Writing on the Double Yellow Line

Militant moderate, unwilling to concede any longer the terms of debate to the strident ideologues on the fringe. If you are a Democrat or a Republican, you're an ideologue. If you're a "moderate" who votes a nearly straight party-ticket, you're still an ideologue, but you at least have the decency to be ashamed of your ideology. ...and you're lying in the meantime.

Location: Illinois, United States

Friday, December 15, 2017

The Re-Patriarchy of Post-Feminism

The Re-Patriarchy of Post-Feminism
©2017  Ross Williams

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m enjoying this immensely.  The smug, condescending, self-righteous champions of women’s political nobility, dignity and worth are being paraded in public as the very same manipulative, lecherous, womanizing bounders that their pre-Savior savior, Cuckold Bill, was.  And likely still is.

The fact that it is now backfiring on them is delicious.  Hoisted on their own petard.  One can always count on “progressive” nitwits not looking more than two moves ahead on the chess board.  Sometimes not even that.

Imagine the giddiness of their perceived impunity when, at the very same time they were rewriting the narrative around Cuckold Bill from abuse of power to mere and irrelevant sexual dalliance − and getting large parts of the public to buy into it − they were ousting Bob Packwood for sexual misconduct that didn’t coincide with cheating a bimbo of her day in court.  It’s good to be the king.  By which I mean: it always helps to have a latter-day Lady Macbeth running interference on the bevy of crumpled tartlets left in the king’s wake.

Modern “progressives” had the temerity to offer up mocking contempt of Mike Pence for never doing any business with women, alone.  After all, marriage vows are pre-dinosaur; they went out with the trilobites.  Yet who’s laughing now?  It’s not Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, John Conyers, Charlie Rose, Louis C K, Dustin Hoffman, Matt Lauer or Garrison Keillor.  By the time I finish this essay there’s likely to be another dozen names, big and small, added to the list.  And if the current political alignment continues, eleven of those names will be “progressive” liberals in politics, media or Hollywood.

…which is the next hilarious aspect of all this.  “Progressive” liberals are uniquely supportive of women, women’s rights, and whatever version of feminism the feminists claim it currently to be.  No other political alignment shares that inane sensitivity.  Conservatives and republicans are all neanderthals, and libertarians are − in this equation − republicans-once-removed.  We simply advocate too much separation of personal interaction from the controlling ministrations of government to sufficiently combat the sexual predation of women beyond outright rape.

Yet who are women’s predominant predators in this new agitprop?  “Progressive” liberals, hands down.

Puns aside, the truly tasty irony of this, though, is − if the conspiracy theories are even partially true − it’s backfiring on them.  Remember, this was designed to eliminate Foxnews as the only significant non-liberal media propagandist, and Donnie Combover, the political interloper who declared war on the entrenched bureaucracy of “progressive” liberalism and its liberal and conservative keepers. 

Get rid of Roger Ailes and Foxnews crumbles.

Well, that didn’t happen, so get rid of Bill O’Reilly and Foxnews loses all impact.

That didn’t happen either.  Instead, the media outlets depleted so far are NBC, CBS, CNN and PBS.

Wait! was that Candidate Combover, the liberal New York democrat who told his fellow democrats to get bent, explaining how to “grab ‘em by the pussy”?  Turns out the people who are weary of the entrenched, self-serving, self-pitying establishment didn’t give a damn.  And it turns out the ones who do give a damn are all liberal hypocrites or hypocrite-enablers.  And the political hucksters being pilloried are Conyers and Franken who, turns out, people don’t like as much as he thought.

The Left seems to have declared a prudish culture war and the only ones showing up for the fight has been the Left.  The only real casualties here are from friendly fire.  It’s been a two extra-grand tub o’ popcorn spectacle, twenty-five years in the making.  1992, and the election of “Cuckold” Bill Clinton.

Paula Jones, look what a mess you made!  How on earth can you be so dim as to accept an interview for an Arkansas state clerical position − at 10 PM − in a motel room − from the Governor of Arkansas himself?  Now, I love to mock Lady Macbeth as much as the next libertarian, and will often do so gratuitously, but when the crone is right, she’s right.  You’re what happens when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park.

There was a time that feminism would have hounded Paula Jones out of the club.  The thought of having special protections granted by society − let alone government − for the fact of one’s gender was appalling.  It was termed patriarchy and it was universally sneered at, because each and every special protection seen by feminists was granted exclusively to men.  [Feminists ignored those granted to women; they didn’t count for some reason.]  Feminism demanded the end to male specialness; and no, women didn’t deserve them either.  Women are not little girls; they’re fully-formed adults able to take care of themselves.

If a woman was so stupid as to be in Paula Jones’ position in the first place, or not leave once she figured out what the evening was turning out to be, she deserved what she got − short of forcible rape.  If she could be talked into doing things she was not originally intending to do, then she’s simply a slut.  Making it safe − and socially-acceptable − to be a slut was among the first non-economic objectives of feminism.  Why should guys have all the fun?

The thought of criminally or civilly penalizing “sexual harassment” − hounding and badgering a woman with sexual innuendo, demeaning commentary and crude, boorish proposition − would have annoyed an original feminist.  She’d have embarked on a tirade against the patriarchal trivialization of women and not taken a breath for a fortnight.  The sexual harassment itself would simply have inspired the feminist to retort with the uninspired rejoinder: male chauvinist pig.

By contrast, most of what passes for “sexual assault” today would have made the feminist seethe with rage.  Original feminists were wholly unsympathetic to anyone, male and especially female, of the attitude that women needed or deserved special protections just because they were women.  After all, among the special protections granted to men by society and its government, those against being touched were not among them.  A man would have been laughed out of the human race for complaining about having his package fondled − by anyone.   If a woman couldn’t emasculate a male grabbing her butt or other private parts in less than five words, she had simply not been paying attention.  ...and she had no one to blame but herself.  Feminist philosophy was born a libertarian adjunct.

By the time Slick Willy was boorishly seducing Paula Jones in that Little Rock motel room, feminism was morphing into a socialist construct.  This was ably womansplained to me in the feminism seminar I took while in grad school for sociology − an awkward place for a libertarian to find himself.  Feminism had recently dropped the W C Fields outlook on self-worth: “It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to”, and backslid into grade-school infantilism: “He’s calling me names!!!”

I’d made the mistake − apparently − one night in class of referring to what some lady I knew…

The term is WOMAN!” I was brutally reminded by a tandem of tender little dumplings on the other side of the room.  They were both over a decade older than me and would now easily be in their seventies.  I begged their rude pardon.  They snottily informed me that terms used to refer to females alter any female the term is directed at.  The term “woman”, though, can never be demeaning because it is what women chose as their designation … or some such pretzelled logic as that.

Ah.  Right.  The old Chesterfield Sofa Syndrome.  If I call you a Chesterfield sofa, you become a Chesterfield sofa, or at least its matching ottoman.  Words are now magic spells and have powers imparted by the speaker of those words.  Mystical incantation makes a triumphant return in the waning days of the 20th Century, and − thank Goddess − it took the social equality of women to discover this new-is-old witchcraft.

No, no, they insisted; I was missing the point.

Yet I wasn’t.  Words, I told them, only have magic powers if the hearer of those words chooses to allow that power.  Further, it depends on a sane and intelligent navigation of context to determine whether the assertion of power is rationally inferred or a paranoid presumption.  They quibbled over this.

I would, I promised, demonstrate all this to them before the night was out.  They scoffed and snorted.

For the next hour of class, every time one of these two women-girls would open her mouth about anything, I would interrupt as rudely as I could, and start a critique of their position by stating, “Woman…!” and proceed to rip apart their comments.  By the first break, the rest of the class had settled into mostly watching the show while eating their popcorn; the two women-girls were foaming in outrage.  They approached me at the coffee machine to bawl me out once again − in private this time − about my patriarchal attitude. 

But women, I told them; I couldn’t be patriarchal, because I’d used the proper term.  It was, after all, their notion of propriety to which I was strictly adhering.

It turned out that it was the way I said it and the context surrounding the term that made the difference to them.  …as I had told them it would be.

Ahhhh.  So, you’re going to drop your infantile notion that words mean anything other than what the hearer chooses to hear in them …?

Well, they weren’t going to go that far, but they’d ease up on the whole “some terms are sexist in and of themselves” thing.

Curiously, or not, one minor semantic victory in an out-of-the-way feminism seminar in a state college sociology graduate program did not stem the rising tide of feminist puerility.  And we fast-forward to today where we find the unholy combination of micro-aggression awareness among a generation of people who admittedly need a safe space for when they have trouble adulting …   It is no wonder that any little inconvenience results in entire populations of erstwhile grown-ups rushing off to find their crayons for comfort.

We’ve spent two generations sturming und dranging over the role of female equality in our society, only to end up back where we started … if that enlightened.  Female equality now demands the same − and further − special protections from society that are not granted to men.  And simply because they’re women.

Two generations of agitation by women about their equality in all matters has concluded that women are uniquely unsusceptible to the frailty of memory in sexual matters that uniformly plagues the rest of humanity in every other subject, and which makes the contradiction of eye-witness testimony and physical evidence so troubling under every legal circumstance.

Demand physical evidence that the defendant killed the victim, absolutely; to do less is a breach of justice.  But demand the same physical evidence for an alleged rape forty years after the fact that the woman − gosh − never got around to reporting…?  That’s flagrant sexism.  “Why would a woman lie?!

Women are also apparently immune to the mind’s habit of constructing elaborate excuses, fabricating miles of new facts out of whole cloth if necessary, to protect themselves from psychological trauma of being told they have nice hooters and the guilt those traumas inspire.  Suggest that a woman is inaccurate about who goosed her in a crowded elevator? or that it was not a pervert at all, but that she backed into the corner of a briefcase?  Not permissible, and you’re a sexist if you try. 

Modern gender preferentialism would, instead, have us kill Due Process − the Liberty plank requiring accusation, whether criminal or civil, be proven and not merely alleged before The System is permitted, even backhandedly, to penalize the accused.  Women’s words are and must be above − and beyond − reproach; unimpeachable.  Even decades after the fact.  Who cares that this obliterates Equal Protection?

What worth are sentimentalist abstractions of theoretical liberty when stacked up against a real woman’s feels relating to her personhood in its most private and intimate manifestations?  Words do have magic powers, as my two boorish denouncers claimed.  Western sexist society casts spells of every sort imaginable to reduce each woman to a jellied serfdom that islam could only dream of imposing with its primitive tools.  Accusation is sufficient in this spectacle; Cotton Mather’s ideological descendants will conjure up the appropriate rationale to justify the QED.  And they’ve been doing just that.  Goody Gillibrand, Goody Pelosi and Goodyhontas Warren are leading the way against their own.

So yes, it’s fascinating to watch the [mostly] idiot Left implode in self-pitying sanctimony.  But social spasm such as this rarely stops until it infects everyone around it.  I don’t think even a pink pussy hat is enough of an inoculant.  

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

First Response to ‘First Responders’

First Response to ‘First Responders’
©2017  Ross Williams

The city of St Louis has an insanely high sales tax.  They also have a 1% earnings tax.  And they wonder why businesses are moving out of the city and into the surrounding suburbs − including to the east-side in Illinois which has its own idiotic high cost-of-government impositions.

On the first Tuesday of November past, city residents lined up by the dozen to vote on Proposition P − for “Police” − a half-cent increase in the St Louis city sales tax.  Its purpose would be to provide a pay raise to police and firefighters.  … read: “police”.  St Louis hopes paying its cops more would mean being able to retain quality cops instead of having them move to the County and getting hired as St Louis County cops or municipal officers.

Prop P passed with 60% of the miniscule vote.  St Louis city sales tax is now at a mind-numbing and commerce-killing rate of over 10%.  The Mayor estimates that the city will see this money start to fill their coffers by next June at the earliest.  I remain skeptical that any new money will be collected at all.  Instead, I predict that total revenues from sales taxes will remain virtually unchanged, inspiring the city Board to use the Prop P portion for “other” outlays.  If used for its mandated purpose, I remain even more skeptical that it will work toward the stated purpose.

On the other hand, if the St Louis Board of Aldermen handle its windfall the same way some county municipalities handled their similar cop-financing sales tax millage last year, government officials in St Louis are going to be getting brand new cushy office furniture, but cops aren’t going to get a pay raise.

But let’s assume that St Louis politicians actually do what they are legally obligated to do with this revenue.  Among the cops who’d get an advertised $6,000 pay raise will be this dickweed and the two backups who covered his ass.  It is worth noting that the original dickweed is a detective in the special unit formed after the Ferguson Fiasco of three years ago whose purpose is to investigate claims of excessive force used by police officers.

If that ain’t the coyote overseeing the foxes who patrol the henhouse, I don’t know what is.

Also in line to get a $6,000 pay raise would be the myriad cops who ducked and covered for Officer Jason Stockley.  His bench trial for first-degree murder in the death of Anthony Lamar Smith resulted in still-continuing panty-wetting protests all over the St Louis metro region after the not guilty verdict was rendered last August.

In all fairness to Stockley and the cops, Smith was a heroin dealer likely responsible for the deaths of dozens of St Louis city youth, either from drugs or bullet holes.  He was in the act being arrested for same when he decided to flee.  While fleeing, he attempted to murder Stockley with his car, and he plowed into one or more police cars.  Smith then embarked on a brief chase through the decrepit north St Louis side streets at a pedestrian-friendly 87 miles an hour.

Upon Smith crashing his vehicle, Stockley approached and claimed Smith was “reaching for a gun”.  Stockley thereupon plugged Smith 5 times when once − at extreme close range − would probably have sufficed.

In all fairness to the idiot protesters who uniformly laud Smith, the heroin dealer, as an “innocent” murder “victim”, Stockley was, in violation of law, toting his private arsenal on duty.  It was this private arsenal which Officer Stockley dropped when Smith ran into him at the start of the car chase.  Stockley promised to kill the guy for it.  That promise was recorded by dash cam.  Not recorded on dash cam was the gun in Smith’s vehicle that Stockley claimed was being reached for, and which only had Stockley’s fingerprints on it.

Stockley, I should note, would not get a similar pay raise.  Soon after this incident he moved to Houston, returning only briefly for his murder trial.

For what it’s worth, the not guilty verdict was predicated on the prosecution being unable to prove that there was not a gun in the front seat of Smith’s vehicle, and that Stockley or a cohort planted it there.  Rather than attempting to prove manslaughter, which would likely have been a slam-dunk − why shoot five times when once would have incapacitated Smith? − the prosecutor caved into the sentimentalist outrage of the community which sees every police shooting as deliberate, racist murder.  That argument is virtually unwinnable, jury or no, without even considering the fact that blacks kill their own by a 500:1 ratio.

In any event, that’s St Louis.  St Louis is, like many medium- and large-city systems owning a generation-long liberal democrat political pedigree, a septic tank of mutant alligators fighting over the floating turds.  He who lands on the biggest turd wins.  At the moment, St Louis’s biggest turd is occupied − due in no small part to Shyster General Holder’s Justice Department “recommendations” following the Ferguson Fiasco − by drug dealers like Smith fighting their turf wars.  And more power to them.

I live in the affluent [for now] Illinois-side bedroom community ring surrounding St Louis, where the cops are paid well.  Very well, actually.  Yet our cops act just like any others ever captured on viral iPhone footage.  It is this behavioral similitude between cops in the “problem environment” of St Louis and those in the drowsy environs of its affluent suburbs which leads me to believe that giving St Louis cops a $6,000 raise will only make them better-paid assholes.

Cops tend to act the same as cops everywhere − coppelganging, as it were − imperious, authoritarian, self-righteous.  I have the sad opportunity to see and interact with cops in a social setting at least once a week, and typically more often than that.  Every single cop I encounter, from any jurisdiction, despite it being thoroughly non-cop-duty related, is unfriendly at best.  Small talk is beyond them and smiling is apparently a disciplinary infraction.  On those rare occasions when they deign to say anything at all to a mere citizen, they spit “sir” and “ma’am” as if having such venomous words lingering on their tongues causes physical pain.

Most are suspicious to the point of psychotic paranoia and look at everyone, from small children to feeble oldsters, as if they are felons for whom there isn’t yet enough evidence to justify slamming them to the ground and tasing them.  Same as they act in a traffic stop, by the way.

And this police-statism is accomplished in a community populated by relatively wealthy [mostly] white people, and the relatively wealthy young adults from around the state attending university.  Cops’ actual behavior flies in the face of both the antithetical outlooks we’re told by competing propagandist media sources we must hold.

The first is the “cops are racist murderers” victimology.  Yet the only material difference between how cops behave within my mostly white population versus how they behave in the mostly black population twenty miles away is the rate of criminal activity within the community.  Viral video evidence unmistakably depicts cops behaving virtually identically in both places − like irredeemable dicks.

The second is the chin-quivering Thin Blue Line fairy tale.  Cops are all that supposedly separates us from zombie apocalypse … or something.  Yet all too often they are the zombie apocalypse, trying to manufacture arrestable offenses out of nothing.  Far too frequently, these confrontations end tragically, and I point at Eric Garner and Sandra Bland just for grins. Their crimes were, respectively, attempting to make a buck by undercutting Bloomberg’s obscene cigarette taxes, and moving out of the way of a speeding cop who was not driving to an actual emergency.

Pathetically, these incidents are not as isolated as the Thin Blue Liners would have everyone believe.  Nor are they predominantly − let alone confined − to the black community, as our dishonest press continually preaches.  I could just as easily bring up John Wrana, but no one knows who he is; the media doesn’t dwell on white people killed by cops.  Police-state barbarism, in the name of public safety, is a nationwide phenomenon.

But police, in a free society, cannot provide safety without destroying the freedom in the free society.  A free society is built on the premise of leaving people alone right up to the moment after they commit actual crimes − not pseudo-crimes, like being stupid and irresponsible, nor criminal precursors, like being anti-social and a pain in everyone’s ass.

Until actual crimes are committed, the cops are there only to make sure nothing gets out of hand.  Unless and until it does, they are permitted only to join the crowd watching the fracas.  And please pass the popcorn.  They are specifically not permitted to drive things out of hand themselves.

Yet that deliberate escalation of conflict is pretty much exactly what cops do the nation over, as anyone can attest who’s ever been stopped for “43 in a 25” while poking along at 18 miles an hour behind an overloaded livestock trailer through a small town on the last day of the month.  Or the Trekkie geeks with out of town plates stopped for taillight infractions.  Or the guy going back to work from lunch behind an unmarked cop car who thinks green means “awww, look at the pretty color”.  Or any of a million other encounters too numerous to mention, a large number of which are on YouTube.

Yet cops, and their legion of sycophants, have the temerity to whimper about the lack of respect shown them − and other authority figures − by the general public.  Boo hoo.  Try earning it.

Respect of authority − in a free country − is earned by the authority figure remembering that they are authorized to hold authority over free citizens in a free country, not over subjects in a police state.  If that means the job of being the authority figure is made more difficult, so be it.  If that means the job of being the authority figure is made more dangerous, so be that as well.  That’s the price of a free country: freedom requires concessions from the government to the people.

It wouldn’t hurt to also learn to engage in pleasant conversation with strangers about nothing much, and knock off the paranoia.  Citizens are not simply future notches on a cop’s professional belt.

Thursday, November 09, 2017

Diogenes the Libertarian Rides Again

Diogenes the Libertarian Rides Again
©2017  Ross Williams

I don’t like my brother.  Not because he’s gay, but because he’s a lapdog “progressive” who likes to rationalize why the government needs to pick my pocket to pay for his health insurance.  He’s also a small business owner − a CEO by function if not by name − who refuses to pay for the health insurance of his employees.  He doesn’t see the connection, the selfish bastard.

That’s not the only reason I don’t like him.  He also went out of his way to explain how his feels took precedence over my data as he was boorishly commanding me to alter how I did my job as a DoD data analyst during Dubya’s regime-change war but not − ironically − during Cuckold Bill’s regime-change wars.  There are other reasons besides.  He is every bit the soft-skulled dink that most idiot progressives are, and which I remind them of as often as possible.

In any event, I do feel bad for him.  Back in the mid nineties he was shacking up with his boyfriend when a Navy buddy of his asked a favor of him; both the Navy buddy and his wife knew my brother was gay and shacking up.

It seems that this Navy buddy’s oldest child, a mid-teen hellion, was uncontrollable in their home and wreaking havoc upon his younger siblings.  The Navy buddy and his wife decided it would be best for the entire family if the hellion stayed someplace else for a while.  So my brother, not merely a soft-skulled dink, but also a soft-hearted schmuck, went for it.  The teen moved into my brother’s home.

Some time in the next few days, ostensibly to watch television, the hellion got up in the middle of the night, walked to my brother’s bedroom door, opened it, and watched − apparently for quite a while − as my brother and his boyfriend did what two homosexuals do when they are in bed together.

The next day, the hellion called his mother and said, “Guess what?

The police arrived and arrested my brother.  The hellion’s mother, as so many mothers do when seeking to explain the behavior of their children away from themselves or their child’s innate personality flaws, insisted that the live sex show was the reason for the long history of the teen hellion’s sociopathy.  She pressed criminal charges.

On advice of counsel, my brother pleaded hoping that the judge would see that, first, what the kid saw was his own doing, and second, that it had no bearing on the kid’s long history of being a pain in everyone else’s ass, and third, people need to have some sort of expectation of privacy when a “victim” goes out of his way to be a victim.

Not so.  My brother was sentenced to what was, at the time and location, the upper end of punishment for performing lewd acts in front of a minor, even though the minor’s presence was unknown until well after the arrest, and brought on by the minor himself.  My brother served some amount of time in prison − I forget how much exactly − in the cell block devoted to homosexuals and sex offenders.  He can’t vote or own a gun.

It was roughly a decade later, maybe more, in the spate of sniffling piety surrounding “sex offenders”, that my brother − like all “sex offenders” in state after state after state − was required to register as a sex offender.  Naturally, this was so everyone else could be aware that he was spied on by a bratty kid.  Or, wait, the “spied on by a bratty kid” thing isn’t mentioned.  All that’s mentioned is “sex offender”.

Libertarians should have several problems with this.  Libertarians recognize that the power of the government to punish people for what is defined as a crime is limited by a number of factors.  First, of course: does the government have the authority in the first place to define a specific action as criminal.  Lewd conduct, i.e., having sex, is not criminal in and of itself.  To the degree it might be, it entirely depends on circumstances.

…which is the next limitation on the government: circumstantial: did the person accused of the lewd act knowingly and deliberately have sex in front of the minor?  There has to be a distinction made between a couple whose kids walk in on them in flagrante delicto, and the couple which says, “Hey kids! Wanna see where you came from?”  If there isn’t a distinction, then the government is called tyranny, or, in modern parlance: fascism.

The next limitation on government power is Due Process.  Does the law criminalizing specific circumstances contain the specific punishments that were meted out, at the time they were meted?  If not, then it violates Due Process and the government is not permitted to do it.

Are additional punishments added onto the pile years or decades after original sentencing?  If so, that violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws.

Are the penalties for the specific crime disproportionate to the offense?  Then it violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

As libertarians, we know these things − or we’re supposed to.  There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people across the country accused of, and convicted of, “sex crimes” where there was no sex, and the act was not particularly criminal … especially in a society which was defined to be free.  In some cases there is no conviction, but a person is punished just the same.  They are subjected to administrative barriers, and the lifelong attendant consequences of them, erected by unelected bureaucrats − the Deep State swamp we hear so much of today.

Who of the following are considered "sex offenders" in the United States today − multiple answers are allowed:
a] the girl in kindergarten who hugged a classmate
b] the pimply 19 year old dungeon master who raped his 3 year old neighbor
c] the 8 year old fourth grader who noted that his teacher has a nice ass and lusciously jiggly tits
d] the creepy uncle who felt up his pre-pubescent nieces on both sides of the family
e] the frat brother who had too much beer and was seen relieving himself behind the bushes
f] the couple who were seen copulating in their own home by neighborhood kids looking in their windows
g] the 19 year old guy who knocked up his 16 year old girlfriend
h] the 15 year old girl who sexted her 17 year old boyfriend a nude selfie
i] the 17 year old boyfriend who saw that nude selfie

This was a trick question; the answer is “yes”.  All of these people, and many many many more, are considered “sex offenders” in the United States.  Depending on circumstances, all of these are also considered “child sex offenders” − a sex offender who victimizes a child − as well.

The 4th grader who develops a crush on his teacher and says so, is not necessarily a child sex offender … unless he makes his confession to other children in graphic-enough detail.

The frat brother who whizzes behind the bushes isn’t necessarily a child sex offender, either, unless one of those who sees him is a 17 year old sorority pledge.  Then he is.

And the kindergarten girl who hugs her classmate will, as we’ve seen multiple times under the modern Zero Tolerance insanity, be arrested for it but there will be no trial.  Her punishment may, though, include expulsion.  When her parents attempt to enroll her in another public school, her prior expulsion is forwarded to her new school, and that − under Zero Tolerance psychosis − is enough to deny enrollment.  The government has effectively fucked this girl for life, but just try arresting the government for a child sex crime.

Libertarians are opposed, by philosophical temperament, to all of these conditions carrying criminal credentials with the exception of b and d − raping little girls and molesting others.

Libertarians are opposed, by philosophical temperament, to [e.g.,]the penalties for being seen whizzing in the bushes − by anyone − being identical to the penalties for raping little girls.

Libertarians are opposed, by philosophical temperament, to additional penalties being added onto an already-adjudicated criminal case, years or decades after the fact.

Libertarians are opposed, by philosophical temperament, to the government using raging non-differentiation between individual actions, and to the government’s anti-Due Process and pro-ex post facto proceduralism, and to the sentimentalist foppery of popular feels to add yet another punishment upon those who should never have been punished at all.

And libertarians are opposed, by philosophical temperament, to the academic conceit required to rationalize why dragging along hundreds of thousands of non-sex offenders is perfectly fine when a few actual sex offenders are caught.

If you can’t insist that the government recognize the difference between boyhood crushes, innocent affection, consensual teen-aged lust, invasion of privacy at the most private times, public urination, and techno-stupidity on the one hand … and child rape on the other, then you are not even marginally a libertarian.

That is the answer.  The government’s power is severely limited for a reason.  I shouldn’t have to be the only one who can remember that.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Odd Time to Be Acting Libertarian

Odd Time to Be Acting Libertarian
©2017  Ross Williams

The object of libertarian personality cult adoration was smacked in the head, blindsided, in his own home, by a neighbor, a fellow doctor.  Yes, Rand Paul, the non-libertarian libertarians love to claim is a libertarian was assaulted!  The reasons were undisclosed.  Probably some HOA spat about whose lawn in their gated community isn’t being mowed often enough, or who needs to put white-backed curtains in their kitchen windows the most.

The social libertarian media has been on fire − veritably a-twitter − ever since the incident.   Libertarians have been crawling out of their skin to rush to his defense.  Invariably, these libertarians cite the Non-Aggression Principle, the holy NAP, in doing so.

The holy NAP does indeed support the urge.  As I’ve mentioned before, “non-aggression” permits force to be used in self-defense or in the defense of others.  Rand Paul is an ‘other’, in this case, and libertarians are justified in using force to defend him.

How much force is truly needed to defend against a rather feeble pensioner doctor is anybody’s guess, and my guess would be not much.  But who knows, I may be very wrong.  What I do know is that it would be very very unwise for any, let alone the thousands who have volunteered, to go rushing off to Bowling Green Kentucky to patrol the perimeter of Paul’s manse. 

Aside from the logistical nightmare involved, there is the matter of trampling Rand’s begonias, wearing paths into his bluegrass sodded landscaping that will be filled in the spring with dandelions and mouse-ear chickweed, and the motion-detecting flood lights clicking on and off all night long around the neighborhood raising further breach-of-HOA rules for him to contend with.  And that’s not even to consider the most likely event that he doesn’t want anyone there to begin with.

…nor do the cops.

…nor does the Secret Service detail.

It would just be a mess.  Leave it alone.

But yes, the actual wording of the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle does indeed justify rushing to his defense.  The wisdom of rushing to his defense is a separate issue entirely.

It is this Justification versus Wisdom problem that I’ve brought up multiple times in other circumstances to mostly hoots of pacifist outrage from pseudo-libertarians.  Yet, here we are, in the exact same academic position but with vastly different biasing data, and the political philosophy tables seem to be turned.

Why is it permissible under the holy NAP to rush to the aid of Rand Paul after he is assaulted, but it is not permissible to rush to the aid of the Kurds? or the Nigerian government? or any number of other people or sovereign systems being attacked by others?

Why does defense of others not count as NAP-permitted defense of others when the defense is accomplished by sovereign force? by our sovereign force?  For that matter, why does self-defense not constitute NAP-allowed self-defense when it is the self-defense of our sovereign entity against events recognized by International Law as acts of war?

The Non-Aggression Principle says what it says.  In myriad circumstances, large and small, the NAP justifies the United States taking forceful, military action around the world.  That answer isn’t going to change because libertarians don’t understand the geopolitics involved, or have been brainwashed by two generations of hair-shirted self-loathing as instructed by public schools and popular media.

The NAP justifies military force be taken by the United States under a wide array of current circumstances.  That cannot be rationally argued.

What can be argued is the wisdom of doing it.  But − as I’ve pointed out repeatedly − before one can argue wisdom, one must first have more than an infantile comprehension of the subject matter.  I’ve run across only a handful of libertarians who know more about the subjects of geopolitics and military doctrine, foreign affairs and International Law, than can be stuffed into a gnat’s navel.  Hence they perpetually fall back into the only argument they can make with conviction: It violates the NAP.

Yet it doesn’t.

Here’s the thing: if it violates the NAP for the US to rush to the defense of the Nigerian government being besieged by Boko Haram, or the Philippine government beset by Abu Sayyaf [et al], then it violates the NAP to rush to the aid of Rand Paul who got clocked by his neighbor.  Just like there is no invisible ink addenda in the 4th Amendment justifying warrantless government searches at airports if a large part of the American people are terrified of idiots trying to light their farts in an aisle seat, there is also no invisible ink addenda in the Non-Aggression Principle distinguishing between personal and sovereign force.  Nor between the object of political Personality Cult affection and anonymous people half a world away.

Apply your principles evenly, or don’t claim to have them.  Self-serving hypocrisy reeks too much of Other Peoples Politics.  It should be beneath us.

Friday, October 20, 2017

I am Shocked − SHOCKED

I am Shocked − SHOCKED
©2017  Ross Williams

I can’t possibly be the only one thoroughly unmoved by the sudden outrage over Harvey Weinstein.  Can I?

It’s not like this is unprecedented or unpredictable.  Hollywood has had a casting couch since before they married picture to sound.  Marilyn Monroe, after her major break in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, commented “That’s the last cock I’ll have to suck.”

The reality is people with power or status − in any aspect of life − are going to leverage that power and status for what it can get them.  In many cases, the commodity leveraged is sex.  While rude and boorish it’s not typically illegal.  Even when it violates some law a government has crafted, a libertarian would blanch at the imposition.  If Norma Jean Baker believes a series of hummers to post-war Hollywood execs is a fair trade for her transition to Marilyn Monroe, what business does the government have in nixing the deal?

At the end of the day, hell, at the crack of dawn of the day, Harvey Weinstein is as prosaic as they come.  He’s got movie roles for actresses, actresses have roles to perform for him.  I’ll concede that most of the roles discussed to date are puzzling for their trite fetishism, but still.  Don’t like the trade-off? stick to theater.  If you still want to get into movies and television, do it like Bebe Neuwirth: work for it.  Work hard.  Be like Bebe.

More puzzling than Weinstein handing out favors to budding thespians willing to watch him shower, though, is the pious responses from the sheltered ninnies who insist on publicizing their naiveté.  Among the more facile comes from a numbskull victimologist named Barbara Boland, who claims that many women making the same accusa … well, let’s go with her exact words: “the fact that so many women have accused him over so long a period of time makes their stories more believable.”

Really?  Does that logic also work with accounts of alien abduction, and visits from the Virgin Mary?  They are remarkably uniform as well, spanning even more years than Weinstein. That creates credibility?  Seriously?

What reason would they have to lie?” she implores, with all the feels of a college campus date-rape activist.  Oh, I dunno: fame, validation, basking in the glow of reflected glory, to cite Homer Simpson.  Revenge − personal or ideological, either one.  There’s four reasons, all endemic to the human psyche, and virtually unarguable.

I’m somebody!  I got pressured into watching a troll suds up his cojones just so I could read for a part that I didn’t get; give me another shot…”  Aww.  Poor dear.

While I have zero doubt that Harvey is a manipulative cad who did all − and more than − he’s being accused of, I also have zero doubt that there is a more or less large amount of concurrent piling-on.  Embellishment and outright fabrication.  Ditto altar boys about their catholic priests, ditto sweater geeks upon Bill Cosby, ditto every rock-n-roll bimbo groupie over the sexy front man who filled his trailer with booze, barbs and bimbos after the concert.  The reason I say this is because people are always going to be people.  It’s in their nature.

It is grossly naïve to believe that Weinstein is the only asshole in this equation.  Those who think he is are apparently unfamiliar with the human race.  And, well, to those: welcome to Earth, guys.  Can you shed some light on the whole alien abduction thing?  Barbara Boland needs to know; she has another victim group to champion.

As intellectually offensive as Boland’s fatuous credulity is, the truly loathsome responses come in the form of faux piety from Hollywood and the national democrat party insiders.  Those who knew, from Day One thirty years ago, what kind of bounder Harvey Weinstein was, who winked and nodded through it all, and who only chose this moment to get weepy and righteous about it.

They’re all playing a very poor rendition of Claude Rains’ Captain Renault.  They are shocked − shocked − to learn that Weinstein is a compulsive and serial defiler.

They didn’t give a damn when it was merely their friends and co-stars being mauled.  They couldn’t care less when he fundraised their political campaigns.  It only mattered when their silent complicity became evident and they were taking a share of the blame.  From that moment on, they signaled their virtue with the same single-minded ferocity of the telegrapher on the Titanic.


Save Our Sycophantia. 

Sunday, October 08, 2017

The Accidental Libertarian

The Accidental Libertarian
− or −
Not Looking a Gift Horse’s Ass in the Mouth
©2017  Ross Williams

As a libertarian, I rate politicians and political policy on one criterion: What is the politician doing, what does the policy do, to reverse past power abuses and bring them back into line with strict Constitutional limitations of government power?  I don’t care which party creates the policy.  I don’t care whether the politician is bombastic, a buffoon or a boor.  Those are completely irrelevant.  This is politics; I’m not screening guests for a dinner party.

Needless to say, for the last several presidential administrations I have been extremely disappointed. …in both the presidents we’ve collected and their concurrent Congresses.  Congress has passed a bazillion laws which grasp political power not defined to belong to the government, and the president has [mostly] faithfully enforced those laws.  Oh, sure, the party out of power would raise tear-stained, and sometimes panty-wetting, objections to those laws, but one administration later the critics of those laws would take the White House and wield the new law like a cudgel.

Example? Sure:
Republicans abhorred Obamacare − the thoroughly misnamed “affordable” “care” act, which gives neither.  And when they had a majority in Congress from 2011 to 2016 while its namesake was in the leather chair, they voted to repeal it and the horse it rode in on multiple times.  Barry Hussein slapped a veto on it with the speed of a lightning bolt.  But when a president gets elected who would not veto a repeal, republicans are suddenly pondering the political uses an all-controlling mandatory health statute, and the nearly infinite regulatory power, it gives them.

Need another? Fine:
Democrats detested the imperial powers given to the executive branch in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, despite them being complicit in it.  They woke up a few months after their swoon of unitary patriotism to discover they’d created a RealID Act to be administered by the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security.  The Dubya administration used the eVerify portion of it to ensure that only Americans or foreigners with properly forged paperwork could work for defense contractors.  Barry Hussein got elected by 50 million people who complained about RealID, and suddenly eVerify was a universal requirement.  Die dokumenten, Mein Herr!

Need a third? Great:
Democrats staged multiple public hissy fits over Dubya’s perceived and actual [but mostly perceived] laxity in obtaining FISA warrants to gain intel through domestic espionage on a relatively small portion of Americans who made phone calls to terrorists.  Then Barry Hussein gets elected and orders his NSA to spy on, literally, millions of Americans, mostly those who were “the enemy” of other political parties, and sidestepping FISA courts altogether.  …which explains why Edward Snowden is in exile while Bradley Manning gets an effective do-over.

These are just a handful of the major examples.  Knowing the rest of the libertarian crowd, there will be another thousand examples of political hypocrisy, more or less worthy, added to the list within five minutes.  It’s what we do.

Needless to say, there hasn’t been a president since Reagan who acted in any material way to correct prior abuses of power by the government.  Until now.

Donnie Combover, our cheeto president, despite advocating power abuses of his own, has done more to restrict prior abuses of government power than all presidents since the Alzheimer Kid left office.  Combined … zero plus zero plus zero plus zero equals zero.  Period.  That answer isn’t going to change, and libertarians simply need to get over themselves about it.

Specifically, he has single-handedly cut around $100 billion dollars from the pocketbooks of regulatory agencies.  So what, you ask?  Good question … and thank you for paying attention.

A regulation is a rule invented by an executive branch hireling sitting under the healthful glow of fluorescent lights in a six-by-six cubicle in the basement of a government office building in the DC Beltway.  A regulation is a rule “with the weight of law”, according to federal courts.  None of these courts, to include the US Supreme Court, give any indication that they’ve ever read the US Constitution.  If they had, they’d immediately recognize that only Congress has the power to make laws; the executive branch may merely enforce them.

Oh! But!” the quibbledicks will chime in, “Congress did make the law.  They made the law that gave the power to invent regulations to a specific cabinet-level department of the executive branch.  And by inventing regulations, that agency is enforcing the law!”  Ah, yes, falling back on the old Abdication of Legislative Authority Clause found in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.  Or … wait … there is no such clause, and Congress doesn’t have the legitimate power to punt.  Even if the courts say they do.

So the hireling, glowing pale green from his fluorescent tan, writes a rule “with the weight of law”, and kicks it upstairs to the suits in his agency to enforce.  The suits then march around the nation and enforce the regulation.  And those accused of violating the regulation will have their day in court, where the evidence of their non-compliance will be aired, they’ll get to defend themselves, and a jury picks the winner … right?


Regulatory enforcement is not law enforcement.  Under law enforcement, an accused is “innocent until proven guilty”, according to the bumper stickers.  The evidence of his guilt is brought out, he gets to rebut that evidence, and a jury decides.  Under law enforcement, the government has the burden of proof.

Under regulatory enforcement, the accused is guilty until he proves himself innocent.  The actual law behind the regulation was written for the regulatory agency; that agency is complying with the law, and they’ve decided that you have interfered with their compliance.  Under regulatory enforcement, the citizen has the burden of proof.  And because a jury is the privilege of the defendant − in this case, the regulatory agency accused of improperly complying with the law giving them regulatory power − the government would be stupid to request a jury. They are perfectly happy with the Administrative Law judge, one of their own, making the ruling himself.

While you are tilting this windmill, please keep in mind that the regulatory agency has at its disposal several hundred billion dollars with which to employ a fleet of on-staff loyyers all extremely knowledgeable of the regulation in question and the zillion legal maneuvers invented to cause delay and rack up Billable Hours of all other loyyers. …by which I mean, the loyyer you hired to take on the federal regulatory agency which has seized your home because you have a pond frequented by a migrating mosquito, or because you gave a pail of your cow’s fresh milk to a neighbor while you were all snowed in for three days.  You are simply going to run out of money first and the government will win by default.  Government almost never loses a challenge to their regulatory enforcement.

I don’t think I need to remind anyone that this “guilty until proven innocent” paradigm is the historical standard by which all governments operate, and against which we revolted in the first place.  “He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”.  Anyone?  Bueller?

This is tyranny, the old-fashioned word that has been effectively replaced by “fascism”.  All-powerful central government doing what it wants, when it wants, because it wants.  This method of governance is arguably the most anti-libertarian you can get, and should be the primary target of libertarian ire, even over gun rights.  A government that doesn’t abuse its power doesn’t need to be defended against.  Under regulatory enforcement, there is no Due Process to get in the way.  All the process that is considered due has already been served by the government itself.  Convenient, no?

President Cheeto has provided a hundred billion dollar dent in this machine.  This is not inconsiderable.  Depending on how the departments wish to divvy up their dwindling funds, either creation of new rules is hindered, or the enforcement of old rules will be curtailed.  Or both.  There is a reason the Deep State swamp of Beltway Bureaucracy loathes Donnie Combover.  He stated an intention of impeding their ability to exercise power with virtually impunity, and he’s actually taking actions toward that end.  The first time in over a generation.

Not enough action?  Perhaps.  Is he only impeding those regulatory agencies that run afoul of his political priorities?  Duh.  Both just like Reagan, for what it’s worth.

Look, the guy isn’t Calvin Coolidge.  Libertarians must take what they can get when they can get it.  We’ve been handed a gift from an unlikely source, a gift we all need.  Pretend you have manners; say thank you.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Stand and Deliver

Stand and Deliver
©2017  Ross Williams

The last time I stood for the National Anathema was − as near as I can recall − somewhere back in the early Eighties.  It was against my will; I was in the Air Force, and many things I did then were against my will.  Haircuts, corframs … corfams?  Whatever they were.  Those artificially shiny plastic shoes that alleviated the mission-critical procedure of shining ones shoes to satisfy the dress code.

My beef with the National Anathema goes well beyond forced artificial patriotism, though.  It is a horrendous song combining a pretentious and maliciously self-congratulatory poem with a hideous melody spanning nearly two full octaves.  It can only be sung well by a trained vocalist and is otherwise only seriously attempted by the sufficiently inebriated.  …which is fitting, as the melody was lifted, outright, from a London drinking club’s arsenal of tunes to be besotted by.

The poem itself describes a battle the US lost in a war the US never won a single battle until three weeks after the war ended.  Thank you, Old Hickory.  But somehow, because the flag still remained atop the standard over Fort McHenry on the shores of the Chesapeake, it comprised a moral victory against the juggernaut Limeys.  What is less widely publicized is that the fort’s survivors were holed up in the basement and didn’t want to risk dismemberment to stop the shelling by taking the damned thing down.

Since the end of Reagan’s first term when I left the service, I cannot remember standing for the National Anathema a single time.  I quite possibly did, no doubt to be polite, but I do not remember.  I usually find some excuse to be off doing something else whenever the thing would start gearing up for its interminability.  Buying beer, returning the previous beer to the sewer … something.

It should come as no surprise, then, that I don’t particularly have an issue with people who don’t want to stand for the National Anathema.  I’m with ya! 

I don’t care why they don’t.  I don’t even really have an issue if those people are over-paid, self-pitying attention-whores trying to signal their virtue with more or less deliberate dishonesty.  Or ignorance.  Or hypocrisy.

It all started with Colin Kaepernick two years ago refusing to honor the flag because the country behind it, specifically the country’s cops, kill too many certain people coincidentally and superficially like himself.  No, not over-paid, third-rate NFL quarterbacks with a chip on their shoulder so large that it would alter the planet’s rotation if it fell.  Blacks; what most people currently euphemize to “African-Americans”.

Here’s a hint: Barry Hussein’s father was an African-American.  Barry is not.  He’s a mixed-race American mutt who should have been − but pointedly was not − happy and proud of the fact.  Colin Kaepernick is also not African-American.  He’s a black kid who was adopted by a wealthy white family as an infant and learned all he ever knew about black culture from watching Fresh Prince.  He reeks of white privilege, moreso than virtually all whites not named Trump.

But many blacks, Kaepernick whines, are killed by cops.  And this is racist.  Somehow.  What he fails to mention is it’s nearly always while committing crimes.

The fact that whites are killed by cops three times more often than blacks − also nearly always while committing crimes − rarely manages to get aired.  And when it does, it’s uniformly excused by pointing out that whites outnumber blacks by five-to-one, so the ratio shows a 1.67::1 bias in favor of cops shooting blacks than whites.

Yet, when someone points out that blacks are four times more likely to be involved in felonious activity than whites, thus erasing − and then some − the racial bias so critical to the agenda of those whose social conscience still has not emerged from the 1950s … well… math, we are told by the Progressive Ninny, is an indispensible tool of the modern racistsexisthomophobe.  Not enough feels.  Objectivity is so … objectifying.

The spreading anti-standing stand has departed from Kaepernick’s stilted and mealy-mouthed position by insisting it’s not a protest against the flag, as such, nor even the National Anathema, nor the military, nor our cops.  It is a silent protest, now on bended knee, to raise awareness.

Awareness of what?  That blacks are four times more likely to be committing crimes than whites, but less likely to be shot for doing so.  Apparently.  Because that is the mathematical reality of it.

However, the point that almost a thousand Americans of any and all races a year are killed by a cop’s gun is a worthy issue to raise awareness of.  There are simply too many laws in our free society with a government defined to have almost no power to get bossy and authoritarian, justifying too many interactions between cops and citizens.  That issue, though, isn’t being raised by the self-pitying attention-whores.

Indeed, removing certain of those inappropriate laws would disproportionately free blacks from interaction with cops, and thus disproportionately reducing even further their chances of getting killed for it.  It would probably greatly expand the opportunity, at least in the short-term, for more blacks being killed by other blacks − which already dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, the figure for Death By Cop.  This is also another worthy issue to be raising awareness of that is not even on the radar of pampered, over-paid, self-pitying attention-whores.

What we’re left with is a group of rich, privileged, black athletes protesting something, but not what anyone thinks they’re protesting.   Furthermore, they’re being paid to pout, ultimately, by their fans who are mostly of a straight-line sentimentality between symbol and reality.  These people see over-paid, self-pitying attention-whores kneeling during the National Anathema and they conclude they don’t love the country.  It’s what they see, and they won’t see anything else anytime soon.  Whether it’s true or not − just like whether it’s true that cops kill more blacks than whites or not − is irrelevant.

It’s the exact same phenomenon as all the black protesters in St Louis willfully refusing to see that the latest black martyr was anything but a career criminal who attempted to murder a cop with his car.  Even if the cop deserved it [and chances are good he did] there’s too many feels involved for reality to matter.

When fans pay large sums of money for tickets, and obscene amounts of money for what passes for American beer, just to get their own personal feels insulted by over-paid, self-pitying attention-whores, they’re soon going to stop paying that money.  Attendance at NFL games is down, for the second year in a row.  Television ratings are tanking, and commercial sponsors are losing their shirts.  It won’t be long before NFL salaries come down simply because there’s less ticket and sponsor money to sustain the current wage scale.

Rule number one of marketing: know your audience.  The audience for the NFL is the simple, straight-forward schlub male.  He probably voted for Trump.  The audience for the over-paid, self-pitying attention-whore is the Progressive Ninny who likely wouldn’t watch a pro football game on a dare.  Somebody hasn’t done their market research, and it’s not the fans.

The libertarian sees all this as a wonderful exercise in First Amendment protest.  Millionaire athletes are protesting something that doesn’t affect them, is the wrong issue besides, and insults their fanbase while doing so. The fanbase protests right back by finding something else to do on Sunday afternoons, offending the Progressive Ninny in the process.  The Progressive Ninny protests fans’ subtle racism and spurs on the millionaire athletes to double down.

What marvelous fun.  I’d pause to ponder where it will all end, but merry-go-rounds are notoriously predictable.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Once More Into the Breach

Once More Into the Breach
©2017  Ross Williams

I’ve written versions of this essay for − literally − decades.  Predating the War in Afghanistan, the entirely notional War Against Terrorism, and 9-11.  War is a problematic thing.  There are a zillion ways to fight wars stupidly and ineffectively, only a few ways to fight them properly.  US foreign policy has embarked on a Master Plan, transcending party, to fight wars stupidly and ineffectively.  We’ve been doing this for decades, hence my essays.

Stupid, ineffective wars should not be the calling card of the world’s and history’s most potent military force, but alas it is.  At this writing of the same old essay, we’ve been notably militarily involved in:
  • ·         Iraq [Barry Hussein] for 4 years,
  • ·         Libya [Barry Hussein] for 5 years,
  • ·         Syria [Barry Hussein] for 5 years, and
  • ·         Afghanistan [Dubya] for 16 years.

I’ve deliberately excluded the dozen or so myriad smaller on-going military engagements that almost no one knows about.  We don’t need to wrap ourselves around the axle of what constitutes a real military engagement.  We have quite enough to discuss without the side-show.

Quibbledicks will note I’ve assigned Iraq to Barry Hussein when they believe it should belong to Dubya.  Dubya did indeed have an Iraq of his own as did Daddy H-Dub, but I will remind everyone that Barry Hussein notoriously extricated us from Dubya’s Iraq, and then almost immediately reinserted US military might into the power vacuum that had been filled by ISIS … the inevitable and predictable consequence of our evacuation in the first place.

…at least I predicted it, back in ‘04/’05.  But power vacuums are not necessarily a bad thing; it keeps an enemy fighting among itself.

The one aspect of this that is most incredible to casual observers − and everyone who does not comprehend military doctrine is a casual observer − and virtually all libertarians fail to comprehend military doctrine − is the staggering length of these military engagements.  How can the children of our first-deployed troops to Afghanistan be nearing the age where they can, themselves, be deployed to Afghanistan?  Aren’t we the world’s most potent military power?  Is this still our daddy’s war?

As one of the few libertarians who actually understand military doctrine, I have to admit that these are good questions.

The answer, of course, as I said above, is that we are fighting wars, as a nation, very very stupidly, abandoning all semblance of comprehension of military doctrine.

Military doctrine is the collected wisdom, the best-practices, of ten thousand years of human civilization’s experience in fighting among itself.  Some things help you fight better, others don’t.  A war that lasts for sixteen years, in this day and age, is being fought by someone very poorly.  That someone, with regard to the interminable presence in Afghanistan, is the United States and its NATO enablers.

The US and Europe are full of Generals who’ve studied the military tactics of European and American Generals.  They are very adept at European-style, set-piece warfare, where units are discreet, and can be represented − chess board style − with markers on a terrain grid or a grease pen on a glass panel, and tallied in a spreadsheet.  Such wars are won by overwhelming force shattering enemy units, rendering their unit effectiveness to zero.  When enough units are rendered ineffective and cannot be replaced by new units, the sovereign government employing those shattered units becomes politically defenseless and it loses the war.  This is the Order of Battle preferred by those who fight wars by spreadsheet.  It is also preferred by those who design wars for computer games.

The only problem with this, though, is that neither Afghanistan, nor its spreading cohort of War Against Terrorism cousins, is a European-style, set-piece war.  US Generals need to put away the spreadsheets, drop the grease pens, and put the chess pieces on the shelf.  They need to read the next chapters of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz and learn to see beyond the next tactical military objective.  Traditional military objectives are beyond worthless.

Unit effectiveness is irrelevant in this enemy.  Shattering the unit is pointless.  There is no sovereign state behind it that cares about adequate defenses of its perimeter; it has no perimeter.  The world is its perimeter.  We cannot outflank the world.  We can only kick its ass.

A US/European-style war would require that we obliterate the population fueling the war in order to impose on it a political loss.  That population is, of course, islamism.  The relevant fact about islamism is that it encompasses the entire muslim religion.  I don’t want to hear that “only a few muslims are true islamists”.  While superficially true, it is wholly irrelevant.  People who spout that nonsense are willfully ignorant, determinedly suicidal, and willing to take the rest of us to a premature grave for their ignorant idealism.  They are as self-deceptive in their own right as our Generals are.

I’m willing to accept that only a small portion of the muslim people are, at any given time, active islamist participants in islamist paramilitarism − what we, in false piety, call terrorism.  But the rest of the muslim population consists of those who support the philosophy of islamist paramilitarism, or have been forced into silent complicity with islamist paramilitarism out of fear.  There is virtually no meaningful dissent; dissenters − and their families − are beheaded.

Yabbut… yabbut… we didn’t tolerate dissent during, say, World War Two!!  It’s the same thing!!”  False.  We fight European-style, set-piece wars, which are not the same thing.  If you want to figure out why our wars are being fought stupidly by our Generals with misplaced preconceived notions about the enemy they’re fighting then you, as critics of those wars, have to drop your preconceived notions about that enemy as well.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that European-style, set-piece warfare does not, and will not, work against a determined non-European-style enemy because they refuse to acknowledge political defeat as a necessary consequence of military defeat.  That answer isn’t going to change until the enemy changes.  The enemy isn’t going to change any time soon.  Sixteen years of Afghan war is all the proof anyone should need.  Get used to it.

Overwhelming battlefield force for the purpose of imposing political acknowledgement of military defeat will. Not. Work.  Yet that is the battle plan embarked upon in 2001, renewed a few years later, renewed once again by Barry Hussein, and renewed yet again last week by Donnie Combover.  The general consensus of US and NATO Generals, highly adept at European-style warfare, pointed us in this direction.  If only we can take one more hill and deny the enemy another piece of tactically advantageous terrain they’ll realize the futility of their plight and stop fighting …

Yeah-h-h-h… not gonna happen.

This enemy does not care about dead or crippled soldiers − not even their own.  This enemy does not care about territorial gains or losses.  This enemy fights for the sake of fighting.  It is, to them, a holy war.  If only there were a word for it, … like jihad or something.  Even then it would be useless when trying to explain to westerners saturated in the European-style, set-piece warfare model; even critics of this paradigm believe military defeat imposes necessary political consequences, and they will not abandon this belief even as it fails to happen.

There are valid reasons for embarking on war against those who have declared us their enemy and are actively attacking us.  But when they don’t fight wars the way we do, the only way to defeat them is to fight wars the way they do.  We should be smart enough to adapt, yet we absolutely refuse to do so.  We do not need to mirror the underlying ideology and adopt a similar self-righteous theo-fascism, but we need to stop playing our weaknesses into their strengths.

Our weakness is the belief that a militarily defeated enemy is also politically defeated.  Sixteen years of Afghanistan, eight or nine years of Dubya’s version of Iraq, and hell, even the entire Vietnam war are proof to the contrary.  Every single one of these is a string of almost exclusive military victories for The Good Guys® [yes, even Tet]and look what became of the politics.

When we militarily defeat an enemy we assume their acknowledgement of consequential political defeat, and our impulse is to stick around, help them up, wipe off the blood and dust, repair their schools, hospitals, roads and churches, and show ourselves to be gracious in victory.  This is what we did for nazi Germany and imperial Japan.  Yet when we try these things on an enemy which does not concede political defeat, we do little more than paint targets on our own backs and we wonder why our previous enemy does not understand that the war is over.

The answer is trivially simple: the war is not over.  We did not attain the political victory that we believe we got; we simply racked up a series of likely lopsided military wins.

Our strength is military force.  We are very capable of rapidly moving in, kicking an enemy’s ass, leaving him with dead bodies and broken infrastructure.  If we are to engage the enemy we insist on engaging because they insist on engaging us, and do so effectively, we must use our strength and abandon our weakness.

If we are to embark on a generalized War Against Terrorism, then the long-term strategy must be to take military action to our enemy, overwhelm that enemy on his field, and immediately leave and come home.  Overwhelming military victory takes about six months, give or take.  Leave the dead bodies where they are.  Leave the destroyed schools and hospitals in broken chunks.  That’s now their problem.

If they persist in continuing hostilities, take another six months to go kick their ass again.  A series of six month wars spaced several years apart will be far less costly than a single war decades long against an enemy which does not play our game.

The alternative is to allow them to use our weakness against us in the form of perpetually dodging IEDs, trillions of dollars in ongoing and recurring cost of re-establishing foreign infrastructure − that they are more than willing to destroy out from under themselves, and multiple generations of our soldiers lost to the same military adventure.  This is what we’ve been doing, and it doesn’t work.

The other alternative is to permit them to make our field the terrain for their war.  This is what Europe is beginning to allow.

I’ve said it multiple times in multiple ways over the past decades: if you’re going to play war, do it properly.  Properly is what works; properly is not what is palatable enough for your conscience to live with.  Conscience is irrelevant in war.

If you are unwilling to play war and play it properly, for any reason, including having a conscience that you cannot avoid, then stay completely out of it.  But if the enemy thinks you are his enemy regardless − as this enemy has said countless times and repeatedly shown himself willing to act upon, even before “we turned them all into terrorists” − then be prepared to lose your life, nation and liberty.  You can keep the cold comfort of a conscience in the grave.