Fun with WMD

The Original Cyberpunk writes: We *know* that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them against the Kurds and the Iranians, ergo, he had them. To argue otherwise is idiocy. We *know* that chemical weapons can stay hidden and dangerous for quite a long time. For example, just last summer, construction workers in China acccidentally dug into a chemical weapons dump hidden by the retreating Japanese army in 1944 or ’45, resulting in fatalities and much hard feelings between the two countries. Ergo, this issue won’t go away. We *know* that American voters have short attention spans: two months, tops. Further, we *know* that there’s no point in announcing political news before Labor Day or on Halloween weekend. So, the question: WHEN *EXACTLY* will Donald Rumsfeld announce the discovery of vast stores of Iraqi chemical, radiological, and/or biological weapons? I pick Saturday, October 16, 2004:

Here’s the deal. If you want in, check the Comments and go to The Toxic Pool and see what dates are taken. Nothing’s up there until tonight. Then pick your date, add it to the Comments so everyone can see AND mail it to me so OC can add it to the table. Whoever is closest gets first prize, which is a signed copy of at least four of our books, the next three closest get a signed copy of Rebel Moon. Only one date per person, current or former employees of either the Iraqi or Syrian regimes are not permitted to enter. If there’s no announcement, then, well, it didn’t cost anything to play now, did it.

I got Monday, October 18th.

UPDATE: The Toxic Pool is up! Check it out before picking your dates.

Anonymous blogging

I seriously fail to see what the deal is here. [There’s been a bit of a discussion floating around the Sphere thanks to J. Goldberg and the PuppyAbuser] You know everything you need to know about a blog from the ideas they express. I daresay that those of you who visit here regularly or have read my column for two years know who I am a lot better than half the people who primarily encounter me socially on a regular basis and with whom I only engage in meaningless small talk.

It makes no difference that we know Jonah Goldberg=Jonah Goldberg but we don’t know if BloggerX=Mark Smith or Jane Weatherbee. Who cares? Ideas must be capable of standing on their own right and I hate the notion that X = true if A is black, but false if A is white. Substitute your personal identifying adjective of choice, but you get the point.

I’m not anonymous anyhow, as anyone with 30 seconds and an Internet link or a decent grasp of classical languages can figure out my private joke between me. But this is the persona that I have chosen for myself in this field, just as Desert Cat and Physics Geek have carved out their own little niches and I think that’s cool. Heck, I was just talking with the White Buffalo about the right name for someone who has personally threatened me if their blogstar name is insufficiently flattering. (By the way, El Zinko Pinko, I have to tell you that he has been absolutely dying to make a Teletubbies reference and he is very sad that he doesn’t know you well enough to rip you. Oh, that I were so fortunate.)

Which reminds me. There is no better set of monikers than on the radio shows when Todd Steussie was playing in Minnesota. There was “Holding On Number 73 On The Offense Guy” and “False Start on Number 73 On The Offense Guy”. Space Bunny was hoping Carolina would lose just so I’d stop saying that every time they showed Steussie on TV. “Hey, false start on Number-” “Would you PLEASE shut up with that?” “But, see, the irony is that it actually was a false-” “I DON’T CARE!”

What was the point? Did I have one? Oh, right. Anonymous blogging is moral, virtuous, good and healthy. And let’s face it, it’s fun.

Mailvox: notions of decline

Hank writes on homosexuality and Roman decline: Speaking of false correlations here’s a great counter example. The rise of Christianity tracks the collapse of the Roman empire. Perhaps Christianity is the root of the collapse. I’d guess probably not, but they both share the same space of history so we could try and draw that kind of a ridiculous conclusion.

If you’d look at how the homosexual emperors were behaving, you’d better understand the notional relationship between the moral degradation and the imperial decline. More than one emperor was murdered by his bodyguard because they couldn’t stomach his behavior, which didn’t contribute a great deal to political stability. Edward II met a similar fate, as well, but he was an aberration for an English king.

I think my favorite example is this. “He [Elagabulus] impersonated the Great Mother in a lion-drawn chariot and publicly posed as the Venus Pudica, dropping to his knees with buttocks thrust before a male partner…. He had to be dissuaded from castrating himself, reluctantly accepting circumcision as a compromise.” His reign didn’t last long or end well. Gibbons writes: “he was massacred by the indignant Praetorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber.”

I imagine that when our president begins behaving in like manner, total collapse won’t be too far off. When you compare the first openly Christian emperor (Constantine) with the first openly homosexual emperor (Nero), you get an interesting picture of the different influences on the society. (Yes, I know about Sulla and Caesar, but the first kept it hidden and wasn’t an emperor, in the case of the second there are only rumors and insults. I’m not sure about Tiberius, but then, neither were the Romans.)

UPDATE: by the way, I’m quite certain that Christianity helped bring about the ultimate downfall of Rome. Generally speaking, the intellectual freedom that Christianity can and has inspired in many individuals is not particularly conducive to totalitarian rule, which, no doubt, is why totalitarians tend to hate Christians and attempt to control the Church. I personally view homosexuality as a mid-to-late stage symptom of societal decline, not a cause.

Marriage and the State

Stanley Kurtz defends marriage: Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children — even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. The dependence intrinsic to human childhood is why unadulterated libertarianism can never work.

This is such a crock of illogic. Like Stanley, I’m 100 percent opposed to the oxymoronic concept of “gay marriage”, but it’s ridiculous to state that unadulterated libertarianism can never work where marriage is concerned. People were successfully married and raised children for thousands of years without state recognition.

Doesn’t anyone read history anymore?

He does, however, provide interesting evidence that common estimates of the gay population are wildly exaggerated: we are dealing with a strikingly small population — too small to draw clear conclusions. In Norway, same-sex registered partnerships form only .68 percent as often as heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, registered partnerships form only .55 percent as often as heterosexual marriages (i.e. about one half of 1 percent as often).

So much for the ten percent theory. I never bought that for a second anyhow. And this is in Scandinavia, where men are even less likely to marry the mothers of their children than in America.


Dick Morris has waffled a little on his predictions of the Lizard Queen’s future behavior, but he may well be onto something this time: But the big reason Hillary should run is that the Democrats might well win in 2004. If a new president takes office in 2004 – and runs for a second term in 2008 – Hillary will have to keep fresh for eight years, a hard task in the best of times. In the Senate, she would be, at best, an onlooker as the action moves to a Democratic White House. But as vice president, she would have the on-deck circle to herself and would be the presumptive nominee in 2012….. If Hillary doesn’t run for vice president on the Democratic ticket in 2004, the person who does will be a strong candidate against her in 2008 if the ticket loses and a presumptive favorite in 2012 if it wins. She doesn’t need the competition. Should Bush win re-election, it will likely not be by the massive margin by which he would probably have defeated Dean. There would be no shame for Hillary in running for vice president on a ticket that narrowly lost.

It now appears that I was correct when I agreed with Morris’ original 2002 calculation that the Lizard Queen would not run for president this time around. I do think that there is a real chance that she’ll accept an offer of a vice-presidential nomination from Senator Kerry, however. Kerry won’t win – senators seldom do – but the election will be close enough that Hillary wouldn’t be tainted by it and would therefore become the presumptive nominee in 2008. If she allows Edwards, for one, to claim the VP spot, she’ll find it nearly impossible to beat him out in the 2008 primaries, as the sputtering failure of Clark’s “amazing campaign” has demonstrated the limits of the Clinton machine. If Kerry manages to win, of course, the VP logic becomes even more pressing. And in that case, she’d also make history as the first female VP.

Gay devil worshippers

The Gayfather writes to WND: [Joseph Farah’s] God is a false God, who is a homophobic bigot. Our true God gave us our homosexuality as a divinely-inspired gift and blessing, to be enjoyed to its fullest, exultantly, exuberantly, and joyously. Gay is good, Godly, moral and virtuous, and American. You homophobes are evil, unGodly, immoral and sinful, irrational to the point of utter lunacy and beyond, and unAmerican and anti-American. You don’t have a clue as to what America and true Americanism are all about.

Ever since reading Sexual Personae, I’ve suspected that homosexuality is fundamentally a spiritual disease, an Apollonian death cult. Mr. Kameny, the self-styled Godfather of the gay rights movement, seems to illustrate this concept rather clearly. Unrepentant homosexuals do have a god, and he is the one that Jesus and Paul described as the prince of this world. In a previous email to me, the Gayfather has also argued that homosexuality is healthier than normalcy, which is, to say the least, a staggeringly abstract assertion. He takes dialectic to intellectual depths undreamed of by Hegel, Marx or Lenin. One’s mind reels when imagining his conception of true Americanism, considering his redefinitions of health, morality and virtue.

1 John 4: 2-4

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

John 14: 30

I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Mailvox: the corrupt judicial system

DD comments in response to another reader’s declaration that prosecutors and judges are ambitious and out to “get their man”: I’ve been a prosecutor for 15 years, long enough to lose any naivete. You’re dead wrong. Yes, there are a FEW individuals in those fields more concerned with their own cheap ambitions than justice. However, the overwhelming majority of cops, DAs and judges are honorable men and women who could earn much more money doing something far safer, but continue to do what they do because they want to make a difference. Don’t trash things about which you have no personal knowledge.

That’s an anecdotal attempt to fragantize the equine ejectus, DD, and it won’t stand up before those of us who do have personal knowledge. Most judges are corrupt to the core and DA’s simply serve the interests of the State, not justice. In one case where I was assisting preparation, the judge overruled an objection when the Asst. DA began to offer testimony – they’re not allowed to, but no bar lawyer ever challenges them on this – because, as she said, although the plaintiff’s objection was technically correct, she was just gathering information and was going to admit the testimony because she wasn’t going to rule on it. Then she granted the motion to dismiss on the sole basis of the testimony she’d just allowed in violation of the federal rules of court procedure. Even worse, the “testimony” was blatantly false and the Asst. DA couldn’t even produce any witness because the only one was dead. I have the transcript; even the judge in the subsequent lawsuit admitted that the hearing was a joke.

I was also the sole witness in an unrelated case where there was no question whatsoever about the wording of a contract, but the judge was too bored to care, so he decided it by flipping a coin. Those have been my two personal experiences, also anecdotal, true, but my cynical view of the court system is backed up by the larger facts as well.

Judges routinely lie to the juries in their instructions to them, as permitted by the Supreme Court (Sparf v U.S. 156 U.S. 51, 1895), where “the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge’s instructions on the law, the jury shouldn’t be aware of it.” There’s also the whole sham of administrative courts, which are designed to look like real judicial courts, but get around the protections of the common law. Which is why we have the “tax courts” and “child services courts” consisting of agents of those very services dressed up like judges and pretending to be impartial, whereas they are executive branch employees operating in overt defiance of the separation of powers doctrine.

And then, there’s “case law”, which judges use to redefine what the law says. For example, in one state, private property is only interpreted to mean “things that grow in the ground” thanks to one judge’s baseless declaration back in the 19th century. There are hundreds of examples of this form of corruption.

The judicial system is entirely corrupt, from the United States Supreme Court down to the state district courts, which has the terrible effect of tainting the actions of even the most well-meaning people working within it. I have sympathy for these individuals, but no respect for the system whatsoever. Sure, there are good people working inside it; one of my best and oldest friends is a high-powered attorney and I’ve lifted weights and done martial arts with friends who are cops for years. Still, I have no doubt that there were plenty of nice, well-meaning people in the Waffen SS and the KGB too – I doubt they were doing what they did for the money either, but because they believed what they were told. There has never been a police state without police, prosecutors and judges; history demonstrates that individuals in such professions are by no means worthy of a free pass based on their occupation, indeed, it tends to suggest precisely the opposite.

This isn’t to say that it is ambition that corrupts the people of the system, it’s just that most of those operating within it are not especially bright and have very little idea with regards to what the law actually says or what justice actually demands. And yet, America’s hope may well rest on them, on people like Joe Banister, who are courageous enough to admit that they are a small cog in a vast and corrupt machine doing great injustice to the American people.