Microwave your money

Apparently not content with the ability to seize bank accounts at will, the US government – along with the EU – is now tracking your cash. Big Brother loves you. I think I’m going to start insisting that people pay me in American Eagles.

This post brought to you by Rat Spleen.

No government needed

Tait Trussell writes on Townhall: As writer Cynthia Crossen’s research points out, in early America, many men and women had common-law-marriages, living together without the blessings of a church ceremony or approval of a governmental licensing authority. An l843 law declared that “no particular form of ceremony shall be necessary, except that the parties declared that they take each other as husband and wife.”

As I pointed out last week, it hasn’t taken long for government involvement to nearly destroy the institution. More of the same venom that is poisoning you is unlikely to serve as an effective antidote.

A fair question

BLS writes: Focus on the main question: Is America under attack from terrorist Islamic sects, and if so, who do you want as Commander in Chief – GEB or JFK – and why?

Yes, America is under attack from terrorist Islamic sects that have declared war against it. I don’t want either George Delano or John Francois as Commander-in-Chief for the following reasons:

GD: refuses to declare which terrorist Islamic sects are responsible, much less confront them with military action. The Islamic world revolution is being funded almost entirely by the House of Saud. The Hezbollah and other active terrorist groups are primarily funded by Iran. GD is not fighting either, indeed, his State Department is actively supporting the Iranian mullahs against popular unrest. After Yasser Arafat killed two American officials, GD only cut off the funding that his administration was providing this terrorist leader. If the war is against terrorist Islamic sects – as we both agree it is/should be – GD has failed completely despite presiding over the conquest of two nations. Taking out one minor enabler, which Husseins certainly was, while ignoring the two major players is hardly indicative of strategic competence – quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

JF: an unknown as C-in-C, although his votes for the various “war resolutions” indicates to me that he will likely follow in GD’s imitation of the ineffectual Israeli two-step. While GD’s Wilsonian nation-building is likely to appeal to him, Kerry is too big a fan of the United Nations to risk upsetting it by invading a third country, barring any further terrorist attacks in the USA. If there is an attack inside the USA, Kerry is as likely to greenlight a third invasion – probably Syria – as Bush. As I mentioned before, Democrats are historically more likely to engage militarily than Republicans, so to tar all Democrats with the antiwar peacenik brush is to focus too much on the bygone Vietnam era. Those under forty of both parties neither know nor care much about Vietnam; our analyses are not colored by it as is the case with the aged mainstream press, which sees Vietnam as the great event of their time.

As is usually the case, the purported differences between the two parties are greatly exaggerated. The first Republican George Bush was the one who did not finish the job against Hussein in 1991. Clinton’s destructive decision to pare down the US military was aided and abetted by a Republican House and Senate.

Bane the Poet Divine

I didn’t think it scanned well, but I thought the notion was funny so I hope the poet doesn’t mind if I present my own version of his lovely little piece of social incorrectness.

Children are not born to hate,

They learn it only from you.

Be then sure to teach them well

And take care to tell them who.

War and not-war

Bane writes: Suffice to say, he thinks we are not at war, and I think we are… .I note his use of the phrase ‘Police Action’….ahhhh. That little dust-up in Korea wasn’t a war, even though we fought it for years, and continue to ‘garrison’ the DMZ to this day. Viet Nam. Not a war. Semantics. Tell it to the families of our honored dead. Cold War? A journalistic buzz-word that caught on. Lasted decades, as I recall. I don’t think it’s over, either. One stupid wall falling does not the surrender of the Red Menace make. The Great Wall in China is falling apart, but no one in their right mind would posit the demise of China from the decay of it’s wall.

Bane, with all due respect, the point that seems to be escaping you is that when the United States fights these undeclared half-assed little “wars” in which the citizenry is barely conscious that anything is going on and half of them don’t support it even if they do, the problem that brought the so-called war about doesn’t get solved. We did not fight a war in Korea, nor did we finish it which is why the situation is more dangerous to us today than it was 50 years ago. Vietnam’s development shows that we might as well never have sent a single soldier over there, as what would have happened if we had not? The North Vietnamese would have taken Saigon… oh, wait, they did. A country dependent on citizen-soldiers cannot win wars that the citizenry does not understand or does not largely support. As TZ ( I think) commented, a nation that will give up nothing to support its war effort is not a nation at war.

I know you didn’t mean the comment about the honored dead as a cheap shot, nor do I take it as one, but I daresay that I have as many members of my family buried at Arlington as anyone. The Commandant of the USMC himself gave my grandfather’s eulogy there a few years ago, after which my brothers and I carried his casket to the carriage. One of the most vivid memories of my life are of the Marines who stand alone at each crossroads and salute the flag-draped casket as the horse-drawn carriage passes them by. It is precisely because I value the lives of Marines like my grandfather and your sons that I do not wish for politicians like George Delano or John Francois to spend them in playing an endless and ineffectual game of micro military actions.

I agree that China is a danger, even though the president and his economic advisors don’t seem to recognize it. (The more pressing danger from them at the moment is actually economic, as they can shut off our debt-funding at any time.) And perhaps “police action” is a poor description, albeit one no less inaccurate than “war”. War implies a major threat to the nation, and its exaggerated use in this case by the administration is clearly being done in an attempt to distract the populace and excuse its numerous failures on other fronts. Lilypad is at least honest about this.

I think there is a reasonable case to be made for a revival of the medieval war against the Turk, despite my doubts about the eventual ramifications of such a war. Europe is once again being overrun, and America has been targeted. But I see no indication that that any decision has been made to fight that war, the uncharacteristically inaccurate vision of VDH notwithstanding.

I’m stunned. I didn’t see Vox as a Kerry voter. A vote against Bush, or a vote withheld, is a vote for Kerry.

I’m not a Kerry voter. The very notion is metaphorical nonsense, as if I wished to vote for Kerry, there is nothing to prevent me from doing so. Meanwhile, my less easily dismissed response is that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. I will almost surely be voting Libertarian, although I will give the Constitution candidate a fair look before actually putting in my two cents.