The support for this thesis now appears in a two-volume study, undertaken between 1965 and 1985, on Soviet intentions. In the study, prepared by the BDM Corporation, readers learn from interviews with former Soviet military officers, strategy analysts, and industrial specialists, that American officials "[erred] on the side of overestimating Soviet aggressiveness" and underestimated "the extent to which the Soviet leadership was deterred from using nuclear weapons." Furthermore, the study claims that the American authorities’ ineptitude in judging Soviet military intentions "had the potential [to] mislead … U.S. decision makers in the event of an extreme crisis." Unsurprisingly, the study confirms the role of the military industrial complex in perpetuating the decades-long state of panic. The text shows how "the defense industrial complex, not the Soviet high command, played a key role in driving the quantitative arms buildup" and thereby "led U.S. analysts to … exaggerate the aggressive intentions of the Soviets."

Students of the Cold War are familiar with the iconic pictures of American schoolchildren ducking under their desks while their parents pored over blueprints for backyard bomb shelters. The American public knew, because their government constantly told them, that the Soviets had their finger on the button. Nuclear annihilation was just a matter of time. But now we learn that this "false consciousness" (thanks Herr Marx) runs counter to the reality. According to the BDM study, "The Soviet military high command understood the devastating consequences of nuclear war and believed that nuclear weapons use had to be avoided at all costs." Baby boomers, feel free to come out from under your desks. And with a little water and a handful of chlorine, your backyard bomb shelter might now work as a pool.

Readers of this new evidence have a choice. They can slander the BDM study as revisionist propaganda or they can interpret it like dispassionate historians. The new release of archival documents constantly changes our understanding of the past. That is how historical knowledge grows over time. The BDM report unhinges one of the basic principles underlying the historiography of the Cold War — the idea that only "mutually assured destruction" prevented nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Contrary to what our government and all its vendors wanted us to believe during the Cold War, evidence has now surfaced that the Soviet leaders feared dying in a nuclear conflagration, just as much as Americans did. While the most ardent Cold Warriors ran around screaming "Better Dead than Red," somewhere in the Soviet Union a communist subject might have been whispering "Nuclear annihilation — Nyet!"

This essay does not in any way support the actions of the Soviet regime during its existence. Throughout the never-ending 2008 election cycle, "conservatives" would be aghast when I told them I could not vote for McCain under any circumstances. They would typically respond, "So you want Obama???" But anyone who has studied logic at even the most elementary level notes the fallacy of their conclusion. Just because someone claims to love vanilla ice cream does not mean he hates chocolate ice cream. Unfortunately, such basic rules still need to be taught to the otherwise intelligent. The Soviet Union brutally murdered millions under its control. Those lucky enough to escape the gulag or the firing squad found themselves living in a morally bankrupt, economically ludicrous, totalitarian state, where the best option seemed to be some combination of vodka, abortion, and submission. That the United States government systematically overstated the Soviet nuclear threat in no way absolves the reprehensible Soviet leaders who ruined one of the world’s great countries. Falling from nineteenth century Great Power status to twentieth century basket case, Russia and its satellites suffered through one of history’s most inhumane eras. But by calling the United States government to account for its intelligence failures does not say anything positive about the evil Soviet regime.

The U.S. federal government today seems to exist purely for its own aggrandizement. Take over the banks. Nationalize the auto industry. Remake the health care system into something resembling the Cuban health care nightmare instead of anything based on free market principles or individual choice. And all the while, never say anything derogatory about the central bank, which lies at the heart of so many of the nation’s problems. For fifty years the U.S. federal government aggrandized itself based on a misreading of Soviet intentions and strategy. For fifty years legislators took from those who earned and gave to those who lobbied, all to counter the global Soviet menace. Defense contractors received taxpayer monies in multiples of the cash they used to grease the palms of their local congressmen. And for fifty years, our "intelligence" authorities pursued leads that now appear to have been more the products of their fertile imaginations than anything based on information gleaned in the course of their work. No crisis goes to waste in our current regime. It now appears that no false crisis went to waste for the duration of the Cold War.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City. Listen to his podcast.

Mark G. Brennan Archives

DIGG THIS

Examples of irrational economic behavior provide unlimited opportunities for speculation and theorization by economists. For example, why do individuals borrow money from their credit cards at 19% while simultaneously receiving less than 4% on their savings account? Wouldn’t it make more sense to pay off the high-rate credit card balance with funds earning a lower rate? Clearly, something deeper than pure economic calculation drives these actions.

Even the richest among us act economically irrational at times. In recent days New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been hinting that he will not only continue, but seriously ramp up, his personal record of mindless economic waste. In 2001 Bloomberg spent a staggering $74 million on his mayoral campaign. In 2005, apparently still unsatisfied with his name recognition garnered after his first term running Havana-on-the-Hudson, Bloomberg ponied up another $85 million to extend his tenure another four years. That amounts to almost $160 million to buy a job paying less than $200,000 per year. No one spends $160 million on something that returns roughly $1.6 million dollars over eight years unless something much deeper compels him.

While the number of billionaires is small, the number of billionaire fools is even smaller. Most of those who fall into this category inherited their wealth. Mayor Bloomberg, on the other hand, recognized a need, provided a solution, and reaped the requisite rewards. The odds of a fool repeating his success are miniscule. I should know, I have been trying for years. Michael Bloomberg is anything but a fool. And for that reason, taxpayers nation-wide should keep a wary eye on his presidential aspirations.

According to the New York Observer, Bloomberg is now considering spending up to $500 million to purchase the office of the president. In other words, by spending half a billion dollars, Bloomberg will secure himself total earnings of $3.2 million over eight years, assuming he decides to acquire a second term. This analysis ignores the fact that he might have to spend another half billion dollars on a second propaganda crusade, thereby halving the already negative return on investment.

Why would Bloomberg spend his money so irrationally? The trappings of the presidency would be lost on New York City’s chief plutocrat. His personal jet blows the doors off Air Force One. From the pictures I have seen, his house in Bermuda makes Camp David look like the government rest stop that it is. Gracie Mansion, New York City’s mayoral residence, has gone vacant since 2001 as Bloomberg opted to forego public housing and remain in his opulent 79th Street brownstone. Lacking Gracie Mansion’s waterfront location, the White House should be even less attractive to him. Lastly, Bloomberg ceremoniously rides the subway to work so the armor-plated, presidential limousine might find its rightful place at the Manheim auto auction.

If Bloomberg is apt to spend his own money so wastefully, imagine how much more recklessly he will fritter away yours. Rest assured that someone who squanders billions of his own dollars would happily blow trillions of your dollars without a second thought. None of the Republicrats currently running has shown such personal fiscal insanity. Unlike drunken sailors coming ashore with their pockets full of loot, our current crop of presidential pretenders at least understands that wasting other people’s money causes less personal distress than reaching into one’s own pocket.

Furthermore, consider the thought process behind his actions. Historically it tends to run along these lines: "If I were to snatch/commandeer/buy the chairmanship/Führer-ship/presidency, I could make the world a better place." Many mass graves, hastily dug trenches, and crematoria are littered with the bones and ashes of the victims of such utopian idolizers. Bloomberg’s electoral expenditures to date hint at his belief that the road to Utopia is paved with cancelled checks. Neither megalomania nor Bloomberg’s campaign spending recognizes any rational bounds.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City. Listen to his podcast.

DIGG THIS

Examples of irrational economic behavior provide unlimited opportunities for speculation and theorization by economists. For example, why do individuals borrow money from their credit cards at 19% while simultaneously receiving less than 4% on their savings account? Wouldn’t it make more sense to pay off the high-rate credit card balance with funds earning a lower rate? Clearly, something deeper than pure economic calculation drives these actions.

Even the richest among us act economically irrational at times. In recent days New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been hinting that he will not only continue, but seriously ramp up, his personal record of mindless economic waste. In 2001 Bloomberg spent a staggering $74 million on his mayoral campaign. In 2005, apparently still unsatisfied with his name recognition garnered after his first term running Havana-on-the-Hudson, Bloomberg ponied up another $85 million to extend his tenure another four years. That amounts to almost $160 million to buy a job paying less than $200,000 per year. No one spends $160 million on something that returns roughly $1.6 million dollars over eight years unless something much deeper compels him.

While the number of billionaires is small, the number of billionaire fools is even smaller. Most of those who fall into this category inherited their wealth. Mayor Bloomberg, on the other hand, recognized a need, provided a solution, and reaped the requisite rewards. The odds of a fool repeating his success are miniscule. I should know, I have been trying for years. Michael Bloomberg is anything but a fool. And for that reason, taxpayers nation-wide should keep a wary eye on his presidential aspirations.

According to the New York Observer, Bloomberg is now considering spending up to $500 million to purchase the office of the president. In other words, by spending half a billion dollars, Bloomberg will secure himself total earnings of $3.2 million over eight years, assuming he decides to acquire a second term. This analysis ignores the fact that he might have to spend another half billion dollars on a second propaganda crusade, thereby halving the already negative return on investment.

Why would Bloomberg spend his money so irrationally? The trappings of the presidency would be lost on New York City’s chief plutocrat. His personal jet blows the doors off Air Force One. From the pictures I have seen, his house in Bermuda makes Camp David look like the government rest stop that it is. Gracie Mansion, New York City’s mayoral residence, has gone vacant since 2001 as Bloomberg opted to forego public housing and remain in his opulent 79th Street brownstone. Lacking Gracie Mansion’s waterfront location, the White House should be even less attractive to him. Lastly, Bloomberg ceremoniously rides the subway to work so the armor-plated, presidential limousine might find its rightful place at the Manheim auto auction.

If Bloomberg is apt to spend his own money so wastefully, imagine how much more recklessly he will fritter away yours. Rest assured that someone who squanders billions of his own dollars would happily blow trillions of your dollars without a second thought. None of the Republicrats currently running has shown such personal fiscal insanity. Unlike drunken sailors coming ashore with their pockets full of loot, our current crop of presidential pretenders at least understands that wasting other people’s money causes less personal distress than reaching into one’s own pocket.

Furthermore, consider the thought process behind his actions. Historically it tends to run along these lines: "If I were to snatch/commandeer/buy the chairmanship/Führer-ship/presidency, I could make the world a better place." Many mass graves, hastily dug trenches, and crematoria are littered with the bones and ashes of the victims of such utopian idolizers. Bloomberg’s electoral expenditures to date hint at his belief that the road to Utopia is paved with cancelled checks. Neither megalomania nor Bloomberg’s campaign spending recognizes any rational bounds.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City. Listen to his podcast.

DIGG THIS

The forces of evil have been trying to eradicate the United States since its founding. The most alarming threats have historically been external. For forty-five years, some Americans harbored a genuine fear of Communism. As a result, American taxpayers threw trillions of pesos at the military-industrial complex, 58,000 Americans died trying to rescue a peninsula in Southeast Asia, and no one had permission to visit Cuba. The government "saved" us from the Red Menace — right before it collapsed. Then the terrorists struck. The government is now in the process of "saving" us from this threat, which debuted on September 11, 2001.

Over the last week a new threat has emerged. This time the evildoers reside within our national borders. That factor alone should make citizens more nervous. We do not have oceans protecting us. Legal constraints limit our military from confronting the menace head on. The willful repudiation of the Second Amendment by our courts has disarmed the average American. Luckily, we have Ms. MeMe Roth of New Jersey spearheading our defenses against … the Girl Scouts!?

Exhibiting an inimitable, preening self-virtue, Ms. Roth has called for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies. In a press release (!) issued February 19th, Ms. Roth, President of National Action Against Obesity ("NAAO"), reasoned thus, "Girl Scout Cookies are high-calorie, high-sugar, high in saturated fat and nearly devoid of nutrition. Using young girls as a front to push millions of cookies onto an already bloated population further exacerbates an alarming crisis, no matter how cute the uniforms are. The Girl Scouts sell up to 200 million boxes yearly — that’s about one box for every overweight American.” Perhaps we should not laugh at Ms. Roth’s one-woman imitation of the Nanny State. Using history as precedent, boycotts can turn ugly. And unsuccessful boycotts can turn even uglier.

Shortly after taking office in April 1933, Adolf Hitler called for the boycott of Jewish owned shops, department stores, and banks. Never one to shy away from inflaming an already ugly situation, Hitler enlisted his Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels to publicly defend the boycott in a speech at the Berlin Lustgarten. Goebbels railed against anti-German "atrocity propaganda" spread by "international Jewry" in exhorting Germans to forego transacting with Jews.

If Goebbels’ words did not spur Germans to avoid Jewish businesses, a backup plan existed. Hitler stationed his menacing Sturmabteilung with placards reading "Germans! Defend Yourselves! Don’t buy from Jews!" in front of Jewish stores.

Yet the boycott message fell on deaf ears. While Hitler and Goebbels fulminated against abstractions like "Jewish finance capital" and "Judeo-Bolshevism," most Germans lived in the reality of day-to-day dealings with Jewish merchants. For the time being Jews appeared to be safe. But Hitler’s ardor burned on.

Shortly after this rare domestic political failure, the Nazi regime passed a series of laws limiting Jews in numerous ways. These laws prevented Jews from holding civil service positions, a prestigious career in Germany of the 30s. In the field of education, the Nazis banned Jews from teaching at universities and limited their enrollment in public schools. Additionally, Jews could not work as journalists. Subsequently, all German newspapers fell under Nazi control. The immediate price German Jews paid for their fellow Germans’ insolent disobedience of the boycott orders portended a horrific future. As we know all too well, the story ends as one of history’s darkest moments.

Hitler’s boycott orders represented one of the early steps in his grand scheme. One can only wonder if a boycott called against innocuous 12-year-old girls likewise has ulterior motives. At what point would Ms. Roth’s organization recognize that buyers of Girl Scout cookies in the United States of 2007 face no pressure to transact in comparison to Germans under the threatening stare of Nazi brown shirts in April 1933? Should she succeed in routing the wholesome girls in green shirts, where will Ms. Roth and her minions set their sights next? With her latest foray into the absurd, we should not be surprised when Ms. Roth calls for mandatory exercise programs for anyone she deems unfit. Never underestimate the imagination or zealotry of a Nanny State Gauleiter.

In the meantime here is a suggestion for Ms. Roth. Perhaps she might consider changing her title from President of the NAAO to Frau Präsident. The Teutonic version fits better.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City. Listen to his podcast.

DIGG THIS

Congratulations on getting your picture on the front page of today’s New York Times. That is quite a remarkable feat for someone five months old. Anyway, I have to tell you that the photo moved me to tears as I ate my breakfast this morning.

Seeing your father feed you while your mother and grandmother looked on reminded me about everything good about families. Your father’s care and love shine through brilliantly in the photo. You are lucky to have 2 parents who care about you so much. And it’s wonderful that your grandmother is still around to see both her son and grandson in such a tender moment.

I know you are too young to appreciate the feeding and care your dad gave you yesterday morning. One day you will look back on it with fond memories. Speaking on behalf of all my fellow Americans, we hope that you will reminisce with your father and not about your father as the clipping ages in your scrapbook.

Your father is a brave man. For that I commend him. Like Rep. Ron Paul I support the troops, your father being the foremost example. To best support them we should bring them home. I will pray for your father’s safe return. As a patriotic American it is the least I can do for you and your family.

One day you might wonder why the government decided to send a true patriot like your father halfway around the world at one of the most precious moments of your life. Trust me — your father will miss you more than anything he is leaving back home in Georgia. Both you guys will make it through this horrible experience and your mom will do her best in the meantime.

Believe it or not, the United States government did not always split up families the way it is doing to yours today. Until 1898 our leaders rarely saw a reason to send our honorable forces overseas to meddle in other nations’ affairs. But in the early 1900s President Woodrow Wilson made the fateful decision to intervene in a foreign war. He mouthed all the same bromides and war whoops that his successor George W(oodrow) Bush is spouting today. Wilson’s foray into the Great War set a precedent that we can not shake to this very day — the United States as global police force.

Your dad will be fighting in a war that I have seen described as necessary to the survival of this nation. Those screaming that assessment never volunteer to serve in the military like your dad. As a result of this global, messianic crusade, you, having just arrived on this planet five months ago will pay a bigger price than 99% of all Americans. While the rest of us watch the Super Bowl, eat to the point of diabetes, and argue about who should have won American Idol, you will be missing out on the love that only a parent can provide. And this will occur during some of the most formative months of your life. It’s sore consolation, but your father will probably suffer more by his absence from this exciting period of your life.

Your father might miss your first steps. He will most likely miss your first birthday party. We will pray that he does not miss all your birthdays. In any event, regularly send him a photo of yourself with the biggest smile you can muster. After the flashbulbs go off, feel free to cry in your mother’s arms for as long as you want. Those who have spilled so much ink demanding that heroes like your father go risk his life so they can keep writing white papers inside the Beltway do not know what a sacrifice is. You are living a sacrifice that few other Americans can imagine. But be strong for your dad. His life in Iraq will be hard enough without imagining how hurt you might feel. You are a trooper; your father will be that much more proud of you when he returns.

Best of luck and give your father a hug on behalf of all of us who appreciate his courage while loathing the traitors who put him in the line of danger.

Sincerely,
Mark G. Brennan

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City. Listen to his podcast.

DIGG THIS

George Bush now has the dubious distinction of the lowest approval rating of any President since Richard Nixon. ABC News reported that 33% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job. Conversely, 67% of Americans disapprove of his activities in office, primarily as a result of the never-ending American occupation of Iraq. One would imagine that if 67% of Americans disliked something they might try to change it. After reviewing some activities on the anti-war front over the last few days, one would be horribly mistaken for imagining so.

Bobby Muller, president of Veterans for America, spoke at the University of Pennsylvania Wednesday night. Muller has spent the last 40 years of his life in a wheelchair after a bullet severed his spine while he led his Marine platoon in Vietnam. In his talk Muller highlighted the idea that when the American war in Vietnam started to deteriorate, the Administration widened its theater to include Cambodia and Laos. He predicts a replay will occur in Iraq. An American attack on Iran is just a matter of time. In his words, "The war with Iran is on the conveyor belt."

For those of us who have been paying attention, Muller argued nothing new. However, coming from a wheelchair-bound combat veteran, his talk resonated more poignantly than all the vacillations from our elected officials. Muller drove home his main point with a raised fist and shrieking tone. "Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, you name the neocon who urged us to invade Iraq. There is only one reason why they did so — none of them have ever seen combat themselves. I have fought in battle and have the scars to prove it." The saddest part of the evening resulted from my realization that only 15 students and faculty witnessed his moving performance.

Perhaps the pollsters have horribly misjudged Americans’ opinion on the prosecution of this war. On a campus of roughly 20,000, fifteen (15!) bothered to attend a talk on a topic that supposedly 67% of them are annoyed about. Maybe the wintry mix of snow and cold kept the Quakers from attending. Such an excuse falls flat when the speaker arrives in a wheelchair. Apathy reigns among the faculty and student body at the University of Pennsylvania.

Last weekend’s peace march in Washington, DC illustrated this same apathy on a national scale. In a country of 300 million people, 67% or 210 million of whom oppose the American occupation of Iraq, somewhere between 30,000 and 400,000, marched for peace in the nation’s capital. The Captain and Tennille would draw a bigger crowd if they decided to reunite for one last tour.

Skeptics never accept poll results at face value. Yet talking amongst friends and colleagues one gets the impression that a large percentage of the population has had it with this war. Unfortunately, such dissatisfaction does not prompt Americans to action in 2007. I have seen dog owners yell at their pets with more emotion than I have seen anyone argue against the occupation of Iraq. The pollsters should add an asterisk to their findings on the disapproval for the war currently hovering at 67%*.

* Disapprove but don’t really care either way. Certainly won’t do anything about it. And what’s that guy in the wheelchair so pissed off about?

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City. Listen to his podcast.

Nothing terrifies the family of an active duty soldier more than the appearance of an officer in full dress, chaplain in tow, knocking on their front door. Needless to say, the family of a soldier killed in action bears the brunt of the tragedy. Imagine finding out that your husband will never return to resume his employment as you, the faithful wife, wonder how you will feed your children now that your checking account is overdrawn. Imagine finding out that your wife will never return to help care for your children as you, the faithful husband, struggle to raise 4-year-old twin girls. Imagine finding out that your son, your only surviving relative, will never return so that you can watch him start a family and bless you with grandchildren. As upsetting as it is being on the receiving end of such news, repeatedly delivering that message can be nearly as bad. In a 1991 letter to the Washington Post, retired Marine Gerald F. Merna wrote of his experience informing the next-of-kin during the Gulf War: "I experienced everything from women collapsing in my arms to being slapped by a distant relative who blamed me for the death. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get any easier with experience. Each call is worse than the one before it." Not being "thanked" for doing his job is the least of a CNO’s concerns.

Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to prevent or even delay this tragic news. However, we can improve the delivery. If, like in comedy — "It’s all in the delivery" — then perhaps we can start making headway in mitigating this American tragedy which has occurred over 2,500 times in the last few years. No soldier signs up for duty in the United States military to become a social worker. The military exists to defend the country and the soldiers that comprise it fight (literally) toward that end. No one joins the military to drive around, deliver a brief message and watch what remains of families collapse right before his eyes. Such activities as helping with funeral arrangements or explaining survivor benefits are not part of the curriculum of boot camp. Yet there is a better way, in fact a much better way. The following solution will enhance the "democratic process" which Americans unquestioningly adore. Although it is impossible to guarantee the success of this proposed change, the resulting debate should be reason enough to pursue it.

The proposal has three simple steps. Step One is the easiest — abolish the position of CNO in the military. Step Two is the replacement of the CNO with the 2 Senators and 1 Congressional Representative of the deceased. Step Three is watching the ensuing riot. Imagine watching "my" senators, Hilary Clinton and Charles Schumer, along with some representative from New York, delivering the fateful news to a New York state resident who, you can bet your bottom buck, did not donate to any of their campaigns as keeping their financial heads above water was their primary preoccupation. After regaining composure, the next-of-kin might respond with several questions for the messengers like, "As my elected representatives in the Senate and Congress, why, if you don’t support this war, don’t you do something about it?" or "Since you are always so busy talking out of both sides of your mouth in an effort to win your next election, explain to me how I, my children and my country benefit from my husband’s death?" Or how about, "Ms. Clinton, why is your child not fighting in Iraq if this cause is so important?"

The benefits of such a system are numerous. First of all, there would not be any notification calls to my Senators’ familiar $tomping ground$ (sic) of Scarsdale in Westchester County, Roslyn on Long Island or the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Instead Senators Clinton and Schumer would have to visit places they have never even heard of and care even less about, such as White Plains in Westchester, Shirley on Long Island and the Inwood section of Manhattan. Their big money donors, or shall we say "patrons," do not live in any of these lower-end ZIP codes and therefore the idealized, face-to-face, democratic dialog with one’s Congressmen never transpires there. The residents of these less "politically astute" areas are not paying $1,000 a head to rub elbows with Clinton and Schumer at pretentious Hamptons cocktail parties. $1,000 is more like their monthly budget for food, rent and clothing. Until our Congressmen see the sacrifice made by families now sporting one fewer member, they will never be able to perform the cost/benefit analysis of our occupation of Iraq. Forgive me for assuming that an elected official could (or would) actually perform such an analysis unless it directly impacted his upcoming election.

Slapping any United States Marine in the face is tantamount to signing your own death warrant, though no honorable Marine (sorry for the redundancy) would think of retaliating against a grieving family member since empathy would be his overriding emotion. While it rarely makes sense to "attack the messenger" as often happened to Officer Merna, the urge to slap those responsible for blithely sending your family member into danger would be much greater and harder to argue against. Even if your Congressmen claim to oppose the war/occupation, one’s reaction should run along the lines of demanding why their objections are so heartless. It would not be surprising to see a next-of-kin maintain his composure immediately after notification only to instantaneously lose it after hearing the double-speak response to such an innocent query.

While we often hear calls demanding that the children of politicians, or the politicians themselves, go fight the wars they demand be fought, this will never transpire. However, requiring elected officials, those who send others (or other’s children) to fight in wars, to face the human consequences of their votes by replacing the brave officers acting as CNOs is a reasonable demand. If nothing else, when they return to the safety of their seat in Congress you can rest assured that the debate would heat up a notch, provided they don’t themselves land in the hospital for informing an especially upset next-of-kin.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City.

In Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs provides an excellent definition of a "public good" when he writes, "[A public good] has the peculiar property of nonrivalry in consumption [emphasis added]: its enjoyment by one customer does not diminish its availability for the enjoyment of another. Once the public good has been produced, its use has no marginal cost, because its enjoyment by additional users requires no further sacrifice of valuable alternatives." As with almost every economics textbook, Higgs goes on to add that, "National defense is the most familiar example." Perhaps this statement was true when Higgs penned it in 1987. Unfortunately, these texts will now have to undergo revision as "national defense" today has next to nothing to do with "defense" and is no longer a net "good."

Yesterday’s events in Iraq vividly illustrate the preceding proposition. Wednesday afternoon the Associated Press reported that U.S. forces had killed two Iraqi women when the car in which they were riding failed to stop at an American "observation point" near the city of Samarra. One of the women, 35 year-old Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, was about to give birth and her brother, Khalid, was rushing her to the hospital for the delivery. The article quoted the distraught brother as saying, “I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped." Granted, in the heat of the moment, those with guns fire them without perfect information. We occasionally see it happen here when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen. It is terribly unfortunate but it happens. What we don’t usually hear from the victim’s surviving relatives is how Mr. Jassim finished his anguished testimony: "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives." And by the way, the baby died too.

Here is a quick thought experiment. The Chinese military occupies your city and sets up roadblocks that make DWI checkpoints seem fun by comparison. Each and every time you approach a checkpoint the soldiers signal to you in a strange (that is to say, foreign) manner which not only confuses you but inevitably leads to them further reprimanding you. Before proceeding you must come to a complete stop while they search your car. As a result your daily commute is 20 minutes longer each way. After they wave you through while barking at you in Chinese or broken English you remain uncertain if they deem you a threat or merely the harmless starched-shirt business drone that in fact you are. This annoyance persists for 3 years and while you detest the process and the occupying force, there is not a whole lot you can do to stop it. Life goes on and this is just a major inconvenience.

Then one day while watching TV at home, your wife, who is in the ninth month of her pregnancy screams, "My water just broke!" You jump in the car to make a mad dash to the hospital for the eagerly awaited birth of your first child whose name you have already selected and whose room you lovingly decorated. You remember that there is a Chinese checkpoint on the main road to the hospital but in your glee you errantly think that the Chinese soldiers will remember you from your daily transit and quickly wave you through. Forgetting the rigor of their procedure, you drive at a greater than usual speed considering the urgent circumstances. One of the Chinese soldiers, nervous about protecting himself while in enemy territory, opens fire on your car for not slowing down soon enough and your wife takes it in the chest. You storm past the barricades to get her to the hospital all the while watching the bloodstain on her chest grow. You finally get her to the hospital and carry her into the emergency room while screaming for help. After the nurses escort you from the table on which your wife lays mortally wounded, you collapse in the waiting area praying that the staff can save her. Twenty minutes later a doctor comes out of the emergency room, his scrubs covered in blood and his brow heavy with sweat. Without introducing himself, he shakes your hand, looks down and says "I’m sorry." You shriek, "But what about the baby?" The doctor apologizes again and adds, "We could not save her either."

What kind of anger or hatred would that generate in the average expectant American father? I can safely say that in my case I would dedicate the rest of my life to maiming, attacking and killing the occupying forces. Mr. Jassim might think the same way. Our public good of national defense has likely created at least one mortal enemy.

Today’s bad news, coming on the heels of the alleged massacre in Haditha and the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, points to the fact that while war is indeed ugly, subsequent occupations can be even uglier. In a war civilians inevitably die. We can euphemistically call their deaths "collateral damage." Even in a just war civilians are slaughtered. However, when the Commander-in-Chief lands on the deck of an aircraft carrier to announce the successful completion of wartime hostilities we reasonably expect the slaughter of innocents to subside. Today we still have American troops killing Iraqis several years after our leader told us the war was effectively over. Even the most diehard proponents of preemptive war, unjust war, or even murder, should pause for a second to reflect on how this "accident" will make them any safer. In fact it will make all of us less safe as Mr. Jassim, his friends, and fellow countrymen deepen their hatred of the occupying forces for killing the next Iraqi generation represented by the child who died before being born.

In their growing resentment of the occupying US forces, Iraqi anger will first be directed at soldiers from places like Girard, Kansas and Irving, Texas, both cities which lost servicemen fighting there over the past week. US soldiers must now toe the microscopic line that separates their need to defend themselves against deadly attack from the mandate not to shoot innocent civilians. We can thank the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world for putting these GIs in this lose-lose situation. If they don’t shoot at a suspicious car approaching their checkpoint they might pay the ultimate price when the driver detonates himself. Shoot too soon and they risk court martial and murder charges for killing an innocent civilian just trying to live his life in his occupied homeland.

If the perpetually adolescent Bush twins, the Oxford-educated management consultant Chelsea Clinton, or the "sexually proud" Mary Cheney does not have to make this life or death choice on a daily basis, then no American GI should have to do the same thing. In theory we send our military in to win wars, not to perpetually occupy foreign lands. In reality this is exactly what our government does. And in so doing, national defense is becoming less and less of a benefit to the American taxpayer.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City.

Sunday night’s premiere of Baghdad ER brought the horror of an American medical hospital in Iraq’s Green Zone into full view and perfect focus. Unlike countless episodes of MASH, the only humor was gallows humor and the laughs, when they occurred, were so obviously forced that they seemed to be the only way to fight back tears. Doctors and soldiers in the film reflect on the gut-wrenching misery usually with Tourette-like cursing but, more frequently, depressed resignation. These heroic medical personnel never become inured to the missing limbs, burned skin, and mangled corpses that are the raw materials of their production line. No sane human being ever could. Instead we get a vivid portrait of the only Americans who have seen the unspeakable carnage up close and way too personally. These are also the most credible Americans who seem to be taking a vocal stand on the mounting casualties as they futilely rush about like the Dutch boy trying to plug the dike.

Perhaps HBO’s film will open the eyes of the apathetic voting public. But since the film does not include any information on how to get rich in real estate, lose weight, or buy cheap gas, it probably won’t. And since none of the wounded or killed American soldiers hails from Great Neck, Grosse Point, or Glendale, "elite" opinion will remain dormant. Whether that opinion is of the "Stay the course (as long as my kid does not have to miss a semester or two at Yale)" variety best represented by your typical Republican suburbanite, or of the "I am angrily marching in protest of u2018No Blood for Oil’ this weekend (but not next weekend since I have to chaperone Tyler’s class trip to the organic farm on Saturday)" variety espoused by liberals on both coasts, no one but the doctors in the American military hospital in Baghdad seems bold enough to speak up for the injured piling up unnoticed like dust bunnies under a bed.

If you do in fact watch the documentary, and every American should watch its replay on Memorial Day regardless of his position on the American occupation of Iraq, the scenes of injury and suffering are more graphic than words can explain. Limbs dangling from tendons, open torsos filled with shrapnel and the dazed stares of shell-shocked soldier, all shove the horrors of war into our untroubled living rooms. Watching a nurse mop up a blood-covered a floor or cataloging a body part in a jar would (should?) provide even the most ardent supporters of our occupation with reason to pause. And in their pause they should ask themselves: Why am I not over there fighting this fight which I so stridently insist must be fought? Is this occupation really worth losing an arm, both arms, both legs, or both legs and an arm (as in fact happens to one of the soldiers in the film)? If red-blooded Americans from small rural towns I have never heard of are sacrificing life and limb so that the Boca Raton Little League can play its games free from terrorists and the shoppers of Bethesda can pile up debt, shouldn’t I or my progeny either take a role in fighting or, conversely, work to stop the unnecessary slaughter?

Alas, such questions will never get a fair hearing from those most in need of such introspection. Instead, remote controls will instantaneously remove any bloody images from our 54-inch flat screens should they too closely resemble the half-eaten, extra-large, Domino’s pepperoni pizza sitting on our laps. In a recent interview, one of the film’s co-creators Jon Alpert said, "We’re giving you the veneer of the violence. But it’s much, much worse than we portrayed it. We just didn’t think that an audience would tolerate that." If Mr. Alpert could predict the stock market as well as he can predict Americans’ tolerance for carnage, he would be richer than Warren Buffett. Let’s hope that he kept the more brutal scenes for history’s sake; even though we as a society rarely take the time to do a cost-benefit analysis of war, the evidence on the cost side keeps piling up while the benefits remain illusory. Maybe Saddam was in fact going to nuke me, my wife, our two cats, and the dry cleaners across the street. And maybe monkeys will fly out of my… In either case, he is now behind bars while suicidal maniacs with I.E.D.’s strapped to their chests are killing Americans whose kids are not benefiting from the services of $500 per hour SAT tutors or figuring out how to redeem their American Express Platinum Membership Rewards Point so that they can attend the ESPN Golf School with a "focus on the importance of swing mechanics, club control, and body behavior." One can safely assume that ESPN has made no special provision for any military amputees in attendance who might need special instruction in "chipping with one arm" or "putting while blind" since Iraq reminds the intended customer base of little more than the unraked sand trap on the 15th hole at their country club. At this point a complimentary invitation to even a handful of the 17,000+ wounded American soldiers would be a welcome statement of thanks as we approach Memorial Day, but in reality it remains just a wish.

We have reached a deplorable state where an injured horse elicits a stronger response than a dead or maimed fellow American. Recall for a moment the soldier cited in the film who lost both legs and an arm. He won’t ever again ride a bike as he did as an energetic young boy. He won’t be able to take leisurely evening strolls with his wife. He won’t be able to practice tackling or jump shooting with his son. And he won’t be able to walk his daughter down the aisle on the most important day of her life as he "hands" her off to the man of her dreams. But in this case the dream our future bride will live with will be a nightmare — seeing her father suffer and struggle while remembering that her fellow Americans cried for a horse.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City.

Even though I had heard the word "again" since my earliest childhood memories, I never had reason to question its meaning. Whether through context or repetition I always assumed that "again" meant just what the AHD said it meant: once more, another time, anew. While I never fell for the old joke where you tell someone, "Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not in the dictionary?," I was gullible enough to believe the AHD’s definition of "again." After listening to President Bush’s press conference on Tuesday, I am saddened to learn that my dictionary has been lying to me for these last two-plus decades. Old friends, soon departed — and you can keep my dirty paw prints on your outer facing edge as a sendoff!

At yesterday’s news conference a reporter asked the President how he would respond to a woman, a waning Bush supporter, who told that same reporter outside a Cleveland hotel after the President’s speech on Monday, "He’s losing me. He’s been there too long. He’s losing me." Our commander-in-chief responded,

I also understand the consequences of not achieving our objectives by leaving too early. Iraq would become a place of instability, a place from which the enemy can plot, plan and attack. I believe that they want to hurt us again. (emphasis added)

Iraq will hurt us "again"? Like when the Iraqis flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001? Like when they blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Office Building in Oklahoma City in 1995? Like when they killed 230 Marines with a suicide truck bomb in Lebanon in 1983? If indeed "again" means "one more time," we should all dig deep into our memory banks for the initial incident that sparked such a usage of a seemingly simple word. Before you know it we could be on the receiving end of such ahistorical comments as the one which emanated from Mr. Blutarski in Animal House in which he tried to fire up the troops by reminding them about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor. At least Mr. Blutarski used grammatically and syntactically correct English. Plus, his comical gross misinformation never caused anyone’s death and in fact helped John Belushi’s popularity, unlike President Bush’s attempt to rationalize The American Occupation of Iraq.

Maybe we should ask Ricardo Barraza, Dale G. Brehm or Nyle Yates III how they would judge the President’s use of the word "again." Unfortunately we can’t since these three honorable Americans are the latest fallen soldiers, bringing the total number of "Americans No Longer with Us But With Whom I Would Rather Have a Beer Than Anyone in the Current Administration" to 2,311. Two Rangers and a member of the 101st Airborne, killed in combat so that Iraq can not hurt us "again."

One thing I will give the President credit for is his observation regarding the timetable for American withdrawal from The Occupation. Some toadying reporter asked the President if there will "come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?" Sounding like an eminent diplomatic historian of the 20th Century, President Bush sagaciously responded, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq." While I am dubious of his claim that evacuating The Occupied Territory is an objective since it directly clashes with our global Wilsonian expansion and nation-building, I have no doubt that future presidents will be the ones who will have to grapple with the decision. On second thought, perhaps they won’t grapple with any such decision as I have yet to see even the glimmer of a discussion regarding our occupations of Korea, Japan or the Balkans. As for any "government of Iraq" making such a momentous decision, and the United States actually agreeing to it, I would first expect to see the election of another Polish Pope again. Please tell me if I used the word correctly since my old dictionary is now lying in state.

Mark G. Brennan [send him email] writes from New York City.

Running
is one exercise that will generally get the job done. Aside from
helping one lose weight, running also improves the cardiovascular
system, strengthens leg muscles and improves one's emotional state.
Unfortunately, the benefits of running come at a cost. For anyone
who has embarked on a serious running regimen, just uttering the
words "plantar fasciitis" is enough to provoke a wince.
Plantar fasciitis is a painful condition arising when a ligament,
the plantar fascia, becomes inflamed. Preventive measures abound
and, if one is able to detect the condition in its early stages,
a treatment as simple as rolling the sole of one's foot on a tennis
ball will often suffice. However, the combination of foregoing high
calorie foods and sticking to a serious running regimen can be highly
demanding. For those who responsibly choose to run to get in shape,
I humbly propose the following: In order to stomp out (no pun intended)
plantar fasciitis, we will hereby put a tax on all running shoes
of $5/pair. By so doing, we will discourage some people from running
entirely and thereby avoid the dreaded plantar fasciitis. For those
who are stubborn enough not to heed this economic incentive, we
will take all monies raised to fund a state-run plantar fasciitis
rehabilitation center. In the future the alleviation of plantar
fasciitis will become the purview of the state. For those who run
responsibly and take precautionary measures when they sense the
onset of plantar fasciitis, they will have the peace of mind of
knowing that they are funding the recuperation of their fellow citizens
who refuse to take any responsibility for their own condition. Eventually,
we will have lots of runners, no plantar fasciitis, and more tax
revenues than we originally started with!

Although
my proposed solution to foot pain borders on the insane, the state
of New
Jersey is planning to embark on exactly that path in its treatment
of drug and alcohol addiction. A New Jersey-based group called "Parent
to Parent" is urging the state legislature to impose a five
cent per gallon tax on alcohol to fund the state's rehabilitation
programs. The demon alcohol is always to blame. From the temperance
movement earlier in our country's history to the Eighteenth Amendment,
do-gooders have repeatedly vilified alcohol and its users in order
to gain political power. First it was an attempt to control Catholic
immigrants from Ireland and southeastern Europe in the 19th
Century. Now it is a campaign against those who enjoy a casual beer
since the drinker is always a pariah in the mind of the teetotaler,
and legislation like this will just drive home the point. Why the
state of New Jersey is in the business of addiction rehabilitation
goes unremarked but it should not surprise us since both the Federal
constitution and those of the states have become impotent in circumscribing
the reach of government.

For residents
of New Jersey who drink responsibly, this tax will be an involuntary
charitable contribution (and not tax deductible) that they could
have otherwise made to the charity of their choice. And to think
that some of them might have made such a donation to a charity dealing
with the problems of addiction is where this proposed legislation
is particularly harmful and pernicious. No one likes to make donations
to charities that squander their resources or are ineffective in
assisting those they endeavor to help. In choosing among several
charities soliciting donations, donors will try to determine which
one has the best design and track record. The do-gooders now pestering
the state of New Jersey are proposing that we take away this simple
market check and fund a program whose results will be — in this
case only intentions matter. Not only do the do-gooders desire to
self-righteously punish those who enjoy alcohol. Unfortunately,
they will inadvertently also punish those who over imbibe by subjecting
them to a one-size-fits-none, state-run, monopoly rehabilitation
provider. Any incentive for private parties to test or implement
rehabilitation methods will disappear as the state's funding for
this unconstitutional activity usurps the market in rehabilitative
charities. Ultimately rehabilitation will be like the DMV — long
lines and snarling employees whose primary function is to punch
the clock. So much for helping those in need.

Although
this legislation is still only a proposal, things do not look good
for Bruce Springsteen, blue-haired gamblers in Atlantic City or
the boys at Tony Soprano's Bada-Bing. In this case, a self-righteous
and focused group attacks an "evil" activity practiced,
and more importantly, enjoyed, diffusely. Most of us like to drink
liquor. None of us will cry if we have to pay a nickel more to do
so. But each of those nickels goes into only one piggy bank and
eventually they start to add up. Over time the state will marshal
those nickels to create a perpetual bureaucracy which will inevitably
"forget" its reason for coming into existence (to cure
addiction remember?) but never lose its thirst for stealing private
wealth as it grows like an untended weed garden. Left in the dust
will be those who, for whatever reason, cannot control their addictions,
while the rest of us cough up nickels for all eternity. Residents
of New Jersey will now have a reason to drive the short distance
into New York to buy their alcohol. They should wave to New Yorkers
driving out to New Jersey to buy their clothes tax-free. The conspiracist
in me says this may all just be a head fake to increase revenues
from tolls on the bridges and tunnels connecting New York and New
Jersey. Sadly, in either case the state wins.

February
25, 2006

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

Less understandably,
in the debates surrounding which country the neocons want to invade
next, their chronological age presents no such excuse. Despite all
the fun we are having in Iraq, Jeffrey Bell, "a principal of
Capital City Partners, a Washington consulting firm" has laid
down the gauntlet in the February 6th The Weekly Standard
in a puerile dare to President Bush. The title of his article, "Iran
or Bust: The Defining Test of Bush's Presidency," reminds one
of playground taunts of "Going Down the Slide Headfirst: Only
Real 3rd Graders Do It!" The only difference is
that more 3rd graders have been injured accepting such
a dare in the 2005–2006 school year than "consultants"
like Mr. Bell will ever be injured or killed in the Iraqi war of
which they are such huge proponents.

Mr. Bell
identifies the potential nuclear calamity with Iran as "the
central crisis of the Bush Presidency." Has he already forgotten
about Osama bin Laden or is he getting bored with the seemingly
futile pursuit? Either way, our original attacker is out making
videos and threatening us as we amass troops in Iraq so that foreign
women can vote, American reporters can get kidnapped or nicked by
shrapnel, and Halliburton can remain gainfully employed building
14 permanent military bases in the desert. Now it is time to forget
all that and move on to Iran as per Mr. Bell. Needless to say, nowhere
in the article does Mr. Bell mention that he will be setting an
example of true commitment in practicing what he preaches by volunteering
for military service. As one of my MBA professors used to quip in
a self-deprecating manner, "Those who can, do. Those who can't,
teach. Those who can't teach, consult." We can now add another
phrase to the chain: "Those who pontificate as consultants
should be the last ones to suggest that others fight wars on their
behalf unless they are willing to fight themselves."

Bell's
article strikes several other empty chords. He writes that, "The
President served notice that foreign governments providing safe
havens for terrorist enemies of the United States would be treated
as if those governments were mounting terrorist operations themselves
— that is, as enemies of the United States in a world war."
Despite the overtly belligerent language, I assume Mr. Bell merely
forgot to mention that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia get exemptions.
As to why, that is anybody's guess. Trying to discern any coherent
logical patterns or consistent philosophy in a warmongering chickenhawk's
scratchings is akin to writing about abstract, modern art — there
is no intrinsic value to it so just fill the page with sesquipedalian
words and impress your readers with BS.

Bell also
points out that one of the foundational elements of the Bush Doctrine
was the recrudescence of the Wilsonian crusade to make the world
safe for democracy, which in today's parlance is called "the
promotion of democracy" since it sounds a little less proactive
though no less threatening. Despite all the misgivings the ancient
Greeks had about democracy, we persist in our crusade. But woe to
the nation whose demos elects a leader we don't like. Hamas
might very well be an enemy of the United States but, luckily for
them, Mr. Bell is urging our military machine to focus further east
on Iran, the site of our next "cakewalk."

Bell and
his ilk have imputed a teleology to President Bush that is a long
way from the President's 2000 debate pledge to reduce the number
of US troops overseas. No one with the slightest grasp of reality
considered such a comment from W to be any more trustworthy than
his father's earlier tax pledge which only proved to the American
people that one ability each and every one of us lacks — the ability
to read lips — is more important than those of us with working ears
previously thought necessary. While 9/11 changed the geostrategic
map, our subsequent actions have been mere diversions from the pressing
matter of catching Osama bin Laden and his minions. Looking for
al Qaeda (along with WMD's, Kurd corpses, and Elvis for that matter)
in Iraq has gotten us nowhere whereas free elections in Afghanistan,
while making the nation builders beat their chests with pride, only
resulted in more videotapes from Public Enemy #1 threatening our
destruction. Bell now proposes that Bush's final test will be Iran
and its potential nuclear capabilities. This he sees as the test
which will define the Presidency of George W. Bush and is, in essence,
his telos, or ultimate end.

Could there
be a glimmer of hope in this challenge to an easily influenced Commander
in Chief? Might our global crusade end with Iran? Could Iran be
the teleogical end of Bush's presidency? If recent history is any
guide, obviously not. The list of bogeymen and rogue nations who
scare "our brave men out of uniform," so faithfully manning
their ink-spewing, jingoistic think tanks, is longer than the line
for the women's restroom at the intermission of The Phantom of
the Opera. But if there is one thing that gives us hope it is
this: after we "do our thing" in Iran (with Mr. Bell most
likely providing invaluable cheerleading from his cubicle), the
list of countries we need to invade, implement democracy in and
then garrison thousands of troops in forever, will be one shorter.
Such a prospect is hardly heartwarming. Let's just hope a nuclear
conflagration is not in the cards since most cubicles could not
withstand a geothermal blast.

February
9, 2006

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

Let's try
another one. Ever hear of Bob Woodruff? "Of course!" you
just yelled. I would also bet you know that in the last 24 hours
Mr. Woodruff, reporting from Iraq for ABC News, suffered serious
injuries when an explosion hit the Iraqi vehicle in which he was
riding during a shootout near Baghdad. Luckily, Mr. Woodruff was
wearing full body armor but he and his cameraman, Bob Vogt, suffered
severe shrapnel wounds to their heads and upper bodies. Since they
were standing up in the vehicle's turret they were more exposed
and therefore more prone to injury. I wish both Messrs. Woodruff
and Vogt a speedy recovery and pray that none of their injuries
are life-threatening.

The reaction
of the press to Woodruff's (and Vogt's) injuries has been telling,
especially when compared to its reaction to the death of Staff Sgt.
Durbin. The New York Times thought it fitting that Woodruff's
wounds merited the lead story in Monday's paper, including not just
a color photo of him on its front page but also a larger, black
and white photo of him on the inside pages. Along with telling us
of his fluency in Mandarin and his previous career as a corporate
lawyer the Times saw the need to defend his gravitas by quoting
that, "A colleague at ABC says the men were u2018not being hot
dogs' while on assignment in Iraq." While we should not doubt
for a second that anyone who enters the Iraqi war zone is there
for the purpose of "hot dogging," the press' exaltation
of Mr. Woodruff's unfortunate injuries gives one pause. After all,
the press is a business like any other. It looks to sell a product,
in this case "news," by making it more attractive to potential
consumers. If ABC has its main anchor embedded in Iraq to do the
evening news, the thinking is that more viewers will tune in to
their broadcast. Mr. Woodruff accepted the risks of going to Iraq
in an effort to boost ABC's viewership.

Naturally,
one can dismiss the front page reporting of Mr. Woodruff's situation
as merely a case of "Man Bites Dog." The New York Post
ran a photo of George Stephanopoulos on his talk show yesterday.
Looking like he was about to burst into tears, Stephanopoulos' head
was lowered and his hand was covering his mouth. He was either thinking
"There but for the grace of God go I" or "Wow, real
people are getting hurt in Iraq." As far as I know, Stephanopoulos
made no such gesture when Staff Sgt. Durbin was slain.

The main
mention of Staff Sgt. Durbin's death in the Times was at
the bottom of page A8 in Saturday's edition, otherwise known as
"No Man's Land" in journalistic real estate. The paper
has been running its "Names of the Dead" box which lists
the total number of American servicemen officially reported as killed.
Saturday, Staff Sgt. Durbin's name appeared. And his name appeared
in font that is smaller than that used for its main articles. It
seems the editors of the Times are abiding by their credo
"All the News That's Fit to Print" in slightly modified
form — "All the News That's Fit to Print, But We Use a Smaller
Font for Stuff That We Either Don't Really Care About or Can't Be
Bothered With." How else to explain the fact that the 2,233
American soldiers killed to date merit nothing more than a small-font
blip in a box delicately buried somewhere so that readers will not
be offended by its inexorably increasing summary of carnage? Somehow
Mr. Woodruff's injuries matter more than 2,233 deaths.

We can
expect many more names like Staff Sgt. Durbin's festooning the Times'
"Names of the Dead" box in micro-font. Just like in Orwell's
Animal
Farm, some animals are more equal than others. Sure, Mr.
Woodruff's wounds will sell more papers than Staff Sgt. Durbin's
death, as well as those of all the other underrepresented American
servicemen who have gone to an early rest. But what truly nauseates
those of us who are paying attention is the disparity in reaction
to the death of thousands of human beings as compared to the injuries
of one. We can expect more of this repulsive reaction until the
deaths in Iraq start to really "hit home." When the children
of the Times editorial staff start dying in the deserts of
the Middle East, when more TV reporters get hit with shrapnel, or
when some government official is wounded while visiting the troops,
then perhaps we can expect the proper amount of prudence in putting
the lives of loyal Americans like Staff Sgt. Jerry M. Durbin, Jr.
at mortal peril. Sad to say, this will not happen anytime soon.
Please make it a point to pay closer attention to the names appearing
in the "Names of the Dead" box and less time paying attention
to the front page of The New York Times. Better yet, just
stop reading it if you haven't already since playing along with
them will only encourage their behavior.

January
31, 2006

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

In The
New York Times Magazine of January 8, 2006, Ann Hulbert breaks
new ground in her article "Speed Bump" by being either
disdainfully ignorant or ignorantly disdainful. I suggest you read
the article to decide which. On second thought, don't bother reading
the article as it will only enrage anyone with any knowledge of
economics, basic fairness, or the current state of the American
landscape. However for historians of the French Revolution, the
article is prima facie evidence that Rousseau's thoughts
on egalité are still thriving, to our utter detriment.

In her
thankfully brief article, Hulbert points out that "the time
that the average commuter spent stuck in traffic tripled between
1982 and 2002," clearly a problem, then annoyingly dismisses
any sort of market solution while reminding us that she "sometimes
succumbed to liberal indignation" about it. Most of us, when
confronted with a problem try to solve it. New York Times
writers prefer to kvetch since it is easier than thinking
through all aspects of a problem and any possible solutions.

Hulbert
has problems with simple economic solutions to ameliorate traffic
tie-ups such as increased use of tolls and peak pricing. She is
even more upset that "Americans are used to the idea that people
can buy their way out of the crumbling public sphere and into gated
communities, private schools, etc." How dare certain citizens
try to better their lot in life when Jacobins like Hulbert are trying
to drag us all down to the lowest common denominator where we can
each suffer equally in the collective misery! Of course she makes
no mention of the fact that these same individuals will still be
paying taxes to fund her public boondoggles while at the same time
using them less. Unless these elitists are sitting motionless in
their land yachts on some completely clogged government "owned"
road listening to NPR just like Hulbert, then she will remain irate.

Hulbert
reminds us several times in her piece that while an "enlightened
cure" is necessary, "influential specialists" have
been unable to help Washington, D.C.'s "hoi polloi poke along."
Here we get several fine examples of her "liberal indignation"
but she forgot to add the part about limousines. Solving the nation's
traffic problem hardly requires an "enlightened cure."
While I don't doubt for a second that he was enlightened, Murray
Rothbard dealt with the problem unequivocally in For
a New Liberty which has been in print since 1973. Someone
should FedEx Hulbert a copy as soon as possible, assuming that she
understands the rudiments of supply and demand and has even heard
of property rights. Her use of the phrase "influential specialists"
without naming a single one belies her statist mentality that only
someone who "specializes" in such intractable problems
as traffic could possibly be technically qualified to solve them.
Clearly a lowly economist and a silly idea like allocating a scarce
resource (road space) to those most willing to pay for it will never
work. Hulbert's entire article informs us that she knows better
than to entertain the idea. And if any city's "hoi polloi"
had to be stuck in traffic, well, it might as well be Washington
D.C.'s since a higher proportion of them are the government functionaries
who have a hand, however tangential, in bringing us the nationwide
traffic mess in the first place.

By the
end of the article, Hulbert tells us that Anthony Downs of the Brookings
Institution believes that traffic is a sign of economic health and
something we should be happy about. She mentions that "where
traffic is at a standstill, it generally means business is humming."
I am not sure which business she is referring to but if she means
the business of selling newspapers to frustrated motorists at busy
intersections or vagrants washing windshields of gridlocked cars
then, yes, business must be booming. However, eventually Yogi Berra's
quip that a favorite place of his was "So crowded that no one
goes there anymore" will eventually come to pass.

Economic
actors respond to their environments; if traffic is impassable,
drivers look for alternate routes. If one route requires a fee,
some drivers will opt for it while others will prefer to keep their
money and sit in traffic. Ann Hulbert, with her cries of egalité,
would prefer that Americans not be given a choice that would eventually
help all parties involved. Instead we must all enjoy the benefits
of socialism equally.

January
11, 2006

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

A strike during the Advent Season (sorry, the phantasmagoria
we now call "The Holiday Shopping Season") will wreak
havoc on merchants who do a brisk business during this time as well
as the city which grabs an 8.375% involuntary surcharge euphemistically
known as a "sales tax." On the bright side, one can point
to a slowdown in retail sales and the resultant starving of the
municipal Moloch as one silver lining. Unfortunately for working
New Yorkers, the transit strike will exact such a toll that Moloch's
unsated appetite will be insufficient consolation. Yesterday the
city estimated, in a submission to the court presiding over the
"negotiations," that businesses stand to lose between
$440 million and $660 million per day. Furthermore, the city will
incur approximately $10 million per day in additional expenses for
police and emergency services personnel to herd New York's transportation-less,
bovine pedestrians.

Tears are hard to shed for the impoverished transportation
lords. At present, monopolist NYC Transit train operators have a
starting salary of $52,644. Police officers and firefighters currently
start at $25,100 while sanitation workers start at $26,000. Although
all these positions employ unionized monopolists, one has to wonder
why it is that police officers and firefighters, who lay their lives
on the line daily, start at less than half the wage of a subway
driver. Also perplexing is the fact that sanitation workers get
more than New York's Finest and Bravest. However, in the global
headquarters of monopolies, unions, and government job spoils systems,
the Big Apple, perhaps nothing should surprise us and, to be blunt,
highlighting the difference might only serve to enrage those earning
less while incurring far greater risks. Sadly, in the end it will
only be the overburdened New York taxpayers who foot the difference
to raise the salaries of the police and firemen.

Those of us who take a historical look at the New York City
transit system's predicament can only feel exasperated. After taking
over the subway system from private operators in the mid twentieth
century, New York City then proceeded to do everything in its power
to maintain the "nickel fare" despite inflation, the increasing
bargaining and extortionate powers of the municipal unions, and
a deteriorating infrastructure. As the fare rose from a nickel to
the current $2, the MTA, with the help of the city, enforced its
monopolist's grip on the local transportation market. For years
the city prohibited private operators from running commuter van
services, falsely claiming that the vans were dangerous and accusing
drivers of cherry picking the "best passengers" (???)
from the monopoly's routes. Unmentioned was the fact that the vans,
largely found in immigrant and working class outer borough neighborhoods
provided cheaper, faster and more reliable transportation than the
monopolist's subways and buses. In a feeble concession to the free
market, the monopolists finally agreed to allow the vans to operate
but only after compliance with burdensome inspection and driver
qualification regulations. Consumers voting with their feet rarely
matter to monopolists and, in New York City's case, the result was
merely an increase in the transit fare to make up the revenue shortfall,
as the quality of service never entered the equation.

One can only stare in disbelief at the inefficiency of the
city's transportation system. In last November's elections legislators
called for, and unfortunately received, billions of dollars to extend
the Second Avenue subway line. This line presently exists as an
empty, unused subway tunnel. With the recent funding mandate, a
newly christened make-work project will extend the dormant tunnel
another 50 blocks south over the next decade. Despite its astronomical
cost, the city and the transit monopolists never entertained any
free market solutions like expanded private van service to fill
the need. Even in Brazil, where skeptics boast "It's the country
of the future…and always will be!" a saner element rules in
the transportation market. Residents of Rio de Janeiro who live
in the hillside shantytowns known as favelas make frequent
use of private van service to commute into the downtown area. For
less than the cost of the public bus system, Rio's poorest residents
ride around in the city in so many Volkswagen Minibuses that visitors
think they are witnessing a restaging of Woodstock. And since the
favelas are commonly built on the Rio's steepest hillsides,
private operators with motorcycles ferry pedestrians up and down
the hill for the hardest leg of their trips. The remarkable thing
is that all this transpires without some meddling government bureaucrat
orchestrating it and that it happens in a country with an avowedly
socialist President. I would suggest that New York City's Politburo
take note but I fear it would only assist them in crushing any free
market entrepreneurs.

Of course, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his minions are diligently
preparing for the strike with noxious government stopgap measures.
Despite creating a net worth in the billions of dollars by successfully
navigating our nominally free market in media, Bloomberg persists
in socialist solutions to the upcoming headache. To cut down on
congestion, the city will not allow any cars with fewer than four
passengers south of 96th Street in Manhattan during the
strike. A better solution might be to allow anyone who wants to
drive a car to do so with however many passengers he wants while
charging premium fares to those hauling fewer passengers. In this
manner, those who most value the use of their private car will pay
for the privilege while those who do not see the same value on their
time can hoof it. None of these actions by the city should surprise
us as New York assiduously outlaws ticket scalping and maintains
rent regulations which even the most redistributionist of economists
deplore. As a final solution Bloomberg has recommended that commuters
find a place close to the office to camp out during the strike.
Since the Mayor opts not to occupy the city's official mayoral residence
at Gracie Mansion it will only be a matter of time before he offers
that up for commuters with no means of getting home. Bet your last
dollar that any such offer will not be properly auctioned off to
the highest bidder as that would make too much economic sense.

Cynical observers of Friday's potential nightmare might hope
for two outcomes. First, since the time necessary to train someone
to drive a bus, sweep a subway car, or make change in a token booth
is not significant, a replay of Reagan's bust up of the Patco strike
would most likely be feasible in theory. In reality, New York is
so heavily unionized that such a scenario would probably lead to
widespread rioting. Plus, the nominally Republican plutocrat Mayor
would be unlikely to challenge such a large part of the city's voter
base, unionized workers, after spending a mind boggling $73 million
on his campaign, or $103 per vote, in the November election. Alternatively,
New Yorkers could vote with their feet (they might be using them
Friday whether they want to or not) and demand more private sector
transportation options. While this avenue is equally unlikely as
the city's largest single interest group — New York City residents
being horribly inconvenienced by the transit strike — is more diffuse
and unorganized than the union whose machinations seem almost Prussian
in their threatening precision. I guess those of us who like to
hedge our bets will just hope for good weather as the only good
possible outcome.

December
15, 2005

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

No
matter how ardently one might believe in equality of the sexes and
admonish me for hinting that my wife would be just as capable of
handling a potential intruder, at least in my case my wife was justified
in telling me to go investigate the noise. I am ten inches taller
than she and outweigh her by 75 pounds. She does a wonderful job
of stoically suffering through my incessant injuries from competing
in judo and Brazilian jiu jitsu thrice weekly so, naturally, the
return on investment for her would be for me to go and "practice
what I practice," to mangle a phrase. Besides, I would do whatever
it takes to protect her and consider myself more expendable in the
long run. So we will leave any feminist objections for another day
as I am only referring here to the case of my family, not that of
any now-insulted reader.

A
similar principle holds true with my friends. I will go to bat for
any of my friends when they are unjustly attacked. And in the case
of a just attack I would at the very least attempt to break up the
fight. Choosing my friends carefully, I know that they would reciprocate.
Just this past August I went to Rio de Janeiro for the Brazilian
Jiu Jitsu Masters World Championship with my judo coach, Teimoc
Johnston-Ono, a former US judo Olympian and coach at the Olympic
training center in Colorado Springs. Street crime is common in Rio
but we both knew that we would happily come to each other's aid
in the case of trouble. Likewise, my best man, college football
teammate and fellow LRC contributor John Hackney and I once ran
into a bit of trouble ourselves. John and I went up to visit Cornell
after his acceptance there for graduate school. Having received
a graduate degree there myself I insisted on chaperoning him, much
like a beaming parent proud of his child's achievement. We arrived
late on a Friday night which happened to coincide with the infamous
"last day of classes." After parking the car, we set out
for food only to be set upon by two engineering students celebrating
the end of the school year. And what a school year it must have
been for them. Weighted down with backpacks full of books, coke-bottle
glasses and calculators with more buttons than a NASA control panel,
we still outweighed our attackers by a combined 200 pounds and their
punches would have been lucky to hit our knees. While the incident
was about as threatening as a nursery school revolt, John and I
glanced at each other out of the corner of our eyes with the implicit
message of "I've got your back even though these two novice
inebriates pose no danger whatsoever." At no point did either
of us say to the other, "You take care of it, I'm going to
hammer out a white paper regarding violence on college campuses.
Good luck while I'm gone!" Our friendship would end on the
spot in any such show of egoism.

While
the "cakewalk" in Iraq continues its interminable slog,
the neocons continue to bleat when they should be over there defending
whatever it is that they believe other Americans must be
risking their lives for. I would never ask my wife or any of my
friends to risk their life for me if I was not willing to risk my
own life in defending myself. Imagine this: you are in a convenience
store and an armed robber takes you and one other person hostage.
You whisper to the other hostage to try to tackle the assailant
so that you can make a dash to safety. The net effect might be that
you now end up with 1 hostage and 2 assailants as your fellow hostage
makes a battlefield conversion.

Those
who most zealously support this latest American military action
should practice what they preach. The hypocrisy has become mind
numbing at this point. If the threat is imminent, take action to
defend yourself, your family, your friends and ultimately your country.
The usual excuses no longer apply. Sex is no longer an excuse as
many patriotic American women have died in Iraq. Age is also an
invalid excuse as one soldier who was 65 years old died and numerous
soldiers approaching that age have paid the ultimate price. Only
a despicable coward would ask others to make the ultimate sacrifice
in a time of supposed imminent danger without reciprocating, despite
the fact that he might be busy pumping out position papers on military
tactics and otherwise pounding the drums of (other people's) war.
Claiming that "they volunteered" or "I have a family
to take care of" does not absolve one of his duty to defend
his patrimony. But duty in the minds of the writers at the Weekly
Standard apparently means something else — something that Taki
hit squarely on the head — "You do the dying; we'll do the
talking."

As
if the shirking of one's obligations is not bad enough, one writer,
Kathleen Parker (whose war-time experience includes writing "a
syndicated column for Tribune News Services") appearing
in the October 31, 2005 issue of the Standard does not condone
the verbiage in a book written by one of the soldiers recently returned
from Iraq. In her review of Love
My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army
by the "Arabic-speaking Army intelligence soldier" Kayla
Williams, the duty-shirking Parker takes Williams' book to task
for its coarse language. Let me get this straight. The editors of
the Weekly Standard cry incessantly that we invade and occupy
Iraq, and that other Americans put their lives on the line everyday
in a place that they would never choose to visit let alone live
for extended and repeated tours of duty. Then, once the editors
get their panties in such a twist they print an article complaining
that "an almost 300-page book surely deserves more editing
than the stall doors of public restrooms." In feebly attempting
to empathize with Williams' experience, Parker adds that "while
I understand that war imposes certain hardships…I found myself longing
for a Baptist editor around page 42." I don't know Parker's
personal military experience but I do know that she didn't learn
of the hardships of the Iraq war from any firsthand accounts by
the likes of Max Boot or Bill Kristol. And it hardly matters. This
waving of the white flag is typical of the "you go fight while
I watch from back here" sentiment that suffuses all neocon
scribblings on war.

If
in fact Ms. Williams' book is too filthy for you then don't buy
it. Ms. Parker's review copy most likely arrived free of charge
sent by a publisher who might have reasoned that it would receive
a positive review in a magazine that has supported virtually every
aspect of this war. What a shock it must have been for the publisher
to find that the book fell into unsympathetic (and most likely,
uncalloused) hands. Less shocking is the fact that the editors of
a magazine who demand that others do the "dangerous work"
of fighting in combat while they do the "dirty work" of
cleaning ink off their hands and keeping the undersides of their
desks free of dirt so they can hide there in moments of sheer panic,
would print an article condemning language reflecting the horrors
and experience of war, experiences that the editors implored other
Americans to enjoy firsthand. First the editors hysterically demand
that Americans risk their lives, then those same editors complain
when a war veteran phrases her experience in language unheard of
at Beltway cocktail parties (though something similar may be heard
when a printer runs out of toner at the Standard's headquarters
and no one volunteers to replace it for all I know).

For
those who oppose the war, perhaps the market can correct this attack
from the duty-shirkers whose "attack" arsenal consists
of complex chess strategies and mean-spirited press releases. Maybe
you should buy Williams' book and use it to illustrate the ugly
side of war and how soldiers really speak when confronted with an
impossibly precarious, life-threatening, daily struggle. Parker
and her fellow-travelers will keep demanding that Williams and others
like her keep dying. Imagine if in fact my wife had gone to inspect
that noise of a few nights ago and confronted an intruder who not
only knocked out several of her teeth but also broke a few ribs
while I kept the bed warm and dreamily thought about what LOTTO
numbers to pick. And further imagine how despicable and cowardly
of me it would be to reprimand my wife for cursing at her predicament
after she stumbled back to the bedroom looking for help. Maybe that
is the kind of behavior that transpires among those who manipulate
others like puppets for their own evil ends but it is certainly
not the kind of behavior that sustains a family, friendship, country
or society.

October
29, 2005

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

Next,
get on a plane and fly to Rio de Janeiro. Once you arrive in Rio
proceed directly to Maracana Stadium, bake in the sun for
several hours while watching a soccer game and then buy that same
beer. Don't even worry about exchanging your American pesos for
Brazilian reais, worthless paper is worthless paper and Brazilians
are not finicky about accepting your play money or their own. But
right before purchasing your beer from the carioca beer vendor,
call over another beer vendor and ask him if he can beat his competitor's
price. This will immediately start a price competition in which,
even after including your airfare and hotel costs, you will still
spend less than for that overpriced beer you grudgingly purchased
and angrily drank while Steinbrenner laughed at you from his taxpayer-funded
luxury box.

Needless
to say, competition works and only those who are ideologically opposed
("Competition oppresses the poor and working people and is
the tool of the capitalist overclass…"), illogical ("Competition
oppresses the poor and working people and is the tool of the capitalist
overclass…"…did I repeat myself?) or inane ("If we have
unregulated competition then they there will be more beer vendors
than spectators!") will find fault with this basic law. However,
even though I like to think I don't fall into either of the last
2 categories (you are free to disagree), Thursday night the US Senate
may have disproved the axiom when it voted 93-1 to ban the IRS from
developing software to "help" taxpayers file their returns.
It appears that the lobbyists for Intuit, the tax preparation software
producer, have saved us all from "competition" that ultimately
would have done each American taxpayer grave economic harm.

In
this case, competition under the guise of the IRS' software development
department would have made the DMV look like the benchmark of efficiency.
Imagine its first action — farming out a no-bid contract to Halliburton
for…for…well, I am not sure what purpose Halliburton would serve
in this case but let's just conservatively assume that Halliburton
does in fact get a no-bid contract, perhaps to provide the "necessary"
security for the IRS' new R&D facility.

And
how much might the IRS spend on R&D? Intuit has spent a little
more than $740 million dollars over the last three years. Luckily
for us taxpaying sheeple the cost was borne by the Intuit shareholders
so if their tax preparation software never sold, they were the ones
who would have suffered. Now imagine what the IRS' budget for R&D
might be. Intuit had the incentive and the know-how to produce its
software efficiently. By contrast, when I go running my father always
tells me, "You run slower than a tax refund." That statement
adequately sums up the IRS' efficiency. So we can probably assume
the IRS would spend a multiple of the approximately $250 million
per year Intuit invests in R&D.

Invests
in R&D? That's correct; Intuit invests in R&D because the
owners of Intuit are looking for a return on their investment. The
IRS has no owners so there is no investor monitoring how much it
blows on R&D let alone if the product might even sell. Imagine
the "IRS Software Development Agency." Just by the sound
of its name alone it could be one of the largest tentacles of the
Federal Leviathan employing thousands productively engaged in the
delicate task of "simplifying" the separation of Americans
from their hard-earned wealth. No budget would be too big and no
project to complex for this government agency to squander taxpayer
wealth in justifying its existence.

Having
my world turned upside down by shaking my belief in competition
I should probably not be surprised at comments made by two Senators
after the vote. Nevada Republican John Ensign said, "The IRS
should not be getting into a field where taxpayers are already well
served by the private sector." I only wish Senator Ensign had
spoken out during the pre-construction analysis of New York City's
multi-billion dollar elevated train recently installed between Jamaica,
Queens and JFK Airport. This former, multi-year work project is
presently bringing in a whopping $20,000 per month in fares. The
yellow cabs and private van services were adequately transporting
New Yorkers to JFK without forcing them to make an intermediary
stop in Jamaica, a situation I would consider "well served
by the private sector" as Senator Ensign said.

Senator
George Allen of Virginia opined that the vote was a "great
victory for the free market.” He added, "The IRS should not
be impeding competition from private sector innovators,” and that
"In order for private enterprises to flourish and provide jobs,
entrepreneurs need to know that the government won’t step in to
compete against a product that’s already in the marketplace.” Reading
those quotes might almost lead one to believe that these two Senators
think coherently. However my cynicism leads me to think it more
likely the case that they are both on a first name basis with the
Intuit lobbyists.

The
worst headache I ever had was in May 1988 as I was walking out of
the New York State Certified Public Accounting Exam after completing
the tax section. The tax preparation question was so convoluted
that rumor had it no two test-takers got the same answer, let alone
the correct one. Despite passing the exam I have had annual recurrences
of those headaches, strangely enough always around mid-April. I
have found the only relief is to visit my tax preparer and hand
him a box full of tax receipts. Although I pay him a multiple of
the retail price of Intuit's tax preparation software, it is a choice
I freely make. If Intuit starts selling its software at Maracana
any time soon, I may consider switching but I will give him the
opportunity to lower his price.

October
22, 2005

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

Saturday's
Financial Times reported that South African President Thabo
Mbeki, speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting, called
for the United States and the European Union "to end farm subsidies
within three years." The paper went on to add that President
Mbeki accused the US and EU of engaging in "empty rhetoric."
Like a misbehaving three-year-old the US childishly responded to
President Mbeki that it would end subsidies, but only if the EU
did too. The exasperated President Mbeki sighed, "So nothing
moves."

Allow
me to speak for the rest of the American electorate in saying "Welcome
to New York and Welcome to America President Mbeki!" That is
how things work in our putative constitutional republic. But all
is not lost and I am hereby addressing the following comments to
the honorable President Mbeki. While I am physically unable to deliver
the attached letter to the South African head of state I am hoping
that since he has a latent yearning for free markets he might at
some point stumble upon LewRockwell.com and read it there.

September
17, 2005

Dear
President Mbeki:

It
was with great pleasure that I read of your comments in the Financial
Times this Saturday imploring the US and EU to end farm subsidies.
If it's any consolation, my friends and I have been making the
same request for years. While we don't have a similar soapbox
from which to send our message, we like to think that our ideas
go to an audience who cares about what is best for our country,
the citizens who care enough to research the issues and vote accordingly,
while you delivered your message to the caudillos attending
the Clinton Global Initiative meeting. But I quibble. If we can
align our efforts — you speaking to those ignoring the wishes
of their subject populaces while I inform my fellow Americans
of the damage government interference exacts in the sensitive
workings of the markets — perhaps we can effect some positive
change. At this point, as I am sure you will agree, any progress
would be a victory.

First,
a little history. You may not be aware of a few premises that
are vital to understanding American socialist agriculture policy.
In the US farms, farming, and farmers are all sacrosanct. One
would have better luck pulling souvenir teeth from a live shark
than finding an American who would badmouth a farmer. For the
first hundred years or so of my country's existence we were an
agrarian economy. However, as time passed, agriculture began to
shrink as a percentage of our GDP as industrialization spread
rapidly. Nonetheless the sustaining myth of the "nation of
farmers" expanded in inverse proportion to agriculture's
shrinking share of the overall economy. During that same time
period we had a war between several of our states. When the bloodbath
ended, states did not really exist in the same manner as before
and most of the ruling power ended up in the non-state of Washington,
DC (which I fear you know firsthand).

Anyway,
farmers not only occupy a lofty aerie in the American hierarchy
but they often get treated better than the rest of us by the government.
And it's not just in the areas you mentioned. For example if an
American were to die in 2005 with something greater than $1.5
million dollars in the bank, our federal government would confiscate
a large portion of what he was planning to voluntarily leave to
his heirs. But if that same American were a farmer, or to be more
legally punctilious, his entire estate were comprised of a farm,
then he would not have to pay any tax upon his death. I know,
you are probably shaking your head incredulously and muttering,
"So one guy has $3 million held in a bank safe deposit box
and the other guy has a $3 million farm and only the first guy
pays this so-called u2018estate tax' of yours? That makes no sense."
Trust me, I am not making this up but I am trying to buttress
our case. I just wanted to make sure you knew how insidious our
common foe is.

I
noticed that your country produces a lot of corn, wheat, and sugarcane
and I am sorry to inform you that you could not have picked more
politically charged commodities with which to start this fight.
You see, we love our corn so much that we now use it as a substitute
for sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup. Despite the
fact that it does not taste as good as pure sugar and is quite
a bit less salutary too, our Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon,
Earl Butz, convinced the government that it was a better way to
sweeten things. "Better" in this case essentially means
more lucrative for Midwestern corn farmers who needed to expand
their markets in the early 1970's but let's not split hairs as
the American waistline expands faster than the national debt.
You can read all about it in Fat
Land by Greg Crister.

Wheat
too is one of our main agricultural products and sugar is a nightmare
sui generis. Suffice to say that if you bump into anyone
from America's first family of sugar, the Fanjuls,
during any of your fancy political shindigs (they attend many
of them regardless of who's hosting), you might take the conversation
off-line with them and plead your case. I can guarantee that if
you go the usual route of talking to our elected officials and
waiting for them to check with the Fanjul's lobbyists, several
crop cycles will have passed. The family's heart does seem to
be in the right place though. Several years ago one of the brothers
lost his dog here in NYC and was gracious enough to offer a $5,000
reward for its return. Seems a little less genuine when most
of us view it as a chance to get back some of the corporate welfare
they grab from us annually.

Lastly,
word has it that your country is producing some excellent wines.
We just had a fight about that here. Believe it or not, wine producers
in some states could not ship their wine to buyers in certain
other states despite the fact that our "states" are
nothing more than administrative offices of our Federal Leviathan.
Our Supreme Court stopped the shenanigans but all is still not
well. So hold off on the wine unless the Fanjuls encourage you
otherwise.

President
Mbeki, I think we may be on to something. While the authorities
probably find most of my threats to be as menacing to the status
quo as a nursery school revolt, the two of us together might have
a chance. It is not a high-probability chance but it is a chance
nonetheless. In reality sir, no American has been able to break
the stranglehold that the agriculture lobby exerts on those of
us who just pay taxes but don't hire fancy lobbyists to steal
some money from that bottomless trough that the Leviathan funds
through confiscatory taxation and its currency printing presses.
I have a spare bedroom in my apartment so next year you can stay
with me while you fight the dastardly forces that make Americans
historically pay roughly double
the world's sugar price at your unseemly UN confab. And if
we can get the US Constitution amended in time to allow for someone
not born in the United States to be our President, there could
still be time for you to run in 2008. Heaven knows you speak more
economic sense than anyone currently in office here in the States.

Sincerely,
Mark G. Brennan

September
22, 2005

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.

I had never given much thought to the Republic of Togo and, while I had actually heard of it, I am certain that I never could have found it on a map or given even the brief political and economic background found in the preceding paragraph. However, living in New York City and being held captive to this week’s celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the United Nations and all its attendant externalities — including, but not limited to, gridlock, innumerable vehicles speeding down streets with a degree of impunity that only diplomatic license plates encourage, and countless barricaded avenues and sidewalks now off limits to us mere serfs who live here — the Republic of Togo has introduced itself to me.

Whenever the United Nations has a major guest speaker or dignitary
(let alone 170 of them in this anniversary’s case), New York City
goes on gridlock alert as the police close many of the streets surrounding
the "Monster at Turtle Bay" to all but the most (self-)important
functionaries. Those of us who have to get to work or go shopping
must find alternate routes or face interminable traffic and/or imprisonment
for ignoring police barricades. It is only with glee that I, local
nobody whose daily life is now a continually changing map I must
navigate to get anywhere efficiently, read of the suffering of the
world leaders in attendance. Wednesday’s New York Times Metro
Section headline said it all, "So Many Presidents, So Few Presidential
Suites." The article detailed the travails of the assembled
potentates including one from "Country A" (the hotel manager
being a stickler for privacy) who requested not only a three-bedroom
presidential suite with views of Central Park but also a grand piano
with which we can only guess he might entertain himself when the
priceless view of the park becomes boring.

Mathematically, presidential hotel suites are in short supply as there are
170 countries attending. The city’s supply of hotel rooms has been
hit lately with several hotels converting to residential condominiums
(The Plaza being the best example), a result of the stratospheric
prices New York City residential real estate currently commands.
If we generously assume that there are 20 top hotels in New York
City, each with 3–4 Presidential Suites and add in the Waldorf’s
26 Presidential Suites, we have at best 106 Presidential Suites.
Yet we still have at least 170 leaders of many genera — democratically
elected, self-appointed, inherited, violently taken, etc. —
each of whom will most likely feel entitled to the best hotel room
the Big Apple has to offer, if history has taught us anything about
those who rule us (while we pay the bill).

But back to the Republic of Togo. My circuitous route to navigate the city
brought me past the Ritz Carlton hotel located on Central Park South
(aka, 59th Street). The hotel’s northern facing windows
have spectacular views of the park for which it charges top rates.
Even the side windows along Sixth Avenue provide oblique views of
the park and also garner the requisite premium. Needless to say,
Ritz Carlton hotels the world over are exemplars of luxury and excellent
service and are able to charge accordingly for their brand and hospitality.
However, as I was walking by the hotel I noticed 9 limousines stationed
out front. 6 of the limos were double-parked and impeding the flow
of cars on the heavily-trafficked Central Park South, one of the
main east-west thoroughfares in the city. Each limousine had a placard
stating that it was "Reserved for the Republic of Togo"
and they were numbered 1–9. The Republic of Togo, a UN member
since 1960, needs 9 limousines to transport its leaders and their
retinue? With a per capita GDP of $1,600 and NYC limousines renting
out at approximately $75/hour, the Republic of Togo is spending
the equivalent of one of its citizen’s annual economic production
in just 2.5 hours. And that is only on cars for getting around the
city! Forget about hotel rooms. If in fact Togo’s leaders are staying
at the Ritz then the calculation is even more alarming. But as we
learn from the study of reckless government spending of taxpayers’
wealth, economic justification never enters the equation. Anyway,
kudos to the gang (no pun intended) from Togo if in fact they did
score rooms, especially Presidential Suites, at the Ritz Carlton
because then some other "world improver" must be suffering
at a lesser, though still outrageously expensive, NYC hotel.

The problems with the theory behind the United Nations are numerous for those of us who understand, accept, and appreciate the concepts of sovereignty, democracy, and constitutional republicanism. The United Nations has never met a free market program it liked and woe to the nation that does not toe the line of its edicts — UN sanctions are doled out more freely than sugar subsidies by the United States Congress. However, until you have spent time in NYC trying to get on with your life while the world’s "leaders" pontificate, bloviate and otherwise justify their existence at the seemingly endless anniversaries, celebrations and other official UN fiestas, you can not truly appreciate the globalist behemoth’s quotidian costs. Despite the frequent, implausible claims of local New York politicians regarding the UN’s economic virtues and the intangible benefits it brings to the city’s "multicultural" miasma, the UN should relocate to a city with more Presidential Suites. At least if we can keep these unelected and unaccountable "leaders" happily preoccupied in their luxurious hotel rooms it will minimize the amount of time they spend organizing and ordering the lives of those who neither elected them nor owe them one iota of allegiance. As an added benefit, the impoverished people of the Republic of Togo will not have to pick up the tab for as many limousine fares.

September
16, 2005

Mark
G. Brennan [send him email]
writes from New York City.