Sic Semper Tyrannis

Fareed Zakariya does not understand the USA

 
I usually enjoy his Sunday program.  It is generally well informed, worldly and not overly self-absorbed.  His public persona is a little strange.  He is by origin an Indian Muslim whose father is a religious scholar.  He was educated in various elite western schools and inhabits the somewhat isolated metro areas favored by the coastal elites.  I would be curious to know how much time he has spent with ordinary Americans out there in the "flyover"country.

Today he quite reasonably suggested that the way out of America's deficit nightmare is for "Simpson-Bowles" to be enacted in its entirety and that the Congress should cancel the Bush taxcuts.  He said that this would largely solve the defict problem and restore sanity to our fiscal situation.  He did not mention the needed reduction in military expenditures and only vaguely referred to needed changes in social entitlements.  Nevertheless, on the whole it was quite rational.

Unfortunately, it was also quite unrealistic.  He knows that.  He said that our political system prevents such a solution.  Correct.  This is a back-handed reference to his complaint a couple of weeks back that the Constutution of the United States is not to his liking and that it should be modified substantially by amendment to make the states administrative districts devoid of sovereignty.  Jeffrey Toobin, the lawyer consultant for CNN agreed with him.  Yup, yup went the lawyer.  He and Zakariya smiled at each other secure in the modern sophistication of their collective thought.  The amendments they had in mind would abolish the electoral college and apportion senators by population.  What a grand idea, they exclaimed.  After all, they observed, one can drive down the interstate highway system and see that there are no longer any real differences between the various states.  Are not all strip malls and fast food joints the same?  How are New Jersey and Texas different?  And if they are, should they be?

They have missed something.  The United States is a federal union of the states, not a pure democracy and a lot of Americans who vote out there in the hinterland want it to remain such.  It was for that reason that the federal constitution was structured as it is.  The smaller states had the option of not joining the Union when the present constitution was adopted.  To induce their ratification, they were offered the compromises that insured them a more than equal "say" in the federal government.  Those guaratees of state sovereignty still exist.  Lawyer Toobin must know that.  Zakariya must know that as well at least at a theoretical level of "knowledge."

That being the case do these two marvels of elite culture really think that the states will ratify amendments that reduce their power as sovereign  entities?

If they do think that, then they need to "get out more." 

They might consider more likely solutions for their discontents:

- secession of New York and California

- a new constitutional convention.  it would be amusing to see how that would develop.  It is often said that such a convention could be limited to consideration of the "issues" favored by people like Toobin and Zakariya.  Really?  pl

 

The Henry .17 HMR

I was asked to do a product review on this gun and deal.  Thus far I have mixed views.  i went out and shot this today with Basilisk and my godson, Patrick. 

Great round.  The gun's perfcrmance today was handicapped by the screw holding the barrel and stock together being loose.  My fault.  The Chinese scope seemed to work fine. the bolt assembly seemed flimsy to me and I had forgotten how difficult it is to load individual rounds.

I will let you know my judgment after another outing.

My newly manufactured M-1 Carbine continues to improve in performance.  It was made to far tighter tolerances than the government production models.  Break in time remains, but better.  pl

 

A Revolutionary Document

 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,^[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." 

The Representatives of the Thirteen states in Congress Assembled at Philadelphis, Pennsylvania, 4 July, 1776

------------------------------

Would this document survive "Patriot Act" scrutiny today?  Would the drafter become an object of police surveillance?  pl

“The Spirits of the people are very good. The loss of Charlstown affects them no more than a Drop in the Bucket...”

Re-posted by my sister Maureen on TA for the 4th of July.  pl

"Assassination by robot: Are we justified?" Robinson

 
"...what about others such as the Somali “militants” who may wish to do us harm but have not actually done so? Are we certain that they have the capability of mounting some kind of attack? Absent any overt act, is there a point at which antipathy toward the United States, even hatred, becomes a capital offense?"  Robinson

-----------------------------------

It seems to me that war has become a permanent state of existence in the minds of many of those who make their living from war.  I am not referring here to the sworn warriors who bear the many burdens of war.  No, I am referring to the war profiteers, those who make the instruments of destruction and those whose theses, journal articles, diisertations, books, and "advice" fuel the juggernaut.  The money to be made from such endeavors is splendid and the 'gift that keeps on giving." 

The civilian defense "intelligentsia" occupy a world of their own in; universities, think tanks, federally funded research institutes, and associated journalism.  They are, in many ways, a closed club.  I notice that many of these people do not have interests outside their trade.  Film, literature, the arts, these things are thought of as frivolous distractions from the serious business of reading each others' papers, and stroking each other at meetings.  As in any pseudo scholarly grouping, the level of "group think" is striking.  The main thing in any such guild is to remain acceptable to the consensus, and so consensus must be sought, even if the consensus is a proclivity for killing.

It is also striking that few of these people have ever done war.  They usually think that their research trips are equivalent to combat service.  Amusing.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/assassination-by-robot-are-we-justified/2011/06/30/AGp0DlsH_story.html

"Against the clock in Afghanistan" - Ignatius

 

(LTG) "Rodriguez, who’s finishing his second tour here................., says his main regret is that the United States didn’t implement its current strategy faster. “When I first got here, I didn’t know 10 percent of what I needed,” he explains. “We poured money in here without the proper governance systems.” The United States has learned lessons, but late in the game."  Ignatius

-------------------------------------

How sad the quoted admission is.  Ten years we have been at this in Afghanistan and just now this honest man admits that he and his colleagues at the top of the "food chain" in NATO's war in Afghanistan have been incompetent to their task. 

It is implicit in his admission that they had thought they knew what Afghanistan was about.  They had thought that their unfortunately typical American assumption that "people are all the same,' would suffice on the "roof of the world," but this "melting pot" assumption has proven inadequate to the task of knowing and understanding Afghanistan.

What about all the c--p that was fed to the leaders by third rate academics and retired junior officers who had read a book or two and written a book or two?  What about that?  What about the fat consulting contracts given to such people, the rides in special mission aircraft, the all expenses paid travel to gather the "wisdom" that shaped pur policy in Afghanistan?  Can we "re-capture" some of the money?  Sadly, no, we cannot.

I still am occasionally asked to attend various government meetings.  These meetings are filled with the next generation of "advisers" who will "help" the next generation of generals like Rodriguez.  The chatter of the academical class at these conclaves is interesting.  The "Rational Actor" model is alive and well among the thirty-five year old Ph.D.s who infest such meetings.  Any suggestion that Afghans, Yemenis, Libyans, Hottentots, Masai, Mescalero Apaches or Ruritanians might act rationally on the basis of assumptions other than those sacred to the political science/international relations "sciences" is greeted with scorn.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/against-the-clock-in-afghanistan/2011/06/30/AGZtTmsH_story.html