Another Quote

That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.
H. L. Mencken

Something to think about.

New Quote

Change the quote at the top. Enjoy.

Helen Keller

Alabama has recently selected the design for their state quarter; I was luckily enough to pick one up this last week. It looks like this.



I thought it unusually progressive of Alabama to select such a radical leftist to celebrate. Helen Keller was a well known socialist and a very insightful thinker. She initially praised the Russian revolution, although I believe she later became disenchanted with it. Note this writing, in 1932.

I am convinced that the machine has taken something out of life. We have paid, and are still paying a great price for the benefits it has given us. But the fault lies with us. We have not used it properly. If the progress of the mechanical age should suddenly cease now, I should say that its disadvantages had outweighed its benefits. But further developments are certain to come. We cannot now throw the machine overboard. It is with us to stay, and our task is to turn it to our proper need. In the machine, rightly controlled, lies the hope of reducing human drudgery to the minimum - not merely that we may be free of drudgery, but that every individual may have the opportunity for a happy life, for a leisure which, under wise guidance, may lead to mental and spiritual growth.

I do not set myself up as an expert economist, but from my detached position I have tried to examine the whole problem from a humanitarian and common-sense point of view. It is evident to me, as it must be to all thinking people, that the manufacturer and exchange of goods constitute the preponderant influences in modern life. That is a false emphasis. Now, at last, we have an opportunity gradually to shift that emphasis by using labor-saving machinery for its ostensible purpose of saving labor. This will mean a reduction in the hours of toil for the great masses of people. The trend is already in that direction, as an emergency measure, and I am convinced that the pressure toward this end will outlast the emergency, for it is a logical result of the flowering of the mechanical age. This new orientation is by no means impossible. If I thought it were, I should lose my faith in humanity.

I'd have to say that her vision has not exactly come true. Instead of allowing workers to accomplish more in less time, most modern machinery is used to eliminate jobs, by allowing one person to do the work of two or three. Information technology, such as the PDA or the Cell Phone or the Laptop Computer, lets an individual be "at work" twenty four hours a day. So, perhaps our modern captains of industry could still benefit a bit from Hellen Keller's insight.

The Coming Election

Marty Jezer, writing at Commondreams, has posted an article about Governor Dean, and the elections next fall. He paints a somewhat desperate picture for the future, saying:

"A third party presidential challenge from the left would be reactionary and traitorous in the 2004 election. The Bush Administration and the ideas it represents must be decisively defeated. That won’t be easy. A terrorist attack, another jingoistic war in the Middle East or, as I suspect, a move against Cuba might set the administration’s terms for the election. On the other hand, Bush can no longer position himself as a moderate or a "compassionate conservative." And more states may be bankrupt and more government programs slashed even as the wealthiest Americans reap their tax cuts.

But the Republicans play to win. They plan to spend $200 million even before the campaign begins and will likely bury the Democrats in campaign fundraising. The Republicans have scheduled their convention for New York City in September 2004 in order to appropriate the memorial services for the victims of 9-11. This may backfire, of course. Liberal New Yorkers may not appreciate right-wing Republicans turning their tragedy into a campaign photo opportunity. But the administration was able to convince a majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. It’s not inconceivable that they’ll convince that same majority that George W. Bush is Rudy Giuliani."

Isn't it great that we get to spend the next 18 months evaluating everything and everyone we come into contact with an eye to the 2004 election? You might think I'm joking, but I'm not.

The First Amendment

I don't know if I've commented on this before, but the movie Bull Durham staring Kevin Costner, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins was to be shown at the Baseball Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame President, Dale Petroskey, cancelled the appearance, for political reasons. He was concerned that Robbins and Sarandon would express their anti war views, and cause trouble. Strangely enough Costner's name hasn't come up much in this story.

Anyway Larry Elder, writing at Townhall, has weighed in on this issue. First of all he quotes Tim Robbins anti-war views, saying, "There's ultimately going to be a tragic loss in the amount of people dying from this horrible attack. . . . We're not getting our way there. But we have to be mature, and we have to realize that the world does not want us to do this. . . . I support free speech, and you can't have free speech . . . in a society or even in a club, if it's Hollywood, that is saying you can't talk. . . . That's not a free society. You have to allow it. Democracy's messy sometimes." Can you count the ellipses in that sentence? Makes me wonder what else Robbins said, but I suppose Elder cut it so as to get to the heart of Robbin's meaning. It's not like Elder would cut it to make Robbins look extra radical or extra dumb, would he?

Anyway getting back to Elder's main point which is this--the Baseball Hall of Fame is under no obligation to respect the First Amendment. "Hollywood's antiwar critics seem to want it both ways. They use their podium to espouse their leftist views, yet, when individuals and private organizations react negatively, they shout: "First Amendment"! No, Mr. Robbins and Ms. Sarandon, the First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with political speech. It offers no immunity from criticism, indeed, revulsion by consumers of your movies or by organizations that extend you opportunities to speak."

You see, the nation is legally obligated to respect open and free debate and discussion, but as individuals or non governmental organizations or business, we are under no such obligation. Freedom of Speech is a mere legal technicality, not an American Principle.

With that in mind I'd like to announce the formation of the Make Me a Commentator!!! Goon Squad. I've hired about 15 guys who are loud and obnoxious and annoying. Any time anybody in my community dares to say something I don't like, my goon squad will be there in moments (utilizing the latest in van technology) to start yelling and causing a ruckus. In that way, I can ensure that people who do not agree with me are silenced. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

No I'm just kidding of course. Some Conservatives (and some Liberals as well) might be comfortable denying that respect for others opinions and their right to express them is not an American value, but I'm not. I believe that to be an American is to appreciate that there are other people in this nation who are moral, hardworking, good citizens, and see things totally different than you do.

Of course I could be wrong.

More Foreign Policy

This is from William Safire, writing at the New York Times.

Then France appeared to have been struck by sweet reason. Instead of ending sanctions on a regime that no longer existed, France floated a proposal merely suspending sanctions until the Security Council decides that the new post-Saddam Iraq is not making weapons of mass destruction.

Some compromise. That neat trick is designed to force the U.S. into gaining the U.N. inspectors' approval before sanctions are ended. It would keep a heavy U.N. foot on Iraqi pipelines and keep France in the reconstruction contracts business. Suspension would put the emerging Iraq in a class with Libya, still suspended after its downing of Pan Am 103.

Fortunately, Colin Powell is not about to be sandbagged again. State spent yesterday preparing a U.N. resolution to decisively end, not merely suspend, economic sanctions on Iraq. If carefully crafted, it should contain language similar to that of the oil-for-food resolution. That would guarantee that proceeds from future oil sales held in trust for the interim Iraqi authority would be immune from attachment by previous claimants.

In plain language, that means that sales of Iraqi oil sold starting now would be for rebuilding the nation, and could not be snatched by France and Russia to pay Saddam's old arms debts. Chirac and Putin won't like that a bit. Would either of them veto the will of a Security Council majority and stand before the Arab world as greedy obstructionists? Let's see.

Well, Mr. Safire doesn't seem to be on the same page as Mr. Gingrich. Doesn't he realize that praising the State Department is currently taboo? But besides that, at a certain point we have to prove to the rest of the world that Iraq has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. We can't pretend that because Iraq is in our hands, it's now trustworthy (unless we intend to keep Iraq in our hands, which I've been ensured we don't). So at some point we have to make sure that the rest of the world understands that they are safe from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Frankly the sooner the better--the longer we let this drag out, the more dopey it makes us look.

Hey Boy, Hey Girl

If you enjoy what you see here at Make me a Commentator, why not tell your friends? Then my counter will go up and I'll be happy. Just a thought.

Walter Williams on Capitalism

We might think of dollars as being "certificates of performance." The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That's the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him. From Townhall.com.

That is the wonder of capitalism. The problem is that it assumes that all participants in the game are roughly equal or start from roughly equal positions. In the real world they don't. Williams also doesn't seem all that interested in those that cheat in order to get ahead. He doesn't answer the question of fraud. Let's say a CEO takes an enormous salary and runs his company into the ground; far from being financially punished, such a CEO is likely to receive several nice parting gifts (in the form of a Severance package).

So while I agree that capitalism is a moral system, it still requires a certain amount of watching to make it work properly.

Responses to Newt Gingrich

In a continuation of the article published last night, here are some other responses for your perusal.

Well, the President viewed the diplomatic process as a very important process that allowed for the military success to take place. And the process that the State Department followed and Secretary Powell led was the President's process. This is a process that the President decided on in his speech to the United Nations in September. And the fact of the matter is the State Department and Secretary Powell did an excellent job at ushering through that process. There were others who complicated the process in the Security Council. That in no way is reflective of the State Department or what the President thinks about the State Department or Secretary Powell's superb efforts.
Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, April 22, 2003

Gingrich, like Richard Perle a member of the Defense Policy Board, is taking the occasion of a speech today at the American Enterprise Institute to launch the latest attack on Powell. The former speaker is a longtime advisor to Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense whose obvious desire is to seize complete control of the administration's foreign policy. Who needs a State Department or a Secretary of State if all diplomacy is to be conducted by gunboat?

It says something rather unflattering about the neocons that they have dispatched the unsavory Gingrich to carry their public agenda. After all, he is among the most renowned chicken hawks, and an Army brat to boot, who managed to avoid Vietnam while Powell served. His remarks today eerily echo Joe McCarthy's jihad against the State Department -- just substitute "commies" for "appeasers" -- and he even bears a disturbing physical resemblance to the Wisconsin demagogue. But then he always resembled McCarthy, going back to the "lexicon" he used to hand out to GOP congressional candidates, which urged them to accuse Democrats of "treason."
Joe Conason

Newt said that America "cannot lead the world with a broken instrument of diplomacy." One infobabe from USA Today sniveled that Gingrich should be honest that he was really attacking Secretary of State Powell and calling for President Bush to fire him. Newt laughed off this absurdity. He targeted the career, State Department culture that existed long before Secretary Powell took the job.
Rush Limbaugh

Even Mr. Santorum's old mentor, Newt Gingrich, felt emboldened to slither back on stage with a proposal to eviscerate the State Department.

After vowing to reshape the American character when he became speaker in '94, Mr. Gingrich ultimately faced ethics questions and criticism for having an extramarital affair with a young Congressional aide after pushing for Bill Clinton's impeachment over his extramarital affair with a young White House aide. He stepped down in '98.

The man who once depicted himself as an "Arouser of Those who Form Civilization" stepped back yesterday into a clash of civilizations between the Pentagon and the State Department. In remarks at the Temple of Triumphalism here (the American Enterprise Institute), Mr. Gingrich denounced Colin Powell's domain as a "broken bureaucracy of red tape and excuses" and demanded it be "transformed," like Rummy's.

He attacked Mr. Powell for announcing that he would visit (rather than bomb) Damascus and for the prewar failure of diplomacy with Turkey — conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the Pentagon hawk Paul Wolfowitz who had tried and failed to talk turkey with Turkey.
Maureen Dowd

I guess we'll see what happens next.

Bully Politics

America is a nation that is always standing at crossroads; those are the perils of living in a democratic society. Each day we have to decide what kind of America we want, and through our voices, help to push America in that direction.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich spoke today at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. His speech was a straightforward attack on the Department of State, as led by Colin Powell. More than that, it was an attack on the notion of diplomacy in Modern America.

Diplomacy between two nations or individuals involves an assumption of equality on some level. For example an employer and an employee negotiate a salary based on fulfilling both of their needs. Even though the employer will be allowed to direct the employee after hired, the employer respects the employees right to seek the best possible job possible. Relations between nations are similar; we obviously can't argue that other nations are our equals economically or militarily, but each nation has an equal right to exist and to seek its own destiny (unless it becomes a threat to other nations).

Newt Gingrich and others in the Defense Department do not see the need to respect this equality. Instead, they envision a world in which the United States tells other nations what to do, and they either do it or suffer consequences. Call it the "Bully" principle of foreign affairs. Not only are we going to run the world to suit ourselves (as, to be frank, we largely already do), even the pretense that we respect other nations is over.

In fact, with Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defense we may not even need a Department of State. Much of the evidence and rational for invading Syria has come from Secretary Rumsfeld, and just this week, the UK Telegraph revealed that the Department of Defense was pushing diplomatically for the removal of Kim Jong Il from North Korea.

One snag in our new policy, however. It turns out the rest of the world doesn't like being told what to do. We've already soured relations with much of Europe and the Middle East. Further belligerence towards Syria or North Korea will sour relations further. What we need here is more diplomacy, not less.

In the 1949, the United States "lost" China to Communism. Although China's fall was clearly due to internal forces, and beyond the control of any state department diplomat; the incident led to a cleansing of the State Department. We cleaned it out. And thus when Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson (and their cabinets) needed information and advice on Vietnam, there was nobody there. Will this new purge of "career" diplomats be any more successful?

This is a democracy, and if you don't want "bully" diplomacy to become the norm, now is the time to make your voices heard.

Your Weekly Rush

What with my exciting weekend plans (involving Monkeys, Coconuts, and a bottle of French's Mustard), I never got around to your weekly Rush--so here it is.

I guess it's not surprising that Rush Limbaugh has no use for Ancient Iraqi artifacts. He has no use for any culture, really. I mean he has no use for any Culture outside the United States, and, truth to tell, not much use for much of American Culture.

What drives me nuts is not that he doesn't care about other cultures. Everybody has different interests. Instead, what gets me is his disdain for those people, such as myself, who would go to a museum, who would enjoy travelling abroad, who value art and history and literature. People who enjoy those sorts of things are unreliable, in his experience, and therefore the enjoyment of those things must be disdained.

More Politics

"President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200 million — twice the amount of his first campaign — to finance television advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.

The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.

The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign."

A lot of people are going to complain that holding the convention, in that place, at that time, is morally ambigious. And it is. But it might end up being a successful political ploy.

Politics

Interesting article by Matt Towry about Karl Rove. Apparently, there has been some criticism of President Bush's policy of keeping his closest political advisor in the white House. Matt Towry disputes such thinking, and speculates that the forthcoming election may require Rove's assistance.

He then concludes with this sentence, "Like him or not, Karl Rove -- in the storied tradition of Bobby Kennedy and Hamilton Jordan -- is good not only for the president he serves, but for the policies being put forth for consumption by the body politic."

You may not remember Hamilton Jordan--but he was an advisor to President Jimmy Carter, who in recent months has become the Rights favorite whipping boy. It's unusual that Rove would be compared to Jordan in a conservative article. Jordan's magic didn't ensure a second term for Carter, as I recall, nor were the policies he and President Carter the sorts of things that Conservatives find praiseworthy.

Nina Simone Part II

I described Nina Simone as a jazz singer last night, forgetting momentarily that she always hated being called a jazz singer. Having been classically trained, and singing a wide variety of songs, including folk standards, she felt being labelled a jazz singer sort of put her in her own little ghetto, and didn't acknowledge that she could compete with any vocalist.

A Simplification

Dennis Prager, seeking to simplify all our lives, made the following comment. "So the next time you see "artists for" or "artists against" some cause, without reading any further, you can pretty much bet your mortgage that whatever it is they are for or against, they are morally wrong."

Doesn't that make life easier? No need to listen to Martin Sheen or Janeane Garofalo or Charlton Heston or so on.

Oh wait a second, I've just been handed a correction. Apparently if an artist is expressing Conservative political views or positions, than that artist is morally correct, and can be trusted. Ah. So if an artist is expressing liberal views, he or she is 100% wrong, but if an artist expresses conservative views, he or she is trustworthy.

Isn't that simple?

Nina Simone

Nina Simone died today. She was a brilliant Jazz singer, who did things exactly the way she wanted to. I admired that about her. Here are the lyrics to a song she wrote in 1963.

Mississippi Goddam!
Nina Simone, 1963

The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
And I mean every word of it

Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam

Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam

Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer

Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam

This is a show tune
But the show hasn't been written for it, yet

Hound dogs on my trail
School children sitting in jail
Black cat cross my path
I think every day's gonna be my last

Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer

Don't tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"

But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Washing the windows
"do it slow"
Picking the cotton
"do it slow"
You're just plain rotten
"do it slow"
You're too damn lazy
"do it slow"
The thinking's crazy
"do it slow"
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know

Just try to do your very best
Stand up be counted with all the rest
For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam

I made you thought I was kiddin'

Picket lines
School boy cots
They try to say it's a communist plot
All I want is equality
for my sister my brother my people and me

Yes you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie

Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You're all gonna die and die like flies
I don't trust you any more
You keep on saying "Go slow!"
"Go slow!"

But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Desegregation
"do it slow"
Mass participation
"do it slow"
Reunification
"do it slow"
Do things gradually
"do it slow"
But bring more tragedy
"do it slow"
Why don't you see it
Why don't you feel it
I don't know
I don't know

You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality
Everybody knows about Mississippi
Everybody knows about Alabama
Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam.

That's It!

The song ran into distribution problems in the South.

Troubling Times

Well our occupation of Iraq might not be easy, accoding to Paul Kennedy.

"Will the American artificers of change do better in today's Middle East? Perhaps. But the odds are not good. Even if the United States manages to impose order in the next few weeks or months, it has embarked on a difficult and dangerous enterprise. The region is still criss-crossed with rivalries and blood feuds between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Conservative sheiks sit uneasily upon their precarious thrones. The Kurds and other minorities are bursting to get free. Hatred of Israel is intense, and constantly inflamed by the media and the clerics. The city streets are full of unemployed, restless young men, and the populations of the Muslim world are still soaring. Bringing "democracy" to the Middle East -- if that simply means one person, one vote -- could easily produce majority mistreatment of minorities. Anyone who has read the Arab Human Development Report put out last year by the U.N. Development Program can only be depressed by its unflinching account of undemocratic governance, corruption, economic failures and dire social needs. Were a British administrator from the 1920s restored to life, he would find things all too familiar."

It is right and proper to be aware of the problems rebuilding Iraq and to have a proper assessment of the effect our efforts may have on the rest of the Middle East. But I think it is also important to balance that with a view of what we want to accomplish. A free and liberated Iraq, functioning as a just democracy could change the trend of the middle east towards a future in which Democratic ideals and individual liberties coexist with the Muslim Faith. We may fail at this attempt, but it is worth trying.

The other question, is, at this point, what exactly are supposed to do? Get out and let the Kurds, the Shi'ite Muslims, and the Sunni Muslims get back to the business of bicking on each other?

Inspections

Well, the United Nations has an embargo on Iraq, as we all know. The United States would like the embargo lifted so that Iraq can begin selling oil to the United States (and probably other countries too). Their argument is that the embargo was against Saddam Hussein's regime, and not against the Iraqi people. The U.N. may decide that the embargo is contingent on the removal of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Here's where the shell game comes in--Iraq claims not to have Weapons of Mass destruction, and the United States claims they do have them. Now that the war is over, we are begin asked to find the weapons and destroy them. Except we can't, apparently, because we can't find them. Now the New York Times has a piece on a captured Iraqi scientist, who claims that we won't find any weapons of mass destruction because Iraq destroyed them before the war. They buried some of the building blocks of their military program, and the military has apparently recovered those burials sites.

So we will have to see what comes next. William F. Buckley has a piece suggesting that if the UN doesn't want to be further delegitimized they had best play ball and let Iraq off the hook.

Good News

War may not be coming as soon as previously thought. According to AP reports, Syria is now turning away Iraqis without visas. Will that turn away the accusations of the United States? Only time will tell.