ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Don't worry about the French

From WND:

But Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Muslim Council and leader of the largest mosque in Paris, seemed to blame the government for the continuing violence. "What I want from the authorities, from Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, the prime minister and senior officials, are words of peace," he said.

Sarkozy has been widely criticized for his "warlike" language in which he referred to rioters as "scum" and vowed to "clean up" the suburbs. Neighboring Germany, also with a large Muslim immigrant population, mostly of Turkish origin, was watching the horror unfold in France with alarm. Wolfgang Bosbach, the deputy leader of the conservative Christian Democrats in the German parliament, told a Sunday newspaper: "There are differences between the situation in France and here, but we should not be under the illusion that similar events could not happen in Germany."

In Italy, Romano Prodi, the opposition leader, called on the government to take urgent action, telling reporters: "We have the worst suburbs in Europe. I don't think things are so different from Paris. It's only a question of time."

Denmark has also been hit with what is being characterized as its own "Islamic Intifada." In Arhus, Denmark, young Muslims were heard chanting, "This land belongs to us!" A masked spokesman for the rioters told Danish reporters that Muslims were tired of being oppressed and harassed and warned the police to stay away.

People like to joke about the French tendency to surrender, but when one considers that this is also the nation which brought forth the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, and has a police force which is quite willing to exterminate Muslim protesters, the inevitable crackdown is only a question of when. Many are also unaware that France has already fought and lost one war with Islam in the last fifty years; the loss of French Algeria has not been forgotten and many of the current rioters/intifadists are descended from the 100,000 harkis, Algerian Muslims who fought for France and were forced to leave Algeria when De Gaulle granted Algeria the right of self-determination and the Algerians voted for independence.

I believe this is, in part, why the French are reluctant to smash the ghettos. Due to their historical ties to Northern Africa, the French are much more comfortable with Islam than are Americans, the British or Germans and there is a genuine feeling of guilt for the 150,000 harkis who did not flee Algeria and subsequently perished, as well as a sense of a debt to the descendants of those who came to France and survived. That being said, the French are famously ungrateful and will always pursue their own interests in the end.

At this point in time, the French authorities have not considered the riots to be much more than an upturn in the sort of violent which happens from time to time, on the order of 1961 and 1996. And they may yet be proven correct, as not a single Frenchman has been slain, compared to 11 policemen killed in 1961 and 12 dead in 1996. But should it become clear that the present situation is more serious and a more correct analogy is that of the Algerian War of Independence, I have no doubt that the French will shock the world in the extreme violence of its response to the situation.

I am not French, I do not speak French and I have no loyalty to France. Therefore, I see little point in expressing a largely ignorant opinion as to what France should do in this situation. I do think it is tragic, however, that the French government's determination to cling to its absurd multiculturalism will likely lead to unnecessary bloodshed. History tends to indicate that there are two ways of dealing with an intractable minority incapable of assimilation. Boot them out sooner, or kill them later.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Mailvox: French Muslims play with fire

Chuck wonders:

I'm intrigued that you have not touched on this business very much. Is there a 'reason'? Perhaps that it touches on your genteel anarchist approach to law enforcement?

What's to post on? I've made my predictions regarding Muslims and Europe, and who will be the first to go Vichy on Ismail's posterior. It's all coming to pass, and when it does, then there will be something interesting to say.

NFL Week 9

Last week: 12-2. Season: 77-39, .664. Fantasy 6-2.

W-Jacksonville Jaguars over Houston Texans
W-Seattle Seahawks over Arizona Cardinals
W-New York Giants over San Francisco 49ers
W-San Diego Chargers over New York Jets
W-Carolina Panthers over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
W-Cincinnati Bengals over Baltimore Ravens
L-Oakland Raiders over Kansas City Chiefs
W-Washington Redskins over Philadelphia Eagles
W-Minnesota Vikings over Detroit Lions
W-Chicago Bears over New Orleans Saints
W-Cleveland Browns over Tennessee Titans
L-Green Bay Packers over Pittsburgh Steelers
L-Miami Dolphins over Atlanta Falcons
New England Patriots over Indianapolis Colts

Don't like this week, don't like it at all. All the bad teams are at home, which can lead to some strange results. I'll be delighted to go 10-4 this week.

Abraham's quixotic jihad

Fresh from his stunningly accurate predictions of mass anti-semitic riots caused by Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, the ADL's Abe Foxman declares war on Christianity and Christians:

Institutionalized Christianity in the U.S. has grown so extremist that it poses a tangible danger to the principle of separation of church and state and threatens to undermine the religious tolerance that characterizes the country, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, warned in his address to the League's national commission, meeting in New York City over the weekend....The ADL, considered the largest Jewish organization in America, has in the past spearheaded campaigns against religious preachers and Christian elements deemed unusually extreme. But this is the first all-out media assault by an ADL head on the U.S. Christian establishment.

This guy would have made quite the grand strategist, wouldn't he? With leaders such as these, it's no wonder that Jews always manage to find persecution all over the world. Launching all-out assaults on the overwhelming majority doesn't exactly strike me as the best way to win friends and influence people in any place or time.

Foxman's strategy is intriguing. The Muslims already hate the Jews, the revolutionary pagans and secular atheists haven't exactly shown a great deal of fondness for them in National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union or the post-christian EU, (do excuse that upper-case J, European readers) so naturally, attacking American Christians makes a great deal of sense. I suppose for his next trick, Mr. Foxman will travel to India to label Buddha a fat bastard and follow that up with an attack on Hindus - who, fortuitously enough, already have plenty of swastikas* on hand - thus assuring Mr. Foxman that everyone everywhere really is out to get him.

*yes, I know they're reversed, don't be so bloody pedantic.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

100 Things I Hate About Television

2. Exploding gas tanks.

Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I have actually set a car on fire and blown up a gas tank. It was when I was being chased by a pair of blonde, bisexual Estonian lady spies a few years back who were angry about having been seduced into blowing their cover during a torrid threesome the night before; the sun was rising and they thought they had me cornered with their Lotus Turbo Esprit when I fired an incindiary round from my laser-sighted Glock .40 that ignited the gas tank and sent up a massive fireball that was seen from Milwaukee.

Or perhaps I exaggerate somewhat. Running through my recall subroutines, I am informed that there was only one girl, and while she was blonde, she was perfectly straight and utterly devoid of any Estonian ancestry. There was no gun, no incindiary round, and the Lotus was actually a 1977 MGB. There was, however, an exploding gas tank. It seems what happened was that I missed a curve and drove off the road during one of the Jag club's road rallies, and I did so at spectacularly bad time because the entire Midwest was going through a terrible drought that summer.

The non-Estonian non-spy and I thought it was pretty funny until we heard an ominous crackling sound beneath us. A quick glance underneath the car indicated that an overheated catalytic converter set the field on fire, and there was simply no way to drive the car forward or push it out of the ditch in which we were sitting. So, there was nothing to do but watch the car and the field burn; the gas tank explosion was disappointingly anticlimactic as there was just a dull poompf followed by a belching cloud of darker smoke rising from the back end of the car. Frankly, I felt rather cheated.

It took a lot longer than you'd think, too. I'd estimate that around seven or eight minutes of fairly comprehensive burning passed before the gas tank exploded. Ironically, MGB parts were rare enough that the various bits and pieces I managed to salvage from the burned-out hulk allowed me to pay for another MGB with a souped-up engine.

Hello Kiwi

Kiwi starts a cute little blog:

I've been doing this for eight days, and already I can't keep up with all the comments. I need minions like Vox Day has. Or maybe some ilk. Ilk would be nice. Voxie dear, do you have any spare ilk?

I'm not exactly sure why you'd want them. Their house-training is debatable, they'll certainly drink all your liquor and somebody - I can only assume Nate - has a hole in their pocket and is leaving .45 hollow-points scattered all about the place. I just caught the Ridgeback chewing on one, that or she's stocking up for the Great Canine Coup of 2005. Anyhow, I'm sure Chuck has plenty of comments to spare, so if you'd like a few dozen neatly formatted comments on the inevitable and unstoppable Uruguayan invasion of Marco Island, I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.

And if he's too busy, just mention the A-word, the E-word or the CW/WONA, you'll soon have more ilk than you can shake a straw at.

Hello Kiwi is here, should you feel up to flexing your ilkdom. Warning: Cuteness and pinkness abounds.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Mailvox: An Australian whinge

JamieR keeps Nate up to date:

If you didn't know (you most probably did), if Australia beats Uruguay on November 12 in Uruguay, we qualify for the World Cup. We always get the hard route, Oceania doesn't get an automatic qualifier, and that usually means we have to face the South American team that finishes fifth, of all bloody regions! We almost had to play Brazil to qualify in 2002...

And sure, if we win on November 12, there's another game in Sydney 4 days later, but that's in the bag if we win in Montevideo. These are the same pricks that prevented us from qualifying for 2002 - with their home ground tactics of hiring mobs to spit on our players arriving at the airport, abusing them and trying to fight them, and forcing our team to stay holed up in their hotel rooms like prisoners, unable to do anything but sit and wait for the game to start ...and that's when the fans got rough. This time around, we're going to Argentina to train, and get into Uruguay at the last minute and head straight to the ground after that.

Good luck, mate. I wouldn't mind seeing the Ozzies make the mondiale. As for me, I'm just hoping Team USA makes it farther than the Italians again. My calcio-playing friends always enjoy a rousing round of The Star-Spangled Banner being sung in their ear; my Portugeuse teammate introduced me to some very bad new words after the USA scored its third goal against Figo and company last time around.

I'm kind of conflicted about France, though. While Spacebunny and I always pull for England, it's hard to cheer against current and former Arsenal stalwarts such as Henry, Pires, Viera and Wiltord.

Speaking of Arsenal, how about that Dutch kid? The second-coming of Dennis Bergkamp, he is. I thought he had that five-minute hat-trick until the ball went wide.

Why yes, I am in a good mood

I had a chance to meet up again with Umberto Eco last night; I was surprised and more than a little delighted to find that he remembered me. (Spacebunny wryly notes that when you follow someone around for 17 hours, accompanied by a film crew, they only wish they could forget you.) Even better, he said that he had no objections to my using an old essay of his in the anthology I'm currently editing.

It's not a done deal yet because I still have to get permission from the publisher, but the lady with whom I spoke didn't seem to feel that would be a problem. We'll see. I'm not going to start counting any chickens yet.

And yes, it was pretty funny when midway through the conversation, it suddenly hit him that we were speaking Italian.

Spacebunny may mock me for being such a fanboy, but at least I'm not writing derivative fan fiction. That would be Dan Brown.

And they wonder why we don't buy it

The Opinionista is really, truly, very sorry. At least, she'd like you to think so:

I'm a liberal apologizer. The phrase "I'm sorry" rolls regularly down my tongue like wheeled luggage on a ramp. I've been told it's a common female trait, that women are taught to be meek and cave in the face of conflict, suppressing their aggression behind an endless stream of penitential apologies. But in my case the words flow easily because they hold little actual meaning. The implicit "You were right, I was wrong" expressed in the phrase never fails to placate and mollify, so I employ it with aplomb. I can't think of any other word that serves such multi-purposes - appeasing others, dissipating anger and deescalating nearly any situation, so everyone wins. As long as my end result is achieved, I'll gladly apologize my way out of a bind with all guise of contrition.

I remember a girl in college who couldn't figure out why I stopped seeing her after a minor social offense. I think she was an hour late for a date or something equally trivial.

"I said I was sorry," she protested.

And she had, immediately, just as she had on all the previous occasions. Now, I'm not a time fascist, but I harbor an inherent distrust of anyone who will so readily apologize without feeling any sense of contrition or obligation to modify their behavior in the future.

The ability to apologize is tremendously important, but without the force of genuine contrition behind it, an apology is meaningless.

By the way, the Opinionista's blog is quite entertaining. Among other things, it offers ample justification for one's opinion of lawyers as evolutionary precursors to Gromphadorhina portentosa. I couldn't help but notice this bit too:

Because junior associates in competitive law firms embody a peer group of twenty/thirtysomethings dominated by a slavish work ethic and near-maniacal eagerness to please. Be it for our parents, teachers, coaches, admissions officers, professors, interviewers, we are skilled experts in the art of presenting a human blueprint of perfection to anyone in authority. We're the proverbial pack of Pavlovian labradors dying to salivate on cue - all you have to do is ring the dinner bell and we'll obediently come running every time. We'll do anything in our physical power to amuse today's masters. But begin beating us if we fail to drool quickly enough, and we'll crawl into our crates, lick our wounds and eventually snap our jaws at the sight of you striding angrily down the taupe hallway.

That should explain why so many lawyers are jackboot-licking Democrats. Although one of my best friends is an attorney, he's one of the few good guys I've encountered from the profession. Of course, he couldn't stand the law firm nonsense either, so he went corporate and I don't think he's regretted it.

Big Chilly and I once attended a reception at TPAM's law firm when he was still there; the lawyers didn't realize we were corporate clients and not mere lowlife friends because we were both wearing ripped jeans and t-shirts. TPAM nearly had an aneurysm trying not to burst out laughing after the firm's resident jerk offered his hand and introduced himself to me in the most contemptuous possible manner.

I simply shook his hand, smiled beatifically, and said: "I'm not wearing any underwear." Big Chilly howled, TPAM's eyes bulged out as he tried to avoid doing the same and the lawyer jerk just stared with his mouth open, with no clue what to do or say.

I don't have much interest in primate dominance games, but they can be amusing from time to time.

100 things I hate about television

I don't know if I can actually make it to 100, but we'll see.

1. The preponderance of lethal violence.

Television writers who show violence through their portrayals of criminals or mentally unbalanced individuals like to claim that they are simply showing reality. But the actual reality is that in a nation of 300 million people, only 16,137 people were murdered in 2004. This is one in every 18,591 people, which means the average American has a .00538 percent chance of becoming a murder victim.

The televised murder rate, on the other hand, has to be something on the order of one in thirty. With only thirty or so characters on a show, one or two people are usually getting whacked despite the stupendous odds against this. This is only realistic in comparison with portrayals of faster-than-light space travel, alien invasions and straight women's basketball coaches.

And don't give me the excuse that this surfeit of unlikely violence exists only because it's a police show or whatever. The average police officer never once fires his gun in the line of duty over the course of his career. In fact, I would surmise that there are probably more TV criminals killed by TV police in a single season of television than there are real criminals killed by real police over an entire year.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Mailvox: in adjectives we trust

Papapete assaults the language:

Gregg (and Vox to a certain extent) are technically correct. However, if you ask the proverbial "man-on-the-street" you would get a definition much closer to Chuck's than Gregg's. Therefore Gregg and Vox are technically correct in calling Japanese internment camps "concentration camps". If one uses the popular definition, then the internment camps weren't "concentration camps".

Vox, you know what the connotations of "concentration camps" are as well as I do. To use that term in this instance is less than honest.

And if you ask the proverbial "man-on-the-street" he will also tell you that the Founding Fathers established America as a democracy, that the Federal Reserve is a government institution and that the United Nations is an idealistic force for good. This does not make him correct, this simply makes him ignorant. The fact that Chuck, and presumably, Papapete, wish to mutilate the language of a well-defined word simply to whitewash American history does not make me less than honest.

There have been many concentration camps in the 20th century. The 33 camps in which the British imprisoned the Boers from 1899-1902 were, prior to the National Socialist varieties, the most infamous.

From Wikipedia: "Over the course of the twentieth century, the arbitrary internment of civilians by the authority of the state became more common and reached a climax with the practice of genocide in the death camps of the Nazi regime in Germany, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union. As a result of this trend, the term concentration camp carries many of the connotations of extermination camp and is sometimes used synonymously. In technical discussion, however, it is important to understand that a concentration camp is not, by definition, always a Nazi-style death-camp."

The 1/1/2005 Washington Post report on the federal government's plan to establish camps in the United States as part of the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism might seem alarming at first, but fortunately they are described as "detention camps", so those worried about "internment camps", "concentration camps" or "death camps" need not lose any sleep over them.

If you can't put your faith in an adjective, what can you trust?

Mailvox: word games

Cedarford writes:

"Gregg has recently become enamored of the deceitful language of the Left. He knows the word concentration camp is loaded. It is typically used only in context of Nazis these days."

Yes, that's why it wasn't used to describe the, um, non-concentration camps in Bosnia, right? And why it won't be used again as soon as the French start rounding up Muslims.

The only attempted linguistic manipulation going on here is Cedarford's. Everyone here knows perfectly well that the Japanese-Americans weren't put into ovens.

The larger point, which those who wish to whitewash American history are studiously avoiding, is that a government with the power to dispossess you and round you up without trial is a government with the power to pop you into a Zyklon B shower if it so chooses.

The fact that the American government was less ill-intentioned than the National Socialist government is true, but that is damnation by praise so faint it can barely be detected by microscope.

Eyes opened too late

From the UK Telegraph:

"The feared 'Iron Lady'... played an unfriendly, indeed a dangerous role," in the debate over reunification, he argues in Helmut Kohl, Memories 1982 to 1990.

The book, Mr Kohl has hinted, is his revenge on Lady Thatcher for her snubbing him in her own memoirs as a "provincial politician". His fury and puzzlement at his British opposite number fill large chunks of its chapter on reunification, suggesting that he is still smarting at his treatment at her hands.

He recalls her losing her temper at a dinner hosted by the then French president François Mitterrand nine days after the Berlin Wall was breached in 1989.

German reunification should go ahead because Nato was in favour of it, Mr Kohl argued. "Over dessert the British prime minister started heavily laying into me... I remained calm... with the thought that even Margaret Thatcher cannot prevent the German people from following their destiny," he writes.

"Incensed with rage, Thatcher stamped her feet and screamed: 'That's how you see it, how you see it!'."

On another occasion soon afterwards she threatened to veto reunification and implied that Britain had to stand up to Germany as it had during two world wars. "We've beaten the Germans twice and now they're back!" she reportedly said.

The English did not consider European unification to be a good thing under Philip II, Napoleon or Hitler. It is truly a pity that Lady Thatcher did not see the stealthy machinations involved in constructing this latest revival of monstrosity.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

A note from Farmer Tom

My wife and I would like to thank all of you who have prayed for us and for the family. We have been so encouraged by those who told us they were praying for us. We have also felt that Peace that only the Holy Spirit brings to those that know that "Our Faith is Not in Vain". Thank You Again.

Steve Logemann was born in 1960 and lived all his life near the town of Ledyard, Iowa. He loved the farm and went to two years of Community College in an Ag Studies Program after his graduation from the local high school. He also loved working with computers and was constantly updating his system, trouble shooting other peoples systems for them and talking about the latest programs, software and hardware. He tied his love of farming with the love of computers by doing all the record keeping of his operation on the computers, eventually leading to mapping systems using GPS to study soil types, seed varities, and yields of the crops he grew. His skill with computers was good enough that he was hired by a local computer business to assemble, service and sell computers when he wasn't farming.

Steve was very involved in the activities of Raccon River Bible Camp, a independent fundamental Bible camp near Scranton, IA. From the time he was a young boy he was there every summer, learning God's Word, fellowshiping with other believers and growing in his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He was nominated to the camp board and served as a board member for more than 15 years. Steve met his wife at camp as well and she served as the camp treasuer with her husband.
They were blessed with four children, and they have already mentioned times as camp with Steve as some of the memories they will always treasure. Steve was also very active in his church, was a deacon, a Sunday school teacher, and usher.

Steve was killed in an accident during harvest, somehow he was run over by the combine while his father was unloading corn into a wagon.

Several have asked about contributing to the family. Steve's wife told me, that memorials should be sent in his name to

Raccoon River Bible Camp
875 B. Avenue
Scranton, IA 51462

The Coconut War: comparative forces

PHILIPPINES
US Army troops: 19,147
US land-based aircraft: 231
US carrier-based aircraft available: 0
Japanese time estimate: 50 days
Japanese force estimate: Two divisions
Actual time required: five months
Actual force required: Three divisions in two rounds of transport

WAKE ISLAND
USMC and USN troops: 517
US land-based aircraft: 12
Japanese force required: 1,950 Imperial Marines
Actual time required 15 days

HAWAII
US Army troops: 43,000. 24th, 25th and 299th Divisions
US land-based aircraft: 223 (159 survived Pearl Harbor attack, 77 undamaged.)
US carrier-based aircraft available: 332 immediately, plus another 240 within two weeks.

"The Island of Oahu", due to its fortification, its garrison, and its physical characteristics, is believed to be the strongest fortress in the world."

So, if the Wake Island garrison with only four planes that survived the initial bombardment could hold off a larger amphibious invasion force for 15 days, what are the chances that three fortified divisions with 409 planes could hold off the two divisions the Japanese were capable of transporting for the two weeks required to allow the East Coast carriers, plus the former CV-1 Langley, to converge on Hawaii and sink the entire strike force, carriers and all, even without the help of the 7th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 9th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 11th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), and 22nd Bombardment Squadron (Heavy) flying in from Hamilton Field in San Rafael, California.

Furthermore, the 7th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 35th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), 22d Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 38th Reconnaissance Squadron (Heavy), and 88th Reconnaissance Squadron (Heavy) which were enroute to the Philippines would also have been available.

Even if the Japanese abandoned both the Burma and the Philippine invasions in favor of a futile attempt on Hawaii, they still could only have transported three divisions; their maximum aircraft transport capability remained at 717 planes, 441 of which were already devoted to the historical Pearl Harbor attack, in which Japan lost 29 planes and 111 were damaged, 20 beyond repair.

Mailvox: the wing chun of love


I've seen plenty of hints about the wild and generally ungodly youth of men such as Vox and Bane. Both of these men now have very good wives, to hear their husbands tell it. I'm curious as to whether or not their wives met and married them during their wild and ungodly phases, or if G-d had already begun to work changes in their lives when He introduced their future wives into their lives.

I can't speak for the hulking shadow that is Bane, but although Spacebunny and I determined that we were once at the same fraternity party at the University of Minnesota years before we met, we did not meet until after I became a Christian. I had no intention of entering into a serious relationship, much less getting married, at the time but I found my perspective altering insensibly, much to my bewilderment.

The secret to defeating a hardened fighter is to refuse to fight. The secret to winning a rebel's heart is to refuse to try controlling him.

And when we are fortunate, God gives us the eyes to see another individual, not as they are, but as they can be.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

And about those six divisions

If you're not Chuck or are not interested in WWII, don't read this:

The Southern Army was established on November 6, 1941 to control all IJA units assigned to the Southern Operations. The command was headquartered in Siagon, Friench Indochina under Gen. Count Terauchi Hisaichi. The plan was certainly ambitious. The seizure of all of Southeast Asia, the NEI, the Philippines, and regions of the South Pacific would be accomplished by only 11 infantry divisions, four brigade-sized forces, and 700 IJA aircraft - 400,000 troops total. This area stretched across five time zones and was larger than the Continential United States. Japan was counting on surprise, and the relatively unprepared and weak forces fielded by the colonial powers. Its own resources would be stretched to the limit with transport shipping pulling double duty to move troops. Almost half of the IJA's 1,500 combat aircraft would be required....

In December, 1941, Japan possessed 51 divisions supplimented by 59 brigade equivalents, but many of these were non-deployable being garrison and line-of-communications security forces in China. 28 divisions were in China with most engaged in combat or occupation duty. Another 13 were in Manchuria and Korea to protect the Empire’s northern frontier with the USSR. Two of the five divisions remaining in the Home Islands were newly raised and partly trained. The exceptions were the 2d committed to the Southern Operations, the 4th as the IGHQ Reserve and the 7th tied down protecting northern Japan from the USSR.

In other words, there were not six divisions, but five theoretically available for the hypothetical invasion of Hawaii or the West Coast. Two hadn't finished their training. One was required for defense against the USSR, (which they'd been planning to attack until August, 1941), and the 4th was required as a reserve for the 14th Army invading the Phillipines.

"The 14th Army was designated the Phillippines Attack Force consisting of the 48th Division, 16th Division, 5th Air Group (20 air battalions) and the 4th Division (committed later). The operation was scheduled to take 50 days."

Since the Japanese knew it would require 50 days to take the Phillipines, 5516 miles from the West Coast and very difficult to reinforce, they would have to have been completely insane to attempt an invasion that would almost precisely reverse the logistical advantage in the USA's favor. As it turned out, it took them longer than scheduled and they were forced to throw in their reserve division.

There is no way that the Japanese would have been crazy enough to send one solitary division to attempt to take and hold Hawaii. The ease and patience with which American forces went about retaking the Aleutian Islands from the Japanese demonstrates how such an invasion would have been suicidal. The only probable effect on the course of the war would have been to hasten its end.

For details on exactly what units were where in December, 1941, I recommend Osprey Battle Orders #9, which contains copious unit descriptions as well as maps graphically depicting deployments. The deployment of the Japanese Southern Army shown below make it very clear why the US high command was so much more concerned with defending Port Moresby and Australia than Honolulu and Los Angeles.

The Japanese Army in WWII: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-1942, page 11. Osprey Publishing, 2005
Dec 1941 deployment

Note for Chuck: the map shows the Southern Army only. Most of the units you are talking about were in the General Defense Command, distributed as follows:
Eastern District Army: 52d Division, 2d, 3d, 51st and 57 Depot divisions
Central District Army: 53d, 54th Divisions, 4th, 5th and 55th Depot divisions
Western District Army: 6th, 56th Depot divisions
Northern District Army: 7th Division, Karafuto Mixed Brigade

My understanding is that most of the divisions VG includes in the game were not combat-ready divisions, hence the designation Depot Division. But the bigger problem you face is that you have to account for the USA's ability to reinforce Hawaii once the attack begins. First you have to find your transport and give up the Philippine invasion, then note that your transport capability only allows for two full divisions. For your air, you get the Pearl Harbor force plus two fighter, two light bomber and one heavy bomber regiment.

Remember, the entire Atlantic carrier fleet can be in Hawaii from Norfolk in only 15 days. On December 7, 1941, Wasp, Long Island, Hornet, Ranger and Charger were all available, to say nothing of the land-based aircraft on the West Coast.

The civilized riposte to that damnable Deutschman

I adore P.G. Wodehouse, unabashedly, with much the same vehemence that Umberto Eco reserves for George Schultz and with the same willingness to commit acts of unspeakable violence upon any half-witted fool so despicable as to disagree. The Fraters Libertas, who despite a most convincing disguise to the contrary are truly gentlemen of no small taste and refinement, do us the favor of pointing us to this interesting article on the great English writer.

And write he did, making so much money—from his books, scripts for Hollywood and Broadway, and articles in magazines such as Vanity Fair—that the American tax authorities and the British Inland Revenue united in one of their first joint projects, a trans-Atlantic cooperative effort to dig as much as possible out of Wodehouse’s international royalties. That may have been what finally drove him abroad in 1934, when he and Ethel settled in France.

In retrospect, this proved not to be the ideal time for such a move. Five years later, Hitler’s blitzkrieg swept through the area, picking up the British Wodehouse along the way—or, as he explained, “Young men, starting out in life, have often asked me, ‘How can I become an internee?’ Well, there are several methods. My own was to buy a villa in Le Touquet on the coast of France and stay there until the Germans came along. This is probably the best and simplest system. You buy the villa and the Germans do the rest.”


If you can read that last bit and it doesn't make the edges of your mouth twitch, I have to seriously question your claim on the human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Mailvox: the Marxist libertarian

DH takes some exception:

Vox, with this article you remind me of one of the Marx Brothers. Karl, that is. How in the world can you advocate something to increase the already massive tax load on the childless and not mention cutting some of the lard off the gargantuan federal beast, without throwing some of the child bearing welfare sponges off the pork wagon and onto the work place like the rest of us ? Although you identify yourself as a Libertarian,just as liberals are prone to do, I notice that you do not state how high you are willing to raise marginal rates on us childless vermin. 60? 70? 80? 110? At what levels of income ? 30,000 ? 20,000 ? 10,000 ? Have you ever analyzed what the childless pay into keeping up Social Security, Medicare, and the welfare system as opposed to what we take out ? If you have, I do not know how you can claim that we are not helping to perpetuate the bloated federal sow. If you are ever going to take part in a forum with those of us who oppose you, please e-mail me because I want to listen or be part of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals expect me to directly address all possible ramifications and tangentially related matters in a single 750-word column. And it never ceases to annoy me how these same individuals will, at the same time, completely ignore everything I have ever written before as well as my general political philosophy in indignantly leaping to point out a seeming, but nonexistent contradiction.

There is probably not a single regular here who is under the impression that I favor Social Security, Medicare or the welfare system. Indeed, I have no doubt that even my most vehement critics are well aware that I oppose such things. DH here displays an all-too-typical conflation of tactics and strategy, of specific policy and general philosophy, which I often see exhibited by godless, left-wing evolutionary dead-ends and God-fearing, freedom-loving Constitutional conservatives alike. He should know better.

The point of Monday's column was not to provide a complete restructuring for the entire federal system of revenues and expenditures from a libertarian perspective, it was to consider ways that governments which already engage in social engineering might do so in a more effective and freedom-enhancing manner. Does DH think he will receive anything from Social Security if the following generations are too few in number to support it? Does he think that in the current American tax model, his taxes will be higher, or lower, if there are significantly fewer taxpayers to shoulder the load with him?

I agree that all parties, childless and parents, are wrongly forced to perpetuate an unjust system. But that is not the matter under discussion here. From a current utilitarian perspective - as opposed to a theoretical libertarian one - the childless have little to contribute except their taxes. Therefore, if society is to perpetuate itself, it should come as no surprise that the financial contributions of the childless will have to be higher, as they contribute less in other ways.

In any case, if one finds the ability of Western society to perpetuate itself to be of no interest or concern, one might as well move to China or Saudi Arabia and get a head start on acculturating oneself to the probable future.

UPDATE: DH considers my response:

Vox, I want to thank you for your graciousness in posting my e-mail to you. First, to put you at ease, I am well aware and appreciate your long term efforts to educate Americans on the unnecessary high taxes we all pay as the result of the government being involved in areas that it should not be. The panic in my e-mail was because I thought that as a result of the Vikings meltdown or some medication that you were taking, that you had suddenly lost it and were drifting over to the other side.While you and I might not agree on the best and most immediate solution to the problem you outlined, your reasoned response lowered my blood pressure to non stroke levels and re-affirmed to me that the real Vox was still there.Also, I enjoyed the posts from your thoughtful readers.

Don't get me wrong. I may still melt down over Daunte. I like Brad, I have confidence in Brad, I still think that Denny was a cretin for keeping Randall over Brad, but Brad is not Daunte. At this point, I'm still deeply in the denial stage, although it's not as if the season wasn't sunk as deeply as... well, let's just say that one could whip out some unfortunate similes involving Lake Minnetonka.

Okay, what were we talking about?

Mailvox: the spankings, the spankings!

Melissa bends over and wiggles her bottom, metaphorically speaking:

It's not that yon chest-beating troglodytes are rejecting the smart women, dearies. It's that none of us has any interest in having sex with you. We don't care whether you're looking for a woman who won't challenge you, because we're busy trying to find men who are smart, motivated, and sexy enough to keep up with us. And frankly, y'all just don't rate.

Oh, really? And yet, it's not the smart men who are complaining that they can't get dates, haven't gotten laid in years and are writing seven-part series in the New York Times about how they've all but given up on the notion that anyone wants to marry them. This statement is nothing but an echo of the classic Sisterhood dogma meant to provide solace for the rejected career woman.

The truth is that except for the golddigger and the desperate-for-attention, there is no one easier for an alpha male to nail on the first meeting than a self-professed smart, strong, independent woman. Her posturing, which is often done in the same dismissive tone that Melissa thoughtfully provides for us here, is primarily a contrarian invitation to conquer her. She snarls, bites and claws, always in the hope that the man is both capable of making her submit to him and interested in doing so. This is why women always focus on the challenge they offer; they are aroused by superior men capable of meeting that.

The man who understands this never lacks for women, of all levels of intelligence. Sex in the City once offered a good example of this, when Miranda complains how she is helplessly excited by an arrogant man she can't otherwise stand. There is, after all, a reason that adult women are so much more fond of Gor novels than those telling tales of Cimmeria.

Alpha or otherwise, however, the wise man will avoid such challenging women in the interest of pursuing a harmonious relationship not subject to inherent stress and conflict. We are not all born wise, however, and some of us only come to wisdom after first experiencing a sufficient amount of foolishness.

Monday, October 31, 2005

A fool's game

From Drudge:

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee sent out talking points this morning titled: “Judge ‘Scalito’ Has Long History Of States Rights, Anti-Civil Rights, And Anti-Immigrant Rulings.” More from the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers: “Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”

One outraged Republican strategist claimed, “If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington’s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.”

What, we're supposed to expect consistency from a maleducated gang of moral relativists who subjectively redefine good and evil according to their momentary whims? Given my own use of colorful ethnic appellations, I'd have to be given to a similar hypocrisy if I were to object to the characterization of President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee.

Scalito actually appears to be very fitting nickname, and Republicans will fortunate indeed if it proves to be an accurate one. I have my doubts, to be sure, but this sort of rote outrage only bores me. I mean, they're Democrats, what do you expect them to do? If they were capable of intellectual consistency and had a handle on basic logic, they wouldn't be Democrats in the first place.

Never bet on the NFL

It is not overstating the case to assert that I am a respectable prophet of NFL results. At 76-39, my record this year is better than any of Yahoo's four so-called experts, and even surpasses what TMQ describes as the Wisdom of the Crowds at 74-41. I feel quite confident that tonight will see a Steeler's victory and provide me with a 12-2 record for the second time in three weeks.

That being said, I somehow managed to lose two of the three games of which I felt most certain this weekend. Tampa was upset by San Francisco and St. Louis beat Jacksonville despite being on the road and missing their head coach, starting quarterback and their top two wide receivers.

Never bet on the NFL. Never.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Discuss amongst yourselves

The feminist's dilemma

Maureen Dowd finally admits to herself that men truly do prefer Pamela Anderson to Harriet Miers:

He had hit on a primal fear of single successful women: that the aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men. It took women a few decades to realize that everything they were doing to advance themselves in the boardroom could be sabotaging their chances in the bedroom, that evolution was lagging behind equality....

Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.

Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children," a book published in 2002, conducted a survey and found that 55 percent of 35-year-old career women were childless. And among corporate executives who earn $100,000 or more, she said, 49 percent of the women did not have children, compared with only 19 percent of the men.

Hewlett quantified, yet again, that men have an unfair advantage. "Nowadays," she said, "the rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true."

A 2005 report by researchers at four British universities indicated that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to marry, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

I find it rather amusing that when I point out exactly the same phenomenon as Miss Dowd, so many women leap on their high horses. But sometimes one can't hear the message for the messenger. One must commend Ms Dowd for being so brutally open about what is clearly a major societal disappointment for her and overlook the vaguely aggrieved tone that leaves one with the impression that she thinks this has somehow got to be men's fault for not wanting what some women think they should want. After all, what is unfair about experiencing the logical consequences of your choices?

I quite like intelligent women. I've dated them and I married one. But there's no question that they are more difficult, more complex and generally less happy in life than the dumb ones. I speak from experience; the girl I dated throughout high school and college scored in the sixth percentile on her SAT and she remains to this day one of the best and nicest people I have ever known. Girls may be made of sugar and spice, but there's no question that men prefer sugar.

Perhaps the biggest mistake that women make is thinking that men want to be challenged in their relationships. But life is full of challenges, some of which men embrace with enthusiasm, some of which we take on only if we must. An ability to pose a challenge is not on the normal man's list of desirable attributes, far more preferable is someone you know is on your team, someone you trust to get your back when your friends aren't around to do it.

Space Bunny is not my equal and I am not hers. We compliment each other, we are not interchangeable.

NFL Week 8

Last week: 9-5. Season: 65-37, .637. Fantasy 5-2.

L-Tampa Bay Buccaneers over San Francisco 49ers
Pittsburgh Steelers over Baltimore Ravens
L-Jacksonville Jaguars over St. Louis Rams
W-Cincinnati Bengals over Green Bay Packers
W-Dallas Cowboys over Arizona Cardinals
W-Carolina Panthers over Minnesota Vikings
W-Oakland Raiders over Tennessee Titans
New England Patriots over Buffalo Bills
W-San Diego Chargers over Kansas City Chiefs
W-Chicago Bears over Detroit Lions
W-New York Giants over Washington Redskins
W-Houston Texans over Cleveland Browns
W-Miami Dolphins over New Orleans Saints
W-Denver Broncos over Philadelphia Eagles

The big question this week was starting Dominick Davis or one of Pittsburgh's dynamic duo. Since I've started precisely the wrong Steeler the last three weeks in a row - twice it didn't matter, but it cost me the game against the league-leading Wallabies when Fast Willie failed to score a single point - I'm going with Mr. Davis going against the Brownies.

Dallas is my big concern. Mr. Bledsoe and Mr. Glenn have me off to a solid start despite my usual horrendous early drafting, but they performed poorly last week. Arizona should be the cure, but with Atlanta on the bye week I had to pick up the Dallas DEF as well, so one bad game in Texas could sink me.

It's too bad it's not a playoff game. In that case, I'd be completely confident with Denny Green on the other sideline.

Mailvox: Since you missed it the first time

Chuck demands to know where the carriers were:

There were, on 7 December, only three [carriers] in the Pacific. USS Enterprise, USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3). While USS Ranger (CV-4), USS Wasp (CV-7), and the recently commissioned USS Hornet (CV-8) remained in the Atlantic, Yorktown departed Norfolk on 16 December 1941 and sailed for the Pacific, her secondary gun galleries studded with new 20-millimeter Oerlikon machine guns. She reached San Diego, Calif., on 30 December 1941 and soon became flagship for Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher's newly formed Task Force (TF) 17. The carrier's first mission in her new theater was to escort a convoy carrying Marine reinforcements to American Samoa. Departing San Diego on 6 January 1942, Yorktown and her consorts covered the movement of marines to Tutuila and Pago Pago to augment the garrison already there.

Having safely covered that troop movement, Yorktown , in company with sistership Enterprise, departed Samoan waters on 25 January. Six days later, TF 8 built around Enterprise, and TF 17, built around Yorktown , parted company. The former headed for the Marshall Islands, the latter for the Gilberts — each bound to take part in the first American offensive of the war, the Marshalls-Gilberts raids.

I note that I have already posted this information before.

Internment Order: February 19, 1942

Total carriers in the Atlantic: Nine - Wasp, Hornet, Ranger, Long Island, Charger, Archer, Biter, Avenger, Dasher.

Total carriers in the Pacific: Four - Yorktown, Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga.

Total carriers assigned to protect the West Coast and Hawaii: Zero.

Clearly the admirals were terrified of invasion.... of New York. Please remember that Michelle Malkin is on record as asserting that there were ZERO carriers in the Atlantic at this time. The Japanese invasion theory is silly and betrays a remarkable ignorance of military history.

Mailvox: affirmative action for the incompetent

DH faces a dilemma:

I don't have a college degree, and yet I am responsible for narrowing and selecting a pool of programmers when my company needs a new programmer (I'm the Senior Programmer). I used to have a programming in three parts test which asked applicants to write pseudo code to solve common problems. After receiving an application or resume I e-mail the first part of the test, and if they do well, they get another part with more difficult questions. After that an applicant would be granted an interview and be asked to do the third part of the test verbally and on a whiteboard.

Word came down from "upper management" that my interviwing procedures were unfair, and so, HR has implemented a standard hiring procedure that grades people "fairly" on 15 criteria. My programming test was eliminated.

Needless to say "my" last 4 hires have been CS degree packing incompetents who actually make more work for me. So I decided last year to simply not fill open positions. Half my department is empty now - 3 out of 6 slots - and I need to fill in the gap before the new year.

Any tips on how to weed out the losers knowing that 100% of them will have college degrees?

You need to attack this problem in two ways. First, I assume that you have documented the incompetence of the people that HR has forced you to hire. You need to find an internal champion at the executive level and use that information to lay your case against HR with him. Remember, many executives are competent and intelligent individuals whose access to accurate information is extremely limited by the managers immediately below them. They often make terrible decisions because their data is bad, not because they are stupid, malicious or solely focused on their personal gain. If you can find an executive who actually cares about corporate performance, you may well have found someone who will cheerfully take a chainsaw to that HR department. Many execs don't think a whole lot of HR and see them as barely competent necessary evils anyhow.

Second, you should refine your interview questions to weed out the tools. Remember that a college degree isn't necessarily an indication of incompetence, it just isn't necessarily an indication of competence either. When I had to weed the tools out, I would ask an interviewee what their favorite game was. If they told me "Doom" or any other obvious game, I immediately asked them why it was their favorite and ask detailed questions about obscure things on difficult levels, the sort of thing that any aficionado could easily answer off the top of his head, but would catch a tool off guard.

Ask what industry magazines they subscribe to, or better yet, what web sites and mailing lists they follow regularly. Ask them seemingly innocuous questions about their familiarity with Linux and smartphone hacks, and other things of the sort that every college programmer worth his salt finds irresistable. A veteran programmer like you should be able to size up a genuine hacker from a classroom pretender without having to see them code; the trick is to trust your instincts.

Third, take the time to build up a pool of potential applicants that you'd like to hire even when you're not hiring. When you have an opening, there should be a few people you can call right away to see if they are available or might be interested in changing jobs.

Finally, if you get it wrong, don't hesitate to get rid of the zeros immediately. If HR demands to know why, you simply tell them that the zero couldn't do his job and you have important deadlines to meet that don't permit the carrying of dead weight. Ask them if they want to explain to upper management why project X isn't getting done on time. Remember, they are usually cowards and busybodies who are used to being unaccountable for anything important, so directing a little pressure in their direction will tend to go a long way.

It can be so tempting to just let things go and look the other way when you've got an underperformer, but that is the hallmark of the weak and ultimately unsuccessful manager, even if it could work to your advantage in the short run. If you are careful to always pick office battles where you have the overwhelming advantage of the facts being on your side, sooner or later, the political types in other departments will learn to leave you alone and let you do your job. If you consistently ratchet up the pain each time they stick their nose in inappropriately, they'll eventually knock it off.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

I thought Hispanics were white

The AP reports on some record-setting women:

There were 1,470,152 babies born to single women in 2004, 35.7 percent of all births in the country, NCHS said. That was up from 1,415,995 a year earlier.... Births to whites declined by nearly 18,000 while Hispanics were up 32,000, there was an increase of more than 8,000 in births to Asians and a rise of just 72 births among black women.

It's so hard to keep up on who the government has decided is what these days. But since we've apparently decided there is no such thing as race and that all cultures everywhere are equal, it seems strange that we need to bother doing this sort of record-keeping. If people truly believe that race is irrelevant or even nonexistent, then why does the government - which nominally opposes racism - keep such copious records of it? Why should there even be any checkboxes in the first place?

Anyhow, I don't see any cause for concern here. I'm sure those few Latin Americans who don't hail from countries with a strong republican tradition of limited democracy and Constitutional government will readily adopt the cultural traditions of white males of European descent dead for two centuries. Especially since Americans of all colors are so highly respectful of the cultural traditions belonging to living white males of European descent.

Mailvox: as if I know

MB ha dubbi:

Berlusconi: «Ho tentato di convincere Bush. Con Gheddafi cercate altre vie»

ROMA - «Io non sono mai stato convinto che la guerra fosse il sistema migliore per arrivare a rendere democratico un paese e a farlo uscire da una dittatura anche sanguinosa. Io ho tentato a più riprese di convincere il presidente americano a non fare la guerra». Lo ha affermato il presidente del Consiglio Silvio Berlusconi nel corso di una lunga intervista esclusiva (la prima dopo sei mesi) realizzata da Rula Jebreal per La7 e che sarà trasmessa nel corso di «Omnibus» lunedì 31 ottobre a partire dalle 7.45. «Ho tentato di trovare altre vie e altre soluzioni - dice il premier - anche attraverso un'attività congiunta con il leader africano Gheddafi. Non ci siamo riusciti e c'è stata l'operazione militare». «Io ritenevo - prosegue Berlusconi - che si sarebbe dovuta evitare un'azione militare».

VD, Lacrime di cocodrillo, No?

Forse. Ma deve ricordare che Gheddafi non ha fatto niente per quasi venti anni, e gli italiani hanno tanti legamenti economici con Libia. Per esempio, il figlio di Gheddafi e' un propietario di Juve e Tamoil ha piu di due centi stazioni servizi in Italia. Berlusconi e' nel boca del lupo perche lui vuole sostenere la programma americana ma il suo popolo non supportono questa guerra.

Secondo me, Berlusconi non ha mai avuto tanto interesse in Irache; si e' collegato al'invasione sotto pressione statiunitense e dal suo desidero per segnare punti col presidente. Adesso, tre anni fa, perche l'occupazione non sta andando bene, lui deve apparire che ha un disegno per rimmuovere subito i soldati italiani.

Qualche volta, anzi un cocodrillo si puo trovarsi in difficolta'.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Armageddon

I'm looking for someone with military experience, preferably at the battalion level or above, to write an essay on the most effective way for the Antichrist to wage war against Israel using modern military technology. Pandagonians and Atriocities, please note that this is not a confession that I am the Antichrist and I am not intending to invade Israel, it's simply the subject of an article I'd like to include in an anthology I am editing.

If you don't fit the bill but know someone who might, please let me know.

College is worthless

From The Wall Street Journal:

William Strauss and Neil Howe have recently argued in the Chronicle of Higher Education that with tuition and the resulting debt reaching surreal levels, and colleges and universities failing to reverse the post-1960s collapse of academic standards, parents and students are increasingly skeptical about the value of a college education.

Parents born after 1961, Messrs. Strauss and Howe have found, experienced that collapse of standards in their own college educations and are determined not to tolerate another overpriced and underperforming disappointment for their own children. This is the generation that "propelled school choice, vouchers, charter schools, home-schooling and the standards-and-accountability movement." These parents will be more likely to treat higher education as a market, in which smart buyers exercise discretion.

If you're going to blow $100k, you'd do better to buy your 18 year-old a Ferrari and let him drive that to his next job interview. Chances are, he'll get a better job armed with an automotive marker of success than with a degree.

What the upset little college kiddies, whose angry missives show up here from time to time, don't understand is that their vaunted educations don't mean a damn thing anymore. So, you've got a 3.8 General Prize for Attendance, so what? I have spoken with individuals holding economics majors from major universities who have never heard of John Maynard Keynes, I have spoken with political science majors who have never read Plato's Republic or Marx's Communist Manifesto, much less Cato, Aristotle or the Federalist Papers. English majors who can neither read nor write effectively are as ubiquitous as Philosophy majors incapable of rational thought and foreign language majors who can't actually speak the language they have supposedly mastered.

An art director at a major game studio once complimented the art in our game and asked me how such a small development house had managed to acquire such a strong art team. Our answer was pretty simple. We gave the prospective artist a piece of paper, a pencil and told him to draw something. If he could do it well, we hired him. Most of the time, they couldn't and we didn't. I seldom bothered to look at resumes, much less diplomas or transcripts.

Colleges these days produce pieces of paper, not educated individuals. Unless you wish to work for a government or in a government-regulated profession - medicine, the law, hair-dressing - there is no longer any point to wasting four to seven years in a university system, and going into debt to do so.

Learning and education are tremendously important, but they have increasingly little to do with paying money to an "academic institution" for a piece of paper falsely claiming you know something that you demonstrably do not.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

The nightmare scenario

ESPN's Daily Quickie on Sheryl Swoopes:

I'm all for finding true love, but I'm wary of the slippery slope of relationships between coaches and players; part of the Swoopes' story is that her partner, Alisa Scott, is a former assistant coach with the Comets, the team Swoopes has played for since '97

One of the most important underreported stories in sports is the damage that happens in otherwise unethical relationships between college coaches (women OR men) and players.

I can't imagine giving up on the NFL, but I might have to consider it if Bill Parcells ever comes out of the closet and announces that he is in love with Julius Jones. (I was going to write Keyshawn Johnson, at first, but then I realized how absurd that sounded. As if Keyshawn has room for anyone in his life but Keyshawn.)

UPDATE: And while we're on the subject of football, I can't help but concur with SI's The Rant. Michael Vick will never win a Super Bowl. He won't even win an NFC Championship game. He'll keep the Falcons in the postseason for years to come, he'll keep fans entertained and he'll give game commentators and football talking heads plenty of chances to wax poetic about his abilities. But Vick can only take the Falcons so far before coming up short, and the reason he'll fail is simple: He is a terrible passing quarterback.

I'm not so sure about that postseason thing, but I will be truly stunned if Michael Vick ever ends up with a Super Bowl ring. He's a HORRIBLE quarterback. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but he's actually worse than Kordell Stewart, aka Slash, aka Mr. INT.

Ahem

Joseph Farah reminds the world:

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST! OCT. 13
WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
Guaranteed: Miers to withdraw

Now granted, that's probably true for most WND readers. But not all of them.

As for Creepy McCrypto herself, allow me to make a prediction. Her nomination will not even make it to the floor of the U.S. Senate.
posted by Vox @ 10/11/2005 05:37:00 PM


And yes, I still believe Hillary Rodham will be the USA's next elected president. I am not entirely sure she will be the next president, however.

Of barrels, fish and shotguns

John Derbyshire blows away Creepy McCrypto:

Piling on is a thing I hate to do, and Ms. Miers is obviously a pleasant, useful, hard-working & harmless person who's been put in an impossible position by GWB's blundering. But reading her thoughts, messages & speeches is dismaying. I mean, the sheer, dreary, numbing m--e--d--i--o--c--r--i--t--y of them.

This is a person who never had an original or interesting thought in her life. Reading Miers is like suffocating under a mountain of polystyrene packing blobbles. What on earth does it say about the President that, knowing as he must have how completely and irredeemably second-rate she is, he would put her name forward?

The world, certainly in places like the Supreme Court, is a never-ending war of ideas. To ask which side of this war Ms. Miers would fight on is pointless. She doesn't know the war is under way; and if she knew, she'd probably think it could easily be brought to an end if we'd all just be nicer to each other.

This is a terrible, awful blunder by George W. Bush.

The latest in a long and distinguished line. I know second terms are traditionally disasters, but Dear Leader's is really turning out to be a humdinger. At this rate, I'll be surprised if he makes it to 2008 without stepping down.

It's like watching the second coming of Richard Nixon.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Mailvox: three fundamentally flawed arguments

Cedarford plays the weak sister's advocate:

1. Marxist labor theory - VDs point is only true if you look at classic Marxism and believe no thinking on the subject has occured in the last 125 years. For we all know that CEOs will rip off the value of worker productivity as much as possible and seek to devalue labor as much as possible by use of illegal labor and wiping out debts owed to labor through planned bankruptcies. In Latin America, today, we are seeing the collapse of Crony Capitalism after it's failure there - and it's replacement by socialist, even quasi-marxist governments.

From whence comes value? If value does not come from labor, (as is increasingly obvious to all and admitted by most economists), then on what grounds does the Marxian -note the term, it reflects an awareness of post-Marxist thought- defend forced distribution? Turning more central power over to a state already demonstrably willing to engage in crony capitalism is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

2. VD kills me with his insistence that "because the outcome of the war was certain" internment or relocation was wrong because the dependents of enemy nationals lost a few "precious rights". If nothing had been done, and several troop ships had been torpedo'd with the help of disloyal Japs here, thousands of dead soldiers washing ashore on the California coast - there would have been a bloodbath of Japs and their little born in the USA de-facto citizens. Led by Chinese and Koreans. As for their "precious rights" - 9 million Americans had their "precious freedoms" stripped away completely by the Draft. The whole country sacrificed and jobs were assigned by War Production Boards. War sucks, VD, fact of life.

What does this have to do with the military necessity, or the question of invasion raised by Malkin and revived here by Chuck and others? The Japanese military leaders didn't plan an invasion of Hawaii because they knew it was impossible. The American military leaders didn't plan for an invasion of Hawaii by the Japanese because they knew it was impossible. They not only planned for an invasion of the Phillipines, they planned for its fall in War Plan Orange.

They did, however, plan for the invasion of both Hawaii and the West Coast by the only power in the world capable of doing so. War Plan Red was the plan prepared in the event of an attack on the United States by England.

The baseless arrogance of clueless cretins who think they know more than the highest-ranking military leaders of both the past - on both sides - and present, despite knowing absolutely nothing about depth and scope of the historical military preparations astonishes me.

Since the glaringly obvious point seems to have somehow escaped these strategic geniuses, let me underline it for them. Even we ignore for the moment that the logistics were impossible, even if we lay aside the small fact that the entire Japanese carrier force couldn't provide one-tenth of the air power required, even if we it pretend that the Japanese troop transport capability was so small that the Aleutian islands invasion required a substantial part of it, it would never, ever have happened, even if the Japanese had been the buck-toothed morons they were then portrayed as being.

Japan is going to invade America WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY OCCUPYING CHINA? Are you insane? 1.4 million Japanese soldiers - 67 percent of its total military strength - were fighting in China. They only had another 700,000 total to defend the home islands and the entire Pacific theatre. Furthermore, it took the Japanese THREE WEEKS just to complete their main landings on the Phillipines, and five months to successfully conclude their conquest.

3. Alterman is mostly wrong, but corporate ownership has meant the drive for profit has more and more supplanted serious news with tabloid fluff. 30% of cable "news" is hard news, 70% is now "cases" presented by infotainment lawyers about the latest pretty missing white girl.

Yes, I agree. However, this says nothing about the media's bias with regards to the political spectrum, as Alterman would have it.

Mailvox: explaining the mistakes

Concerned wants a walkthrough:

The problem is that the only time when catching someone in a mistake can possibly be conclusive is when that mistake concerns the central foundation of an argument - Marx's labor theory of value, Malkin's assertion of West Coast vulnerability, Alterman's conflation of corporation and capitalism, etc. - otherwise, a simple admission of error and a corresponding correction of one's argument will suffice to allow the debate to continue.

Explain the mistakes, please. Honestly, I'm interested.

1. The Marxian justification for distribution depends completely upon the notion of profit being "expropriated" from the workers. This stealing from workers by capitalists is supposed to stem from the capitalist's profit, which Marx identifies as surplus value. Marx believed that the inherent value in any product stemmed from the labor required to produce it, and that the input of capital was merely stored value, ergo, also stolen from the worker who originally labored to produce it.

The problem is that this is now obviously a non-starter in an age of robotics, when information carries more value than physical material. Either one must place a staggering value on the last human's labor involved in creating an assembly-line robot, or admit that value stems from some other source entirely and the basis for Marxian economics is complete balderdash. Modern leftists, being generally untroubled by logic and knowledge of Marxian theory alike, prefer to simply hold on to the moral outrage and distributionist ends and ignore the fact that since there is no initial expropriation, their house of cards has no foundation.

2. Malkin's entire justification for the WWII-era internment stemmed from her belief that the West Coast was in danger of invasion, spot raids, spying and sabotage that could have, in her words, "crippled the war effort". Since a) the US war priority was Germany, b) the Japanese Navy had no capacity for invading Hawaii, let alone the West Coast and c) the US manufacturing advantage was so great that even a second attack the size of Pearl Harbor could not have slowed the rate of the USA's material advantage vis-a-vis Japan by a single day, there was no need for internment whatsoever. In fact, an informed analysis of her rationale would lead one to conclude that it would have more been reasonable to intern Americans of Germanic descent or even the U.S. Senate. (A leak from a Senator's office led directly to a Fuhrerbefehl less than two later.)

3. Eric Alterman repeatedly argues that the media cannot be considered liberal because it is owned by corporations, which he asserts are inherently conservative. This not only ignores the proven political loyalties of those in the media and the ease with which their output can be categorized, but even more fatally ignores the fact that corporations have co-existed quite satisfactorily in revolutionary societies such as the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany and Communist China. Furthermore, one can find examples of corporations that are owned by the central government in almost every single country in the world.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the voluntary exchange of goods between parties. A corporation nothing more simply a legal entity, which can be a party engaged in capitalism or can be a socialist entity owned by and in service to the state. As with the two previous examples, Alterman's argument is based on a fundamental fallacy and is therefore worthless.

Slinking quietly away

I find it both typical and telling that after making copious comments containing accusations of intellectual dishonesty and demands for information, Chris, Halation and Jefe have all fallen silent and disappeared as soon as the demanded information was provided and the obvious flaws in their positions were exposed.

What they were attempting is the left's third-favorite form of argumentation, catch-and-dismiss, in which the leftist tries to catch out his target in a mistake, however small, which he believes will then allow him to safely ignore the remainder of the target's argument.

That this is a stupid and short-sighted form of debate never seems to trouble them much and is one reason why leftists are so handicapped whenever they find themselves in genuine debate before an audience. The problem is that the only time when catching someone in a mistake can possibly be conclusive is when that mistake concerns the central foundation of an argument - Marx's labor theory of value, Malkin's assertion of West Coast vulnerability, Alterman's conflation of corporation and capitalism, etc. - otherwise, a simple admission of error and a corresponding correction of one's argument will suffice to allow the debate to continue.

For example, my errant belief of 2003 that the Dow would be back around 7,000 by now does not fatally flaw my argument that the U.S. economy is on thin ice. It weakens it, to be sure, but doesn't even come close to causing it to collapse. But if one were to practice catch-and-dismiss, one would vociferously argue that based on that single mistake, the U.S. economy is in great shape, although even Larry Kudlow, the bull of bulls, would hesitate to make that case at the moment.

Although it grows tiresome, the benefit of going through the motions with the catch-and-dismissers is that their tendency to leap on even the most minor mistakes allows one to locate any slow leaks in one's position. So, they too serve their purpose, until, sufficiently ventilated, they disappear into the aether of the Internet.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Don't quit your day job

MEDIA WHORES gets rejected again:

I ran your material past the powers that be for [political publishing imprint] The sample chapters give the readers a lot to chew on. However, the feeling is that your voice--while humorous--is too aggressive for the line at this point. At present, we're looking for books that strike a measured tone. It's unfortunate, but I'm afraid that I'll have to pass.

I suppose I'd be disappointed, if I'd ever thought MW had a snowball's chance in Hell of being signed by a liberal-leaning New York publisher. I was completely shocked that they even wanted to read it in the first place.

Anyhow, isn't it interesting how Al Franken isn't too aggressive when he's kicking people in the crotch or calling people lying liars, but blistering, factual commentary is over the top?

If I was desperate to see my name on another book, I'd just write one proving that Hillary is really a moderate independent, albeit an intellectual one with a vision that will bring about world peace, zero-calorie chocolate that tastes good and television-induced orgasms via the Oxygen Channel.

Doggone it, there I go again!

Affirmative action run amok


The Minneapolis office of Dorsey & Whitney recently accepted the resignation of a woman posing as an attorney who had worked as an associate at the firm for about six months.

The woman resigned after an internal investigation by the firm revealed that the woman -- who was working in a business group at the firm -- was not admitted to practice law in any state and had produced a false transcript from the University of Minnesota Law School.

According to TPAM, a Minnesota lawyer, the woman is an Indian woman who recently dated a friend of his. TPAM wasn't surprised to hear about her being a fraud, since she didn't know a law professor at the U that she should have known.

The unholy alliance

The animals are plotting:

Matheys said a wild sow and four 60-pound piglets were recently discovered living in a swamp in an Eau Claire County forest. When DNR sharpshooters killed them, they discovered the pigs were living right in the middle of a wolf pack.

"I imagine the wolves hadn't recognized them as prey or didn't have a strategy for dealing with them yet. Eventually, I imagine the wolves would have figured it out," Matheys said.

Or maybe they are thinking outside the reporter's limited homo sapiens box and have already figured it out. Clearly, it is time to form a defense militia and defend ourselves from the nascent Porco-Lupine Anti-Human Liberation Front. Disturbingly, a quick survey of FEMA's web site shows no signs of any federal preparations being made for this deadly threat to humanity.

I suggest paradropping Australian barby experts into the bush in coordination with a massive propaganda campaign, dropping cartoon leaflets of The Three Little Pigs into Wisconsin and Minnesota in order to drive a wedge between these allies of convenience.

There is little time. We must act soon, before those fearsome raccoons get into the act and it is too late! They're related to bears, you know!

See, the police really won't help

The Fraters Libertas point out a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the police.

With her husband and two sons out of town, what's a smart, sensible city woman to do if she finds a rabid raccoon in the garage of the family's weekend house?

Dial 911.

It was the obvious solution, or so thought Marie-Claude Stockl after discovering a foaming-at-the-mouth visitor at her Ancramdale, N.Y., retreat. Ms. Stockl, a pharmaceutical executive from the Upper East Side of Manhattan, accustomed to resolving apartment issues with a single phone call to the doorman, assumed the police would rush to her rescue.

Instead, the officer on duty expected her to exercise a little country self-sufficiency: "Just shoot it!" When she explained that she didn't own a gun, the officer retorted impatiently, "Then use your husband's gun!"

Their conversation went around in circles, and Ms. Stockl hung up, fuming. Ten minutes later, the raccoon died. Thinking that Dutchess County officials would want to track rabid animals, Ms. Stockl called again, asking the same officer if he would like to come by and dispose of the corpse. "Oh no, that's fine - you can do that," he drawled.

I always enjoy stories about Strong Independent Women. Note that she's a not just a smart, sensible woman, she's an executive, and yet she can't even handle a DYING RACCOON!

I know, I know. I'm just saying that because I feel threatened and I can't get laid.

I hope no one is in a hurry

I got an interesting call from my publisher yesterday. It seems that while THE WRATH OF ANGELS is going to be published in April, that's going to be April 2007, a scant three years after I completed it. I can't argue with their reasoning, or even complain about it, however. It seems Simon and Schuster is teaming up with another major New York publisher who shall remain nameless to create a new imprint. Not only will WRATH be one of the imprint's lead titles, but they're going to be re-releasing WAR and WORLD with new covers and whatnot.

In any event, I apologize for the continuing delay.

And yes, for those who are counting, that will make three different editions of WAR, which has to be some kind of record for a book that has not been translated or published outside the United States. What's particularly interesting from my point of view is that there's a very good chance that the editor of this new imprint will be interested in THE CHRONICLES OF KING DAVID which I've had sitting on the backburner for quite a while. Not only that, but there's plenty of time to finish as I'm already some 40k words into it.

The only potential drawback is I don't know exactly how I'll do that while simultaneously writing another set of three novels for different publisher. Unfortunately, the fact that it's a good problem doesn't mean that it isn't one.

Mailvox: plucky or plucked chicken?

One thing Halation, being relatively new to these parts, has yet to learn is that I write nothing without being able to back it up to at least some small degree. She calls what she apparently considered to be a bluff:

perhaps you can tell me: what rights have i lost? there are precious few modern writers i can find who oppose women's suffrage, save those who propound the same overwrought fearmongering the 'scholars' are offering here - 'because then the communists win! and then the terrorists win! plus they want to kill your babies!'

Very well, let's list your supposedly unalienable rights. There is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are the Constitutionally enumerated Bill of Rights, including the rights to free speech, to a free press, to bear arms, to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the right to not have private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

How have those rights fared since women received the "right" to vote.

1. The right to life is under siege, for unborn children, disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already.
3. You still have the right to pursue happiness.
4. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
5. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
6. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
7. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
8. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
9. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
10. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 9.
11. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.

Now, I believe it's your turn to provide that list of the rights you've gained under the suffrage-enabled regime of the last 85 years? Still think it's been a worthwhile trade?

the only thing i've been able to find bearing a passing resemblance to a sensical argument is the argument that, as voting is not a right, denying it someone is not taking away their rights, as such. this appears to be what you are arguing, and as i've said, you can make that argument, but make it honestly. stop making the issue about women in particular, for when you do, your arguments are based on the same logic of emotion you accuse those ghastly gashes the feminists of using.

What emotion? I'm not appealing to emotion at all. Voting is manifestly not a right, it was never intended to be a right, and and history reliably demonstrates that if basic human liberties are to be preserved in any quasi-democratic society, women cannot be granted the privilege of voting.

you're calling for controlled rule by an elite. vox has said as much, but he says it rarely; usually he speaks more about the grave threat that is Woman. likely he does this because it's more fun, because it gets him more listeners, and because doing so allows him to manipulate the emotions of those who despise women and who'd far prefer to see them with limited rights or no rights at all - civil or natural. the loss of rights is, to many, implied in the anti-suffrage logic, and that's why they like it. thinking is hard. smugness is easy.

I am not calling for a rule by an elite, I am simply pointing out that an elite has always and will always rule. In the USA, we have been governed for the last 20 years by the members of two families, all three of whom attended the same small university. The opposing candidate in the last election also attended that same university, while the leading contender for the next eight years also belongs to one of those two families. And you still can't see an elite? The question at hand is what sort of elite do you prefer, an honest one that rules openly or a covert one that rules by manipulation?

i've asked before, and i'll ask yet again, and ask until i get an answer: how many of your readers here will have the vote, vox? readers, how many of you care? are you, like spacebunny, happy to give up your vote to take away mine?

First, liberty is not voting, halation. Millions of people around the world have freely given up their "right" to vote in order to move somewhere else where they can live in more freedom. As immigrants and non-citizens, they cannot vote, and yet they demonstrably go very far out of their way to trade that vote in pursuit of liberty.

The historic estimate for those permitted to vote by the Founding Fathers was around 20 percent. I suspect the ideal percentage is closer to 10 percent, which approximates that of the historical Athenian democracy, but removing the most centrophilic fifty-two percent or thereabouts from the voting rolls would certainly be satisfactory.

I find it tremendously amusing that people who profess to be horrified by my opposition to universal suffrage are unaware that the democratic ideals they claim to revere are rooted in systems more strictly limited than anything I'm advocating. That is only one of the many reasons I am untroubled by the opprobrium of the Oprah-watching masses.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Mailvox: police and the expectation of protection

Halation isn't exactly up on her legal precedents:

what i truly have standing between me and an honour-killing or rape and murder is a legal system, part of a government which considers me an individual in my own right and not the property of my father or husband. forgive me if i decide not to toss that away and put my faith in y'all. it also should be said i'm pretty handy in a fight, when i need to be. but thanks all the same.

Oh, Sweet Cthulhu, I am filled with mirth indeed! Halation, my poor, naive innocent, in truth you have NOTHING WHATSOEVER standing between you and the bad guys.

This is not merely my opinion, it is a matter of settled case law. Neither your state and local police nor the various and sundry security agencies and armed forces of the U.S. federal government have any responsibility to protect you from rape, murder or anything else that any individual of ill intent wishes to do to you. They are merely there to pick up the pieces afterward and see if the bad guy was dumb enough to leave any obvious clues for them.

The question of your tossing that away or not is irrelevant, because all you are holding an empty hand full of nothing but hot air and uninformed illusions. But please, don't take my word for it. You can look it up on Westlaw.

Helicopter money on the horizon

From NRO's Corner:

Reuters reports Bush will tap White House economic adviser Ben Bernanke as the new Fed chief. I know nothing about Bernanke, but the Dow is up a bit today, so perhaps this is a good choice.

Actually, it's a disastrous and entirely predictable one. I called this one back in June, as did virtually every other contrarian who saw how Bernanke was being given more face-time in the media. Now does that prediction of a Rodham administration today look a little less implausible?

Bernanke is the one who believes that all financial problems can be solved by increasing the money supply ala the magic printing press. However, this doesn't mean that he'll actually be successful in inflating the US economy out of recession, as he'll likely run into the "pushing on a string" problem that so worried Greenspan.

It's still uncertain whether the deflationists are correct, but a healthy mix of cash and gold should keep one in decent shape, even if it won't render you wildly wealthy. Remember, self-preservation is the main point in a bear market, so don't get carried away in thinking that because you're ahead of the crowds, you're ahead of the game.

Comment preference query

Haloscan has been down this morning, so at KH's request, I thought I'd give the Blogspot comments a whirl. I'm not entirely sure that I like them, however, so let me know what you think about the one versus the other.

UPDATE: Okay, that's enough data. For all their numerous flaws, Haloscan comments work better than Blogspot comments. We shall resume commenting service when Haloscan decides to cooperate.

Fred endears himself to the Sisterhood


Let’s think about this. After one drink you “are not a hundred percent.” Heather [an Abilene-based MADD victims advocate] believes that we must keep people from driving who are “not one hundred percent.” OK. I’ll buy it. Let’s get impaired people off the road.

Going to the web site of The Women’s Health Channel, I find the following listed as symptoms of PMS:

"• Mood-related ("affective") symptoms: depression, sadness, anxiety, anger, irritability, frequent and severe mood swings.
• Mental process ("cognitive") symptoms: decreased concentration, indecision."

Does that sound like one hundred percent to you? I figure it’s a pretty good description of an unstable borderline psychotic. Oh good. I want to drive on the roads with someone who doesn’t pay attention, couldn’t decide what to do it she did, and wants to kill something. Me, probably.

We need to recognize the seriousness of PMS. People joke about it, as they do about drunkenness, but these women are public hazards. “Anger, irritability, frequent and severe mood swings”? (Now that’s a revelation.) “Decreased concentration”? Sounds like a bad drunk in a pool hall, a recipe for inattentive homicidal road-rage. I think the police should send squads into supermarket parking lots to check for these impaired women. Other cops should wait outside churches. To better protect the public we should have checkpoints on highways.... Ponder this from Planet Estrogen: “Additionally, several studies demonstrate reduced reaction time, neuromuscular coordination and manual dexterity during the pre-menstruation and menstrual phases.”

As Fred astutely points out, MADD transformed itself into the prohibitionist movement, version 2.0. I am a little concerned, however, that in calling for banning PMS-impaired driving, he has stolen my rightful spot as NOW's favorite columnist. In noticing "the weird totalitarianism of the female", Fred reminds me of a question I forgot to ask my critics a few weeks ago: If women are not instinctive totalitarians, can anyone please point to ten individual rights that women's organizations want to expand, other than the right to murder? (Unborn children, excess children, supposedly abusive husbands, elderly parents, etc.)

Because there is not exactly a shortage of things that women's organizations are actively working towards banning. Susan Faludi was worried about a backlash against feminism a few years ago. I don't think she's even begun to see anything yet.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Discuss amongst yourselves

NFL Week 7

Last week: 12-2. Overall: 56-32, .636. Fantasy: 4-2.

W-Colts over Texans
W-Falcons over Jets
W-Redskins over 49ers
L-Bengals over Steelers
W-Bears over Ravens
L-Chargers over Eagles
W-Chiefs over Dolphins
W-Raiders over Bills
L-Browns over Lions
W-Giants over Broncos
L-Titans over Cardinals
L-Cowboys over Seahawks
W-Vikings over Packers
W-Rams over Saints

The Dichotomous Subversive, part II of II

The Dichotomous Subversive: Douglas Adams and the Rule of Unreason
by Vox Day
copyright (c) 2004

From THE ANTHOLOGY AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE, Ben Bella Books

Adams exposes the fundamental flaw at the heart of all centralism in the defeat of the murderous xenophobes of Krikkit, whose legions of deadly white robots operate under the direct control of the Krikkit War Computer. In much the same way that the Mongols, on the verge of conquering Europe in 1242, were brought to a complete halt by the death of Ogedai Khan, the Krikkit war machine is shut down by the exposure of the War Computer's central intelligence core to the suicidally depressed robot. It is worth noting that Adams again ties together the concepts of centralism and mass death, as the Clerk of the Court at the War Crimes Trial concludes that two grillion guys were “zilched out” by the forces of Krikkit.

In addition to his unexpectedly fruitful harvest in the comedic orchards of death, war crimes and monetary policy, Adams manages to find hilarity in the always amusing topic of taxes. He jabs effectively at static revenue models, (which assert that individual behavior will remain the same despite changing tax rates), by introducing Arthur Dent to the corpse of Disaster Area lead singer Hotblack Desiato, who is “spending the year dead for tax reasons,”, and in doing so, highlights how government policies force otherwise rational humans to behave in an irrational manner.

Other government-fostered irrationalities are exposed in the brief discussion of bad poetry following Arthur and Ford's escape from Earth. While the execrable and oft deadly Vogon poetry is a natural artifact of Vogon culture, public funding results in an even more dangerous form of composition :

The second worst is that of the Azagoths of Kria. During a recitation by their Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode To A Small Lump of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience died of internal haemorrhaging, and the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of his own legs off.

Then there is the terrible punishment of the Belcebron people, whose quietly enlightened accomplishments incur the perverse wrath of the Galactic Tribunal. This sort of petty vindictiveness is all too typical of government bureaucracies, which always seeks to control that which is not beholden to them and to destroy what they cannot control. The unprovoked attack on the people of Belcebron is more than a little remniscent of the ongoing campaign being waged against the Boy Scouts by local governments around the country, which seek to deny the organization funds and access to public property on the basis of a 95-year old policy which was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE (99-699) 530 U.S. 640.

The savage irony of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, what is surely Douglas Adams' greatest and most subtle joke, is that this overtly anti-government collection of subversion was not only funded by the British government, but distributed by it to the masses in a variety of formats through the BBC. Through Hitchhiker's, Douglas Adams does not so much bite the hand that was feeding him as rip it off entirely, leaving nothing but a bloody stump behind. The dichotomy is almost precisely the reverse of Lenin's famous construction; in this case, the socialist state gave the very rope to the writer with which he throttled it.

Adams' theme cannot honestly be characterized as a Thatcherite one— his interests ran more towards pointing out problems and contradictions than proposing policies to address them— but even so, it appears to be more than a coincidence that the first airing of the Hitchhiker's radio program should have been March 8, 1978, five weeks after a massive nationwide strike by the four major public service unions and a scant eight weeks before the British people threw the Labour Party out of office following seventeen ruinous years of post-war dominance. It seems logical to conclude that the conservative wave which swept Britain and brought Margaret Thatcher to power also helped in establishing Douglas Adams as a worldwide literary star.

Certainly, Britain's new Prime Minister must have approved of his take on trade unions. The concept of a philosopher's union is humorous enough in itself, but Adams' adept description of how unions use the government's legal muscle to reinforce their position to stifle technological advancement teaches more in a paragraph than most elite economics courses can manage in a semester in describing how corrupt power politics are used to inhibit entrepeneurship and economic growth.

It is unfortunate that Douglas Adams is now seen primarily as an amusing writer of science fiction. He was much more than that. The five books of the Hitchhiker's trilogy are, in their own unique manner, every bit as serious and as provokingly philosophical as Voltaire's “Candide” or Jonathan Swift's “A Modest Proposal.”. Douglas Adams may not have been a Libertarian, but his works deserve to be categorized among the most powerfully libertarian literature to have ever seen print.

But the anti-government theme of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy can best be summarized in Adams' own words, which leave little doubt as to the author's deep skepticism with regards to the rational nature and reasonable intentions of those who seek to rule over their fellow man.

The major problem— one of the major problems, for there are several— one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.


The Dichotomous Subversive Part I of II
Newer Posts Older Posts