Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Why can't BOTH be the "enemy" of classic liberalism? In my opinion, both are. And it would be naive to believe that there is only ONE enemy.

My largest complaint about GWB is his desire to enlarge executive power contrary to the spirit of 1776 and 1787. We defeated Hitler and Stalin (much graver threats that some Islamicist hoodlums) with less hysteria.

So tell me Rand, as someone with libertarian tendencies, are you pleased by the new drivers license laws that create a de facto national identification card? How libertarian is that?

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 08:09 AM

Why can't BOTH be the "enemy" of classic liberalism?

They can be, I suppose, but many so-called "liberals" have the relative danger exactly reversed.

We defeated Hitler and Stalin (much graver threats that some Islamicist hoodlums) with less hysteria.

It's exactly that kind of nutty and sanguine attitude (that all we face are some "Islamicist hoodlums") that I'm talking about. We're in just as, if not more, vicious an ideological battle as we were in WW II and the Cold War, and the enemy has millions of adherents, many in this very country, based on the latest poll of US Muslims, in which CAIR tells us we should be heartened that three quarters of them don't believe in suicide bombing as legitimate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 08:25 AM

The article smacks to me of "Let me tell you what you really think". As an atheist, I get that all the time from Christians who are happy to explain why the life lived by millions of atheists every day isn't proper atheism, and we'd do much better to adopt their idiotic caricature of atheism. This non-liberal, telling me how liberals are supposed to act, is the same sort of strawman.

Posted by Ashley at May 23, 2007 08:35 AM

Melanie Phillips is taking us in the wrong direction on topics such as this (guess the author for a small prize):

Faith in the power of reason — the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

I assert this idea is at the core of the Constitution of 1787 and this idea is expressly declared in Federalist Paper #1 and this idea is under assault by the lawyers who work for the Bush Administration

Also this:

For the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.
It is too easy — and too partisan — to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?

We can and must win BOTH wars, both the war against radical Islam and the war against those who find the political philosophy set down in 1776 and 1787 to be inconvenient for their personal agendas.

Melanie Phillips argues that radical Islam is the ONLY enemy that matters and I simply disagree.

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 09:20 AM

I agree with Bill about the relative danger of Islamic terrorism versus Nazism and Communism. Perhaps it will grow into a threat that is greater than the latter two, but it's a mistake to say that it currently is. And to a strong country like the US, internal threats (like authoritarianism or the peace-at-any-cost ideologies) are always more serious than external threats.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 23, 2007 09:31 AM

What makes you think that radical Islam isn't an internal threat, Karl?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 10:03 AM

The great attraction of wild exaggerations in the war on Islamic terrorism is that they cover up for failure. In Iraq, in particular, the US is propping up a dysfunctional central government that has broken into Islamist and secessionist factions. That includes outright terrorists: one member of the Iraqi parliament was even sentenced to death in Kuwait for helping bomb the American embassy there. The truth is that the war in Iraq is unwinnable because it's a sham. It's the laetrile of Western security.

The most convenient answer to this is to sound the alarm of world war. There is no time to bicker about little details like Iraq, because the big picture is World War IV! Modern civizilation is in a fight to the death with Islam! It's the Chicken Little argument --- just as laetrile is targeted at desperate cancer patients.

(Lest anyone think of laetrile as a gentle, do-nothing drug, it certainly isn't that. It converts to cyanide. Anyone who uses it is "fighting hard".)

Posted by at May 23, 2007 10:16 AM

I don't see where the actions of GWB compare to FDR. When has GWB round up citizens based on ethnicity alone and forced them to live in camps? Sure, we handled communism differently; we simply lived in fear of total nuclear war for 40 years. Yes Bill, we certainly need to dial back the hysteria.

Posted by Leland at May 23, 2007 10:23 AM

I such say, the merit of wild exaggerations, such as in the war on Islamic terrorism. Wild exaggerations are always an ironic tactic to cover up for failure. For instance, if you botched a car mortgage, you can answer criticism by saying that you're on the verge of bankruptcy. It makes finger-pointing look out of place.

Posted by at May 23, 2007 10:25 AM

The truth is that the war in Iraq is unwinnable because it's a sham.

The sham is in your reasoning.

Posted by Mac at May 23, 2007 10:25 AM

Is CAIR representative of the internal threat of radical Islam? If not what is? Where is this internal threat festering?

Posted by Offside at May 23, 2007 10:26 AM

Is CAIR representative of the internal threat of radical Islam?

Actually, it is, almost literally. It's its propaganda arm and PR agent.

Where is this internal threat festering?

In the Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas. And in the prisons, with all of the converts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 10:30 AM

At least I'll give Bill credit for attaching his name to his nonsense, unlike the anonymous trolls.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 10:31 AM

"In the Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas. And in the prisons, with all of the converts."

Right here in this country? Do we have any real data on this?

Posted by Offside at May 23, 2007 10:42 AM

Rand, I will still agree with you here:

In the Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas. And in the prisons, with all of the converts.

Dead spot on. Perhaps the "War on Drugs" enhances the danger we may later face from home-grown jihadis.

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 10:43 AM

Offside, I do not believe the prison "converts" have a clue about the agenda of a global caliphate in any ideological sense.

But that said, I have seen evidence that radical Islamic groups are forming the equivalent of street gangs inside our prisons with a possible objective being to channel pure nihilistic rage in support of Islamic terror.

The "converts" are not truly converts in any genuine sense but simply angry people who allow their anger to be channeled in the direction the radicals desire.

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 10:50 AM

Right here in this country?

Yes.

Do we have any real data on this?

You mean quantitatively? It can be known how many mosques and madrassas have been funded by the Saudis over the last couple decades. The degree to which the preaching of Jihad is occurring within them is unknown, but not zero, based on many anecdotal reports.

As far as the prisons go, again, no numbers, but there is certainly a lot of competition with Christian chaplains by Muslim ones, particularly aimed at black inmates (sadly, a much larger proportion of the prison population than is represented by the public at large, largely because of the War on (Some) Drug, as Bill notes).

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 10:51 AM

We defeated Hitler and Stalin (much graver threats that some Islamicist hoodlums) with less hysteria. - Bill White

Gentlemen, I wish to understand what you consider to be a severe threat. Utilizing the categories of civilian deaths, buildings destroyed, and percentage drop in GDP, I'd like to know what would the "magic numbers" are for these various metrics, before we can take the threat of Islamic radicalism seriously.

How many civilian lives need to be lost before we consider this an existential threat? 5,000? 10,000? 1,000,000?

How many buildings must be leveled before the threat can be put on par with that of Nazism? 5? 20? 1000?

How much of a decline in GDP is enough to suggest that this is more dangerous than communism? 5%? 10%? 50%?

What are your magic numbers? When should we become concerned with this threat? When will you consider it a severe threat? When should we consider it an existential threat?

When can we start panicking?

By the way, does anybody know how many civilian deaths we incurred, on American soil, during WWII or how many buildings were lost to communism?

Posted by kayawanee at May 23, 2007 11:07 AM

Make no mistake, kayawanee, I am concerned about the very real threat posed by radical Islam.

It is simply my belief that "going Jack Bauer" as many leading GOP candidates seem to advocate (such as Mitt "we need more Gitmos" Romney) will enhance the threat rather than dimiminsh it.

Rather like giving steroids to a TB patient.

In addition, enhanced executive powers such as those found in the Patriot Act are and will be turned against ordinary Americans in non-terror contexts such as the War on (some) Drugs.

National ID cards are another example.

A lose-lose -- we fail to adequately confront the radical Islamic threat while surrendering many of our cherished freedoms.

Imagine if Bill Clinton had proposed a national ID card system back in 1998, the screaming from the Right would have been deafening (and rightfully so). But today, the jihadis are portrayed as such a HUGE threat we meekly accept these ID cards because "9/11 changed everything"

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 12:09 PM

It would seem self-evident to anyone not in the throes of BDS that in January 2009 George Bush will be a private citizen again, of no more relevance than, say, Jimmy Carter. Any of his policies could then be reversed. Since Islamofascism doesn't come with a convenient expiration date and those killed couldn't be resurrected, it would certainly seem to be the greater threat.

This National ID thing is interesting, though. Since I already have a birth certificate, marriage certificate, Social Security number, driver's license, and a passport issued by government (not to mention a military service file and IRS file and property deed and car registrations), plus I have a bank account and use credit cards, exactly what does a National ID do to diminish me or my rights? Seriously; I'm not being sarcastic. I've often seen this subject raised and have never heard it explained why a National ID (seems like my passport is effectively that) would harm my interests.

Posted by Chuck at May 23, 2007 01:36 PM

I've often seen this subject raised and have never heard it explained why a National ID (seems like my passport is effectively that) would harm my interests.

Don't you get it? It's because George Bush proposed it!

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 01:42 PM

A CATO essay on national ID cards.

I am reminded of Jon Tester during the Montana Senate race when his GOP opponent accused him of seeking to weaken the Patriot Act: "I don't want to water down the Patriot Act, I want to repeal the Patriot Act."

The more libertarian position, at least on that point.

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 01:44 PM

Actually Rand, George Bush was against it, at first.

Dick Gephardt proposed it.

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 01:46 PM

That was sarcasm, Bill. I was simulating someone suffering from BDS, for whom everything is George Bush's fault.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 01:49 PM

Rand: They can be, I suppose, but many so-called "liberals" have the relative danger exactly reversed.

Strange logic from a "libertarian," that a foreign rabble is more dangerous than a domestic government with no respect for law or freedom.

It's exactly that kind of nutty and sanguine attitude (that all we face are some "Islamicist hoodlums") that I'm talking about.

That is all we face in a security context. The broader problem is cultural, and attempts by lunatics on either side to militarize that are the essence of fascism.

We're in just as, if not more, vicious an ideological battle as we were in WW II and the Cold War

Ideology hasn't played much of a role at all. The regime is trying to make and protect money for its financiers, including the Saudis, with any national security detriments or benefits being completely incidental. Free market capitalism, liberal democracy, constitutionalism, secularism, transparency, etc are either irrelevant to their agenda or actively antagonistic to it. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorism has abstracted into a pop culture phenomenon adopted by Muslim teenagers abroad in a similar vein to street gangs and rap in the US, with little attention to or particular interest in the actual religion. Iran, a member of the so-called "Axis of Evil," is as pragmatic and fearful of change as ever despite the ironic caricaturizations of their intentions by the Bush regime, and the Saudis as usual play both sides and always come out with more money for it.

and the enemy has millions of adherents

No, they have millions of passive sympathizers.

many in this very country

How "many"?

based on the latest poll of US Muslims, in which CAIR tells us we should be heartened that three quarters of them don't believe in suicide bombing as legitimate.

Four-fifths, actually--a greater margin than the percentage of Americans opposed to torture, and roughly in the ballpark of those against executing people for violating Leviticus. The 3/4 figure only refers to US Muslims under the age of 30.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18797530/

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 23, 2007 02:15 PM

Strange logic from a "libertarian," that a foreign rabble is more dangerous than a domestic government with no respect for law or freedom.

Since both of your premises are horseshit, I'd say you're the one with the "strange logic."

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 02:21 PM

Ideology hasn't played much of a role at all.

Swiderski, you're nuts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 02:23 PM

Since both of your premises are horseshit, I'd say you're the one with the "strange logic."

Oh, right. I forgot you live in a parallel universe where the Bush regime obeys the Constitution, and al Qaeda suicide bombers are behind every tree and lamppost.

Swiderski, you're nuts.

Get an oil change R2D2, your defensive gears are rusting from overuse. So not only did you get the facts wrong, and probably didn't even bother checking, but you can't take hearing about it and have to respond with more of your patented Idiotspeak consisting of random insults. You're entitled to your opinions, bigoted and moronic though they be, but not your own facts--that's something you, Condi, Wolfowitz, and the other necrocons had better learn.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 23, 2007 03:05 PM

Oh, right. I forgot you live in a parallel universe where the Bush regime obeys the Constitution, and al Qaeda suicide bombers are behind every tree and lamppost.

No, that straw man delusion would be your alternate universe. Have you ever heard of a concept called "false choice"?

You don't have to answer that question.

Thanks, though, for demonstrating your insanity, and inability to read, once again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 03:14 PM

Rand, you really ought to stop posting links to Phillips and her regular rants...

Hmmm... regualar rants on pet topics... why does this sound familiar?

Posted by Daveon at May 23, 2007 03:30 PM

Bill White,

On the national ID thing, I agree with Chuck and don't really see why this is a bad thing. Reading your linked article, they only seem to make 2 points: 1) You could be forced to show the ID in order to do stuff (which is kind of the point of an ID) and 2) the Nazis did it, so it must be bad. Sorry, the Nazis did a lot of things that we should (and have) emulate also - reliance on technology, breathing oxygen, access to hospitals.

The only other things they brought up were problems that they share with Drivers Licenses. (I mean really - they said "teenagers can make fake drivers licenses, imagine what a terrorist could do!" Um, they could get in clubs?)

So really, what is the negative? The positive, as I see it, is that identity theft becomes harder. What is the real negative, a plausible scenario? I'm not saying that there isn't one, just that I can't see one. (The quick test for any plausible concern is "do we not have that with Drivers Licenses anyway") The only negative I can see is that it becomes harder to lie about who you are. I believe that hurts evil a lot more than good, so is a net positive.

To me the positives seem to outwiegh the negatives - but I could be wrong.

Posted by David Summers at May 23, 2007 03:43 PM

kayawanee,

Ok, I'll give it a try.

How many civilian lives need to be lost before we consider this an existential threat? 5,000? 10,000? 1,000,000?

Oh, the existence of 250-300 million US citizens put at risk. A one time event (like an asteroid impact) that causes one million deaths in itself doesn't threaten the existence of the US.

But attacks that consistently and repeatedly cause tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths (say from nuclear weapons or diseases) would IMHO be an existential threat.

An attack that kills 10,000 simply cannot be an existential threat for something the size of the US unless it is very frequent (eg, occurs weekly) or targets elites (losing the top 10,000 military officers, scientists, politicians, or business leaders).

How many buildings must be leveled before the threat can be put on par with that of Nazism? 5? 20? 1000?

I'd say on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of buildings. After all, the Nazis did considerable damage to the lands they conquered and bombing of the UK and the USSR.

How much of a decline in GDP is enough to suggest that this is more dangerous than communism? 5%? 10%? 50%?

Well, Communism never caused a decline in GDP. So Islamic terrorism is a bit ahead in that area. But the drop would have to be considerable and of long duration.

I'm not sure if kayawanee was joking or not, but Islamic terrorists haven't come close to causing the level of damage that Nazism or Communism has caused. Talking about 5,000 deaths as if it were an existential threat? No way.

Rand, you wrote:

What makes you think that radical Islam isn't an internal threat, Karl?

It is one. But radical anything, be it Islam, Christianity, Environmentalism, or something else, just isn't that prevalent in the US. And most of those people don't break US law. So you're then talking about a small number of people that could potentially kill people and cause harm. Compare that to an overly powerful central government. Which one can cause greater harm?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 23, 2007 03:53 PM

John Derbyshire

In this, as in so many other things, Ronald Reagan set the right style. He did not waver in his support for Second Amendment rights even when he himself was shot by a lunatic, regarding such an occurrence as part of the price for living in a free society. In the same spirit, when the subject of a national ID card was raised in cabinet as an aid to controlling illegal immigration, Reagan dismissed it with the sardonic remark: “Maybe we should just brand all babies.” In the present climate, one hesitates to tell that story, for fear the idea might be taken up in all seriousness and appear a few days later as a New York Times Op-Ed.

Has 9/11 indeed neutered the libertarian Right?

I live a rather vanilla lifestyle and federal snooping will have little real impact on me but I am astonished at the abject surrender on former hot button issues because "Bush said so"

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 04:03 PM

More Derbyshire:

There are other problems with a national ID-card database. There is the issue of data quality, for example. A study by the Cato Institute in 1995 showed that large databases owned by the federal government had high error rates: 5 to 20 per cent for the Social Security Administration, 28 per cent for the INS, 10 to 20 per cent for the IRS. The INS database, they found, routinely had people’s first and last names in the wrong order, and mis-spellings were “rampant.”
And then there is the matter of abuse. Because of the attacks on our country, we are currently in a collectivist frame of mind, with the percentage of Americans who say they trust the federal government to do the right thing “nearly always” or “most of the time” currently at 64 — twice the level of a year ago. I hope and believe that the sober style of the new administration has also made some contribution to this high level of trust. We must remember, though, that a national ID database, once established, would be available to all future administrations. It is hard to imagine the Bush people allowing low-level staffers to riffle through FBI files, or siccing the IRS on the president’s personal enemies: yet exactly these things happened during the Clinton years. Both of our editorialists are blithe about the possibility of abuse. Dershowitz: “The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card.” Ellison: “Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure would govern access... The ‘probable cause’ standard will still have to be met.”

Posted by Bill White at May 23, 2007 04:05 PM

I am astonished at the abject surrender on former hot button issues because "Bush said so"

I know that this will come as a shock and revelation to the Bush deranged (as you reveal yourself to be, since I'm not a big fan of George Bush), but at least consider the possibility that it is not just "because Bush said so."

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 04:15 PM

Have you ever heard of a concept called "false choice"?

More properly, "false dilemma." But there was none in what I said--you do indeed live in a fantasy world where the intentions of al Qaeda, which they could never possibly come close to realizing, are more dangerous than the immediate and grievous harm to this nation's freedom and security already deliberately caused by this regime. Moreover, you refuse to acknowledge how the latter's criminality serves the interests of the former, and thus multiplies the damage of both against our society.

Now, of course, your response is predictable: You will either ignore this post completely, respond with another imbecilic putdown (or some by-the-numbers evasion with "irony" mindlessly asserted), or if you're feeling in an uncharacteristically rational mood, you may even make a pretense at a point by denying the premise of the regime's criminality.

However, you've done so many times before, and each and every time I've addressed in detail the documented fact of their vast and ever-expanding portfolio of criminal activity, leading to your once again predictable responses: Abandonment of the discussion, cut-and-paste insults, quibbling with some minor point while ignoring the central arguments, or attempting to change the subject to me or others, but ultimately you run because you know you're wrong and don't care.

After proving that they've done what I say, you can't deny it; after proving that it's a crime, you can't deny that; after it's proven that it was neither necessary nor even beneficial, you drop those excuses; and after your attempts to manufacture moral equivalence with Democratic anecdotes fail, you have nothing left but your insults, your cut-and-paste responses, and then your sullen silence. Then, the very next day, you're repeating statements discredited the day before, and making your posts a self-renewing monument to the awesome, unlimited mendacity and horror of right-wing psychology. Your views are a mobius loop of stupidity, impervious to all empirical causality or change.

Thanks, though, for demonstrating your insanity, and inability to read, once again.

Frankly, I don't know if your sanity was a casualty of 9/11 like Dennis Miller's or if you've always clamored for chaos and destruction, but I won't say it hasn't been instructive talking with you. It's fascinating to consider the paradoxes of freedom that endanger its own survival, the ironies of a free and prosperous society that yields people whose behaviors erode its foundations. Reading your comments, you make abundantly clear that you aren't stating thoughts or conclusions with a logical structure, you're stating absolute beliefs founded on desires and compulsions, and either don't want or don't know how to deal with rational challenges. Forgive me if I seem to remark on this frequently, but your seemingly total lack of interest in self-improvement is puzzling to someone like me. You can't imagine being wrong, so you don't listen when people say you are.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 23, 2007 05:00 PM

Forgive me if I seem to remark on this frequently

We know that moonbats can't help it.

...but your seemingly total lack of interest in self-improvement is puzzling to someone like me. You can't imagine being wrong, so you don't listen when people say you are.

Arrogant, and lunatic physician, heal thyself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 23, 2007 05:14 PM

Rand,

I hope you don't wind up banning Brian.

Whether one of us blothfuls (blog-faithful) agrees with him or not, sentences such as:
"Your views are a mobius loop of stupidity, impervious to all empirical causality or change," are fine entertainment, a mathematically inclined use of the English language far superior to the dyslexic ramblings of the recently deceased multi-poster child Robert Oler.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 23, 2007 05:35 PM

OK, I confess. NONE of my civil liberties have been taken away or reduced. I am tired of removing my shoes in airports. My sock purchases are exceeding by budget. I get SO tired of the Bush is a dictator meme. You have Glover and Moore cozening up to REAL dictators like Chavez and Castro yet those on the left with their feet hanging over the edge of reason say nothing. Give us some examples of wholesale rights violations of AMERICAN citizens. Alien Gitmo detainees don't count. I can buy a gun, vote, travel anywhere without restriction. It's time for the Chicken Littles to gome home and roost.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 23, 2007 06:10 PM

I said: Now, of course, your response is predictable: You will...respond with another imbecilic putdown...

Rand: We know that moonbats can't help it.

Nothin' but net. Point Swiderski.

I said: ...or some by-the-numbers evasion with "irony" mindlessly asserted...

Arrogant, and lunatic physician, heal thyself.

Whoa, three-pointer: Another childish insult, but wrapped in a default claim of irony and attempting to change the subject to me. I have your mind mapped like a frigging MUD, and all you can do is spasm and flop like a fish on a dock. All you had to do was respond like a conscious human being and my points would have evaporated, but instead you just kept following your compulsions and acting like a robot with Tourette's syndrome. Pitiful, Rand.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 23, 2007 06:27 PM

(Continuing off-topic, applogies, Rand)

Bill White,

What you posted was interesting, but fails my qualification question: "Why is it not currently a problem with Driver's licenses?"

I can see how arresting everyone that doesn't present ID could be bad - but since we require everyone to have an ID now, but manage not to arrest those that don't carry it I don't see the big deal in centralizing it. As for the governments inability to keep accurate information - that is absolutely true, but again, that is the way it is now anyway! It's not like the state records are correct, and turning it over to the Feds would ruin it.

I guess I just don't see much difference between a state ID (required for life, pretty much) and a federal ID (required for life, pretty much).

(I wouldn't try to force it on you or anything, but I just don't get why it is bad.)

Posted by David Summers at May 23, 2007 09:39 PM

"We defeated Hitler and Stalin (much graver threats that some Islamicist hoodlums) with less hysteria."

Really?

What was the deal with exclusion zones and internment?

What about all those "duck and cover" drills, and CONELRAD?

Just wondering, because, you know, I would like to be able to discern hysteria from non-hysteria.

Anyone care to clue me in?

Thanks,

Posted by MG at May 23, 2007 10:27 PM

What was the deal with exclusion zones and internment?

What about all those "duck and cover" drills, and CONELRAD?

The Japanese internment probably was hysteria. I don't know what exclusion zones you refer to. The term is well used. And "duck and cover" drills and CONELRAD definitely were not hysteria.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 24, 2007 05:05 AM

I guess I just don't see much difference between a state ID (required for life, pretty much) and a federal ID (required for life, pretty much).

Okay, I guess 9/11 has indeed changed how Americans think. As a Democrat, I have long favored centralized government databases so its no biggie to me.

/wink

Posted by Bill White at May 24, 2007 05:12 AM

Reading your comments, you make abundantly clear that you aren't stating thoughts or conclusions with a logical structure, you're stating absolute beliefs founded on desires and compulsions

As do you, quite a few times Brian, what's your point? You throw out veiled insults just as often as Rand, except his aren't veiled. High-browed elitist put-downs from Squidward?

I agree with a few others here that ID cards aren't a bad idea. We already have Drvier's licenses that double as ID cards. The purpose behind the cards may need fixing though.

Posted by Mac at May 24, 2007 05:37 AM

Many of the posts here seem to unintenionally lend credence to the following idea:
that in general most of the U.S. public lacks support for wars against terrorists because most of the U.S public believes in a very large degree of invulnerability.

Such a belief in near-invulnerability can only stem from ignorance of just how complex and fragile modern systems (including society) often are. Such beliefs also ignore that the future is overwhelmingly likely to evolve into even more complexities and weaknesses at a very rapid pace. Perhaps they don't realize just how much the world has changed during the last 25 years?

And if the idea is true (and it does seem that way) it would be a good example of a self-defeating stance; because who would seriously focus on defending themselves if they think they're near-invulnerable and will remain so "automagically"?

Preemption (in most issues, not just international affairs) is not governed by political ideology, it's relentlessly driven forward by reality itself. (1)

One would think that experiences such as 9/11 would moderate and correct such beliefs but it seems the opposite has happened. That might be a very strong indication of a terminally ill society - we're living in interesting times.

(1) somewhat off topic I recently read some interesting thoughts about a concept called "The Great Filter" here. The challenges caused by an increasingly complex reality might amount to a furious battle against an inherent negative feedback loop and could be a big part of The Great Filter.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 24, 2007 06:13 AM

I don't know what exclusion zones you refer to.

Internment was one thing while Exclusion and Relocation were quite another. The detention we call internment applied, or should have, to resident foreign nationals from the Axis nations. From the figures I've seen, some 15,000 Japanese and some 15,000 European derived peoples went into internment camps.

What of the other 100,000+ Japanese-Americans (citizens) in camps? They were in camps because of a specific WWII program of relocation. They were forced to relocate from the West Coast but had no place to relocate, hence the camps. Some did manage to relocate on their own.

Exclusion was like a limited form of Relocation. Many peoples derived from the Axis nations were forbidden to live or work within a few miles of the West Coast. Joe DiMaggio's father is a common example of that policy.

BTW - The detention we call internment is and always has been possible in the US. It is an accepted international practice.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 24, 2007 08:15 AM

Karl, D, thanks for the feedback.

Anyone care to comment on whether the McCarthy hearings constitute "hysteria" in the Cold War?

Is it REALLY true that we handled WW2 and the Cold War without hysteria?

My counterproposal is this:

1. Warfare /em inherently /em involves fear (both justified and unjustified) and its manipulation (for examples, "War on Drugs", "War on Cancer", "War on Poverty", etc.)

2. Control freaks (of whatever political persuasion) will use their power to manipulate fear to their own ends. This, I think, is Mr. Swiderski's basis for seeing the US federal government as a greater threat than terrorists.

3. In a liberal republic, the citizenry /em must /em remain jealous of their liberties, and be slow to give them up, and quick to reseize them.

And, on a related note, the citizenry /em must /em be zealous protectors of the prerogatives of citizenship. When politicians water down citizenship by (say) making citizenship easy to achieve, they make a population less zealous in the defense of their liberties, and easier to control.

So, EVERY war we have fought has had hysteria in the populace. EVERY war has involved a curtailment (rational or not) of the liberties of the citizenry. And, it is desirable for there to be a resumption of the curtailed liberties as soon after the conflict as possible.

Any more takers?

Posted by MG at May 24, 2007 09:28 AM

So, EVERY war we have fought has had hysteria in the populace. EVERY war has involved a curtailment (rational or not) of the liberties of the citizenry.

WWI certainly had both and to the detriment of many of German derivation.

McCarthy? An amateur as compared to Woodrow Wilson.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 24, 2007 11:14 AM

Post a comment