| Thursday,
September 29, 2005 Dr. Pournelle,
Before reading my letter below I think folks should read this article.
American Spectator September 2005 Pg. 32 Saddam Removal Why the U.S. had
no alternative. By William Shawcross Introduction by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20050927393827.html
Dr. Pournelle,
I have great admiration for your position regarding
whether or not we should have involved the United States in the current war
in Iraq but I must respectfully disagree. The article cited above spells out
in a lot more detail the reasoning behind an offensive vice defensive Global
War on Terrorism/Islamofacism. I find Gregory Cochran's Ad Hominem attacks
less than helpful to the debate. It would be easy to dismiss opposing views
as removed from reality.
Two issues are at hand. Should we have invaded Iraq?
We did and in the next paragraph is a short description of one of the
reasons why. It is not the only one. The other issue is whether or not we
should stay and where it is in a larger strategy. That will take a little
more to explain.
The one thing certain we learned about September 11th
was the incapacity of our intelligence services. (We also know they cannot
be grown back overnight.) The filter of our worldview was one of uncertainty
of our opponents' abilities. We also knew it would be completely
unacceptable for Islamofacists to gain control of WMDs, they certainly would
use them. We knew then (and now have undeniable evidence) of links between
Iraqi intelligence and AQ. We knew Saddam Hussein had WMDs at one time and
were convinced he still had them. We were risk averse and our intelligence
services were not functioning. The only certain way to ensure he did not
have them was to invade.
Anyone who believed we could contain Saddam Hussein is
not familiar with what was going on in the region. I was part of the Naval
forces enforcing the sanctions against Iraq. Oil smuggling was rampant.
Ships seized would be back in smuggling service within a couple of months.
Allies were becoming less and less willing to assist in enforcement. The
smuggling on land was far worse. The unspoken truth in CENTCOM was sanctions
were expected to be lifted in fact if not in decree by the UN Security
Council.
Again, we are there. Others have already made the
argument on the effects of cutting and running. I'd like to examine the
strategy in our Global War on Islamofacists.
Make no mistake we have enemies in the world, namely
the Islamofacists. As the article I cite below indicates, Islamofacists had
the drive and desire to destroy us long before we entered Iraq and will do
so later. Islamofacists see our very existence with our news, culture, MTV,
freedom of expression, economic vibrancy etc. as an affront to them and a
form of aggression. They attacked the World Trade Center twice for a reason.
It is the real symbol of our power and what separates us from the
Islamofacists vision of how the world should be. To remove the source of
irritation would require removing the United States and its culture from the
world stage. (The French would be happy for about five minutes until they
discovered Islamofacists turn their sights on them...)
It has been argued the United States could use the
Fortress America strategy to defend ourselves from those who oppose us. I've
conducted too many war games on defensive strategies and inevitably they
always fail as the strategy surrenders the initiative to the enemy and
forces become outflanked. We could attempt to defense every vulnerable asset
of our country within; the private security sector would become an enormous
employer. Even more of the TSA/Praetorian types could be placed on every
corner and the entrance to every mall, etc... It is standard military theory
to use defensive strategy only as long as required to enable forces to
launch an offensive strategy later. The offensive strategy works because you
can always overwhelm an enemy at a single point when he must defend a large
area. We must defend a large area in a defensive strategy because we have
little confidence in our intelligence capabilities.
Anyone who has visited the ports of industry in this
country would see how futile and destructive to our economy it would be to
attempt to search every cargo hold, container and barge that enters this
country via ship or truck. If it were easy we would already search more than
5% of the cargo entering our country. The very symbol of our vibrancy is
dependant upon that trade. Cut it off and we will have accomplished for the
Islamofacists what they failed to fully accomplish on September 11th.
A defensive strategy is not likely to succeed. If it
did, the United States would truly be in the hands of the Praetorian Guard
and look more like the Islamofacists we are supposed to oppose. So what is
the offensive strategy? You can completely destroy your enemy or defeat him.
For the Soviet Union we started with containment and
discovered in the Carter years that the American Culture had weakened. A
50-year strategy was leading to a desire to muddle through and surrender.
South and Central America was being lost to the communists and we had laws
to prevent people from supporting those who opposed communism. To win, the
West used containment combined with propaganda and ended it with offensive
operations. Countervailing forces prevented major military operations to
enable the communist to use glorious military victories to unite nationalism
behind them. Meanwhile, propaganda, not only from the United States
Government but private industry such as Coca-Cola and McD, converted and
corrupted those it touched. The Nomenclatura started to lose their hold (on
themselves and their countrymen) when everyone saw what could be had in the
west. Then we went on the offensive in South and Central America as well as
Afghanistan. People back a winner. The Soviet Union was losing; Ronald
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were winning. It all fell apart from there. We
did not have to destroy them all. We converted them to capitalism.
For Islamofacists, we have the opportunity to prevent
them from growing into a larger problem later. Hitler was a rabble-rouser in
drunken beer halls in a backward, broken, and defeated country. People back
a winner. He started to win, his crowds grew larger. Stalin was a pathetic
ivory tower type born of Serfs. People backed a winner, his followers grew
larger.
How do we eliminate the pool of people who can be
drawn to such leaders? Genocide is not an effective practice. Eliminating
UBL has proven ineffective. We needed to demonstrate armed conflict with the
West was useless, but we also had to demonstrate there is an alternative to
what the Islamofacists have to offer. We needed to change the shape of the
strategic board and not just muddle through until a real challenge arose.
WMDs make the WWII, wait, hold, attack response strategy ineffective.
Iraq for better or worse was the ground we chose to
change the shape of the strategic board. I strongly suspect Dr. Rice (a
student of Dr. Possony) is the true architect of this strategy. We prevented
the Islamofacists from having a uniting victory in Afghanistan. We then went
on the offensive in Iraq and other places. We flexed our muscle and changed
the minds of people within Iraq and nearby. We are having a success. It is
at time slow and incremental, but there is success inside and outside Iraq.
Afghanistan has held elections. Saudi Arabia has a very active campaign to
kill the AQ members in their country. Musharraf has stopped supporting the
Taliban and is supporting our efforts in Afghanistan. Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia have held elections, though limited in enfranchising. Lebanon has had
a popular uprising that has freed them of Syrian control and placed them on
the road towards a popularly elected government. Egypt is moving in the same
direction and it looks like Syria's Baath party will not stay in power
beyond the end of this decade. People are backing winners, and while there
are countervailing forces, UBL is not enjoying the status as the winner, nor
is Zarkowi. Napoleon said, "Morale is to the physical as three is to one."
The battle we are fighting at the strategic level is completely dependant on
the morale level. This battle must be fought on both the physical plane as
well as the morale/philosophical level. If we muddle through we will find a
President Carter (John Kerry) who will one day tell us the philosophy of
Islamofacists is morally equivalent to our own while hinting (academics
already say it) capitalism is evil and corrupt. We need an offensive
strategy and an Iraqi representative government is it. People back a winner
with a winning idea.
We could leave the world to its own devices. We could
have done the same in World War II. Why should we care if Europe and Asia
were taken over by Fascism? We could have done the same in the face of
growing Communism. Why should we have cared if Europe and Asia was taken
over by Communism? Why did we get involved? Why shouldn't we have just kept
making money and defended only ourselves? We certainly could have built a
strong enough Navy in both conflicts to keep them out of the United States.
I think the answer was we knew instinctively that if we waited too long we
would soon be alone and they would be coming for us.
Could we have averted far more bloodshed if we had
been on the offensive against Fascism and Communism early on? We certainly
took our time to face up to Hitler, many Conservatives thought it was a
mistake to get involved. It would appear the lesson learned regarding the
Third Reich was used in deciding the strategy regarding the Soviet Union
We need an offensive strategy based on ideas. We
cannot surrender the field and we cannot wait until the last hour.
Perhaps I am a naïve young Jacobite but I was there
when we blockaded Iraq, I was there when we invaded, and I'm probably going
to join good friends of mine on personal augmentation assignments to Iraq.
For reasons I hope you understand, I sign as
Serving Officer
P.S. This came out far longer than I initially
desired, but I do not have the capacity to describe this strategy in a
shorter form.
You argue well for the standard military
view, and perhaps you are correct. I have reservations.
In my judgment you overestimate the power of
the jihadists, who can't really mobilize enough military force to win the
sea battle it would take for them to do us much harm; underestimate the
capability of Europe once it realizes it is really threatened; and entirely
neglect the effect of Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction which are
destroying the entire Islamic structure. Islamic primitivism tends to work
among the uneducated -- but also condemns its adherents to primitive
weapons. Few Arabs could make the weapons they need to do us any real
damage. They had to use our airplanes as cruise missiles because they were
incapable of making their own -- indeed of piloting them without going to
our schools. As their youth discover blue jeans, rock and roll, and
computers they become less enamored with jihad; and those who remain in
jihad are the ones who flunk out of the new technology.
Islamic regimes get power from money. If
oil were $10 a barrel there would be enough to pay off the crooks who
control the oil, but not much left over for jihadists. I really don't care
how corrupt their regimes are so long as they do not threaten the United
States.
I would rather put the money
into the Navy for defense, and into energy production, than pour it into the
desert sands along with the blood of our Marines and troopers.
In any event I think it is long
past time for a real debate on strategy. The Congress did not do its job
properly before we went in there. Perhaps it can't. Perhaps the United
States is no longer capable of looking after its own interests.
Meanwhile I sure am glad we have the Navy
and the Marines.
God bless you, sailor.
And see below
==
About the whole Palestinian thing - I've quit caring
From Mr. Ashford's letter:
"Their [Israeli] policy towards the Palestinians has
been that of apartheid."
I really stopped caring on 9/12/01 when I saw them
cheering in the streets. The Palestinians declared themselves our enemy and
cheer our misery. They've chosen their friends. Let them fix it.
Scott Kitterman
=
Dear Jerry,
I suppose that since you’ve posted my comments
anonymously and I’ve not asked you to change that I don’t have the right to
publicly protest Mr. Cochran’s remarks, but could I trouble you to convey to
him my question as to whether it is insane to believe that….
It is wiser and in U.S. interests to treat countries
with lots of nuclear weapons near a critical area of resources differently
(maybe even more favorably) than we treat that country’s enemies…
We are part of the global economy, and that means what
happens to the driving motor of that economy (right now, in this foreign
energy-dependent reality) – oil – does matter to us, and
Sadaam was playing chicken with us about whether he in
fact had WMDs in said critical area of resources, and it was worthwhile to
establish that he was bluffing but we could do that only by crushing him
And as to his point about Sadaam not being Hitler – do
we have to wait for enemies to get to Hitler size before we take them out?
If preemption means anything it means making sure that nits never get to
become lice.
Anyway, in my little alternative reality, nukes and
oil matter, but I would appreciate it if he could provide me with a window
on the sanity that thinks that they don’t…
And if you don’t want to play switch board operator
simply ‘cause I got my toes stepped on, I understand and my apologies. I
could be dead wrong in pretty much all I’ve argued but I think Herr Cochran
would be better off demonstrating that rather than granting us a peak into
his virtual libido….
Young Jacobin
I can give you this
much answer: The US currently sends about $2000/year/Israeli citizen to
Israel as straightforward aid. This keeps their socialist state going. It is
Jacobinism pure and simple to imagine that they are better off with a
socialist government. It is also hard to see why it is in the US national
interest to send that much money abroad to a nation whose existence would
not threatened without that subsidy.
What happens to oil does matter; but the
argument that Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power is not the same
as arguing that we have to go in there and set up a democracy preserving the
integrity of a "nation" created not long ago as a consolation prize to the
Hashemites for their loss of Mecca. For that matter, perhaps we ought to
give Iraq to Jordan: there remains the "United Arab Kingdom" notion from the
days when Hashemites ruled both Iraq and Jordan (there also lingers the
ghost of the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria; perhaps we should help
Egypt recover its lost Syrian provinces?). Why Iraq must be united and
independent is one of those questions seldom answered or debated: and why
the US must make that so is even less obvious. If we had to wring Saddam's
neck, then we had to do that; but that neck is wrung, his children are dead,
and he can safely be abandoned as can Mesopotamia. We leave, with the
parting message that we will be back the day a regime there threatens our
interests. Have a nice century. We'll take our expenses for liberating you
in cheap oil.
Nukes and oil do matter; but you have not
made much of a case for pouring blood and treasure into the sand.
If you argue that the Republic is dead,
and we must now look to Empire and national interest, then I tell you that
Incompetent Empire is not the way. If you ask me for an Imperial grand
strategy I will be glad to give you one, involving client states, Sunni
client armies, puppet governments, and all the rest; but the Jacobin notion
that we must rule Iraq according to the US Constitution, persecute our
soldiers for contravening the laws of decency while forcing them to fight a
war with barbarians, and set up a democratic regime in a place that has
never had one and has no notion of what such would be like: I fear you ask
what is beyond the means of our soldiers and sailors. Canute the Great could
keep the tide from his throne by a cofferdam of his carls, who would have
done his bidding --
read Kipling's Song of the Red War Boat for details, or even just
because it is worth reading -- but he was wise enough not to attempt it.
We will build a cofferdam of our sons to
keep alive the notion that we can plant democracy in Mesopotamia. I hope
that can be done; but I fear it is a cause lost from the beginning.
I know how to rule Mesopotamia in our
interest. I know how imperialism works, and how to set up an empire that
will last, perhaps not the thousand years of the Third Reich, but for all of
this century. I know how to build a CoDominium. I do not know how to build
universal democracy, nor how to keep Iraq intact when it never was so, and
build democracy in a land that knows nothing of the institution. Nor do I
see why it is necessary to our security to try.
If our security demands empire, then I am
for empire. Ave. Ave Caesar Imperator! We can keep most of our domestic
institutions including electing our Commander in Chief, with each new
Imperator pardoning the outgoing one. Perhaps we can avoid proscriptions. We
can build client states, and keep Foreign Legions in place throughout the
world. That I know how to do. And if dominating Mesopotamia and rooting out
our enemies wherever we can find them is the price of our continued
existence as a kind of compromised republic, then so be it. But understand
what it is you set out to do, and what the price is likely to be.
You have given up on the Republic; yet you
continue to argue that we should act like a republic, not a competent
empire. Why?
======
Subject: "US weapons, foreign flavor"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/business/27weapons.html
?ex=1128484800&en=305d9731b0ed0acc&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Quote: "Our job is to get the best for the war
fighter," said Kenneth Kreig, who was just named the Pentagon's chief
weapons buyer. "Innovation is not always bounded by borders. We want the
best capability at the most cost-effective price and from the best suppliers
we can find." unquote
No, no, and no. Their job is *not* to get the most
cost-effective anything. Their job is to look after National Security and
Sovereignty, and their 'budget' is to be used to stimulate R&D and growth in
the US domestic economy, in this case military contractors and all the "Tier
XYZ" suppliers that feed them. Shopping on cost is directly contrary to that
goal. I opposed the Barretta as the US service pistol, not because I have
any love per se of .45 caliber versus 9mm, but because my tax money should
not be used to inflate an Italian arms manufacturer. Ditto most of the
Navy's turret guns, etc. etc... The reason the US isn't necessarily the
leader in all realms of R&D is because government spending went global, not
vice-versa. As is typical in most beaurocracies, they've lost sight of why
they exist in the first place.
Regards,
Mike Smith
The business of the law is to make
business for the law. The business of bureaucracies is to make business for
the bureaucracy. The purpose of government (other than self-government) is
to hire and pay government workers, then to accomplish whatever it is those
workers are assigned to do.
And see
http://www.mentalsoup.com/mentalsoup/basic.htm
=============
Empire Marches On
Like a landslide, Dr. Pournelle, empire starts slowly
and picks up mass and momention as it goes:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050927-121122-3262r
Some quotes:
"President Bush yesterday sought to federalize
hurricane-relief efforts, removing governors from the decision-making
process. "It wouldn't be necessary to get a request from the governor or
take other action," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said
yesterday. "This would be," he added, "more of an automatic trigger." "Mr.
McClellan was referring to a new, direct line of authority that would allow
the president to place the Pentagon in charge of responding to natural
disasters, terrorist attacks and outbreaks of disease."
And
"The ACLU cautioned against such a change of law. "The
Posse Comitatus Act is sometimes criticized as some sort of obscure,
centuries-old law," Mr. Edgar [Timothy Edgar, national security policy
counsel for the ACLU] said. "But you know, most of our liberties are
centuries old. So that would be like saying the Bill of Rights is obscure
and old. "Our strict separation between military and civilian power is one
of the things that separates us from Latin America, for example," he added.
"Changing that would put us on a huge slippery slope."
Surprise, surprise... Something the ACLU has said with
which I agree.
Charles Brumbelow
=========
Subject: Am I crazy or is this a very bad thing?
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=121837&n_date=20050927&cat=World
"In ethnically diverse Los Angeles, many immigrants
find that learning Korean, Spanish or Mandarin is more important than
English."
John R. Strohm
An exercise for the reader...
=========
Subject: slouching towards oligarchy
Jerry,
I always suspected Nixon's plan was to end the cold
war by agreeing to make the U.S. 50% similar to the Soviets and the Soviets
50% like us.
The next obvious step would be to become half-Islamofascist
and have them become half like us.
I never liked the first plan and I must put my foot
down before Part 2 is fulfilled: it will lead, at best, to the U.S. being
25% free, 25% a stultifying and totally corrupt bureaucracy under oligarchy,
and 50% insane.
Come to think of it, perhaps it's already come to
pass.
Russ
=============
Subject: Funny to hear it from John Podhoretz
First Bill Kristol bails on the Bush Administration
and says the messed up the war in Iraq and now this guys says "power has
corrupted the GOP beyond repair." Their strategy is to distance themselves
from the Administration before November 2006 in hopes of holding onto the
House & Senate. Blame George is the new Neocon strategy. Makes me think I
might have had a few things wrong about President Bush based on his new
enemies.
R
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28645.htm
September 29, 2005 -- THERE'S good reason to
believe yesterday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will
simply crumble to dust over time. But will the Republican Party have the
time to weather the political storm? Only a fool or a naif would dismiss the
possibility that the whole DeLay indictment is an act of prosecutorial
misconduct. The indictment itself is very thin, a three-page document that
only mentions DeLay at the bottom of the second and the top of the third
pages and is allusive to the point of unintelligibility.
DeLay's prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, has a long
history of using his office in questionable ways against political rivals.
DeLay played some major political hardball back in Texas a few years ago
when he masterminded a successful effort to redraw the state's congressional
districts — behavior about which Texas Democrats remain plum loco — and
Earle has been on his tail ever since.
Earle was humiliated in 1994 when he sought to
drop a case he had brought against Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on
the eve of trial just so he could switch judges and give it a second shot —
only to see the judge swear in a jury to assure that Hutchison receive a
full acquittal.
Some liberals defend Earle on the strange
grounds that he isn't guilty of using his office to play politics because
he's also indicted fellow Democrats. But in the highest-profile case he had
before Hutchison, Earle was also humiliated when an absurd bribery charge he
had brought against Democratic state Attorney General Jim Mattox led to a
quick jury verdict of "not guilty." He also indicted himself once — on some
campaign-finance charge — so there's some reason to believe he might be a
bit cracked.
What all this means is that DeLay may well come
through this as Hutchison did — not only uninjured but actually strengthened
because voters in his district might see Earle's action as a witch hunt.
But that won't prevent the mainstream media and
partisan Democrats from teaming up to create a potent anti-Republican
storyline that has a very real chance of connecting with voters in the year
leading up to the 2006 midterm elections.
The anti-Republican case boils down to this:
Power corrupts, and now it's clear to see that power has corrupted the GOP
beyond repair. <snip>
First they get Bush into a war he can't win
with their strategy. Now they bail. What is it that deserts what it thinks
is a sinking ship? Ah, yes...
===========
A frequent discussion point at Chaos Manor, Dr.
Pournelle, seems to revolve around various concepts of "What's wrong with
the United States?"
I received a communication from a law firm which
illustrates at least some of the problems:
"For those who can't wait, here is the typescript
version of the proposed regulation interpreting the deferred compensation
rules in section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. (Apologies to those of
you who might be receiving this from multiple sources.) The typescript
version is 234 pages long. The regulation is scheduled to be published in
tomorrow's Federal Register; we will circulate the Federal Register version
when it becomes available.
"The proposed regulation extends the deadline for
amending plans to comply with section 409A until December 31, 2006. Some,
but not all, of the Notice 2005-1 transition provisions that were in effect
during 2005 are extended into 2006. For example, employees will be permitted
to make new distribution elections until December 31, 2006, except with
respect to payments due in 2006. The rule permitting SERP distribution
elections to be coordinated with qualified plan distribution elections also
is extended until the end of 2006. In contrast, however, the "opt-out" rule
permitting employees to cancel deferral elections and receive accelerated
distributions expires at the end of 2005, and no additional relief is
provided for elections to defer compensation earned in 2006."
Two hundred and thirty-four pages! And from the note,
all it appears to do is extend some deadlines and not extend others.
Too many lawyers....electing, lobbying, and otherwise
assisting other lawyers to become tenured masters in governing bodies up to
and including Congress. That's one thing that's wrong with the country! I'm
reminded of the tiny people who tied down the giant with a thousand threads
in one of the Gulliver books. Yet, virtually everyone has a friend or a
relative who is a lawyer and/or has had a lawyer come to their aid in time
of need.
Cheers!
Charles Brumbelow
We sow the wind
===============
And now for something
entirely different:
Harlan Ellison convention story?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2005-09-26
Begin quote:
So Tycho and I are up in front of the audience with
Harlen, and Hank (the con organizer) presents us with some jester hats
("Fool's caps"). Tycho and I put ours on because we are polite, but Harlen -
who is apparently too cool for school - refuses to wear his. I turn to him
and say, "Don't you want your hat?" and he tells me to fuck off. This caught
me off guard, I mean I have no clue who this fucking coot is. Then he points
to a pad of paper he has and asks if I'm aware that his paper is also called
foolscap. Now, I've never heard that term before, I pretty much just call it
paper so I shake my head "no." This really isn't a fair question. I mean, it
would be like me asking him about Photoshop or if he can remember what he
had for lunch. The guy was essentially setting me up to look stupid in front
of all these people. So then he asks me if I even attended college and I say
"No, I did not." Then, he says "did you at least finish high school?"
I said that I had, but you couldn't really hear me
because the audience is laughing at me along with Harlen. So once they stop,
I turn to him and I say, "While I've got you here I just wanted to say how
much I enjoyed the Star Wars stuff you wrote."
I didn't know him very well but I felt like mistaking
him for someone who writes Star Wars books was the sort of insult that would
cut right to his brittle old bones. The audience seemed to agree because I
could hear a lot of ooooooooh's and oh no's over the laughing. Some people
in the front even suggested a fist fight was now in order. I look over at
Harlen and he's staring at me like he wants to choke me. He then says "so
that's how it's going to be." Now keep in mind that he's the one that
started hostilities when he told me to fuck off. I'm just the one that
finished it. The guy tells some pretty funny stories about how witty he is
and how he's always saying clever things at exactly the right moment. When
confronted with someone who was unwilling to take any crap from him he had
no clever retort. The great writer just glared at me and then walked off
stage. I don't doubt that given enough time he could craft a perfectly
worded and extremely vicious response but up there on stage in front of all
his fans the man didn't have shit.
I don't blame Harlen for not knowing who I am. I
honestly don't expect him to. I don't expect anyone that old to know who I
am. I did expect him to be polite and at least respect the fact that I was a
fellow guest of honor. That was apparently too much to ask for from the
great Harlen Elison.
End quote
Sean
The web site continues with other silly
stories about Harlan Ellison, including the particularly silly one about his
saying to a tall model "What would you say to a little --?" I have even
heard that one told with my wife as the "tall model". Of course it is not
true nor ever could be. Whatever Harlan's defects, unrequited satyriasis
would not be one of them; he has never lacked for desirable feminine
company. And I have never heard him be gratuitously insulting to anyone. In
retaliation, yes; but never gratuitously.
I don't usually defend Harlan since he is
capable of defending himself, but I find this story appalling. Invited to be
a Guest of Honor, then to share that with others, Harlan is my age; he has
his own notions of what being Guest of Honor should mean, as do I, and being
invited to wear a funny hat is not one of them.
But having just spoken with Harlan, I find
there was no hat to begin with: there were hats for the two artists, but the
Chairman of the Convention did not have one made for Harlan. He was given
some paper. Foolscap. Alas, Gabe didn't know what foolscap was. You can find
out the rest of the actual story on Harlan's web site but it's hardly worth
it.
Harlan did of course write the screen play
for a Star Trek episode, "The City at the Edge of Forever," which is highly
regarded. He does vivid short stories. He does not do novels, and does not
do Star Wars stories or books, and frankly I would expect anyone being a co-GOH
would take the trouble to find out at least that much.
I had no idea who Gabe and Tycho were;
looking them up by googling Foolscap I find it is Gabe
Krahulik and Tycho Holkins, aged 22 or 23 years old,
and very hip. They were artist guest of honor or some such. Harlan is my
age.
If one invites Harlan to be GOH, one
invites him warts and all; one does not invite him to suffer fools gladly or
indeed at all. It's just not part of the package. What you do expect is one
of the more prominent writers of our field, a man who can be charming and
gracious, who will work hard, but who expects to be treated with some
respect.
I note that the convention had a special
auction for the victims of Katrina. I am certain that Harlan insisted on
that, and that he worked tirelessly to make that auction a success. He has
raised as much money for such events as anyone I know, including the SFWA
Medical Emergency Fund of which I am a trustee -- and Harlan is not.
I don't insist that my friends like
each other, which is probably fortunate since Harlan has been my good friend
for 40 years and more, and we both manage to make enemies as well as
friends. But I'd sure rather spend time with him than with a lot of people I
know.
===========
This came up in
another discussion group:==
The Hallmark of the Underclass
By Charles Murray Posted: Thursday, September
29, 2005
"Watching the courage of ordinary low-income
people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to
decide which politicians are more contemptible--Democrats who are
rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who
are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it. Both
sides are unwilling to face reality: We haven't rediscovered poverty, we
have rediscovered the underclass; the underclass has been growing during all
the years that people were ignoring it, including the Clinton years; and the
programs politicians tout as solutions are a mismatch for the people who
constitute the problem."
www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23273/pub_detail.asp
===========
This part was particularly disturbing:
"The underclass has been growing. The crime
rate has been dropping for 13 years. But the proportion of young men who
grow up unsocialized and who, given the opportunity, commit crimes, has not.
A rough operational measure of criminality is
the percentage of the population under correctional supervision. This is
less sensitive to changes in correctional fashion than imprisonment rates,
since people convicted of a crime get some sort of correctional supervision
regardless of the political climate. When Ronald Reagan took office, 0.9% of
the population was under correctional supervision. That figure has continued
to rise. When crime began to fall in 1992, it stood at 1.9%. In 2003 it was
2.4%. Crime has dropped, but criminality has continued to rise.
This doesn't matter to the middle and upper
classes, because we figured out how to deal with it. Partly we created
enclaves where criminals have a harder time getting at us, and instead must
be content with preying on their own neighbors. But mainly we locked 'em up,
a radical change from the 1960s and 1970s. Consider this statistic: The
ratio of prisoners to crimes that prevailed when Ronald Reagan took office,
applied to the number of crimes reported in 2003, corresponds to a prison
population of 490,000. The actual prison population in 2003 was 2,086,000, a
difference of 1.6 million. If you doubt that criminality has increased,
imagine the crime rate tomorrow if today we released 1.6 million people from
our jails and prisons."
Liberal conservatism is at an all time high,
with renewed calls for welfare and busing - everything that didn't work the
first time - but no one has any new ideas so just keep repeating the same
ineffectual at best, harmful at worst, policies just so you can say you're
tying to do something insead of nothing. Meanwhile keep importing an ever
larger, and therefore ever less manageable, underclass. We don't have any
ideas, but we'll come up with some eventually, until then let's compound the
problem as much as possible.
Jason
And see below
==
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
