Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Perhaps we should add the verse about "the turbaned head shall bow" to the Ntaional Anthem.

Posted by Jim Bennett at April 19, 2007 08:52 PM

It fact Ridley Scott (he of Gladiator fame) was at one time going to do a film about the exploits of William Eaton. The project was shelved for reasons that can only be speculated about.

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 19, 2007 09:40 PM

Rand: "the beginning of the war of the US versus Islam."

War is a set of actions between people, not a disposition between ideologies, so either you're saying the US is at war with all Muslims, including our own citizens, or you're spouting gibberish.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 09:41 PM

Recently I was thunderstruck to find a Preble Avenue in Tustin, California (incorporated 1927 or so). Apparently the attention paid to Jefferson's early experiment in Texas Cowboy foreign policy waxes and wanes over the years.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 10:07 PM

Carl: "Apparently the attention paid to Jefferson's early experiment in Texas Cowboy foreign policy waxes and wanes over the years."

Jefferson never engaged in "Texas Cowboy foreign policy," although it's always amusing to see the desperate comparisons Bush apologists make. Had he actually done so, he would have responded to the Barbary threat by invading Iceland.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 10:28 PM

Hee hee. I thought that might get a rise out of you, Brian. I put that phrase in just to pull your chain. Do you realize you're being trained? Soon we will start to charge admission.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 10:57 PM

Carl: "I thought that might get a rise out of you, Brian."

Now aren't you a clever one, figuring a liberal would be indignant hearing Bush implicitly compared to Thomas Jefferson? If you want to further gauge your powers of observation, try and guess what happens when you punch a club bouncer in the face, then test your hypothesis.

Carl: "I put that phrase in just to pull your chain."

You were pulling on something all right, but it certainly wasn't mine.

Carl: "Do you realize you're being trained?"

Oh, look, I dropped a paperclip. I've trained gravity. I am a god.

Carl: "Soon we will start to charge admission."

Not many people would be interested. If you've seen one Republican stupefied by the obvious, you've seen them all.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 12:10 AM

Actually, I'll go with option C, that Squidward is spouting gibberish once more.

Posted by John Irving at April 20, 2007 01:34 AM

Tsk tsk. Home schooled, John?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 02:58 AM

...There were actually two movies on the subject in the works on 9/11 - but both were cancelled because the producers couldn't conceive of filming anywhere except northern Africa, and the studios were indeed terrified of an attack.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski at April 20, 2007 04:39 AM

Home schooled, John?

John, I think he is surprised by your good wit.

Posted by Leland at April 20, 2007 06:56 AM

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 09:41 PM

Brian with all due respect I find people like you as annoying as people like Condi Rice.

You look at the world as you want to see it not how it is. I disagreed with going to Iraq becaue in part the case was not made as to why it was a valid responce to 9/11

OK they shouldnt have done it.

But now people like you seem to be hung up on how we got there, not life as it is now.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 20, 2007 07:04 AM

"Had he actually done so, he would have responded to the Barbary threat by invading Iceland."

Or, say, reacting to the Nazi threat by invading Morocco. What did the Moroccans ever do to us?!

Posted by Rick C at April 20, 2007 08:43 AM

The US is at war with all Jihadists. Where 'Jihadists' is conveniently defined. Nothing at all wrong with being 'at war' with an 'ideology.' We're at war with anyone willing to declare war on us. AQ qualifies, as does a substantial list of other non-governmental groups.

BTW Rick, the French were the ones firing on us in that first US deployment in WWII. Delightful.

Posted by Al at April 20, 2007 09:54 AM

Robert: "Brian with all due respect I find people like you as annoying as people like Condi Rice."

With all due respect, equating me with a treasonous sociopath because you don't like my attitude, or find my ideas irritating, doesn't speak very highly of your judgment.

Robert: "You look at the world as you want to see it not how it is."

Now you're accusing me of "wanting" the disasters and horrors of the past few years, despite vocally objecting to them before they occurred, while they occurred, and presently? I recognize that some people feel powerless to change things, and would rather attack those who remind them of reality than deal with it, but facts don't go away just because you insist.

Robert: "I disagreed with going to Iraq becaue in part the case was not made as to why it was a valid responce to 9/11"

This is such an understatement, and implicitly concedes so many false assumptions, that I don't think you're really aware of the events in question. Nor do I think you recollect the nature of the Bush regime's "case," which had changed radically on an almost hourly basis, hopscotching between dozens of discredited claims, utterly ludicrous apocalyptic scenarios, and bald-faced lies to confuse the public and keep the criticism dispersed among them. They had no case, they knew they had no case, but they were determined from the beginning to have war at any cost. Under the laws and precedents established by the Nuremberg trials, and under subsequent international laws, they are war criminals subject to tribunal.

Robert: "OK they shouldnt have done it."

Do you know how many innocent people are dead because of their deliberate actions? How gravely they've wounded, if not killed this nation's credibility with the world? The "oopsy-daisy" tenor of your criticism would be farcical if it wasn't so outrageous.

Robert: "But now people like you seem to be hung up on how we got there, not life as it is now."

On the contrary, it's you who refuses to let go of inherited problems and move forward. We cannot afford to let the next century of America's destiny be dictated by the lawless actions of a handful of psychotics, so our only option is to make the hard decisions and get back on track.

Rick: "Or, say, reacting to the Nazi threat by invading Morocco."

No, the Nazis were staging out of Morocco. "Texas cowboy foreign policy" in WW2 would have been to invade Soviet Russia before the Nazis had even built an army, turn the entire world against us, then let the Nazis inherit it by default of incompetence and infamy. Fortunately we had a President at the time, and Americans could depend on having sane leadership.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 10:13 AM

Squidward says: We cannot afford to let the next century of America's destiny be dictated by the lawless actions of a handful of psychotics...

Right, so we forge a Democratic society in Iraq and support their country's right to self govern. We continue to support their fledgling security forces to meet the threat of insurgents. And we boldly stand with them against the threats of Iran. I agree Brian. Otherwise, the psychotics in the Middle East will dictate our future with their lawless actions.

Posted by Mac at April 20, 2007 11:16 AM

Brian, take a deep breath. No one is trying to kill you. And if you're worried for your descendants (if any), you should step back and take a look at history. The Republic survived very well for nearly two hundred years before you were born, without your guiding wisdom. There's a very good chance it will continue to lurch on at least moderately successfully even if you zipped up and said nothing evermore.

So things are not really as absolutely critical to get precisely right as they seem. Maybe you can cut the rest of us some slack, tolerate some of our human foibles and inability to see God's truth as clearly as you.

My effort to pull your chain -- very successful, I might add -- and show you how easily predictable and controllable you are, is an effort to get you to see how your overriding reflexes make you look like a robot. No one is interested in what a robot has to say after you pull its little string once or twice.

Be less predictable, Brian. We will listen more often.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 20, 2007 12:04 PM

Mac: "Right, so we forge a Democratic society in Iraq and support their country's right to self govern."

Bricks without straw. We're in Iraq precisely because certain people couldn't be bothered with reality, and not one single more American casualty should occur on the altar of their lunacy. Both the American and Iraqi peoples are overwhelmingly against continuing this destructive and illegitimate farce: It's our military, our money, and their country, so that's it. Hold a plebiscite on the occupation, and leave with their clear and unambiguous mandate.

Mac: "And we boldly stand with them against the threats of Iran."

My balls laugh at your hypocrisy. Bush and his inner circle cling to Iraq as a private imperial territory, and would call it aggression if Iran followed the regime's own preemptive logic to the letter in invading it.

Mac: "Otherwise, the psychotics in the Middle East will dictate our future with their lawless actions."

What the hell are you talking about? Your dot-connecting is as incoherent and arbitrary as a constellation.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 12:46 PM

My dot-connecting? I was agreeing with you. Those psychotic terrorists will dictate our future with their lawless actions. Okay, I know you meant Bush, but put jihadists in there and it works too.

My balls laugh at your hypocrisy.

That sounds painful.

Posted by Mac at April 20, 2007 02:13 PM

Mac: "My dot-connecting? I was agreeing with you."

No, you were mocking me. The Middle East has never had any influence over our future that we didn't choose to give them for political and economic convenience, and we can just as easily decide the region is irrelevant.

Mac: "Those psychotic terrorists will dictate our future with their lawless actions."

Not even close. Terrorism has become little more than an Islamic pop culture phenomenon, like gangster rap is to actual gangs, and the threat, while clearly serious as a criminal danger, becomes laughable when characterized in terms of war or national survival.

The ultimate military and technological power of China will be something the world has never seen, and which even we could not sustain by several factors, but we would still be dicking around chasing turbans by the time countries start kicking our bases out of their territory under pressure from Beijing.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 07:27 PM

By God, Brian, that actually made some sense, and it was not unreadably scatterbrained. How many personalities do you have?

I think you are fairly correct when you aver that neither the Middle East qua Middle East, nor Islamic terrorism, is by itself of geopolitical importance to the US. We could, as you say, merely declare victory in both cases and move on.

Provided that -- and here's the catch -- we did a whole other lot of things more correctly. For example, I think there would be nothing wrong with declaring Islamic terrorism a null threat, provided that we also refused to make media circuses out of terrorist events (even our own, like shithead in Virginia). Provided that we never changed policies for fear of terrorism -- no more focking airport security lines, just give every passenger who wants one a gun, and consider the occasional lost airliner just part of the cost of traveling routinely at 600 MPH. Provided that we vigorously and unapologetically promoted our own interests and values across the globe, and made no bones about competing brusquely, without a trace of "cultural sensitivity", with alien systems (e.g. Islam). And so on.

Problem is, we don't. We're in the grip of a lazy-ass, whining, self-hating mommy pleasing mental habit as ultimately suicidally destructive as a coke habit. The real purpose of these wars on terrorism and exporting democracy to Iraq is to help cure those ills. The focussed action may help rouse our spirit from its fin-de-siecle fatal cynicism, and let us prosper in the next century. It's happened before. People sometimes need a standard to rally around, even if the standard is, in itself, fairly meaningless. It's the rallying that matters.

Also, you're totally wrong about the Chinese. They have hideous demographic problems that are going to destroy them. You'll see. They're going to go straight from Japan circa 1980 (scary rising power!) to Japan circa 2010 (pitiable declining nation of pensioners).

Posted by Carl Pham at April 20, 2007 08:10 PM

Carl: "For example, I think there would be nothing wrong with declaring Islamic terrorism a null threat, provided that we also refused to make media circuses out of terrorist events"

Can't be avoided with a free press, but we can still be guided by common sense in security policy. The point is to be rational, not abandon our own culture for the very callousness and grue we reject.

Carl: "Provided that we vigorously and unapologetically promoted our own interests and values across the globe"

Bush screwed that pooch four years ago, and the world has lost all patience with American hard-sell.

"The real purpose of these wars on terrorism and exporting democracy to Iraq is to help cure those ills. The focussed action may help rouse our spirit from its fin-de-siecle fatal cynicism, and let us prosper in the next century."

The only thing Bush exported to Iraq was al Qaeda, and his war has effectively destroyed--not weakened, destroyed--America's credibility and good will in most of the world. As for "fin-de-siecle," we turned Y2K full of hope, energy, and promise, so I don't know where you saw "fatal cynicism" unless it was in a prophetic vision of subsequent years. There are two kinds of calamities--those that energize, and those that cut to the bone; these have been the latter. There is no "focused action," no mission, and no discernable purpose, just death, destruction, and lies. Vital parts of our national character are dead, including the Constitution--it is now merely customary, and subject to veto by dictatorship.

"It's the rallying that matters."

There's no rally. You've created Apocalypse Now on the sands, and the grandiose fascist scenarios of your imagination exist only there. They've started sending in troops who've only had half the standard training and none of it specialized for Iraq. Untrained soldiers into a destroyed country to stay in hell until Herr Bush says they can return home, for no reason whatsoever, with no mission but to find and kill people who just keep coming. Maybe they return with their sanity and limbs, maybe just one of the two, maybe neither.

"They're going to go straight from Japan circa 1980 (scary rising power!) to Japan circa 2010 (pitiable declining nation of pensioners)."

I've had similar thoughts, but there's a possibility they'll achieve global Colossus before that happens, and then drag the world into stagnation with them.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 10:01 PM

Can't be avoided with a free press

Oh nonsense. The press are mere whores. They sell what we buy. If we didn't buy it, they wouldn't sell it. If we can muster a national consensus on (say) raising CAFE standards to "fight" oil-money fueled hooliganism, we ought to be able to raise one to cut off the oxygen of publicity.

Bush screwed that pooch four years ago, and the world has lost all patience with American hard-sell.

Balls. We don't need the world's patience, and we don't need its indulgence or pity. That's not how you compete. We need their respect, a little fear, a little envy. We get it not by truckling and being "sensitive", but by standing tall, being consistent (a big problem for the US), being direct and modest (no conquering the world stuff).

To the extent Mr. Bush has screwed up, I think it's in mixing impractical Wilsonian bullshit moralizing in with a direct projection of American power in practical and limited American interests.

his war has effectively destroyed--not weakened, destroyed--America's credibility and good will in most of the world

I couldn't care less. With the world's "good will" and a dollar, I can get a cup of coffee at McDonald's. You know what? You don't care about that stuff, either. I don't notice you attempting to placate folks here, earning their "good will", when you think they're nuts. You just say and do what you think you need to. You'd be no different if you were in charge.

Plus I don't think you're right about it reducing credibility. The jury is still out on the credibility. No one with an IQ above room temperature, or a Democratic presidential candidate (but I repeat myself) thinks he can read the tea leaves in Iraq right now and predict that in 10 years it will look more like Cambodia in 1980 than Germany in 1955. We'll just have to wait and see.

There's no rally.

We'll see. Jury's out on that one, too. You're just whistling past the graveyard, because you're afraid you'll be on the wrong side of the rally and get sent to a re-education camp. Don't worry, we're not like that. We'll only think about it a little, maybe tease you a bit.

there's a possibility they'll achieve global Colossus before that happens

Very remote possibility. China is still an order of magnitude behind the US, roughly, and their time is running out now. The generation of marriage-age men is utterly out of whack now. That pressure is already huge, and it will get much worse in this generation. They just can't pull it out in less than 20 years, and that's all they've got.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 20, 2007 11:54 PM

"If we can muster a national consensus"

Unfortunately, the media does occasionally report real news, and you can't tell the difference in an MSM source between useful information and fearmongering until you've already bought the paper, watched the story, or accessed the website.

"That's not how you compete."

Yes, it is. If the world believes the last few years truly reflect the United States, rather than being a catastrophic fluke, then our current problems will continue and multiply.

"We need their respect, a little fear, a little envy."

The only people who should fear us are aggressors. Fear and envy from anyone else is counter-productive, and inspires others to sabotage and bigotry rather than emulation. As for respect, there's much more to it than extorting non-antagonism through military and economic power.

"We get it not by truckling and being "sensitive", but by standing tall, being consistent (a big problem for the US), being direct and modest (no conquering the world stuff)."

I largely agree, but nothing about sensitivity precludes the rest--you may be mistaking it for political correctness or euphemism. To be sensitive is simply to act in awareness of context and full consideration of likely consequences. Hence, when someone calls George W. Bush insensitive, they're not complimenting his "forthrightness" as he probably thinks--they're saying he's dimwitted, lazy, and incompetent.

"You don't care about that stuff, either. I don't notice you attempting to placate folks here, earning their "good will", when you think they're nuts."

There are no lives at stake in what I say here, nor even money. If that were the case, I would write persuasively, ingratiatingly, and with patience while gently encouraging those who were having trouble keeping up with the class.

"The jury is still out on the credibility."

Must be the same jury still not clear on evolution and climate change. Well, while they're "out," the world up and decided for themselves, and the fact remains America's credibility is gone. We can argue, as I've often had to, that these calamities are the work of a tiny handful of lunatics in the White House, but I don't have any defense for why so many people believed them. Yes, I can say to the Germans "you should talk," but even that merely adjusts the moral perspective without changing the outcome--the world no longer believes it can trust us, and is no longer interested in our leadership.

"because you're afraid you'll be on the wrong side of the rally and get sent to a re-education camp."

Uh, no. My position has been consistent from before the invasion, including the brief period of wishful thinking when the headlines were relatively positive despite the reality. But the relatively honest Bush apologists--and I stress "relatively"--have gone from predicting a secure, prosperous, free, secular, pro-American state with a token US force to desperately insisting that more troops and more money will *mitigate* the genocidal massacres, and help the Shiite government establish some miminal control of *Baghdad* outside the Green Zone.

"China is still an order of magnitude behind the US, roughly, and their time is running out now."

I seriously doubt it. Population declines due to the One Child policy will *increase* the productivity of their economy, because a significant number of people are surplus, and quite a few more are marginal. Even if they don't reduce pension expenses by cutting benefits, raising the age, or excluding some people entirely, expenses peak in about ten years while productivity keeps increasing.

If China achieves only a quarter of what we have based on resources and population, they will still have an economy twice as large, and it's plausible that their affluent class will exceed the entire population of the United States. It's also plausible, given the unlikelihood of labor unions, enforced labor laws, or antitrust regulations, that their affluent class will be substantially richer than American counterparts, even though the majority would remain substantially poorer.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 21, 2007 08:18 PM

Post a comment