Thursday, October 05, 2006

It's only just begun -- October, that is.

Some interesting snippets from Pajamas Media:

9th Circuit Court Blocks Voter ID law: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the enforcement of an Arizona law that requires voters to show identification before casting a ballot and submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote a month before the Nov. 7 general election, and just before Monday’s deadline to register. (AP/Breitbart)

UK Politician Hit For Seeing Guests: Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Common, was criticized after admitting he asks female Muslim constituents who visit him to remove their veils. Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was astonishing someone as senior as Mr Straw would “selectively discriminate on the basis of religion.” A spokeswoman for Project Hijab said Mr Straw’s request showed “gross ignorance” of the religious importance of the veil. She added that many women would find his request to remove their veil very insulting, even if they complied with his “demand”. (New Scotsman)

More ...


Executing Saddam will unleash catastrophic violence, according to Saddam's attorney, Ramsey Clark. (AFP/Yahoo)

South Korea Warns NOKORS of "grave consequences", if North Korea goes through with its nuclear test. South Korean President Roh instructed his government to step up diplomatic efforts, but also ordered a "contingency plan" be drawn up if they fail, Yonhap said. (Canadian Press/Breitbart)

Pelosi's First Hundred Hours “Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to “drain the swamp” after more than a decade of Republican rule. As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats _ in her fondest wish _ win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.” (AP/Breitbart)

Interesting times we live in.

40 Comments:

Blogger Doug said...

Pajamas should show some class and get rid of this filthy commie scumbag!

We're getting into very dangerous territory, and I've warned my colleagues to be careful." That's what a Democrat leadership aide was saying on Wednesday, as word circulated about David Corn's blog posting that revealed that a list of gay Republicans congressional staffers was circulating through emails.

Such a list has been talked about for months, if not years, by more militant homosexual activists, who have threatened to out Republican congressional staffers or even congressmen if they take positions counter to their gay lifestyle.

10/05/2006 06:46:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

Doug, Rep. Foley voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but he was not outed until his lawyer said he was gay this week.

10/05/2006 06:57:00 PM  
Blogger onesimus said...

wretchard,

OT

I am asking for your take on Bill Frist's comments, Tuesday Fox, on inviting taliban adherents into the Afghan government?

Hexbollah. (inadvertent typo but it works) Hamas. Maybe third time's a charm?

10/05/2006 07:02:00 PM  
Blogger Asher Abrams said...

Nice that Ramsey Clark is such an expert on catastrophic violence.

10/05/2006 07:10:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

onesimus,

I haven't looked at it, but am aware that Frist has been complaining he has been misquoted. Incidentally, Scowcroft just repudiated a direct quote by Woodward in "State of Denial". But to answer your question, there have been some, including Michael Scheuer, who think the current Afghan government is too narrowly based. That in fact, Karzai is not very representative. So in principle, there would be nothing wrong with beginning conversations with the Taliban, as in every fight (e.g. IRA). But it has to be from a position of strength. Just my 2 cents.

10/05/2006 07:10:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

Well wretchard, look at it this way, no ballot worker in Arizona will get in trouble asking a Muslim chick to remove her veil to see if her face matches her ID card.

10/05/2006 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Nancy loves a NAMBLA loving Commie Scumbag When Nancy Met Harry
Nancy Pelosi winks at man-boy love.

10/05/2006 07:58:00 PM  
Blogger Red River said...

We need a constitutional amendment for Voter ID.

10/05/2006 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

wretchard said...
So in principle, there would be nothing wrong with beginning conversations with the Taliban, as in every fight (e.g. IRA). But it has to be from a position of strength. Just my 2 cents.

Position of strength? Wretchard, are you now saying that there is a substitute for victory? A democratic accomodation with the Taliban? Isn't that what "conversations" with the IRA led to . . . the election of Sinn Fein members to Northern Ireland's parliament? Isn't that what Frist's comments on Fox were all about?

I think this kind of concession shows the utter bankruptcy of trying to tame Islamofascism through democracy. Seems you've learned nothing from the democratic rise of Hamas and Hezbollah: (Islamo)fascists use democracy as a stepping stone to power. Just look to how the Khomeneists took power in Iran or how Shiite Islamists took Basra from under our noses.

Why stop at the Taliban? Why not have "conversations" with Al-Qaeda? All they have to do is win elections in Afghanistan or Pakistan and we'll eagerly turn those countries over to them, babbling about the wonders of "democracy" all the while! They could probably start in Waziristan right now. This is the logic of democratic globalism taken to its defeatist extreme. Ridiculous.

10/05/2006 08:49:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

October, when the stench of defeatism is masked as victory.

From military.com:

QALAT, Afghanistan - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished we'll be successful."


http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,115505,00.html

10/05/2006 08:54:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Reocon,

It would depend on what the negotiations entailed. A large part of counterinsurgency is turning one side against the other. The Anbar tribes, for example, have come in against the al-Qaeda. Maybe not forever, but for now. But the intent is fundamental. It is easy to dress up capitulation as "negotiations". But not every negotiation is a capitulation.

10/05/2006 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Red River - We need a constitutional amendment for Voter ID.

We know that the Constitutional Amending process is broken - impossible to do unless there is near-unanimous bipartisan support for doing so.

So errors, obsolete portions, and archaic terms continue to accumulate. Major flaws in the Constitution like no continuity of government in a nuclear attack, lack of a line item veto, confusing war power provisions, lifetime appointment of a badly flawed Federal judge, encroachment of the Feds onto State Rights are deemed "unfixable" - or worse, at the sole discretion of an unelected judiciary to hold their own little mini-Constitutional rewriting to divine "what the Constitution really meant" through "analysis" of unwritten emenations and penumbras..

Most nations recognize, most organizations recognize that constitutions, charters, code must be subject to revision and correction every 50 years or so to remain vital and relevant.

The Constitution of 210 years ago was a great old thing...wonderful, other than the Civil War...for getting much of what America became - right for so long. But it is long, long overdue for a real cleanup and correction of some bad provision or provisions the Fed Courts have perverted into different meaning.

The time is coming...unfortunately...it will be when we, The People - not the Courts - are empowered by necessity of a growingly dysfunctional, ossified, uncompetitive America incapable of waging war or peace effectively --to sit down With lawyers and fix the obsolete, archaic, or just flat wrong elements of the Old Paper...

10/05/2006 09:28:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

C-4, you are off your game when you say:
... "The Constitution of 210 years ago was a great old thing...wonderful, other than the Civil War...for getting much of what America became - right for so long. But it is long, long overdue for a real cleanup and correction of some bad provision or provisions the Fed Courts have perverted into different meaning."

Do you really believe this current generation of ill-informed, poll driven, media-manipulated Americans is the right one to change and rearrange the US Constitution?

Repeat after me: "Hanging Chad".

10/06/2006 01:54:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Here's an idea:
Strip all the SCOTUS add-on "improvements," and start over.

10/06/2006 02:29:00 AM  
Blogger onesimus said...

wretchard,

Thank you,

onesimus

10/06/2006 02:41:00 AM  
Blogger hdgreene said...

Are Muslims the Welfare Queens of the Civil Rights/Grievance movement?

Should we keep the Constitution on a word processor? With an LCD display in the national archives so we can herd school kids by it and say, "Watch it change and grow!"

The Today show just came on and they are all so happy to talk up the "Page Scandal" and how it hurts the Republicans. Instead of Journalists, shouldn't we just call them "Operatives?"

10/06/2006 04:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi...reading your post, only one question from me for your self. what do you think about Hijab Project as second paragraf on your post?

10/06/2006 05:12:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

wretchard said...
It would depend on what the negotiations entailed. A large part of counterinsurgency is turning one side against the other. The Anbar tribes, for example, have come in against the al-Qaeda. Maybe not forever, but for now. But the intent is fundamental. It is easy to dress up capitulation as "negotiations". But not every negotiation is a capitulation.

As Frist's initial comments show, the intent was one of inclusion, aiming to bring unreconstructed, pro-Sharia, Taliban into the Karzai government, specifically those from the Qalat province. The Anbar Tribes analogy is apt for what it excludes: the Sunni that disdain Al-Qaeda actively support what they call the "real insurgency", an indigenous Sunni one. That is why the Sunni political parties in the present Iraqi government are so deeply allied with, or infiltrated by, the Sunni insurgency. The Iraqi Consensus Front, Mutlak, Mashdani, all these clowns are playing a very open double game. Do a little research on the Sunni parties in the present government if you disagree.

We are not in a position of strength vis-a-vis the Taliban, and mentioning "negotiations" at this stage of exhaustion is indicative of defeatism. We did not negotiate with Fascist Japan or Nazi Germany, we dictated terms after victory. Do Islamofascists get an easier deal? Negotiations are not "capitulaton" true, but they do involve compromise. The problem is one of relative gains. Do we now compromise with the Taliban? Where does the resurgent Taliban end and Al-Qaeda begin? What possible "negotiations" would you offer to al-Qaeda?

10/06/2006 06:38:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/06/2006 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

Do you really believe this current generation of ill-informed, poll driven, media-manipulated Americans is the right one to change and rearrange the US Constitution?

Yeah, how would you like Rosie O'Donnell to fix the 2nd Amendment, Bush to fix the 4th Amendment, and Alberto Gonzales to fix the 8th Amendment? Besides, you can't just sit down and change it, because the Constitution itself calls out a different procedure that involves the legislatures of 3/4ths of the States. Cedarford's only hassle is with the current interpretation of the document. I know it's a slow process (by design) but Cedarford should vote for Presidents and Senators who will install SCOTUS judges who see things your way.

10/06/2006 06:44:00 AM  
Blogger Dave H said...

Both C4 and 2164th seem to be right according to my perceptions. The Constitution is broken and one place is major, the lifetime appointment of federal judges, especially SCOTUS. The problem only surfaced because one side seemingly discovered ahead of the other that they could legislate from the bench and that one key alignment of judges could put them in power.

On the other hand 2164th is clearly right, entrusting a re-write to the current set of demagogues is worse than useless.

Al-Queda, Iran, Kim Il Soong, any one of them could probably go a long way toward solving it if they get the bit in their teeth and de-capitate the US Gevernment.

I speculate that the Constitution would at least temporarily go by the wayside in that case, some military type would seize the reins and proceed to de-capitate Islam, NK and a good many of the surviving left in the US. I kind of hope this thought percolates into the thinking of Dinner Jacket et al.

I am beginning to feel better about the fact that I am pretty old. I have lived all my life under that Constitution, and I am not sure I even want to imagine what the world might become without it. Who could you trust to write a new one? I Would like a good deal less ambiguity, better definitions of things, in plain modern English, but who could you trust to do it?

C4 said --to sit down With lawyers and fix the obsolete, archaic, or just flat wrong elements of the Old Paper...

Lawyers are about the last people on earth I would trust with such an assignment, my two best friends are lawyers and both need to be certified, one is a left wing democrat, the other is a tort lawyer in a terrible marriage.

I am actually glad that I am a short timer.

10/06/2006 07:53:00 AM  
Blogger Maverick Pilgrim said...

Traditional Muslim women could wear transparent veils to show their homage to God while preserving the peace, enhance public security, and COMMUNICATE MORE COMPLETELY (the concern that motivated Jack Straw's request).

10/06/2006 09:01:00 AM  
Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

It's time to talk with our enemies.

Israel should be required to talk peace with any and all islamic / palestinian / arab groups.

Israel SHALL open ANY "peace talks" with a complete shutting down of all electricity, water, foods & goods to any and all peoples that have declared war on her.

Israel is committed to the concept that one israeli live is no more value than one arab life, so in future no prisoners will ever be exchanged for more than ONE for ONE ratio. example: if hamas has one kidnapped soldier, one arab of equal rank will be exchanged.

Israel shall be forced to "listen" to hamas etc, however israel shall start annexing adjacent lands for every act of terror committed by ANY group coming from selected land areas.

1 kassam, no deaths = 1 parcel of land 20 x 20
1 kassam, 1 injury = 4 parcels of land 20 x 20
1 kassam, 1 death = 25 parcels of land 20 x 20
1 kassam, building damaged = 3 parcels of land 20 x 02

additional schedules of land to be seized for homicide bombings, stabbings, shootings etc.

All lands to be taken shall be used to create buffers from said peoples.

During all phases of self defense israel shall hold "talks" with any and all, old and newly minted arab groups.

Concerning Lebanon,

Same concept, Israel should be open to "talk" with no preconditions with hezbollah.

However Israel shall attack any and all hezbollah targets all the time as long as hezbollah threatens israel with destruction

the term hunda is not acceptable to israel.

If hezbollah/lebanon attack, again, lands shall be taken and annexed


kinda sounds like what russia is doing with goergia

10/06/2006 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

It's time to talk to our enemies

Let's open offers to North Korea to talk about anything, however:

No food, oil or any products shall be given to north korea.

If china insists on helping north korea, fine

All chinese goods shall be not allowed into the USA for 24 hours per chinese shipment of goods to north korea, but we MUST insist to the world we WANT PEACE talks

10/06/2006 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger redaktør said...

Understanding Serialization:

Our enemy knows that they cannot win on any one front. Their goal is parallelization. They want to force us to go one bridge too far, one crisis too many, so we pull enough forces from all fronts so we become beatable on any front they choose to concentrate their forces on.

http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/004180.html


h/t: The Elephant Bar

10/06/2006 10:45:00 AM  
Blogger redaktør said...

wio,

I prefer the "disproportionate" Israeli response:

1 kassam rocket = war with the IDF

And war with the IDF = you get your Jihadist ass kicked back to the 7th century.

10/06/2006 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger John C. Wright said...

In re Constitutional provisions and revisions:

Not this generation, please God, as the ones to tamper with the document. I am a law school grad, so I have read the thing and I know what the provisions mean--and I have never heard an intelligent mainstream debate on any Constitutional subject my whole life.

Occassionally in the fringes described a far-out, you will hear some reasoned debate, such as, for example, about repealing the popular election of Senetors, so that the States regain representation against the popular Federal Behemoth. The abuse of the Commerce Clause requires that this phrase be rewritten into a negative phrase: "Congress shall pass no law regarding the commerce between the several states, or the Indian nations."

The Second Amendment should also be updated in this way: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. AND WE MEANT IT."

Art I Sect 8 also needs revision: "The Congress shall have the power ... To Declare War ... AND WE MEANT IT. CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT, YOU MORONS. CAN'T YOU READ?"

While these phrases may lack the magisterial dignity becoming to the Founding Fathers, the nonetheless reflect the original intent.

A procedure for the impeachment of judges and justices is also called for, by which I mean it should be used, not that any new Amendment need be made.

10/06/2006 11:37:00 AM  
Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

redaktør said...
wio,

I prefer the "disproportionate" Israeli response:
1 kassam rocket = war with the IDF

And war with the IDF = you get your Jihadist ass kicked back to the 7th century.

but israel is NOT doing that...  STILL

1.  we must raise the concept that being a "people" does not guarantee a state. and if the hamas or hezbollah or iranians refuse to NOT make war on israel then israel must destroy any state that attacks her.

we MUST teach the islamists that if they wage war, they will lose LAND.

the arab/islamist mind could give a rat's ass about a few thousand or even tens of thousands dead. 

example:

hama
saddam & the shia
saddam & the kurds
saddam & the iranians
sudan/darfur
palestinian on palestinian murder
and on and on and on..

we need to Reeducate the arab - islamic mind to understand if they CHOOSE to reject OUR UN based State SYSTEM, and call for the total destruction of UN member states, then THEY LOOSE the right to BE A STATE.

we can now call them the "failed peoples of the world:, list to follow:

aztecs, ancient egyptians, romans, akhenaton, mesopotamians, mayan, incas, caaninites, moabites, the people of Bavel and now let's add the fake people "palestinians" who never invented anything except the "bomb belt" ..

we MUST impress the people of this part of the world, there is NO guarantee that they will survive as a people/race or culture if the continue to worship death and destruction.

The modern islamic/palestinian mind needs to be TRAINED, like a DOG, with the concept that there will be a PUNISHMENT for being an ASSHOLE. As of now, since the arab’s have oil as thier “get out of jail card” we have allowed, i said WE HAVE ALLOWED the islamist/palestinians to murder, destroy and bomb thier way through the last 60 years of history. Since the end of ww2, when the ARAB WORLD WAS REWARDED not PUNISHED for being HITLER whores, they gave these sick bastards COUNTRIES to rule... (read b lewish and his article on the vichy hand over to the proto baathists)

Time to make the message simple for the islamist/palestinians...

IF YOU ATTACK, YOU WILL LOOSE. You will die, and MORE importantly, you will LOOSE LAND..

10/06/2006 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger El_Heffe said...

Sorry to run so far afield from the main post but this little snippit from Reocon really triggered a brain wave for me. (And my appologies to Wretchard about the length too).

Reocon said...
"We did not negotiate with Fascist Japan or Nazi Germany, we dictated terms after victory."

The fact that we dictated terms is actually unusual. Well ... its not unusual for America because we do a lot of things differently... but it is unususal in a historical sense.

In The Shield of Achilles Phillip Bobbitt puts forth the idea that history has been composed of a series of epochal wars which end in epochal settlements. And that these peace treaties which come at the end of each epochal war inagurate a new form of the state and establish the basis for its legitimacy. And that as a result of this new legitimacy (and the new form of the state) the relationships between the states of the world (he calls it "the society of states") are also redefined by these peace treaties. This can only happen when ALL of the parties to the war are weakened sufficiently (or otherwise motivated) to accept the necessary compromises. Epochal wars historically end with the exhaustion (or near exhaustion) of all parties.

Here is a quote that sums up:
"An epochal settlement, like the Peace of Westphalia ... recognizes and legitimates the dominant domestic constitutional order because that archetypal order has been forged in the conflicts that are composed by the peace settlement, and its triumph is reflected in the consensus that that triumph has wrung from the exhausted combatants." (emphasis mine)

But this new definition of legitimacy, and new set of understandings between states, invariably comes with flaws that lead to its undoing in the following epochal war, and simultaneously hint to the order of the state that will follow once the next epochal war is ended.

By the end of WWI the State-Nations (states which claimed the allegiance of an ethinc group for the agrandizement of the state) which had been established through Congress of Vienna in 1815 were ready to give way to a new form of the state... the Nation-State (which takes its legitimacy from a mandate to advance the prosperity of the people).

However the Treaty of Versaille wasn't able to legitimate the Nation-State in the same way that other forms of the state were legitimated by prior peace treaties. This is because there were 3 competing forms of the Nation-State each of which required a legitimacy that would de-legitimize the other 2 forms. In this sense the treaty of versaille, while demarcating the transision from one form of the state to another, did not actually end an epochal war... or rather it ended one epochal war and immediately launched another, without any significant interlude of real peace.

The 3 competing forms of the Nation-State were of course Parlimentary Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. This contest was not settled untill the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus from this perspective there was an epochal war that began in 1914 and didn't end untill 1990. Therefore the statement Reocon made is only partly true...

"We did not negotiate with Fascist Japan or Nazi Germany, we dictated terms after victory."

According to the view that the 1914 epochal war lasted untill 1990 there was no "victory" in 1945. America dictated terms to the defeated fascists yes, but the americans (and other democracies) were not exhausted, the Communists were not exhausted, so the epochal war didn't end at that time. The fascists lost, yes, but the war to determine the final form of legitimacy for the Nation-State was still underway (albeit turning cold), thus there was no "victory", its just that fascism fell out of the running.

Because the war wasn't over, we were able to dictate terms. Its like the democracies took the fascists as pow's and then re-mustered them into their own ranks, then continued the war for legitimacy to its final end (except, of course, for the parts that the communists took, and integrated into their war machine).

More to Reocon's point, we shouldnt neccessarily expect to be able to "dictate terms", to do so would require a historical exception. Again from Bobbitt:

"... Westphallia, Utrect, and Vienna had all included, amnesty clauses, deliberately omitting any distinction between victors and vanquished."

Here I wish to take up another issue that seems to get under Reocon's skin (and perhaps you already understand this, Reocon, and simply find it distasteful. Thats fine ... But I want to discuss it in any way). That is the democratic election of terrorists to positions of power in middle eastern and south asian governments.

This movement embodies the final triumph of Democracy over Communism and Fascism in the war for the legitimate form of the Nation-State. Unfortuantely (and I think you will agree, Reocon) the Nation-State is in decline. Its losing its ability to fill its mandate to advance the prosperity of the people, which is at the foundation of its legitimacy.

So while in one sense this represents the victory that cold warriors have sought for decades, at the same time it represents the less than totally successful efforts of a decaying system to hold itself together in the face of a challenge to its legitimacy.

Said another way... terrorism is a problem that states can't effectively deal with in their current Nation-State form, but that doesn't stop them from using the tools that they have at their disposal as Nation-States to try to deal with the problem. Its simple self preservation, but self preservation of a form which does not bear preservation if it is no longer useful.

Look at it this way... the Nation-State has trouble dealing with terrorists. At least part of the difficulty stems from the terrorists being organized as non state actors, states like to deal with other states. So one take on what is happening with the "democratize the middle east" meme is that the nation state is seeking to transform its foe into a form more like its own... one that it knows how to deal with, and is more comfortable in fighting.

Once those terrorists get elected then suddenly they can be dealt with using the existing form. Will it work? I really don't think so... but I'm torn...

On the one hand I think democratizing the world based on the meme about "democracies don't go to war with each other" could be a mistake, if the meme itself is flawed. It seems plausible that democracies haven't ever fought one another simply because of the nature of the battle for the legitimacy of the Nation-State. It was Democrats vs. Facists and Communists so of course in that environment the democracies arent going to fight each other (sort of like how durring the cold war both parties were consistent in pursuing containment of the Soviet Union).

But now that Democracy has "won" will the principle still hold. Perhaps it's not beneath the terrorists to try to beat us with our own club.

On the other hand I am always a sucker for those idealistic Jeffersonian notions embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

Ultimately, I think that the Jeffersonian principles will find a way to endure though the form of the Nation-State will eventually have to be shed in favor of a new legitimacy.

(As an aside: America has been on the leading edge of several epochal changes, though never have we been as major a player on the world stage as we are now. We got our State-Nation in the revolution, and our Nation-State in the civil war. Decades ahead of europe in both cases. American Exceptionalism indeed... but where will it lead... ?)

10/06/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

A known insurgent who had been captured three times, then released.

Prosecutors have said that the servicemen killed Awad out of frustration and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle and a shovel by the body to make it look as if he had been caught digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

Bacos testified that the squad entered Hamdaniya on April 26 while searching for a known insurgent who had been captured three times, then released.

Squad leader Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins was "just mad that we kept letting him go and he was a known terrorist," Bacos said.
- CNN

10/06/2006 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

We got our State-Nation in the revolution, and our Nation-State in the civil war. Decades ahead of europe in both cases. American Exceptionalism indeed... but where will it lead... ?)

Follow the bouncing ball. Senators, representatives, and Presidents will be directly sponsored by, and directly represent, corporations such as the "Great State of Texaco". It will be the same as it is now, but at least no one will pretend it's otherwise anymore.

10/06/2006 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger El_Heffe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/06/2006 04:09:00 PM  
Blogger El_Heffe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/06/2006 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger charlotte said...

Mr. Straw is absolutely correct to request that Muslim women remove the covering from over their faces and mouths when they converse together, but he in turn has to be careful about making veiled comments.

Fair is fair.

10/06/2006 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

el_jeffe said. . .
Unfortuantely (and I think you will agree, Reocon) the Nation-State is in decline. Its losing its ability to fill its mandate to advance the prosperity of the people, which is at the foundation of its legitimacy.

I don't agree. I think the nation-state is alive and well and providing nicely for many of its citizens in the first world and many in the fomer third. (I'm guessing those in the "second world" shifted either up or down a notch since the collapse of NeoStalinism.) I say "former third" because the massive industrialization taking place in China and India and the rise of new economic classes supercede the old typologies. I still see the nation-state as the prime actor in international affairs. El Jeffe writes some interesting speculation though.

10/06/2006 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger El_Heffe said...

Follow the bouncing ball. Senators, representatives, and Presidents will be directly sponsored by, and directly represent, corporations such as the "Great State of Texaco". It will be the same as it is now, but at least no one will pretend it's otherwise anymore.

this reminds me of a scene from a movie...

Network.

Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!! Is that clear?! You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Beale: But why me?

Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

10/06/2006 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger El_Heffe said...

@ Reocon

The nation state has sturck a bargain with its citizens, we give the state allegience and it advances our prosperity. The prosperity of the people cannot be advanced if the security of the people can not be maintained. Maintaining security is is becoming increasingly difficult. As nation states begin to fail in holding up their end of the bargain they lose their legitimacy. As the current legitimacy is eroded further and further a new basis for legitimacy will be formed and the nation state will be transformed into something new (to match the new legitimacy).

I think that states will continue... but one way or another they will be transformed.

There can be no continuation of, neither a return to 9-10-01.

But what will the changes be? What will the new form look like? ... Those are the questions.

(thanks, everybody, for reading through all of that... it was even longer in the comment thread than is was in my notepad.)

10/06/2006 05:03:00 PM  
Blogger Ol' BC said...

Wow Boss, that was interesting. However, the 9th circuit is in lala land and their decision will be overturned.

10/06/2006 07:01:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/07/2006 06:30:00 AM  
Blogger Das said...

Then there's this:
Warning: I made it up

Man sues over Arabic script in EKG

10/07/2006 11:53:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger