The Politics of Collapse

When it comes to the federal housing agencies and the housing policies that they facilitated, Bush mainly followed the example Clinton set with a bit more vigor. However intensively the republicans spin this, it will be seen as another failure for Bush and the party he has done so much to discredit.

If Obama can't win under these circumstances (unpopular wars, stagnant economy, worst financial crisis since Great Depression, housing collapse, unpopular republican president, superannuated opponent matched with neophyte assistant opponent), McCain will still find himself confronted with a Congress heavily stacked against him on most policies.

Big Brother's Pain

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Populists often complain that the government fails to exercise sufficient control over the people. Here I present a counter-example, an instance, among many, in which the government exercises altogether too much control and exercises it badly (that is, with a combination of stupidity and brutality). Also, the article itself is of such a quality that I should be inclined to include it in a nonfiction anthology, if I were to edit such a thing.   One striking aspect of this problem is that even such a powerful, and relatively intelligent and educated, constituency as doctors seems unable to reign in these vicious governmental incursions into their territory. I suspect this is partly due to the generally cavalier attitude of the "macho" medical establishment toward the problem of pain. The projected "machismo", of course, is laughable--and, fortunately, this superficial posturing may gradually fade as the female of the species overruns the profession. These doctors are cowardly conformists bowing to the half-wits who run the DEA and the quasi-fascist prosecutors who prefer to risk sending innocent men to prison rather than risk allowing guilty men to remain free.   I think this article makes it clear that much of the mismanagement of pain in this country is due to ignorance and prejudice. But, the government should not be in the business of managing pain in the first place. I think bureaucratic or judicial determination of the appropriate amount of pain a person should be forced to live with is far outside the bounds of government's proper sphere of action. The state should interfere only when someone inflicts harm upon another--not when (as in the case of a drug user) he might be inflicting harm upon himself. It is this type of tyrannical brutality that invites and justifies the existence of the black market, the mafias, the corrupt officials, and all the other people and organizations that effectively resist or subvert the government. The only thing that causes me to hesitate in my advocacy for this degree of liberty: the possibility that the sober part of the population will be burdened by the possible overbreeding of the heavy users (though I am not aware of evidence that this group is especially prone to procreation).

Bush and Obama

Apparently Bush recently adopted a new strategy that involves attacking targets in the Tribal Areas without Pakistani permission. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Didn't Obama get hammered by the right a few months ago for saying that he would do just this? I believe he said that he would attack a known Al Qaeda meeting in Pakistan even if the Pakistanis declined to approve the attack. Am I missing something here? These Tribal Areas seem analogous to N. Vietnam, with Pakistani military and intel leaders acting as China did in the Vietnam war. Both would be difficult to conquer by invasion, due to guerrilla activity and a landscape that supports such activity. Of course, the fact that the Tribal Areas are a part of Pakistan makes them even more problematic than N. Vietnam was. An invasion would surely provoke further support for the guerrillas by their state backers or even a direct confrontation with that state. But, without an invasion the cross-border attacks continue indefinitely and threaten the stability of their target. Unfortunately, American operations in the Tribal Areas will probably turn the Pakistani people against us and could destabilize Pakistan.

More Paternalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/09salvia.html?hp Salvia is a natural hallucinogen that causes intense psychedelic experience that lasts for 5 minutes. Florida recently made possession or sale of it a felony with a maximum prison term of 15 years. This really enters upon the territory of tyrannical overreach. It is insanely disproportionate to any threat to the citizenry--there's no evidence that anyone in Florida has ever harmed himself or anyone else under influence of this plant. It is not even considered addictive. The only hope of keeping it legal is to tax it promptly to give government a stake in its continued availability. This is why the legality of alcohol and tobacco are not threatened (despite the fact that they are far more deadly to their users and to non-users in proximity to users than salvia or marijuana). This illegalizing fetish of our governments is symbolic: it is one of many strategies employed to chip away, bit by bit, at liberty. We are ever more overwatched, regulated, classified, tracked, lied to, protected from ourselves, infantilized.   I've always been inclined to Jefferson's view: the tree of liberty must be fertilized per occasion with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Tyranny waxes all ways. The tree desiccates. Blood is wanted.

Republican Prospects

This is an analysis by an author at a conservative think tank. Basically, he explains how the Bush cabal has succeeded in shrinking and perverting the Republican party--also how his malign influence can be reversed in future. A cogent analysis I think, though he skips a few important issues and seems to underestimate the difficulty of bringing medical costs under control by any means short of draconian nationalization.     http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html?em