I have recently seen the revival of an absurd old paranoia from the 60's and 70's, the idea that a cabal of arms manufacturers and others is conspiring to push governments into wars to help their bottom line. Given supposed respectability by being dubbed the "military industrial complex" in the 70's, it has largely been ignored during the 90's, but this conspiracy theory is seeing a new revival. First, of course, was the Halliburton theory, that Halliburton drove us to war to make money. Then a number of works of fiction started to appear centering on international arms makers driving nations to war. And now I see posters on the political left arguing that McCain is being financed by arms manufacturers who want to drive us into a new cold war with Russia.

This is just absurd. I cannot say it more clearly. It is paranoia of the first order. It is sickening that anyone even takes it seriously. It is as bizarre as claiming doctors are out there spreading disease to improve their bottom line, or that Ruger subsidizes criminals to sell more guns for home defense.

Let us start with the obvious. The claim is that arms dealers make money by war, so they would have an interest in starting wars. But is that true?

Well, yes, in a way. But it is true of almost every profession, they make money by solving a problem, so they could make more money by creating that problem. Doctors could spread disease to improve their bottom line. mechanics could make money by going out and sabotaging cars. Contractors could burn down houses to increase their demand. However, because a problem would increase demand, it does not logically follow that companies are covertly causing the problem. Does anyone believe the Mayo clinic is hiding radium in people's homes to drum up new cancer cases? Then why give this absurd story the time of day?

Second, who says war is good for the bottom line of arms manufacturers? Most often in wartime, industry is nationalized and the manufacturers' profits are controlled by law. If the US were forced into a large scale war it would probably be bad for arms manufacturers, not good. Nor, conversely, has peace been bad for arms merchants. Perhaps when Clinton tried to spend the supposed "peace dividend" it was not the best time to be a supplier to the US army, but other than that, contractors, manufacturers and R&D firms have done quite well for themselves in peace time. It isn't as if weapons are not bought and new arms developed in peace time. There is plenty of money for manufacturers during peace, they hardly need a war to make money.

Lastly, it isn't as if there is ever a time there is  no war in the world. Arms dealers do not need to start wars, there is always a war without any outside pressure. If the arms dealers really need a war to make money, they will always have one. And it seems unlikely any of those nations which find themselves at war would turn down a source of supply. So if the arms dealers are truly looking for a source of revenue, and need a war to get one, they should have no shortage of customers, even if they do nothing to inspire conflict.

So, why does this absurd lie continue to revive year after year?

Most likely it is because it combines the two great demons in the liberal universe, industry and the military. Look at Hollywood and ask yourself who are the villains in most movies. Either evil military men or evil businessmen, and this theory combines the two. Better yet, it has the allure of all conspiracy theories, providing a simple explanation for all the complexities of the world while at the same time giving believers the feeling they know something no one else does. That is the reason most buy into conspiracy theories, and this one is no different. Whether it is Zionists, the military industrial complex, illuminated masters from the hollow earth, neo-Nazi cabals, the Priory of Sion, or the Justified Ancients of Muu Muu, a conspiracy theory is at heart appealing because of both its reductionism and its elitism, those who could never understand the whole truth, and who will never join any kind of elect can do both with conspiracy theories. And that is their appeal, even when they are as patently absurd as this one.

POSTSCRIPT

The term "military industrial complex" comes from much earlier than the 1970's, but it wasn't until the 70's that it was used in the conspiratorial sense, rather than to describe something much less sinister.

UPDATE

I have written before about conspiracy theories. Rather than clutter this essay with links, I will simply post a list of the most relevant articles below:

Bill Clinton Murdered Leon Trotsky!
Dismissing Conspiracy Theories
Our New Paranoia
Isn't History Enough?
The Appeal of Conspiracy Theories
A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories
Absurdities on Oil

You can also read most of my recent posts on the scapegoating of oil speculators and "Big Oil", as that has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory as well.

I have been arguing since February that Obama's particular approach to the election, avoiding any specifics and allowing his vague statements to be interpreted as agreeing with any listener was destined to defeat him. Of course, I didn't expect anyone to believe me back then, as the media was hyping Obama's successes, and so long as he was preaching to the choir and didn't have to take any stands, it was hard to believe that he would get anything less than 75% of the vote. Now that he has had to change position repeatedly as he makes his way between appeals to the independents and suppressing rebellions among his far left base, many conservatives are starting to see that the Obama approach is failing, and that his defeat is likely. However, until recently it seemed Democrats, whether part of the Obama cult or not, were not ready to admit that Obama could lose.

However, I now have the first sign that Democrats, other than those crossing over in disgust at the way Hillary was driven from the race, have recognized that Obama is likely to lose. Of course, they cannot admit that their man will lose, they must continue to publicly repeat the party line that Obama is a sure thing, but I have unmistakable signs that at least some Democrats are expecting Obama to lose.

And what is this sign? They are preparing excuses.

For example, look at Jacob Weisberg's article in Slate. While he does not come out and say that he expects Obama to lose, he definitely expects it, and he has prepared the official excuse for such failure. As I predicted the excuse is racism. Weisberg, not content with justt hrowing about unfounded charges of racism, has come up with an elaborate story wherein every criticism of Obama is just a cover for racism. "Inexperience", it means "he's black". "Far left", that means "black" too. "Racist pastor", well clearly that means "black". In short, he has taken every valid argument against Obama and dismissed them, attributing all of them to racism.

While it is a good to see that there are some Democrats that aren't so besotted with Obama that they can recognize he might lose, this article is a bit disturbing. I can't recall an election in my lifetime where the excuse for loss was prepared ahead of time. It is as if in 1999 Gore sent out a memo saying "If we lose, it was because of the Florida ballot" or Kerry wrote in October "guess those Swift Boat fellows got me after all."

Still, I suppose it is a good thing, overall. At least it means there are some sane Democrats left. And more importantly, it means that even Democrats can see the momentum and have recognized that they missed their golden opportunity.

POSTSCRIPT

As I have mentioned before, certain ideas seem to pop up all over the web at the same time. Oddly enough, this essay provides a perfect example. I was checking out an old article on Obama when I decided to see what the author, Jennifer Rubin, had written recently. Amusingly enough, she has written an essay on almost the exact same topic today.

I wrote some time ago that, should Obama do very badly, it could easily dash Democrats' hopes for a sweep in congress, but now it is appearing that congress itself is getting into the act, trying to make sure that "sure thing" congressional elections go the way of the "sure thing" presidential election.

The first problem for the Democrats is, quite simply, that their presidential candidate is not performing. He started off strong, but he has taken a situation which should have given him an automatic 10 point lead, at least, and let his opponent overtake him. And all of that prior to even officially being nominated. He then picked a vice president who not only doesn't help him pick up any states, but is also notorious for verbal gaffes and peculiar ideas, and it seems unlikely he will be seeing his numbers improve any time soon.

All of which leaves congressional candidates in a bit of a quandary. Normally, they would use the publicity centered on their presidential contender to help their own races, riding on his national media coattails. But, as during the later Clinton years (and to a lesser extent in 2006)*, I have a feeling many congressional candidates will be asking that their candidate not bother to endorse them, for fear of tieing their future to his rapidly falling star. Of course, this has its own consequence, as seeing congressional candidate distance themselves from the presidential candidate harms his chances, but I have a feeling most congressional candidates will choose their own good over the good of the party and run from the Obama endorsement.

But, having foregone their candidate's endorsement, what are their odds? Well, the unpopular war against which they hoped to run is turning more popular as it becomes more and more successful, so that edge is fading fast. The efforts to link McCain to Bush seem to be failing, and as McCain's run becomes more visible, the appeal of Bush hatred is fading as well, so they can't rely on anger at Republicans for votes either. The economy isn't great, but it isn't getting any worse, and even the efforts of the media to sell it as an "ever worsening recession" don't seem to be convincing people, especially as numbers stop worsening and even start improving slightly.

Which leaves them with only one appeal, high fuel prices. And in that area, their own congressional compatriots are abandoning them. After loudly and very publicly telling voters "we won't drill, live with high prices", they then flip-flopped to say they might allow some drilling, maybe**, flipped back, and then left town. All of which has convinced voter that the Democrats much ballyhooed "energy solution" doesn't exist, and that they would rather score political points than solve any problems. And also, more to the point, has made it impossible for Democrats to run on the platform of solving high energy prices.

So, in the end, the Democrats' advantage has been reduced to pretty much an even race, right? Well, no.

You see, two years after riding to a majority in congress on their promises of reform, the Democrats have proven to be incredibly ineffective. Not just ineffective, but intentionally so. They have spent more time on nonbinding resolutions than laws. They have failed to pass any meaningful reforms, have even failed to pass a budget, and when it has come to important questions such as energy, they have simply obstructed any meaningful action, showing clearly that partisanship matters more than the good of the nation. Of course, this does not mean that any individual candidate will be the same, but to many voter the behavior of the party reflects on the individual candidate. So, at the moment, having a "D" after your name is not a benefit.

Which means this race will likely be something like the 2006 elections, but more so. If the Democrats pick up seats, they will be seats won by running against their own party. The winners will be conservative Democrats running by distancing themselves from Reid, Pelosi and Obama. The two big differences will be that Bush won't be an issue and the war will be much less of an issue. If McCain can get a bit of momentum and endorse a few particularly strong Republican challengers, it is possible the parties could break even in this congressional election.

It doesn't sound that impressive, but given the expected sweep, holding on to what they have will be quite a victory for Republicans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Granted Bush in 2006 and Clinton in 1998 were not candidates, but the use of presidential media is similar to the use of the media surrounding a presidential candidate, so the principle is the same.

** Actually, this is only true of some Democrats. Rather than develop a comprehensive party position during an election year, the Democrats have come out in favor of almost every position, but with only a handful supporting each position. It presents a very confused picture to the voter. Admittedly, this is normal behavior for congress, but in an election year Democrats are usually better at closing ranks. It is a sign of the weakness of both the DNC and Pelosi and Reid that the congressional delegation has not been more united.

It is interesting, while those on the left often blame greed for the ills of modern society, often when they attempt to accuse businesses of harmful practices, they actually describe schemes that would end up losing money. In other words, while they blame greed, the truth is greed would result in quite beneficial acts, while the acts they describe are completely at odds with the profit motive.

I noticed this while I was writing last night about the myth of slave traders allowing slaves to starve on long voyages and throwing bodies overboard. As I wrote then, that simply makes no sense. A slave represents an investment, and greed would dictate that one would exercise at least a minimal consideration for the slave's well being to prevent a loss of that investment.The much vilified greed actually serves to help preserve the slaves. In fact, slavery itself is evidence of the humanizing effects of greed. Where previously prisoners in warfare would be killed, once they had value as slaves, mass slaughter became a thing of the past. True, slavery is hardly a good thing, but compared to extermination it is a step in the right direction.

But the left doesn't seem to get this, they fail to understand that more often than not, greed pushes in the direction of better behavior rather than worse. Instead they blame greed while describing behavior which is actually the antithesis of greed.

For example, the popular image of the "evil speculator" is just absurd. They propose speculators who simply keep buying oil in order to "make prices rise". The technical problems with this description are manifold, but I will ignore those for now, and concentrate only on how greed would cause different, better behavior. Even if a speculator could drive up prices through his buying alone, what would he then do? In the theory of the left, he keeps buying to keep prices high. In reality, driven by greed, he would cash out by selling, causing prices to go down once more. And, in fact, that is how the class of speculators work in the real world, with the entire class of speculators following trends, rather than starting them. When prices are lower than expected, they buy and rive up prices, but then as prices rise they sell, causing prices to drop. Speculators tend to level out price spikes and reduce the price shocks caused by unexpected shortages or surpluses. Greed makes ht emarket mor epredictable and prices more consistent. But in the liberal mind speculators just buy and buy and buy, driving up prices but never cashing out. That is not greed, that is insane.

Or let us look at the oil companies themselves. The left believes the oil companies have millions of productive acres under lease, yet won't drill on them because they want to keep prices high. Now, there are some situations where an artificial shortage can benefit the producer, but in most cases that requires a very small market with few competitors, and that does not describe the oil market well at all. In most cases, as has been the lesson of the entire twentieth century, making a small profit on a huge volume is the path to fortune. Look at Ford and Rolls Royce. Or Walmart and Christian Dior. You can see the mass distributor tends to be much richer. The sale of expensive items is self limiting, while mass sales allows for almost infinite expansion. So, if the oil companies were truly greedy, they would be drilling everywhere they could. Sitting on those leases to drive up prices is simply cartoonish evil, not greed. (Of course, the truth is the leases are not of the nature described at all, and the left is completely misunderstanding the situation. But that is a topic for another essay.)

Or let us look at the banks which loaned money to poor credit risks. If we listen to the caricature painted by the left, they are enacting every silent movie villain stereotype short of tying someone's daughter to railroad tracks. The left thinks that somehow giving loans on inflated property values, then foreclosing on a house which has lost a quarter of its value is going to make these companies rich. To which I would reply, if that is so, why didn't falling housing prices make the owners rich? The truth is, the lenders were harmed as much as or more than the borrowers. Thanks to a combination of artificially low interest rates and bad government policies regarding lending, they gave a number of very risky loans to borrowers who should not have received them, and they now find themselves with non-performing loans and a lot of overvalued properties. That is a recipe for bankruptcy, not riches. Yet the left paints the granting of risky loans and the subsequent foreclosures as the result of bankers' greed. Somehow they think that collecting a lot of worthless properties and bankrupting a number of poor black families is all it takes to make banks rich.

For those who doubt this strange confusion about greed, I refer you to an old post of mine, talking about a comment critical of Phil Gramm. It reads in part:

At the same time Gramm, one of John McCain's top economic advisors, was helping McCain write his economic program and response to the housing industry mess, Gramm was also vice president and a paid lobbyist for UBS. He was once again advocating further deregulation of the financial industry for a company that has taken a huge hit in subprime American mortgages.

Think about the logic there. UBS lost money thanks to the subprime crisis, so they would push for more deregulation? Does that even make sense. The argument seems to be that they would intentionally ask to lose more money because they are greedy. Can anyone make sense out of that?

The problem, of course, is that the left has repeated their watered down Marxist line for so long that "greed' has become a synonym for "evil" in their minds. So when they paint their Snidely Whiplash-like villains twirling their mustaches and committing their evil deeds it is simply reflex to blame their acts on "greed". Or perhaps they really do so poorly understand economics, and even simple business, that they think that greed drives one to do stupid things like produce nothing to get rich, or foreclose on overpriced homes to make money.

I do not have the time or space to explain how greed, rightly understood, is a beneficial influence, and how trade has led to more peace than all the conferences and committees and other feel good groups on earth. Then again, why bother. What the left claims is the result fo greed is clearly not, so I don't think they really oppose greed at all. If they think losing money and acting against one's own financial interest is greed, then maybe they are opposing something completely different and using the wrong name for it.

Maybe they don't oppose greed at all. Maybe they simply have their definitions wrong.

Every so often I hear someone attempting to malign Republicans by bringing up Nixon's "southern strategy" and attempting to use it to "prove" that Republicans are somehow racist. It is an invalid argument for any number of reasons, but since I hear it so often, I figure I should address it.

First, the argument almost always involves a conflation of two different ideas. Often the speaker will mention alleged attempts in the early seventies to win over disaffected Dixiecrats with covert appeals to racism and follow this with quotes showing that this or that modern Republican has written off the black vote. However these are two very different things. Implying that one's party will promote pro-white policies is racism, recognizing the fact that the black vote goes almost entirely to Democrats is not. A Republican taking no efforts to win over the black vote is no more racist than failing to appeal to the union vote is. It is simply a wise use of resources. The black vote has, for the most part, not been in play for decades. In fact, black voters themselves can be blamed for this. Were they less of a monolithic voting block, they would attract more attention form both parties. As it is, Republicans and Democrats can both afford to ignore black voters, as their vote is guaranteed for one and denied the other. Recognizing that fact is not racism, it is realism.

However, let us deal with the other half of the equation, Nixon's alleged racism, and the charge that it represents the current policy of the Republican party. Most who promote this will quote Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

First, you can see from this quote where the idea originated to conflate failure to appeal to black voters with the appeal to white racism. However, as we have dealt with that, let us look at the second part of the equation, the allegation that Republicans are attempting to appeal to southern white racism.

If you look carefully at the quote, though it sounds "racist" in the modern sense of not instantly excoriating anything less than pristine race-free thinking, it really says nothing. There is no statement that the Republicans are going to appeal to racism, instead the statement is one of fact, a prediction, that as blacks enter the Democrat party it will drive whites to the Republicans. It may imply that in the south whites who fear blacks will join the Republican party, but that does not mean that the Republicans are doing anything to appeal to racism.

Some recognize this, and argue instead that Phillips' prediction came true, and as a consequence the Republican party became filled with racists. But we can see that simply isn't true. The prediction turns out to have been incorrect. As the presence of former Klansman Robert Byrd in the senate shows, many whites who were uncomfortable with blacks remained in the Democrat party. In fact, Phillips was wrong even within his own immediate future. The Democrats continued to dominate the south throughout the 70's and 80's. Only in the 1990's did local elections begin to go to Republicans. So if the racist Democrats were leaving the party, they don't appear to have been going to the Republican party.

But let us ignore all of that and ask one final question. What is the point? Why bring up a quote from the 1970's, from a Nixon strategist? What does it say about the Republican party of today? Nixon himself was hardly representative of the Republican party even in his day, much less now. The modern party owes much more to Goldwater than Nixon. So what does a forty year old strategy statement from an advisor to a non-representative leader show?

How about this. Justice Taney was a quite representative Democrat of his day.Yet this prominent Democrat jurist said blacks are:

beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

Does this mean modern Democrats share justice Taney's perspective? Of course not. It is absurd to think any one man can represent the thoughts of an entire political party, even more so if we use the thoughts of one long out of office.

But if I can admit that, can Democrats abandon mention of Nixon's "southern strategy"?

POSTSCRIPT

Even assuming the absurdity proposed is true, assuming in 1970 every racist Democrat fled the party and registered Republican, exactly how many are still active in Republican politics? Assuming a normal distribution of ages in 1970, or more likely one skewing a bit older to allow for more racist views, it is likely that these fleeing racists are either dead or well into retirement. Given that parties are usually run by those in their 40's and 50's, how much influence would they have today?

So, even if everything the Democrats allege is correct, what would be the impact? Almost none.

On the other hand, some Democrats openly court racist organizations such as La Raza and Nation of Islam. Yet somehow this escapes the notice of those decrying Nixon's southern strategy.

I am surprised I haven't written on this before, but there is an absurd revisionist approach to the history of slavery that I have to take on. It is usually brought up by the most militant of racial grievance mongers, often those pushing for reparations. It basically contends that the practice of slavery, especially as related to sub-Saharan Africans, was akin to genocide, and that many millions were killed as a result of slavery. In its most extreme form it includes fictitious stories of slave routes so choked with bodies sharks swarm there to this day.

What is so disturbing about this fictional history is not that it exists, but that anyone takes it seriously. Even a moment of thought would show how absurd it is, yet white liberals have been so conditioned to accept any claims of racist atrocities that few even question the most extreme claims.

Let us just look at the basics. Slaves were, and are still where slavery is still practiced, an asset. Remove all emotion from the question and look at it from a pragmatic point of view. A slave is a possession with value. Do you often key your own car or break the windows in your house? So why would owners of slaves want to kill them?

Perhaps, as slaves are living beings, we should look at a more apropos comparison. It will offend some, I am sure, but the best analogy may be livestock*. Both are living entities, owned by another, and expected to produce economic benefits. Both produce offspring which are also the property of the owner. And neither has any rights**. Thus it is useful to look to livestock for an analogy of the way one would treat a slave. And, as in the more simple example above, there is simply no logical reason one would abuse and kill slaves. Would you torture and kill your horses? You dairy cows? People may kill livestock used for food, but slaves were not consumed, so that is not a consideration. Slaves may not have received the best care, but so long as one expected economic value out of them, he would provide them with the necessities required to get that work out of them. A violent or rebellious slave might be harmed or killed, just as a violent animal would be, but I cannot see any argument for wholesale slaughter.

Think about the circumstances of a slave trader for a moment. He takes his ship to the coastal ports where slaves are sold. He  most likely approaches the Arab middle men who buy slaves directly from those who capture them, either other black Africans or fellow Arab slave hunters. (Or perhaps he deals with the African or Arab slave hunters directly, it doesn't make any difference.) He examines the slaves available and selects those most likely to sell, or those whose price promises the best profit, and pays for them. He locks these slaves aboard his ship, along with supplies adequate to provide for the slaves and his crew during the voyage to his destination and sets sail.

Now, according to the myth of corpse choked water ways, he either simply neglects these slaves or intentional starves or brutalizes them, casting them overboard in numbers sufficient to continue attracting sharks two centuries later (as importation of slaves ended in the US long before slavery did).

Why?

He has paid for these slaves, they represent an investment.The merchant expects to make money from their sale. He is not kind to them out of humanitarian concerns, and does not feed them out of generosity, it is purely selfish, but it makes sense. Why would he bother buying a slave only to kill him off? That would not be a recipe for wealth, but for bankruptcy. Unless the revisionists are arguing that slave traders were motivated by sheer malice, a rational, selfish approach would be to keep the slaves alive until they are sold so as to produce the maximum profit.

But, of course, that is the problem with the revisionist approach. Just like modern stories of evil speculators who buy oil and sit on it just to make the prices high, banks which make bad loans and foreclose without a thought of the losses involved, or oil companies which intentionally avoid profitable leases***,  the slave traders in this bizarre history are not rational businessmen but the Snidely Whiplash caricature businessmen who do evil for the sake of evil and don't concern themselves with rational approaches to profit and loss.

But, that being the case, I have to ask again, how can anyone possibly take this theory seriously? I understand the hustlers and grievance mongers pushing it, they don't believe it, for them it is just a tool, but why would anyone else take this seriously?

------------------------------------------------------

* Before someone gets their hackles up and accuses me of calling blacks livestock or says this an invidious racist comparison, I would remind them that slavery was not, and is not, practiced only upon blacks. In fact, for Europeans, prior to about 1550 or so, slavery was largely practiced on fellow Europeans. So the comparison to livestock has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the economics of the situation.

** This is not strictly true. Slaves had some rights under various legal codes, though usually very few, and the extent of those rights varied with time and location. Likewise, animals currently have some minimal legal protections, though that is true only recently. But in both cases, it is not too inaccurate to act as if neither had any legally recognized rights, as even the most extensive protections were pretty minimal.

*** There is not space here to argue that these three are just as absurd, so let me make only brief explanations. (1) Speculators must not only buy but also sell to make money. But the current theory is that they just keep buying to drive up prices, never selling. Which is suicidal. (2) Banks make money by having loans repaid. Foreclosure almost always represents a loss for a bank, especially when the market is falling, which is why it is a last resort. (3) Oil companies make money by providing oil. And while scarcity raises prices, as Walmart, Ford and the entire 20th century taught us, bringing a lot of goods to market for a little profit per unit is more enriching than bringing a few high priced goods. So the theory oil companies are not exploiting their leases to keep oil expensive is absurd, to say the least. If you want more explanation of any of these, search my blog, I have written on all three many times, and all three recently as well.

It is unusual to do this on a Sunday, but since I went silent for so long, I figure I should explain, and, as usual, that involves pictures. (I promise, this is the last one for a while, but it was a nice weekend, and summer is coming to a close, so bear with me through a few more photos.)

Rather than take a trip to some far away locale, today we took a late afternoon walk to the neighborhood beach. I can see the river, though not the beach, from my bedroom, so it isn't exactly a long trip. Then again, it is a nice quiet spot, usually deserted, though not today:



Julian met some of the local boys (we only moved here in November, so we are still meeting everyone):



He also started learning to swim with his mom:



And tried a little on his own:



Overall, quite a fun day:



I also had something of a revelation today. While watching three and four year old boys play, I realized, oddly enough, why I always liked to spend time in bars.

You see, I watched my son walk up to another boy, a complete stranger and say "Want to play in the water?" When the other boy didn't seem interested, Julian began to dig in the sand, and the other boy just joined in. In under a minute it was as if they had been friends for days.

Adults simply cannot do that. Culturally, we are discouraged from approaching strangers in even a slightly familiar way. The one exception being in bars. When we gather to drink, the rules seem to be relaxed and we can make acquaintances we would otherwise be unable to make.

Rather sad that we have to resort to alcohol to be able to meet one another, but it is the truth. And probably why I found bars so appealing for many years.

And I realize that revelation is just as off topic as my travel pictures are, but I found it an interesting thought. And I did publish quite a bit of political verbiage earlier today, so the ratio of relevant posts to stray thoughts is still quite high.

I am sure my readers are familiar with that old saw that starts "For want of a nail the shoe was lost..." and goes all the way up to the rider's failure to deliver a message losing the kingdom. It sounds a bit hyperbolic, but I think I have found a real life example. It doesn't start with anything quite as trivial as a missing nail, but it does show how radicals of the 1960's managed to lose a presidential election in 2008 that most considered a sure thing.

At one time primaries were "winner takes all" in both parties. However, the 1968 convention and all the chaos that occurred brought about massive changes in the Democrats. Not only did the party move to the left, but they also instituted changes in how the primaries were held. The McGovern-Fraser reforms of the mid-1970's moved the Democrats from winner takes all to proportional representation, where each state allocates its delegates among the candidates who receive the most votes. It was a change that seemed pleasing to the newly radical Democrat leadership, as proportional representation meant that "every vote counted", or at least as close as one could come to that goal. It was thought to give a voice to substantial blocks of voters who were being rendered silent in elections by the majority voting block in their state.

It all sounded great, but it turned out there was one problem. Once you start to dilute the delegates from a state, you tend to end up with no one getting a majority of the delegates in the primary. If you have more than two viable contenders it is even worse. So, unless there is a clear front runner established early in the race, or all but one candidate concedes, the proportional representation results in brokered conventions, resulting in hard feelings and the appearance of smoky back room deals deciding the party's candidate.

And sow as born the super delegate. These were prominent politicians and party notables who would be given a vote equivalent to  a state delegate in the nominating convention. The idea was that these super delegates would serve to turn a lead into a win. They would simply have to throw their weight behind the leading candidate should he not have enough delegates to secure the nomination. In that way they could eliminate the need for a brokered convention without seeming to short-circuit the electoral process.

But that is not what happened in 2008. In these primaries, the delegates began to commit themselves early, taking sides in the Hillary-Obama struggle. Rather than simply rubber stamping the popular vote, they became a force themselves. And when Hillary started to stage a comeback in the last days of the primary race, the party put pressure on these delegate to throw their weight behind Obama, effectively deciding the race before Hillary could muddy the waters by securing more delegates and generating a claim that the momentum wa sin her favor. In other words, the super delegates effectively put an end to the primary process before the final few states could vote.

And that is how the 1960's radicals lost the election of 2008. The changes they put into motion ended up with the super delegates essentially forcing Clinton form the race. And as a result, Hillary's supporters, and a number of others upset at the apparent breach of democratic process, began to give every sign that they would vote for McCain rather than Obama. A while ago, Obama's internal  polling numbers showed up to 15% of Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain. As Obama has not had much luck wooing independents, that represents a significant problem for his campaign, and one he really cannot cure. Even putting Hillary on the ticket would likely only mollify some. The arrogance of the party has turned off some to such a degree they would not return even with Hillary sharing the ticket.

It isn't quite as clear cut as the nail-shoe-horse-message-army-battle-kingdom line from the aphorism, but it is clear enough. In the ultimate irony, the friend of Billy Ayers may lose what was considered a certain win in a presidential election because of riots that Ayers himself helped to start forty years ago.

POSTSCRIPT

I do not want to give the impression that the "winner takes all" process is without fault. It can cause serious distortions in results. A candidate getting only 51% of several states early on can effectively seal the nomination event hough most voters in the party oppose him. It is made even worse, as we saw in this election, when there are open primaries in early states. However, I think overall the winner takes all, by making brokered conventions unlikely, is still far superior to the proportional representation method.

I said earlier I would comment on two Obama quotes, and the time has come to talk about them.

• Obama on Russia's invasion of Georgia: "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies. They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

First, his claim that we do not have clean hands when commenting about Georgia. The problem for him is that this statement, a clear endorsement of a cut and run approach to Iraq, would have been fine three months ago when he was still the anti-war candidate, but he has since tried to play the second coming of Bill Clinton, triangulating his way between a moderately hawkish position and his original rabidly anti-war stand. However, when he opens his mouth to make statements like this, it is clear that all of that is just deception for the sake of votes and deep inside he is really the anti-war candidate he always appeared.

Nor is America stupid enough to miss that. Even one such statement is enough to convince independents he is a total fraud.

Nor is the statement even viable when approached form an anti-war perspective. It is not an indictment of our choice to go to war, it is instead an endorsement of the tin-foil hat position that this was a "war for empire". If we are equivalent of Russia and our actions in Iraq are the same as Russia's in Georgia, then Obama is accusing Bush of trying to either annex or subjugate Iraq. That is the position of conspiracy nuts not viable presidential candidates.

Of course, Obama may not have meant that. In his mind he probably was just equating "bad" with "bad", but the combination of incredibly naive analysis and poorly worded accusation highlights two things. First the poverty of Obama's thought and his lack of experience. Not to mention that his bad choice of both words and examples gives lie to the claim that he is some master campaigner.

• Barack Obama on the U.S. vs. China: "Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now,which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, 'Beijing looks like a pretty good option.' "

This second quote is the more disturbing. And likely the more troublesome for Obama.

First, let us deal with the fact that it is objectively untrue. I suppose if he is speaking just about Beijing it may be somewhat accurate. After looting the country to build a showcase in Beijing, China has reached the level of a second rate European city or maybe a third rate US city. "Vastly superior" it isn't, passable it is.

Now if we take it to mean that the People's Republic of China as a whole is vastly superior to America in terms of infrastructure it is a laugh. Ther eis a reason we ship low wage labor intensive jobs to China. That is because their infrastructure and capital investments are low, so labor is all they ahve to sell. Admittedly, slave labor pracitces distort this, but even then, if they had invested massive amounts in infrastructure they would be competing in heavy industry or technology, they would be competing with Japan and Singapore, not Bangladesh and Belize. The fact that they excel in painting toys and sewing clothes tells you all you need to know about the investments in both infrastructure and industry.

The second problem is the claim that ANYONE would want to do business in China. I know some companies do, as they see both a massive market and a huge source of cheap labor, but I have to question their decision. As it is essentially a massive prison run by the whim of a few wardens, they could easily see everything they own stolen through nationalization. I suppose if you kept your capital investments to a minimum and relied on native workers and rented assets it could be an acceptable risk, but I still don't think a massive kleptocratic authoritarian regime is the sort of place that will come to rival New York anytime soon.

But none of that really matters, what matter sis that Obama openly made adoring statements about a communist regime. Worse still, he made provably false statements praising a communist regime. People were already troubled by his far elft record, there were already charges that he had socialist sympathies, and then he essentially proves it by expressing his admiration for the accomplishments of a communist government. Not a word about slave labor, about human rights abuses, nothing about all those things that usually concern Democrats, instead, he looks at a whole nation that really is what the Democrats imagine exists at Guantanamo and all he can give are compliments.

From both statements one thing is clear, given enough time, Obama will manage to defeat himself. All the prepared speeches and carefully vague positions in the world won't help him once he gets started. The fellow who was once described as a one man gaffe machine has not given up his fondness for inappropriate or ill considered statements.

POSTSCRIPT

Some may rankle at my statement that a third rate US city is second rate in Europe, but it is true. In terms of technology, Europe may be the equal of the US, but in terms of amenities and infrastructure, Europe just isn't quite up to US standards. Just look for air conditioners, or check out the plumbing in even first class European hotels. Europe may be a fine continent, and they definitely know as much as we do about technology, but they still have a tendency to live in tiny homes without air conditioning and shower with hand held faucets on long hoses. I am not saying anything about the people, I simply am noting that we have a tendency to put technology into everyday use much more quickly than most other nations. (Excluding perhaps a few Asian countries where up tot he second technology is almost a fetish.)

And for those who argue that Europe leads us in rail transport, I do agree they lead there, but largely because they never developed the car culture of the US. Without our sprawling suburbs, their countryside evolved a series of discreet villages and towns making rail feasible. Our sprawling suburbs do not. So their predominance in rail does not prove anything about technology or infrastructure, it simply is a result fo differing paths of development.

Hugh Hewitt has an interesting article comparing Biden to Cliff Clavin from Cheers, and in many ways he's right. The same way I am right when I mention Biden's history of shameless plagiarism. And true his history includes some rather embarrassing statements, and even a few outright shocking ones. However, unlike Hewitt, I recognize one other fact, that, except for political junkies, none of this makes any difference. Biden is, to most of America, nothing but a nondescript name they "sort of recognize".

That is why I stand by my description of Biden as a safe, vanilla choice. Sure he is really a do-nothing blowhard who steal speeches, but could you make a campaign ad out of that? And even if you could, why not just make the same ad about Obama, as the charges (except plagiarism) fit him too? You see, that is why Biden is such a boring choice. He brings nothing to the campaign Obama didn't already have. He is experienced, but he is relatively unknown outside of his home district and political junkies, so his experience is mostly a non-issue. It is hard to bring the appearance of experience to a campaign when no one knows what your experience is.

Even in terms of weaknesses, his weaknesses are Obama's. He is a big talker with few accomplishments? So is his running mate! There is nothing new about Biden. His weaknesses are Obama's and his strengths are poorly enough known that they don't count. Basically, to most of America he is as noteworthy as Dan Quayle or Lloyd Bentsen were before Bentsen's nominally witty JFK remarks in the VP debates and Quayle made the gaffes which were amplified into charges of idiocy.

Of course, if we have vice presidential debates, Biden may make an impression for good or ill. (Given his predisposition to ramble like Robert Byrd on a bad day I vote for the latter.) But until then he will be a nebulous gray shape in the background of the Obama campaign. Neither good nor bad, but simply there. Something no one notices, a piece of dull furniture.

In short, Obama didn't pick a running mate, he bought an ottoman.

While I was responding to some comments, the question arose why Obama did not pick Hillary Clinton. I answered this a few times in comments, but never wrote about it in a really comprehensive way. Admittedly it is no longer that relevant, as Obama's pick has been made, but the reason he was prevented from even considering Hillary may still interest some readers.

While many have argued in favor of Clinton as the VP pick, I would argue instead that it was simply impossible. Not for Obama, he could clearly have picked Hillary, and may even have picked up some of the disgruntled voters who might now cross over to McCain or at least sit out the election. No, it was impossible because, even if Obama extended the invitation, and despite her statement that she wa sopen to the possibility, Hillary would never have accepted the offer.

Why not?

That is simple to answer. Because she wants to be president, and wants to do it as soon as she can.

Now, granted, if Obama wins the election, being VP would put her in a good spot in 2016, provided he wins two terms, but that seems unlikely. So, let us look at the possibilities should Obama win in 2008.

Whatever happens, if Obama wins in 2008, Hillary won't be able to run until 2016. If she were VP, she would be on his ticket in 2012, and if she weren't, she still would make no friends by challenging a sitting president for the nomination,s o she would likely refrain from running in the primaries. However, being Obama's VP is a very bad thing for Hillary should he lose in 2012. As Walter Mondale can attest, being the VP for a one term president is hardly a ticket to success. It definitely helps get the nomination, but the public tends to associate the VP with the president they rejected for a second term. So,  provided he is unlikely to win a second term, it is probably a good move to stay off the ticket.

And this becomes even more important to Hillary if she expects Obama to lose. If he loses, then she is the obvious front runner in 2012's primaries. Taht is, she is if she was not the VP on a losing ticket. As it is, she can present herself in 2012 as the candidate who could have defeated McCain had she not been run off the ticket by super delegate scheming and ill-considered public enthusiasm. She can even claim she was on the verge of taking the lead when the super delegates cut her off and handed the race tot he Republicans by picking Obama. It isn't an entirely accurate story, but it is accurate enough to sell in 2012 and push her to the front of the pack.

Unless she is Obama's VP. Then she is simply the other half of the ticket which lost to McCain, half of the team which threw away a sure thing and turned an easy victory into a humiliating defeat. And that image would likely keep her off the ticket once again in 2012, something she wants to avoid above all else.

So, from her perspective, taking the VP spot is a great risk, with little gain. Unless he wins both in 2008 and 2012, she really gains nothing by being his running mate, and likely she puts herself in a worse position, either in 2012, if he loses, or in 2016 if he wins. And even if she turns down the VP spot and he wins two terms, she still is not out of the race. Admittedly, running against the VP who is looking to be president is an uphill battle, but it is not the same as running against a sitting president. So if her calculations prove wrong, and Obama does serve eight years, she still has a shot in 2016. Which means the worst possible outcome of turning down the position is a slightly harder battle in 2016, while accepting it could easily mean defeat for her next presidential bid.

Nor is that all. If she is out of the race, there is nothing to prevent her from helping to defeat Obama. Admittedly, she cannot take an active role, but she can quietly leak stories calculated to hurt his chances, or do anything els eshe thinks will hurt his campaign. Were she on the ticket, however, that would be suicidal, as she would only be hurting her future prospects. And, don't forget, if Obama loses, she can run in 2012, if he wins, she will be sitting out the race until 2016, and in the years between now and then, she could lose her senate seat in 2012, which would put her in a much worse position for a presidential bid.

Of course, I doubt this is completely unknown to Obama. While Hillary has publicly made some noise about being available to serve as VP, I am sure the Obama camp was told she was not really interested. And even if she did not say so outright, I don't think they would have seriously considered her.  After all, her ambitions are pretty open, and if I can reason out why she would not serve, someone in Obama's camp could as well. Which means that, while publicly they pretended to weight the possibility, I doubt either side ever seriously considered it.

POSTSCRIPT

To be honest, I doubt Obama would have gained that much by choosing Hillary. If we look at her career objectively, Hillary is nearly as inexperienced as Obama. She may have been first lady, but that is not truly executive experience. She may have wanted to be copresident, but the only initiatives which clearly ahd her fingerprints on them (eg. universal health care) went down to defeat, and not only that, but were notoriously mismanaged and inefficient. All of which would mean that rather than the upside down ticket an experienced VP would give us, Hillary would give us simply a pair of inexperienced candidates.

Not only that, but Hillary's "Hawk Lite" position would probably offend Obama's core of peace activists, while her reputation as a socialist on domestic policy would make it still harder for him to win over independents who are already reluctant to support him. And if we consider the number of people, even among Democrats, who report having strongly negative feelings about Hillary, it probably would not do him much good in efforts to bring in new votes, or even keep the ones he has.

The one area in which it might help would be in efforts to close ranks, bring back the Hillary supporters and prevent cross over votes form Democrats. But even there I am not convinced it would really work. Surely some would come back when their candidate was added to the ticket, but certainly not all, and probably not even a majority. Many who feel offended that Hillary was pushed off the ticket would probably see this as a condescending gesture or a brazen attempt to manipulate them and would likely remain either crossover votes or else refrain from voting. Nor would it likely placate those upset over the way she was pushed out of the race, those who feel that the exclusion of two states, or the rule by superdelegates represent a lack of true democratic procedure in the party. Those who feel that the party elite manipulated the nomination process would likely not be mollified by adding her to the ticket.

And then there is the final risk, stirring up the opposition. The constant media drumbeat that Obama is a sure thing has already fired up Republicans. Coupled with Obama's far left record, the promise that he will win has not only brought out strong Republican opposition, but it has healed most of the rift caused by the McCain nomination. Where once many Republicans threatened to sit this one out, the threat of an Obama presidency has actually brought most back into the fold.

Now, imagine what would happen were a polarizing figure like Hillary to be added to the ticket. I know Democrats (including my mother) who have said they would vote McCain were Hillary the nominee, and if she can evoke that strong a response in her own party, imagine the feelings she creates among Republicans. Which means not only would her inclusion likely drive many independents into the arms of the Republican party, but it could help Republican turn out immensely. The strongly negative impression many conservatives, independents and even liberals have of her, not to mention of her husband, could serve to drive record numbers of voter to the polls, most of them with the sole purpose of keeping her out of office.

So, in the end, even if Hillary were open to the VP offer, it probably would not be a wise move on Obama's part. He could possibly win back some fraction of the Hillary supporters, but nowhere near all, maybe not even half, and at the cost of both some of his base and many of the independents he needs to win. And at the risk of energizing the Republicans. So, were it even possible, I think the choice of Hillary would probably have been one of the worst he could make.

While my wife and I were driving to Chesapeake beach today, we were listening to the radio and heard Madonna singing "Like  a Prayer". My wife seemed a bit surprised that I knew it was big in 1988, but I explained my friend Steve and I had made a joke out of founding a religious cult based on Madonna.

"Anyway," I added, "that was the video that caused all the brouhaha. With the choir and the black Jesus."

My wife nodded. "What ever happened to him?"

"He's running for president," I replied.

(Well, it amused me, anyway.)

----------------------------------------------------------------

On a completely unrelated note, they are building near my home one of those horrible "town centers", akin to the one in Reston, Virginia. For those unfamiliar with this phenomenon (and I don't know how widespread the concept is), basically developers buy up a huge tract in a slightly remote suburb and build a series of relatively tall buildings, housing stores on their lower level, and above them a combination of offices and condominiums. It is basically a pre-fab city, but with the feel of a shopping mall/outdoor plaza at the ground level.

The one near my house is particularly amusing because, being in Annapolis, the condominia are going for prices approaching one million dollars, but all they have is a view of a plaza that used to house a Hechingers, the Annapolis Mall (now named "Westfield", but I can't get used to that name), route 50, and a large intersection of several major roads. I suppose in the distance you can see the Severn River and South River, but, effectively, people are paying a million dollars to live above an already congested set of intersections, which will now be even worse.

Anyway, all that is not relevant. What amuses me is that this whole concept was predicted back in 1990. But in 1990 it was a joke.

There was a television series called Grand. In one episode  Michael McKean's character is pitching an idea. His idea is that people love shopping, so why not build houses on top of a mall, so you can never leave your home. It is treated as a monumentally stupid idea, the thought that anyone would want to live, work and shop all in one building. And everyone watching knew it to be a stupid idea.

So, when did we go from people who thought living above a mall was a stupid concept to a populace willing to pay a million dollars to do precisely that?
 
--------------------------------------------

I also have to ask, why does a doctor need to know if I own a handgun or use my seatbelt? Why does he have to ask if I have been a victim of domestic violence? I know the AMA, captured by a liberal social agenda, is trying to treat domestic violence and gun violence as pseudo-diseases, but aren't these questions entirely irrelevant to treating a patient? (At least they are in almost every situation.)

Then again, thanks to the immense power we give doctors (control over prescriptions, the power of involuntary commitment, determination of disability, etc.) we can't really tell them "none of your business". That episode of Seinfeld where Elaine was pursued by negative comments in her medical record isn't that far from the truth. So we are left with no choice but to answer excessively intrusive questions from doctors. No matter how irrelevant.

-------------------------------------------------

That's it for my disjointed comments. I just had a few ideas I wanted to throw out, none long enough to support an independent post. I promise my next post will be more coherent, but every once in a while I have to try something new.

Hopefully this one didn't turn out as badly as most attempts at "something new" usually do.

It seems every Saturday (at least when not recovering from surgery) I apologize for not posting more, then post a number of photos of my son on our weekend trips. Well, I did post several items this morning, but I did take a slightly late trip as well, so if you thought you were escaping the pictures, think again. Admittedly, it was a rather short trip, so I won't be bombarding you with quite as many photos, but I can't let a Saturday pass without the blog equivalent of forcing relatives to watch a slide show of my trip to the Grand Canyon.

This weekend's trip, keeping with the maritime/beach theme of the past two sets of photos (here and here) was to Chesapeake Beach to Bayfest:



In the beautiful (if far too liberal) state of Maryland (for those who haven't been following my blog):



Julian in the car (yes, he is playing with batteries):



Julian on the boardwalk (Note he is not wearing the crab shirt):



Julian playing with a paper umbrella he found:



Julian and a new friend (who he appears to be ignoring):



Julian with mommy and daddy (yes, I shaved off the beard I had in the previous set of pictures):



And a picture of seagulls, since I just didn't take as many Julian pictures this time:



Well, that does it for this Saturday's travel photos. Back to writing actual substantial posts.

I wrote very little about Obama's choice for Vice President, though I did discuss it more extensively in replying to reader comments. So I really don't have much to say on Obama's pick of Biden.

It clearly is the safe pick, as Biden is a bit more experienced, and doesn't have as much baggage as Obama's other possible choices. Ther eis the problem that Biden tends to ramble a bit incoherently at times, and has been shown to ahve stolen speeches from other politicians, but that seems pretty minor compared to, say, Edwards. Still, I don't think Biden is either going to bring much o the campaign or drive many away. He is a nice, mediocre, vanilla pick. He won't show up Obama but he won't really help him either.

I do have to admit, for those who don't read the comments, that until the pick was made, I had thought Obama would not pick Biden simply because of his ego. As every pundit was telling him to pick Biden, I thought his need to appear independent and original would force him to pick anyone else. The fact that he did pick Biden shows that either his handlers have mor einfluence than I thought, or Obama has been chastened by shrinking poll numbers and is a little less arrogant.

I think it is probably the handlers.

Thanks to Chris at Town Hall, my biography editor is finally working for this blog. And so, I finally have a chance to post my biography. You can click the link in the left hand column, but to save everyone the effort of moving their hands a few inches, here it is:

I am a former communist, former Objectivist convert to strict federalism, though still in love with the Austrian economists. This blog covers everything from economics to politics to religion, as well as a few stray musings on whatever strikes my fancy.

It changes the focus from my old biography, which I wrote when they put one of my articles in Townhall magazine. I think the old one was good, but the new one is a bit more terse and hits some other highlights.

I am a law school drop out and spent my 20's trying to write novels that no publisher wanted. I was self-educated in computer programming and at some point stumbled into the IT field, working as a programmer, a DBA and a system administrator. I am a vegetarian Jew with a nervous disorder, which should make me a shoo-in for the Democrat party, but somehow I resisted. I have a wonderful wife and son. He just turned three, and my wife will be much happier if I don't tell you how old she is. And currently I work as a web site administrator and part time developer for a major university in the DC area. When I am not blogging or working or spending time with my family I still write fiction and I read history, mostly Roman and Byzantine, or economics.

The more I write about my former political beliefs, the more I realize my current understanding of politics is helped by having been on the other side. Having been on the extreme left, I understand how they think more than people who have been life long conservatives, or many of them anyway. So I think the new biography fits quite well.

I still can't edit my blog roll, but Chris is working on that too, so stay tuned.