and it's probably a good thing, too.

Some are offended at the President's use of the word 'ass'. Frankly I don't find it offensive at all. It's one of my own favorite words, as, for example if I were to say something like, "The POTUS is an ass." But never mind that just now.

It's not even offensive to me that he is looking for assess to kick. What is offensive is the general direction he's looking for this ass. This is a man who cannot call terroritists, well, terrorists. He's reluctant to use the word "enemy". He's not looking for any terrorist ass to kick. He's not looking to kick any Taliban ass. He's not looking for any Hamas ass to kick. He's not looking for any Hezbollah ass to kick. And he most certainly is not looking for any illegal immigrant ass to kick -- not that I have a problem with that one. (If anything he's probably more interested in kicking some Arizona governor ass.)

That is what is really offensive.


Share via Facebook

Apparently, reporting your neighbor to the government is wrong only when a right-winger wants you to do it. The offense? Saying things about the healthcare reform plan that seem "fishy".

And how I wish they would.


My wife and I had a slight, and friendly, disagreement over breakfast this morning about the revelations of Mark Sanford's mysterious disappearance over the weekend. Her position generally agreed with what seems to be the majority report on the issue: that the governor's absence would have been a grave liability in the event of some crisis, blah, blah, blah. I mean even the State Law Enforcement Division (responsible for his security) and his own staff couldn't reach him via mobile phone and text messages between Thursday and Tuesday. Why, one caller to the Limbaugh Show claimed that Sanford's absence left his state "in the lurch."

Heard somewhere in the state of South Carolina: Oh, my goodness. The governor's gone! What if there's a hurricane? What if the sky falls? What if the earth's temperature keeps rising?

Whatever.

My position is that no one (certainly no POLITICIAN!!!) can, or even should be so important that his mysterious absence would mean total disaster. An entire state in the lurch? Just because the governor is out of state, and out of touch with his staff? What are we saying here? That when the governor is away it's like a parent leaving the house for the weekend and the children unattended? Help! Social Services! (They're never around when you need them.)

Please. No one, certainly no politician, should be that important. And the fact that some are so should be a sign of something bad. An AWOL governor should be as frightening as missing a hole in one's head. Without condoning adultery, anyone should be able to just disappear for a bit if he wants to. Especially a politician. I wish more of them would.

Hey, whiners, listen up: If you don't need your parents anymore then you don't need your governor, either. And if you do need your governor, then you probably still need your parents, too. Grow up and start finding things more important to worry about than a missing politician.

My wife, incidentally, now agrees with me on this. Which she should. Because I'm right.

Now if I can just get her to surrender her position on the War on Drugs.

Straight to the point: The release of the memos is part of the left's continued denial that the confrontation with terrorists is a war in any sense. It is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. And in law enforcement situations, suspects are not subjected to "harsh" treatment. You give them coffee, cigarettes -- you know, make them comfortable. Then you ask them, kindly and gently, whatever is on your mind.

It strikes me also, that this is part of the incremental stripping away of national sovereignty. In a world in which a "nation" is simply a formality, those things which used to be justifications for wars are now causes of legal action. Just as citizens of a city, county, or state don't carry on private wars with each other but go to court instead; just as citizens who are harmed do not take the law into their own hands and get justice for themselves -- nations shall not carry on private wars, or act so as to get justice for themselves by military means. As the nation-state must go the way of the dodo bird in favor of world citizenship, so must the freedom of a nation to see to its own security. It's a denial, if you will, of nations' rights. If there is to be world citizenship (Obama obviously thinks so), then there is, or must be (eventually) a world state. Since a state must have a monopoly on the use of physical force, it stands to reason that the world state must have this monopoly. For that to happen, the monopoly enjoyed by the nation-state must be dismantled. So, no private security ops for the nation-state and, hence, no prosecution of wars by nation-states. Well, that's what I think, anyway.

From what we've been told, one would think the legal advice given to the Bush administration amounted to, "Hey, torture is okay, and it's okay to use torture when interrogating suspected or known terrorists." In actual point of fact them memos examined each technique in punctilious detail. Indeed, use of the term memo has been somewhat misleading. Most people's experience with memos is with document of two or three pages in length. These memos are larger than that. The briefest of the memos is 18 pages.

The so-called torture memos can be accessed here. Enjoy. With the release of these memos, outlining in great detail how we go about "torturing" people (including the very tight controls employed), we are probably out of reliable interrogation techniques. Now terrorists, if there really are any (clearly His Beatitude is doubtful), will be able to provide more intelligent SERE training for their "high level" operatives. There is nothing like knowing what to expect to help get you through potentially stressful situations. The worst part of almost anything is not knowing what to expect, and about how long it will last. Knowing exactly how you are going to be "tortured", and for how long, should be of inestimable benefit to terrorists -- if there were any, which there aren't. There can't possibly be: the President wouldn't make useful information available to an enemy.

Apparently, any technique which involves anything more aggressive than asking, "Do you have any plans to commit terrorist acts, specifically, to kill or otherwise harm anyone, anywhere, at any time; and, if so, what, specifically, are these plans?" is torture. Oh, I forgot to add, "Pretty please, with baklava smothered in syrup."

Hugh Hewitt makes a relevant point about the most heinous of these torturous acts:

As the commentators show their feathers to each other, see if any of them cite a single vote by the Senate or the House to define waterboarding as torture throughout the years when the Congress was fully aware of the practice. The DOJ legal analysis was the best effort of front-line lawyers in the aftermath of a massive attack on the United States. Their Congressional critics of today who did not demand a defining vote on what constituted torture are the worst sort of hypocrites. They are the lawmakers, and chose --even when House and Senate were controlled by Democrats from January 2007 to the present-- to avoid passing a law bringing clarity to the very gray areas of the law of interrogation.

When it comes to statutory provisions, the more specific the law the better; and the easier it is to prosecute violators. As it is, there is too much subjectivity in the law against torture. Heck, teenagers think, and act like, they're tortured if you take away their iPods, cell phones, or (God forbid) ground them.

We are, as many have observed, witnessing an attempt to criminalize dissent, specifically: dissent from leftist interpretations of the laws, or even just leftism itself. And to think, they accused the Bush administration of doing so. What's bad for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose.

P.S.

The relevant statutory provisions (which are cited in the memos) are as follows:


(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

[P]retenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated...an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if...any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)...could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having...[established] "a government of consent"... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats...when uttered as justifications... for now compelling...anybody to support a government that he does not want. ~ Lysander Spooner, "No Treason", No. 6, XIX. (Emphases mine.)

As anyone who listens knows, Rush Limbaugh is quite at ease with the U.S. being a super-power. Consequently he was unhappy with what he called Obama's "World Apology Tour", and with this op-ed piece published in several central and south american papers, because he's helping the rest of the world in take us down a notch, which they desire to do because they object to our being the world's lone super-power. I make no secret of being no great fan of the current occupant of the Oval Office. And I made no secret that I wouldn't be a fan of his opponent's administration. So, in general, I share Limbaugh's antipathy for the present adminstration. But there is an element of Limbaugh's thinking, on the subject of super-powers, that concerns me.

Conservatives' inability (especially -- no surprise -- neo-conservatives) to see the relation between our super-power status and the loss of freedoms they (rightly!) complain of has bothered me for some time; but it has really come to a point in the last several years. I was never a big fan of our "superpower" status, specifically, being one of only two super-powers. I liked NATO because I thought it could be an alliance of super-powers, an alliance of free nations against the communist barbarians; but that was short-lived. What can I say? When you are young and hopeful, you tend to act young and hopeful. I hadn't realized, until I was part of NATO, how comfortable Europeans are with socialism. And once you're comfortable with socialism, buying communism isn't much of a stretch.

But never mind European style, democratic, socialism.

The simple fact is this: a super-power, no matter how benevolent, no matter how "democratic", simply cannot be ruled with a republican form of government, though it will maintain the facade of republicanism -- for a while, anyway. And you cannot believe in the consent of the governed without having the view of states' rights which I have and, as a consequence, you cannot be a fan of your nation's super-power status. Indeed, a confederacy (which is what we confederates believe the Constitution created, consistent with the notion of the consent of the governed) could never have become a super-power. How can that possibly have happened with constituent members (whose taxes will fund the super-power) free to leave the so-called union with impunity?

Put simply, it could not have happened. A super-power, member-states of which can freely leave, is a super-power which is always on the brink of extinction. That is why Alexander Hamilton, the Founding Father of "Crony Capitalism", and his ideological descendants (proponents of the American System), who sincerely desired a mercantilist empire of their own, don't like confederacies. They would be so proud of what this country has become, even including the recent bailouts.

Conservatives like to believe they favor states' rights, just shy of talking secession. And when I converse with them and they discover my heresy, they give the nod to states' rights and invoke "federalism" but quickly point out that the United States would never have become the power we are today had the war for southern independence been successful. Being a super-power is, apparently, an unqualified good, such a good, in fact, as to require a limitation on the right of a state to give its consent to the central government. Anything which would upset that status is an unqualified evil. (Or, they point out, that the United States would be two countries, instead of one, as if unification is, again, an unqualified good. Well, it is for a mercantilist, anyway. Not so hot for freedom lovers, though.) So, for the sake of being a super-power, the rights of states must be limited.

One of my first responses is, "What United States? There are no united states. The word united connotes freedom: the states are freely united. But they are not freely united, not anymore. They are dominated. A little freer, perhaps, but they are united in the same sense as the members of the former Union of Soviet Swallowed Republics were united. They aren't united; they are unified, sort of like a team of horses. A team of horses, hitched to the same wagon, are not united; they are unified. They do not pull together; they are harnessed and then driven together. They are driven by a master, a central, controlling master, who drives the team in pursuit of his own goals, his own vision. The master may graciously, from time to time, inquire of the team as to their own preferences, goals, visions, whatever; but, in the end, if theirs do not cohere with his own, then his own shall prevail. The vision of the master makes the liberties of the horses a relatively minor consideration. The horses must all go in the same direction; some curtailment of freedom is to expected -- for the great good of the whole team. (As if the horses, who didn't ask to be on any team in the first place, should care about the needs of the team, which are not really the needs of the team but the desire and vision of the wagon-master.)

If the rights of states must be limited for the sake of being a super-power, it stands to reason that individual rights must also be limited, again, for the good of the whole. Your neighbors may believe that your use of your property must be limited so as not to adversely affect your property values. It just goes on and on.

I know: it sounds like confederate sour grapes. But if you're still with me, consider this. The language employed to discuss our super-power status is instructive. Consider the phrases "a super-power" or "the lone super-power", and note the singulars. How does a fifty state union become a or the super-power? They don't, but a fifty member dominion can do so. These are not united states: they are unified states. And there is a difference.

And so long as Rush Limbaugh and his fellow travelers are enamored of the super-power, the simple fact of the matter is that the encroachments upon freedom will continue. They may be halted occasionally, or slowed down, but only temporarily. The reason is quite simple: secession, even if only a last resort, was the only true check upon unlimited federal power. As Woodrow Wilson once wrote, the outcome of the War for Southern Independence established the principle that the federal government is the judge of the limitations of its power. Thank you, Yanks.

Lord Acton understood the relation between state rights and totalitarianism, as he wrote to General Lee (4 November 1866):

Without presuming to decide the purely legal question...I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

General Lee definitely understood it, as he responded to Lord Acton (15 December 1866):

I yet believe that the maintenanceof the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.

There is no such thing as a super-power with a republican form of government, at least not for long. When the Romans acquired super-power status (albeit by means somewhat different from our own) they lost their republic. To be truly consistent with their profession, freedom lovers should stop being so devoted to the Unified States as a, or the, super-power, in preference of a union, a real union of free and united states.

The long and short of it is this. You can't have a free country and be a super-power, any more than you can have a free country and be a socialist power. My problem with His Beatitude is not that he's harming our super-power status. My problem is that he's not really big on freedom.

I was so glad to hear my Governor not shy away from the possibility of secession, when asked about it by a reporter at the "Tea Party" in Austin, Texas. That Perry -- not too shabby...for an Aggie.

"[P]rophecies of what the courts will do...and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes
There must be a civil right to trespass. How else to explain a thirty-two million dollar lawsuit, by 16 Mexican nationals, in which the defendant, Roger Barnett, is said to have violated their civil rights?

They trespassed on his land, known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally. He stopped them at gunpoint. Now, they sue him for $32 million dollars.

You have to love the way some people attempt to subvert the law to their purposes. One of the counts alleges that the Barnett conspired, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to interstate travel. (See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment , p. 2.) Note the logic: the right to interstate travel implies the right to trespass on private property. Want to go from Texas to Kentucky? Forget the highways; hop in a four-wheeler and drive in a straight line. And if any property owner objects, just assert your right to interstate travel. Beautiful. Reminds me of that line from Beverly Hills Cop: "What's the charge for getting hit by a car? Jay-walking?"

Barnett's attorney presented a strange argument against this charge:

[I]llegal aliens have no constitutional right to interstate travel. It would seem counterintuitive to maintain that an illegal alien, who is subject to arrest and removal by the government at any time (as indeed Plaintiffs were removed), and whose interstate transportation is a felony, 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), possesses a constitutional right to travel within the United States; at the very least, this would be a strange species of “constitutional right.” (Defendant's Motion , p. 7, emphasis mine.

No kidding. You don't have a right to be here in the first place. Indeed, your being here (as a consequence of an illegal border-crossing) is a violation of federal law. So, you have no right to interstate travel. That's deep.

In his essay, "The Path of the Law", Justice Holmes wrote, "The primary rights and duties with which jurisprudence busies itself...are nothing but prophecies.... [A] legal duty...is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court."

In case Justice Holmes's style is a bit difficult to grasp, whenever someone says, "You have a legal duty to perform some act R," what he really means is, "I predict that if you do not perform R the court will make you suffer in some way," (e.g., by throwing your butt into jail). "You have a duty" is, therefore, nothing but a threat of force.

Conversely, a legal right is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will not be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court. It's getting more and more difficult to know what our rights are, not because we can't read the Constitution (that's easy enough, which is why so many people don't like it), but because we can increasingly not predict those things for which a court may make us suffer.

And that's limiting ourselves to what courts decide. Juries are entirely unpredictable. A woman sues McDonald's because the hot coffee she spilled on herself was, well, hot. And the jury awards her damages. (You can read an interesting 2004 legal discussion of this case, here.)

I suspect Barnett's in trouble and will probably have to sell his ranch to pay the damages.

Okay, actually, he joined al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Texas Fred comments:

I have, for several years now, been highly critical of what I consider to be a lack of war fighting ability on the part of former president George W. Bush. Ladies and Gentlemen, before this is over, Mr. Bush may appear to have the war fighting acumen of Gen. George Patton.

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

I had mixed feelings about Gitmo. On one hand, I think any nation should be careful about treating all foreign nationals within its borders as if they all were citizens. On the other hand, once a government has certain powers against non-citizens, it could also one day be empowered to use those powers against citizens, in the name of national security, especially if those citizens are "dis-loyal" -- making them even worse than aliens. On yet another hand, I've never liked the idea of fighting the war on terror as a simple law enforcement problem like, for example, the war on drugs (of which I'm not a fan), treating terrorists like soldiers, or even mercenaries. (And I really like mercenaries!)

My biggest problem with keeping the detainees at Gitmo was the whole idea of keeping them there because it would have been illegal, here, to hold them in the way we were holding them there. It's a what-happens-at-Vegas-stays-at-Vegas sort of thing. If you can't do it within your own borders, it sends the wrong sort of message.

It's not that I have a problem with things like water-boarding. I don't. But if you have that sort of confidence, you should do it here. And if you don't do it here because, among other things, you know that the courts would probably put a stop to it. Then it just looks like you're trying to operate outside the law, which, of course, you are.

As a practical matter, one could argue that we needed a place like Gitmo in order to fight this war on terror. As a philosophical and military-science matter, one might consider that the need for a place like Gitmo may have served better as an argument on the impossibility of actually, and successfully, fighting a war on terror.

It's still amusing though, to see a Gitmo detainee (innocent as the wind-driven snow) leave his prison -- free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last -- and go join his compatriots in al-Qaeda.

According to Ron Paul, that's the wrong question.

[I]n light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

So, where are we heading?

The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

On his view, the Republicans have lost credibility in the struggle against this outcome by embracing the very ideas that speed it on its way. To have credibility, Republicans should embrace the following:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?

Really.

It's been slowly dawning on me for some time, but I finally saw it last night watching yet another Democrat campaign commercial in which the candidate asserted the need to finally capture Osama bin Ladin.

Ostensibly, though they don't come right out and say it, capturing OBL will be the end of the War on Terror.

Hell, if that's all it takes, let capture the SOBs responsible for poverty and drugs. We can have the audacity to hope that there is only one guy ultimately responsible for each of those evils. So, let's go get 'em.

Or, employing another Democrat strategy, we could, after decades of failure in the wars on drugs and poverty (versus only five years of failure in Iraq) just summarily declare an end and bring the troops home.

One can imagine a crowd once hearing a little speech like that, once upon a time.

Biden wants a pass where none has been granted the current President.

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Now that’s rich. Unpopular decisions, therefore sound decisions.

You’re going to think what we do in response to a certain crisis is wrong, but go along with us anyway. This, supposedly, is precisely what John McCain has been doing the last eight years.

I wonder what this test will be. The suspense is killing me.

Maybe they’ll pass laws, or just issue executive orders, similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts, (see and cf, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions) or take some of the same actions towards dissenters as Woodrow Wilson during WWI. Perhaps they’ll issue an executive order limiting salaries to $300,000.00 net after taxes (that’s 25,000.00 in 1943 dollars, adjusted for inflation). In other words, the marginal tax rate on salaries after $300K would be 100% -- by executive order. I’m sure they won’t confiscate any gold which any citizens may own.

Gosh, whatever they do, I sure hope it’s not something which would be called unconstitutional if done by a Republican administration.

No. They would never do anything like that.

Okay. And we also cannot allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. And we won't take military actions off the table, nor give the U. N. a veto over us.

But if we can work diplomatically with Iran, and reduce our oil consumption, and reduce the amount of refined fuel they import then we can demand Iran change her behavior.

Now there's a good question: Would we commit troops in defense of Israel unilaterally or await a decision of the U. N. Security Council?

I don't think referring once again to the "without pre-conditions" meme is the best strategy here.

We can't allow another holocaust to occur.

The simple fact of the matter is that Russia has an objective. I doubt anything short of her accomplishing those objectives will satisfy her. At some point, interference in her attempts to accomplish her goals will spark war, cold or otherwise.

There we go with rush to war in Iraq and forgetting about bin Ladin.

Oh, yes, Obama, if we just cut down our oil consumption that'll weaken Russia because she won't be getting our petrol dollars.

Because we're the only oil customers in the world.

How can we avoid another Cold War?

Why not ask how we can avoid any war, cold or otherwise?

Some people think it was Plato, but I think it was Santayana who said only the dead have seen the end of war.

Sad, but I believe it's true.

Yes, Senator Obama, we'll just make the Iraqis take more responsibility.

Wait a minute. Obama says that if Pakistan is either unable or unwilling to take out bin Ladin then we should. He also says that he did not say we should invade Pakistan.

Wow. There must be some logic here that I just can't understand.

But in all fairness, Senator McCain, Obama did not say he would attack Pakistan.

Yet one more swipe at the taking-of-the-eye-off-the-ball-in-Afghanistan business.

Senator Obama, pulling the troops out of Iraq does not end the war in Iraq. It just makes a cease-fire.

Wait a minute! We dare not have gone into Iraq, but if al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Pakistan won't act, then we will go in and act. And that, apparently, will not constitute taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which is where he keeps telling us we are supposed to be.

Beautiful.

Well, that’s what some of us might want to do in response to a poll reported by Alexander Burns at Politico.com.

Forty-seven percent of Europeans believe an Obama victory in November would lead to a better relationship between the United States and Europe, versus just 5 percent who think Obama would weaken the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Now that has to make you stop and think. I know it has me. And what I’m thinking is this. First, it’s at least possible that the 5 percent who think Obama would weaken the trans-Atlantic relationship are the smart ones. Second, if an Obama presidency is the solution to U.S.-Europe relations, then the problem may be over-stated. (In other words, if Senator Obama is the answer, then it may be an insignificant problem.)

In all seriousness, a great deal of commonality exists between Europeans and Democrats. I noticed during my army days that Europeans and Americans looked upon the soviet bloc differently. It seemed to me that most of our European allies took a purely defensive posture against the soviets. There was very little interest in bring down the soviet empire.

Until Reagan, the U.S. were inclined to take a similar approach, peaceful co-existence, détente. Under Reagan, the policy changed. Peaceful co-existence, according to Reagan and his ilk, was not only not possible, the soviets were not really interested in it, despite their friendly talk. Communism is not a provincial attitude; it’s a world-wide mandate. The soviets had to be defeated somehow. Europeans, comfortable with détente, balked at Reagan’s aggressive moves (such as the placement of Pershing II missiles in West Germany in January 1984). The end of détente was an unwarranted and aggressive path to open war, a war of which Europe would bear the brunt. Who could blame them for opposing such moves.

And some Democrats in the U.S. balked right along with Europeans, caricaturing Reagan as having one hand in his jelly bean bowl while his other hovered over “the button.” (That was when they were not caricaturing him as stealing food from the homeless, sneaking back into the White House and eating it himself.) There was nothing wrong with peaceful co-existence, enforced by mutually assured destruction. Reagan was going to screw it all up, bring the entire world to the edge of existence.

Opponents of Reagan’s aggression had an understandable point. If you make clear to a nation, any nation, that you intend to take it down you must acknowledge that the nation in question will not just take it sitting down. Israel doesn’t. It was to be expected therefore that the soviets would respond with counter-aggression. War was inevitable; Reagan would be responsible.

That was then. Now, U.S. – Europe relations suffer because of what they think an “uncalled for” war in Iraq. It is a war based on baseless accusations, supposition, and desire for revenge.

Certainly, an Obama administration, if it keeps its promise to unceremoniously jerk troops out of Iraq, will certainly improve those relations. Too, Obama’s politics are much like most of Eurpope’s. They believe in material rights; so do Democrats. Most Americans believe in formal rights. So Obama and Europeans have a lot in common.

Anytime you do what someone wants you to do, you will improve your relations with that person. Pull troops out of Iraq, and relations will probably improve. (We’ll also probably have to stop dominating NATO.)

It would be nice to get along better with Europe. Right now, I’m inclined to think the price a bit steep. Also, Europeans’ attitudes, as expressed in the poll, assume that Europeans are correct in their view of the issues and that the U.S. are wrong. It could be that Europeans are wrong, in which case the current state of U.S. – Europe relations is their fault, not ours. (It is at least a possibility.)

Watched Senator Obama’s speech last night. It was more of the envy-thy-neighbor and nothing-bad-should-ever-really-happen-to-you-but-if-it-does-there-must-always-be-a-federal-response sort of thing we always get.

There were several things I found interesting. For example, he’s going to end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. His audience seemed to be very happy to hear that. I keep wondering what he’s going to do to companies which decide to move operations where they can manufacture at less cost, pay the higher taxes and still make a profit.

Maybe he’ll send in the troops. Think of it. Companies who move jobs overseas constitute a clear and present danger to the economic security of the United States and must be dealt with the same way we handle any other such threat.

Okay. I’m exaggerating. It wouldn’t happen. But really, what will he do if companies move those jobs in order to make the same goods at a lower cost, to pay higher taxes and still make profit? He'll use it for his re-election campaign, of course.

He’s going to make sure that everyone who wants a college education gets one. Fine. But what is he going to do to increase the number of jobs which actually require a college education? I mean, really. You get your federal-promised college education. But the number of jobs which justify that education is smaller than the number of jobs which don’t. Now you have people with college degrees flipping hamburgers.

Look dammit. It is someone’s job to make sure that if you get a college degree there is a job out there somewhere which actually requires one. And if not, then (I love this part) there’s something wrong with the economy. And the party in power better do something.

Not to worry: next week we’ll get the Marxism-Lite version of all this.

Meanwhile…

I just read this at Gateway Pundit, including the comments.

Whenever I read or hear anything about the economy in relation to elections I am reminded of this passage from Solzhenitsyn’s “World Split Apart” speech:

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Think about that italicized sentence. Now consider this: this speech was delivered in 1978. Jimmy Carter was President at the time.