20th Century Tyrants

I finally finished Mao: the Untold Story. In all it is an excellent piece of work. The research that went into the book is astounding. Here is some additional discussion.

Now that I have read serious works on all three major 20th century tyrants, I thought it would be fun to rank them from worst to least worst, with the caveat that even the least worst still hits the jackpot on the evil scale.

1. Mao - Mao was the worst big 20th century tyrant. Not only did Mao want to remake Chinese society in his own image he found that public violence, murder, and death were the best tools to terrorize the people to achieve his goals. Mao's ambitions were all personal, he had no ambition for the Chinese people and didn't even bother or attempt to leave a legacy. 99 out of 100 on the evil scale.

2. Stalin - similar to Mao, but chose to keep his terror more secret. It is also unclear whether Stalin had any ambition for the Russian people. However, he did have ambition for world communism, yet it doesn't appear that he advocated the violent overturning of traditional societies (as Mao did) to achieve his goals. 98 out of 100 on the evil scale

3. Hitler - plunged the world into total war. Hitler differed from Mao and Stalin in that he his goals were less personal and more driven by a legacy of a lasting Germany - his 1000 year Reich. 97 out of 100 on the evil scale.

Pol Pot would probably score 100 out of 100. But his tyranny was fortunately limited to a smaller country.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the 1976 obituary of Mao in the NY Times. It's gross. Unbelievable that people in this country gloss over and apologize for obvious evil. I have to puke.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting analytical analysis of the 20th century tyrants. The site also lists other famous tyrants.

More wiretaps

According to this report, the FISA courts were not "rubber stamps" for the Administrations surveillance requests:

[S]ince 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

The left will go bonkers over this story. However, their predictible reaction will contradict the former claim that the FISA courts would have approved these warrants. It's from this story that the FISA courts did not appreciate that we are at war with a foreign enemy. Apparently, the FISA courts require more than just a suspicion that an individual in the U.S. is a foreign terrorist to get a warrant to monitor their INTERNATIONAL calls. What a joke. In the Moussoui case, investigators did not even attempt to get a warrant because they felt they did not have enough cause to search his computer. In fact before 9/11 they were planning on taking the computer to France where it could be searched. What kind of moranic logic is this?

It's the logic of the FISA court.

The fact that FISA is turning down warrants from the NSA clearly shows that requiring warrants would give pause to investigators who may have less than a 12 hour window to gather information. Furthermore it chilla any creative thinking on leads - the kind of creative thinking that the 9/11 commission said we lacked prior to the 9-11 attacks.

For example, if the U.S. military uncovered a U.S. phone number in the notes of a captured terrorist, but the last digit was unreadable, one would expect the NSA to immediatly monitor all ten possible phone numbers. After all, one number out of the ten may be the gold mine for preventing an attack. And it is also obvious that the one out of the ten may soon learn that his terrorist friend has been captured. Moreover, the CIA may want to try and set-up one of the U.S. based contacts and trick them into divulging information (perhaps pretending to be the captured terrorist). Do you think FISA would allow the monitoring of all ten numbers? Do you think FISA would allow such a sting without probable cause? No way in hell.

This obvious dilemma is why Bush avoided FISA in the first place.

Democrats are glum

This Quinnipiac poll cited via Powerline says a lot about democrats:

Q.: Do you think 2005 was better or worse than 2004 for you personally?

Republicans: Better: 65%Worse: 22%
Democrats:Better: 41%Worse: 45%

I wonder what causes the glumness. One of the classic problems with conservatives is the tendency to slip into negativity....democrats are now occupying this space as well.

Too bad for them.

At the Holidays: Getting In Touch with My Inner Wing-Nut

Because this week Americans were celebrating holidays that mark God’s intervention with an undeserving world, I thought that it was just the time to get in touch with my inner-wing-nut.

There is no better way to reach the impish conservative deep inside who traffics in taboos than to snuggle up with Judge John Jones’ opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District – the Pennsylvania Intelligent Design case. And the opinion does oblige a good bit of snuggling; as it spans 139 double-spaced pages.

I had an extremely long (indeed bandwidth crushing) post on this subject in mind, but I have trimmed it to simply an overly long post. (And my apologies for even that….) Below are a few of the politically-incorrect things that my inner wing-nut came out with at the conclusion of that opinion. To my mind:

1. It is a constitutionally modest proposition for a School Board to its direct teacher-employees to state that: (1) There are gaps to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution; (2) There are limits on what Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is able to explain; and (3) a book which explores those topics is available in the school library for the students who would like to read it.

2. It strips all meaning of the words “establish” and “religion” to declare that any public reference to the Deity has the effect of establishing a state religion. It is worse still, when the School District’s required declaration in the Dover case at most, only implied a Deity – unambiguously declaring that “the school leaves the discussion of the Origin of Life to individual students and their families.”

3. Judge Jones’ opinion includes a breathtaking view of the power of federal courts; namely:

a. Is there any matter that is beyond Judge Jones’ reach if he may rightfully declare: “It is unconstitutional to teach [Intelligent Design] as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” and the Dover School District is further enjoined from requiring Dover biology teachers to “denigrate evolution.”

b. The court boldly declares that “science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community ….” Why not? While it may improvident and unwise to have matters that are not testable or falsifiable alluded to in biology classes, by what authority may the federal courts say that this misdirection is unlawful? None is cited by Judge Jones. While the Board Members of the Dover School Board were elected (and later turned out of office) based upon these sorts of pedagogical judgments, I am not aware that Dover voters were likewise permitted to cast ballots for members of the “scientific community.” Because, if locally-elected officials are not permitted to contradict the “scientific community,” the very least that we can hope for is that we will be granted the right to select those who govern on our behalf.

c. It is troubling that Judge Jones apparently believes that a key purpose of the Dover Public Schools is subversion of the family. He ruled that it amounts to a constitutionally permissible establishment of religion if the public schools “’remind[] school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life’ thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt ….”

While mindful that it is politically and intellectually incorrect to be in defense of “known creationists” these days, my inner wing nut doesn’t care. He’s more worried about the likes of Judge Jones than the ousted members of the Dover School Board.

New Hampshire Tilting Democrat?

The Boston Globe ran a story today here with the following lead paragraph:

"With signs pointing to a resurgent Democratic Party in New Hampshire, the state's all-Republican congressional delegation is becoming increasingly at odds with the national Republican Party in a state that was long a GOP bellwether, according to an analysis of votes and other actions in Congress over the past year."

I think the national GOP must stop drawing from the public treasury to please its political friends. President Bush needs to move on his agenda to cut taxes and limit the size of the federal government. Otherwise, New Hampshire will not be the last state trending Democrat.

The Times Gift

Michale Barone argues that the New York Times publishing of the secret wire tap story was a political gift to George W. Bush.

What the Times didn't bother telling its readers is that this practice is far from new and is entirely legal. Instead, the unspoken subtext of the story was that this was likely an illegal and certainly a very scary invasion of Americans' rights.

I have to agree. Only an idiot would think that the President does not have the power to intercept foreign communications from our enemy. Further, Congress does not have legal authority to take this power away. The FISA act is unconstitutional if people believe that through FISA Congress can restrict the power to make war and to conduct a war and foreign policy on our enemies both HERE and ABROAD.

The NY Times reminded America that George Bush is trying to protect this country. People have wondered why we have not been attacked since Sept 11 when it was conventional wisdom after Sept 11 that we would be attacked. The wire tapping story explains to mainstream America one of the reasons why we haven't been attacked.

Prior to the wiretapping story, people were beginning to believe that the GW Bush was the Bush of Katrina the Bush of a failed domestic agenda, the Bush who was mishandling the war. The NY Times attempt to bash Bush reversed all that. Too bad for the Times. They will have to start from scratch.

Bush and Lincoln

Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe today recommends that President Bush should read the latest biography on Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. For anyone who knows anything about history, the column is a good laugh (and also just another Bush Bash). My favorite line:

Lincoln had an unerring sense of when public opinion was ready for partial, then full abolition of slavery, and he would not move until he felt he had the people behind him. He governed by listening and persuading. By contrast, Bush's entire presidency is about eking out narrow victories, not about building national consensus. Even when he prevails, Bush wins by manipulation and stealth. His legacy is deepened division and bitterness.

What is this guy talking about "eking out narrow victories?" I don't recall Lincoln having to deal with razor thin majorities in the House and Senate. Lincoln had a solid majority because the opposition wasn't showing up (they were succeeding). The entire South hated Lincoln enough to go to war the moment he got elected, and Kuttner is argues that Lincoln is a consensus builder? How absurd. Kuttner implies Lincoln waited to get consensus to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. That is false. Lincoln waited for victory at Anteitam Creek (or at least not a loss) to issue the Proclamation.

Here are some other great quotes from Kuttner:

Despite civil insurrection, Lincoln resisted broad intrusions on democratic rights. Bush runs roughshod over liberties.

Does Kuttner recall that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus? How can he make such a statement?

Bush's visits to Iraq are choreographed media events. Lincoln often went to the front on horseback or by ship, almost alone, shunning news coverage, to confer at length with his generals, thank the troops, and educate himself.

How ridiculous is this statement. The Civil war was being fought 5 miles from the White House. Does Kuttner think Bush should get his sword out and lead the troops into battle. I don't recall FDR or Woodrow Wilson visiting fronts? Besides, you don't have to visit fronts to confer with your Generals anymore. Has Kuttner ever heard of video phone?

Critics of the more moderate William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, claimed that Seward functioned as acting president. Goodwin makes clear that this was fantasy. Dick Cheney, however, really does operate as de facto president.

I guess when you read this last line, you realize this guy is just a plain old partisan ass (who also knows nothing about history).

Kuttner seems to think that Bush should compromise with the Democrats because that is what Lincoln did. But Lincoln never compromised. He was the most divisive president ever in American history. Lincoln was successful because stuck it out and didn't crumble under the pressure. Compromise during the civil war meant ending the war and breaking up the Union. We should be thankful that Lincoln remained divisive.

Letterman and Stupid Judicial Tricks

Yesterday's edition of the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper reports that New Mexico District Court Judge David Sanchez granted a temporary restraining order against late night talk show host David Letterman in favor of a local resident, Colleen Nestler.

According to the newspaper “Nestler, 59, asked for the order because she said Letterman has been harassing her for more than 10 years by using code words on his television program that were meant specifically for her. She asked that Letterman be forbidden from thinking about her, that he stay three yards away from her and that he 'release me from his mental harassment and hammering.'” District Judge Daniel Sanchez signed the order and set the matter for a hearing on January 12.

From this account it is difficult to say who is nuttier and more dangerous: Nestler or Judge Sanchez.

Winter of Discontent

For the discriminating fiction reader, it has been a long, arid winter. A tedious, Christmas-less winter. Right down to the last disappointment from Dean Koontz, the underwhelming Forever Odd, the thriller/suspense addict has been left wanting in recent years.

That’s not to say there haven’t been sunny thaws. Stephen King maintained his reputation with the final 2 books of the Gunslinger Series, (laboring over these while likely forced by publishers to dig the unreadable From a Buick 8 out of the basement, this writer’s secret shared in his covertly autobiographical Bag of Bones) satiating his faithful readers’ thirst for his unique mix of pure writing genius, complex characters and a writhing, intricate plot. That the grand finale was neither grand nor final was easily overlooked given the loftier reading experience.

Michael Crichton produced a bright spot in 2004 with the too-close-for-Hollywood-comfort eco-thriller State of Fear.

And the masters of formula fiction, Michael Connelly, Jonathon Kellerman, et al, have produced their reliable 2-night-reads.

Beyond these infrequent pleasures, the 100-books-plus-per-year reader has been forced into 2nd or 3rd tier formula writers or worse, or back to authors previously rejected. Wit my current literary misery by Carl Hiaasen, Lucky You, complete with right wing bumbling militia villains and an environmental activist heroine. Only Hiaasen's sly, dry humor makes him tolerable.

With so little this year into which the volume reader can sink teeth, it’s surprising more of us don’t turn to less wholesome pursuits: politics, celebrity gossip, or even flirtation with secret societies.

The Definition of Victory

As SSC cited below, the President has said will will not leave Iraq until we have victory. Even though the President has said victory is a stable and democratic Iraq free of WMD, the Democrats continue to complain that such a definition is too vague. How ridiculous! You can make this same argument for any conflict For example, how about World War II, what was Victory. Was it the unconditional surrender of Germany? Yes, but no. If we just left after surrender, the Soviets would have taken western europe. So what was victory in World War II? How about World War I. At the end of the war to end all wars, everyone assumed there was victory on 11/11/1918. Today, it is common knowledge that any victory that was won in 1918 was lost in the decade after the war.

My definition of Victory? When it is quite obvious that it is unkool for a muslim to be associated with Al Qaeda....That day is approaching sooner than we think.

Bush Declares We Are Winning War.

President George W. Bush's speech tonight made a simple, declaratory point. "We are winning the war." It seems so simple -- but a point the liberals refuse to accept. The United States is winning the war because President Bush has expressed objectives that are being met: defeat Saddam and his Bathist Party and prevent their use of WMD directly or through terrorist groups; establish a democratic Iraq; and fight terrorism. He is accomplishing all three. So, we are winning the war -- at a cost no doubt -- but we are winning.

Planned Parenthood Seeks to Block Access to Records that Might Point to Child Abuse

On Wednesday of this week a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals heard oral argument in an appeal brought by Planned Parenthood of Indiana. Planned Parenthood is seeking to block the Indiana Attorney General from gaining access to clinic records that might reveal the identity of children under the age of 14 who are sexually active. Indiana law regards sex with a child under 14 as child abuse, no matter the age of the other person.

The fascinating oral argument, which includes Planned Parenthood urging the court that clinic employees have no duty to "assist in protecting against [child] abuse," can be heard here.

William Weld Running For Governor of New York?

I was surprised to read that former Massachusetts Governor William Weld is now running for Governor of the State of New York. I find the "transient" candidates -- particularly for statewide offices of Governor and U.S. Senator disturbing. For example, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton from New York lived virtually all here life elsewhere. How can she represent them? Why can't the different states simply elect someone who has always lived in that state their whole lives? That would be the best kind of representation -- not this transient stuff.

DEBATE DECEMBER 14. IT'S ONLY ROCK & ROLL, BUT I LIKE IT (or not)

December 14, 2005


"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." - Saint Paul

LIKE IT'S ANCESTORS, jazz and R&B, rock and roll is quintessentially American. While the phrase “only in America” may be trite, with rock and roll, it's also true. With its merging of a European emphasis on melody and an African emphasis on rhythm, rock and roll transformed popular music not only in the United States, but the world over.

And it's fun to listen to. The free market has made many rock and roll millionaires because people actually enjoy it. Orchestras need subsidies and donations. Rock and roll pays for itself, making conservatives who criticize it only contributing to our killjoy reputation. Lighten up.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the phrase “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” is redundant. (The phrase “to rock and roll” is itself is slang for (how shall we put this?) “doing the grown up.” The idea that there's anything deep or worthy of study (as in the plethora of Beatles anthologies) is as laughable as watching geriatrics prance on stage to the delight of their $200 a ticket paying, bic-lighter lighting, woohooing, geriatric audience. This is simply another example of the most narcissistic generation in recorded history (the baby boomers) deciding that if they experienced something, it must be important. Except as anthropological study of how societies can decay, rock and roll deserves the fate of the 8-track tape.

The Chairman, who mostly believes we should be rolling out of Iraq, has called for a debate to settle the question:

RESOLVED: IT'S ONLY ROCK & ROLL, BUT I LIKE IT.

The Debate will be held on Wednesday December 14, 2005 at the Pool & Yacht Club, 1600 Lilydale Road, Lilydale MN. (Click Here for an interactive map to the location.). The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (651) 494-6698 or the Secretary at (612) 204-5615.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Don't Ask, Don't Tell? How About Don't Go There ?...

David Tell, of The Weekly Standard, has a devastating editorial on the arguments put forward by the elite law schools that are seeking to bar military recruiters from their campuses.

As Tell details, in an effort to exclude soldiers from their midst, the law schools have drawn parallels between their work and assemblies of the Klu Klux Klan.

It is a must read.

Negative Economy

The Mainstream Media continues it's negative reporting on the Economy. Here is a perfect example from CBS:

WEEKLY JOBLESS CLAIMS RISE:

"Weekly jobless claims rise to highest level since mid-November."

Wow. What context.

Free advice for liberals (and the rest of us)

Jonah Goldberg has a very good syndicated column on what's wrong with the left: they don't argue with each other.

If liberals really want to emulate conservative successes, I have some advice for them: Get into some big, honking arguments — not with conservatives, but with each other. The history of the conservative movement's successes has been the history of intellectual donnybrooks, between libertarians and traditionalists, hawks and isolationists, so-called neocons and so-called paleocons, less-filling versus tastes great. Liberals would be smart to copy that and stop worrying how to mimic our direct mail strategies.

This is why I think organizations like the John Adams Society are not only fun, but important. This is also why it's important for the Society to take arguments (and votes) seriously. The best speeches at the Society's debate caucuses are not only funny and entertaining but also genuine attempts to persuade. If we give up the fun, well, it's no longer fun. But if we give up the seriousness, we become something like the Society For Creative Anachronism. That is, geeks.

So here's to a good argument over rock and roll and why everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, or at least sadly mistaken. (If you've never attended but read the blog, you're welcome to attend. The information is below.)

Economic Stats`

Drudge reports that Bush is going to come out swinging this week on the economy. He should. The economy has being doing great despite the stock market collapse, 9/11, and everything else.

Interestingly, Federal Receipts in 2005 are about 18% of GDP. Looking at Federal Receipts in the last 50 years, this is pretty much around the average. Simarly, federal spending in 2005 was 20% of GDP, which is high compared to the 1960s, but lower than the 1980s. Five years into Clinton's term (1997) federal receipts were about 19.5% and spending about 20%. Five years into Reagan's term, receipts were about 18% and spending was at 22.5%.

Federal receipts during Vietnam and Korea were also around 18-20% of GDP.

In the first 5 years of Bush's term, GDP has increased approximately 26%. GDP increased 28% under Clinton's first 5 years. If you just take the last four years for each President, Bush is actually doing slightly better.

Unemployment is about the same at 5% (Clinton's was slightly better).

Look at the stats yourself (at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis).

The Very Last to Know

This week, the U.S District Court for the Central District of California announced that it will permit a law suit to continue which alleges that high school officials violated the privacy rights of a local female student, CN, when it disclosed to the CN's mother the reasons why the officials had suspended her from school. School officials had disciplined CN for inappropriate public displays of affection with another female student.

The result is the most puzzling because the District Court allowed the suit to continue notwithstanding the fact that it was well known among students and faculty at Santiago High that CN was a lesbian and she was glad to make the point in full view others during the school day. Yet, in the view of the District Court, CN still had a viable claim for damages when high school officials disclosed these same facts to her mother.

Results like these only give credence to the claim that the ACLU is undertaking a war on parents.

Wal*Mart is Bad for America

We debated this resolution last year. I recall that Wal*Mart won the debate. However from the latest Zogby poll, it is clear that JAS is an elitest institution. The Zogby poll says 56% of Americans think Wal*Mart is "bad for America." Here is my favorite quote from the Reuters story:

The majority, or 56 percent, picked: "I believe that Wal-Mart is bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost for consumers."

Wait... did that question just say "it may provide low prices, but at a high...economic cost for consumers?" Hmmm.

I would love to see a counter question: Would you be willing to spend an additional $1000 per year so that we would no longer have any Wal*Marts.