Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

The Left is sick again. Let’s clear up a few of the rampant mischaracterizations on the issues that are at stake for next week’s election.

On the Iraq War: It’s not that we “don’t have a plan,” or that we “don’t have the ability” to win in Iraq; it’s that the Left won’t allow us to do what is necessary to win. Hell, they won’t even let us talk about it. Don’t believe me? Just try mentioning, say, “fire bombing Anbar Province,” or, “bulldozing Baghdad’s Dora neighborhood,” in mixed company and look at the response you get. The Left simply isn’t serious enough, or strong enough, to win in Iraq.

On Gay Marriage: It’s not that we don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to marry; it’s that we don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same sex. Hell, we don’t even care if homosexuals marry other homosexuals. Nothing wrong with gay man on lesbian marriages, (so long as the woman isn’t too butch.) Listen, ‘gay’ means happy. ‘Marriage’ is a miserable hard slog. ‘Gay Marriage’ is like saying, “happy misery.” It just doesn’t make any sense. Besides, can society really afford to have a bunch of male-male economic powerhouseholds running around with a bunch of money and little incentive, other than ‘happiness,’ to contribute to society at all? They already can’t reproduce, why make it easier for them to not produce in the workplace? Marriage between lezbos, on the other hand, is much less objectionable. Especially ones like those pictured in Penthouse. I’m all for letting those ones marry; you know, to test the waters. What do you say, Left, are you for same sex marriage or not? Somehow, I think the Left would find a way to object (it’s too valuable an issue come election time for them to give up!)

On Abortion: It’s not that we don’t think a woman should have the right to reproductive self-determination; it’s that we think pregnant women have already exercised that right, and that the man who afforded her the opportunity to do so, has every right to determine what is to happen inside that womb— much like settlers, who penetrate the wild and open her up to development, earn property rights over that which they assume control. The Left simply doesn’t believe in rewarding industriousness and success.

On Stem Cell Research: It’s not that we don’t think a heart-disease or Parkinson’s cure might come in handy one day; it’s that playing God, murdering children, and engaging in unproven “science” on the slippery slope to human cloning is not the way to go about it. I mean, I’m sure you don’t want me cloning Adolph Hitler any more than I want you cloning blastocyst XJ452383B from the fertility clinic. “But why can’t we use those embryos from the fertility clinic that are marked for destruction anyway?” the Left will whine. Snowflake children. Every one of these ‘marked’ lives is a valuable human resource. Look at it economically: what would the Left have those cells be used for? To find disease cures? What do disease cures lead to? Fewer disease deaths? Increased life expectancy? Yes, it seems absurd, but the Left thinks it better to sacrifice thousands of snowflake babies, just for the remote, and as yet unknown, possibility of improving the lives of non-productive old people. This is the kind of liberal recklessness that feeds the onerous welfare state that cripples government.

When we really look at it, we see:

• Defeat in Iraq
• Deviant control of economic resources
• Disregard for property rights
• Domesticated, overburdened government

That looks like Usama Bin Laden’s platform for election!

It is becoming obvious that as we approach the elections, the Left yet again finds itself facing yet another inevitable electoral defeat. Predictably, they resort to overt, offensive rhetoric and a pandemic of deception and mischaracterization. Really, it’s a pretty pathetic, if not pathological display of despair; but, what’s fundamentally at stake here, as always, is the very essence of America: capitalism and the sublime infallibility of the corporate model of governance.

Patriotic citizens, it’s your prerogative whether you want to participate on election day, or simply relax in the warm comfort of your home. But if you feel like it, when you go to the voting booth, consider what Usama Bin Laden’s America would look like — and ask yourself, “Is there a place for me in Usama Bin Laden’s America?”

Democrats cannot be trusted to control Congress because they do not know how to win the war in Iraq.

Decay

This weeks Gang Activity works pretty well, though not “funny” per se; but it works. And, IMO, goes pretty deep if you think it through.

Suggestion: read the original comic first to get a feel for the joke, then read the alternate version. You’re invited to leave your own take on the joke in our underpopulated comment section. Click here for past examples.

“Since I’m working the foreign policy apparatus, business has improved!”

“Promoting a lot of Freedom and Human Rights throughout the world?”

“Nope. Lowered standards for the treatment of detainees!!”

Associated Press: U.N. Says Human Rights Violators Cite U.S. [Via:
Majikthise]

This weeks Gang Activity works pretty well, though not “funny” per se; but it works. And, IMO, goes pretty deep if you think it through.

Suggestion: read the original comic first to get a feel for the joke, then read the alternate version. You’re invited to leave your own take on the joke in our underpopulated comment section. Click here for past examples.

“Since I’m working the foreign policy apparatus, business has improved!”

“Promoting a lot of Freedom and Human Rights throughout the world?”

“Nope. Lowered standards for the treatment of detainees!!”

Associated Press: U.N. Says Human Rights Violators Cite U.S. [Via:
Majikthise]

[Stump Lane readers, please read the previous post, as it is actually a part of my essence, drawn out as the water in a piece of firewood boils and seeps when it burns.]

The strategy is not “stay the course.” The strategy has never been “stay the course.” [1, 2]

The strategy has forever been, “complete the mission, do the job, achieve the goal.”

Which is exactly what was meant, in December of ’03, when the President referred to himself in the third person and said,

We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [3]

This politics of “words” is fascinating to you literal criticals — to the Steves of the world. You seem to “think” solely in terms of the “thoughts” associated with them; but “words” are meaningless without the meanings we assign to them.

It’s the definitions, Stupid!

Not everybody has such a sophisticated vocabulary, which is exactly what was meant, just days ago, when the President said,

Nobody has accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary, I understand that. And maybe their — their words are more sophisticated than mine. But when you pull out before the job is done, that’s cut and run as far as I’m concerned. And that’s cut and run as far as most Americans are concerned. And so, yes, I’m going to continue reminding them of their words and their votes. [4]

See what he was doing there? He assigned a meaning to the words “cut and run.” “Cut and run” means “pulling out before the job is done.”

It doesn’t matter that what we call “cut and run” today might be the exact strategy we employ in the months after the election. For until we define — before we assign meaning to what “the mission” is, anyone who would set an artificial timeline for withdrawal is cut and run. What’s more, they’re irresponsibly cut and run, in that they’re not playing with a full deck of information. For all they know, their incomplete deck may be nothing but jokers.

They are irresponsibly uninformed.

We have a task force studying Iraq, [5] looking at how to get clear of the briar patch, if you will. This group will give us all the information we need to define the mission — to give “Victory” meaning. When we have the final analysis, we will finally have Victory.

Citizens, we will not ask you to discern the meaning of a lot of sophisticated words. You will see with your own eyes what Victory looks like in Iraq, and you will come to know the timeline for withdrawal when we withdraw!

We will ask you to ask yourself at the polls: Can we really trust the irresponsibly uninformed with our safety?

[1] Think Progress: Bush: 'We've Never Been Stay The Course'
[2] Think Progress: Bartlett: 'It's Never Been A Stay The Course Strategy'
[3] White House: President Bush Holds Press Conference (December 15, 2003)
[4] White House: Press Conference by the President (October 11, 2006)
[5] Democracy Now: The End of Maliki? Will a Coup Unravel Iraq? Robert Dreyfuss and Raed Jarrar Discuss the War in Iraq

[Cross posted at I Miss Fafblog, Spot!]

[Stump Lane readers, please read the previous post, as it is actually a part of my essence, drawn out as the water in a piece of firewood boils and seeps when it burns.]

The strategy is not “stay the course.” The strategy has never been “stay the course.” [1, 2]

The strategy has forever been, “complete the mission, do the job, achieve the goal.”

Which is exactly what was meant, in December of ’03, when the President referred to himself in the third person and said,

We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [3]

This politics of “words” is fascinating to you literal criticals — to the Steves of the world. You seem to “think” solely in terms of the “thoughts” associated with them; but “words” are meaningless without the meanings we assign to them.

It’s the definitions, Stupid!

Not everybody has such a sophisticated vocabulary, which is exactly what was meant, just days ago, when the President said,

Nobody has accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary, I understand that. And maybe their — their words are more sophisticated than mine. But when you pull out before the job is done, that’s cut and run as far as I’m concerned. And that’s cut and run as far as most Americans are concerned. And so, yes, I’m going to continue reminding them of their words and their votes. [4]

See what he was doing there? He assigned a meaning to the words “cut and run.” “Cut and run” means “pulling out before the job is done.”

It doesn’t matter that what we call “cut and run” today might be the exact strategy we employ in the months after the election. For until we define — before we assign meaning to what “the mission” is, anyone who would set an artificial timeline for withdrawal is cut and run. What’s more, they’re irresponsibly cut and run, in that they’re not playing with a full deck of information. For all they know, their incomplete deck may be nothing but jokers.

They are irresponsibly uninformed.

We have a task force studying Iraq, [5] looking at how to get clear of the briar patch, if you will. This group will give us all the information we need to define the mission — to give “Victory” meaning. When we have the final analysis, we will finally have Victory.

Citizens, we will not ask you to discern the meaning of a lot of sophisticated words. You will see with your own eyes what Victory looks like in Iraq, and you will come to know the timeline for withdrawal when we withdraw!

We will ask you to ask yourself at the polls: Can we really trust the irresponsibly uninformed with our safety?

[1] Think Progress: Bush: 'We've Never Been Stay The Course'
[2] Think Progress: Bartlett: 'It's Never Been A Stay The Course Strategy'
[3] White House: President Bush Holds Press Conference (December 15, 2003)
[4] White House: Press Conference by the President (October 11, 2006)
[5] Democracy Now: The End of Maliki? Will a Coup Unravel Iraq? Robert Dreyfuss and Raed Jarrar Discuss the War in Iraq

[Cross posted at I Miss Fafblog, Spot!]

[Part two of a Series of Indeterminate Length in which Your Montag spells out my evolving political philosophy; and you, Dear Reader, tell me if it makes sense, and whether it may be considered "progressive" or "liberal," as those are the terms I am wont to use in self-identification.]

Part one, Human Nature, Morality and Progressivism: A Layman’s View, began the series by looking at the subject in terms of — well — human nature and morality. It even had a bitchin’ explanatory graphic.

By way of a quick recap, I’d established three— whether they are the only three, or only the first three, I have no idea —tenets of “Montag’s Liberalism” and these were they:

1. An individual’s personal sovereignty should not be subject to government coercion.
2. Society should seek justice through empowerment.
3. A society that perpetuates power deficits in a segment of its population is not just.

The post ended with a promise to examine the drives and motivations that push us to fulfill our needs, and look at motivations that a liberal/progressive society would need to guard against. And the discussion in the comments ended with a concern raised by Your Own Fehlleistungen:

. . . You posit an individual who has the right to full autonomy, the right to determine one’s own ends (as opposed to being determined by external authority). With this idea of the individual in mind, my thoughts about sociality come from two directions: (1) how does the autonomous individual come to know others, to treat others in a way that respects their autonomy (“sovereignty”)? How do you know how to treat others right?; and (2) How can a cooperative society be formed from this collection of autonomous, inviolable individuals? I don’t mean these as questions-to-be-answered, but just as something to keep in mind as morality remains under discussion. [Emphasis added.]

Thank goodness for that last bit about not having to actually answer the questions!

Not to try and answer them outright, but…

I think an answer to F’s direction (1) would lie in having a mutual respect for others’ needs and desires; by holding as an ideal, some sort of simple moral code. Something along these lines, perhaps:

Don’t do to others what they don’t want done to them.

As for F’s direction (2), well, I have been puzzling over this one for, what, eight months now since that initial post. It seems like the First Tenet of Montag’s Liberalism may be problematic. Take a look at that sweet graphic again, for this part.

He’ll correct me when I wrongly characterize his concerns, but I think F sees as unavoidable the necessity for incursions below the “black line” (you’ve reacquainted yourself with the graph, right?) to satisfy the three tenets. I agree — if you’re gonna get all up in my grill and apply that shit to the Real World, that is. But— and I may not have known this at the time I wrote that post —the three (so far) Tenets of Montag’s Liberalism are goals. They are what a society that calls itself “liberal” strives for. I’m not sure the tensions F sees in them are problematic in a perfect, idealized liberal society. Which is to say, if everyone was empowered all the way up to the red curve, and nobody used their excess power to dominate others; and since the “excess power” area of the graph is larger than the “power deficit” area of the graph; through empowerment… blah, blah, blah… etc.

Hey, you got to have goals, so why not shoot for Utopia?

Yes, it is now necessary to look at why we aren’t living in Utopia, and account for real-world problems. (more…)

It’s time

Here is a .pdf file of the Military Commissions Act of 2006

It’s time

Here is a .pdf file of the Military Commissions Act of 2006

A couple days ago I read an account of the latest in a long line of incidents whereby the President chooses to disregard some law— or some aspect of a piece of legislation —passed by congress, by communicating his intention (or lack of intention) through a Presidential Signing Statement. [Air Force Times: Bush says he may ignore new war-funding law]

Apparently, the idea is, that these signing statements will carry some amount of legal weight, if the issue of the president’s ignoring of a particular law should come before the courts.

Does that shit really work? Because I could certainly use this in my life.

Here is a signing statement for closing on a home loan:

The Mortgagor, as property owner and occupier, being solely responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the property, may withhold and/or discontinue monthly payments if they decide that continued payment would impair their ability to meet urgent financial needs, or otherwise compromise their financial security; or, if mortgage interest payments are found to be excessive, or Mortgagor determines that said payments are in excess of the value of services received from the Mortgagee and/or the actual value of the property.

How much weight will this carry if Your Montag ends up in court facing foreclosure?

Eleven random songs chosen by the tiny DJ inside my NonPod:

1. Waters of Nazareth — Justice — +
2. The Real Thing — Faith No More — +
3. X — System of A Down — =
4. Spinal Compression — Fear Factory — =
5. Escape — Metallica — -
6. To Another Abyss — Bad Religion — ++ (Doubleplusgood.)
7. Des Modell — Kraftwerk — =
8. Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others — The Smiths — +
9. That’s Good — Devo — +
10. Sgt. Baker — Primus — =
11. Caring Is Creepy — The Shins — +

Bonus: Last Living Soul — Gorillaz

+, +, =, =, -, ++, =, +, +, =, +
Aggregate: +6

A. The Neverending Story
B. High Noon
C. The Cutting Edge 2, Going for the Gold
D. The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King

See my post over at I Miss Fafblog, Spot.

Suggestion: read the original comic first to get a feel for the joke, then read the alternate version. You’re invited to leave your own take on the joke in our underpopulated comment section. Click here for past examples.

“Hey Dad, is the War on Terror a ‘fourth generation warfare’ with no clearly definable battlefields, and a fading distinction between civilian and military forces [1], which requires trans-national, highly networked forces not bound by maneuver limits on a traditional battlefield, and where physical forces and infrastructure are less important targets than the political will of an opponent [2], which, as such, requires a certain sincere moral authority to prosecute successfully; or is it a war in the traditional sense of a armed conflict of sovereign powers, authorized by the sovereign power of nations, to be fought on the battlefield with military forces, subject to the international rules of war?” [3]

“A ‘fourth generation warfare’!”

“I win! Pay me!”

“I haven’t got the money!”

“I’ll pay the bet, Pesty, how much is it?”

“335 billion dollars!*” [4]

*Plus 2782 US military dead, 44,779 US military non mortal casualties [5], and depending on what metric you use either many thousands [6], or many many thousands [7] Iraqi dead.

There is an Associated Press report that quickly details the President’s Operation: Shifting Rationale. (As far as I know, credit goes to Norbizness for coining that phrase.)

The article goes into the many different justifications given for our involvement in Iraq and this observation is made:

The more ominous and determined his words, the more skeptical the American public appears, polls show, both on the war itself and over whether it is part of the larger fight against terrorism, as the administration insists. [Associated Press: Bush keeps revising war justification]

What is the relationship between:

1. Poll numbers reflecting increasing public skepticism about the war, and
2. increasingly ‘ominous and determined’ administration rhetoric about the war.

It’s one of those chicken/egg questions Your Montag likes to ponder from time to time: Could (1) be something that occurs naturally over time, when a war of questionable necessity is executed incompetently and exceeds by far all fatality/time/difficulty/budget projections, and degrades into a simmering civil war beyond the control of the troops sitting in the middle of it; and (2) actually come in response to (1) when it does happen, because the aforementioned incompetence combined with obstinate pride does not allow them to address the underlying problems?

Is that a loaded question?

Here, for rationally minded sticklers: Might (1) lead to (2) rather than vice versa? Or, might it at least be more likely that (1) leads to (2)?

I don’t want to call US stupid, but we— as a hive —don’t always seem all that good at parsing the rhetoric and coming to rational conclusions.