I freely admit that I'm pretty opinionated, and that I have something to say on pretty much any topic. I prefer great taste over less filling. I like classic Chevys more than Fords, and Toyotas more than both put together. I like ARs more than AKs, and would take an M1A over either. I generally support the Republican party, but I don't really consider myself a Republican. I could go on and on, right up to my position on pointless shit like Cake vs. Pie (pie) and Pirates vs. Ninjas (ninjas).
But while I really do have an opinion on pretty much everything, and am not shy when it comes to telling you all about it, I like to think that most of my positions are based on rational analysis, rather than any ingrained programming or the toeing of any party line. Bad beer is not really made better by being able to drink a lot of it. It's a lot easier to replace an HEI chip than to fuck around with ignition points, and better still to have a car that doesn't break. Living in the desert, I like the ability to shoot accurately beyond 200 yards, preferably with a slug heavy enough to retain energy. I like Republican economic conservatism, but cannot support any party that opposes brilliant emerging technologies (notably stem cell research) based on esoteric religious dogma. A well made cake is never bad, but pie has SO many more options, and ninjas are highly trained professional assassins, whereas Pirates are almost always just waterborne thugs. On most subjects, there are reasons why I feel the way I do.
As a corollary to this rational approach, I like to think that I can see the other side of most arguments, even if I don't agree. If you have bad beer, good to be able to drink a lot of it. Fords are good cars, AKs are good guns, and Democrats sometimes have the right idea (in small doses). Both cake and pirates have their undeniable moments of greatness. (Black Forrest and Jack Sparrow, respectively.) For the most part, I can at least understand the other side of the debate on pretty much any issue you'd care to choose.
Except one.
No matter how hard I try, and no matter how loudly the other side yells, I cannot find the slightest bit of merit in any argument against the Second Amendment. It is just overwhelmingly mind-boggling that any American could EVER endorse a state of affairs where it is somehow okay for our government to tell us that we, as law-abiding citizens, are not allowed to be armed. Every argument I have ever heard on the subject strikes me as abject bullshit, contrived by people who oppose guns simply because they don't want them, and - if they don't want them - then nobody else should be allowed to have them either. It's circular bullshit, based on nothing more than personal preference, and people don't seem to realize that although they are free to exercise their CHOICE to not own firearms, the RIGHT to own them if they so choose is - and should be - inviolate, both as a matter of law and as a matter of political practicality.
Lets look at the law. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The most common argument you hear against the Amendment is that it is outdated. That there is no more militia in this country, and that such militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. These arguments are, in a word, BULLSHIT. The militia DOES exist, and IS necessary for a free state. Didn't you read the Amendment? The Amendments are second only to the Constitution in defining what IS in this country, and that's what the Amendment says. A militia is necessary. Unless you change the Amendment, that is the legal reality.
Going further, and still sticking to matters of law, there is ABSOLUTELY an American Militia. Under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 16), Congress has authority to form a national militia, and the language of the Amendment essentially mandates the existence of the Militia as a necessary legal entity. Congress has expressly endorsed that existence, and - whether you realize it or not - militia membership includes just about every law-abiding adult male. It is the law, and I am not just making this up. The American Militia includes every law abiding American male between the ages of 17 and 45, excepting only those in military service, and others already Federally employed. The militia DOES exist, based on express published law of the United States. It can be called upon by the President to respond to dangerous situations, almost exactly the same way the Armed Forces or Reserves might be.
Considering that any member of the militia might legally be summoned to duty to respond to, for example insurrection, or situations were civil order has broken down, it's probably a good idea if the members of that militia are appropriately equipped to deal with the situations they are sent to handle. Look up The Children's Crusade for details about what happens when armies march armed with nothing but idealism. Can you imagine people being sent unarmed and unequipped into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to restore order? The legal option was there to ORDER simple male citizens in to deal with it. According to the law, any American male age 17-45 can be sent to fight as a militiaman, even without being drafted into the Armed Forces, and independent of normal military channels, (including independence from military supply channels, from which they might gain things like equipment). If that means you, don't you think it might be a good idea to have a decent rifle and reliable pistol? If you were sent into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to help restore order, would you have felt safe with a bolt-action hunting rifle?
So. Legal arguments that the milita no longer exist and no longer have any legal basis to be armed are absolute bullshit, and arguments to the contrary amount to "yeah, but" arguments against the letter of the law. As a matter of law, a comprehensive firearms ban would require massive amendment of American law, or else leave an established part of the American military not only unarmed, but legally barred from bearing arms. The militia DOES exist. While that legal reality that might be changed, it cannot be ignored.
Besides overlooking those legal realities, people (intentionally or incidentally) also tend to misread the the intention of the Second Amendment. The expressed purpose is to maintain the security of a FREE state. Which is not necessarily the same as maintaining the United States. Bear in mind that the existence of the American militia predates the founding of the United States. Look at history: In many ways, it was the Militia that CREATED the United States, rather than vice versa.
The founding fathers' highest goal was to create a nation free of tyranny, where every citizen had standing in the government, and freedom to live as they saw fit. They wanted assurances that no government was going to step into the place of George III and start telling them how they were going to live their lives. For some time prior to the establishment of any American political structure, the American Militia was fighting for that freedom. The founding fathers were, at heart, militiamen. The simple fact of the matter is that when you consider the ideal of democracy, with every citizen taking an active role in the political system, and standing up (or fighting) for their rights and freedoms, what you are imagining is the early American Militia. If you believe that such bold traditions and mindsets endure, you have to recognize that the American people are not so much the militia as the militia is the ideal of the American people: politically active citizens, involved in the defense of their rights and the support of a free country.
Going further in the idea that the Militia IS the people rather than being made up of the people, note that the duties of the militia are not limited to defense against foreign powers. The Oaths of Service and of Citizenship, for example, includes swearing to defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Now here's the important part: as outlined in Federal law, the Oath is not to defend the American GOVERMENT. The Oath is to defend THE CONSTITUTION. This is more than just splitting hairs: The founding fathers, rebels themselves, were absolutely aware that the greatest threat to freedom is not the tyranny of a conquerer, but the tyranny of those already in power. Barack Obama represents a VASTLY more substantial threat to the American way of life than Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden all put together.
The ultimate goal of the United States was (and is) a FREE state. A nation where the people dictated the terms of the government, not vice versa. Where government operated with the leave of the people, rather than the people operating with the leave of the government. Under the Constitution, the government does not control the populace, but is instead controlled by the populace. To whom does the American President really have to answer to, other than to the People?
Now then: how can you, even for a second, claim to live free under a government that tells you that you cannot be armed? The sole difference between living under the control of the government and living by the leave of the government is the ability of the populace to keep the government under control. When people are divested of their ability to engage in effective armed conflict (which will ALWAYS be the final recourse of diplomacy), they are no longer free. Rather, they are at the mercy of those who CAN engage in armed conflict, and rest assured, the United States as a government is pretty good at it. Talk all you want about enlightened societies, but the fact of the matter is that those who can and will kill ALWAYS exercise control over those who can not, or will not. Politicians will absolutely send armed men to enforce their will. Happens every day. How to stop them from gathering ever more power to themselves (at your expense), when your arguments lack teeth? The difference between a plea and a demand is the ability to take further action should the petition fail. If you live unarmed under under an armed government, all rights and freedoms that you have are simply discretionary.
To any American, that is unacceptable. The reason the Second Amendment exists to to ensure that American citizens, even if they consent to the control of another, never live by the leave of another.
The militia, established as a legal entity by Congress through the Constitution, and armed pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, IS THE PEOPLE, AS AN ARMED POLITICAL BLOC. The Second Amendment makes it so, as a check and balance to ensure that our rights do not fall victim to our own leaders. An armed Militia exists for the benefit of a FREE state, including the benefit of American people in curbing the excess of American politicians. The Militia does not exist or operate at the whim or leisure of the President, or of the Courts, or of any party (foreign or domestic) other than leaders directly elected by the people, and it is charged with supporting a free state against anyone acting in violation of the Constitution. An armed militia, formed of the populis, is the final recourse of the American people against tyranny. Just as it was in 1776.
The People ARE the Militia. Disarmament of the Militia means the end of the people's power to defend their own freedoms. The founding fathers themselves were men who, following the failure of process and diplomacy, took up arms and stood tall in support of freedom and inalienable rights. Again, the Militia's defense of American freedom predates the United States! It is the ultimate embodiment of the idea that, as Americans, we as individuals will stand and fight against those who would oppress us. And it works. The Militia's track record already includes defeating the greatest military power on the planet at the time (the English). Hopefully, the defense of freedom will not require the Militia to repeat that feat against the United States.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Political Developments
One of the biggest problems that anyone claiming to be a leader faces is the possibility of losing the support of those the leader purports to lead. Talk about an embarrassing development, where a leader is trying to lead and the tacit led just roll their eyes. Nobody wants to be in that position, especially people with the kinds of egos that compels them to, for example, run for public office. The reason that most governments throughout history have tended towards caution and conservativism is that a certain amount of caution serves leaders well. Any fool knows that decisions made quickly are MUCH more likely to result in the decider having to explain later what the hell he was thinking. Add in the fact that, these days, any sort of political decisions can have vast repercussions that must be considered. The end result is that any call for hasty action is likely to draw - at the very least - suspicion from the leader's constituiency, and the leader who makes such calls is sooner or later going to have to explain himself. Generally, people are smart enough to know that things done quickly get done poorly.
People tend to complain that the legal system - including both the Courts and the legislative process - takes a whole lot of time to do a whole lot of nothing. Well. Here's a newsflash: THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. When things go quickly, that is when mistakes get made. That is when unintended consequences arise. That is when heads roll after the fact. It is not supposed to be easy or convenient to enact new policy or to make new law. When a system of government reaches the level were setting policy is as casual as, for example, lords telling the people to eat cake, revolutions quickly - and rightly - follow.
The process is supposed to be slow. It's supposed to be time consuming. Because that is the best way - and really the only way - to get it RIGHT. When things happen quickly, they happen badly. Take for example Obama's recent victory in the house over green energy (the cap-and-trade legislation). As Americans, we should be embarassed about the way that went through the House of Representatives. Setting aside the extremely poor economic reasoning behind the legislation, just consider the process of its passage: The final draft of that bill, which was over a thousand pages long, was completed and circulated among the House THE MORNING OF THE VOTE. That means that when the vote came, NOBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT HAD EVEN READ THE FINAL VERSION OF THE LAW. The bill was pushed through the Democratic House by a Democratic President so fast that nobody could even read it, based on little more than the force of his personality, and with those supporting the bill not actually knowing the terms they were approving.
Kids, this is exactly why there is a separation of power between the White House and the Capitol. Congress is supposed to do their own jobs, not just toe the line set by a President who happens to claim the same party affiliation. If your congressman voted in favor of that bill (here's a list) they sold out this country's energy industry on nothing more than the word of a President with questionable political agenda, even more questionable social connections, and no track record of successful leadership. They rushed it through. They treated sweeping legislation like a vote for high school class president, and checked the box that the popular kids told them to.
Now, Barack is trying to take the same measures in forcing through his healthcare agenda, by doing things like placing short deadlines (August) on Congress' reaching a vote on restructuring healthcare FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Healthcare is an issue that Congress has been trying to work out for years, but Barack was demanding results within 8 months of his taking the throne. He Ordered it to be so. Clearly, national socialized healthcare is Obama's sine qua non, and is probably what he intends to be his legacy as president. He wants history to say that he got healthcare for everyone, which is a project - he says - tantamount to putting a man on the moon. He could be right. But he doesn't seem to realize that the Apollo program took 9 years to make the dream a practical reality. Can you imagine what a disaster it would have been if, eight months after announcing the Apollo program, Kennedy expected there to be a rocket ready to be launched? Almost inevitable result of that timetable is a KA-BOOM on the launch pad. Do we want to risk that sort of explosion where the rocket in question is our healthcare system?
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers set things up pretty well, and there's still hope. We have a two-house legislative system, and the Senate will, for example have time to actually read the cap-and-trade bill before voting on it. As I'll get to, lawmakers - even democrats - are steadily realizing that Barack Obama has no idea how to run a country, and are no longer being coerced into idiotic action by nothing more than his charisma. Hopefully the bill will never make it out of the Senate committee process.
There are other good signs as well, which indicate the process is continuing to work, notwithstanding the Administration. The House has just passed a "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) measure, which if endorsed by the Senate, will require the Federal Government to come up with a dollar of savings for every dollar spent in new legislation. When then send more money somewhere, they have to take that same amount of money from somewhere else, rather than just printing more money or assuming more debt. Essentially, it's a bar on deficit-spending. Unlike pretty much everything the White House has sent to congress, this type of law has a solid track record. A similar measure was enacted in the early 90s to reign in deficit problems back then, and actually resulted in a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Which was wasted, of course, but it was there.
The passage of this bill is political wrangling in action, and frankly bodes poorly for the President. As charming and dynamic as he is, he doesn't have the experience, support, or slipperiness to take on congress in a straight-up political fight. While there is no single politician in America that can out-charisma Obama, that charisma really gets mileage only in campaign years. The rest of the time, being an American politician means practicing politics against opponents of the highest level. Obama's short history in the game means that, when it comes to political maneuvering, Congress is going to take him out behind the woodshed for an asswuppin.
So make no mistake, PAYGO is a political attack on the President by Congress. If the PAYGO measure gets through the senate, Barack's political ass will be on the line when the bill comes to him to be signed into law. Here is the dilemma he will face: If he vetos the PAYGO bill, he will be vetoing cost controls, and essentially telling the world that his Administration cannot operate without deficit spending. He will have to admit that his programs rely on the ability to pass off their bills onto whatever Administration (or generation) comes next. Not a good message to send, as even left-leaning polls indicate that many Americans fear overwhelming deficit more than they fear a slow economy.
However, if Obama signs PAYGO into law, it will effectively kill his healthcare plan, and throw high hurdles in the way of most of the other far-left social reforms that he champions. There is no way that the Federal government is going to be able to balance several trillion dollars of healthcare and social welfare spending into an already exceeded budget, if they are unable to simply assume the cost as debt. PAYGO is actually a brilliant move by Congress, which has all the experience and political savvy that Obama lacks: Passage of PAYGO will kill nationalized healthcare, without even requiring congressional democrats to openly vote against nationalized healthcare.
Strangely enough, this crunch between congress and the President is actually the system working the way it is supposed to. Clearly - and notwithstanding one-liners from Administration mouthpieces (read: Harry Reid, Nancy Pulosi) - congress as a body opposes Obama's plan. America cannot afford and will not support his sweeping reform agenda. Google "blue dogs" for an account of how even Democrats are publicly refusing to toe the line. Those rumblings of non-support have been going on for weeks.
A politically savvy president would have and should have responded to those rumblings accordingly: backing off the push, or redirecting efforts into something that would get widespread support, at least from his own political party. But Obama is not politically savvy. He ignored those polite indicators of dissent from congress. So, polite messages having failed, congress has thrown down the gauntlet. You think it's coincidence that PAYGO comes through concurrently with congressmen asserting worries about cost controls on healthcare reform? If he continues his frantic, fanatical crusade on healthcare reform, congress is going to put Obama in a politically untenable spot, the softest results of which would be forcing him to back down on healthcare. In the face of PAYGO, he will need to come up with some economically viable middle ground for healthcare, abandon his healthcare quest, or else concede (through a veto of PAYGO) that America cannot afford his programs without mortgaging the future.
Nobody who knows politics should be surprised by any of this. Barack, I guarantee you, is surprised by this, and probably outraged that people are not simply rallying behind him the way they did last November. I'm actually kinda eager to see how he responds to this, including wondering if he's going to take note of the PAYGO thing and its implications before law reaches his desk for signature. But regardless, for all his personal charisma, he has not been politician enough to avoid this ultimatum from congress, and I cannot imagine that he is politician enough to manage the ultimatum well. We'll just hear more dazzling rhetoric, which will have less and less attention paid to it. For all his personal charm and charisma, I expect Barack to be outed as what he is: a charming, intelligent egomaniac who is way over his head in politics he has not the experience or support to deal with.
With the recent admission by Congressional principals that there will not be a healthcare bill going to vote before the August recess, momentum for that bill is fading. The passage of PAYGO is clear rumblings from congress that wild spending is not going to be signed off on by the House. If the senate approves the PAYGO measure before any sort of viable healthcare bill is passed in law, there will be no healthcare bill passed. I expect the end result will be PAYGO reaching the President's desk, followed shortly by the demise of nationalized healthcare, without Democrats even being forced to publicly vote contrary to party Presidential leadership. Which will work, and allow everyone to save face.
Except for the President.
Obama is already looking like a jackass. No clearly beneficial steps have been undertaken under his leadership. The economy now is worse than it was before, and people can only blame prior administrations for so long. Eventually, people are going to realize that we've gone from the Bush Recession into the Obama Depression, based largely on Obama trying (and sometimes succeeding) in jamming through legislation the kills business to provide welfare and healthcare to people who don't earn it.
Further, the crown jewel of Obama's first months in office, national healthcare reform, is on the verge of being rejected by a congress controlled BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PARTY. While this is good for America, it's also bad for America, as it shows that world that the American President is really not even in control of his own nation. Obama's conduct and comments fully dictate that he needs to have his political dick cut off and shoved up his ass. However, if that happens, the end result will be at least three years under the rule of a crusading president who has lost the support of the army he tacitly leads. While that situation is infinitely preferable to one where he leads us all to our deaths in pursuit of his glorious ideals, it doesn't bode well for the country either.
People tend to complain that the legal system - including both the Courts and the legislative process - takes a whole lot of time to do a whole lot of nothing. Well. Here's a newsflash: THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. When things go quickly, that is when mistakes get made. That is when unintended consequences arise. That is when heads roll after the fact. It is not supposed to be easy or convenient to enact new policy or to make new law. When a system of government reaches the level were setting policy is as casual as, for example, lords telling the people to eat cake, revolutions quickly - and rightly - follow.
The process is supposed to be slow. It's supposed to be time consuming. Because that is the best way - and really the only way - to get it RIGHT. When things happen quickly, they happen badly. Take for example Obama's recent victory in the house over green energy (the cap-and-trade legislation). As Americans, we should be embarassed about the way that went through the House of Representatives. Setting aside the extremely poor economic reasoning behind the legislation, just consider the process of its passage: The final draft of that bill, which was over a thousand pages long, was completed and circulated among the House THE MORNING OF THE VOTE. That means that when the vote came, NOBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT HAD EVEN READ THE FINAL VERSION OF THE LAW. The bill was pushed through the Democratic House by a Democratic President so fast that nobody could even read it, based on little more than the force of his personality, and with those supporting the bill not actually knowing the terms they were approving.
Kids, this is exactly why there is a separation of power between the White House and the Capitol. Congress is supposed to do their own jobs, not just toe the line set by a President who happens to claim the same party affiliation. If your congressman voted in favor of that bill (here's a list) they sold out this country's energy industry on nothing more than the word of a President with questionable political agenda, even more questionable social connections, and no track record of successful leadership. They rushed it through. They treated sweeping legislation like a vote for high school class president, and checked the box that the popular kids told them to.
Now, Barack is trying to take the same measures in forcing through his healthcare agenda, by doing things like placing short deadlines (August) on Congress' reaching a vote on restructuring healthcare FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Healthcare is an issue that Congress has been trying to work out for years, but Barack was demanding results within 8 months of his taking the throne. He Ordered it to be so. Clearly, national socialized healthcare is Obama's sine qua non, and is probably what he intends to be his legacy as president. He wants history to say that he got healthcare for everyone, which is a project - he says - tantamount to putting a man on the moon. He could be right. But he doesn't seem to realize that the Apollo program took 9 years to make the dream a practical reality. Can you imagine what a disaster it would have been if, eight months after announcing the Apollo program, Kennedy expected there to be a rocket ready to be launched? Almost inevitable result of that timetable is a KA-BOOM on the launch pad. Do we want to risk that sort of explosion where the rocket in question is our healthcare system?
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers set things up pretty well, and there's still hope. We have a two-house legislative system, and the Senate will, for example have time to actually read the cap-and-trade bill before voting on it. As I'll get to, lawmakers - even democrats - are steadily realizing that Barack Obama has no idea how to run a country, and are no longer being coerced into idiotic action by nothing more than his charisma. Hopefully the bill will never make it out of the Senate committee process.
There are other good signs as well, which indicate the process is continuing to work, notwithstanding the Administration. The House has just passed a "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) measure, which if endorsed by the Senate, will require the Federal Government to come up with a dollar of savings for every dollar spent in new legislation. When then send more money somewhere, they have to take that same amount of money from somewhere else, rather than just printing more money or assuming more debt. Essentially, it's a bar on deficit-spending. Unlike pretty much everything the White House has sent to congress, this type of law has a solid track record. A similar measure was enacted in the early 90s to reign in deficit problems back then, and actually resulted in a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Which was wasted, of course, but it was there.
The passage of this bill is political wrangling in action, and frankly bodes poorly for the President. As charming and dynamic as he is, he doesn't have the experience, support, or slipperiness to take on congress in a straight-up political fight. While there is no single politician in America that can out-charisma Obama, that charisma really gets mileage only in campaign years. The rest of the time, being an American politician means practicing politics against opponents of the highest level. Obama's short history in the game means that, when it comes to political maneuvering, Congress is going to take him out behind the woodshed for an asswuppin.
So make no mistake, PAYGO is a political attack on the President by Congress. If the PAYGO measure gets through the senate, Barack's political ass will be on the line when the bill comes to him to be signed into law. Here is the dilemma he will face: If he vetos the PAYGO bill, he will be vetoing cost controls, and essentially telling the world that his Administration cannot operate without deficit spending. He will have to admit that his programs rely on the ability to pass off their bills onto whatever Administration (or generation) comes next. Not a good message to send, as even left-leaning polls indicate that many Americans fear overwhelming deficit more than they fear a slow economy.
However, if Obama signs PAYGO into law, it will effectively kill his healthcare plan, and throw high hurdles in the way of most of the other far-left social reforms that he champions. There is no way that the Federal government is going to be able to balance several trillion dollars of healthcare and social welfare spending into an already exceeded budget, if they are unable to simply assume the cost as debt. PAYGO is actually a brilliant move by Congress, which has all the experience and political savvy that Obama lacks: Passage of PAYGO will kill nationalized healthcare, without even requiring congressional democrats to openly vote against nationalized healthcare.
Strangely enough, this crunch between congress and the President is actually the system working the way it is supposed to. Clearly - and notwithstanding one-liners from Administration mouthpieces (read: Harry Reid, Nancy Pulosi) - congress as a body opposes Obama's plan. America cannot afford and will not support his sweeping reform agenda. Google "blue dogs" for an account of how even Democrats are publicly refusing to toe the line. Those rumblings of non-support have been going on for weeks.
A politically savvy president would have and should have responded to those rumblings accordingly: backing off the push, or redirecting efforts into something that would get widespread support, at least from his own political party. But Obama is not politically savvy. He ignored those polite indicators of dissent from congress. So, polite messages having failed, congress has thrown down the gauntlet. You think it's coincidence that PAYGO comes through concurrently with congressmen asserting worries about cost controls on healthcare reform? If he continues his frantic, fanatical crusade on healthcare reform, congress is going to put Obama in a politically untenable spot, the softest results of which would be forcing him to back down on healthcare. In the face of PAYGO, he will need to come up with some economically viable middle ground for healthcare, abandon his healthcare quest, or else concede (through a veto of PAYGO) that America cannot afford his programs without mortgaging the future.
Nobody who knows politics should be surprised by any of this. Barack, I guarantee you, is surprised by this, and probably outraged that people are not simply rallying behind him the way they did last November. I'm actually kinda eager to see how he responds to this, including wondering if he's going to take note of the PAYGO thing and its implications before law reaches his desk for signature. But regardless, for all his personal charisma, he has not been politician enough to avoid this ultimatum from congress, and I cannot imagine that he is politician enough to manage the ultimatum well. We'll just hear more dazzling rhetoric, which will have less and less attention paid to it. For all his personal charm and charisma, I expect Barack to be outed as what he is: a charming, intelligent egomaniac who is way over his head in politics he has not the experience or support to deal with.
With the recent admission by Congressional principals that there will not be a healthcare bill going to vote before the August recess, momentum for that bill is fading. The passage of PAYGO is clear rumblings from congress that wild spending is not going to be signed off on by the House. If the senate approves the PAYGO measure before any sort of viable healthcare bill is passed in law, there will be no healthcare bill passed. I expect the end result will be PAYGO reaching the President's desk, followed shortly by the demise of nationalized healthcare, without Democrats even being forced to publicly vote contrary to party Presidential leadership. Which will work, and allow everyone to save face.
Except for the President.
Obama is already looking like a jackass. No clearly beneficial steps have been undertaken under his leadership. The economy now is worse than it was before, and people can only blame prior administrations for so long. Eventually, people are going to realize that we've gone from the Bush Recession into the Obama Depression, based largely on Obama trying (and sometimes succeeding) in jamming through legislation the kills business to provide welfare and healthcare to people who don't earn it.
Further, the crown jewel of Obama's first months in office, national healthcare reform, is on the verge of being rejected by a congress controlled BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PARTY. While this is good for America, it's also bad for America, as it shows that world that the American President is really not even in control of his own nation. Obama's conduct and comments fully dictate that he needs to have his political dick cut off and shoved up his ass. However, if that happens, the end result will be at least three years under the rule of a crusading president who has lost the support of the army he tacitly leads. While that situation is infinitely preferable to one where he leads us all to our deaths in pursuit of his glorious ideals, it doesn't bode well for the country either.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Will
In the monologue which really made his Hollywood career, Marlon Brando spoke of conflict, and of the importance of will. How victory went not always to the army with the largest battalions, but to the combatant who would go to the greatest length to either prevail, or to avoid defeat. When a man will cut off the arms of his own children because those arms have been invasively handled by the enemy, how can you hope to match that level of determination? This is the problem with terrorists. They hold their convictions so deeply, that - delusional or not - they value the killing of the enemy above their own lives. With such an enemy, there is no real alternative to ongoing struggle, until such time as you yourself are willing to concede defeat, or else where you are willing to slay the enemy to the last man. Wars are won in the will.
But beyond the issue of the philosophical value placed on victory - deciding the moral and practical price that your society will pay to prevail - there is also the will of the indivdual combatants. In order to cut off the limbs of infants in pursuit of total victory, you must have among you a soldier who will wield the machette, not against an enemy, but against the children of his own people. Besides the philosophical desire for victory at any costs - something politicians are not shy about extolling - there must be soldiers who even if not eager, will do what is necessary. Who will pay the price demanded by the situation.
Throughout history, such soldiers are among the rarest and greatest commodities a nation can possess. In ancient Greece, a man named Hereclitus was charged with raising and training armies. Speaking to his overlords, he asserted that for every 100 men that were sent to him, 10 should not be there at all. 80 were nothing but targets. Only nine were real fighters, and they were lucky to have them, for those men make the battle. Then there is the one that remains of the hundred. "Ah, the one. One of them is a warrior, and he will bring the others home." There are among us on this planet people who have the gift for being soldiers comparible to child prodigies with the piano. People who, in the midst of armed combat, seem to transcend the situation around them. Watch 'Troy.' Read 'Armor.' Or just google 'Sgt. Alvin C. York.'
Those individuals can actually have an astronomical effect on the outcomes of battles. Amazingly enough, one of the greatest problems armies have had through history is getting their soldiers to actually kill the enemy. In digging up civil war battlefields, researchers have found many muskets that have as many as nine or ten loads in the barrel. Where the soldier would load, not fire, and then load again, many times in a row. Perhaps this could be accidental if there were one or two loads in the barrel; some error, or a mechanical problem with the weapon which cause a failure to fire. But eight or nine? The only rational explanation is that the soldier - standing in rank and file with his fellows - did everything his fellows did, loading and pointing his rifle appropriately so as to not stand out from his fellows. He did everything he was told to do as a soldier, except pull the trigger when the order came to fire. Based on the archaeological evidence, this was not a rare or isolated occurrence in civil war battles. Even as high as the body count in the Civil War was, it really is remarkable - with armies standing within a few hundred yards of each other, shooting for literally days on end - that casualties added up as slowly as they did. The explantion was that many of the soldiers were simply unable to bring themselves to fire at the tacit enemy. No matter what you see on the news about violence and brutality, men are genetically programmed to NOT kill each other, which is a hard program to evercome.
It can be done, as evidenced by - for example - operant training methods which make the United States Marine Corp both so feared and so respected. Among enemies of the United States, it is a common story that Marines must kill a member of their own family before being awarded the Globe and Anchor. This reputation exists because in the Marines, nearly every man is a fighter. Perhaps every Marine is not every one the One described by Hereclitus, but he is at least one of the Nine that make the battle. It doesn't work that way in most armies around the globe. With most armies, they do their fighting with maybe two or three men our of every ten affirmatively, consciously trying to kill the enemy. So while foreign armies continue to face the age-old problem of more than half their men cowering instead of fighting, the United States military fields forces where nearly every man is a combatant, instead of just being a man in combat. When you consider the capabilities of forces like the Navy SEALs, or Army's Delta, where every single man in the unit IS the One, enemies rightly quake. A substantial fighting force where every man actually fights, while something that civilians take for granted, is largely unprecedented in history, and this is reflected in the speed and relative surety of victory wherever the United States is capable of readily finding enemies to send hard me to go kill.
The point of this is that - regardless of philosphical bent or source of motivation, and regardless of imperatives created by politicians far from the fighting - when a state or a nation has a goal that must be met or achieved, hard men must go and obtain the goal. Soft men, even with the best of intentions and highest of moral goals, will not be able to do what is necessary to win the day. Even if they stand in formation, even if they keep loading their rifles, and even if they truely do see the necessity of the battle (even to the point of believing that the enemy must in fact be killed), history, psychology, and genetic imperative all indicate that soft men will not be able to make the hard choice, and actually pull the trigger. When lives and nations are on the line, it is the hard that tend to survive, because the soft lack the will to do what is necessary.
This has been on my mind lately, after a conversation with my brother, GL. Strange as we are, we talk about things like zombie uprisings and the collapse of society, and how one might fight through it. When asked how the hell he expected to last, living in the overpopulated, extremely liberal city of San Jose, California, GL had a simple response. No, he would never starve, regardless of the breakdown of social order. He was not above cannibalism, he said. "When I look around, all I see is steaks." Of course, he was joking. Mostly. But neither of us doubted that if GL did happen to die in some apocalyptic breakdown of law and order, he would not be dying of starvation. Just as in armed conflict: when pushed to the extreme, the strong survive because they will embrace means for survival that others would not resort to.
Hardness and softness is applicable to less than armed conflict. The ruthless and agressive, those who strive through difficulties instead of yielding to them; those are the successful and productive. While their mindsets (hopefully) do not extend to dismembering children as the Viet Cong did, they are the warriors of our modern society. All of us, to one degree or another, can often times tell with just a few minutes contact whether a person has that sort of drive, focus, and/or capability. Although it does sometimes take something to draw it out (Alvin York was a pacifist farmer who initially refused to fight in WWI), the lengths to which people are capable of pushing themselves, or the lenghts to which they will go to obtain the end they desire, is often a function of who people are. Hardness and softness exist largely independent of morality, philosophy, or education.
Hereclitus' Nine (and even his One) are not all that difference from the rest of us. But they ARE different, and something inside us will often spot that difference. Think about it. If you were tossed into a situation where your survival was in doubt, and where you and your groups' lives depended on the choices you made (or the depths to which you would sink to survive), do a few people you know not immediately come to mind as those with the best chance to get through? Among your friends, is there not some One who you would trust to bring the others home? I'll bet there is. And I'll bet the people you're thinking of tend to be capable and dynamic; able to make hard decisions, and to pay the price those decisions require. Not all of those who would be the One end up as soldiers.
These days, I just wish some of them would find their way into politics. As a country, we have some hard decisions coming, and I would really like to see them made by men hard enough to make the right choice, instead of just seizing the easy choice.
But beyond the issue of the philosophical value placed on victory - deciding the moral and practical price that your society will pay to prevail - there is also the will of the indivdual combatants. In order to cut off the limbs of infants in pursuit of total victory, you must have among you a soldier who will wield the machette, not against an enemy, but against the children of his own people. Besides the philosophical desire for victory at any costs - something politicians are not shy about extolling - there must be soldiers who even if not eager, will do what is necessary. Who will pay the price demanded by the situation.
Throughout history, such soldiers are among the rarest and greatest commodities a nation can possess. In ancient Greece, a man named Hereclitus was charged with raising and training armies. Speaking to his overlords, he asserted that for every 100 men that were sent to him, 10 should not be there at all. 80 were nothing but targets. Only nine were real fighters, and they were lucky to have them, for those men make the battle. Then there is the one that remains of the hundred. "Ah, the one. One of them is a warrior, and he will bring the others home." There are among us on this planet people who have the gift for being soldiers comparible to child prodigies with the piano. People who, in the midst of armed combat, seem to transcend the situation around them. Watch 'Troy.' Read 'Armor.' Or just google 'Sgt. Alvin C. York.'
Those individuals can actually have an astronomical effect on the outcomes of battles. Amazingly enough, one of the greatest problems armies have had through history is getting their soldiers to actually kill the enemy. In digging up civil war battlefields, researchers have found many muskets that have as many as nine or ten loads in the barrel. Where the soldier would load, not fire, and then load again, many times in a row. Perhaps this could be accidental if there were one or two loads in the barrel; some error, or a mechanical problem with the weapon which cause a failure to fire. But eight or nine? The only rational explanation is that the soldier - standing in rank and file with his fellows - did everything his fellows did, loading and pointing his rifle appropriately so as to not stand out from his fellows. He did everything he was told to do as a soldier, except pull the trigger when the order came to fire. Based on the archaeological evidence, this was not a rare or isolated occurrence in civil war battles. Even as high as the body count in the Civil War was, it really is remarkable - with armies standing within a few hundred yards of each other, shooting for literally days on end - that casualties added up as slowly as they did. The explantion was that many of the soldiers were simply unable to bring themselves to fire at the tacit enemy. No matter what you see on the news about violence and brutality, men are genetically programmed to NOT kill each other, which is a hard program to evercome.
It can be done, as evidenced by - for example - operant training methods which make the United States Marine Corp both so feared and so respected. Among enemies of the United States, it is a common story that Marines must kill a member of their own family before being awarded the Globe and Anchor. This reputation exists because in the Marines, nearly every man is a fighter. Perhaps every Marine is not every one the One described by Hereclitus, but he is at least one of the Nine that make the battle. It doesn't work that way in most armies around the globe. With most armies, they do their fighting with maybe two or three men our of every ten affirmatively, consciously trying to kill the enemy. So while foreign armies continue to face the age-old problem of more than half their men cowering instead of fighting, the United States military fields forces where nearly every man is a combatant, instead of just being a man in combat. When you consider the capabilities of forces like the Navy SEALs, or Army's Delta, where every single man in the unit IS the One, enemies rightly quake. A substantial fighting force where every man actually fights, while something that civilians take for granted, is largely unprecedented in history, and this is reflected in the speed and relative surety of victory wherever the United States is capable of readily finding enemies to send hard me to go kill.
The point of this is that - regardless of philosphical bent or source of motivation, and regardless of imperatives created by politicians far from the fighting - when a state or a nation has a goal that must be met or achieved, hard men must go and obtain the goal. Soft men, even with the best of intentions and highest of moral goals, will not be able to do what is necessary to win the day. Even if they stand in formation, even if they keep loading their rifles, and even if they truely do see the necessity of the battle (even to the point of believing that the enemy must in fact be killed), history, psychology, and genetic imperative all indicate that soft men will not be able to make the hard choice, and actually pull the trigger. When lives and nations are on the line, it is the hard that tend to survive, because the soft lack the will to do what is necessary.
This has been on my mind lately, after a conversation with my brother, GL. Strange as we are, we talk about things like zombie uprisings and the collapse of society, and how one might fight through it. When asked how the hell he expected to last, living in the overpopulated, extremely liberal city of San Jose, California, GL had a simple response. No, he would never starve, regardless of the breakdown of social order. He was not above cannibalism, he said. "When I look around, all I see is steaks." Of course, he was joking. Mostly. But neither of us doubted that if GL did happen to die in some apocalyptic breakdown of law and order, he would not be dying of starvation. Just as in armed conflict: when pushed to the extreme, the strong survive because they will embrace means for survival that others would not resort to.
Hardness and softness is applicable to less than armed conflict. The ruthless and agressive, those who strive through difficulties instead of yielding to them; those are the successful and productive. While their mindsets (hopefully) do not extend to dismembering children as the Viet Cong did, they are the warriors of our modern society. All of us, to one degree or another, can often times tell with just a few minutes contact whether a person has that sort of drive, focus, and/or capability. Although it does sometimes take something to draw it out (Alvin York was a pacifist farmer who initially refused to fight in WWI), the lengths to which people are capable of pushing themselves, or the lenghts to which they will go to obtain the end they desire, is often a function of who people are. Hardness and softness exist largely independent of morality, philosophy, or education.
Hereclitus' Nine (and even his One) are not all that difference from the rest of us. But they ARE different, and something inside us will often spot that difference. Think about it. If you were tossed into a situation where your survival was in doubt, and where you and your groups' lives depended on the choices you made (or the depths to which you would sink to survive), do a few people you know not immediately come to mind as those with the best chance to get through? Among your friends, is there not some One who you would trust to bring the others home? I'll bet there is. And I'll bet the people you're thinking of tend to be capable and dynamic; able to make hard decisions, and to pay the price those decisions require. Not all of those who would be the One end up as soldiers.
These days, I just wish some of them would find their way into politics. As a country, we have some hard decisions coming, and I would really like to see them made by men hard enough to make the right choice, instead of just seizing the easy choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)