Bill's Notes

In NRO today, there's an article on Rep. Zach Wamp's sell-out as a Congressman.

The cause of this: The GOP majority has SOLD OUT to DC culture and essentially become fat, dumb, drunk and happy. Zach Wamp, who I initially thought was a made-up congressman for National Review to make a larger point, is just a symptom.

Anyway, where does that leave our political debate? If the GOP is now the Dems, where are the Dems? If the GOP won't rein in spending, do we have to look to the Democrats to do so?

The political issue is out there, a brass ring lying on the ground. It's not only a proven vote-getter, it's a proven election winner. All the Dems have to do is pick it up. Dubya can't — he's compromised on the issue. The GOP can't — they spent the money.

This is, by the way, is why I'm considering voting for John Kerry. Because all Kerry has to do is find some outrage over spending, take national security off the table (easy enough) and he's got an excellent shot at winning. I'm waiting to see if he's smart enough to grab it.

Bush's first term weakness is not Iraq. Stop talking about it, Dems. No matter what, you'll have to continue that war, and in a robust manner. You may feel you're right, but you'll lose the election if you campaign on it.

But spending is an issue in which the GOP is extremely vulnerable. The brass ring is there. The Dems just gotta pick it up off the ground, and run with it.

Don't know how much longer you can see Misha's April Fools banner here.

One extreme to the other, you know.

UPDATE: The banner is down. Whew!

Fooled no one with the last two posts. Pleased I got a dean-o-lanche. Nearly 150 visitors yesterday. Nice little traffic day. Y'all come back now ...

Now, to the real politics: Shocking as it may sound, I haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November. Most likely Bush, but possibly Kerry. I'll give Kerry a fair hearing in September. If Kerry has half a brain, he'll do exactly what Clinton did to Bush the elder — moved to the right of him.

In the meantime, when analyzing the campaign as it is now, I'll stick to the analysis Hunter S. Thompson used while covering the Pulitzer divorce trial (the whole trumpet thing, if you've forgotten) back in the mid-1980s. Paraphrasing the good doctor here: I believe every accusation made by each side is true. They should split the money and sell the children to the Arabs.

Or something like that. Anyone who has the exact quote is welcome to e-mail it to me.

The IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" has decided to begin a campaign to enjoin legislators to write new, more rigorous hate-speech laws. The problem with such laws until now is they are content neutral.

The problem is the fact that the debate is long since over that there is such a thing as "content-neutral". Post-structuralist criticism instructs us that there is no such thing as a non-political act. Attempts to be neutral do nothing more than encourage and enforce the status quo; therefore, content-neutral hate speech laws are not merely conservative, they are positively, aggressively reactionary.

Indeed, most people prosecuted under hate-crimes laws have turned out to be members of the very oppressed groups the laws were designed to protect. Content-neutral means the form is conservative, thus the content is conservative. This is so painfully obvious after 50 years of post-structuralist thought, and the evidence of the arrests under the hate crimes laws, that it is simply beyond arguing. Members of oppressor groups will simply use any level-playing to tip the scales their way.

Thus, the IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" demands new hate-speech laws to counteract the reactionary aggression of the First Amendment to the Constitution and current, content-neutral hate speech laws. These laws must get not only the thumbs, but the hands, feet and buttocks of the oppressors off the scales of justice.

This means foremost recognizing the condition of the speaker, and the circumstances of the speech, before a hate speech prosecution may commence. To put it in terms even an oppressor can understand, members of non-privileged groups cannot hate by definition, they can only react to others' hatred of them. Thus, they are incapable of hate crimes and incapable of hate speech. So prosecution of hate speech and hate crimes will be limited to privileged groups only.

We recommend the following to be designated hate speech:

1. Any outward expression, including words, sounds, gestures, facial expressions and the like, that indicates hate, fear, loathing, derision, disapproval of the existence or behavior of members of repressed groups.

2. Opposition to, or collaboration with or sympathy for any opposition to, any political agenda designed to correct the legacy of oppression in the past or eliminate oppression in the present.

3. Timidity, passivity or indifference in the presence of injustice, whether caused by oppressive attitudes toward race, sex, addiction, HIV status, sexual orientation, and previous history of felonies, depression or joblessness. No longer will oppressors be permitted to just "look the other way" and pretend they don't see the plain injustice of their acts, the acts of their neighbors, and the acts of their kind.

4. Superstition or worship of any deity who/that signifies oppression, or encourages any oppression of the kind listed in the first three demands. People will no longer be permitted to hide behind texts of ancient ethnic hatred to justify their hate. Nor will they be permitted to make gods who look like they do.

The IB People's Political Caucus on Choosing Between the Two Right Wing Parties has made its decision for the upcoming presidential election. Here is its official statement:

Whereas true progressives in the United States must choose between two regressive, right-wing parties,

Whereas true progressives have watched both political parties continue each other's policies regardless of who holds political office,

Whereas violent overthrow of the government isn't feasible at the present time,

Whereas regressive, reactionary politics dominates the landscape as long as fictitious corporate "persons" dominate the land and purchase their political lackeys,

Whereas the choice for president in 2004 is about the lesser of two reactionaries,

Therefore, be it resolved, that:

The IB People's Committee for the Promotion of Justice in Politics and the Mass Reeducation and Elimination of False Consciousness in the American Public in Order to Hasten the Mass Appearance of Socialist Womyn and Men and Eliminate All Forms of Oppression by the Creation of the Total State, as delegated to the IB People's Political Caucus on Choosing Between the Two Right Wing Parties, supports Dennis Kucinich for Vice President and John Kerry for President.

Bush cried! People lied!

April 1st.

You can trust me to tell the truth, though.

You can tell something about your workplace by what your co-workers say when you come to work especially dressed up. Do they say:

1. "Got a job interview?" Or
2. "Going to court?"

It says something if you think they'll say (1) but in fact they say (2).

Brown University has convened a Committee on Slavery and Justice to look into the connection between Brown and the slave trade. The Weekly Standard is on the case here. Here's the lead:

IN APRIL 2003, Brown University president Ruth Simmons invited more than a dozen members of the Brown community to serve on a Committee on Slavery and Justice. The committee lay mostly dormant until March of this year, when its existence was made public (Brown arranged for the news to break in the New York Times). Since then, the committee has attracted much attention because (1) Ruth Simmons is, as the Times trumpets, "a great-granddaughter of slaves," as well as the first black Ivy League president; and (2) the committee may set precedent on the issue of reparations.

As the Times puts it, Simmons "has directed Brown to start what its officials say is an unprecedented undertaking for a university: an exploration of reparations for slavery and specifically whether Brown should pay reparations or otherwise make amends for its past."

Industrial Blog is convening a Committee On New Lilliputians to look into the matter. OK, we've reviewed the matter: Brown University's Committee wins. They are small people walking around feeling self-important; thus, Lilliputians.

God bless bilious Jonathan Swift. He knew people.

are in LAST place. Let's enjoy this moment.

This post currently has 99 comments, a new record here at this obscure outer spiral arm of the blogo-galaxy. We're looking for an even 100, just like Wilt Chamberlain's NBA scoring record.

Only comment if you have something to say. I don't want to "fix" the record. If it remains at 99 until comment sunset, so be it.

UPDATE: We've crossed 100.

OK, it's not that exciting.

David Brooks writes a humorous op-ed for high school seniors in today's NY Times, adding perspective to the process of college acceptance. It includes this gem:

You are being judged according to criteria that you would never use to judge another person and which will never again be applied to you once you leave higher ed.

For example, colleges are taking a hard look at your SAT scores. But if at any moment in your later life you so much as mention your SAT scores in conversation, you will be considered a total jerk. If at age 40 you are still proud of your scores, you may want to contemplate a major life makeover.

The rest of the column puts forth several truisms immediately apparent to any adult: Life can be anticlimactic, you can get just as good an education at most schools, and things of this nature.

I'd just add one point Brooks omitted: At virtually all colleges, your classmates will be the sons and daughters of middle and working class families. These may be your network for the rest of your life. At the Ivies and other elite colleges, that roommate who's puking in your wastebasket may be the son of the CEO of a Wall Street investment bank. Or a partner in a Manhattan law firm. Or a record company executive. The vomiter is going to have connections that your local dentist's daughter will never have.

There is such a thing as class in this country. If you go to the best 20 or so colleges, you'll potentially get a network that will only become more and more valuable with time. The puking kid goes to law school — he has an in, so he becomes a partner by his mid-30s. Your other friend works in venture capital. Another is a successful entrepreneur. In the course of a four-year education, you may get to know folks who will move into key positions in finance, manufacturing, technology, law, engineering, medicine, academia, government, entertainment, and the like. And they may be there fairly quickly. When you want to get something done, you'll know who to call.

The downside: This may expected of you, too. If you have a normal middle class life and are at all the kind of person who compares yourself to others, you may feel like a total loser if you're not careful.

*****

On the other hand, an acquaintance of mine went to Swarthmore and later became a loser. (I mean it, unemployed, unemployable, friendless, unbearable.) He got arrested for being an asshole (a little more to it than that, but that's what it boiled down to). He had no money for a lawyer, so he called the Swarthmore alumni office. They put him in contact with a fellow alumnus who was a powerful attorney, and the attorney handled the case pro bono.

The loser, who was innocent of the actual crime for which he was charged, was able to get excellent, free legal representation. The case was dismissed. Happy ending all around, and all because he had that Swarthmore degree. So class matters. Elite schools give you a ticket to that ruling class, or at least access to that ruling class.

Clarification: The repeated use of the word loser in the above entry may give the impression of an undercurrent of snobbery. I don't meant to give that impression at all ... I meant "loser" according to the point of view of snobs, not my own snobbery. The only people I think are losers are folks who mooch off of others consistently rather than actually deal with their issues. And they lose (!) that moniker as soon as they develop a willingness to change.

How does patriotism, honor and duty get beaten out of a culture until it's a minority viewpoint?

How did Europe turn so effete, moribund, and feckless in the face of terror?

I don't know the answer. My suspicion is this: betrayal. Patriotism, honor and duty are systematically betrayed by elites until those who have those characteristics feel used, alienated and disgusted. Many quietly continue in their duties. Others fall away, die off, and are replaced by a more cynical breed. At a certain point, the national mood tips toward cynicism, which they call sophistication.

In the American response to 9-11, there are the physical stakes — survival in the light of a ruthless enemy. There are also stakes concerning our way of life — will we continue to live as free as we have?

But there are also spiritual stakes. We have a large section of this country that is patriotic, honorable and dutiful. They have been betrayed more than once — most notably is Vietnam. A second was the hostage crisis in Iran, where Jimmah Carter allowed terrorists to seize control of one of our crucial allies. And a third was by GHWB, who stood by while Saddam Hussein slaughtered the Arab Shi'ites after Gulf War I.

A betrayal by our government following the worst foreign attack in our nation's history would be devastating. More and more patriots could think, "Why should I defend a nation that dithers when the duty is clear?" I admit I was afraid of a weak reaction from our leaders.

Many people I know feel we under-responded to 9-11 in Afghanistan, and that the best response would have been a retaliatory strike so massive that Afghanistan would serve as a glowing example of why not to knock down our buildings or attack our capital city. I found our reaction a little light, but I understand what Bush is trying to accomplish.

Still, the stakes are there. The stakes remain there. Europe — former world powers France, Germany and Spain in particular — stand as an example of what we could become. There are Europeans just like us, but they are alienated.

FWIW.

registered IndustrialBlog.com.

Hey, Bulkregister. Don't think I'm gonna buy it from you. It's not that good a name, if you know what I mean. Not a lot of brand equity there.

Even though I went to a plain-old diocesan college, I still was pulling for the fancy-schmancy Jesuits of St. Joseph's. Last night, the Hawks fell just short of the Final Four, losing to Oklahoma State in a squeaker. St. Joe's finished 30-2, with the only other loss coming the hand of fellow Jesuit institution Xavier (Ohio).

I guess St. Ignatius didn't have a miracle for Hawks last night. Or you could argue that the miracle was their existence. Or you could argue that the miracle is our existence, and the existence of the cosmos. But that's a little too big picture for this little blog.

In any case, congratulations to the Hawks. Here's hoping the fans give them a big welcome today when the team returns to campus.