Monthly Archives: April 2015

Thinking About Iran

Posted on by

The hand-wringing and high-fiving over the Iran deal has me a bit puzzled. No one really knows what’s in the deal. Even the parties to the deal are at odds over what is in the deal. They only agree that the deal is an agreement to strike a deal at some point in the future. The Americans take this to mean “soon,” while the Iranians have no understanding of the concept. Persia, in one form or another, has been around for five thousand years. “Soon” is measured in decades.

That has not stopped the 24×7 clown show that is the American media from having a food fight over the deal to make a deal. The Progressives are hailing the deal as the greatest achievement of man since the wheel. Conservative Inc is condemning the deal and calling Obama Chamberlain. They have a Nazi fetish, comparing every Muslim with a bad attitude to Hitler. I watched a bit of Fox yesterday and it was clear that none of them knew more than my cat about this deal, but they were certain they were right.

That’s how things work in a democracy. The people running things employ persuasive morons to sell their position to the persuadable morons. Arguing through a megaphone leaves only one option. The side that is the loudest wins. It’s why Progressives will work free of charge for a turn at the megaphone. They get it. Own the megaphone and the people will obey you. It’s why Jeb Bush is the smart bet in 2016. Everyone in the press says he is the frontrunner.

Putting all that aside, I looked up the deal in the foreign press and the best I can tell it is an agreement that slows down Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon and lifts the sanctions on them. The fact that every energy firm on earth is lining up to make a deal with the mullahs says the sanctions are sure to be lifted, no matter what Iran does or does not do. Western governments are the tools of their rich people and their business interests. Western business loves groveling to despots. It is their natural state.

From the point of view of Iran, negotiating with the great Satan is an easy call. There is little downside. The hardliners in Iran have a lot of power, but they have no constituency outside the ruling elite. Iran’s rulers have to respect their sensibilities, but that still leaves plenty of room to deal. Since they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear program, they only stand to gain. In short, if the West is willing to accept Iran’s terms, why not make the deal?

The West has different motives. The Europeans want that natural gas pipeline from the gulf to get done. The preferred pipeline around Iran to the west or east is simply unrealistic. Afghanistan will never be pacified and the eastern route runs into the Israeli problem. The most practical route is through Iran. While the Europeans are not in love with the idea of giving the Russians more leverage over their gas supplies, they can use that as a carrot in trying to fend off Russian aggression in the Baltic states and Ukraine.

The Americans are the key and Obama really wants this deal. It is easy to forget that Obama and his cult see him as the anti-Reagan. They used to pitch him as the Progressive Reagan back in 2008. The narrative did not work out as they planned, it never does, but this deal gives them a shot to fulfill part of the fantasy. Having Obama give a speech in Tehran would be the rejection of the Reagan policy toward Iran. It would also finally heal the wound to the pride of Progressives over Carter’s handling of the hostage crisis. The subtext of the Left’s celebration right now is “Carter was right after all.”

There’s also another bit going on here. The American empire is exhausted and most in Washington know it. Trillions have been spent trying to conquer the Muslim lands and we have nothing to show for it. Conquest only works if the booty exceeds the expense. The early expansion of Rome during the Republic was financed by the booty of the conquered. Once the Romans ran out of rich people to conquer, expansion ended and decline immediately started as the economics of empire reached the point of diminishing returns.

America is a rich country with a huge reserve so the blunders into Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as costly, but they could be and the more savvy people in Washington know it. They have looked around at the Middle East and determined that the entity with the best prospects over the next several decades is Iran so they are making a deal with them. The US will back off and the Iranians will keep the oil and gas flowing. If the Iranians decide they need nukes to do it, that will be worked out when it happens.

In theory, it is not a terrible plan. America needs out of the Muslim world. Whether or not it is a good idea to turn things over to the Persians remains to be seen, but history is on their side. They have been the dominant people in the region for 5,000 years, give or take. How the rest of the region responds is an unknown, but you can be sure the Saudis are in Pakistan offering whatever it takes to get a nuke of their own. The rest of the GCC is there with them.

There are also the demographics to consider. The last three American presidents have so badly bungled things in MENA, Europe is now facing a great wave of barbarian invaders to her south. Europe is as weak today as she was prior to the Muslim conquests. Maybe even weaker. There are a billion poor people to her south ready to head north. Iranian help in rebuilding the buffer zone in the Maghreb would go a long way toward forestalling the collapse of Europe.

 

The Struggles of Conservative Inc.

Posted on by

The war on Christian pizza makers has the professional Right sorely vexed. I think most of their outrage is legitimate. They truly are offended by this latest assault on normal Americans. The fund raising by the pizza joint in Indiana suggests normal Americans are growing weary of the lunatics and their causes. Still, I think a part of what vexes the professional Right is their fear of stating the obvious conclusion.

That conclusion is you cannot have freedom of any sort without freedom of association. If you must get permission from the state to associate or disassociate from others, you have no freedom. The state may allow you some options, but everything you do must come with a permission slip. Otherwise, putting two people who hate one another in the same room ends up with blood on the walls.

Here’s a recent screed from National Review struggling to avoid stating the obvious.

Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.

Well, no. Forcing someone to work for someone else is not forcing them speak. It is forcing them to participate. Put another way, it is compulsory association. The state is saying to the photographer, “We really don’t care about your opinions of these people. You must do what we say, act as we say or else.”

Of course, the reason Andrew Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the guy who wrote the piece in question, must fetishize speech is he cannot mention association. To do so, to draw the obvious conclusion from the events in Indiana and elsewhere, would risk his job and career. Rand Paul almost saw his career come to end in 2012 because he dared utter this conclusion.

The reason, ostensibly, is that letting stores refuse service to homos would lead to stores not serving blacks. That has things exactly backwards. Separate public accommodations in the South were falling apart on their own. Basic economics makes such practices self-limiting and self-destructive. The reason Progressives pushed through laws against private discrimination was to eliminate private association.

It’s rather amazing how easily Americans were willing to surrender their liberty, but there it is. Now, there’s no reason to think things like Christianity, private clubs, fraternities, etc will hold up much longer. After all, if you cannot deny admissions based on your own peculiar criteria, why have an organization at all?

The thing I think is vexing to the professional Right is the mounting proof that they were wrong about the Left. They were convinced that the “other side” (as if there are only two sides) was acting in good faith, but just need convincing. Recent events show that to be nonsense, but Conservative Inc. can’t bring itself to admit it.

Which leads to my final point. When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites the imposition of state-enforced morality. The Left requires obedience and punishes dissent. It insists that all citizens must, against their will, act only in a manner that liberalism judges to be accommodating and politic. Anyone acquainted with progressive thought knows that it is founded on unexamined assumptions, but seldom until now have we seen its unhinged hostility unmasked, as the Left reacts to our defense of a cherished freedom written into our Constitution.

There’s no evidence from Progressives that they see any of this as a flaw or even unintentional. Yes, they fully expect to impose their morality – at gunpoint if necessary – on the rest of us. That’s how political cults operate. Hell, it’s how Christianity operated for over 1,000 years. But, admitting this is the case would point out that Conservative Inc has been wrong for thirty years now.

The Price of Being Right

Posted on by

On occasion, I like to read old books about taboo subjects. I developed the habit as a student, when assigned the task of writing an essay on the 1948 presidential election. We were permitted to use one source and that was the NYTimes archive at our library. That meant staring through a device, resembling a peep show machine, at film on which the archives of the paper were stored.

What I found fascinating were the horribly taboo things written in the Old Gray Lady about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The want ads were hilarious. “Two Irishman wanted for painting crew.” Or, “Negros wanted for ditch digging.” Newspapers used the language of the man on the street and reading those old papers gave me a sense of what it was like to live in that age.

The thing is, mass media must respect the sensibilities of the buying public, even if those sensibilities are insane. American newspapers in the 40’s, for example, could not criticize America’s conduct of the war, even in cases where it was warranted. The people simply would not tolerate it. A decade later when passions had cooled, papers could indulge in revisionist history.

Similarly, the mass media of every society must live within the constraints of the ruling classes. They must promote and support the legitimizing ideology of the day. A newspaper man in Nazi Germany could not celebrate diversity. A cable news talker today cannot question the joys of diversity. To do so puts your job and career in jeopardy.

Just as those public sensibilities can be insane, the legitimizing ideology can belch forth its own brand of crazy. Homosexual marriage, for example, is nonsense, but sacred nonsense. Go against it and you reap the whirlwind. Point out the suicidal nature of diversity and cultural Marxism and you will be condemned to a life of penury or worse. Unlike the public, the people in charge can throw you in gaol so you’re wise to tread lightly.

I was thinking about this the other day reading Steve Sailer’s latest Taki column. Sailer is a very smart and a very well trained person. There are maybe a handful of people who possess his social science skills. He also possess the sorts of credentials that lead to riches in modern America. An MBA from UCLA is no small thing.

Sailer also writes and says things that violate the taboos of the ruling class so he is unwelcome in the places run by those serving the ruling class. He maintains a blog and lives off donations. Maybe his wife has a job, I don’t know. Instead of selling books, getting paid by a think tank and doing TV, he begs for donations.

Sailer thinks he is right. So much so he has condemned himself to a life of penury, despite possessing the credentials and intellect to be highly successful. Presumably, he has chosen this path because he values being right over making money. Malcolm Gladwell is wrong about most everything and probably knows it, but he likes money so he has gotten rich uttering nonsense in public.

Sailer is certainly not a martyr or even unique. He made his choices for his own reasons and was surely aware of the consequences. The dissident right is littered with guys and some gals who write interesting things about interesting topics, but do so on the fringe, banned from the respectable salons that dominate public life.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Galileo got himself in trouble not because he challenged dogma, but he refused to play along with the rules and customs of the ruling classes. Copernicus first laid out the heliocentric view long before Galileo, but he played by the rules and avoided challenging the established order. You can say anything you want as long as you don’t threaten the established order.

That’s what you see with a guy like Kevin Williamson at National Review. He’s smart enough to know that Charles Murray is right, for example, but he knows it takes credentials and talent he lacks to walk up to that same line. Instead, he lets Robert Putnam draw the lines and is willing to live within them. Williams has a habit of describing cultural issues precisely, only to avoid drawing the only logical conclusion.

This column from a few months back is a great example. Without freedom of association, you cannot have any freedoms at all. Williams clearly gets that, but also knows that it is a lethal point to make if you earn your living from a legitimate publication. So, when faced with the reality of his observations, he springs for the safety of equivocation. It’s left to commenters to fill in the blanks.

Many on the fringe take comfort in the belief that reality does not go away when you stop believing in it. Eventually, the lunacies of our day will have to give way to math and science. That assumes there will be anyone left capable of sorting fact from fiction. It is axiomatic that you get less of what you punish. Another generation of punishing heretics and who will be left, capable of recognizing reality, much less articulating it?

The Trouble With Mob Justice

Posted on by

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times.

–Lincoln at Lyceum

In their ongoing obsession with destroying the Pale Penis People, the Left has been tub thumping about domestic violence. I keep seeing these bizarre commercials featuring athletes warning that at any minute, you could be a wife beater. Of course, every sports team and college now races to get ahead of the mob when they have an incident.

Like the proliferation of rape hoaxes, these mob frenzies encourage the worst behavior. Young women have been stalking famous men since Grog got famous for besting Trog in the poo flinging contest. In modern times, every hotel hosting a team is littered with girls trying to bag an athlete. Giving them the right to cry rape with impunity is just asking for trouble. Giving them the right to cry “domestic violence” is even worse.

The Tuscaloosa (Ala.) Police Department announced Wednesday that the 24-year-old woman who told police she had been assaulted Saturday by now-former Alabama defensive tackle Jonathan Taylor has recanted her statements and subsequently been arrested herself.

The woman initially told police an argument with Taylor had become physical with officers observing “minor injuries” to her neck that the woman said were a result of the altercation. Taylor was arrested and charged with domestic violence third-degree assault and domestic violence third-degree criminal mischief. Nick Saban later announced that Taylor, who had already been dismissed from Georgia following still-pending domestic violence charges, was removed from the Alabama football program.

Per al.com, a TPD statement says the woman contacted police Monday to recant her earlier statements, telling officers Taylor had not harmed her. She was interviewed by officers Tuesday and again said she had lied about being injured by Taylor. The woman was arrested and charged with false reporting to law enforcement before posting bond and being released.

The TPD statement indicates the charges against Taylor will be reviewed. An Alabama spokesperson told al.com Wednesday he was “unsure” if the development might allow Taylor a chance to rejoin the Crimson Tide.

Look, we can’t know what happened here. What we do know is you should not be punishing people before you know if they are guilty. Mobs don’t accept that and that’s how you end up with the wrong guy swinging from the tree. It’s worse than that, of course. It threatens the very idea of civilization.

When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.–By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.–Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed–I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.

I’m not a huge fan of Lincoln, but he knew the risks of letting fanatics gain the upper hand.

Non-payment of BBC License

Posted on by

Here’s the difference between America and Europe. In the States, a TV tax would never fly. Instead, the government taxes the TV makers, the cable guys, the content providers, etc. Then they force the providers into including channels no one would ever watch like PBS or CNN. All of this shows up in the monthly bill. We like our taxes hidden so we can pretend to be free.

In Europe, they prefer their authoritarianism straight. In the UK, the man taxes you for TV service, regardless of your type of service. That tax goes to fund government agit-prop pumped out by the BBC. If you don’t pay the tax, they throw you in prison. That’s right. They don’t cut off the service. They throw you in jail. Over 10% of criminal cases are for failure to pay the TV tax.

The BBC is responsible for more than one in 10 criminal prosecutions. Culture Secretary Sajid Javid reports that 10% of magistrate court cases are for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. Non-payment is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Every week about 3,000 people are fined for non-payment, and about one person a week is jailed for non-payment of the fine.

Women make up about 70% of those prosecuted and convicted, and half of those jailed for not paying the fine. When people fail to pay other utilities, such as energy companies, they are guilty of a civil offence, not a criminal one, and they cannot be prosecuted and fined for falling behind with their payments. Civil action can be taken for recovery, but without fines and jail terms.

Several newspapers have had reporters visit magistrate’s court to describe what goes on. They all tell harrowing stories of frightened, distressed people, mostly women, facing fines they cannot pay under threat of imprisonment if they do not. Many are single mothers, many on benefits. They have not paid the licence fee because they cannot afford to. The sum of £145.50 per year is huge for a young mother struggling to feed and clothe children. Many weep in court, unable to pay the fine for the same reason they couldn’t afford the licence fee; they don’t have the money.

Everyone with a TV, except the over 75s, has to pay, whether or not they watch BBC programmes. If people fail to pay for other services, such as a Sky subscription, for example, the service is withdrawn without them being taken to court and fined.

The reason for this, of course, is to make sure every citizen is getting their instructions. The BBC is about crowd control. TV serves the same purpose in the US, it’s just funded indirectly. Still, I can cut the cord and not pay anything. As an American, I will not be thrown in jail for not watching the agit-prop beamed over TV.

America! Yeah! We’re number one!