Over The High Side
Sep 14, 04 | 2:38 am by John LopezArthur Silber, post-Objectivist and self-described anarchist, weighs in on the forged Bush memos:
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame was just on the local KABC morning radio talk show — as a central player in the CBS “Memo-Gate” story. (I’m writing this shortly after 8:00 AM Los Angeles time. The time stamp on posts is two hours later, Central Time, since that’s where the host is.)
He was introduced as someone who has “proved” the CBS documents are forgeries, and as one of the bloggers mentioned in this LA Times story on Sunday.
Johnson’s reasons to support his conclusion:
1. The first time he saw the August 18, 1973 document, he “could tell instantly that it was created in Microsoft Word.” To test his “certainty,” he began typing the memo in Microsoft Word using the default settings. “Every single point of correlation between the two was just glaring” — the line spacing, the spacing between the lines, between the characters, etc. (It seems to me that this article, among many similar ones, answers that question. To put the point more broadly: the fact that the documents can be created with Microsoft Word doesn’t mean that they were — or that the documents could not in fact have been created 30 years ago.)
2. In response to a caller challenging Johnson (not on any grounds that mattered, unfortunately), Johnson also agreed with the host that the fact Killian himself couldn’t type additionally shows they’re forgeries. (What, they didn’t have secretaries then?)
3. And Johnson finally pointed out that Killian’s “whole family has repudiated the memos.” Uh-huh, and I’m sure they know everything Killian did, thought and wrote during his entire career.
A shorter, but worse example is here. I thought Silber had possibly made some sort of turnaround, and was hoping that he’d be worth reading again. I was obviously wrong.
(Yeah, awright, fine. Sabotta was right. Happy now?)
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 3:21 am
I haven’t been able to hit Silber’s site all day.
I’d been wondering how he’d angle it.
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 4:24 am
Billy,
The light-of-reason link no longer works, I think he dropped the domain. You have to hit his site by http://coldfury.com/reason/.
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 4:41 am
I found this:
BY THE WAY: Just so I’m not misunderstood, I honestly don’t care about this “forgery” business one way or the other, and I indicated some of my reasons here. The outstanding questions about Bush’s National Guard history remain, whether these particular documents are genuine or not. Not that I think those questions particularly matter either, which I don’t.
Going to the link provided takes you to yet another murky set of Silber meditations, in the course of which he informs the reader that “by and large, the American public is caught in the midst of war insanity, and they cannot think at all.“
Nothing matters, except those things that really matter, some of which don’t really matter,” by and large”. And Silber doesn’t really care anyway, except when he does.
The light of reason is a beautiful thing. If only I could think, I’d see that, I’m sure.
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 4:52 am
John,
Here’s what matters: Gay marriage and getting rid of Bush.
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 5:08 am
I also found this profound insight:
“It doesn’t matter that Saddam was the wrong bad guy, and that we’re stuck in a hellhole for the foreseeable future, getting Americans and innocent Iraqis killed for precisely nothing. Tough Daddy beat up the Bad Guy! So lots of people feel safer. It doesn’t matter that they’re not safer. They feel a little bit safer, at least for the moment, and that’s all they care about. Tough Daddy is protecting them! Finito.”
Finito! I wish I could write in foreign languages like that. That’s really impressive.
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 6:17 am
<>Lpz: thght Slbr hd pssbly md sm srt f trnrnd, nd ws hpng tht h’d b wrth rdng gn. ws bvsly wrng.
‘m tllng y rght nw, bt n n wh rfrs t th S prsnc n rq s n “ccptn” s wrth rdng gn.
[]Sbtt: ls fnd ths prfnd nsght: “t dsn’t mttr tht Sddm ws th wrng bd gy…”
Wht’s prfnd bt n nsght tht lds ff wth fls-prms? Ggl p “rq ntllgnc” ND “nsr l-slm”. Sddm ws prcsly th rght gy t g ftr.
(nd whl y’ll r t t, Ggl p “17.5 tns” ND “Syr” fr yr mssng WMD.)
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 6:40 am
What’s profound about an insight that leads off with a false-premise?
Uh, that was meant to be, you know, sarcasm.
Incidentally, if you use the phrase “false-premise” like that too often, H.R. Pufnstuf and Charles Nelson Reilly will take you away to the Land of Living Hats, where you will be chained up to a large purple-and-orange plush Logical Fallacies machine and forced to satisfy Witchy-Poo’s perverted desires in any number of especially nonconsensual, degrading, painful and unhygenic ways, 24/7.
Just thought I’d let you know.
September 14th, 2004 at Sep 14, 04 | 8:32 am
thnk ‘m sffrng lrdy….
September 15th, 2004 at Sep 15, 04 | 2:20 pm
<i>
What’s profound about an insight that leads off with a false-premise? Google up “iraqi intelligence” AND “Ansar al-Islam”. Saddam was precisely the right guy to go after.
(And while y’all are at it, Google up “17.5 tons” AND “Syria” for your missing WMD.)
<i>
I read that and it all sounds very bad. Are the bureaucrats in Washington DC doing a good job of defending you from threats like that? If so, why do you advocate violent resistance against bureaucrats? Do you make a distinction between good bureaucrats and bad ones?
September 15th, 2004 at Sep 15, 04 | 8:10 pm
Sbtt, cll Pf nd lt hm knw tht Ptrck hs jst cmmttd Fllcy f Dstrctn ffns.
September 15th, 2004 at Sep 15, 04 | 8:51 pm
I don’t see that fallacy in this list I think I got from you: <http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/FALLACYS.HTM>, but I googled around a bit. It seems that the Fallacy of Distraction is an attempt to escape being trapped in an argument by introducing a distraction from the main point.
However, you are just assuming that I am attempting to escape from something. I read the reference materials you recommended regarding Saddam, Ansar al-Islam, and the spiriting away of tons of chemical weapons and explosives, and started thinking that maybe Saddam was more of a friend of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism than I had supposed, and not entirely a secular dictator who worked primarily to suppress Islamic movements. (I have heard that he had recently been softening his policies toward the various tribes, abandoning his earlier policies like forced relocation, so maybe he was cozying up to the Islamists.)
The reference materials also suggest that before the war there were indeed many more dreadful weapons in Iraq that have since been discovered. I was actually very surprised when they didn’t find huge stashes all over the place, since Iraq and Iran had clearly engaged in protracted chemical warfare for many years.
So, I was indeed guilty of changing the subject too fast, but my motive was not to escape the implications of what you said. I asked the three questions because I am interested in your views on the possible goodness or necessity of some coercive collective efforts.
September 15th, 2004 at Sep 15, 04 | 11:27 pm
“Ncssry crcn” r “gd crcn” s n xy-mrc prms.
Hwvr, t s fls-prms t ssrt, drctly r by mplctn, tht S gvnrmnt ctn gnst Sddm Hssn ws “crcn”.
September 15th, 2004 at Sep 15, 04 | 11:40 pm
However, it is a false-premise to assert, directly or by implication, that US govenrment action against Saddam Hussein was “coercion”.
Mike:
Depends on what you mean by “action.” Does action include what our government (oops, I mean “TheCoalition”) did prior to the actual invasion of Iraq? Because if it does, then recall that “TheCoalition” first only threatened to invade unless Saddam resigned and left the country with his sons. Combine that with the massive military deployment at the Kuwait border at the time, and that sure sounds like coercion to me.
September 15th, 2004 at Sep 15, 04 | 11:48 pm
n ds nt “crc” n nmy wh hs lrdy d-fct dclrd wr n y.
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 12:09 am
Mike:
I don’t see why not. Coercion means to use threats and/or intimidation with the intention of compelling a particular behavior. That’s exactly what “TheCoalition” did in the beginning. It doesn’t matter if the target of the coercion is an enemy or not.
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 12:54 am
“Necessary coercion” or “good coercion” is an oxy-moric premise.
However, it is a false-premise to assert, directly or by implication, that US govenrment action against Saddam Hussein was “coercion”.
I was talking about coercing Americans to pay for the operation.
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 1:11 am
RKN: Ds cp “crc” cr-jckr (whn rrstng hm) smply bcs h’s pd wth stln mny?
Pt> ws tlkng bt crcng mrcns t py fr th prtn.
knw y wr; tht’s th fllcy f dstrctn, bcs t hs nthng t d wth whthr r nt th crjckr ght t hv .40 n n r nd t th thr.
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 2:46 am
I am asking whether you think certain large operations like taking down Saddam might only be possible if funded (and possibly staffed) coercively.
(I do like the .40 round, by the way, I’ve read some reports that it has exceptional stopping power.)
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 6:10 am
Mike:
The [il]legitimacy of the cop’s salary (or GovCo’s coffers) is irrelevant to my point, Mike.
If the cop brandishes her pistol and shouts at the perp, “Halt, or I’ll shoot!,” that’s coercion: a threat or intimidation used with the intention of changing another’s behavior. Disagree?
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 3:15 pm
Mike :
If Saddam Hussein had WMD why did he not use them when in utmost peril?
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 7:12 pm
If Saddam Hussein had WMD why did he not use them when in utmost peril?
Maybe he thought that would be futile. Might as well just ship them to Syria and watch the guerilla war from prison.
Honestly though, I don’t think “eliminating scary weapons” was the prime motive for going to war with Iraq. I think “democratization of the region” was more what they had in mind.
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 9:09 pm
RKN> f th cp brndshs hr pstl nd shts t th prp, “Hlt, r ‘ll sht!,” tht’s crcn…
Y’r lmntyng th cntxt, whch n dscssns hr n lbrtrn brds nd lsts, s tht “crcn” rprsnts nttd-frc, r th thrt thrf. Dfnsv-frc, r pplctn f jstc, s nt “crcn”.
Gvn> f Sddm Hssn hd WMD why dd h nt s thm…
rrlvnt t th hrt f ll clms f Bsh “lyng bt WMD t Cngrss” (tc).
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 9:11 pm
Pt> dn’t thnk “lmntng scry wpns” ws th prm mtv fr gng t wr wth rq. thnk “dmcrtztn f th rgn” ws mr wht thy hd n mnd.
Ths rsns wr ncllry t th mn n f Sddm rnnng sf-hvn fr trrrsts-n-trnng nd n-th-lm.
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 10:00 pm
Mike,
I don’t see why it is irrelevant to claims that Bush lied. I presume that nobody would claim he lied, if very substantial amounts of WMD had turned up. The failure to find significant quantities leads a reasonable person to question whether Bush was in error or deliberately lying. I always assume politicians are lying, so I don’t much care about the answer to that question.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, your statement about Syria clearly implies a belief on your part, that some form of WMD was present in Iraq. My question remains, if you believe that, what is your explanation for Saddam Hussein’s failure to use them? The armed might of the US Air Force was attempting to kill him every night. What did he have to lose by using WMD?
September 16th, 2004 at Sep 16, 04 | 10:16 pm
…is that “coercion” represents initiated-force, or the threat thereof.
So you agree that the threat of physical force is coercion. Good.
How is it then that coercion is no longer coercion if it’s used in the application of justice? If someone steals my bike and I threaten to initiate force against them if they don’t give it back, that’s coercion. *And* it’s me exercising justice at the same time.
If you’re saying only the ethically innocent can be victims of coercion, that’s just not true.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 12:29 am
[Th rmpnt llgc cntns….]
<>Gvn: My qstn rmns, f y blv tht…
“Blf” hs nthng t d wth t.
<>…wht s yr xplntn fr Sddm Hssn’s flr t s thm?
Tht qstn s stll rrlvnt. Yr rgnt dsr tht t wrn’t ds nt chng tht fct.
<>RKN: mk>”crcn” rprsnts nttd-frc, r th thrt thrf.” – S y gr tht th thrt f physcl frc s crcn. Gd.
d NT gr wth yr mngld, dlsnl, cntxt-dstryng trnsltn f my xplctly clr cntxtl dfntn.
Wht th hll s th mttr wth y tw?
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 12:47 am
<>Gvn: f vry sbstntl mnts f WMD hd trnd p. Th flr t fnd sgnfcnt qntts lds rsnbl prsn t qstn….
17.5 tns sn’t “sgnfcnt” r “sbstntl”?
<> lwys ssm pltcns r lyng
Bt f crs y d; t’s cnvnnt xcs nblng y t wsl wy frm th lks f ths:
Kng bdllh: l Qd WMDs Cm Frm Syr
NwsMx.cm ^ | 4/17/04 | Crl Lmbchr nd NwsMx.cm Stff
< hrf="http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1119526/psts" ttl="http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1119526/psts">< hrf='http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1119526/psts' rl='nfllw'>http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1119526/psts
Pstd n 04/17/2004 12:14:12 PM PDT by kttrcks
Jrdn’s Kng bdllh rvld n Strdy tht vhcls rprtdly cntnng chmcl wpns nd psn gs tht wr prt f ddly l Qd bmb plt cm frm Syr, th cntry nmd by .S. wpns nspctr Dvd Ky lst yr s lkly rpstry fr rq’s wpns f mss dstrctn.
“t ws mjr, mjr prtn. t wld hv dcpttd th gvrnmnt,” Kng bdllh tld th Sn Frncsc Chrncl. Jrdnn ffcls stmtd tht th dth cnt cld hv bn s hgh s 20,000 - svn tms grtr thn th Spt. 11 ttcks.
bdllh sd tht trcks cntnng 17.5 tns f xplsvs hd cm frm Syr, thgh h tk pns nt t mplct Syrn Prsdnt Bshr ssd n th l Qd plt, syng, “‘m cmpltly cnfdnt tht Bshr dd nt knw bt t.”
n hs tstmny bfr Cngrss lst yr, Mr. Ky sd .S. stllt srvllnc shwd sbstntl vhclr trffc gng frm rq t Syr jst prr t th .S.ttck n Mrch 19, 2003 ttck.
Whl Ky sd nvstgtrs cldn’t b sr th crg cntnd wpns f mss dstrctn, n f hs tp dvsrs dscrbd th vdnc s “nqstnbl.”
“Ppl blw th Sddm-Hssn-nd-hs-sns lvl sw wht ws cmng nd dcdd th bst thng t d ws t dstry nd dsprs,” sd Jms Clppr, n cmmnts rprtd by th Nw Yrk Tms n ct. 29. Clppr hds p th Ntnl mgry nd Mppng gncy.
srl ntllgnc hs lng blvd tht ftr th .S. dlyd nvsn plns t llw .N. wpns nspctrs tm t srch fr rq’s WMDs, Sddm mvd th bnnd wpns t Syr, th nly thr cntry whr th B’th Prty rld.
n prl 1, Jrdnn ffcls nnncd th rrst f svrl trrrst sspcts, syng thy wr stll hntng fr tw crs flld wth xplsvs.
Fv dys ltr, th Stt Dprtmnt rvld th ttckrs wr lnkd t b Msb l-Zrqw, Jrdnn-bsd trrrst cnsdrd t b n f l Qd’s mst dngrs. n f Zrqw’s trgts ws th .S. mbssy n mmn.
By Strdy mrnng rpn nws srvcs wr qtng n nnmd Jrdnn ffcl wh rvld tht th l Qd plttrs plnnd t s wpns f mss dstrctn n th fld ttck.
“W fnd prmry mtrls t mk chmcl bmb whch, f t hd xpldd, wld hv md nrly 20,000 dths … n n r f n sqr klmtr,” th ffcl tld gnc Frnc Prss.
nthr prtn plnnd by th ntwrk ws t s “ddly gs gnst th S mbssy nd th prm mnstr’s ffc n mmn,” h ddd.
cr blngng t th l Qd plttrs, cntnng chmcl bmb nd psns gs, ws ntrcptd jst 75 mls frm th Syrn brdr.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 12:50 am
Mr:
< hrf="http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1125087/psts" ttl="http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1125087/psts">< hrf='http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1125087/psts' rl='nfllw'>http://www.frrpblc.cm/fcs/f-nws/1125087/psts
Sddm’s WMD hv bn fnd: Nw vdnc nvls chm/b, nclr, bllstc rms WrldNtDly.cm ^ | Tsdy, prl 27, 2004 | By Knnth R. Tmmrmn
Pstd n 04/26/2004 10:46:42 PM PDT by JhnHng2
Nw vdnc t f rq sggsts th .S. ffrt t trck dwn Sddm Hssn’s mssng wpns f mss dstrctn s hvng bttr sccss thn s bng rprtd.
Ky ssrtns by th ntllgnc cmmnty wdly jdgd n th md nd by crtcs f Prsdnt Bsh s hvng bn fls r trnng t t hv bn tr ftr ll.
Bt ths stnnng nws hs rcvd lttl ttntn frm th mjr md, nd th prsdnt’s crtcs cntn t nsst tht “n wpns” hv bn fnd.
n vrtlly vry cs — chmcl, blgcl, nclr nd bllstc mssls — th ntd Stts hs fnd th wpns nd th prgrms tht th rq dcttr sccssflly cncld fr 12 yrs frm .N. wpns nspctrs.
snp
Stckpls fnd
n fct, s rcnt vdnc md pblc by frmr prtns ffcr fr th Cltn Prvsnl thrty’s ntllgnc nt n rq shws, sm f ths stckpls hv bn fnd - nt ll t nc, nd nt ll n nc wrkng rdr — bt fnd ll th sm.
Dgls Hnsn ws .S. rmy cvlry rcnnssnc ffcr fr 20 yrs, nd vtrn f Glf Wr . H ws n tmc dmltns mntns scrty ffcr nd nclr, blgcl nd chmcl dfns ffcr. s cvln nlyst n rq lst smmr, h wrkd fr n prtns ntllgnc nt f th CP n rq, nd ltr, wth th nwly frmd Mnstry f Scnc nd Tchnlgy, whch ws rspnsbl fr fndng nw, nnlthl mplymnt fr rq WMD scntsts.
n n ntrvw wth nsght nd n n rtcl h wrt fr th nln mgzn mrcnThnkr.cm, Hnsn xmns rprts frm .S. cmbt nts nd pblc nfrmtn cnfrmng tht mny f rq’s CW stckpls hv ndd bn fnd.
ntl nw, hwvr, jrnlsts hv dvtd scnt ttntn t ths vdnc, n prt bcs t cntrdcts th stry ln thy hv bn pttng frwrd snc th .S.-ld nspctns bgn ftr th wr.
Bt nthr rsn fr th md slnc my stm frm th smngly ndrmtc ntr f th “fnds” Hnsn nd thrs hv dscrbd. Th mtrls tht cnsttt Sddm’s chmcl-wpns “stckpls” lk n wfl lt lk pstcds, whch thy ndd rsmbl.
“Pstcds r th ky lmnts n th chmcl-gnt rn,” Hnsn sys. “n fct, th gnrl pstcd chmcl frml (rgnphspht) s th ‘grndfthr’ f mdrn-dy nrv gnts.”
Th ntd Ntns ws flly wr tht Sddm hd stblshd hs chmcl-wpns plnts ndr th gs f prmttd cvln chmcl-ndstry nfrstrctr. Plnts nspctd n th rly 1990s s CW prdctn fclts hd bn st p t ppr s f thy wr prdcng pstcds, r n th cs f gnt plnt nr Flljh, chlrn, whch s sd t prdc mstrd gs.
Whn cltn frcs ntrd rq, “hg wrhss nd cchs f ‘cmmrcl nd grcltrl’ chmcls wr szd nd pnstkngly tstd by rmy nd Mrn chmcl spclsts,” Hnsn wrts. “Wht ws srprsng ws hw qckly th SG rftd th fndngs f r grnd frcs nd hw slnt thy hv bn n th sgnfcnc f ths cchs.”
Cchs f “cmmrcl nd grcltrl” chmcls dn’t mtch th xpcttn f “stckpls” f chmcl wpns. Bt, n fct, tht s prcsly wht thy r. “t vry mnmm,” Hnsn tlls nsght, “thy wr strng th prcrsrs t rstrt chmcl-wrfr prgrm vry qckly.”
Ky nd Dlfr cm t smlr cnclsn, tllng Cngrss ndr th tht Sddm hd blt nw fclts nd stckpld th mtrls t rlnch prdctn f chmcl nd blgcl wpns t mmnt’s ntc. t Krbl, .S. trps stmbld pn 55-glln drms f pstcds t wht pprd t b vry lrg “grcltrl spply” r, Hnsn sys. Sm f th drms wr strd n “cmflgd bnkr cmplx” tht ws shwn t rprtrs — wth nplsnt rslts.
“Mr thn dzn sldrs, Knght-Rddr rprtr, CNN cmrmn, nd tw rq PWs cm dwn wth symptms cnsstnt wth xpsr t nrv gnt,” Hnsn sys. “Bt ltr SG tsts rsltd n prclmtn f ngtv, nd f stry, nthng t s hr, tc., nd th rlr fndngs nd njrs dsslvd nt nnxstnc. Lft nxplnd s th smll mttr f th bvs pns tkn t dsgs th cch f stnsbly lgtmt pstcds. n wndrs bt th dvntg n grcltrl-cmmdts bsnss gns by scrng drms f pstcd n cmflgd bnkrs 6 ft ndrgrnd. Th ‘grcltrl st’ ws ls clctd wth mltry mmntn dmp — vdntly nthng mr thn cncdnc n th ys f th SG.”
Tht wsn’t th nly sgnfcnt fnd by cltn trps f prbbl CW stckpls, Hnsn blvs. Nr th nrthrn rq twn f B’j, whr Sddm hd blt chmcl-wpns plnt knwn t th ntd Stts frm nrly 12 yrs f nspctns, lmnts f th 4th nfntry Dvsn fnd 55-glln drms cntnng sbstnc dntfd thrgh mss spctrmtry nlyss s cyclsrn — nrv gnt.
Nrby wr srfc-t-srfc nd srfc-t-r mssls, gs msks nd mbl lbrtry tht cld hv bn sd t mx chmcls t th st.
“f crs, ltr tsts by th xprts rvld tht ths wr nly th bqts pstcds tht vrybdy ws trnng p,” Hnsn sys. “t sms rq sldrs wr bsssd wth kpng mm dmps nsct-fr, ccrdng t th rdng f th vdnc nw nshrnd by th cnvntnl wsdm tht ‘n WMD stckpls hv bn dscvrd.’”
t Tj — n rq wpns cmplx s lrg s th Dstrct f Clmb — .S. cmbt nts dscvrd mr “pstcds” stckpld n spclly blt cntnrs, smllr n dmtr bt mch lngr thn th stndrd 55-glln drm.
Hnsn sys h stll rclls th mltry sndng dgtl mgs f th cnstrs t hs ffc, whr hs bss t th Mnstry f Scnc nd Tchnlgy trnsltd th rbc-lngg mrkngs. “Thy wr lbld s pstcds,” h sys. “G, y sr hv gt lt f pstcds strd n mm dmps.”
gn, ths Jnry, Dnsh frcs fnd 120-mllmtr mrtr shlls flld wth mystrs lqd tht ntlly tstd pstv fr blstr gnts. Bt sbsqnt tsts by th ntd Stts dsptd tht fndng.
“f t wsn’t chmcl gnt, wht ws t?” Hnsn sks. “Mr pstcds? Dsh-wshng dtrgnt? Frm ths ld sldr’s prspctv, gn nthng frm pttng lqd n my mrtr rnds nlss tht stff wll d bd thngs t th nmy.”
Th dscvrs Hnsn dscrbs r nt drmtc. nd tht’s th prblm: Fndng rl stckpls n grbby mm dmps dsn’t ft th mg th md nd th prsdnt’s crtcs crflly hv fd t th pblc f wht rq’s wpns ght t lk lk. snr dmnstrtn ffcl wh hs gn thrgh th ntllgnc rprtng frm rq s wll s th rlr rprts frm .N. rms nspctrs rfrs t nthr wll-dcmntd llgtn.
“Th rqs dmttd thy hd md 3.9 tns f VX,” pwrfl nrv gs, bt clmd thy hd nvr wpnzd t. Th .N. nspctrs “flt thy hd mr. Bt whr dd t g?” Th rqs nvr prvdd ny xplntn f wht hd hppnd t thr VX stckpls.
Wht ds 3.9 tns f VX lk lk? “t cld ft n n lrg grg,” th ffcl sys. ssmng, f crs, tht Sddm wld ssmbl vry bt f VX gs hs scntsts hd prdcd t sngl st, tht stll mnts t n lrg grg n n r th sz f th stt f Clfrn.
Snr dmnstrtn ffcls strss tht th nvstgtn wll cntn s nspctrs cmb thrgh mllns f pgs f dcmnts n rq nd ttmpt t ntrvw rq wpns scntsts wh hv bn trnd ll thr prfssnl lvs t cncl thr ctvts frm th tsd wrld.
“Th cndtns ndr whch th SG s wrkng r nt vry cndcv,” n ffcl sd. “Bt ths prsdnt wnts th trth t cm t. Ths s nt n xrcs n spnnng r cnsrng.”
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 1:00 am
What the hell is the matter with you two?
Nothing, with me.
Just trying to understand your “special language” is all.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 2:35 am
Mike is making his case pretty clearly and I appreciate the information he’s bringing to the table.
I do not deny that people can achieve good results using extorted money. They oust some dangerous dictators from power. They prevent or solve some crimes. They adjudicate disputes. They teach some children to read in school. They perform some heart transplants on Canadians. They build roads and plant flowers in the medians. The list goes on and on.
I just have a hard time cheering on these projects. I object to them in principle, whether they are successful or not. Usually they are not notably successful. The people running them are not subject to the discipline of having to fund and staff their efforts through voluntary means. Therefore their efforts tend to be ham-fisted, grossly wasteful, and rife with counterproductivity. They also tend to crowd out all possibly better alternatives by sheer force of monopoly, displacing them even out of human imagination.
Mike may insist that I color inside the lines, cheering the ends while ignoring the means altogether. But it is not a fallacy for me to observe that people are using bad means to accomplish some good ends. A true statement cannot be a fallacy.
My observation would only be a fallacy if I were trying to assert that because the means were bad, the ends must also necessarily be bad. That implication is indeed logically false, and anybody asserting its universal truth is making a mistake. However, I do believe that coercive means tend to produce inferior results.
It is also not a fallacy to expand the scope of discussion. Of course I’m interested in Mike’s information. However, I view the overwhelming popularity of coercive systems here in the “free” world as a much greater actuarial threat to my life and liberty than any terrorist training camp in Iraq. The problem is that coercive systems offer something of value to almost everyone — things that even Mike appreciates. If you’re wondering why coercive systems are so popular, this is your answer.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 2:45 pm
I do not deny that people can achieve good results using extorted money.
Good for whom?
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 4:16 pm
Mike,
If this stuff is ‘irrelevant’ why do you keep providing ‘evidence’ to support your argument? Said evidence consisting of newpaper reports about the remarks of politicians and government employees.
[While Kay said investigators couldn’t be sure the cargo contained weapons of mass destruction, one of his top advisors described the evidence as ‘unquestionable’] - An unnamed person describes the evidence as unquestionable; well I stand corrected, silly little me, thinking I can question things described as unquestionable.
[look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble] - the point remains, if this stuff is more lethal than mere pesticide, why did Hussein not use it?
[they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly] - or maybe they have agriculture and industry in Iraq and need chemicals to carry out those economic tasks.
[Syria, the only other country where the Ba’ath Party ruled] - I notice Syria didn’t provide a refuge for Hussein, in spite of this snub he generously donated the WMD he had created. Of course, he never intended them for selfish uses, they were always intended to altruistically benefit Syria.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 6:32 pm
I do not deny that people can achieve good results using extorted money.
Good for whom?
Good for the people receiving the benefits. You know, the people driving on roads, looking at the pretty flowers in the median, sending their children to public schools, using expanded Medicare prescription drug benefits, receiving welfare checks, feeling safer because of the police, feeling satisfied after court verdicts, feeling safer because Saddam is gone, receiving Social Security checks, receiving federal disaster aid, receiving federal guarantees on savings accounts and pension benefits, etc.
In other words, just about everybody. Sure, lots of people gripe about taxes and regulations, but there’s something in it for everyone and that keeps people fairly content. If they’re not getting what they think is their due, that’s ok, because there’s always another election right around the corner. Also, most people figure there’s no other way to do certain things anyway. Their attitude is c’mon, get real, the only way we could ever have Benefit X (fill in the blank) is to collect money by force, put it into a vast fund, and let a third party decide how to spend it.
In summary, we have these three dynamics:
– There’s something in it for everyone.
– Once we get our guy in there he’ll fix things.
– There’s no other way to do things anyway.
I think these are the primary reasons why coercive systems are so popular.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 11:21 pm
<>Gvn: Mk, f ths stff s ‘rrlvnt’ why d y kp prvdng ‘vdnc’ t spprt yr rgmnt?
Gvn, d y ndrstnd *lmntry lgc*?
– Tht’s srs qstn, frm m t y, bcs th vdnc hv n frnt f my ys s tht y dn’t.
“Ths stff” s yr phmsm fr yr rgmnt (b mplctn) tht WMD mght nt hv xstd ndr th nprvbl prms tht f Sddm hd thm h wld hv sd thm.
Yr “stff”, f crs, s rrlvnt bcs th *vdnc* f WMD s thr. s fr yr clmsy ttmpts t dsmss th vdnc, t’s vry sy cll fr m whs ccnts ‘m gng t ccpt.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 11:29 pm
<>Ptrck: pprct th nfrmtn [Mk]’s brngng t th tbl.
Wht nnys th bldn’ prpl shts t f m s th brthlssly gr dsr f s mny t pn thr yps nd ymmr ndlssly wtht tkng fv mnts t f thr bsy lftm t g thrw tpc nt Ggl.
Hnstly, thy’r lk kds chsng thr brght pnk bll nt trffc — ttrly fckng <>cllss t rlty ntl t mws ‘m dwn.
September 17th, 2004 at Sep 17, 04 | 11:33 pm
<>>Gd fr whm?
…Gd fr th ppl rcvng th bnfts.
“[B]nfts”, f crs, bng phmsm fr “lt”.
Wh crs wht’s “gd” fr rcvrs-f-stln-prprty?
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 12:05 am
“[B]enefits”, of course, being a euphemism for “loot”.
Absolutely.
Who cares what’s “good” for receivers-of-stolen-property?
You, Mike, are now safer because Saddam is out of power. You have benefited from a project funded with stolen property. You are glad the project was undertaken.
I’m sure that you personally would not prefer it to be funded that way, but most people people figure there’s no other way such projects can be done.
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 12:07 am
Honestly, they’re like kids chasing their bright pink ball into traffic — utterly fucking clueless to reality until it mows ‘em down.
Hadn’t heard about Ansar al Islam, thanks.
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 12:23 am
Ptrck, “mst ppl” vtd fr Htlr n ‘32 — s rlly dn’t gv sht fr th mbgs-Cllctv Mb.
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 2:29 am
Based on your frequent praise of blundering bureaucratic warfare programs funded on the backs of taxpayers, I was having a hard time distinguishing you from that mob.
The frequent praise of warfare I see on this site alarms me because “of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” (James Madison, 1795)
Some of the writers here claim to hate socialism, yet appear to embrace warfare as their favorite socialist program of all. This is ironic, since “the fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.” (James Madison again)
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 3:30 am
Chkoreff:The frequent praise of warfare I see on this site…
Can you point to examples of “frequent praise of warfare” outside of the comments?
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 5:02 am
Interesting that you’d stipulate “outside of the comments.” But it’s a good question, I’ll get back to you on it.
Maybe what I’m seeing, perhaps even IN the comments, is more along the lines of: we will defend Bush against lies every chance we get, not because we like what statist nitwits do, but because we cherish truth for its own sake and don’t particularly like the other statist nitwit that the patchouli-scented tantrum-thowing hippies prefer. Or something like that. Maybe I need to get over the idea that it all just sounds like giving aid and comfort to statist nitwits to me.
Speaking of statist nitwits, I wonder if someone could program George Bush to mouth the words “Ansar al Islam” or “17.5 tons.” Maybe he already said it and I just missed it because I barely follow the news. Why don’t they talk about it — are they embarrassed about the 17.5 tons going to Syria and Iraq itself traveling back in time to 1917 or even 680 AD? What’s the deal?
Just for the record, I do look both ways before even stepping into the street. That strict practice works well in both the U.S. and the U.K.
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 9:37 am
<>Ptrck:Bsd n yr frqnt prs f blndrng brcrtc wrfr prgrms fndd n th bcks f txpyrs, ws hvng hrd tm dstngshng y frm tht mb.
Wll, tht prbbly wldn’t hppn f y wrn’t blnd.
s fr th rst f yr pcfst twddl (qtng Mdsn, whm n prsms ws hppy ngh t b th dmn *prsdnt* f brnd nw cntry fndd n <>WR), ‘ll sy ths: nybdy nwllng t ccpt th nvtbl rqrmnt f tpplng nrstrnd vls thrgh frc f rms <>ncssrly cmmts hmslf t srvtd bfr sd vls. — nlss, f crs, smn ls hks t th trsh plng p rnd hs nkls, ll fr th thnklss prvlg f hvng t lstn t th fckr cmpln bt th smll s th bgs r drggd wy.
Lk: Th mr fct tht gvrnmnt crwds vry thr prvdr t f mrkt fr kllng-bd-gys <>ds nt mn tht th bds gys n lngr nd kllng. s tht rlly s dffclt t ndrstnd?
Bt y’ll nvr s m pllng trggr n bllt-bx.
[]Wht’s th dl [wth Bsh nt mntnng 17.5 tns f WMD n Syr][/]
Th tw bvs nswrs r: 1. h’s npt; 2. h’s svng t t blw Krry wy n th tlvsd dbts. (’m frmly cnvncd tht Krry s n ttr dmbsht, nd wld ctlly b stpd ngh t brng t p, rthr thn rmnng slnt bt t nd lttng xtrnlly-fndd ttck-ds d ll f th flt-t lyng.)
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 3:39 pm
As for the rest of your pacifist twaddle …
There ya go Mike, completely ignore the obvious historical truth in what Madison says and call it “pacifist twaddle,” a completely inaccurate term which you choose to … sob … make me feel so ashamed of myself … oh no, Mike thinks I’m a pansy who doesn’t want to help take out the garbage! … (sniff) …
Oh yeah, and did I mention that War is a Racket? But I suppose Gen. Butler was a pacifist too.
(quoting Madison, whom one presumes was happy enough to be the damn *president* of a brand new country founded in WAR),
Founded in a war fought by free people, yes. Later, as president, he asked Congress in 1812 to declare war against the British, who had been seizing American ships at sea, taking the cargoes and conscripting the men.
But don’t forget, Madison was the pansy who spouted the pacifist twaddle I just quoted. Incidentally, the pansy is a very hardy flower.
Look: The mere fact that a government crowds every other provider out of a market for killing-bad-guys does not mean that the bads guys no longer need killing. Is that really so difficult to understand?
I’ve understood that for a very long time. Lots of things “need doin’.” Bad guys need killing, roads need to be built, trash needs to be picked up, disputes need to be settled, children need to learn to read, and neighborhoods need to be protected. I have made that abundantly clear throughout this discussion. The question has always been filling in the proper subject for all those action phrases. I noticed you omitted the subject yourself … what is that … the “Fallacy of the Unmentioned Subject” or some such sin over on planet Vulcan?
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 4:18 pm
Patrick: “Based on your frequent praise of blundering bureaucratic warfare programs funded on the backs of taxpayers, I was having a hard time distinguishing you from that mob.”
Mike: “Well, that probably wouldn’t happen if you weren’t blind.”
It wouldn’t happen if you weren’t so ill-tempered and obstinate. Three days ago I asked you a simple Yes or No question:
“I am asking whether you think certain large operations like taking down Saddam might only be possible if funded (and possibly staffed) coercively.”
Now let me scroll back and see how Mike answered … hmm wait a minute I don’t see it … wonder if I’m going blind here … no really I don’t see it … HEY! Mike never answered my question!
Your refusal to answer a simple question like that gave me every reason to suspect that you were part of the Ambiguous Collective mob, specifically the Toby Keith-listening, Dixie Chicks record smashing faction.
But now I know otherwise. I guess.
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 5:29 pm
<>Dt qts m: s fr th rst f yr pcfst twddl …
…Thr y g Mk, cmpltly gnr th bvs hstrcl trth n wht Mdsn sys nd cll t “pcfst twddl”
Why nt, snc t pls bfr th MR bvs hstrcl trth f th fct tht mly rsn ths cntry sn’t “Grtr Cnd” s bcs hls wr drlld nt th Kng’s hrd mn.
Pcsfsm ds nt *wn lbrty* — r y cpbl f ndrstndng tht? Tw-hndrd “dctd” mlln slvs wh st n thr sss whl vl crcks th lsh rmn slvs.
Nw thn, s fr yr thr snt-ldng qstn s, th nswr s bvsly “N”. l-Qd, fr nstnc, sn’t gvrnmnt-rn & tx-fndd prtn.
<>() sspct tht y wr prt f th mbgs Cllctv..
Thn y wld b prtty nttntv, snc yrs-trly s th n rspnsbl fr yr vr sng t n th frst plc rnd hr.
Snc y’r crrntly ntrstd n lgcl-fllcs, sggst y spnd lttl mr tm n fllcy f mpld Cnsnt — sng s t’s n f th tw bggs sttsts mply, nd whch Lysndr Spnr (whs smnl wrk prvds th ttl f ths blg) dbnkd vr hndrd yrs g.
September 18th, 2004 at Sep 18, 04 | 6:13 pm
Chkoreff: Maybe what I’m seeing, perhaps even IN the comments, is more along the lines of: we will defend Bush against lies every chance we get, not because we like what statist nitwits do, but because we cherish truth for its own sake…
No “maybe”: (speaking for myself only of course), I do cherish the truth for its own sake. As noted here, for example, or here, or here, or here (’specially in the comments), or here. And in a few other places as well.
Maybe I need to get over the idea that it all just sounds like giving aid and comfort to statist nitwits to me.
No maybe: the observable fact that the various factions in the eternal sociopolitical pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey contest occasionally sort themselves, pachinko-ball style, into a varying spectrum of lies isn’t in any way “giving aid and comfort to…” those nitwits. Nor is commenting on the most outrageous or most vulnerable of those lies, provided one is willing to honestly discuss the issues when they’re on the table. Example: They All Ought To Shut The Fuck Up About How “It’s Your Money” Until They Actually Mean It.
I very seriously doubt that you can find a regular contributor to No Treason who slams one set of statist idiots while mostly ignoring the other set. This isn’t Lewrockwell.com.
September 19th, 2004 at Sep 19, 04 | 5:50 pm
Pacifism does not *win liberty* — are you capable of understanding that?
I absolutely understand that. That’s why I am not a pacifist, and try to remain as armed and dangerous as I can. I’m not ready to martyr myself in a heroic yet doomed assault against the Caliph though.
Two-hundred “educated” million slaves who sit on their asses while evil cracks the lash remain slaves.
I’m focusing on developing systems that (1) profit the individual, and (2) enable the individual to escape the lash to some degree. But I will only emphasize the first benefit because it appeals to a much larger market than the second. I am hoping that the larger market will eventually stumble onto the second benefit, even unconsciously and in spite of themselves.
Now then, as for your other snout-leading question is, the answer is obviously “No”. Al-Qaeda, for instance, isn’t a government-run & tax-funded operation.
Yeah, good point. Which leads me to wonder: on the morning of 9/11/01, how many anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missile launchers were stationed around New York harbor? I’ll go ahead and guess without bothering to google: zero.
It’s interesting that New York had no military defense at all, considering that in 1993 somebody bombed the WTC, that an observant woman in the FBI office in Phoenix had noticed some very suspicious flight lessons, that the president knew that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States, that an al Qaeda operative had turned himself in and told the FBI that hijacking plans were in the works, and that, in case someone accuses me of being an armchair general, a bunch of people were being paid $30 billion a year to figure this stuff out. One very competent agent named John O’Neill had been making all sorts of noise about the threat before the tower fell in on his head on 9/11.
So in light of all that, how much of a stretch is it to suggest that maybe somebody should have installed a few million dollars worth of anti-aircraft defense? The people collecting the rents off the WTC (the “Port Authority” as it turns out) might have appealed to the feds to return $5 million in taxes back to them so they could turn around and hire a defense contractor to install and staff the gunneries.
At least that way the hijackers would have been forced to choose softer targets such as the White House or an IRS building. Hell, if that ever happens, I’ll buy the Koran and read it from cover to cover just to see if maybe I missed something.
September 19th, 2004 at Sep 19, 04 | 5:53 pm
This is retarded.
Those who contemptuously pride themselves on a superior grasp of history ought not to pass along, without any comment or cavil, comments like this:
“Israeli intelligence has long believed that after the U.S. delayed invasion plans to allow U.N. weapons inspectors time to search for Iraq’s WMDs, Saddam moved the banned weapons to Syria, the only other country where the Ba’ath Party ruled.”
… which of course neglects the obvious conflict of interest involved when Israeli intelligence is dishing alleged dirt to the United States on two of its three biggest military rivals; and mindlessly points out that Assad’s Syria and Hussein’s Iraq were both ruled by “the Ba’ath Party,” neglecting that the Ba’ath Parties in the two countries were not in direct contact with each other and were, in fact, ideologically opposed to one another–over roughly the same issues (Ba’athism in one country vs. Ba’athism in the whole Arab world) that divided Stalin and Trotsky (who were both particularly bloody-minded sorts of Bolshevik thugs–but who it would be foolish to place together as allies).
Not to mention this:
“Patrick, ‘most people’ voted for Hitler in ‘32 — so I really don’t give a shit for the Ambiguous-Collective Mob.”
This is categorically false. Hitler lost the 1932 Presidential election to the incumbent Paul von Hindenburg, by a margin of 30% to just under 50% in the four-candidate first round, and then again by a margin of 37% to 53% in the three-candidate runoff. The Nazi Party received 37% of the vote in the special Reichstag elections in May 1932, and then dropped to 33% in the November 1932 elections. (In fact the NDASP never achieved majority support in any national election ever held in the Weimar Republic. In March 1933, Hitler used the Reichstag fire to imprison or shoot most of his political opponents, to eliminate most of his (democratically elected) political opponents from voting in the Reichstag, and then to ram the Enabling Act through this rump Parliament. The rest, as they say, is history. Unfortunately.
September 19th, 2004 at Sep 19, 04 | 6:19 pm
<>“srl ntllgnc hs lng blvd tht ftr th .S. dlyd nvsn plns t llw .N. wpns nspctrs tm t srch fr rq’s WMDs, Sddm mvd th bnnd wpns t Syr, th nly thr cntry whr th B’th Prty rld.”
… whch f crs nglcts th bvs cnflct f ntrst nvlvd whn srl ntllgnc s dshng llgd drt t th ntd Stts n tw f ts thr bggst mltry rvls
Prhps f y wrn’t n sch fckng hll-ss rsh t slm D Jz, y’d hv bckd p cpl prgrphs t Kng bdllh (hnt: nt n srl).
<>Mk: ‘mst ppl’ vtd fr Htlr n ‘32 — s rlly dn’t gv sht fr th mbgs-Cllctv Mb.” — Ths s ctgrclly fls…
D y ndrstnd why “mst ppl” ws n qt-mrks, “Rd”?
<>LL lctns r wn by plrlts, bcs “mst ppl” ctlly sty hm r r nlgbl t vt.
September 19th, 2004 at Sep 19, 04 | 7:17 pm
Mike Schneider’s response to my post is a bit strange. Strange, in part, because he doesn’t actually reply to much that I wrote. Instead, he decides to accuse someone he has never met of anti-Semitism:
“Perhaps if you weren’t in such fucking hell-ass rush to slam Da Jooz, you’d have backed up a couple paragraphs to King Abdullah (hint: not an Israeli).”
Apparently Mike Schneider thinks that the relevant part of my statement was that Israeli intelligence is mostly composed of Jews (which was not, in fact, actually a part of my statement as such, although I guess it can be taken as part of the known background context). That’s a rather odd bit of reasoning, though, since the main thrust of my claim had nothing to do with Jews, but rather with the conflicts of interest involved in uncritically swallowing “intelligence” leaked to the press by an intelligence agency that would just happen to support military action against one and possibly two of its three biggest military enemies.
Of course, his article does also mention claims by King Abdullah of Jordan. But what Schneider was apparently too busy to check in his own article is that King Abdullah didn’t claim that anyone in Syria got chemical weapons from Iraq. He claimed that a group of terrorists got chemical weapons from within Syria–a state which is believed to have already had chemical weapons without any help from Iraq. So it’s unclear, exactly, what additional evidence Abdullah’s claims (if true) are supposed to provide.
(N.B.: the mere fact that Israeli intelligence says something, or that United States officials say something, does not automatically make it false–even if what they are saying does serve their geopolitical interests. But you ought to know enough about governments and wars and geopolitics by this point in history to realize that uncritically citing government reports or intelligence “leaks” that transparently do serve the interests of the people offering them is not necessarily the best way to find the truth of the matter. The main point here is not an empirical one: I don’t think any morally interesting questions about the Iraq war hinge on whether or not Saddam Hussein’s government was keeping stockpiles of NBC weapons, and while I think there’s good reason to think that they did not, I would not be particularly surprised if it turned out they did. It’s an epistemological one.
In a similar vein, perhaps if Mike weren’t in “such fucking hell-ass rush” [sic] to slam my reply to his comments 26 minutes after they were posted, he might also have noticed that the following “reply”:
“Do you understand why “most people” was in quote-marks, “Rad”?
“ALL elections are won by pluralities, because “most people” actually stay home or are ineligible to vote.”
still relies on false premises, due to the fact that Hitler did not win by a plurality, but rather lost in the Presidential election of 1932. Badly. Because a supermajority of Germans who voted, voted against him.
Maybe he meant to refer to one of the two Parliamentary elections in which the NSDAP gained about the same percentage of the vote (37%) as Hitler won in the Presidential election in the first Parliamentary election of 1933, and then dropped to 33% in the November election, but (because of the different landscape in Parliamentary elections) became the largest party in the Reichstag. But again he wouldn’t be talking about “most people” (since parliamentary government works by coalition, not by majoritarian vote), or, if scare-quoting “most” people somewhow actually makes it mean “a lot, though not even close to the majority” or “about 1/3 of the people who happened to vote”, he still wouldn’t be talking about Hitler; he would be talking about the Nazi Party. (Perhaps he should have put “Hitler” in scare-quotes too. Or at least done one of those Google fact-checking searches he seemed all fired up about earlier in the thread.)
You might wonder why harping on such facts as these is so important. After all, it’s still pretty alarming that about 1/3 of the Germans who voted in 1932, voted for Hitler for President, and for the NSDAP in Parliament. Fine, but if your goal is to argue that there are problems with representative democracy it hardly helps your argument to trot out cases in which a horrible regime arosein spite of the consistent outcome of majoritarian votes rather than because of them. If you did mistakenly think that the Nazis ever received any kind of majoritarian support in any national election whatsoever in 1932, then it seems like the thing to do would be to admit your error and, if you still think there is good evidence to support your claims, produce that instead of insulting people who bother themselves about such minor things as historical facts.
September 19th, 2004 at Sep 19, 04 | 8:59 pm
“h dcds t ccs smn h hs nvr mt f nt-Smtsm”
f th sh fts…
“(N.B.: th mr fct tht srl ntllgnc sys smthng, r tht ntd Stts ffcls sy smthng, ds nt tmtclly mk t fls”
…bckpddl frsly. Gd jb.
s fr th Nzs, thy wn plrlty n dmcrtc lctn wth mr thn tw ntts n-th-rnnng (prts sldm rcv mjrts n plrls lctns); y cnnt sc tht <>fct. (’v hd ths dbt n ths brd t lst thr tms prvsly; sncrly hp y’r nt gng t br m t trs by ncssttng frth rprs.)
Nw, hv bttr thngs t d whn t’s 20F bv nrml n lt Sptmbr thn mtch yr kybrd prdctn. S y ltr.
September 20th, 2004 at Sep 20, 04 | 4:25 pm
Mike Schneider, who (as far as I know) learned everything that he knows about my opinions, attitudes, and character from a total of two posts to this weblog, seems to think that he can accurately diagnose me as a die-hard anti-Semite on the basis of a single comment disputing the reliability of uncritically relying on transparently self-interested “revelations” from Israeli intelligence. Of course, I would (and did) say exactly the same thing about uncritically relying on transparently self-interested “revelations” from American intelligence agencies, Bush administration flacks, Clinton administration flacks, the British government, the Iraqi government, the Iranian government, the Chinese government, and the agency formerly known as the KGB (now known as “the Russian government”). But never mind that; and never mind that explained at some length why the source that Mike cited for a clear example of my anti-Semitism (because I didn’t address every single source cited in every one of his articles?) didn’t even have anything to say about the issue that I was commenting on. Nor does he offer any argument either for or against the claim that uncritically relying on such claims might not be the best way of discovering the truth; that is, apparently, not an argument to be engaged with but rather just my weak attempt to hide my true colors. The “shoe fits”, apparently, and I am to wear it. Anything other than Mike’s opinion from a two-second reading of my first post would be to “backpeddle [sic] furiously”. Backpedal from what? I’m not sure, since the position Mike apparently attributes to me is one that I never held, but so it goes.
Meanwhile, on the subject of backpedalling furiously, Mike has, in the course of three posts, gone from this statement:
“… ‘most people’ voted for Hitler in ‘32″
to the claim that what he meant was that Hitler won by a plurality of the vote from those people who showed up and voted in ‘32. When it was pointed out that Hitler actually lost the election he stood in, and lost it badly, he further modifies his claim to say that he meant was that the Nazi Party received a plurality of the vote in the Parliamentary elections in 1932 (there were two, incidentally, and once it became clear what sort of hardball the Nazis were playing to gain further power their support declined)–to be understood along with the caveat that in multiparty elections it’s rare for a single party to receive a clear majority of the vote. Of course, I’m hardly trying to “escape” that (which you might glean from my saying (”Maybe he meant to refer to one of the two Parliamentary elections in which the NSDAP gained about the same percentage of the vote (37%) as Hitler won in the Presidential election in the first Parliamentary election of 1933, and then dropped to 33% in the November election, but (because of the different landscape in Parliamentary elections) became the largest party in the Reichstag …). What I am trying to point out is (1) that that is not the claim that Mike made above in either the post I responded to or in his critique of my response; and (2) the statement, once revised to match the historical facts, does not support the conclusion Mike wants it to support with anywhere near the strength that his (false) original claim did. For all the failures of representative democracy, this is a case where it did not commit the crime it’s accused of: it was precisely because the outcomes of democratic elections in 1932 defeated Hitler badly and blocked the Nazi Party from a political stranglehold, with only 1/3 of the Reichstag seats in their hands after two elections, that they resorted to street violence, police harassment, and simply removing their opponents from the Reichstag, and imprisoning or sometimes shooting them, in order to pass the Enabling Act–shutting down all democratic accountability for a Chancellor-cum-Fuehrer who was never elected by “most people” to any position at all.
Why in the world Mike won’t just admit that he made a mistake, and either should have spoken more clearly, or–better–picked a different case (it’s not like there aren’t a lot of cases of the failures of representative “democracy” lying around), but instead chooses to accuse *me* of trying to escape historical facts when it was he who made a demonstrably false claim, and his attempt at a revision of what he said merely repeats what *I* already said above, I don’t know. I can’t say, though, that for someone trying to position himself as a truth-teller, this kind of bellicose macho swagger isn’t particularly convincing.
September 21st, 2004 at Sep 21, 04 | 5:09 am
<>“…Htlr…Nz Prty…”x
Thr wsn’t nyn n Grmny bv th g f 5 wh ddn’t knw tht Htlr nd th Nz Prty wr n nd th sm. Th Nz Prty, rn by Htlr, *wn* n lctn.
<>“…’mst ppl’…”
‘v lrdy xplnd why ths tw wrds wr n qts. d prsm yr Pg p bttn wrks.
<>“…t’s nt lk thr rn’t lt f css f th flrs f rprsnttv “dmcrcy” lyng rnd’…'’
Wht r y rbtrrly dfnng s “flr”? …..h nvrmnd; ‘m nt rlly ntrstd.
<>“…dgns m s d-hrd nt-Smt”
Wht cn SLY d s dgns y s d-hrd lr, bcs nvr dd ny sch thng.
Nw, hv bttr thngs t d thn ply bllsht hyprbl gms wth lmp wh hsn’t, n ll f hs yrs, lrnd th vrt f brvty n nrly dd thrd.
September 21st, 2004 at Sep 21, 04 | 7:43 am
I’m not sure why Mike Schneider places such a high premium on brevity in replies; perhaps because longer analytic replies interfere with the sort of drive-by rhetorical sniping that he likes to claim as representative of “elementary logic.” I don’t want to tax his patience here; but then, I don’t care very much, either. So perhaps this reply will strike a sort of middle ground.
I’ve responded at length to why Mike’s literally false claim about Hitler in 1932 does not actually very strongly support the claims that he wants it to support about majoritarian democracy, if what he actually said (which was false) is replaced by some different claims about related people and related events (which are true). Here again Mike changes his claim; this time falsely claiming that “The Nazi Party, run by Hitler, *won* an election.” It did not; Parliamentary representation is not determined by winner-take-all votes, so there was nothing for the Nazi Party to “win.” What it did gain was about the same proportion of the vote that Hitler received when he did stand, personally, in a winner-take-all Presidential race in 1932–and lost badly. That said, most of the issue is best explored through the PageUp key. The main thing that worries me here is that Mike made a simple claim which was simply refuted by the historical record–Hitler did stand for election in 1932, but he lost by a very large margin, even in a three-way race. This has been pointed out several times and yet Mike is still unable to simply admit that he misspoke and move on. Why?
Mike also claims not only that I am mistaken, but that I am lying when I claim he diagnosed me as “a die-hard anti-Semite.” One wonders, then, what the hell he did mean when he dismissed my criticism of his uncritical reliance on the self-interested reports of Israeli intelligence by saying this:
“Perhaps if you weren’t in such fucking hell-ass rush to slam Da Jooz, you’d have backed up a couple paragraphs to King Abdullah (hint: not an Israeli).”
And then, when I responded to the charge and remarked that rather than replying to my substantive points “Instead, he decides to accuse someone he has never met of anti-Semitism”, Mike completely ignored the substantive comments and replied simply:
“If the shoe fits…”
If Mike did not intend to accuse me of being motivated by anti-Semitism, then he’s done a pretty poor job at whatever it was he was trying to convey. Which was…what?
(N.B.: for those who are interested, a “failure” of representative democracy would be a case where it produced an unacceptable political order, or where it failed to live up to the goals for which it was intended, or both. For example, Communist strongmen have been democratically elected, as in the case of Allende’s Chile; elected legislatures routinely feed at the trough of looted wealth all around the world. The Constitutional representative democracy of the United States was allegedly established to ensure that government would remain federalized, humble, and strictly limited in scope; but if those were the goals then it has clearly failed–although not so dramatically as it has failed in some other parts of the world today.)
September 21st, 2004 at Sep 21, 04 | 8:06 am
h, nd by th wy, “Rd Gk” s rlly lm nm d grr.
September 21st, 2004 at Sep 21, 04 | 2:43 pm
(I should add that, as an anarchist, I regard *all* representative democracies, insofar as they are monopoly states, to be failures, and see very little reason to think that private defense associations on a free market would tend to be operated according to the constitutional structure of such elective oligarchies. But the democratic elements of representative democracy have, for all their faults, acted as important checks on the powers of tyrants in the past–which is worth acknowledging–and some cases are, though failures, much less intense failures than others.)
September 23rd, 2004 at Sep 23, 04 | 10:36 pm
Mike,
I don’t think we have a dispute about logic, I think we have a dispute about evaluating evidence.
Brief rundown of my assessment of evidence :
1. Events I personally witnessed - very high weighting
2. Events with many witnesses and lots of corroborating evidence (difficult to fake e.g. planes crashing into WTC) - high weighting
3. Events described solely by politicians or gov’t employees (could be spin) - very low weighting.
To apply this to Iraqi WMD, suppose there had been a bio-weapon attack that killed 100 US Marines. This would have been level 2 evidence - very convincing. However, the converse is also true, the fact that such events did NOT happen is very convincing too. Obviously we cannot know the exact circumstances and state of mind of Saddam Hussein, but we can reasonably guess he felt in great danger. Anyone who survived that many attempts to kill and overthrow him probably would not have gone down without a fight - if he had anything big to fight with.
I admit this is not perfect evidence, but in politics we are rarely in a position to obtain perfect evidence. I think my argument is substantially vindicated by the available evidence (assessing by quality not by quantity).
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I would have opposed the Iraq war even if SH had publicly admitted he had WMD. As long as he didn’t specifically threaten to use them on American soil. I don’t believe in gun-control and I don’t believe in WMD-control either.