Nishi, our patron saint of derf! has, in recent threads, proclaimed that telling a vast raft of people that they are ‘not quite sufficiently up to snuff to go to and succeed in college‘ would be political suicide, according to her, because most folks who by quite incensed by such a remark.

This raises an interesting counterpoint question.  How would Nishi, or a great many of her fellow travelers feel if they were told, en masse, that they were ‘not quite sufficiently up to snuff to go to and succeed in the military‘?  Would that also be political suicide?

I wrote this a while ago and Darleen’s post ‘The report of my death was an exaggeration’ brought it to mind but I figured it was too long for a comment.

The following is my attempt to write about some of my recent thoughts about the political situation in my country, the USA. I am not a writer so please bear with me.

How one person or a group of people (group A) treat another person or group (group B) depends not only on how B treats A but on how A perceives their relationship. The same actions may be looked upon very differently depending on the perceived relationship. The range of relationships I’m thinking of go from “loved one” on one end through “friends”, “acquaintances”, “neutral”, “friendly competitors”, “unfriendly competitors”, to “mortal enemies”.

The two main variables in this range are trust and intentions. I would trust the word of a “loved one” implicitly and believe that their intentions were to do well by me even in a situation that didn’t appear that way. I would defend them with my life if necessary. This applies to religion also. I love God, God loves me. Therefore even when terrible things happen I believe that God’s purpose is good and that these terrible events are for the best in the end.

On the other end is my “mortal enemy”. A mortal enemy is never to be trusted or believed. Any action by them is to be looked at as an attempt to destroy me and all I love. Against a mortal enemy any, ANY means to defeat them is acceptable. As was said by a character in the John Varley novel “Demon”. “With enemies there were no rules. Honor didn’t enter into it. The best way to kill an enemy was from a great distance, without warning, in the back. If the need arose to torture your enemy, you ripped his guts out. If you had to lie, you lied. It didn’t matter. This was the enemy.”

This is all “old hat”. What I’m leading to is the situation that develops if A sees B as a mortal enemy and B sees A as, at most, a friendly competitor and sometimes even a friend or loved one and B persists in this view despite evidence to the contrary. In this case A can do many things easily to hurt and disrupt B. Infiltrate A’s agents into B’s organizations, turn B supporters into double agents by blackmail or even by entreaties to help poor A out of a bad situation. Outside of abusive spouses this kind of relationship is not the usual.

I propose that the relationship between the leftist leadership of the Democrats and the Republicans is just this kind. The Left treats the Republicans as mortal enemies and the Republicans treat the Democrat’s leadership as friendly competitors, friends and sometimes as loved ones. This gives the Left many advantages in the political arena and some disadvantages. Some of the advantages are as noted above. The disadvantage is, if they seem to be losing, they and their base can become very agitated and extreme. This only hurts them if it is seen by the general public, thus their efforts to shut up all who might report the craziness that pours from the left.

This difference in perception is puzzling because it persists and worrying because it puts the Republicans at such a disadvantage.

PILLAR I: POLITICAL AFFAIRS
NATO- CJTF-82 - US/Coalition Forces

US ‘to boost Afghanistan force’
Source: BBC WASHINGTON, June 24, 2008– US President George W Bush has said more US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan by next year. There are currently about 60,000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan - most of them are part of ISAF. The troops include about 33,000 US soldiers and some 28,000 Nato forces from 40 countries.

General Cites Security, Development, Governance Gains in Afghanistan
Source: American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, June 24, 2008– U.S., coalition and Afghan security forces are hunting down the Taliban and other insurgents operating in Afghanistan, while vital reconstruction and governance programs continue to spread across the country, Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 101 and 101st Airborne Division, told Pentagon reporters during a satellite-carried news conference. Noting a 40-percent increase in enemy attacks in his sector in the January-to-May timeframe compared to a year ago, Schloesser pointed out that attacks on U.S., coalition and Afghan security forces have gone up each year since 2002.

US military chief wants three more brigades to fight Taliban
Source: AFP 24 June 2008, WASHINGTON – The chief of the US military, Admiral Michael Mullen, said on 23 June that he needed three more brigades in Afghanistan to battle Taliban fighters and train Afghan forces. The United States has urged NATO allies for months to deploy reinforcements to the strife-torn nation, where 70,000 soldiers are fighting under separate US and NATO commands.
(more…)

(Crossposted due to complaint that Signaleer won’t load for some people.) 

 But it wasn’t important stuff, I’m sure.

I mean, if I were to make the statement that GEN Clark’s service in Vietnam didn’t amount to much because all he accomplished was to step in front of a bullet and get evacuated on a stretcher, that wouldn’t be a fair characterization of his service. In fact, his Silver Star Medal citation uses phrases like “although painfully wounded” and “with complete disregard to his personal safety.”

So you’d think there’d be at least a little honor among professionals.

Not so much:

(From Sunday 29 September’s Face the Nation with Bob Schiefer)

BOB SCHIEFFER: How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General? (ed: referring to a Huffington Post article here.)
CLARK:
Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable.
John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world.
But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn’t made that calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe — could I just interrupt you?
CLARK: Sure.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean…
CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
(emphases mine)

Karl and Dan at Protein Wisdom are covering the flap well, but I want to expand on a few things.

For example, The General wants to focus on Senator McCain’s service as a POW. He does not want to talk about his service before or after. Want to know why?

Because he’d have to eat a number of his words.

Young Lieutenant McCain was assigned to the USS Forrestal after volunteering for combat duty in Vietnam. He was aboard in July 1967 when an accident sent a rocket into the external fuel tank of a plane waiting to launch. He was not only aboard, he was, himself, strapped into another plane and preparing to take off as well. To escape the flames, he climbed out onto the plane’s nose and rolled through burning fuel to put out the now smoldering flight suit.

Then he turned to begin helping another pilot. At that point a bomb from one of the planes exploded, peppering Lieutenant McCain in the legs and chest with shrapnel. It wasn’t as bad as it could have been. 134 were killed, 161 injured and 21 planes were destroyed.

Shortly after, newly promoted Lieutenant Commander McCain was assigned to a new squadron on the USS Orisskany. Rather than work his way into the hazardous missions as newcomers were usually allowed to do, LCDR McCain volunteered for regular duty with everyone else.

It was as early as October when his Navy Commendation Medal citation read this way:

For meritorious achievement in aerial flight on 18 October 1967 as a pilot in Attack Squadron 163, embarked in USS Oriskany (CVA-34). As a section leader, Lieutenant Commander McCain participated in a twenty-two-plane strike against the Lac Trai shipyard and repair facility in Haiphong, North Vietnam. Although violent evasive maneuvers were required to avoid enemy surface-to-air missiles and an intense barrage of antiaircraft fire along the flight path to the target, he maintained flight integrity and expertly positioned his section for attack. In the face of heavy enemy fire, he led his section in the attack and placed his bombs directly on target, thereby inflicting major damage to his assigned area. By his aggressiveness and skillful airmanship, Lieutenant Commander McCain contributed substantially to the success of the mission and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

He has ordered the bombs to fall. Literally.

Many people aren’t aware that Senator McCain was still in the Navy until 1981. Before that time, he commanded the larges Squadron in the US Navy– a training squadron in Jacksonville, FL. GEN Clark is dismissive of this as “not a wartime formation.” Big deal. There wasn’t a war on in those years, so that’s a crummy charge to level. But the reason the General doesn’t want to talk about it is because this is precisely executive experience in the broadest sense.

He dealt with personnel he thought ineffective, had to improve morale and productivity and deal with post-Vietnam defense budgets and parts shortages. He is credited with turning around a mediocre unit and improving its aircraft readiness; for the first time, all fifty of its aircraft were able to fly and the pilot safety improved; zero accidents. The squadron was received its first Meritorious Unit Commendation in twenty-three years and McCain received a Meritorious Service Medal. He later stated that being commanding officer of VA-174 was the most rewarding assignment of his naval career. But in the General’s estimation, none of that matters.

CPT Jon Soltz, GEN Clark’s tag team partner from Yearly Kos where they accosted a young NCO, writing at Huffington Post, can’t even back GEN Clark for what he said and instead must put a generous spin on it in order to remain supportive.

Not even SEN Obama is able to get behind the General. More than understandable really. This is the last conversation that the Obama camp should want to have. (Maybe, GEN Clark is still more supportive of Hillary?) No matter if you put a Soltzian, bad judgment, English on it or take it at face value, SEN Obama has nothing to put on his side of the ledger sheet.

That which is unified by nature resists unification by law. Let’s for a moment assume that the majority of scientists would not laugh at the idea. But since it already exists, that is, by nature, it would serve to be an exercise in redundancy. Besides, since each nation has its own sovereign law, the scientists would be either bound by that law, or forced to form their own nation with their own ethics (if they could ever agree on ‘em.) Decidedly no longer international.

Also, they might want to consider building their new ‘nation’ as a floating half-head in a remote swamp.

Be afraid - be VERY afraid! The California Air Resources Board (appointed, avg. salary $120k/yr) is going to be in charge of some of the “most stringent” Kyoto Boondoggles the world has ever seen, thanks to our brain-dead pander-fest of a legislature.

The Sac Bee’s writeup. Go read.

Yep. 30% of all electricity produced in the Golden State will be REQUIRED to come from “renewable resources like solar, wind and geothermal” - compared to 11% now. My bet is 11% is pretty much all the water there is in that well, boys, but what the hell, it’s only the state’s economy at risk..

In his first “Provocateurism” post Jeff provided the following quote from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism:

Meanwhile, conservative religious and political dogma — under relentless attack from the left — may be the single greatest bulwark against eugenic schemes. Who rejects cloning most forcefully? Who is most troubled by euthanasia, abortion, and playing God in the laboratory? Good dogma is the most powerful inhibiting influence against bad ideas and the only guarantor that men will act on good ones.

Over the course of the discussion that ensued there developed a majority consensus among the PW commentariat that it is incumbent upon the state to act as the bulwark of last resort to prevent abuses of science such as occurred in the last century. Many PW commenters were not comfortable with the idea of scientists regulating themselves under a scientific code of ethics. These commenters wanted scientists, particularly genetic scientists, to be regulated by the government, based on majoritarian Judeo-Christian values.

If we go back to review Goldberg’s history of the progressive era we see that it undermines the conclusion he draws from it. After all, almost all the scientific abuses of the Progressive era, including the Nazi atrocities, were committed by states wielding the power of science, and conservative dogma did not provide any effective bulwark against these abuses at all. G.K. Chesterton may have been influenced by his religion to oppose the fashionable eugenic ideas of his era, but he was dismissed as a crank and the eugenics continued apace.

In his essay entitled The Responsibility of Scientists Sakharov suggests a possible bulwark against scientific abuses that is exactly contrary to that proposed by the PW commentariat. Instead of relying upon the state to control scientists, we ought to rely upon scientists to control the state. He makes the following points:

1. Scientists have become a true international community

2. The integration of the international scientific community has progressed beyond technical issues to include universal ethical issues

3. Due to their professional knowledge scientists are uniquely positioned to understand the risks and benefits inherent in scientific and technical progress

4. Scientists wield tremendous influence with their governments, and upon popular opinion

Perhaps the only truly effective bulwark against a repeat of state-sponsored scientific abuses is for scientists to see themselves as part of an international community with a fiduciary duty to the human species that transcends national interests. Sakharov was a living example of this principle, writing his essay on the responsibilities of scientists even as he was confined by the Soviets to internal exile, and it was the influence of the worldwide scientific community that prevented the Soviets from quietly exterminating him in a gulag as they did to so many others.

Some of us who enjoyed Jeff’s recent series of Provocateurism posts, which used Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism as a springboard for discussion and general mayhem,  have decided to continue debating, using other books.  The first book we have chosen is A Partisan Century, which is a collection of influential essays culled from the archives of the Partisan Review.

Everyone is welcome to participate.  Wear a helmet please.   We don’t want anyone getting hurt.  Nishi and I found the book on Amazon for $1.95. The total cost to purchase it and have it shipped from Pennsylvania to my cave in California was less than six bucks. Those of you who cannot afford the six bucks can probably find a copy in a library, where you are probably living and using the internet anyway.

I propose that we consider the essay Soft Totalitarianism by Steven Marcus first, because we could compare and contrast it with this essay by Doris Lessing.  I will get the discussion going in an update to this post when I get some free time (maybe later today).

Update: I have one foot out the door to go get breakfast, but it occurs to me that Soft Totalitarianism may not be controversial enough to start any fights at this right-leaning site. Stay tuned, I may choose another essay instead. (Also, I’m open to suggestions nishi). I will try to excerpt at length so that people who don’t have the book can wade into the fray.

Update 2: We will be discussing The Responsibility of Scientists, an essay penned by Andrei Sakharov while he was in internal exile in the former Soviet Union. Nishi has suggested that we evaluate Sakharov’s ideas in the context of HG Wells’ Time Machine.

Insightful comments .

But we’re used to those…

“To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is — understanding their terms and their values — is just remarkable.”

Watch for nuancey hopeful changiness.

This month, the Illinois senator held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes.

Meanwhile,

DeMoss briefly mentioned the 2000 incident when McCain lashed out at his former boss, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He later commented that McCain’s recent rejection of the endorsements of Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley was a “mistake.”

…

“Here were two conservative religious pastors who were probably out on a limb supporting him,” he said. “And he responds to criticism over comments they made and rejects them. That was a slap in the face to evangelicals who are already somewhat suspect of Senator McCain.”

Perception, reality, yada yada yada.

Be interesting to see what an evangelical projector looks like on the Big O! screen.