The Gantry Launchpad

check, check...

Jeff over at Protein Wisdom is testing new blogware out, so here's a test trackback.

Blog software on my end: MT v2.65

This is a test. If this were an actual blog-post you would have been directed to the nearest real blog for serious punditry.

This is only a test...

UPDATE: I guess I needed to hand cut'n'paste trackback URL. MT 2.65 (apparently) does not recognize the full URL by itself.

I wanna be a keyboard ranger!

I knew there was something I had forgotten! About a month ago, Captain Ed formed the 101st Fighting Keyboardists as a way to spoof the intellectually bankrupt "chickenhawk" argument put forth by the mentally lightweight.

Spoof? Sarcasm? Ridicule!? Naturally, I joined immediately. :)

And -equally naturally- I forgot to include the 101st blogroll script for a month. Feh.

The deranged Frank J. was -as always- ready to provide one of his infamous FAQs.

Finally, a big tip o' the hat and a hugh THANK YOU to Derek Brigham for designing the logo!

Let's be nice...

I seem to have accidentally touched a nerve, wherein Baldilocks thinks I am defending that lackwit Jesse MacBeth. This is not the case. I am defending the concept of accuracy; hence the title of this post.

You see, one of the archaic meanings of the word nice is "precise, accurate." We have seen far too many instances of bloggers on both sides of the aisle going off half-cocked, such as the recent excitement about the Karl Rove non-indictment and the Howard Dean non-story.

While the specific statement that MacBeth was never in the Rangers/SF has been established as true, the statement that he "never served in the Army" has not yet been equally established. And, yes, I am being picky. Or nice. But that's exactly how I argue against typical idiotarian ideas: specify that which has been factually established, determine that which has not, and beat them over the head with the difference. Since many of these ideas are assertations or conclusions cloaked as fact, the process can be entertaining. But I digress...

My main points on this are two, one of which I've already mentioned. We are all obliged to as accurate as possible when disseminating information, as the above examples illustrate. Every single instance of a blog saying "MacBeth never served!!" either links to (and misquotes) the original JustCitizens post, or links to someone else (such as Michelle Malkin) who misquoted/misinterpreted the original post.

Accuracy is an ethical obligation of the highest order. Disrespecting the facts also disrespects both the reader and the debate, which brings me to my second point.

Playing fast'n'loose with the facts allows one's opponent to dismiss the writer as biased or inaccurate: "Well, Jesse might not be in the Rangers, but he's still telling the truth about they're doing in Iraq!" While MacB has been devastatingly debunked on his SF/Ranger claim, we need to nail down the question of his service equally well. A dissenter may well claim "fake, but accurate" regarding a soldier lying about his MOS, but it's nearly impossible to spin if you can state -as fact- that the stupid bugger never even enlisted.

That said, I have to apologize to Jules for the snarky tone of my original post on her blog. She was quite correct in her description of my "most-polite" correction. After having read the exact same (inaccurate) statement on literally the past five blogs I had read that evening, I snapped.

I'm sorry.

Now, that said {g}, I'd like to disabuse Baldilocks of any notion that I am in any way defending MacB. At least, that's my reading of her extended post. I also never said, or attempted to imply that he ever did serve, which seems to be the gist of her last graf.

So. No, I don't think Jesse MacBeth ever served. Yes, I think he's a despicable, lying little turd. No, I don't believe that any of his claims hold the slightest drop of water. Clear? Good!

These are, alas, conclusions, not facts, as are all the comments about his BDUs, tabs, "official" photo, and so on. While these mistakes are as painfully obvious as a large carbuncle on the nose of one's face to a service-man/woman, please recall that the vast majority of Americans have never served. That -to them- all of these obvious blunders are mean-spirited nit-picking which allow the critics to snipe at MacB without addressing his claims of atrocities.

And that, my friend, is exactly the point, despite Baldi's dismissive "as if it matters." You see, it does matter to the people have never served, nor have close friends or relatives who have served and are able to explain why those details matter. Those who are serving (or who have served) have an obligation to explain to the rest of the (civilian) world just how and why MacB lied. Something, that is, more substantial than snarking about his uniform or police record to show everyone what a scumbag he is.

We are now (finally) seeing constructive and specific comments taking apart his claims in detail. That is to say, countering his claims with valid data.

Thanks to Word Around The Net for mentioning the exchange.

"Sensitive and respectful" Rules Of Engagment

Varifrank has the most up-to-date ROE (Rules Of Engagement) released to date by the Bush administration.

Try to keep a straight face while reading them. A spew alert may be in order.

Readers may also appreciate ACLU Takes Over Terror Investigation.

(hat tip to Austin Bay for the link)

Bloglist addition

Just found a nifty new blog called "Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com"

He's an ex-squid, a current DA, and an author. He also writes well.

Check him out.

That's how we play the game...

Rusty at The Jawa Report has a hysterical clip up by Carlos Mencia.

Some of the (lefty) commenters found Mr. Mencia to be "offensive."

My reaction: Carlos Mencia was enunciating the Jacksonian Tradition in an especially pungent form...

PostScript: a Spew Warning is in effect for the duration of the above clip. You Have Been Warned.

Heh.

Comet to hit earth, Bush to blame...

You just can't make this stuff up!

A former French military air traffic controller says a fragment of Comet Schwassman-Wachmann will hit the earth in two weeks.

Better yet, it's all Bush's fault:

He concludes the May 25 event is tied in to the Bush administration's policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and the effect of nuclear weapons on the realms of higher intelligences.

First Katrina, then this. What's next?

DAYS SHORTEN, LEAVES FALL OFF TREES, BUSH TO BLAME!!

A big thanks to Professor Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy for the original link.

A GOOD 5th of May: femte Maj

Pretty much everyone in America knows about Cinco de Mayo these days, but his Rottiness takes the time to reminisce about a more recent, and more relevant anniversary on the 5th of May.

Beautiful stuff.

I'll bet his granma was a real protest babe in her time, back in the day...

How is the "Culture of Corruption" incubated?

I originally put this up in February 2005; I find it to be even more relevant today. Please note that I have taken the opportunity to add some detail wherein I felt the original occasionally lacked.

Any party that reigns unchallenged for a long period of time tends to become corrupt. Acton once said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Analog editor John Campbell once said that he would change that to "unchallenged power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is largely true.

A review of the political history of the United States does not indicate much Federal corruption for the first eighty-plus years of our existance. This is true mainly for two reasons: the Federal government lacked the political power it has today, and it controlled a far smaller percentage of the national income. Recall that tariffs were the main sounce of income for most of the 19th century; hence their importance for the Civil War-era politicians.

For at least a generation after the Civil War, the GOP reigned supreme over the United States, damn near literally. A single act sufficed, generally, to quell any possible Democrat upstart: waving the bloody shirt; a phrase introduced at this time by actually waving a bloody, torn shirt supposedly taken off of the body of a man flogged by unreconstructed Rebels in the South.

The Republicans could taint any Democrat with the slur of "traitor" until the Spanish-American War, wherein the old hostilities finally ended.

This granted the Republican Party nearly unchallenged political power for a good generation. This tends to explain the degree of corruption found in Republican politics of the time, from Grant on forwards. True, the method was frequently financial, but the goal was political.

What financial corruption which existed in the Federal government at the time was related to private corporation influence (rail companies especially) who bribed representatives to allow said corporations to literally charge all the traffic could bear, whether product was coal, clothes, machinery, food, or transportation.

Basically political influence was seen (by the corporations) as a legitimate method of maintaining a laissez-faire economy. In other words, controlling Washington, DC, was a means to an end, as opposed to an end in itself.

The Democrats, stymied by the perennial charge of treason and lacking a great leader, found little to lead with until the emergence of the Populist movement just before the turn of the century. That movement gave them the first impetus to an appeal to populism which lasted through the 20th century. Note here the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, coincident with the emergence of Populist/Progressive political thought at the national level. The amendment didn't effect any major political changes until the Second World War induced a tremendous increase in spending.

Woodrow Wilson managed to touch many Americans with his idealism, but he ultimately failed as a political leader. It fell to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring the populist message into the mainstream of Democratic thought, and his skills allowed the Democrats to regain their supremacy for the first time in over seventy years.

FDR melded together a “party of underdogs,” as it were; all those who weren’t part of the dominant party were attracted to the opposition. By 1932, this included the great majority of Americans, especially after the Crash of ’29…

-An aside: This narration falsifies the hoary old myth that the GOP is the party of rich people. The GOP didn’t cater to, or target to rich men; rather rich men became so because they joined the Republican Party, which had been dominant for seventy years. This –again- illustrates the principle that any group or organization will become corrupt in the absence of any major external challenge.-

Let us return to FDR. His first two terms were marked by a return of optimism and hope to American political life (one of my favorite quotes of the time comes from Will Rogers: “Even if he burnt down the White House, we can say ‘At least he got a fire started!’” ). The Republicans of the time, in the face of a resurgent Democratic Party, could only regurgitate the ossified slogans of the previous two generations. They could offer no new vision to challenge Roosevelt’s work.

-another aside: FDR has to have been one of the most vilified men to ever hold the Presidency, bar one. I would say that, in order, the five worst would be
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Bush Jr.
5. Clinton

One may wish to swap FDR & Washington. Or Bush Jr. and Clinton, for that matter. :) -

What really infuriated Republicans was that FDR broke the unofficial, but hitherto sacred precedent of Washington’s “Two term limit.” Worse yet, he did so to the tune of humiliating majorities in both houses for two elections.

When you add to this his brilliant leadership in World War Two, the GOP looked, well, like a bunch of selfish contrarians. They were up against a smart politician with a healthy vision who played it smart in a major war. I imagine they were tempted to cry in frustration more than once… One is compelled to conclude that FDR is the most successful president to date, including Reagan, mainly because FDR accomplished far more domestically than did Reagan. Rooseveldt's performance lead to a Democratic Party domination of national political life greater than the previous GOP performance, although of shorter duration.

The Truman administrations can be considered as an extension of the Roosevelt, with the additional issues of “who lost what to the Communists,” and the accusations of corruption. When put together, the FDR/Truman administrations (1933-1953) introduced tremendously larger Federal budgets, as well as a greatly increased level of Federal intervention in both local politics and private citizens' lives. The impetus was the percieved need to address the Great Depression, then the Second World War, and finally the beginning of the Cold War. The result was a Federal government which provided the winning party access to monies and power hitherto unknown even to the British Empire.

By the 1952 election the Democratic Party had reigned unchallenged for twenty years. Eisenhower was elected for 2 major reasons: he led the Allies to victory in Europe, and he symbolized a return to a less corrupt polis.

I believe it is significant that Eisenhower was the only real challenge to Democratic Party primacy until the 1968 election, and even Nixon’s election was a reaction to the Democrat’s poor handling of the Vietnam War.

It wasn’t until the 1972 election (AKA the “Great Ass-Whup of ’72”) that the GOP scored a major victory over the Democratic Party, as I count the election of 1968 as a negative reaction to the party in power, as opposed to a positive reaction to the party in opposition.

So, really, the Democrats enjoyed nearly unchallenged power from 1932 until 1972; 40 years. This beats the Republican Party domination of 1865-1895 (30 years). This may appear to contradict my earlier cite of 70 years, but that number includes both the early Republican supremacy as well as their less-powerful domination of the early 20th century.

Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War tended to confuse things for most of the 1970s, so I shall pass on the next few years -Ford was unelected, and Carter quickly dis-elected- except to note that the Reagan administration signaled a renaissance of the Republican Party. The question whether the Clinton administration was a hiccup in the face of new GOP supremacy for the early 21st century I shall leave for the diligent student. :) Both administrations were examples of a nearly-untouchable, popular president contending with an opponent-controlled Congress.

My conclusions are:
First: any party in a position of unchallenged power tends to ossify and become corrupt. This happens in other areas as well: American auto manufacturers in the 1970s, for example, or IBM before Microsoft stole their thunder.

Second: when challenged, the dominant party has trouble developing a new meme to suit new circumstances, including a crumbling power base and loss of dominance. An example would be the Republican emphasis on "normalcy" during the first part of the 20th century.

Third: the now-eclipsed party clings to outmoded memes because they have no new ideas: they look back to past greatness and “good times.” I cite the Democratic nostalgia for the ante bellum and the GOP obsession with socialists and financial propriety in the 1920s.

Finally: any renaissance of the now-eclipsed party must come from an outsider (vis: FDR and/or Reagan) as the insiders still cling to past glory.

It should be quite apparent that I consider the Democratic Party to be the current “now-eclipsed” party.

Most of the Democratic Party leaders look back to the halcyon times of the 1960s, when the counter-culture and rebellion were not only stylish, but sexy as well. Rock songs feted their actions, while news organizations hung upon every word.

This was the time of Watergate, and the Washington Post; when the Fourth Estate could bring down Presidents.

Modern leaders, alas, confuse popularity and accolades with leadership and vision. They fail to see that rebellion, per se, is not a virtue, and must be viewed in context.

The modern Democratic Party harks back to old days of glory, when Buffalo Springfield could sing “must be a thousand people / in the streets,” and everyone knew that the government was after, well, everyone. Considering Nixon’s paranoia, this was not too far off the mark.

The problem is that Nixon’s dead, and Vietnam’s over. African-Americans have made great strides in economic as well as political terms, and even the gay-lesbian community has advanced their agenda to the point where gay/lesbian marriage is now considered a mainstream political issue, instead of something that only freaks and perverts worry about.

The problem is that the Democratic Party –as a party- has run out of traditional issues.

I do not claim that America no longer has any social issues, any more than I would claim that (as some have said) that history ended with the fall of Communism and the Soviet Union. I will claim that the issues we do face are exacerbated by Federal intervention, not ameliorated. Perhaps we should turn away from the governmental Goliath, and turn to the multitudinal Davids.

I will also say that, in this context, it becomes understandable why Democratic Party stalwarts fall back on hyperbole and ad hominem attacks on the Bush administration; they have no relevant new arguments to put forward as an alternative; only more of the "same old" from the past fifty years.

I conclude that the Democratic Party members, and all American citizens, need new memes, and new social paradigms to discuss modern challenges in a relevant way.

Otherwise we face the possibility that the GOP will be able to reign unchallenged for yet another generation, to the detriment of our country. Note that this is not an attack on the Republican Party; merely an observation that both parties are subject to the corruption of unchallenged power.

Who will be the next William Jennings Bryant, and (more important) who will be the next paradign-shifting FDR, or Reagan?

POSTSCRIPT:
In the fourteen months since I originally wrote this, the Republican leaders in Washington, DC have become a living oxymoron: leaders who won't lead. While the Democrats are stuck in the 60s, the Republicans are stuck in some bizarro never-never land where the aquisition and retention of political power have trumped all other considerations.

UPDATE: Thanks to John of Argghhh!!! for the link, and welcome fellow Denizens...

Linked to the Mudville Gazette Open Post May 9, 2006.

Legal "mumbo jumbo"

A recent thread on Dean's World induced this post, and I haven't even had the chance to read to read the Reaon Foundation article to which Dean originally linked, yet. Heh.

What sparked my post was bad reasoning, assumed beliefs about illegals (how they get paid, whether they "steal" jobs from Americans), blithering about what's "fair" or "right," and several magnificent posts by the inimitable Arnold Harris.

My thougts, as follows:

For those of you hyperventilating about "lost taxes," try investigating how hard it is to create and run a small business in the US today. Even a local drive-through has to take out fed, state, and FICA taxes before paying an employee.

Paul S. repeats a popular argument, but one that lacks force. I can testify from personal experience that -while there are jobs Mexicans will do that Anglos won't- the workers aren't paid less. Go to damn near any restaurant in America, and you'll find managers who will hire anyone willing to work hard at well above minimum wage. In fact, many Mexicans expect more exactly because they are willing to work so hard.

Paul is, of course, perfectly free to contradict my position by providing facts to the contrary. :)

Arnold (as usual) does a magnificent job defining the problem. While I don't agree with every word, the gist is inarguable.

Jeffrey: go back and read what Arnold actually said. Then read up on the coastal states (New York city especially comes to mind) who hire thousands of staffers just to print ballots in Spanish, or the bi-lingual teachers who psychotically resist English immersion techniques for first-generation kids. There is a large (and growing) group which expects to dispense with the tradition assimilation process. Ever hear of Aztlan?

In fact, Jeffrey really blows it later when he confounds the American expectation just to learn English with bigoted European attempts to preserve the "purity" of their culture. He obviously misses (or is unaware of) the tradition that one becomes an American by renouncing the old country. One chooses to become an American, which is exactly what the new-generation relativists are objecting to.

It occurs to me that Jeffrey is completely unaware of hoary old tradtion of native resistance to cheap immigration labor. Does "No Irish need apply" ring a bell? How about anti-China immigrations laws on the west coast in the late 19th/early 20th centuries? What about "a dollar a day is a white man's pay?"

So, no, the tradition has not always been open arms to new immigrants. But let us not confuse that with Arnolds (perfectly just) requirement that they become Americans first, and foremost. None of this "Aztlan," or "Europeans go home" crap.

And -apparently- Jeffrey believes laws of the United States are somehow optional. Tell me, Jeff, which laws do you follow? Do you do 80mph in a school zone? Or do you perhaps hump the underage high school girls you haven't killed with your car yet?

Or maybe you just gad about embezzling funds from honest citizens with get-rich-quick schemes?

Now, I don't think for a moment that Jeff does any of these things. The point here is that -while it is easy and emotionally satisfying to cavil about laws one doesn't approve of- this does not give anyone the right to summarily ignore those laws.

Yes, yes, I've heard of civil disobedience. I've also heard of the concept that one should be able to put forth a persuasive argument against any particular law before you start deliberately breaking it.

Even then, those who break a law in order demonstrate the moral, ethical, or legal bankruptcy thereof are obliged to face legal punishment, until such time as the law is changed.

Jeff seems to have trouble grasping the concept of sovereignty. In fact, his ignorance is breathtaking.

Just because Congress passes a law saying something doesn't make it something you have to agree with, or even obey.

The citizens of the United States have assigned to the House and Senate the right to pass such laws they find fit. We, as citizens, are then obliged to obey said laws. If we find them onerous or objectionable, we (again, as citizens) are obliged to vote out the old scoundrels, and vote in a new set who would change said laws. Until then, those laws are, well, legal, hence one is obliged to obey them.

Thats one of the ways things get fixed in this country, from the Boston Tea Party on up to those who ignored Prohibition.

Uh, no. The Tea Party was an act deliberately designed to inflame public opinion against the British authorities by a group of minority radicals. Also, those who ignored Prohibition (one assumes Jeff includes here the 20s gangsters as conscientious objectors) did not "fix" things. That was done by voting for FDR, who pledged to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, which he did in a legal manner, not by ignoring it.

Voting rights for women? Passed new laws. Civil rights in the 60s? Passed new laws (and got old ones repealed or struck down). The pattern here is that legal action, taken in a court of law (or by passing new laws) is how one changes the status quo).

Neither you, nor any other citizen gets to ignore laws they find inconvenient, or with which they don't agree. You break the law, you suffer the punishment.

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that Mrs. Boser's little boy doesn't agree with the definition of "felon" doesn't mean a damn thing. A felon is one who has been convicted of a felony. If the representatives of the citizens of the United States passes a law calling illegal immigrants felons, then they're felons. QED. You want it changed? Run for office, vote for someone who agrees with you. Or shut up. There are nearly a third of a billion Americans, and they don't all agree with each other. The only way we avoid continual civil war is the (generally unspoken) contract that all citizens will abide by the law.

That's what the "rule of law" means. Defense of the sovereignty of this country is both ethical and legal. Please note that I have not expressed my own opinion about the poor buggers who've come north. That is to a great degree irrelevant, as is whining about what's "fair." "Fair" not an objectively arguable point; the concept is both subjective and analog. "Legal" is objective, and discrete. It is, in fact, binary.

I see Arnold has a follow-up post. I can add some specifics here. I won't mention the company I work for, but we do employ Mexicans. Apparently the rule is that holder of a valid green card who provides a SS# is assumed to be a valid immigrant. There is (again, apparently) no mandate to validate the SS#, and (perhaps more importantly) no mechanism to do so. FWIW, everyone -legal or not- gets city, state, and Federal taxes taken out, not to mention FICA and Medicare. As far as I know, this is true of practically any business in the United States which does not deal strictly in cash.

The irony here is that the statist liberals are the ones responsible for all the paperwork and regulations which help ensure that even illegals pay taxes... :)