The Rosen Sanction

No, as much as the immanent death of former RIAA Duchessa Hilary Rosen on a high mountain at the able hands of Clint Eastwood might appeal to some, it is not the type of "sanction" that merits my long-delayed return to blogging. Instead, we must examine the field of sociology to understand the sort of sanction Ms. Rosen has applied to society. In sociology, a sanction is a form of social control, a restriction applied by society (or rather, to Sociologists, the state) for some reason. Some sanctions, such as punishment for crime or restricted information, serve a positive purpose in society by preserving social order or ensuring military supremacy over other states. These sort of sanctions are generally well-founded and more or less universally acknowledged.
However, there are other sanctions that less emphasise the "social" aspect and instead focus more on "control." Mme. Rosen's pet sanction is one of these. You see, Mme. Rosen was the head of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) during the late nineties, and she is also the source of that body's policy of bringing lawsuits against assorted vicious grandmothers and pernicious pre-teens. This has made her subject to almost universal revulsion on-line. At a debate in Oxford University two years ago, Mme. Rosen was on the short end of a decisive 233-72 vote.
Yet it seems that even with her much-hated lawsuits aside, Mme. Rosen also crafted another bit of legislation that is every bit as odious as her court-room antics. This is, of course, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Essentially a gift from the US Congress to the RIAA, the DMCA was a far-reaching piece of legislation that attempted to "build a bridge to the new century" as the Notorious B.I.L. was so fond of saying. Aside from implementing "World Intellectual Property Organisation" treaties into US Law, the DMCA reached into the nascent "problem" of online piracy. This meant attacking the means of piracy rather than the pirates themselves. The end result? The limitation of our rights yet again.
I suppose that at this juncture people are wondering why I'm upset about a bill that was signed into law almost ten years ago. The reason for this is that to-day I downloaded a hard-to-find song from the post-modern eighties classic Manhunter from Apple's iTunes, which was the only place I could find it. I paid for the song and downloaded it legitimately. Once it was on my hard drive, I figured that it I would be able to load it into my MP3 player and enjoy it as I do my other songs. However, being confounded at the technical challenge of converting my M4P song to MP3 format, I discovered that I was forbidden by Federal Law to convert a song I had lawfully purchased into a song I could play on my MP3 player.
One's first response is that this is silly. The federales wouldn't be that intrusive, would they? Obviously, this is more paranoid libertarian garbage.
I invite those who disbelieve to examine the United States Code, Title 17, Section 1201, under the heading "Circumvention of copyright protection systems." Part "A" of this law is quoted:

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."
The "two-year period" expired in 1998. As a result, if I convert my M4P music to MP3 format, I'm committing a federal crime. By converting my song, I circumvent Apple's Copy Protection embedded in its M4P format. This is contrary to the idea of "fair use", which holds that I can convert formats as I please so that I might better utilise my file.
This brings up the perennial libertarian concern of the sheer volume of laws out there. One cannot be a good citizen, since one cannot possibly follow one's conscience and the law at the same time. Given that the conscience has primacy over temporal (not natural) law, the concern then becomes avoiding getting stomped on by the force of the state. There needs to be serious reform if we're to allow the citizens of good conscience to live in peace. The "causeway" of the law that Thomas More described needs to be extended from a tightrope over philosophical ravines to its original path, set down in natural law.

The most over-rated goal in politics

To-day, my driver's-side window of my evil SUV exploded. Apparently the rapid decrease in external temperature led to a buildup of pressure in the cabin, causing the safety class to crack up and blow out. Very strange. Perhaps the government is involved.
Regardless, to-day's rant is on the topic of politics. Politics has always been a sentimental science, with each side galmorising the period in history that most closely represents their utopian vision. For the modern Clintonista (i.e. authoritarian democrat), that period was the nineties. The carefree nineties represent an almost mythical time period in modern thought. In 1999, anyone could become an inter-net millionaire, and money grew on trees. Perhaps the reality was a bit different, but the Clintonistas still have fair dreams about the days when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was the greatest trauma to rock the nation.
Many others have different views about this magical decade of overpriced coffee and long-running TV sitcoms. Some heretics even think this was a decade of unparalleled ridiculousness, where serious foreign matters such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia were glossed over whilst the cult of celebrity was at its peak. Some have likened the America of this decade to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground.
However, these nay-sayers ignore the greatest achievement of the nineties. According to the Clintonista types, a national consensus of a sort existed and guided the progressive progression towards progress- the bridge-building to the twenty-first century, as it were. These types claim that we had none of the vociferous political fighting that marks political discourse nowadays. Furthermore, internationally we had wondrous coalitions and plenty of multi-lateralism to protect us against the bad guys. There was no nuclear North Korea or Iran, and Iraq was a distant problem mentioned only when the administration launched cruise missiles at random buildings.
Again, the critics claim that there was no sense of consensus outside of the Democratic party and the media organisations. Remember the Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals? Furthermore, the critics contend that North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, and Iraq were engaged in secret arms-building throughout the nineties, and we're only now hearing about it because at the time we were too focused on the latest goings-on at Central Perk to pay any notice over-seas. Only now, where we have sites like Strategy Page and resources like Google Earth, can civilian analysts notice this buildup and coordinate their thoughts to create a comprehensive picture of what's really going on without depending on some empty suit at CNN to decide between an expose on the North Korean nuclear programme and the secret life of Bill Clinton.
But on to the main question. Is political consensus something to seek? Do we really want that warm and fuzzy feeling that we get when we think that there is a comprehensive blueprint for the bridge to the twenty-first century?
I would argue that we don't. First, any sense of "consensus" will automatically exclude a significant portion of the population from the political discourse. Furthermore, the discourse becomes boring, as there's only one message being preached. People lose interest in the political process and their attention focuses else-where. This is a bonus for Clintonistas, who like the idea of an activist and even an authoritarian Federal Government that enforces the consensus. They do not like public pressure deterring them from a course of action, since they are acting for the betterment of all (whether they like it or not).
Secondly, a "consensus" does not adequately serve the needs of a government. Oftentimes, radical measures are needed to save a nation (especially, it seems, after years of "consensus"). Margaret Thatcher was a radical politician, but her reforms saved the British economy and the British State from virtual third-world status. Consensus-building does not admit these possibilities: Thatcher is still an extremely controversial figure in British politics. If she had attempted to build consensus with Labour, she would have accomplished nothing. The same goes for the Reagan administration after years of the Nixon/Ford/Carter malaise and stagflation.
An example of how a "consensus-builder" is failing to save their economy comes in the form of German CDU leader Angela Merkel. Frau Merkel will more than likely become the next Chancellor of the German Republic after the massive defeat of social democrat Gerhard Schroder. Many had their hopes pinned that Frau Merkel would be a German Thatcher, leading the German economy out of its worst depression since the Weimar Republic. However, it seems Frau Merkel doesn't have the stomach to do what must be done for Germany's long-term survival. Instead, she offers only a meagre plan that will probably increase effective taxes by closing loopholes. By trying to create a consensus, Frau Merkel is dooming the German economy. She has merely loosened the economic noose slightly. For those interested, read details of her lukewarm plan here at TechCentralStation.
A third negative about a consensus is that it really doesn't exist. The sense of consensus is usually a put-on by the powers-that-be that allows them to suppress the voice of the opposition and lend themselves a special legitimacy. Though a general and clear consensus does exist on some subjects (such as the Kelo-authorised abuse of eminent domain), most political controversies do not have anything close to a resolution at hand. To pretend that there is a consensus is silly. It also requires the suppression of the opposing view. Though this prevents the vociferous exchanges of political battles, it also prevents the democratic process from running as it is supposed to.
I prefer the loud and super-heated political barrages of modern times to the deafening silence on political matters that characterised the nineties. At least we can exchange political opinions in an unregulated and open manner, as the Founders intended. By these vulgar machinations, we maintain our liberty and do not pave it over for a lyrical bridge that goes nowhere.

Fun with WMDs

To-day is a big day for Weapons of Mass Destruction, or rather to-morrow shall be. On 16 June 1945 at 05:29 Mountain Time the first nuclear bomb was set off near Alamagordo, New Mexico. This will be the sixtieth anniversary of the moment when, according to the old metaphor, man released the nuclear genie from the bottle.
True to recent form, world events remind us of this momentous day by bringing nuclear arms back into focus as a chief threat to man. I have two nuclear matters this post, one regarding a nuclear threat and the other a very unusual response and perhaps an explanation as to why teh BusHitlar McChimpy Halliburton emphasised the danger of Saddam's WMD capability during the run-up to the Iraq war.
One good reason for reading alternative news-sources is that it points out articles that would normally be buried or not even covered, even if they do represent a matter of the most extreme importance. Through places like Above Top Secret and Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country, I've come across an article in the London Financial Times. This article quotes a top Chinese General on a number of prescient defence matters. The most shocking quote in the lot concerns US intervention on behalf of Taiwan in case of Chinese invasion. Of this, he said that “If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.” The term "Chinese Territory" applies to Chinese shipping and military hardware as well as the mainland. He threatens not only tactical action against US and Taiwanese forces on Taiwan, he also made reference to strategic nuclear strikes against the United States.
Of course, General Zhu is a hawk. Perhaps his is not the mainstream view, but it seems to me that the more hawkish stance China is taking will worsen as the years go by. China seeks to prove itself a superpower by taking back the "rebellious province." If they're foiled, then they will lose the initiative and will be reduced to a laughing stock. The US will remain the superpower at China's expense. Conversely, if China succeeds in taking Taiwan, it will be poised for further expansion and will have the fear and respect of other nations. It's entirely possible that a future Chinese administration might use the nuclear card. If they don't use their deterrent, than it's worthless. The sad truth about nuclear weapons is that when one has to make the decision on whether to use them, it is already too late. Launch, and you have a nuclear war. Don't launch, and you lose not only the war but your deterrence capability.
Go read the article here.
The other interesting item is that I learned from the United States has been in a declared "State of Emergency" since 14 November, 1994. This is news to me, as I have yet to be rounded up for my obstinate opinions. I checked the matter out myself. According to ATS (which can be less-than-reliable at times, seeing that it is a conspiracy site), the declaration of national emergency comes in Executive Order 12938.
Naturally, I headed over to the handy web-site of the Federal Register to take a look at the order in question. Certainly enough, when I opened the order, the following phrase was plainly visible:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), Executive Orders Nos. 12851 and 12924, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."
He then goes on to enumerate special powers to deal with this emergency. Most of these deal with negotiation powers in regards to the subject of WMD proliferation. In addition, sanctions for nations that engage in WMD proliferation are spelled out. However, the fact stands that this order was never rescinded. We live in a "state of national emergency" at the moment. One wonders how many other executive orders declare a "state of national emergency" for another topic and spell out special powers for officials. The early-nineties "war on drugs" comes into mind. Don't believe me, read it yourself.
Regardless, this demonstrates that even with publicly available documents such as this Executive Order, one is still left in the dark by the government. Interestingly, the Executive Order pursuant to National Emergencies is currently EO 12656. It replaced the draconian EO 11490 that authorised total nationalisation of every aspect of life. The current EO still calls for government-determined action, but does not demand centralised decision-making of every sort. It's noticeable that 12656 was signed by Reagan, while the more authoritarian 11490 and the even older (and often cited on militia websites) orders 10990-11005 signed by Nixon and Kennedy respectively. God bless the Gipper.
We must be cautious not to let our public officials turn every situation into an emergency. As they know, their power is limited by the constitution. It can only be suspended (without riots) in an emergency. The key to power than is convincing the public that there is an emergency where there truly is none. The recent obesity "epidemic" is proof of this- the diet nazis can only pass theiludicrousus programme if people stop thinking and react to emotional stimuli only.
Now it's time to adjust the tin-foil beanie...

Treason doth never prosper...

..what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-Sir John Harington

One word I hear bandied about more and more these days is the word "treason." Mostly it's been put forward by the political right, levied against some of the more radical anti-American types. They argue that some, such as Jane Fonda, are guilty of treason against the Republic because they produced propaganda for enemy nations (in Fonda's case, North Viet Nam).
More recently, a more creative interpretation of the crime of treason has come from Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who proclaimed that two op-ed writers in the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece that was ""treasonous for the state of Michigan." The article criticised the governor's plan to increase taxes on businesses, insurance companies, and banks. They pointed out that these type of organisations tend to move away from higher-tax areas or pass on their increased costs to the hapless customer. The authors estimated more than twenty thousand jobs could be lost, and the proposal was defeated.
Understandably miffed, the governor let loose with the curious remark. According to the article, the governor has recently made a habit of using the term in reference to her enemies.
Some spoil-sports are inclined to point out the legal definition of treason, which is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States. This definition lies in Article III, Section three, clause one of this document. Here is the clause in question-
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The appropriate section of the US Code (Title 18, § 2381) says more or less the same thing, but also outlines the punishments for the offence of treason-
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Some less visionary types might think that thegovernorr has "flipped her lid" and is, as the British are inclined to say, "throwing her toys out of her pram." They think that the limited concepts of tradition- the idea treason applies only to federal cases, as states do not have the independent ability to wage war and/or have enemies. They furthermore note, with a hint of sadness, that this is the sort of super-heated political rhetoric that inevitably results when a public official with a Napoleon complex loses to the process of democracy.
Of course, these silly people are quite wrong. We must remember that our constitution, like our law and custom, is a living document that can be altered by our loving andbeneficentt betters in government. That definition of "treason" is based on fear and misunderstanding. Back in the time the constitution was written, "treason" meant doing anything that displeased the administration. This meant that the constitution's stricter definition was based on fear. In modern times, we have perfected an intellectual utopia under the leadership of our loving governments. There is no longer any need for anyone to worry about the government abusing their power or stomping on the rights of citizens. Such thoughts are truly reactionary fears that must not be heeded. Government is here to look out for you, and they want to work in an honest and trustworthy manner.
Remember, the word "treason" means whatever you want it to mean. If Michigan'sgovernorr has a true, heartfelt desire to include criticism of her administration's efforts in the definition, we shouldn't stop her. She's worked very hard to rid the state of worms and trash like those banks who sit out-of-state and ruin her people's revolution. She knows that "they are unwilling to adapt to the spirit of our revolution...We don't want them! We don't need them!" Since thegovernorr obviously knows what is best for her state, we shouldn't question her decision, because that would be judgmental of us, and mean.
As for the political right questioning the patriotism of people like Jane Fonda, it is typical of theirtemperamentt. Progressive pioneers like Jane have been trying for many years to increase understanding between differing nations and prevent war. Listen to the words of the brave poet D.S. Savage, writing during the festival of intolerance known as the Second World War, said that he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.". He furthermore cautioned "who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" In a final and touchingly modern statement, he ended with a plea for the universal solvent, tolerance. "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."
As an example of government officials working in our interest, the ATF has banned the importation of foreign gun parts such as barrels, frames, and receivers. This, of course, makes repair of many types of popular and legal firearms impossible. Some might view this as unconstitutional, or at least something that should be passed in the legislature. Of course, these silly people don't see the visionary path of bureaucratic management. As we all know, people with weapons can be a barrier to the aims of the state. Some have noted that they moved only after the response to the visionary Kelo decision seemed to be "time to buy a gun."
We must move forward, not backward. We must emulate the crime-free utopia of Europe rather than the US model.
On a final note, after an examination of the fine message boards at Above Top Secret, I see that our erstwhile UFO channeler Prophet Yahweh has delayed his promised UFO appearance until this time next year. It seems he couldn't make the UFO appear by his 15 July deadline. What a shame.

Fun with Gatling Guns

"Thank the Lord
That we have got
The Gatling Gun
And they have not"
Old British Proverb
I daily visit Mr. Free Market's fine blog, where one can experience one of the few outposts of classic British humor in a country that is falling apart. He provided this little morsel in his post on the Battle of Ulundi, the final battle of the Anglo-Zulu war.
This entry shifted my mind from its usual morass and into reflective mode. To-day's entry is on the subject of "innovations designed to save the world, but ended up making it vastly worse."
The first one up is, obviously, the Gatling Gun and later the Machine Gun. It was thought in the overly-optimistic Victorian era that a constant stream of lead directed at enemy troops would make war impossible, as casualty rates would be so enormous that armies could not function.
As we learned in World War I, armies would continually march into machine-gun nests despite horrific casualties. By World War II, armies had figured out that marching directly into the line of fire was a bad plan, so they developed doctrines such as those of suppressive fire and fire and maneuver. These neutralised the advantages of the machine-gun and made war relatively safe. Nowadays, nearly every soldier in every modern army carries some form of automatic weapon, yet casualty rates have gone down, not up.
A couple of other innovations designed to doom warfare were the magazine-fed rifle and the airplane. Instead, they've facilitated it, and allowed sides to engage in relatively greater safety because they can minimise exposure to enemy fire.
The modern mind, in my view, is a direct yet slightly twisted descendant of the Victorian world-view, like the Goth son of a football star and prom queen. Nowadays, while we laugh at the naivete of the Victorians, we count on a few of our own innovations to protect us from open war.
These innovations are the double team of nuclear weapons (including the doctrines of MAD and the like) and transnational organisations and international trade. We think that the scale balanced on one end with the tremendous costs of nuclear conflict (the result of open war) with the benefits of international trade and the power of treaties weighing strongly in favour of peace. We assume that it will prevent full conflict between industrialised powers. What we don't realise is that it will probably make it worse.
First, even if one does accept the value of nuclear arms as deterrent and the power of treaties, I'd argue that it merely forces people to find new forms of warfare that will end up being just as destructive as open armed conflict. This doctrine was published in the monumental Unrestricted Warfare, which asks questions such as "What is war?" To most of us, war exists when two sides start inflicting physical harm on one another.
Yet there are many ways to inflict harm. There's economic warfare- a stock market crash would destroy a nation just as efficiently as bombs without the messy problem of retaliation- if a nation's market crashes, it loses its financial resources and this its ability to retaliate in kind. It either has to risk military retaliation (which it can no longer afford) or sit in its newfound morass.
There's also the trend of involving civilians in war. One excellent strategy for electronic warfare would be to hijack computer systems that control the routing for trains &c. One could actually kill members of the population and, if it is done correctly, it cannot be traced. It could be used for wide-ranging destruction, economic and otherwise. Yet it leaves one blameless in the eye of the world.
Aside from the many new forms of war opened up by this, I think that these will be co-opted into future wars. Nuclear weapons don't have to be used to level cities in dramatic fashion- EMP from an upper-atmosphere burst will shut down an entire country of a considerable size. All one needs is a single nuclear weapon to accomplish that purpose. Furthermore, because a high-altitude detonation disrupts the ionosphere that is used to reflect radio communications and because EMP also effects satellites, this singular burst would delay or even prevent retaliation. Such an attack would cripple the economy, especially one so dependent on technology as the United States'.
In a tactical sense, it would in a moment neutralise the technological advantage held by US troops. The EMP would literally fry all of the electronic equipment our military depends on for its edge. The advantage would then lie with the side who is most familiar with the terrain and best able to exploit it.
As for transnational organisations and treaties, history has shown that they tend to make wars worse. Transnational organisations are obsessed with unity. This goes back to their earliest days. It reminds me of King Charles I of Great Britain, who dreamed of yoking England, Scotland, and Ireland together into one unified and harmonious realm united in every way and incapable of experiencing war. However, this meant that everyone had to follow a centralised programme that dictated the totality of life for all people in his realms. Religion was part of that, facilitated by the authoritarian Archbishop Laud. Charles' attempt at civic religion angered the Presbyterian Scottish Kirk, and they refused to obey by signing the National Covenant against him. This began the English civil wars. By attempting to shoehorn everyone into a unified realm, Charles guaranteed war. This goes to show that the English never have much luck with any King named Charles.
The same goes for treaties. Must I remind everyone of the alliance system that expanded World War I from a conflict between Serbia and Austria into a general European war?
As we can see, man's attempts to enforce peace have failed spectacularly. This demonstrates my theory that man loves nothing better than war. Like the unfortunate dieter, he tries to find ways around the self-imposed regimen that separates him from the object of his desire that he knows is no good for his body. It's time for a realistic self-assessment on man's part. Crash dieting isn't working in this case. The best solution would be to limit war by general convention and habit- common rules agreed on by all sides that limited the scope and damage to the willful combatants.
Will this happen? No, because war breaks out over things that matters, and man always is willing to pull out all the stops to win. It'll continue to get worse, and that's how it is. It's the flaw at the heart of human existence, and it is an irreparable fault.

Live 8

If you want to lose all of your free time, take a look at Google Earth. It allows you to view satellite imagery of any part of the Earth. It's a great time.
Another addictive thing is Princetons's Global Consciousness Project. It uses a series of random event generators located around the world. Each generator or "egg" produces random numbers. The squared and normalised deviation from the expected means of each generator is calculated and displayed. There's a helpful display with sounds that allows one to hear the level of deviation. In the last several minutes, I've heard a few "pings" and many more examples of the popping sort of noise that signify a significant deviation of a sort. The sounds are ordered by the magnitude of the deviation. My understanding is that before major events, the order of deviation increases drastically. It supposedly predicted the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States and the earthquake on 26 December 2004. Of course, it didn't display a variation on other key dates such as the recent earthquake in Turkey. Nonetheless, as a believer in things unknown, I think there are bonds that we do not fully understand connecting things. Perhaps more research is required to achieve a fuller understanding. After all, Matter/Energy is estimated to make up only five percent of what's in the universe.
One of the latest things to hit the headlines is the "Live 8" concert. Everyone's been tripping over themselves in an attempt to promote this concert. Some have called it "The Greatest Thing to Happen in the History of the World." Others have more prosaically described it as "the Greatest Concert Ever." In any case, those responsible are engaging in a hearty bout of self-congratulation. Some have called for the Nobel Committee to award a Nobel Prize to Live 8 organiser Bob Geldorf. Given the quality of recipients nowadays, it wouldn't be at all surprising if St. Bob received the honours.
Of course, one is made to wonder exactly what "Live 8" accomplished. The original concert was designed to raise money for famine victims in Ethiopia. Live Aid was rather successful, though some spoil-sports believe that most of the Live Aid money never got where it was supposed to.
Live 8, on the other hand, was designed to "raise awareness" of poverty in Africa. No specific programmes other than conning the G-8 leaders into giving more money in foreign aid to Africa. The main news is that a great number of old-hat performers from the sixties put aside their immense personal feuds and joined up with the next generation of humanity's saviours to tell the Elite Eight of the world to spend more of other people's money. Not their own, of course. It would be a disservice, because only by participating in their dissolute life-styles can they renew their energies to fight the tides of global poverty with the funds of others. Besides, it does us no service to question our superiors.
Regardless, I think the difference between "Live Aid" and "Live 8" is in how charity is handled. "Live Aid" represents the classical model of charity- taking money volunteered by citizens for a worthy cause. "Live 8" on the other hand represents the new charity. Rather than appealing to individuals to volunteer their own money, the charity lobbies for funding from leaders that wield the coercive power of the state. Thus, everyone becomes an unwitting benefactor of their cause, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Even so, the final decision lies with the political elite, not our the dear soft-hearted minstrels. Political elites make decisions based on their own interests, and rightly so. I'd be rather nervous if intellectual giants such as Bono and Green Day dictated national policy. In any case, their efforts will come to nothing if the national leaders refuse to follow their programme. In the end, national interest rather than star-studded lineup will dictate the aid programmes.
So then, what is the point of "Live 8"? All indications seem to be that the proportion of those favouring a large increase in aid are about the same. There seems to be a growing cynicism about the efficacy of foreign aid as we see how the money we send is being spent.
Why must we then endure the moralistic pretensions of men like Geldorf and other veterans of the British Invasion as if they are so many latter-day Chekhovs? Simple- they view themselves as a morally superior class of being with the responsibility to be the moral minders of mere peons such as myself. They must steer us from our wayward path while shooting smack into both of their eyeballs.
Will we ever see the day where Africa can stand on its own? Possibly, but then we might have to find other poor unfortunates to assuage our consciences.
Why do we feel so guilty? Well, that's another post, and I've no answer to give. Regardless, I think that Live 8 and its ilk represent man's tendency to prefer meaningless gestures to true acts of charity.
In the mean-time, visit Professor Massa, who has an interesting post on Operation Rhine and the Bismarck, with Hitler "getting all sad" and Mecha-Stalin making a guest appearance.

Remembering Republicanism

It's the Fourth of July. A long time ago, a group of sagacious men gathered in the summer heat in Philadelphia to commit an act of treason against HM The King. Their reason was an inalienable belief in the rights of man. Their focus on the liberation of the individual was all-encompassing. Despite what we've been told in the modern era, men like Jefferson wanted to see the liberation of slaves and the extension of franchise to worthy citizens.
Regardless, the America they sought was a society based on the notion of respect for individual rights that are granted by God and thus in man's nature. They knew that a society that protects the rights of individuals provides the best basis for continued advancement.
They were correct. The country that they built grew rapidly, attracting immigrants and, on their industry, building a vastly strong nation out of a pastoral colony that by its two-hundredth anniversary stood above all others and dominated the earth. The Republic's power eclipses that of any potential rival by a substantial margin in both crucial areas of economics and military might.
Adding to the truism, new injections of liberty spurred on greater growth. After the abolition of slavery, for example, the nation redoubled its development and rebuild after a long and destructive civil war and continued to grow until the Spanish-American War, when the US beat a European power both by land and sea.
Similarly, after the enfranchisement of women in 1920, the US built up its power (after the great depression and FDR's lacking economic programmes)until by the end of the Second World War, it eclipsed all of the European nations altogether.
Then a different sort of struggle for liberty happened- the Civil Rights struggle.
This bit of history is interesting, as it never should have been made necessary. With the passage of the XIII, XIV, and XV amendments to the constitution after the civil war, Blacks were enfranchised and extended full rights. However, the Supreme Court of the US ruled that the states could still practice private discrimination, and gave segregation its blessing in Plessy v. Ferguson. Thus, the practice of discrimination and the infamous Jim Crow laws could have been prevented. However, the Supreme Court had other ideas.
What is especially ironic is that when the problem of discrimination was finally tackled, it was done so with further government involvement. Rather than merely stating the fact that the XIII, XIV, and XV amendments in their nature prohibited discrimination, there was a massive amount of government involvement. The state took over many aspects of the lives of Afro-Americans, building massive projects for them to live in and subjecting them to social engineering. The result is that racism has merely gone underground, and finds new fuel in the controversy over the social engineering programme known as affirmative action. Further attempts to root it out have more deeply entrenched it.
Such is the result of government interference. When you outlaw racist talk, racists re-invent themselves as "alternative politicians" and, rather than expressing their true opinions that would offend any sensible person, they hide their rhetoric behind a mask. Eventually, when their cause becomes popular enough, they unmask their beliefs when it is too late to do anything about them. Such is the case in Europe, where we see the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and other radical politicians, who let loose racist and anti-Semitic diatribes that are immensely popular.
What do governments do in response? They increase the rigidity and scope of the orthodoxy. Eventually, it gets ridiculous, as people who express the wrong political views or wearing the wrong colours on your t-shirt. This is a ridiculous state of affairs, and a "reactionary" one at that. Rather than racism being an out-of-date and dying ideology going through its radical death-rattles, it is instead a dynamic and expanding ideology that has the initiative. The racists pick and choose battle-grounds while those ostensibly charged with defending the God-granted rights of an entire group of people only come up with progressively more authoritarian five-year diversity plans and proposals for hate-speech laws. This is ridiculous! They can't stop the tide of racism so they turn to purifying those who aren't, trying to purge them of undesirable political opinions. Why? We all agree on the same thing. What's the point of branding people with the scarlet "R" if they criticise the hip-hop culture or the practice of affirmative action?
We see the same thing happening in other aspects of our lives. Islamist terrorist threaten the lives of people across our civilisation. They pull off a massively successful terrorist attack to demonstrate their power. The result is massive restrictions on everyone else. Proposals for national ID cards have floated about, and have been formalised in the odious REAL-ID act. We all pay the price, made literally into Plebians by the Transportation Security Administration. We aren't allowed to see their extensive rules and regulations, but we are still subject to them. As anyone who's had the pleasure of a Fr. Kevin Quirk law class, one knows that a law is not truly legal unless it has been promulgated.
As I sit here on a rainy Independence Day and reflect on the last several years, I realise that I never imagined I'd wake up in a country that was becoming, by degrees, a police state. Like most everyone else, I laughed at those who predicted that we would live in this kind of society. Yet we're waking up further and further entrenched in it. It's enough to make one wonder.