Make a Hand Turkey!
I like their style!

INTRODUCING MEME WATCH
Slate attempts to monitor the thought viruses..
More on Memes
MEMECENTRAL

from meme central:
How do you pronounce "meme"?
"Meem" (rhymes with "dream")

What is a meme?
Memes are the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life.

Isn't memetics just a fancy name for _________ (fill in the blank with "cultural evolution", "behavioral psychology", "sociobiology", or anything else)? Why is this anything new?
The breakthrough in memetics is in extending Darwinian evolution to culture. There are several exciting conclusions from doing that, one of which is the ability to predict that ideas will spread not because they are "good ideas", but because they contain "good memes" such as danger, food and sex that push our evolutionary buttons and force us to pay attention to them.

Who invented memes?
Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins is credited with first publication of the concept of meme in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene.

If memes control our thoughts and therefore our actions, what about free will?
We continually understand more and more about how our bodies and minds work. We now know that trillions of organic nanomachines in the cells of our bodies work together to give us life. Neither that understanding nor the new understanding of our minds that memetics will give us should affect the philosophical question of free will.

In Virus of the Mind, you seem to neglect truth as a main reason that memes replicate, focusing instead on psychological button-pushing, evangelism, and other non-obvious means. Why?
First, the theoretical reason. Our minds evolved to support survival and reproduction in the ancestral environment (Stone Age). The kind of truth that would have aided that would have pertained to knowledge of terrain, seasons, and so on. These things are concrete and simple. Our society today is so complex that concrete and simple things that "make sense" are likely to out-compete "true" memes that are less appealing. Second, empirical evidence shows that students are getting worse and worse at knowledge tests.

You talk a lot about living life in "Level 3." What does that mean?
It means not just living consciously, but consciously choosing the memes I allow to program me.

Just in case anyone forgot there is a recession...
Benefit Cutoff Looms for 1 Million Laid-Off Workers

COUGH

Scott Ritter's Iraq Complex
Scott Ritter used to work for UNSCOM and after he left, he became a major proponent (and a hero of the rights) of a military solution to the Iraq problem, but after 1998, when Clinton and Blair began a series of cruise missile strikes, he became a dove of sorts. Now he is one of the leading figures in the anti-war movement.

To me it seems that Ritter is just an egomaniac (though I'm not sure if it is my right to fault him for that, since I run a wesbite devoted to myself), the Times tip-toes around that, calling him "very confident", and he can't stand being in step with the conventional wisdom. Ritter also has some sort of UN/international law fetish, saying that war without UN approval would be unconstitutional, because we are bound to the United Nations by a treaty, this ignores that fact that the Constitution doesn't demand that we actually obey our agreements and that from the start our country has broken treaties. Ritter's claims that a war with Iraq would violate international law and the US Consitution seem even whackier given the fact both the UN and Congress have signed off on Bush's plans.

COUGH

"Strange Saudi 'Coincidences'"
Saudi Arabia is not nearly as innocent at Nicholas D. Kristof seems to think. The connection between the Saudis and terrorism is becoming increasingly clear. Perhaps we'd have a bit more leverage with their "ally" if we became less dependent on Saudi Oil and thereby defeat the "Oil Weapon" as former CIA director James Woolsey calls it.

The Maestro is a Hack
Alan Greenspan is a GOP Puppet
It seems clear by now that Alan Greenspan is as partisan as anyone else, but unfortunately he is treated by the press as some sort of demi-God. Which is really unfortunate, especially because his advice recently has been fairly bad, but has gone largely uncrticized. He doesn't see a pressing need to rein in the deficit or balance the budget (balanced budgets were a cornerstone of 1990's prosperity) or for the government to try to stimulate the economy with fiscal policy, which seems like a mistake because the Federal Reserve has been lowering intrest rates for more than a year, before the recession was even underway, but the economy has failed to respond. It seems like the adivce is a) designed to protect the image of the federal reserve as the command center of the economy and b) protect the GOP.

Oil on the Waters
The DLC takes Bush to task for failing to address the United States' lack of energy independece.

"Tragedy" in Afghanistan
David Brooks bring good news from Afghanistan, reporting that conditions have been improving since last year. However, Brook's article is not completely convincing. I suspect it is politcally motivated and that it is meant, at least in part, to take the heat off the Bush administration for the disorder in Afghanistan. Brooks talks about the foreign aid (have you ever heard a conservative boast about foreign aid before?) that Afghanistan is recieving, but puts forward NGOs as evidence, not assistance from the US Government. Also there is a serious law and order problem, especially in the countryside where warlords rule and Taliban still lurk, because the US peacekeeping missions is limited to Kabul.

So are things better? Probably. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do more to rebuild Afghanistan, a lot more. Bush has been very reluctant to get involved in Afghanistan, not just for nation building, but for fighting. The US faile to use a sizable ground force during the War, which may explain why Bin Laden is still alive...

McKinney loss has lessons for Democrats
Lessons like don't be a half-bright left wing loser like Cynthia McKinney and then blame your drubbing at the polls (by other democrats) on the International Jewish Conspiracy..er..Israel Lobby.

French Dis
Apparently while the Republicans were ramming through an ugly bunch of amendments to the Homeland Security Bill through congress (which among other things provided a substantial amount of pork to Texas A&M and limited the liabilities of companies that make fault anti-terrorism equipment, even in the event of intentional wrongdoing), Ted Kennedy was AWOL. He was not there for the vote and not their to lobby fence sitters to vote against the sops to special interests, but in Paris for the opening of an exhibit of Jackie Kennedy's Dresses.

I suppose that other senior law makers have taken some time off, even in the days before imporant votes, but this is still an asinine thing to do.

The Single Guy
by Jonathan Cohn
A defense of single payer healthcare. Like I said earlier, I think that single player is good policy, but very poor politics. Gore's support of single player maybe part of the death throws of his political career. I really doubt that Al will stand a chance this time around, he has too much political baggage, too many prejudices against him in the press and the public. It is a shame, but Gore's time has past.

The air industry's worst nightmare
Just days ago, national security executives met secretly with airline CEOs to warn them that al-Qaida may be planning to fire shoulder-launched missiles at commercial jets in the U.S. There's virtually no defense

This sounds like trouble.

Man Killed by Bowling Ball
Punks dropping bowling balls off of highway overpasses. Sounds fun. Except for the whole killing people part.

GIG ALERT!

GIG REMINDER - US: Don't forget, Dean will be performing Saturday, Dec. 7th - 7pm at the Turning Point in Piermont, NY for more info go to the GIG section of Dean's website or call 914-359-1089.

ORDER TICKETS NOW!

Abbott and Costello in China

Playwright Jim Sherman wrote this today after Hu Jintao was named chief of

the Communist Party in China.

HU'S ON FIRST

By James Sherman

(We take you now to the Oval Office.)

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.

George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of

China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle

East.

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get

me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And

then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China.

George: Will you stay out of China?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.

(Condi picks up the phone.)

Condi: Rice, here.

George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should

send

some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in

the Middle East?

Kurt Vonnegut's Speech May Be His Last
That's a shame, I really like Vonnegut and had a pipe dream he might speak at my graduation. Oh well.

Gore Backs Single Payer
Apparently Al Gore is now a supporter of single payer health insurance (a government funded system, like they have in Canada). While I think Single Payer is a good idea, but I don't think supporting it is a good idea for Mr. Gore or the Democrats. Single player plays right into the hands of the GOP attempts to paint us as "Spend-0-Crats". For Gore personally, there is the issue of inconstincey, because previously he was not in favor of such a plan and his new posistion will probably be attacked as a campaign gimmick. I haven't seen much else on this story, but will see how things turn out.

Iraq Tells the U.N. Arms Inspections Will Be Permitted
Why have the parliament condem the resolution only to agree to it? I don't know, but that is what has happened. It looks like Saddam's regime has a new lease on life, at least for the next few months...

Bush administration approves more snowmobiles in national parks

"This is just a boon to the industry," said Kristen Brengel of The Wilderness Society, an environmental group. "This is not what the American public has been expecting."

What's with this enviro-whacko? Does he expect Bush to do something that isn't a Boon to industry?

Is Saddam Contemplating Suicide?
Iraqi Parliament condemns U.N. plan

President Saddam Hussein has used the rubber-stamp parliament as cover for difficult decisions in the past, and the tough language does not necessarily mean parliament will reject the proposal.

Well, the Saddam is not finished yet. The deadline for acceptance is Friday and Iraq may let the inspectors in to avoid a war and then kick out the inspectors a few months later.
We'll see.

Hi-Ho!
Hi-Ho 1
Hi-Ho 2
Hi-Ho 3
Hi-Ho 4
Hi-Ho 5
H-Ho 6
Hi-Ho the Game!

Nicholas D. Kristoff, the Timesman and His Tripe

I really don't like Nicholas D. Kristoff? Whhy? I think he's just a half-bright jackass.

A pattern of poor journalism begins with his August 27 article, "Whimps on Iraq" . Kristoff is saying he has no moral problems with invading Iraq, and would support a war if it weren't too costly. He then starts to invent practical problems with the invasion. In his September 27, 2002 article writes that the US will face ugly urban combat in Iraq, that nationalist Iraqi civilinans will fight against the American invaders. Kristoff bases these concerns on interviews he had with Iraqi citizens.However, as the New Republic has pointed out, the interviews he has with Iraqi citizens were conducted in the presence of Iraqi Government officials...

and now he seems to have drifted to an anti-war posistion, which makes me suspicious.
I think Kristoff maybe just a dishonest dove. Opposed on principle to war, but refusing to admit it, for fear of being shunned as a standard liberal or something like that, rather than the "original" or "thoughtful" or "unorthodox", the "maverik" writer he wants to sell himself as. So what does he do? He says "I'm ok with war, if it isn't too bloody" and then writes series of falsehoods and imagined dangers. This approach is actually probably the most effective from the anti-war perspective, because saying (dishonestly) that he's a "cautious hawk" (which most Americans are), makes him more trusted and accepted, giving you the opporunity to sow doubt. I'm not saying it is that sinister, but....

it just might be


or much more likely, Kristoff is just a bad writer, a poor journalist and a hack, which seems to be the case. Further proving the point is Kristoff's election day column on leftwing stupidity. Normally I don't mind people criticizing the left, after all, it is how I spend a good deal of my time, but Kristoff's article seems like a lame attempt to score dinner party points. Which goes back to my earlier comments about his Iraq posistion and what seems to be a desire for "independent chic". His article, "The Left Dumbs Down" is probably one of the poorest criticisms I've heard of the Left in a long time, it fails to attack any specific failing, but rather moans about "incivility" and other nonsense.

Bottom Line: Brian good. Kristoff not. Kristoff overpaid. Brian not paid at all. Brian jealous. Wants Kristoff's job. Can't, so he writes weblog no one reads.

Bombs Away?
On the heals of the UN Resolution threatening Saddam "with serious consequence" (read: We're going to let the crazy Americans have a shot at you), Bush's plans how just to take that shot have made their merry way to the press. Very good timing. It looks like we may be off to war very soon, if Saddam doesn't try to weasle his way out of it, by say, allowing UN hostages...er...inspectors in as a delaying tactic until the eagle with all those missiles in its tallons stops circling him. Or it might turn out that the cynical analysis offered by some on the left, that Iraq was jus a ploy for the midterms might turn out to be true and Bush will be "satisified" with a half-assed inspections regime, which will eventually get the boot when they come to close to seriously disrupting Saddams weapons programs. Who knows? I sure don't, if there is an invasion, I sure hope it goes well, especially because I've been pushing for one for a long time now. But the next few weeks will porbably be very important...

Harold Ford Crusades to Save the Democrats
Nancy Pelosi is being challenged by the black New Democrat Harold Ford for leadership of the House Minority. Ford is pretty damn new to the House and is very young (32), but who knows? The Liberalism of Pelosi is probably not what the party needs right now. I don't care what the Left screeches, the midterms are not a refutation of DLC-style centrism. What we need is muscular centrism, welfare reform is ok, but with more money for the Earned Income Tax Credit, war with Iraq, but with Allies, tax cuts, but for the middle class, free markets, but not crony capitalism. Most Americans agree with the Democrats on these issues, but the Democrats have failed to be stress them and have failed to put them together into a coherent national message. So onwards, toward muscular centrism. We must be moderate to the extreme! Scream our sensible proposals at the top of our lungs! Advance our moderate (and popular) ends with immoderate means and we need national party leaders that are capable of doing this. Is Ford the one? Possibly. He's better than a Liberal like Pelosi, someone that appeals to readers of the Nation, but will probably turn of must Americans and no matter how strident they are may never help the Party. Ummmm. Oh yes, perhaps a black party leader like Ford will help energize minority voters, which may not have been less involved in this election. If Ford really is strident centrist black democrat, he might be just what the party needs.

More Election FUN!
Part of my reaction to the election is similar to what
Howie Kurtz points :


But is the press pack now overinterpreting Tuesday's results? Who really knows whether the president's frenetic campaigning made the difference? Besides, a switch of roughly 29,000 votes in Minnesota, 11,500 in Missouri and 9,500 in New Hampshire would have produced a Democratic Senate and gobs of stories about how the White House blew it.

"The cycle for the next few days," says Polman, "will be to beat up on ourselves for having said for days and days that this is a 50-50 nation: Boy, aren't we foolish! But the underlying fundamentals haven't changed all that much."

However, it is unsual for this kind of nonsense to happen. The last time something like this did happen was in 1934 (if I'm not mistaken). Its not unusual for midterm elections are decided by a few voters. In Downsize This Michael Moore observed that the 1994 Republican "Revolution" was decided by 500,000 votes. This election was decided by even fewer, so it really shouldn't be taken as a national "thumbs-up" for Bush-Cheney and the GOP.

Anyway, I rambling and getting off track(as well as being to lazy to rewrite this and make it stay on track the whole way)....

The Election? Let's see. Suprising. Unfortunate. Difficult to understand. Maybe we will probably have wait for the exit polls to come out (Voter News Service is basically defunct at this point, so we must wait untill the census folks get around to putting this nonsense together), before we fully understand what all this means. In the mean time, put on some goggles, because the GOP own the Federal Government and things are going to be unpleasant if you concerned with concerned with corporate crime, the fate of the underprivelleged and the future of Roe V. Wade.

Perhaps 2 years of Republican rule will make the apathetic and indifferent (as well as those damn fools in the Green party, that can't see the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats) see the GOP as it really is, an alliance between the superrich and the social conservative cavemen and maybe the Democrats will get their shit together (ha ha ha, exuse me, but I must laugh or I'll cry) knock Bush's teeth out come 2004. Or so I hope, desperately...

Well, the elections could have turned out worse. I'm not sure how, but they could have.
We'll be spitting up GOP fun for months to come. Thecongressional chieftans of the party are looking downright incompetent right now, in fact they make Gore appear like a smooth operator in comparison. Soon-to-be-ex-majority-leader-Tom Daschle was spared even greater embarrasment by the success of his protege Tim Johnson in the South Dakota race. If Johnson had lost it might have meant it was time that Daschle started to look for another line of work. However, I think we've just seen the death of any chance of Daschle realizing his presidential ambitions.

Why did we lose? I'm not sure, but I think it was a distinct lack of the "vision-thing". More later.

A letter I recieved from another friend
Might be worth posting
It is a bit like beat poetry, except it makes even less sense.

hi hello good sir or madam,
i am calling today from an orbit high above the earths atomosphere. yes darling, quite high up. it would be in my best intrest to stay indoors for the fear of the salmon slapping rudey toot shoots. for i am the grand duke himself, of the fine art of dog lamping,
alright- now stop what your doing, because iam about to ruin
the vision of the image that you are used to.
now, the white lightning tiger bear bomb is laminating my very large safe made of bullet and waterproof safe haven.
piss guzzing and glooping through tubes in the foreground.

you see, many events are plays with dark narcotics warping ones mind into looping tundra swirls.

fanciful dancing and carrying on it adorns my gratitous

bleeeeeeeeech fucking stinky hands. some times i wonder what my harnds try to pull on me. trying to navigate the hershey highway whilst tangerines and other fruit, iincluding, but not limited to a certain request of the dark jungle CARROTS.

bonkers is the name of an ashtude. (sorry helffffffffffffffffffffw; i meant cat food.)

poit, mind you, not poot (as such a tugboat says), is the true language of the gods, twisting in their immortal measuere.
mersault
ow!!! it twisted its dark knob into my supple flesh, wandering amidst ferns and other such vegitation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ahem, i must tell you now about the sordid tale in which the dead do dance, suspended amidst a world of earth and flesh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
cancel page.
my mouth feels awful peculiar, my dear aunt violin.
is the violin violent, violet?
==================
ah yes my mouth fells like a knubby cracker, one formed from a fine bread mix. mice and mike.
mic one mic two, this is just a test.
---------------------------------------------------
i am reaaaaaaaaaly fucking wasted writiing to you amongst the deep and majestic article of clothing that is not easily stored.
tree stars!
-----------------------------------------------
when in rome, speak roman.
if bert russel von faulanhousen dusseldorf esquire. it hurts my lungs and lump. of you know not of bumps boils bruises, brandishing a wide slovenly sword.
bud. bud.
cock cock cock
---------------------------
anus
ass
bastard
bitch
cock
cunt
christ.
dick
dickhead
fuck
hell
jackass
motherfucker
nuts
penis
poop
quinny (it means vagina)
shit
tit
twat
vagina
are all such things of a sordid nature? blue demons suspended in a miasma of soup and gold great grubby golf balls. giant and pulsating, a huge penis is suspended from a large northeastern tea kettles.
are you familiar with the mythical minotaur? running about needlessy in a small confindeed zone, gnarling one's tusks about a jub jub tree.

i cannot detect any such failures in the ships design captain, for i have not studied the belching of wales (not the animal- the country, into a large balloon of sonar material.

oh how foolish
of me, i was unaware
of any misbehaving
furthermore, i want
to remain nameless for
the same reasons hangars engage in clandestine pilots of shows that are of such
illrefute, that one is unabliged to step into
the house that bears the name of doctor blanche
fuoco- as in "with fury" a musical term to say such that i
cannot refer to myself in the a minor of the frogs equidistant ion
that. hold on. this is being silly to the point of absurdidity. my boxers
are in a very poor condition. mind you, i have traveled much farther than an
american discoteque, a popular meeting place for youth of the sm-
all british turkeys that flitter and fly quite well for a gunsh-
a small and utterly useless proportion
-------------------------------------------------------------
and as ___________ (i forgot his name please remind me)(i think its ts eliot)
once said- and this is how it ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

i must fade silently into the crystalline night of cool proportions on a fair and
balanced richter scale.

in closing dear rutheford;
i wish you a warm penis interwoven with a fair and balanced (fox news' slogan) vagina that is warm and moist, and seems to beckon to you, and whisper- i want you to get inside me. i want a vagina, a volutpous ass, and ample bosom to copulate with.

now, oh what shall i call you? perhaps yes, perhaps no.
i do not wish to be informed of such things as it messes and OH the flesh is warm but the heart is cold. of such things i do weep.

mmmmmmm the grateful dead and various sumptous snacks seem to wish me upon themselves.

you can find beauty in small things like disks, flowers, dj equiptment battered in by the colonel of chicken. now if he is the colonel, where is the general or the commander in chief at the very moment?

no they didnt ask to make sure of events that seem not to concern them
i want to go tubing in a gerbil cage to experience weather on such an intimate scale. scales measure things. you dont believe me? peanut m&ms are in my mouth.
crotch rocket. evaluate this statement.
of course pencil and paper are required- this is a math test!
i am warning you nasa, whence thoust go whither one must task the blue robot to curse rapidly at a passing friar, or priest.
napkins.or ketchup/catsup/katchup/catchup/ketsup. tomato. tomatoe. tomatos. tomatoes.
spelling differences signal the end of the return to inocence.
===========--------------==========----------------------===========
not to be rude pembelbroouke, i must be departing. the stinky patch of flesh under ones hasalfraber, is beckoning me to scrub it with a brillo and sheepskin knife.
yes under such circumstances, one might request a different senator of the bench of the couch of the courts of representative green spooted blue-footed boobytassel.
PBS is the acronym for Public Broadcasting Station.
just as JSRF is concened for the transportor of light and trees amongst the waterfall of puce ( a real color) slappy salmon or troutm maybe even another freshwater fish.
==============
FFFFFFFFAST bReaK!!!!
-----------------------------------------------
a fundamental christain would have mncuh difficulty in abtaining illicit substances that alter ones perception of time and hunger. do not abstain from the small domed (not doomed) city hall entrance?
neither would a bugglebuggler of sufficient mass and voulume to resembe a large MULTI-COLORED yet demure (reall word too) grasp on the inflated cock of life, draining the muslim cattle prod of white frosted life? i shoud not say so!
==============
now, i bid you good night, for i must steal up to the kitchen to grab some grub chub.
========
later
The Great Ottoman Addict of the Hudson Valley.

My friend wrote this and I thought "what's the harm?" and posted it. Nonsense away!
Big Dave's Speech
Free Trade
In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt said, “The welfare and
prosperity of each of our Nations depends… on the
benefits derived from commerce among ourselves and
other Nations… Every country in the world has felt the
evil effects of… trade barriers.”

Sixty-six years have passed, but still there are
people in opposition to free trade. Today I am going
to convince you that trade protectionism is hurting
our economy and that free trade is the answer.

The concept of Free Trade is so simple it ought to be
obvious that it is the economic policy for our
country.
All it involves is the removal of the tariffs and
trade barriers between ours and other countries.

By leveling the playing field, we will then not only
be allowing our own economy to take its natural (and
healthy!) course, but it will also be giving many
third world countries an opportunity to expand their
markets.

Many people, including the ever popular George Bush
Jr., embrace the policy of protectionism over free
trade, in which taxes are levied against imports being
brought into the USA.

Those in support of Protectionism say that it defends
the jobs of American workers, since it attempts to
force us into buying from our own country, but in
reality we all suffer because of it.
Take this for example: Economics in America reports
that, in 1983 we restricted about $55 million cotton
blouses coming from china, so China retaliated by
canceling $500 million dollars worth of orders for
American grain. (page 125)
Obviously, it isn’t worth it.

It is a fallacy to believe that America will prosper
from not trading with her neighbors. In-fact it is our
natural inclination to do so. There is always a demand
for foreign goods, but since our government taxes them
so highly, they rise in price dramatically.

Free Trade is beneficial to us even if the countries
with which we trade maintain their tariffs. The reason
for this is because the government keeps the prices
unnaturally high through its taxes, but if you
subscribe to free trade, the prices will drop
dramatically, regardless of the tariffs other nations
impose.

Take steel for an example: By keeping the price of
foreign steel high, we force everyone in our country
to buy American steel, and even though we are then
protecting American Jobs, the prices are higher than
need be. Now, if you drop all our tariffs and buy
foreign steel at the going price instead, the prices
of everything which we buy which is made out of steel
will drop. This would be beneficial for us all around.

Regrettably, Bush has opted to go for the over priced
steel from our country.

Fortunately, there are some policies, which enact free
trade. For example, there is the much debated North
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. In this
agreement, tariffs and other forms of protectionism
are removed between the US and Mexico.

Now, as those who oppose NAFTA say that Mexico will be
hurting us since we wont have the taxes on their goods
that we do on those from other countries, But taking
into account that Mexico’s market and Labor pool is 4%
the size of that of the US, they can’t really harm or
benefit us.
(www.public.iastate.edu)

All this is, is being fair. Before, Mexico was
suffering, as it was harder for them to find a market
for their exports in the US because of the high taxes.
Now they have an opportunity to grow thanks to us.

If only this sort of policy could be more widely
exercised.

I trust that each of you is now aware of the issue of
protectionism that confronts our country, and I hope
that I have convinced you all of what is obviously the
best course of action for America, Free Trade.
So, just remember in the future when you vote for a
president, to check first where he stands on free
trade.

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism
An interesting look at the causes of islamic terrorism. Basically, this article supports Thomas L. Friedman's diagnosis, that the lack of democracy in the mideast is the real cause of islamic radicalism and not a specific policy or offense committed by the west. Which is somethinh we ought to think about when we turn a blind eye to the abuses of our Arab allies, because coddling dictators might not just be morally questionable, but also cause serious harm to the United States.

Allies: No Iraq-Al Qeada Connection
I could have told you that. Why on earth would a secular dictator and religious radicals get together? However, this is besides the point entirely. There are plenty of other good reasons for attacking Iraq other than a very doubtful connection to Al Qeada, mainly, not letting a man with a history of agression and near suicidal miscalculation get nuclear weapons, which he can use to dominate a region which is very important to the US and expand his rule, increasing the number of people that have to suffer his tyranny. The other arugment made in the article by the Euro's is a bit ridiculous, those old tired warnings about the Arab street exploding every time the US exercises its power (where did we hear those before? Oh yes, during the invasion of Afghanistan. "Experts" warned against fighting during ramadan, or face the wrath of an enrage muslim world. What happened? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing, so excuse me if I'm a bit incredulous this time around.) I have begun to suspect that there is only the haziest connection between US policy and muslim sentiments.

Unfotunately, the Bush administration is not know for its honesty... about anything and this recent bit of news just goes to show that Bush & co. will say just about anything to get people behind the war with Iraq. Its a reall shame, because it is important to be able to trust the administration leading you into war, but they have a pattern of lying about almost every important polciy issues, from the budget to Iraq, or if not lying, show a seperation from reality that is unsetteling to say the least (Engergy Companies fixing their prices and screwing their customers? Better drill in the artic! Hey a tax cut could solve that!). Anyway, support the war, but remember to give Bush the boot in '04.

Henry A. Kissinger
Good God. I've been dreading this nonsense for a long time. Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger...this business has been stealing my time since late August. It is time to put an end to it. This post is my desperate attempt to do just that.

Henry Kissinger as most of you already know was responsible for some atrocious actions while he was Nixon's National Security Advisor and later as Nixon and Ford's secretary of state (for a more detailed look at his record go to the trialofhenrykissinger.org). Recently he came to speak at my school, which I objected to. I'd like to make clear at this point it wasn't the fact that Henry Kissinger is a conservative that motivated me or that I was trying to "shut down debate" or "silence ideas I disagreed with". I have had a lot of that psuedo-libertarian gibberish heaved at me and I don't appreciate it. The issue is that Kissinger was invited for any educational purpose, but rather for a promotional one. The school was having a convocation for the anniversary of its founding and he was picked as the guest speaker largely because of his big name. What difference does this make? All the difference. By selecting Kissinger the school is give him a kind of implicit endorsement, by inviting him they said that he is a "role model", a "respectable member of society" or at the very least that he is "within the pale". My issue is not with Kissinger's politics; I have no objection to having other conservatives coming to campus, but rather a moral issue (and the school does have moral standards for guests, for example they would not ask OJ Simpson to urge students to "Be Aggressive; On and Off the Field"). By inviting Kissinger as an "honored guest", they were saying that what Kissinger did was morally acceptable.

Which brings us to the question of Dr. Kissinger's guilt. Whenever I brought this up in arguments, people administration apologists would try as artfully as they could to dodge the issue by saying something along the lines of, "Well he's respected by a lot of people, considered an elder statesmen and is an honored figure within the mainstream..." This is really beside the point entirely. Its not whether or not a lot of people think Kissinger is all right it is whether or not he really is all right. At which point I'm told that I need to remember "context" and that public officials have to make a lot of hard decisions. Which is true, but they can also make criminal or at the very least gravely immoral decisions. If Kissinger's record is given a few minutes of serious thought, it is impossible to deny that there were at least a few US policies that were appalling and that Kissinger was in partially responsible. The bombing of Cambodia was probably the most serious offense that Kissinger is responsible for. The bombing was never approved of by congress, even though it ought to have been given that it was a tremendous escalation of the war expanding very violent military operations into previously neutral countries, furthermore the presence of the North Vietnamese in Cambodia was no justification for attacking Cambodia, just as the presence of Al Qeada cells is no justification for attacking Germany. Not only was the growth of the war not sanctioned by congress, the Nixon administration aimed to keep it a secret. The Bombing was also responsible for incredible slaughter, eventually killing roughly 600,000 Cambodians. This kind of butchery could only be expected; the B-52 was known to be extremely destructive and indiscriminate and Kissinger was aware that there were civilians in target areas. If this isn't depraved, then I'm not sure what is.
The truth about the bombing of Cambodia is hardly disputed and no one has ever disagreed with me over the facts of the matter. However, the Kissinger apologists I have argued with have groped desperately for excuses for the good doctor. They include

"You are ignoring the historical context (yes that old standby again). We needed to stop the communist infiltration of South Vietnam through Cambodia."

The effectiveness of a bombing campaign was doubtful from the start. Even General Westmoreland said that it was likely to fail.

"What about the broader historical context (again!)? We were in a cold war and our civilization was being threatened by the communists…"

This defense is particularly aggravating, because you'd have to be Joe McCarthy's soul mate to honestly believe this. While I'm hardly an appeaser with regards to the Soviets (I think that Reagan's placement of Pershing missiles in Europe was a good idea), what was done in Cambodia (and Vietnam as well) was just insane. I'm hesitant to make a blanket statement opposing terror bombing (bombing that is aimed at civilian populations), I think its use in World War II is probably defensible; the survival of civilization (at least any civilization worth preserving) was in directly threatened by the most serious war the world has ever known, the loss of which would have resulted in a state resembling slavery (or worse) for much of the human race. However, claim that such desperate and brutal measures were necessary in the conflict in South East Asia borders on the absurd. The survival of civilization was not being determined in Vietnam and to tie the fate of the world to the fate of a 3rd world mud hole like Vietnam is absurd. Such a defense is even more ridiculous with Kissinger's case, because he orchestrated our attempts to cozy up to China (which was and still is 1000x more dangerous than North Vietnam). It is really hard to imagine that a man as intelligent, educated and informed as Kissinger would actually think that a few goons armed with AK-47's hiding out in rice paddies were somehow more dangerous than an openly hostile nuclear power which also happened to be the world's most populous nation.

"Public officials are exempt from the usual constraints of morality and law because the state sanctifies their actions."

Oh really? In that case the Nuremberg Trials (and the ongoing trial of Slobodan Milosevic) are awful travesties of justice. I really don't see why officials can't or shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. Soldiers are held accountable for what they do; Lt. William Calley was rightfully prosecuted and convicted of murder for the Mai Lai massacre. Why shouldn't the same standards apply to political leaders? In reality, Kissinger is even liable for his decisions than the fighting men in the field are for theirs. The foot soldier has no hand it making his order, faces punishments for not carrying them out, is sometimes kept in the dark by higher-ups and faces the confusion and danger of combat. In contrast decision maker like Kissinger play an enormous part in shaping policy (Kissinger was a bombing proponent in the administration) and in their air conditioned offices are far removed from the disorder, peril and ignorance of the battlefield, enjoying access to the best information available to anyone, if anyone is responsible it is the political leaders.

"Well, Richard Nixon was President, so isn't he ultimately responsible for all of this"

I'm in no way trying let Nixon of the hook, anyone who knows me would never accuse me of missing an opportunity to give Tricky Dick a few more good kicks (I don't care if he's down!), he does deserve the most blame and if he were alive I'd been even more opposed to a visit by him then by Kissinger's. However, Kissinger's part can't be ignored. As National Security advisor and Secretary of State he played a crucial role in shaping foreign policy decisions made by the White House. Kissinger stood by Nixon and his policies during the preparations for the US raids in Cambodia, while more principled members of his own staff resigned in protest, it is impossible for Kissinger to plead ignorance or that he had no choice, he's therefore shares a good deal of the guilt with Nixon.

I've received other arguments against to my opposition to Kissinger, but they are too ridiculous to even bother with. One of such objection is that to oppose certain policies or certain people in the government means hostility towards the entire nation. This position, that dissent equals disloyalty is borderline fascist and is at its heart un-American. From there the counterarguments became even less rational.

In addition I'd like it make to clear that I'm not arguing for Kissinger to be tried before some kind of international war crimes tribunal. First of all, that is not really in the realm of possibility and I'm not even sure it's a good idea. I don't know what should happen to Kissinger, but I do know that the first step in the right direction is recognizing the things he did were wrong, that it is not all right for public servant who desecrates the constitution, hides the truth from the people, breaking international and moral law.