.

As the New York Times reported on Christmas Day, the Bush administration has asked Congress to increase the limit on the amount of debt which can be incurred by the federal government.

This year, the federal government spent a mere $157 billion more than it stole via taxation. Next year, the federal government will spend yet more than it will confiscate.

If you think this profligate waste of resources has to stop, you are not a politician. As the Times notes, Congress just increased the debt limit by $450 billion in July. What’s the total amount of mortgage that the federal government can attach to the labor and savings of every American man, woman and child?

A paltry $6.4 trillion.

Now ask yourself, how can anyone expect the poor (if not downright poverty-stricken) Congress to defeat all evil in the world, not to mention pay for Social Security and Medicare, with such a small amount of money?

Again, if you think you have a solution, you are likely not a politician. Thus, the Times quotes the senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, as saying that the Bush administration "is wanting our children and grandchildren to pay our bills" by raising the debt limit.

Well, yes and no. The Congress is already making everyone pay everyone else’s bills via taxation. It is a separate issue that the Congress and the President are obscenely over-spending at the expense of everyone.

What is to be done? Forget raising the debt limit. Try debt counseling. It is past time to cut up Uncle Sam’s credit cards and revoke his lines of credit.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

When George Bush introduced this new term — "weapons of mass murder" — to describe nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, he could not have been any clearer about their intended use.

Of course, the use of such weapons has been clear to many people for many years. Those in the antiwar movement, for example, have argued that these weapons have no place in tactical warfare. The reason? There is almost no chance that any of these weapons can be used without killing innocents ("civilians") in great numbers.

One might have imagined that with this new insight into the nature of the arsenal which underlies American power, President Bush would issuing an official apology to Japan for the mass murder of Japanese citizens via the debut of the atomic bomb in World War II.

One might also have imagined that the American federal government, with its vast stockpiles of "mass murder" weapons, would plan for their disposal or destruction, now that their owner has clarified their murderous nature.

For way too many years governments have spent time and money on the development of these weapons, allegedly motivated by the thought that the possession of such weapons could deter war. In fact, these weapons can only lead to untold horror.

It is, perhaps, an unintended but true testament to America’s leadership role that the United States was the first nation to admit the truth about the reason these weapons were produced.

With this new honesty, one hopes that the men and women of many nations, including America, will see that the use of such weapons is incompatible with their moral beliefs.

Some may contend that the term "mass murder" was merely a slip by the tongue-tied President Bush. Others may blame this honest assessment of modern weaponry on a speechwriter. If President Bush, however, desires genuine greatness in the ranks of "world leaders," he should demonstrate by his actions that he meant what he said: the United States should assiduously avoid the use of any "weapons of mass murder" against Iraq.

America has been looking for cooperation from the world community in its alleged mission of making the human race safer from a modus operandi, i.e., terrorism. If President Bush can manage to avoid the use of weapons of "mass murder," to use his term, in any possible war with Iraq, the human race might take one tiny step in that direction. But only a tiny step.

Jim Glaser [send him mail] is a Vietnam vet and a volunteer in veterans hospitals. David Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

James Glaser Archives David Dieteman Archives

Christians and Jews, agnostics and atheists, and Republicans and Democrats, for that matter, seemed in agreement on one thing: genocide was immoral.

There was outrage in the West over the "ethnic cleansing" of the former Yugoslavia. Western European nations, as well as the always-spoiling-for-an-invasion Americans rushed to intervene in Bosnia and Herzegovina to prevent genocide. Moreover, the victims of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina were Muslims.

Rwanda? The West eventually decided it had to intervene to stop tribal warfare.

Tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide were viewed as immoral. The blowhard politicians declared that such killing had to be stopped by nations with no national interests at stake.

In other words, the recent interventions in places such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda were justified on purely humanitarian grounds. (Query, of course, whether such justifications were truthful. Consider the Western acquiescence in the Russian slaughters in Chechnya). International law scholars argued that humanitarian intervention would trump national sovereignty.

That was when ethnic cleansing "was" immoral.

Where Iraq is concerned, genocide is now de rigeur. The very notion of "humanitarianism" has apparently gone out the window.

Ah, well, the politicians and power elites of contemporary America and Western Europe are nothing if not moral relativists. Genocide, it would seem, is immoral only when a protected class is threatened with extermination.

Consider the following statement by James S. Robbins from that bastion of "limited government" and "Western values" (well, post-Enlightenment "Western" values), National Review Online: "In 695 B.C. the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, diverted the Euphrates to flood the vanquished city of Babylon. Food for thought."

What, exactly, is food for thought about the idea of murdering millions via a flood?

It’s not genocide if you harness forces of nature?

It would seem that genocide is now encouraged, so long as the genocide is committed outside of barbed wire fences and against Iraqis. Bombing and flooding is perfectly fine, thank you. But please no camps or poison gas: bad connotations.

It would also seem that Americans and Europeans must surrender the unsupportable and foolish notion that there is something uniquely and genetically German that is prone to genocide.

It would seem that Americans can catch the genocide bug as well. But, of course, this is already established fact: let one not forget the treatment of Native Americans, Filipinos, and the women, children, and old men of the Confederacy.

It is high time for the citizens of the West to look themselves in the mirror. The unexamined life is not worth living.

Where Western culture once professed its superiority to other cultures, before the relativist days of "multiculturalism," genocide was wrong.

Memo to the politicians and power elites of the West: genocide is wrong, as a matter of unchanging, objective morality.

The slaughter of Iraqi civilians to avenge September 11, like the slaughter of American civilians on September 11, can never be justified.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Well, at least in the United States of America. Mind you, Americans are not cheering for the historic crusades of Christendom in the Holy Land. Instead, a significant number of Americans are now cheering for Bush the Crusader in his war against al Qaeda.

It is mystifying that there are those who will cheer for the American crusade against al Qaeda while condemning the crusades of Christendom.

First, which of the historical situations is more serious?

By far, we live in safer times today. Even after September 11, when a bunch of terrorists finally did what any terrorist could have done for a very long time, we live in safer times than did many continental Europeans from 1096 to 1697.

Consider the situation in the West only 319 years ago. In 1683, the armies of the Ottoman Turks were laying siege to Vienna. Vienna, in the center of Europe, nearly fell to the Turks. It was Jan Sobieski and his Polish cavalry who helped to break the siege of Vienna and preserve the West.

The Ottoman wars, by the way, continued until the Turks were defeated in northern Serbia in 1697.

In short, Americans should not wonder why the former Yugoslavia was and is such a mess. Of course, one suspects that many Americans have already forgotten about the Balkans.

Americans likely also have forgotten that Spain only evicted Arab invaders around the time of Christopher Columbus, i.e., 200 years before the siege of Vienna. Perhaps the Arab peoples were serious about conquering Western Europe? In which case, maybe the historical crusades of Christendom should be celebrated in the West, rather than the subject of apologies.

Second, where Christians, and religious believers generally, are concerned, the American crusade of Bush the Second is wholly secular. The federal government of the United States is nothing if not hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular. There is a certain irony in a secular American regime seeking to topple a secular Iraqi regime while claiming to defend "the West."

Thank God, the atheist Left-wing elites must be thinking, that we no longer fight wars of religion! Now we fight for money, oil, and geopolitical power! This is "historical progress."

If nothing else, the American power elites and their lackeys in Washington are dedicated to turning Boy Scouts into Sodomy Scouts, a free nation into a militaristic empire (query whether this hasn’t already been done), and free men into serfs (same query).

In order to fully evaluate the crusades of Bush II, assume, for the sake of argument, that the United States defeats Iraq in a military fashion, and eliminates not only al Qaeda, but every other terrorist organization in existence. What will the United States have gained? At most, it will have expended millions upon millions of dollars to: (a) alienate the Islamic world, and foreign nations generally; and (b) eliminate a nebulous risk of vague future harm. An American war on Iraq is as sensible as a Chinese war on Belgium.

The military threat which Iraq and al Qaeda pose to American national interests, properly understood, is minimal. The risk is especially minimal in comparison to the risks posed by the Communists during the Cold War. And yet, in the name of eliminating this minimal threat, the Bush Administration is seeking to effectively shred the Bill of Rights and to tax America into an impoverished future. In short, American liberty is being restricted to an even greater degree than it was restricted to fight the Communists. This is foolish.

Forget the Bush crusades against al Qaeda and Iraq. At best, they will be Pyrrhic victories.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

The Washington Post reports that the opinion from the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

in the case of Michigan activist Rabih Haddad marked the first time since Sept. 11 that a major component of the Bush administration’s legal approach to the anti-terrorism campaign has been declared unconstitutional at the appeals court level, which is a step below the Supreme Court in the federal judicial hierarchy.

As senior Judge Damon J. Keith wrote,

The Executive Branch seeks to uproot people’s lives, outside the public eye, and behind a closed door. Democracies die behind closed doors. The First Amendment, through a free press, protects the people’s right to know that their government acts fairly, lawfully, and accurately in deportation proceedings.

Well put.

It’s about time that the Bush administration’s loony restrictions on American liberties were placed in check.

Since September 11, Americans have been told not to question the government. When postal workers died of anthrax, representatives of the postal service dared to state on national television that it was an inappropriate time to question their decision to send workers into potentially toxic environments.

Try that in the private sector, and see how quickly your business is shut down. Not the time to question authority, indeed!

The government must bear heavy blame for September 11 and for the foreign policy blunders since that time. It is the federal government which "guaranteed" airline safety, and which recklessly pursued a pro-Israel policy in the Middle East (even though the Vatican has condemned Israel as aggressors against the Palestinians).

It is the federal government that, in the wake of September 11, has resorted to interrogating old women and harassing peaceful American citizens, rather than sensibly targeting Arabic travelers or restricting immigration.

It is also the federal government which remains committed to the supreme folly of believing it can create "peace in our time" by making war on Afghanistan and al Qaeda.

Consider the following item, also from the Washington Post:

Central Asia’s leaders consider the U.S. presence here the inauguration of a new era. Islam Karimov, the uncompromising leader of Uzbekistan, was held at arm’s length by the United States for years because of his authoritarian policies. He now sees himself as an important U.S. ally. Since his friendly visit with President Bush last spring and the signing of a formal agreement committing the United States to respond to “any external threat” to Uzbekistan, Karimov said in an interview, his country has “a strategic partnership with the United States.”

The thugs of yesterday are the allies of today. How this is supposed to be a good idea is beyond me. It is, additionally, odd that the United States would agree to protect Uzbekistan from "any external threat. So much for George Washington’s warning against "entangling alliances," and so much for the lessons of pre-World War One Europe.

The Post further reports that Kathleen Collins, a professor at Notre Dame, has opined that Central Asia is "not in transition to democracy, but…heading down a political and economic trajectory that can only be called sharply negative.”

Central Asia is not where American tax dollars should be spent. What is the benefit to American national interests of the estimated $5 billion spent on our mission to Afghanistan each month?

The Bush administration, despite the facts of its involvement in Afghanistan, dares to criticize corporations for fraudulent accounting.

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion is a welcome obstacle on the road to disaster traveled by the Bush administration.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

As reported by the Washington Post, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, vice-president Dick Cheney listed the following "justifications for removing Hussein."

Specifically, the proffered "justifications" are:

1. the Iraqis’ firing on U.S. and British planes in the no-fly zone imposed after the Persian Gulf War;
2. Hussein’s efforts to assassinate Bush the First in 1993;
3. the invasions of Iran and Kuwait;
4. the firing of missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel;
5. Hussein’s ranking by the State Department as a sponsor of terrorism for two decades;
6. Hussein has broken United Nations agreements from 1991 to end his nuclear weapons program, destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and admit U.N. inspectors; and
7. Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction" and is preparing to use them against the United States and its allies.

These are weak excuses to start a war. First, only reasons (1), (2) and (7) could conceivably be an excuse for an American war on Iraq. Reasons (3) through (6) have nothing to do with the national interests of the United States, and will be addressed first.

The fact that Iraq has previously invaded Iran and Kuwait is not a reason for the United States to make war on Iraq. Iran fought its own war with Iraq, and Bush the First bailed out the Kuwaitis. It would seem that excuse number three, then, is a moot point.

Excuse number four is similarly irrelevant. It is of no concern to the United States whether Iraq fires missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia or Israel. All three are sovereign nations with the ability to defend themselves. There is no compelling reason for American men and women to die for Iran, Saudia Arabia, or Israel.

Excuse number five is likewise silly. Even if the American State Department has ranked Iraq as a sponsor of terrorism for the last twenty years, why is this ranking a justification for war in 2002? If anything, excuse number five reveals Dick Cheney and the other warmongers in the Bush administration for what they are: in search of even the flimsiest excuse to start a bloody and costly war.

Excuse number six is also preposterous. If Iraq has broken agreements with the United Nations, guess whose problem that is: the United Nations. Let the bureaucrats and social workers of the U.N. suit up and parachute into Baghdad. There is no reason for American blood, sweat or treasure to be spent to enforce agreements of the U.N.

Now consider excuses one, two and seven (the only excuses which are remotely plausible). Concerning excuse number one, it is a British problem if Iraq has fired upon British planes. Similarly, concerning excuse number seven, the use of "weapons of mass destruction" on American allies is the concern of such allies, which, again, are sovereign nations with their own defenses.

To further explore excuse number one, where American planes are concerned, it would again seem that the events complained of are remote. Even if the Iraqis were to fire on American planes today, query whether this is sufficient justification for a war. If anything, this would appear only to justify bombing anti-aircraft installations in the name of self-defense. This would appear to be a part of the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones.

Why start a massive ground war when the problem can be remedied by limited bombing? (Aren’t we capable of destroying anti-aircraft installations? One would think, based upon glowing press reports of precision bombing capabilities, that this would be a trifle).

As for excuse number two, how does a 1993 assassination attempt on Bush the First justify a war in 2002? Haven’t the United States waited a bit too long to complain about that event?

In an irony of history, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was actually assassinated. Austria, and its ally Germany, despite making war against Serbia, in part because of the assassination, were not defended by the United States. Instead, the United States made war on Austria-Hungary and Germany. In the process, the foolish Woodrow Wilson helped reshape the map of Europe in a fatal fashion, setting the stage for the Second World War.

It would seem that some assassinations are acceptable to the United States. It would also seem that we learn nothing from history. Recall that World War One was the "war to end all wars" and the war "to make the world safe for democracy." It did not work then, and it will not work now.

The final excuse — the claim that there is "no doubt" that Iraq (a) possesses and (b) is preparing to use "weapons of mass destruction" is also weak.

If there is "no doubt," then the Bush administration must have certain knowledge indeed. If that is truly the case, and if war is certain, why not publish such information for public scrutiny? Why not share this information with the Congress? After all, if there is "no doubt," then the Congress and the tax paying, sending-their-sons-to-die public cannot but help to agree with the Bush administration’s assessment of the need for war.

One must question the claim that there is "no doubt" that Iraq (a) possesses or (b) plans to use "weapons of mass destruction" on the United States. Are these weapons to be launched at the citizens of the 50 states? Or are they to be launched at U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf? And what are these weapons, specifically?

In addition, until the Iraqis actually act, one cannot "know" that the Iraqis will act in a certain manner; one may only have a very strong belief. For that reason, a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is not morally equivalent to a retaliatory strike (i.e., to self-defense).

The seven excuses for war are even weaker when one considers the cost in human lives, as well as the financial cost to American citizens in the form of taxes. Projections have placed the possible cost of a war on Iraq at $100 billion.

In summary, according to Dick Cheney, American men and women are to die, and American freedom is to be diminished via taxation and repression of dissent, because of: (1) shots fired at military airplanes; (2) a failed assassination attempt nine years ago; and (3) Iraq may have "weapons of mass destruction."

The Bush administration is grasping at straws.

Small wonder that, as reported by Eric Margolis, foreign editor of the Toronto Sun, Gerald Kaufman, the former foreign affairs spokesman of Britain’s Labour Party, had this to say:

Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy.

Well said, Mr. Kaufman.

There is no good reason for the United States to make war on Iraq. Such a war is not in the national interests of the United States.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

On August 21, 2002, the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserted that there are members of al Qaeda in Iraq. Also on August 21, the Washington Times reported that the U.S. government is preparing for a propaganda blitzkrieg in advance of the military blitzkrieg.

Both articles reveal the Bush administration as positively desirous of war against Iraq.

If one reads to the end of the Post article concerning Rumsfeld’s "revelations," the al Qaeda members are not alleged to enjoy the protection of the Iraqi regime. In fact, they may be hiding in Kurdish areas of Iraq, i.e., in areas not controlled by Saddam Hussein. Would a foreign nation have been justified in attacking the United States prior to September 11 on the grounds that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States?

The Post article had one purpose: to cause readers to clamor for war on Iraq. As the Post reported, Rumsfeld’s statement "could also give the Bush administration another rationale for possible military action against the Iraqi government."

The Washington Times article on the coming government "PR campaign" is another matter. One hopes that the average American will see the government "PR campaign," indeed any government advertising, for what it is, namely, propaganda and demagoguery.

Who is to engineer the "PR campaign?" Why, the "Iraq Public Diplomacy Group," an "interagency task force" composed of representatives from such disinterested outfits as the CIA, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Who founded this wonderful group? Why, that beloved American patriot, hero, and champion of truth — Bill Clinton.

Ah, yes, nothing like truth in advertising.

The Times reports that the various spy and military agencies will detail the horrors of civilian life under Saddam Hussein. This raises two questions. First, why is it in the national interests of the United States to defend Iraqi civilians against their own government? Second, how can the United States sensibly wage war on Iraq (and almost certainly kill Iraqi civilians) in the name of saving Iraqi civilians?

Worse, the federal propaganda campaign will reportedly seek to "massage" foreign opinion of what the Washington Times dubs the "Bush doctrine." (Yes, Dubya is now right up there with James Monroe). As the Times reports,

Under the Bush doctrine, the United States would reserve the right of a pre-emptive strike against countries that harbor international terrorists and seek weapons of mass destruction.

Leading hawks close to the administration, such as the chairman of Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, argue that the doctrine of pre-emption is justified as self-defense after the attacks of September 11.

So let’s get this straight: tax dollars taken from American citizens will be used to convince foreign politicians of the wisdom of blowing up such foreign politicians if those foreign politicians seek to acquire powerful weapons.

This is a complete and utter waste of time and money. What are the odds that the United States will convince any foreign politicians to like the idea of living at the whim of the Pentagon?

Where Richard Perle is concerned, hawks will be hawks, one supposes. Mr. Perle, however, is not correct merely because he is a war hawk. There is a vast and clear difference between self-defense and pre-emption. This is especially true where the government is concerned, as one must not merely test the epistemological claims (the government’s claim to "know" that terrorists are harbored or weapons are sought); in doing so, one must recall that truthfulness and candor are not government’s strong suits.

Consider that the leading Neo-Nazi politician in Germany from 1967—71, for example, was a British agent. One must be cautious that the United States not be allowed to manufacture wars for political gain.

If this concept seems unthinkable, consider the Gulf of Tonkin, not to mention Mr. Clinton’s Balkan invasion. At the time, conservatives and Republicans attacked Clinton for bombing the Balkans to draw attention away from the Lewinsky affair. Poor Mr. Clinton, he didn’t have the "Bush doctrine" to soothe the press and foreign governments.

The rationalizations which the Bush administration has offered for its proposed war on Iraq, to say the least, are not compelling. It is not too late to change plans.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

willing to drop nuclear bombs (with all their accompanying radiation, fallout, and lung-busting shock waves) and then claim it was worth the lives of some 50,000 impoverished peasants living nearby?

Based upon a review of historical precedent, it would seem that the answer is an unqualified "Yes." And that is a sickening thing.

First, consider the War Between the States. The armies of Forced Union killed thousands upon thousands of Southern civilians. Recall Sherman’s March to the Sea. Homes burned, lives ruined. Mothers forced to prostitute themselves to obtain food for their children.

Today, at least in the North, they sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" in church. Presumably, most Northern churchgoers are not reflecting upon the barbarous crimes of Sherman, nor that this "hymn" identifies organized state killing with Jesus Christ.

Second, consider the Second World War. As movingly depicted in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, American bombs incinerated thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians. The most poignant scene in the novel, at least to me, concerns the Catholic schoolgirls burned alive by a direct hit on a bomb shelter.

Three cheers for that? To cheer for such an abominable act of killing requires not patriotism, but a perversion of the moral sense.

The allies dropped so many conventional bombs on Dresden that the streets caught on fire. The flames were visible to the allied bombers as they crossed the English Channel to return to base. The fire drew in enough oxygen to create hurricane force winds. Dresden, in short, was truly Hell on earth, creation stained by the horrible acts of Man.

But it was for a good cause!

Blinded by the propaganda of the state, of course, Americans also cheered for events more closely analogous to the subject of McMaken’s concern, namely, the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Never mind that the Japanese at the end asked only that the Emperor not be tried as a war criminal, and that the monarchy not be abolished, two things the US did not do anyway. Never mind that the United States simply ignored Japanese requests for a negotiated peace, in another violation of just-war doctrine.

No. The manly Americans simply had to incinerate thousands upon thousands of human beings in the two most Christian cities in Japan, to make a point.

There had to be "unconditional surrender," as there had been in the day of Ulysses S. "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. You know, the "great" president who asserted that warfare was the "highest tribunal" known to man.

So much for the rule of law, President Grant.

I am not at all hopeful that Americans will care enough to spare the lives of several thousand Iraqis, Iranians, Koreans, or any other nationality. During the Civil War, Americans slew Americans with seemingly as much concern as was later shown to the Japanese and Germans.

War fever has overridden the rational thought processes of the man on the street. God help the world.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

For some of the fictional persons depicted in the ads, the anti-drug is tongue piercing, skating, or other such activities.

The drug czar’s propaganda campaign brings two issues to the fore. First, unsurprisingly, it gets human nature completely backwards. (This is unsurprising because it is, after all, paid propaganda of the state).

The error concerning human nature is this: human beings generally do not engage in pleasant practices merely to avoid another practice.

In other words, you do not drink Coke merely to avoid drinking Pepsi. Given options, people tend to choose what they like.

In the lingo of Austrian economics, this is known as "demonstrated preference theory." The idea is that you demonstrate your preferences by your human actions. You drink Coke, therefore one may conclude that, at the time you chose to drink Coke, you did so because you actually preferred to drink Coke to drinking something else or to doing something else besides drinking.

This is true no matter what you might tell Phil Donohue, George Bush, or any other irritating, yapping faux celebrity.

Second, the drug czar’s propaganda campaign is silly because, even if you choose to drink Coke rather than snort coke, this does not make Coke an "anti-drug." Although the cola is not a drug, it is not an "anti-drug."

In what sense does Coca-Cola negate cocaine in any logical sense? Of course, it does nothing of the kind.

Again, this is unsurprising. Do not look to fifteen-second snippets of racy images as sources of intelligent thought.

And yet, and yet, there is something about that slogan. Forget an anti-drug: Americans need an antidote for the overgrown Nanny State.

Americans need an anti-gov.

Fortunately, there are many prime contenders. If you choose not to worship the state, try God. Those who do not view Abraham Lincoln as a divinity might inquire into the merits of Catholicism, for example. Amazingly to some, Catholicism is actually older than Lincoln worship, even if it is less well-respected in the American federal government.

Similarly, rather than blindly follow the ridiculous notions that are passed off as "social sciences" these days, you might examine the intellectual heritage of the Austrian School. Firmly grounded in Aristotle, Kant, and logic, the works of the Austrian School are refreshingly sound and enjoyably thorough. (For a sample, see David Gordon, "The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics.")

Need a serious dose of anti-gov? Spend some time at Mises.org.

The "anti-drug" campaign was silly, irritating, and a waste of time and money. In contrast, a strong dose of anti-gov can be a very good thing.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

According to the omnipotent servants of the state, it is corporate greed that has brought the stock market crashing down.

This is entirely false.

Consider the fact that Hillary Clinton has publicly blamed George Bush for ending the "good time" (the financial one) of her libidinous hubby’s reign.

As reported in the New York Daily News (the paper for Yankees coverage), the cattle-trading senator from New York, by way of Arkansas and Illinois, said:

"If all of the arrows that were pointing up are now pointing down, and those that were headed down are going back up, blame cannot and should not be placed at the feet of those who led our nation during one of the greatest periods of prosperity and progress in our nation."

Wrong.

First, as the Daily News observes, the recession and stock market slide began during the Clinton administration.

Second — and more importantly — the blame for the bust must be placed with Clinton, Bush, and the Federal Reserve, i.e., Alan Greenspan.

Under Clinton, and under Bush the First, the federal government inflated the money supply. Bush the Second has continued to inflate the money supply. In short, Slick Willie and the Bushes have been counterfeiting. The government, while not creating any new material wealth, has printed lots and lots more money.

The result? Cheap credit, easy loans. Much of the money from the newly-created credit went into the booming stock market — and inflated stock valuations to record heights.

Unsurprisingly, reality eventually set in. Dot.com companies that traded at sky-high price-to-earnings ratios came crashing down.

Investments that once looked like "sure things" are now seen for the malinvestments that they are. And these malinvestments must be liquidated.

Is this economics lesson something that I, a non-economist, have invented? Absolutely not.

Instead, credit the Austrian School of Economics for the Austrian theory of the business cycle. More particularly, credit the thinkers Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Friedrich Hayek.

In short, the Austrian theory of the business cycle has been around for a very long time. It has also been ignored by the power elites for a very long time. Unsurprisingly, the power elites have demonstrated a strong preference for the theories of John Maynard Keynes. It is Keynes, after all, who holds that the state may spend a nation out of a recession.

Broke? You’re not spending enough! Only a politician could fall for this stuff.

Additionally, if Lord Keynes is correct to prescribe more spending to escape a recession, what is wrong with counterfeiting? For Keynes, men may arguably have a moral duty to counterfeit during a recession.

The more damage that is done to the economy, the more the unthinking masses cry out to give the power elites exactly what the elites desire above all else — more power.

Thinking men ought not to be duped by the contemporary attack on that facet of free society known as the free market. There is indeed blame to be handed out for the worsening of the economy.

Blame the men who inflated the money supply. Blame the politicians. It is, after all, their fault. They have manipulated money and credit in exchange for political advantage. For men like Bush and Clinton, they enjoyed some advantage. Those who do not understand economics wrongly believed that these politicians had brought genuine prosperity.

The "prosperity" was a sham. Hillary Clinton should not take credit for her husband’s alleged accomplishments. Instead, she should apologize for her husband’s selfish pursuit of cheap credit and phony prosperity for short-term political gain.

Bring back the gold standard. Abolish the legal tender laws. That would be a start.

Select Bibliography

• William L. Anderson, "The U.S. Economy is Not Depression Proof"
• George Reisman, "The Stock Market, Profits, and Credit Expansion"
• The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Despite the fact that Canadians and Americans are largely similar, an American tourist in Canada (at least this American tourist) easily recognizes that he is in a foreign country, even if it is not all that foreign.

For example, charming Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, simply does not feel American. Typically, this is because of the pictures of the Queen of England on the currency.

Similarly, parts of Toronto feel decidedly different from the US of A. There are the occasional locations, for example, that feature persons dressed as guards from the tower of London.

Finally, Quebec has a strong European flavor. This is due not only to the strong French cultural presence, but to the very architecture (which is, of course, a physical manifestation of the French cultural roots of Quebec).

At any rate, despite the great similarities between Canadians and the United States, Canada is recognizably a different country.

Despite the differences between Canada and the States, when the phrase "it’s like a different country" is used by a traveler, this traveler is more likely to have come back from the Deep South than from Canada.

Visitors to New Orleans, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia have all remarked to me that they found the South "like a whole different country."

"The people are different," you might say. "They’re like a different nationality."

This should not be surprising to the tourist versed in history. Both Canada and the South were invaded by the United States. The Canadians successfully defended their native soil. The Southrons were not so fortunate.

Nearly 150 years after the end of the War Between the States, the South remains a distinctively different region of the globe. It is, culturally, "like a different country."

Exactly.

Americans appear to have no difficulty accepting Canadian independence. Why not accept Southern independence as well?

As Woodrow Wilson explained the right of self-determination in his famous "Fourteen Points" speech,

"It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak. Unless this principle be made its foundation no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle; and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess."

How about it, America?

The South is not equally different from the North as Canada is different from the North. Arguably, Southerners are more different from Yankees than are Canadians. Vermont and Massachusetts are not entirely unlike Ontario, in which case, there is arguably a stronger case for Southern independence than for Canadian independence.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

George Bush is not any kind of conservative.

Consider the slogan that runs with the giant photo of Bush’s head on the Citizens Corps web site.

We want to be a Nation that serves goals larger than self. We have been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass.

God help us. Goals "larger than self?" Is Bush a republican (with a small "r") or a communist?

Where in the American political tradition does one find the notion that the individual should be subject to the masses? In John F. Kennedy. Outside of the notable Democrat, Mr. Kennedy, one finds this sentiment expressed by the Nazis and by Karl Marx.

For example, the German National Socialists ("Nazis") of the 1930s and 40s famously attacked the "bourgeois" notion that individual concerns were somehow superior to the concerns of the omnipotent Third Reich.

And what, pray tell, is the "unique opportunity" to which Mr. Bush refers? The tragedy of September 11, apparently, in the aftermath of which the majority of the American citizens have abandoned what little good sense they had in their rush to forfeit their liberty in exchange for the illusion of "security." War, after all, is the health of the state.

It might be palatable if the Citizens Corps were merely an outlet for dweebs and morons who feel compelled to dress up in uniforms and pretend to be important, like the juror who wore her Star Trek uniform to court because it was a "formal occasion." These are the "adults" who long for the days of secret decoder rings and "junior G-men," but cannot satisfy such cravings in antique stores or comic books.

This would be stupid, but relatively innocuous.

Citizens Corps, however, has the potential to turn every obnoxious jerk of a neighbor in the United States into a government informer.

Consider the changes to the Neighborhood Watch Program. As the Citizens Corps web site advertises,

Community residents will be provided with information which will enable them to recognize signs of potential terrorist activity, and to know how to report that activity, making these residents a critical element in the detection, prevention and disruption of terrorism.

We will be publishing information which will assist citizens in organizing Neighborhood Watch Programs, knowing what to look for in the community, and understanding what to do if they observe suspicious activity.

What signs of "potential terrorist activity" are anyone’s neighbors likely to observe, anyway?

Husband: "Hey, Marge, what do you suspect the three Arabs on the corner with the machine guns are up to?"

Wife: "They’re probably only running for Congress, dear. Pay them no mind."

Bush’s Civilian Corps is an invitation to snoop, and for personal vendettas to be turned into federal cases.

The Civilian Corps is also the fruition of the Republican view of citizenship that dates back to Lincoln, namely, the view that every citizen is a fair target in war. If one can blow up civilians on the grounds that their failure to overthrow their own government makes them an enemy, it is logical to view one’s own non-rebelling citizens as a "citizens corps."

Of course, the total state and only the total state will reap the "benefits" of the Citizens Corps: private liberty and private lives will be brought even more under the power of the almighty State.

Perhaps the most disgusting part (there is much to be disgusted about) of Citizens Corps is Operation TIPS. The disgusting part, of course, is not the moronic, trendy name. Every program needs a hip name in contemporary Washington, DC. There was the USA-Patriot Act, and now there is Operation TIPS, which, if you hadn’t guessed, is all about — drumroll — snitching on your neighbors.

As the web site proclaims in very serious tones,

Operation TIPS, administered by the U.S. Department of Justice and developed in partnership with several other federal agencies, is one of the five component programs of the Citizen Corps. Operation TIPS will be a national system for reporting suspicious, and potentially terrorist-related activity. The program will involve the millions of American workers who, in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to see potentially unusual or suspicious activity in public places.

Now we can all breathe a little easier: TIPS will be run by the Department of Justice. You know, the department controlled by the Attorney General. Remember Janet Reno?

It’s a good thing such an ambitious program for spying on American citizens will be in place the next time there are Clintons or other upstanding democratic socialists in the White House. Now Hillary won’t be forced to sneak around with "confidential" FBI files. Spying is encouraged!

This is worse than a recipe for disaster. The abuse of such absolute power is inevitable. If the Citizens Corps is not disbanded, the United States will have effectively forfeited its alleged "victory" in the Cold War with the adoption of this Soviet-style "Citizens KGB."

What exactly is now alleged to have been the matter with Senator Joseph McCarthy, or with Watergate? Presumably nothing. In contemporary American politics, the end justifies the means, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are dead letters.

As the TIPS spiel continues,

The Department of Justice is discussing participation with several industry groups whose workers are ideally suited to help in the anti-terrorism effort because their routines allow them to recognize unusual events and have expressed a desire for a mechanism to report these events to authorities.

So Mr. Bush and the federal powers-that-be will trust corporations and their employees to report suspicious activities to the FBI, but they will not trust corporations to report their earnings to the SEC? How eminently logical.

Very much to my disappointment, the "Frequently Asked Questions" part of the Citizens Corps web site fails to include the only question that I have: if I want to see the Citizens Corps abolished forever and for all time, should I simply write my Congressman?

The Citizens Corps and Operation TIPS have no place in American life. They are contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The explicit justification for these groups is the notion that individual lives are inferior to the collective. Precisely because that notion is repugnant to the American political tradition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Citizens Corps and Operation should be abolished.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

In the case of accounting, the government plays the role of the ferocious pit bull, barking madly on the nightly news, foaming at the mouth, and chewing the legs off of alleged "corporate crooks."

In the case of accountability, the government tries to seize the moral high ground. Bush the Invincible stands before banners draped with the words "Corporate Responsibility" and promises — human nature notwithstanding — to eliminate fraud and corruption.

And yet the reality of government work demonstrates that the government does not apply such standards to itself.

Consider the government’s take on corporate accounting. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC," but not to be confused with the noble institution which is the Southeastern Conference in college athletics — the greatest football conference, by the way) insists that companies with shares traded on public stock exchanges must issue financial reports according to government rules.

The rules promulgated by the SEC are allegedly to protect consumers from charlatans in "big business." A company that must disclose financial details, the thinking goes, cannot dupe you into buying worthless shares.

Yet consider the government. More than a few talking heads in the service of the State have claimed, in recent years, that government should be viewed "like a private company." Citizens have been referred to as "shareholders" or "stakeholders," with the idea that we all go down with the ship of State when it sinks.

The government, however, does not account for every penny of your hard-earned money that it extorts through compulsory taxation. Try to get the Social Security Administration to tell you how it "invested" those huge chunks of your paycheck which may very well exceed what you are legally able to contribute to an Individual Retirement Account.

Similarly, where accountability is concerned, the government unsurprisingly fails to sends itself to prison.

Janet Reno "took full responsibility" for the deaths of 80 people at Waco. The dead included many children who very likely died painful deaths from poison gas or smoke inhalation. Janet Reno, however, is not in prison, and has not been executed for murder.

Without a doubt, the government plays by two sets of rules. One set of rules is designed to screw ordinary American citizens to the wall and strip their wallets bare. The other set of rules is designed to allow the thieves to get away with waste and murder.

And so a proposal: since the Congress is in the mood to "get tough," why not get tough on politicians.

Government agencies should be required to document, on a quarterly basis, how and where their money is spent, and make quasi-prospectuses available to the taxpaying public. There must be strict penalties for waste, as well as for manifest failure to achieve advertised "public service" goals. Perhaps agencies should be put out of business after a year or two of flamingly bad performance. Goodbye, Amtrak, it’s time you were put up for sale.

Similarly, the heads of government agencies, like their corporate counterparts, should face ridiculously draconian personal punishments. If a CEO who signs an earnings reports can now be punished for the mistakes of unknown underlings in an accounting department, then the same should happen to the head of the FBI or Health and Human Services as well.

Fair is fair.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

What is a government? Does the idea of government transcend the policies of the current regime and stand for a more general proposition? Is government something to love?

Government is merely the stripes on the road, yellow paint on black asphalt. It is street lights, fire hydrants, and prisons — on a good day. On a best-case scenario (known as limited government, or "minarchism"), the government exists to facilitate the peaceful interaction of private individuals. It paints lines on the street to make traffic flow more orderly and more predictable, and to minimize the destruction of private property (or loss of precious human life) in automobile accidents.

There is nothing magical or deserving of affection in painting stripes on a street. A private firm can paint stripes on a street better than a bungling bureaucratic government which hires cronies and cannot go out of business.

Think of this the next time an egomaniac (i.e., politician) with delusions of grandeur runs for office, spewing promises like a cheap hustler picking up women in a bar. Keep in mind that the hustler, if he is elected, will be in charge of having other men paint stripes on the street. On the national level, the hustler may be in charge of blowing up people who live far away.

Consider the case of Turkey. As the BBC reported, the Turkish government has been on the verge of collapse. Not the whole system, mind you. Merely the present coalition of parties and ministers, in other words, the status quo with respect to who has the power.

The "government" means the current regime, and not the entire Turkish political system. The citizens of Turkey and the geographic area known as Turkey will not cease to exist when "the government" collapses. Instead, Hustler B, whom we are not used to seeing in the news, will replace Hustler A.

Such a transfer hardly merits the accompanying drama.

To understand the drama, one must understand that politicians advertise in the way that private firms advertise. Like Coca-Cola or Heineken, a political regime seeks to create brand-name recognition, and to connect the politician’s name to visible "accomplishments." Similarly, like Coca-Cola or Heineken, a government is a fictional entity, not a real person, but an artificial person created by a piece of paper assigning rights, duties, and authority.

Of course, very much unlike Coca-Cola, the government does not have customers. The government, even a genuinely limited government, employs force and coercion. You choose whether or not to buy a Coke. You do not choose whether or not to go to jail if you fail to pay your taxes.

Government must be seen for what it is. At best, a government is a creation of the citizenry. It exists only to serve the citizenry, and not to subjugate them. Insofar as a government acts as if it created the citizens, and treats citizens as subservient subjects, the government loses its raison d’etre. Thus, bad governments are a justification for rebellion. (Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence sets forth these principles quite nicely).

In the American political system, the people are sovereign. "The government," whether local, state, or federal, is merely a tool for the people to protect themselves and their private property. That is the general proposition, in the American political tradition, which transcends the current regime. This general proposition is made concrete in the form of low taxes, minimal regulations, and a general attitude of laissez-faire.

Judged by that standard, "the government" that is the current regime is hardly deserving of affection.

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2002 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives