More raving from the end of the last century. What a jerk this guy was, huh?
Politics
Recent events [2000] have caused me to somewhat rethink my stance that the president is insignificant. If for no other reason than the media attention that the president focuses on an issue (or, more precisely, on his particular slant on the issue) the personality and politics of the president (or the president's handlers, if you care to take that point of view) does matter. I still think that the bureaucracy matters more (most laws are extremely vague in how they are to be implemented, and the appointed bureaucracy gets to decide exactly how those laws impact you). But the degree to which a president who is willing to do so can use the power and budget of the Federal government as a blunt instrument to bend the private sector to his will is unsettling. And, while the president can say anything he likes about anyone else, if someone describes the president in similar terms the press and government unite to vilify the person who has dared raise his voice against The Leader. (At least with a president the press likes; we'll see if this holds up with the Bush administration.)
This, combined with some unsettling developments in foreign policy, leads me to believe that we are headed for interesting times. I mean, the State Department has actually said, "What's the use of having a powerful army if you don't use it?" and it has been seriously proposed that we form a special colonial constabulary to deal with peacekeeping missions. It may come as a surprise to some who know me, but I am not really in favor of an Imperial Pax Americana. The cost in blood, money, and domestic liberty and tranquility will, I think, be too high, and for too little return. History has shown that empires do not benefit either the Imperial power or the people. It is the Imperial ruling class which benefits. In other words, empires are not run for the benefit of the Empire as a whole, or even the Empire's core area (the homeland: Rome, England, whatever), but rather for the benefit of the ruling class. In our case, that would be the Imp--oops, Federal bureaucracy, the professional politicians, and the large corporations (and the people who run them). You and I will see nothing but higher taxes to pay for the military operations that secure profit for our masters, and increased 'security measures' to ensure that our masters remain such.
The groundwork has been laid for the removal of Congress (which, despite all its flaws, is still relatively representative of the people) from the power structure of government. The Executive and Judicial branches between them have shown that they can force businesses to agree to act as if certain laws existed, without going through the tedious process of actually getting those laws passed. This is the very beginning of rule by decree, and the end of effective representative democracy in this country. An important step in empire building. I hope I am wrong, and that the trend reverses itself, but the bland response I got from my Congressfolk when I pointed out the danger to them does not make me optimistic. I suppose, as a historian, I should be glad to be living in such interesting times, but I confess that I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. . . .
For the time being, though, the government that matters most to you and me is at the state and local level. You know, those elections that no one but the candidate's friends and relatives bother to vote in. They're the ones who set your property taxes, tell you what kind of roof you can have on your house, what school your kids go to, and what gets taught in those schools. And, of course, it is the official with only a little power who will be the most pompous and self important. Try arguing with the clerk at the tax office next time if you don't believe me.
History
Brown's First Law of History: History never repeats itself. It just gives pop quizzes
to see if you were paying attention.
War
It's bad. Avoid it. But since it only takes one side to start one, if you can't avoid it then make sure you win. Losing a war is really bad.
Religion
They're all funny as hell, and no one is any better than any other, so get over
it. I care even less what your religion is than most people, and contrary to what
you'd like to believe, most people really don't care much at all, as long as you
leave them alone. So if you want to have a religion, knock yourself out, but don't
try to sell it. No one likes a pushy salesman.
Gun Control
Use both hands, aim for the middle, and use all the bullets; that's what they're there for.
Okay, this has become such a big issue this election season [The 2000 campaign] that I feel I must take a moment to state the obvious. There is a lot of talk right now about trigger locks, and every word of it is the most utter nonsense you'll ever hear. You can buy 3 trigger locks for about $8 at the local sporting goods store; anyone who can afford a gun and cares to do so can afford a trigger lock to secure it with. There are already laws against leaving a gun about where a child can injure himself with it. Anyone who still leaves an unsecured weapon where a child can find it is unlikely to change their behavior if a trigger lock is given to them (and most handguns now come with one anyway). Making people register their guns isn't going to effect crime in the least; what makes anyone think that criminals will register their guns? Also, if controlling crime is the goal, why are the guns least often used in crimes targeted the most? So called 'assault weapons' are used in a vanishingly small proportion of all crimes, and are the weapons to which the 2nd Amendment is most relevant, but they are the most regulated. Bayonets are officially evil now, for heaven's sake. Has there ever been a crime committed with a fixed bayonet? What problem is this supposed to correct? And, lastly, if somehow all guns were to be banned and removed from the civilian population, that would still benefit criminals more than law abiding citizens. Consider; if you are involved in a violent confrontation with a criminal, about 50% of the time there will be more than one of them. With those odds, and considering that knives, screwdrivers, and so on, are effectively impossible to ban, has the criminal's ability to work his will upon you been diminished by his not having access to a gun? Even now, more violent crimes are committed without guns than with them. The criminal has the advantage over the common citizen as it is; removing the citizen's most effective means of protection is not going to change that.
[Addendum, August 2004.] I have a longer and more reasoned essay on the subject, but some elaboration may be called for.
Some people feel that President Bush will defend the rights of gun owners, and that one of Kerry's highest priorities would be rolling back the 2nd Amendment. There is no actually reason to believe that either of these things is true. Okay, Kerry has voted for gun control laws while in the Senate, but after the ass-beating the Democrats have taken over gun control in the past 10 years there is no reason to think he will push that as a national agenda. And, in fact, his campaign platform is conspicuously silent on the subject. Not to mention that there is a limit to what he can do. Executive Orders only go so far; he could tell the ATF to not allow certain guns to be imported, but he can't tell the FBI to go out and collect everyone's guns. The President has little direct power domestically, and his considerable indirect power (see above, on the Presidency) depends on the cooperation of a significant portion of the Federal Agencies, Judiciary, and the population at large. I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how Kerry could accomplish what Clinton couldn't.
Now, Bush. Jesus. What kind of fucking moron thinks that Bush would ever lift a finger to protect gun owners. He has done exactly ONE thing in that regard; when running for Governor of Texas for the first time he said he'd sign a 'reasonable' concealed carry law, a measure that was wildly popular with Texans. As President, he has said he would sign a renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban, and there is no reason to think he didn't mean it. He has declined to repeal the bans on firearms imports orderd by his father and Clinton (something well within his powers). Tell me again how he's our friend?
"Alternative" Lifestyles
Hey, do you want people poking their noses into what you do in bed? Then keep your
nose out of other people's bedrooms.
Courtesy
I've found over the years that it doesn't cost anything, and it can save you and other people a lot of aggravation. Keep in mind that the person behind the cash register is a human being, just like you, more or less, and so is the waiter or waitress, and the secretary. Be nice to them. It won't kill you, and it'll make a lousy job a little easier for them.
Oh, and next time you're out driving around, take a second to look around you. See those other big iron things with people in them moving around? Hey, hadn't noticed those before, had you? Those are other people in cars and trucks, trying to get someplace, just like you are. Give them the same space that you'd like them to give you. And if you screw up -- it happens to the best of us -- don't get mad at the person you almost hit, even if they honk at you. It isn't their fault, and you'd honk too if someone had just done something boneheaded around you. Admit your mistake, and get on with your life. That's not so hard, is it?
And if you drive a mini-van or SUV, try to remember that no one can see around that great ugly thing; it may be a power trip for you to be sitting up above everyone else, looking down at the peasants, but you're just another pain in the ass to everyone else on the road.
Television
Turn it off and go read a book, or go play outside. You don't really want to buy any of that stuff. What? You think you're watching television for the shows? Hah. That's funny. As if TV has anything to do with entertainment. . . .
Telemarketers
And spammers, and similar vermin. Okay, they're just trying to make a living . . . but does someone who makes a living harassing other people really deserve to? Be polite to them if you want to, but at all costs do not reward this sort of anti-social behavior by actually buying any of what they're selling.
A new pestilence seems to be growing in popularity; automated recordings that call and harass you. These are popular, and pernicious, for the same reason as unsolicited commercial email and spam: There is no unit cost for advertising, because the person being advertised to is picking up the tab. It costs the contemptible marketer the same to reach a million victims as to reach one. At that point the effectiveness of the marketing tool is almost irrelevant; as long as the response is non-zero, it's worth it. A hundred thousand people have to be contacted to make one sale? No problem; contact 10 million and make a hundred sales. It's just as easy to do as only contacting a thousand, and not making any sales. Especially since the marketer is often not paid on the basis of results, but on how many attempts are made. While I personally favor death by torture for such marketers, realistically only the combination of two things will stop this evil. The effectiveness of the marketing method must drop to zero (in other words, no one ever responds to telemarketing efforts or spam), and the marketers must be paid only for results (if they are paid strictly on how many sales pitches are made, not on how many sales are made, it doesn't matter to them if they aren't making any sales). Short of these measures, there is nothing that will stop the evil ones. Why should they stop? They've essentially got a license to print money, effortlessly and with no initial investment. So, I repeat, never, ever, ever buy anything from telemarketers or spammers.
Hmm. . . maybe, rather than trying to pass laws to keep the telemarketers and spammers from working their evil (which won't stop them), it would be more effective to target the other end; make it illegal to respond favorably to such marketing. Hmm. I'll think about it and get back to you.
Journalists
They think they're there to educate you, like you're some little kid who has to be told the proper way to think. The idea of news as educational rather than informative goes back to Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine. Get the idea? Read just enough news to get some of the facts, then do your own thinking. You'll be better off for it.
Venture Capital/Dot-Com Optimists
"Here's $10 million. Don't worry about being profitable; this is a new economy and building up a user base is all that matters."
"Wow, thanks. Woohoo, we're rich! I can hire all my friends, and rent some nice office space, and we can ride scooters up and down the halls, and. . . . Oops. Uh oh. Er, Mr. Investor, it looks like $10 million doesn't go very far any more. Can we have a few million more, you know, just to tide us over?"
"Aren't you making money yet?"
"Well, no. You said we didn't have to."
"Idiot! What business school did you flunk out of? Do you think this stuff grows on trees? Go declare bankruptcy so I can get my tax write off."
"You mean I'm not rich anymore? Wah!"
Just in case there is some moron out there who hasn't learned the lesson of the Great NASDAQ Proctological Exam of 2000: Hemorrhaging money is not a viable business model. The evidence is sketchy, I don't know if any scientific studies have been done, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most successful businesses have at least some income. But thanks for playing.
KYFHO
In what you might call the train wreck of two interstecting trains of thought, I had something of a revelation the other day. Train One: Most of us, particularly those who work for a living, would prefer that the government have as little to do with us as possible. There are few people who are not at least irritated by the government's increasing intrusion into everyday life. (Incidently, one of the marks of a tyrrany is the amount of control a government insists on having over its citizens' lives.)
Train Two: The only group on the planet that Uncle Sugar doesn't tell what to do is the Nuclear Club. The USG may scold nuclear powers about their civil rights violations or whatnot, but while wagging a finger with one hand, the other hand is passing over sweet trade deals, technology, foreign aid, whatever. You certainly won't see the Marines landing in China anytime soon to liberate Tibet, or us poking around between Pakistan and India. Why is that? Nukes. Why do you think every tinhorn dictator wants some? Because they recognize that the only fully sovereign states on the planet are those with nukes (or the capability to field them if desired; the borderline cases of Japan and Germany).
The lesson is clear; if you want the government to leave you alone, you have to become a nuclear power. I leave the details of doing so as an exercise for the student.
Literary Rants
I've split this new subject off to its own page, here
Need a second look at something?
Go back up to the Beginning of the page.
Or have you had enough ranting?
Back Home.