tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post112857462135962706..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: American Democracy ... more fragile than we thinkDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129051251031344232005-10-11T10:20:00.000-07:002005-10-11T10:20:00.000-07:00@PalliardPublic common schools in the United State...@Palliard<BR/><BR/>Public common schools in the United States predate the German industrial model. And today, they don't even resemble that model, as near as I can tell. <BR/><BR/>Further, I said "nascent" socialism. My use of the term is technical and narrow, and intended only to highlight a place where two sides of American debate are talking well and truly past one another, because of a difference in premise. <BR/><BR/>Don't read too much into this!Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129047299855524222005-10-11T09:14:00.000-07:002005-10-11T09:14:00.000-07:00@palliard and Rob"what are public common schools, ...@palliard and Rob<BR/><BR/><I>"what are public common schools, if not nascent socialism?"</I> -Rob<BR/><BR/><I>..."public schools are a tool of fascism as opposed to socialism."</I> -palliard<BR/><BR/>Sheesh - some sweeping generalizations there.<BR/><BR/>A product of public school myself in Louisiana and Colorado, I can say that while there is an element of truth in what you both say, neither is a complete description of what I experienced.<BR/><BR/>Granted, schools I attended taught obedience to authority, but they also rewarded creativity and individualism. Not in every class, but in many, and especially in after-school activities (debate, photography, and clay-mation for me). I was even taught a fair amount of Suspicion of Authority in my multiple history classes.<BR/><BR/>To the socialist side, in a way public education could be seen as socialistic, I suppose, but it could also be seen as a capitalistic investment in the society of the future, with a big Return on Investment. I was not taught socialist theory in school (well outside my Revolutions and Ideaologies class anyway). I was taught that we should work together towards common goals, but surely that is not contraindicated.<BR/><BR/>I guess if you look hard enough at something, you will find enough validation to justify whatever label or action you are seeking to justify (witness the Bible). As there is truth in what you both say, I also perceive that there is an oversimplification to a level that doesn't convey anything but emotional content.<BR/><BR/>With anything as massive as public education, there is high variability, both in talent and in outlook. Saying that it is one thing or another misses the large proportion in public education that would violently disagree with the point.<BR/><BR/>I do think that we can and should improve public education, and I am doing my small part locally as part of a School Improvement Team, bringing my business experience in strategic planning and data analysis into elementary education. There are teaching frameworks out there that foster all the qualities we hold dear here. The one we are using is the <A HREF="http://www.ibo.org/ibo/index.cfm?page=/ibo/programmes/prg_pyp&language=EN" REL="nofollow">International Baccalaureate Organization Primary Year Programme</A>. I'm sure there are others (though this one is pretty cool). To achieve the things we talk about in here, we have to educate our kids to think critically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129032214942496962005-10-11T05:03:00.000-07:002005-10-11T05:03:00.000-07:00@Rob"what are public common schools, if not nascen...@Rob<BR/><BR/>"what are public common schools, if not nascent socialism?"<BR/><BR/>Uhm... really, public schools are a tool of fascism as opposed to socialism. Most contemporary public schools are built on the "Prussian model", which came out of the German Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s. These public schools were created for the purpose of making useful plant laborers, and so they mainly stress two things: a basic skillset, and unquestioning obedience to authority.<BR/><BR/>Historically, socialist revolutions come from privately-educated leadership and entirely uneducated laborers. Fascist revolutions, insofar as there have been any, tend to come from military veterans leading the public-school-educated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129021873794978662005-10-11T02:11:00.000-07:002005-10-11T02:11:00.000-07:00I hate to defend the gerrymander, but I think it's...I hate to defend the gerrymander, but I think it's important to think of what, exactly, we can do OTHER than gerrymander. The Supreme Court requries that districts be roughly equal in population, contiguous and of a geometrically sound shape but this doesn't always ensure "competitive districts" and sometimes can lead to poorly shaped ones. For instance, might it not be considered <EM> good</EM> to create districts likely to serve a vast majority of their constituents? Gerrymandering for race is illegal, but it seems like a good idea anwyay, to boost minority representation. I don't think there is necessarily a problem is districts being uncompetetive (other than the state legislature's ability to control those districts, which is unfortunate) as long as those districts are constructed in such a way as to create rather homogenous groupings. In fact, competetive districts are, in many ways, <EM> less democratic</EM> because 49% of voters end up utterly unrepresented by the winning candidate.<BR/><BR/>A long time ago, I proposed an alternative, but unwieldy, method of electing Representatives in which voters could cast votes nationwide, and any candidate to received a certain percentage of the votes would be entitled to join the House with either a full or a partial vote (or possibly multiple votes up to a cut-off.) This would be the most democratic system, but it's probably unworkable, and would cut congressmen off from a visible, geographic community that they serve. So, we're left with the concept of gerrymandering to produce roughly the same objective, the vast majority of voters being represented in congress by someone they voted for. That's democratic, no?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12197640406885293301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129014656487146982005-10-11T00:10:00.000-07:002005-10-11T00:10:00.000-07:00Dr. Brin, I hae to throw cold water on your TV app...Dr. Brin, I hae to throw cold water on your TV appearance, but should we really be jazzed up and celebrating newer and better ways to blow each other up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128979688721269602005-10-10T14:28:00.000-07:002005-10-10T14:28:00.000-07:00I think Wayne has an important point. (Ever seen ...I think Wayne has an important point. (Ever seen a "professional" suicide bomber?)<BR/><BR/>This is why I think that such a movement is essentially unstoppable. Let's predicate that we kill off all the leaders (the professionals of that perverse activity). As long as there is something (whatever that is) driving people to blow themselves and others up to make a point, no professional class can stop them. The numbers are just not on their side. Professional protectors (police, CIA, FBI, etc.) will be so outnumbered by citizens that unless we become a police state I don't see how they could cordon off the entire US or any other country. I mean, not only do you have to be 100% effective in preventing acts, you need to have nearly a 0% false positive to have an acceptable level of justice. (That is where I believe it behooves us to handle suspected terrorists in the existing justice system, and not in double-secret military tribunals. Controlling the false positive rate via transparancy.)<BR/><BR/>In fact, I am kind of shocked that more terrorist attempts haven't been made in the US, since I can think of many ways even without Al-Qaeda money or organization to commit terrorist acts.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it will take other amateurs, the other 98% of our society, to police the US for such threats. If only we can avoid McCarthyism along the way...<BR/><BR/>I also think that we need to identify the root causes that lead people to want to commit terrorist acts. It seems to me that killing one suspected terrorist, or indefinitely imprisoning one, increases the probability that one or more of their friends and family members would support or participate in terrorism, and you run into the many-headed hydra scenario. It seems to me that there needs to be pressure on the other side as well, something that seems lacking in our "hunt 'em down" response so far. Perhaps this is where a professional's time would be best spent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128969920435815662005-10-10T11:45:00.000-07:002005-10-10T11:45:00.000-07:00Rejoyce Dr. David Brin one from your Guild, has be...Rejoyce Dr. David Brin one from your Guild, has become a leader of major western democracy namely Angela Merkel doctor in physic. <BR/><BR/>C. L.<BR/>An infrequent at lurker your blog, and have read most of your books, who is from small a small Nordic country with consensus Parlememtarisme and where the word socialism is not a dirty word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128904185634167712005-10-09T17:29:00.000-07:002005-10-09T17:29:00.000-07:00Thanks for posting the link to the Mark Danner art...Thanks for posting the link to the Mark Danner article. Although I don't entirely agree with it, he does a pretty good job of summing up where we are today.<BR/><BR/>Here's an interesting point "We have entered the era of the amateurs. Those who attacked the London Underground — whether or not they had any contact with Al Qaeda — manufactured their crude bombs from common chemicals..." Elsewhere I've seen you look forward to an upcoming "age of amateurs" where ordinary citizens are empowered. But what if these citizens choose to act in ways that are contrary to our society? Aren't the self organizing networks of terrorists that have replaced Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network just that: amateurs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128836127502370102005-10-08T22:35:00.000-07:002005-10-08T22:35:00.000-07:00Yes, "socialist" is fraught with polemical problem...Yes, "socialist" is fraught with polemical problems. That doesn't change it's technical appropriateness when applied to the polar opposite of propertarianism. <BR/><BR/>The whole point of using the term was to invoke the early bits of that movement, the stuff Sinclair depicted toward the end of <I>The Jungle</I>, or the rosy ideals in <I>Herland</I>. <BR/><BR/>Nothing more. Or less! <BR/><BR/>In any case, it's hardly polite to call a rich person "propertarian" in our culture, don't you think? So, at least the polemic undertones go both ways...<BR/><BR/>On another topic, why not simply log in to Contrary Brin from the machine you're using, and then log back out again when you're finished?Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128833045906446472005-10-08T21:44:00.000-07:002005-10-08T21:44:00.000-07:00Brin- anonymous again. If any of you ever suspect...Brin- anonymous again. If any of you ever suspect that it's NOT me doing this, by all means say so. And one or more of you check to see if I haven't been taken off and pod-peopled by Helvetians! ;-)<BR/><BR/>Still designing the next Humvee here with a team of History Channel imagineers. It's a pilot, so when "Future Tech" appears be sure and tell the HC how great it was! ;-)<BR/><BR/>Oh, Rob, the modernist consensus is worth referring-to. A mixed economy that includes compulsory participation in joint projects funded by taxes.. while avoiding the market-stifling effects of excess taxation, IS the modern consensus. Therefore, though it might not be UNFAIR to call this inherently "socialistic" this is a polemically fraught word to apply to a pragmatic formula that works and is widely accepted.<BR/><BR/>(Agument over details is of course legit.)<BR/><BR/>In contrast, purist propertarianism is by its very nature romantic and dogmatic. And has no justification anywhere in the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>still exhausted & remote from gerrymandering, so here are a few more misc items.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here is one that sent me shuddering: A quote from journalist David Frum: "In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. " http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899<BR/><BR/>….Gurgggle… Let’s see if we can trace an unconventional pattern. Bush Sr. appoints Thomas in order (essentially) to give Scalia two votes. Now is the pattern continuing? A loyal nonentity appointed in order to give Roberts two votes? Heck I like Roberts already for removing those ridiculous gold stripes from the Chief Justice’s gown. I pray he will be one of those pleasant surpeises. Alas though…<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now let’s get apolitical...<BR/><BR/> This from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4276180.stm <I>"...."In a world of Fab Labs, you can think about the other five and a half billion brains on the planet not just as potential consumers, but <BR/>as creators, as inventors. "Creation itself can become much more distributed, and you can bring not information technology, but IT development to the masses. You can close what you might think of as a fabrication divide." Gershenfeld helped set up a Fab Lab in Karlsen's barn a couple of years ago. But so many people came to use it, Karlsen decided he needed to expand. With help from the Norwegian government, the Norwegian sheepherder built a Viking-style Great Hall to house a Fab Lab which opened last month. Inside, next to the sheepskins, banks of PCs with high-speed internet connections hum away. The Fab Lab machines include a sign cutter and a laser cutter. There is a 3-D computer milling machine with enough precision to make circuits. The software that tells the machines what to do is open source, and has been created by so-called "Fab Labbers" from across the globe....."</I><BR/><BR/>-<BR/>Finally... My cousin Adam Frankel announces: “<I>My girlfriend Laura is starring in a new hour-long TV show called Related. It's by the "creative forces" behind Friends and Sex and the City. The show is about four sisters in New York (Laura plays the youngest sister, named Rose). And the show starts this Wednesday at 9PM on the WB (in NYC, that's channel 11 -- anywhere else, just check your local listings). This will be the first time in my life that I've planned to watch a show on the WB (the network's target demographic is usually teenage girls) -- and the same is probably true for you, as well. But it's a good show and if you have time, I hope you can watch it and give the show your support.”</I><BR/><BR/>I mean... dang Adam!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128830340237372302005-10-08T20:59:00.000-07:002005-10-08T20:59:00.000-07:00Bleakly humorous (?) aside: Unicef bombs the Smurf...Bleakly humorous (?) aside:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/08/wsmurf08.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/08/ixhome.html" REL="nofollow"> Unicef bombs the Smurfs in fund-raising campaign for ex-child soldiers</A><BR/><BR/>'The people of Belgium have been left reeling by the first adult-only episode of the Smurfs, in which the blue-skinned cartoon characters' village is annihilated by warplanes.<BR/><BR/>The short but chilling film is the work of Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, and is to be broadcast on national television next week as a campaign advertisement.'<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128826293343331832005-10-08T19:51:00.000-07:002005-10-08T19:51:00.000-07:00Depends on whether or not it's required...Depends on whether or not it's required...Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128806277078302462005-10-08T14:17:00.000-07:002005-10-08T14:17:00.000-07:00What does David Brin and his supporters think New ...What does David Brin and his supporters think New Yorkers voluntarily wearing Transparent Backpacks, and bags to assist police in expediting bag searches during moments of chrisis? I am doing research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128795420829706832005-10-08T11:17:00.000-07:002005-10-08T11:17:00.000-07:00More on Bush cronyism, or as dubbed in the article...<A HREF="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051017&s=hacks101705&c=1" REL="nofollow">More on Bush cronyism</A>, or as dubbed in the article, his hackocracy.<BR/><BR/>The article is from the New Republic and investigates the credientials of Bush appointees. The article is written in an amusing way, but the conclusions are frightening. You may need to register (for free) to see the article. I have been impressed with the New Republic for its ability to slam all sides of the political debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128785259087827502005-10-08T08:27:00.000-07:002005-10-08T08:27:00.000-07:00@DBThe reason I called is socialist is that techni...@DB<BR/><BR/>The reason I called is socialist is that technically, it is. It's neither fair nor unfair. And really, what are public common schools, if not nascent socialism? <BR/><BR/>@Ben<BR/><BR/>I agree with you, and I don't. I don't think the injection of trillions into the stock market is particularly smart; for one thing, done wrong, it stands to make the government owners in publicly traded companies, which I think would be destructive to the companies. <BR/><BR/>For another, the addition of trillions of dollars to the stock market is bound to have an inflationary shock when those dollars are put into that market, and a deflationary shock when they're returned to the owners. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion the Social Security trust is best administered by a people which acknowledges that it has a responsibility to the infirm, the handicapped, and the elderly. The current IRA/401(k) system, combined with pay-as-you-go Social Security, pleases me. Even if that means some higher taxes and smaller benefits down the road.<BR/><BR/>It's not like I think it's even going to be there by the time *I* retire, after all. :-)<BR/><BR/>Oh. And... adjusting retroactively for inflation, the surplus was real for two years. But only retroactively.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128752914106677312005-10-07T23:28:00.000-07:002005-10-07T23:28:00.000-07:00Ah yes, the infamous Clinton surplus.He ran one, a...Ah yes, the infamous Clinton surplus.<BR/><BR/>He ran one, and he didn't.<BR/><BR/>Right now people contribute more into Social Security than they get out. The surplus is used to purchase treasury bonds. Theoretically at some point in the future Social Security will start being a deficit, and the government will pay those bonds back.<BR/><BR/>Under Clinton, if you count Social Security as part of government, we ran a surplus. If you consider it separate, we ran a deficit. If you look at just our official debt, you're seeing Social Security excluded, so you see the deficit.<BR/><BR/>Was it a surplus or not? The answer is that it wasn't, but that fact won't be visible as a direct hit to our pocketbooks until after Social Security starts running a deficit.<BR/><BR/>Of course if George has his way, we'll "solve" Social Security by saying that all bonds issued to Social Security aren't real after all, and then he'll do some sleight of hand that will make up for it by reducing people's benefits while not making it look like he's doing that. The specific sleight of hand that he's floated is investing your contributions in the stock market. Which, if implemented well, could work out reasonably well. However it won't be implemented well.<BR/><BR/>Which change would retroactively make Clinton's surplus actually be somewhat real.Ben Tillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335648152419715383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128751463962672522005-10-07T23:04:00.000-07:002005-10-07T23:04:00.000-07:00(pause) more Misc items.Brin here again, posting ...<B>(pause) more Misc items.</B><BR/><BR/>Brin here again, posting as anonymous from FtIrwin, the NatTrainingCenter... no, not gnats but big humvees which I rode today in prep for advising about replacement concepts. I deeply believe in the military and we'll all be better off when more dems and libs do.<BR/><BR/>Rob gets post of the day for his insight into the underlying propertarianist motive behind the relentless tax cutting for the rich in both bad times and good and even during war. THAT is why we recruited you, Rob. Deeply insightful and yes, calling taxation proposals as "socialistic" is not entirely unfair.<BR/><BR/>Nu? Which approach built a spectacular diamond-shaped civilization? A willingness to tax in order to foster great endeavors... while never killing the Golden Goose markets that must prosper in order to pay for it all!<BR/><BR/>DUh? That's called pragmatism.<BR/><BR/><B>more stuff</B> while I am too road weary for gerrymandering...<BR/><BR/>Have you always harbored a secret (or not so secret) yearning to write fiction? My own “advice article” at http://www.davidbrin.com/ is valued. Now go see http://www.writesf.com/ “This course is designed to help you learn many of the skills you need to write successful science fiction and fantasy stories. You can use the skills you'll learn here in other kinds of storytelling, as well.”<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Here’s a lead in paragraph from a recent article that says it all, without ever (intentionally) focusing on the most chilling part...</B> <BR/><BR/><I>”Bush called the news conference, his first since May, as he struggles to regain political strength sapped by a confluence of events — high gas prices, a rising death toll in Iraq and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. His job approval rating, near the lowest point of his presidency, faces another test with the nomination of Miers.”</I><BR/><BR/>Um... his first press conference... since MAY???? During a time of war and national disaster? When he stayed on the longest presidential vacation ever, during a major crisis? After having more vacation time already than any other three presidents and less access to scrutiny than any other?<BR/><BR/>Please, political issues will not penetrate your conservative freinds, who are circling the wagons and covering their ears, humming loudly in order to overcome the whir of Barry Goldwater, spinning in his grave. The only thing that will penetrate are objective facts that are entirely non-political. Make them accept that this vacations-to-news-conferences ratio means something. <BR/><BR/>By itself this ratio would not automatically mean a bad president. But isn’t that the most BASIC possible explanation? Isn’t a heavy burden of proof on the shoulders of any supporter, to back up an alternative explanation?<BR/><BR/>In contrast, do tout the Norman Rockwell painting “The Right to Know” that Rockwell created in response to an earlier era of government secrecy. (Another Stefan-ref) How can your conservative firends not be haunted by Norman Rockwell?<BR/><I>http://www.artnet.com/Galleries/Artwork_Detail.asp?G=&gid=153&which=&ViewArtistBy=&aid=553159&wid=424032354</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>... and these excerpts from a major article (I don’t agree with all of this guy’s piece, but it is worth reading in detail at http://www.markdanner.com/nyt/091105_taking.htm): <BR/><BR/><I>“Today marks four years of war. How well have we done on goals? Four years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. troops ruled unchallenged in Japan and Germany. During those 48 months, Americans created an unmatched machine of war and decisively defeated two great enemies...” </I> <BR/><BR/>(DB: Of course, that was the era of George Marshall and Modernism triumphant, when skill trumped cronyism and when the rich were willing to help pay for a war. Anyway, the next paragraph shows this guy understands the deep truth about 9/11 -- that Osama’s purpose was never “terrorism” per se, or just to topple a couple of buildings. It was to draw us into a Vietnam... a trap which we avoided! At first, that is...)<BR/><BR/><I>”For the jihadists, luring the Americans into Afghanistan would accomplish at least two things: by drawing the United States into a protracted guerrilla war in which the superpower would occupy a Muslim country and kill Muslim civilians — with the world media, including independent Arab networks like Al Jazeera, broadcasting the carnage — it would leave increasingly isolated those autocratic Muslim regimes that depended for their survival on American support. And by forcing the United States to prosecute a long, costly and inconclusive guerrilla war, it would severely test, and ultimately break, American will, leading to a collapse of American prestige and an eventual withdrawal — first, physically, from Afghanistan and then, politically, from the ‘‘apostate regimes’’ in Riyadh, Cairo and elsewhere in the Islamic world. ... In Afghanistan, bin Laden would be disappointed. The U.S. military initially sent in no heavy armor but instead restricted the American effort to aerial bombardment in support of several hundred Special Operations soldiers on the ground who helped lead the Northern Alliance forces in a rapid advance. Kabul and other cities quickly fell. America was caught in no Afghan quagmire, or at least not in the sort of protracted, highly televisual bloody mess bin Laden had envisioned.”</I><BR/><BR/>DB: Ah, but then we <B>deliberately</B> started exactly such a quagmire war, in Iraq! <I>How can anyone believe this to be a coincidence?</I> Our enemies looked across the last century to find the one event that weakened America socially, economically, militarilly, and undermined our influence and alliances. Osama tried and failed to get us into another Vietnam in Afghanistan, because our professional officers and diplomats were competent beyond his ability to reckon...<BR/><BR/>So we go into Iraq in a manner that <B>reverses</B> every military and diplomatic doctrine that worked in the Balkans Afghanistan! A point-by-point and relentlessly detailed reversal that beggars all notions that it was not deliberate. This reversal was ordered, orchestrated, demanded and ruthlessly enforced by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld - three amateurs who always styled themselves as military geniuses - in a campaign of “political meddling” that makes LBJ’s micro-management in Nam look like hands-off deferral. <BR/><BR/>Nor was this ever about national security, “WMD” or even freeing Iraq. <I>All suggestions alternative ways to get rid of Saddam, cleverly, instead of by understaffed and underplanned brute force, were not only rejected,</I> but spurned from even the slightest discussion. Even loyal soldier Colin Powell is now verifying all of this.<BR/><BR/>Who would DO such a thing? Why on Earth would they? (Hint, these are the same guys who deliberately left Saddam in power, in 91, when he was in the palm of their hands.) But, back to the article.<BR/><BR/><I>...”The sun is setting on American dreams in Iraq; what remains now to be worked out are the modalities of withdrawal, which depend on the powers of forbearance in the American body politic. But the dynamic has already been set in place. <B>The United States is running out of troops.</B> By the spring of 2006, nearly every active-duty combat unit is likely to have been deployed twice. The National Guard and Reserves, meanwhile, make up an unprecedented 40 percent of the force, and the Guard is in the ‘‘stage of meltdown,’’ as Gen. Barry McCaffrey, retired, recently told Congress. Within 24 months, ‘‘the wheels are coming off.’’ For all the apocalyptic importance President Bush and his administration ascribed to the Iraq war, they made virtually no move to expand the military, no decision to restore the draft. In the end, the president judged his tax cuts more important than his vision of a ‘‘democratic Middle East.’’ </I><BR/><BR/>(What do you expect from guys who entered office sneering at the <I>“discredited notion of so-called ‘nation-building’ and the misguided utopian fantasy of spreading liberty by imposing it on others.”</I> Which is the more plausible explanation of a war deliberately planned to maximize expense and minimize results? (1) Light at the end of the tunnel, (2) utter incompetence, (3) gravy days for Halliburton... or (4) a divisive and ruinous Vietnam style quagmire was the goal, all along? The simplest explanation is #2. The mature side of me follows the money and leans toward #3. But the paranoid completist, who wants ALL the pieces to fit, can only see one hypothesis that does all that. And it ain’t 1,2, or 3. Alas, #4 takes us further down the road of asking “Who would have enough money, influence and hatred of cour civilization to DO such a thing?) <BR/><BR/>Back to the article.<BR/><I><BR/>“We cannot know what future Osama bin Laden imagined when he sent off his 19 suicide terrorists on their mission four years ago. He got much wrong; the U.S. military, light years ahead of the Red Army, would send no tank divisions to Afghanistan, and there has been no uprising in the Islamic world. One suspects, though, that if bin Laden had been told on that day that in a mere 48 months he would behold a world in which the United States, ‘‘the idol of the age,’’ was bogged down in an endless guerrilla war fighting in a major Muslim country; a world in which its all-powerful army, with few allies and little sympathy, found itself overstretched and exhausted; in which its dispirited people were starting to demand from their increasingly unpopular leader a withdrawal without victory — one suspects that such a prophecy would have pleased him. He had struck at the American will, and his strategy, which relied in effect on the persistent reluctance of American leaders to speak frankly to their people about the costs and burdens of war and to expend the political capital that such frank talk would require, had proved largely correct. ...”</I><BR/><BR/>Yipes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128744651023049052005-10-07T21:10:00.000-07:002005-10-07T21:10:00.000-07:00Steve's thinking parallels mine.Denying parenthood...Steve's thinking parallels mine.<BR/><BR/>Denying parenthood to an educated, middle class lesbian couple who <I>want</I> to be parents while letting meth addicts raise a crop of traumatized tots . . . argh. <BR/><BR/>It is a dead issue now. A little sunshine and ridicule have done their work.<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128742403786698552005-10-07T20:33:00.000-07:002005-10-07T20:33:00.000-07:00@PalliardActually, as a parent, there are a number...@Palliard<BR/><BR/>Actually, as a parent, there are a number of criteria in there that I would like to see applied to ALL potential parents. As the saying goes, I need a license for a car, but any idiot with no training can become a parent of the next generation.<BR/><BR/>I object to two things about it: its moralistic tone that attempts to dictate that someone who is unmarried, or gay, or non-religious, or has different political views than their spouse, etc. is ipso facto unfit to be a parent.<BR/><BR/>The other is picking on people who want a baby bad enough to go through the trying fertility processes. I think it would be a great idea to require parenting and economics and a few other life-classes before <B>anyone</B> is allowed to procreate, but imposing this and other more strict requirements on a particular class of potential parent (the fecundly-challenged) without requiring it of everyone offends me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128727961916056032005-10-07T16:32:00.000-07:002005-10-07T16:32:00.000-07:00Lots of wacky laws are drafted before they're ever...Lots of wacky laws are drafted before they're ever submitted or hit a committee, and this Indiana law falls into that category.<BR/><BR/>Reading the text of the law, you could practically interpret it one of two ways:<BR/><BR/>(1) Why should we expend resources helping people, who have demonstrated they aren't very good at living clean lives and would likely make bad parents, to reproduce?<BR/><BR/>(2) How is it conscienable to create a eugenics program that inhibits mostly the poorer, browner people of the state from reproducing?<BR/><BR/>This latter enterpretation entirely zooms past the important question: why are the poor brown people also the majority of single mommies and present- or ex-felons? I don't think that took place in a vacuum.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to be interested now in seeing who accuses me of blaming the victim, and why they think that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128725780467836072005-10-07T15:56:00.000-07:002005-10-07T15:56:00.000-07:00Fah.Some of the tepidly mainstream organizations t...Fah.<BR/><BR/>Some of the tepidly mainstream organizations that <I>I</I> belong to are regularly referred to as "anti-american" and "radical fringe eco-kooks" by the right wing media and punditocracy.<BR/><BR/>If they can get away with that, I will feel no compunction razzing the prudes, snoops, busybodies, and sanctimonious creeps who want to turn the nation into a sectarian police state.<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128724328062669192005-10-07T15:32:00.000-07:002005-10-07T15:32:00.000-07:00The Indiana law isn't terribly surprising, since i...The Indiana law isn't terribly surprising, since it's true that factions which want that kind of law exist. It's also not terribly surprising that it was withdrawn before the courts could laugh it down. <BR/><BR/>But they aren't shooting people in the head in soccer fields. "American Taliban" is wolf-crying demagoguery, and plays into their hands.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128723429681298092005-10-07T15:17:00.000-07:002005-10-07T15:17:00.000-07:00The Indiana bill has been withdrawn by its sponsor...The Indiana bill has been withdrawn by its sponsor, who cited unforseen complexities. Perhaps among them, the possibility of being the subject of ridicule on "The Daily Show."<BR/><BR/>I think we'll be seeing more bills like that, and last year's "Human Chimera Prevention Act," as technology marches forward. But what Marshal McLuhan said about media:<BR/><BR/><I>". . . all the conservatism in the world afford even a token resistance to the ecological sweep of the new electronic media."</I><BR/><BR/>. . . could apply to most science and technology.<BR/><BR/>The American Taliban who cook up bills like the above are going to be in for a discouraging century.<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128720319520666792005-10-07T14:25:00.000-07:002005-10-07T14:25:00.000-07:00Answer for the "Can This Possibly Be True? Departm...Answer for the "Can This Possibly Be True? Department"...<BR/><BR/>It seems to be true. Consider this on www.in.gov website:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf" REL="nofollow">http://www.in.gov/<BR/>legislative/interim/committee/<BR/>prelim/HFCO04.pdf</A><BR/><BR/>It is a preliminary draft of proposed changes in Indiana law. And it looks really really bad for someone who wants to make a baby using assisted reproduction. Single people (and gays) and non-religious need not apply. I literally do not believe that someone is considering this. Read it yourself and let me know what you think.<BR/><BR/>From my reading of it, you must be married and go through some serious hoops including convincing someone that you and your spouse have the same beliefs, and that you must provide proof that you will go to church.<BR/><BR/>"10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents,<BR/>26 include a description of individual participation in faith-based or<BR/>27 church activities, hobbies, and other interests."<BR/><BR/>It will be illegal as follows:<BR/><BR/>"1 Sec. 20. (a) An intended parent who knowingly or intentionally participates<BR/>2 in an artificial reproduction procedure without establishing parentage under section<BR/>3 15 of this chapter commits unauthorized artificial reproduction, a Class B<BR/>4 misdemeanor.<BR/>5 (b) A physician who knowingly or intentionally fails to obtain the consent<BR/>6 required under section 13 of this chapter commits unauthorized practice of artificial<BR/>7 reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1128703738234986102005-10-07T09:48:00.000-07:002005-10-07T09:48:00.000-07:00@Rob (the other one, not me...)Last year, I got my...@Rob (the other one, not me...)<BR/><BR/>Last year, I got my income tax withholding back, plus a few hundred more dollars over and above that. I still pay a percentage share of gross income as Social Security and Medicare taxes. But I don't think it's much of a secret. <BR/><BR/>The tax code is structured these days so that sole wage earning homeowners in a two-parent family situation pay less taxes. Those with an average of four children pay even less than that. In my case, the absurdity of the "child tax credit" wiped out what little I was already paying, and even transferred extra treasury funds to us, over and above withholdings. <BR/><BR/>We used the government's largesse to fund an extra-large humanitarian relief donation after the tsunami. I haven't crossed into the 28% bracket. Ever. No largish family with a mid-high five figure income ever will. <BR/><BR/>(And let's not go knocking my wife (a graphic artist with a degree in Animal Science) about for "not working". That particular cultural tendency is part of a Big Lie, IMO.)Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.com