Goodbye To Atlanta

This will be my last post for a while, and there will be no new radio show this coming Saturday, and probably the Saturday after that. This is my last week at the house, I have to leave by Friday because my landlord has the place rented out for July. I'll be staying somewhere else for about a week before the big move to Chicago. I could still use a little help money-wise, so if anyone cares to donate, they can do so here. I want to thank everyone who has already helped out, with money or with packing.

It's been an interesting twelve or so years here in The City Too Busy To Hate, but I'm looking forward to my new life in the Windy City, and to whatever new challenges await me. I'm leaving damn near everything behind: the only things I am keeping are important papers, items that have a lot of sentimental value, and items that will be too difficult expensive to replace. Even so, that's still quite a bit of stuff, always more than you expect.

I also want to thank all the good people I've known here, even if we've parted ways. People who have helped to shape my life. Phyllis Huster for taking Cathy and I in when we needed help, and for continuing to be there for me. Joey Davis for getting me started in the radio biz. Mike Malloy for giving me a job when I needed one (even though I was a lousy employee!). Dave Smith for being a good friend when we worked at Siemens. Laura Block for being so kind to me in the days after Cathy's death, and since. Bob Kincaid, his lovely wife Agnes, and Ben Burch of Head On Radio and the White Rose Society for believing in me. Brian Thompson, who was a huge help when I was trying to build a career running conventions. Daric Jackson for being the one who helped me to come here in the first place. Lloyd Carter and Dave Merrill of Anime Weekend Atlanta for being there when I needed it, Matt Murray and CB Smith of Corn Pone Flicks for showing me what "cool" means and letting me be in their crazy movies. The gang at My Left Wing, Bartcop, and all the people I know in the chat rooms. So many others, and they all know who they are.

And of course I want to thank my late wife, who was beautiful in every sense of the word, for showing me that true love is possible, and to her kids, James, Christopher and Jonathan, for having the strength to carry on, and for treating me as if I was their own flesh-and-blood father.

With a lot of work, and a bit of luck, life will be better for me in Chicago than it was here. And I hope that by being successful I will justify the faith and trust others have had in me. Believe me, I don't want to be a burden to others, or have to rely on the kindness of strangers. But as a liberal, I want to live in a kind of world where people help each other out, and where a person's value is based on more than just what's in their bank account.

See you in Chicago!

The Hitler vs. Coulter Quiz

Take it and see how well you do!

The Continuing Struggle Against Conservatism

The Sideshow was down for a while on Sunday but when it came back, Avedon linked an article called Why Conservatives Can't Govern by Alan Wolfe, which was even better than the article What is conservatism and what's wrong with it?, that I had linked to in an earlier post.

Others have made the point that the problem with the current administration and GOP leadership is that it's government being run by people who hate the very idea of government, but this one does a much better job of it:

If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.

Three examples--FEMA, Medicare, and Iraq-- should be sufficient to make this point. Because liberals have historically welcomed government while conservatives have resisted it, it should come as no surprise that the Federal Emergency Management Agency worked so well under Bill Clinton and so poorly under Bush I and II. True to a long tradition of disinterested public management, Clinton, in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, appointed James Lee Witt to head FEMA. Witt refocused FEMA away from civil-defense efforts to increasingly predictable national disasters, fought for greater federal funding, achieved cabinet status for his agency, and worked closely with state and local officials. For all the efforts by Republicans to attack their enemies, no one has ever put a dent in Witt's reputation. Government under him was as good as government gets.

Upon assuming office, George W. Bush turned to former Texas campaign aide Joe Allbaugh to run FEMA and then shifted it into the new Department of Homeland Security (whose creation he had opposed). Allbaugh, and his hand-picked successor Michael Brown, like so many Bush appointees, were afflicted with what we might call "learned incompetence." They did not fail merely out of ignorance and inexperience. Their ineptness, rather, was active rather than passive, the end result of a deliberate determination to prove that the federal government simply should not be in the business of disaster management. "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management," Allbaugh had testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee in May, 2001. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." There was the conservative dilemma in a nutshell: a man put in charge of a mission in which he did not believe.

The article also addresses an issue Digby and others have raised:

A conservative president and an even more conservative Congress must be repudiated to enable genuine conservatism to survive. Sure, the Bush administration has failed, all these voices proclaim. But that is because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left. The ideas of Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes, from their point of view, have always been flawed. George W. Bush and Tom DeLay just prove it one more time.

Conservative dissidents seem to have done an admirable job of persuading each other of the truth of their claims. Of course, many of these dissidents extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried. If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.

My nemesis Bruce Lewis has made this argument in different comments on this blog (and no doubt on his own). Of course Bruce is looking for the return of the Holy Roman Empire, and to his credit that's what he honestly believes, crazy as it sounds to me. But there were reasons the Protestant Revolt took place, and those reasons haven't gone away. And frankly, I don't want to live in a future that's just another seemingly endless series of religious wars, whether that be Christian vs. Christian or Christian vs. Muslim. Of all the stupid things humans have killed each other about over the years, the idea that one set of beliefs is dominant over all the others is the most ridiculous. I'll stick with agnosticism myself, and would prefer to live in a world where we all respect what other people believe and not fly airplanes into buildings when we disagree.

But I digress.

The Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994, and controlled all three branches of government since 2001. The last time they had this kind of political power, the end result was two World Wars and a global Great Depression. What happened then is the same as what's happening now: a few people went and rigged the system for their own benefit and to hell with everyone else. Without anything to counter it, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will very quickly turn into a clenched fist every single time. And the reason it happens every single time is because at its heart, conservatism relies on the assumption that people will simply behave in an honorable fashion. And history clearly shows that they do not.

Liberals understand that, and that's why we try to build societies that counter the worst aspects of human nature, whereas conservatives build societies that celebrate those aspects. And if American liberalism is sometimes called the "nanny state", there's a ring of truth to it: like parents, we build societies both for ourselves and the future: doing the best we can to prepare the next generation, and the generations to follow, so that when their time comes to be the "grown ups", they're prepared. I'm not saying it's utopia. Human nature doesn't change very quickly or very easily, but at least we recognize that it must change, if for no other reason than our own survival. Conservatives are only interested in the immediate future: to them the world ends when they die.

Tip O' Neill (and others) used to say that if you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat. To that, I'll add that if you want to have the freedoms conservatives talk about, fight for liberalism.

A Terrifying Message from Al Gore

Breaking News: Terrorist Attack Foiled

Washington: President George W. Bush announced today that the FBI had prevented a terrorist attack by Martians to destroy Alabama. Ann Coulter detached herself from the President's crotch just long enough to denounce the liberals who claim that no sentient life exists on Mars.

Schadenfreude

TVNewser is reporting scuttlebutt that the Fox News Channel is prepping a satiric news show to compete with Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart.” The host of the show is radio talk show host and professional Clinton-hater, Laura Ingraham...

I can see it now:

Tonight on FOX Comedy, we play a prank on a local welfare mother! After making a phone call telling her that her son has been arrested for doing drugs, we break into her home and set fire to it when she runs out to pay the bail! Seven kittens died in the blaze! Then, we kidnap her son, sell him in the overseas slave market, and donate the money to the RNC! Watch her hilarious reaction when she gets back and finds out what happened! It's comedy the FOX way!

I'd like to say that's an exaggeration, but not by much. After all, they think Ann Coulter was being "funny" when she said she wished the 911 bombers would have flown the plane into the NY Times building instead. The only time I see these people laugh is when it's at someone else's expense.

Shoulda Coulda Woulda

Just for everyone's information, there was a time in my life when I was doing pretty well financially. Not great, but OK. Good enough to support myself and even pay off a new car. Had I not bankrupted myself asking Cathy and her kids to come down here and be with me, I'd probably be in much better financial shape than I am now. I've spent two of the last three years unemployed, in great part because Cathy needed me to be there with her, especially the last three months of her life, which she spent in a hospital bed.

Almost everyone has moments in life they regret, or wish they had done differently. But I don't regret the time I spent with Cathy. Whatever burden I placed on myself and my friends and family was worth it to me whenever I saw her smile, and knew how happy she was. Anybody who saw us together, or anyone who's every truly been in love, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

In the immediate weeks after her death, I used some of the money that had been given to me, what I had left over after my expenses in traveling to her funeral in Orlando, to try and get my life together by doing a little refurnishing. But as the days turned into weeks, and the weeks turned into months, I came to realize that I need much more than a cosmetic change, I need to start over from scratch, and that's why I decided to make the move to Chicago.

My friend Phyllis says I'm a millionaire in the waiting, though I don't know what she sees in me to think that. Personally, I'd be happy just to pay off the debts I've worked up over the last few years and find a job that I am happy with and that allows me to pay the rent and bills and enough left over for the occasional night out. If the radio gig works out, that would be perfect. Otherwise, I'll take what I can get. I don't even think about retirement, I have no clue how I'm going to get there.

It could have been a lot easier for me. I coulda stayed with my PMEL job, either in the Air Force or as a civilian, despite the fact that the job was making me miserable. I coulda stayed single, or started a relationship with a richer, healthier woman as opposed to an impoverished, perpetually sick one. Shoulda coulda woulda. But regardless of the results, I have no regrets.

I'm still trying to raise enough money to make this move possible. While I'm not going to ask for help specifically, I'm not too proud to accept anything anyone has to offer. So if you want to do so, you can do so here. I just felt the need for people to understand that these things happen to people sometime.

I Wonder

Apparently Bush stopped yet another terrorist attack today, and some trolls came into a chat room I was in and were trying to gloat about it. I commented that Bush could have announced he had stopped some Martians from attacking and they'd fall for it.

Since these idiots will apparently believe anything they're told, I wonder how much money I could sucker them out of if I emailed them the following:

Dear winner,
We are pleased to inform you of the result of the Republican Lottery Winners American programs held on the 14th June 2006,Your e-mail address attached to ticket number: 1942896-9032 with drew lucky numbers 11-0-17-31-60- 75-9 which consequently won in the 1st category, Therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of 1,500,000 Dollars!

This is from a total cash prize of 3 Million Dollars, shared amongst the First Three lucky winners in this category.

All participants were selected randomly from World Wide Web site through computer draw system and extracted from over 25,000 companies email addresses and 30,000,000 Individual email addresses from Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, and Florida as part of American Promotions Program. The Republican Lottery wish to be grateful to sponsors who made this year's program a reality.

Revenue for this program is derived from the financing from major American businesses cut across the country. Please note that your lucky winning number falls within our Alabama office as indicated in your play coupon.

In view of this, your One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars would be released to you by our payment office in Europe.

Our agent in Birmingham will immediately commence the process to facilitate the release of your funds as soon as you contact him.For security reasons, you are advised to keep your winning information confidential till your claims is processed and your money remitted to you in whatever manner you deem fit to claim your prize.

This is part of our precautionary measure to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of this program by some unscrupulous elements.
Please be warned To file for your claim, please contact our fiduciary agent:

Mrs. William Bekkamp,
Claims processing manager
REPUBLOTTO PLUS
Email:
goplot@usmail.com
Tel: 1-KKK-IWON

Immediately to process your winning which will not take more than 10 working days from today.

Congratulations once more.

Yours Sincerely,
Mrs. Sophie Pamela Beauregard.
Lottery Coordinator
Republican Lottery Program.

NB:Kindly indicate your Ticket No in your reply.

Genocide is Faceless

(Revised from this post on dKos and sung to the tune of "Suicide Is Painless" aka the theme from M*A*S*H)



Through my advisors I can see
That things are going well for me
If others see it differently
I'll just ignore them, don't you see

That genocide is faceless,
The charges are all baseless,
And I can always say it wasn't me

Iraq was there for me to take
It's not a question of debate
There are no laws I cannot break
No reason, then, to hesitate

Genocide is faceless,
The charges are all baseless,
If anyone's to blame it won't be me

The only sin is in defeat
I'll mow them down in pure conceit
And to my brother give my seat
The drums of war, an endless beat

Genocide is faceless,
The charges are all baseless,
And no one's gonna lay it all on me

A grave man once suggested we,
"Should act like Christians, let it be"
But if we leave Iraqis free
They may decide to come for me

Genocide is faceless,
The charges are all baseless,
And no one's gonna lay a glove on me

And they would do the same if they were me

My Two Cents

I've been reading with interest many of the posts from different blogs concerning the definitions of conservatism, libertarianism, and liberalism, and I thought I would throw in my two cents, adjusted for inflation of course. Let's start with conservatism. What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?, which was written by Philip E. Agre in August 2004 (and referenced to me by Avedon) makes some very good points, though it's a bit long-winded. Let me try to summarize what he wrote:

Conservatism is a political ideology by which a small minority rules over everyone else, and the only purpose of government is to protect, perpetuate, and/or increase the power of the ones in charge (the ruling class, for want of a better term), regardless of how it effects everyone else. The specifics of how this is accomplished vary greatly and it makes no difference whether you're talking about fascism, communism or a monarchy; the end result is always the same. It's primary philosophy is simple: Some people are better than others, and it has been the predominate ideology of all human societies since the beginning of civilization, even those who claim to be democratic in nature. The Athenians, pre-Empire Romans, and Americans, while freer than many purely conservative societies, still had a ruling elite who strove to protect their own positions in the society. And with the exception of better technology, most people today lead lives that are not very different from the lives of most of the people who lived in Athens and Rome: a day-to-day existence that rests on a very fragile foundation.

Distribution of wealth and power is the key element in determining how conservative a state is: the more wealth and power is concentrated to the fewest people, the more conservative the state. The ruling class wants those below them to truly believe in the superiority of their rulers, this helps them perpetuate their control over generations, passing their power down to their children. Some of these societies even allow a few of the underclass to rise so that the rest can feel that one day maybe they, too, can be a part of the ruling class. In this way they turn people against each other. As I wrote previously, Upton Sinclair claimed that it's impossible to get someone to believe something when their livelihood depends on them not believing it, conservatives work to build societies where everyone's livelihoods depend on the good will of the ruling class. It works very well.

I don't want to give the impression that I think all conservative institutions are purely evil, or that the ruling class acts only in their own self-interest and with disdain towards everyone else. There have been Kings, Queens and other rulers who have ruled justly, and other leaders who held great power who tried to make the lives of their subjects better. But no matter how benign the rulers, the bottom line for conservative societies is the protection, survival, and perpetuity of the ruling class regardless of the consequences. When push comes to shove, they will use any means necessary to accomplish those ends; including and especially mass-murder even of their own subjects. Anyone who fails to appreciate that winds up being too dead to be free.

"Libertarian" or "objectivist" societies no longer exist in pure form in human societies. What libertarians and objectivists fail to realize is that the more complex the society is, the more the need for cooperation. Cheetahs, individual hunters who live day-to-day by their strength and wits, are pure libertarians. Lions, hyenas, dolphins, and early humans are all social animals who build communities that work together to hunt and scavenge (or, in the case of herd animals, for their own protection). They're more evolved than the individualist cheetahs, but are still libertarian in the sense that they rely solely on their own prowess as hunters/gatherers for their survival. In human societies, as long as the level of technology as well as the overall population remains very low, this lifestyle is quite possible, assuming that succeeding generations will be as willing to perpetuate it. Being master of your own domain, as it were, is damned hard work.

For humans, libertarianism ended with the invention of the plow several thousand years ago, and with the level of organization it required to grow enough food to support everyone, not just those involved in the agricultural process. In other words, with the coming of civilization. Modern libertarian societies, therefore, are purely fantasy. They are not self-sufficient, and can only exist within the framework of an already existing political/physical infrastructure. Libertarians, believing as they do in the superiority of the individual: the idea that the individual alone is responsible for his or her success, and borrowing from conservatives the idea that some are better than others, live in denial of the fact that they are only free to do what they do because modern societies provide for them both the political infrastructure that protects their freedoms and the high level of technology you can only get through the combined efforts of people who have the time to invent and engineer a better way of life. Every item that makes our lives easier, from running water, to building tools, to generating electricity, etc., came about through a complex and often chaotic series of events and the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people.

This doesn't mean to say that there aren't great individuals who are more intelligent and talented than others. Edison, as the best example, made many of his inventions based on the works of others before him, but he was smart enough to know how to bring them all together. People like Archimedes, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein: all accomplished things that are far beyond anything we mere mortals could achieve, and we've all benefited from their genius. But they in kind benefited from the societies they lived in, societies where the basic necessities of life were already there for them. Some of these great people understood this. Many libertarians do not, and unlike the conservatives who at least create societies (even if they only benefit a few people), libertarians foolishly work to destroy the social structure they depend on.

Liberalism is conservatism's exact opposite. Whereas conservatives believe in the superiority of the ruling class, the accumulation of power and money into fewer hands, and that governments exist only to protect those interests, liberals believe in individual rights, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And where conservatives build societies that perpetuate the superiority and wealth of the ruling elite, liberals build societies that strive for a more equitable distribution of wealth and political power that gives every citizen the ability to make their own decisions and achieve their own success. And while liberals agree with libertarians in regards to individual rights, they differ from them in the idea of individual sovereignty, which as liberals see it, is just a fancy term for anarchy.

Liberals also understand that, with all due respect to Jefferson, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right". Rights that are given or fought for can just as easily be taken or given away. They can only exist if we're willing to constantly fight for them, because others are constantly fighting to take them away.

If there's any one word that could describe liberal philosophy, it's balance. Our Founding Fathers were liberals in that they created a balance of power in government in order to prevent too much power from falling into too few hands. Modern liberals take this a step further, using the power of government as a balance to the power of corporations and monied interests in greater society: the delicate balance between cooperation and competition, public institutions and private enterprise, the rights and needs of the individual and the needs of society as a whole.

Don't be fooled, by the way, by the comparison between liberals and communists: communism is conservative in the sense that they still have a ruling class: that is, the Communist Party. It's one of those examples of accomplishing the same thing using different means. And the difference between liberals and socialists is in how much the government controls the economy. Liberals believe in using the power of government to regulate private enterprise, not control it. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one.

I don't want to give the impression that I think liberal societies are a utopian paradise. They are not. Even in the best days of the New Deal there was (and still is), racism, sexism, xenophobia, and an overemphasis on materialism. It was, no doubt, better than anything that came before, but it fell short of its goal, and as we're seeing now, it's very easy for free citizens to give up their rights, and for citizens of a free state to become subjects. As liberals, our struggle isn't against a particular individual or group, it's a struggle against the self-destructive nature of humankind. As Teddy Roosevelt said:

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of free men to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.

Sorry if this is longer than I expected, obviously the issues are more complex than I've made them out to be. I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet after all, I just call things as I see them. I want everyone to live a happy and prosperous life, and I want everyone else to want the same for me. It's sad that some people don't see it this way, that I somehow have to be punished for being who I am, but I recognize that that's just how it is. And I hope that this post at least lets people understand where I'm coming from. Now, get back to work!

Yet Another Explanation

Once more, you've all probably noticed a dearth of posts and Daily Reports here. This happens occasionally when I have other things to tend to, and since of course I don't currently do the radio show for a living, I can't always donate the time to it that I would like. Apart from moving, I am also involved in a local political campaign so that I can get the hell out of the house every couple of days or so and avoid being stir crazy.

I know my regulars understand all of this, but even so I feel the need to make a public statement to let everyone know.

Mark Crispin Miller LIVE tonight on the Cup O' Joe Radio Show!

Tonight on the Cup O' Joe Radio Show, Joe has a conversation with elections expert Mark Crispin Miller, author of the book Fooled Again: How The Right Stole The 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal The Next One, Too, among many others. We're going to talk about the recent elections in California (why Francine Busby lost, or did she?), the state of "democracy" in the U.S., and what the future holds in store. Miss it, and you'll get rabies!

Also the usual gang of callers and bon-vivants!

That's tonight at 8 PM EST on the Head On Radio Network!

Don't forget to call in at 1-877-4 HEAD ON (1-877-443-2366) and join us in the Head On Chat Room!

Billy Preston 1946 - 2006

You kids today probably never heard of him, but he was a great piano/organ man who did fantastic work both as a solo artist and with other musicians and groups, including Little Richard, The Rolling Stones, Ray Charles, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. He was known as "The fifth Beatle" for his work on the albums "Let It Be" and "Abbey Road", and performed with them in their final "concert" on a London rooftop. The single "Get Back" is the only Beatles song with a credit to someone other than the group's four members.

Mr. Preston also co-wrote the song "You Are So Beautiful", made famous by Joe Cocker, which was the song I always sung to my dear wife.

Here are four of my favorite songs from Mr. Preston. Enjoy!

Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing
Will It Go Round In Circles?
Outa-Space
Space Race

Why Gore Should Run

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

(A transcript of today's "Cup O' Joe Report" blogcast)

When former vice-President Al Gore was asked what it would take to convince him to run for office in 2008, he explained, quite correctly, that given the current nature of American politics, he would be at a distinct disadvantage in a Presidential campaign. When you take into account the ruthlessness of the Republican Party, the self-important nature of the so-called "professional" media, and most importantly the indifference and ignorance of far too many Americans, his observation is dead on. In a society that looks upon everything in terms of entertainers and audiences, Gore's serious intellectualism is a nearly fatal handicap.

I see where he's coming from, but I wish he would run anyway. We don't always get to choose the venues for our battles, but the issues are far too important to be choosy. And I can't think of anyone else with the knowledge and the experience to understand the problem of global warming, what to do about it, and more importantly, how to get it done. If Mr. Gore truly believes in his cause, he has to go out and get the power to do what needs to be done: it's his moral duty to do so.

And it's our moral duty to stand by him. Mr. Gore alone isn't going to accomplish anything, it's going to take all of us together. It may take nothing less than rebuilding our entire society, but if that's what needs to be done, we have to do it. And we have to see it through: saving the country is only the first, and easiest task. The real fight is to save the human race, and to show that it deserves to be saved. Because if we're not capable of taking care of the planet we live on, we deserve what we get.

D-Day And The Future

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

(A transcript of today's "Cup O' Joe Report" blogcast)

Forty-two years ago today, the largest invasion force ever assembled stormed the beaches of Normandy and established a foothold in Europe that would eventually lead to the fall of the Third Reich. The allies, led by General Eisenhower, understood what a victory meant that day: had the Germans forced the invasion back into the sea, things would have been very different. I don't doubt that we still would have won in the end, but the war might have dragged on for many more years and cost many millions of more lives.

When I was growing up, history was one of my least favorite subjects because of how badly it was taught. If you were lucky, you had one of those rare teachers who knew how to bring the past to life, to make you understand how our lives are affected by past events. And if you were really lucky, you had a teacher who understood how important military battles were. No history teacher I can recall spoke much about warfare. And that's a shame, because both history and culture are defined by those who win battles.

Had the results been different at places like Salamis, Actium, Hastings, Agincourt, Vienna, Waterloo, Gettysburg, and of course Normandy, the world would be a very different place. And there are still battles to be fought that will determine what the world will look like to our children and grand-children. As Lincoln reminded us, we need to remember why those men fought and died. Did they die so that we could all be free to determine our own futures, or so that a few powerful people could determine it for the rest? That is the question we face today, and will continue to face until humanity becomes united, or dies out completely.

Addendum:I would be remiss not to point out that if it were not for the sacrifices of millions of soldiers from the former Soviet Union, the invasion of Europe would have been thrown back. Because we Americans still have a belief in our own moral and military superiority (despite events of the last three years), and because Commie-bashing has been in vogue for half a century, we tend to avoid mentioning these and other inconvenient truths.

The Melian Dialogues

As an add-on to occams hatchet's excellent diary on My Left Wing, I thought I'd give the history lesson a little deeper background. I've used this example before, and I think it's time to bring it up once again. This is something that happened 2500 years ago, during the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians, founders of democracy (a Greek word, for those of you who weren't aware of it), were at war with their longtime rival Sparta for control of Greece and the Mediterranean. Many years before, the Athenians had started the Delian League, a cooperative organization, and at first were altruistic in its administration, but as the Athenians grew in wealth and power, they slowly but surely came to dominate it. Things got so bad that other city-states asked Sparta, the only other military power on Greece, to step in, which they did. The war between Athens and Sparta dragged on for many years, as Sparta, with its powerful infantry, was unbeatable on land, and Athens was just as unbeatable at sea.

Many of the islands were caught in between. One of these was the small island of Melos, which was a tributary to Sparta. The Athenians sent a military force to take it over. The Melians were given a choice: become a tributary to Athens or be invaded. The Melians only wanted to be left alone, and asked for a chance to negotiate terms. Here is an excerpt from the exchange:

Athenians: There’s no point bothering you with the same old story about how we have a right to our empire because of our military, or tell you that we’re attacking you because of something you did to us. We won’t bore you with a long speech which you wouldn’t believe anyway. So since we both know exactly what’s going on, we hope you’ll just make it easy for both of us, accept it for what it is, and make the best of it. You know as well as we do that this is how the world is. Rights only come into play between equals in power. The strong do whatever they want, and everyone else does whatever they can.

Melians: Regardless, it’s important – and we’re speaking because we must, since you’re telling us to forget about our own rights when it comes to what’s best for your interests – for us to remind you that the rights you’re denying us protect you also. You in particular ought to know this, because your fall would not only destroy you but set a horrible example for anyone else who struggles to be free.

Athenians: It’s a law of nature that men rule wherever they can. It’s not like we’re the first to do this. Men were doing this before us, men will do this long after we’re gone. But since we’ve got the power, we’re using it while we can. You, and everyone else, would do the same thing if you were us.

The highlighted phrase represents the essence of conservatism: it was the basis for "foreign policy" long before Athens and nothing has changed since. Even if they never heard of Melos or Athens or know nothing else of history, the Republicans, like the Nazis before them, understand this principle.

In the end, the Melians chose to resist and were simply mowed down by the Athenians, who in retribution killed the men and took the women and children as slaves. Eventually, the Athenians were destroyed by their own hubris (another Greek word), wrecking their military in an attempt to conquer Sicily. The Spartans defeated them and ended Athens' dreams of dominating the known world. And the Spartans in turn grew so oppressive that they were themselves defeated. That's the fate, I believe, that will befall us.

The Republicans will go too far because too far is the only place they can go. They want power for power's sake, and they're very, very good at it. But because they have no vision of what to do with that power other than to get more of it, they're doomed from the start. VietNam, Iraq, and quite possibly Iran, are our own Sicilian campaigns: wrecking not only our military but our credibility. The Republican grip of power won't last, the only question is how much damage is going to be done before it's all over. My guess is quite a lot.