Big Horrors, Small Horrors

“Militia” members guided by official Syrian “security” forces massacre civilians in their houses.They use both tanks and knives. About fifty of the civilians – all terrorist opponents of the Assad regime, of course -  are children under ten. The response of nine rich countries including the US is severe: They call in the Syrian ambassadors, Assad’s buddies all, and they tell them severely to pack up and leave. No ifs and buts; teach the child-killers a lesson; the bastards will get the message now! Every one of those countries has an air force capable of destroying all Syrian tanks withing three weeks.

Not so long ago, Arabs of all provenances were infiltrating into Iraq though Syria, precisely. They were on their way to kill the American oppressors who had destroyed that great assassin, the mass murderer of Arabs, Saddam Hussein. Where are the Arab volunteers now infiltrating Syria to go and protect Arab children from Assad’s slaughterers? If I were an Arab man from any country today, I would be dying of shame. Or I would consider donning the hijab. Here is a question: If the violent jihadists could do it, enter Syria clandestinely, why can’t you?

I am repeating myself, I know: When  Arabs massacre Arabs it’s not so bad, right?

And, by the way, the silence of the Israeli political class regarding the atrocities next door wins Israel no friends I would guess.

Someone is poisoning schoolgirls in Afghanistan. Could it be the same people who outlawed all girls schools when they were in power? Could it be the same people who later threw acid in girl’s faces? (My info on this comes from the ultra-right wing National Geographic. Note for foreign readers: The National Geographic is actually a left of center magazine if anything. The comment above is sarcastic. It’s intended to make deniers cry.) We are leaving Afghanistan soon. The French , under Socialist president Mr Hollande, are leaving even sooner. Pres. Obama tells us everything will be alright in Afghanistan after we go. I am preparing myself for more shame.

The mainstream libertarian position to all these horrors is: None of our business. Did you hear Congressman’s Paul declaration on the massacres in Syria? You didn’t? My point exactly.

Radioactive material from the ill-fated Japanese power plant has been found in California-caught tuna. A little bit of material. Tuna is radioactive anyway, so are potatoes, so are you. And there is arsenic in tap-water where I live. As always, it’s the quantity that matters.

If you happen to have in your fridge tuna that is radioactive at the level announced by today’s new item, please, send me an email. I will get it off your hands. There is never enough fresh tuna in my life.

Now, on a lighter side: The annual Eurovision contest was held last week in Baku, Baku is not exactly old Europe but the local petro-lords paid for the privilege of hosting this sad event. It’s a sad event because Europe demonstrated once more, for the whole world to see that it has not popular culture to speak of. The Swedish entry won as is often the case in that contest. It may be because Swedes know English better than most other Europeans. English is the only language understood by a fair number of Europeans.

Anyway, no blues, no bluegrass, no country music, not even anything approaching the sheer gall of a Madonna anywhere in Europe. The cultural poverty of Europe is not limited to popular music. There is also no visual art in Europe, no painting, no sculpture. In its best parts- that include much of France – Europe is a good museum. Why so many American Europhiles don’t see the obvious is one of those obdurate mysteries. I guess, if there was no Europe, they would have to invent one. It’s cheaper to close one eye and to keep using the old one. I like the Netherlands though, in spite of everything. And I admire the Swiss who sell chocolate to the world although they have no coca, no sugar, and hardly any milk cows.

Europeans will continue to import American cultural goods as they have been doing since about the end of WWII. They will have to. There is no local substitute. And did you hear about German popular culture? No, you didn’t. Got you again!

Remembering, Chocolate, and the Beach

I feel just right about taking my grand-daughter to the beach on Memorial Day. I think that, in a way, that’s the deep meaning of this holiday of remembrance.

In 1944 the Allies, mostly Americans there, liberated France from Nazi occupation. The first Americans we saw did not just save me, a toddler, from likely starvation, or from mere misery if my father were to die of starvation instead. They liberated me and they gave me chocolate. My mother said she cried when she saw the chocolate because she had not seen any for years.

America does not mean just living off the bare minimum. It means living with ease. That is America’s message to humanity: There is dignity in having chocolate anytime you wish. American veterans suffered and died for the simple human dignity of eating chocolate and taking your grand-daughter to the beach in peace. Relatively free capitalism is the normal motor of this freedom, of course.

The relationship between bravery in war on the one hand and chocolate and the beach on the other, is difficult to grasp for most Europeans who tend to the grandiose (especially the French, let’s face it.) It’s had to grasp even for some Americans. Perhaps they should move elsewhere to make room for an equal number of foreigners who understand better than they the attainable American dream.

Socialism: Sinister, Silly

Many of the conservative comments about President Obama I hear on the radio have been leaving me vaguely non-plussed. (If you think about it, it’ s not easy to be non-plussed in a vague way, or on the contrary, is it a redundancy?) Little by little, I began realizing that the cause of my non-plussness is the frequent allegation that the President is “a socialist.” Nearly always, the implied suggestion is that something sinister is about. The French side of my mind, well versed in things socialist, perceives a strong discordance between the two concepts, “socialist” and “sinister.”

First, the word socialist does not have a fixed meaning. In the past fifty years, it has meant just about everything, from German genocidal totalitarian (“National Socialist,” “Nazi”), to African plutocrat, to the mild high-tax administrations common in several mild and undoubtedly democratic European countries. (See my series of essays on this blog about various kinds of fascism.) It seems to me that American conservatives who call Obama a “socialist” are implicitly referring to the western European brand of so-called “socialism.” (Although, some of the president’s followers and entourage belong to the brass-knuckle brand of “socialism.”) Here is where the French fraction of my brain feels a discordance. As some of you may know, the candidate of the French Socialist Party was recently elected President of the French Republic. French “socialists” are fresh in my mind, count on it. Now, there is no way they are sinister, except by happenstance and only in the long run. They are not sinister, they are idiotic and deeply ignorant. They are ignorant the way someone is ignorant who has not learned a thing in fifty years say, between 1960 and 2010.

Recently, I am watching a French weekly show about which I have said much good on this blog in the past. (“On n’est pas couché.”)  The show subjects politicians to rapid-fire questions by a couple of sharp journalists plus some other show participants, sometimes for a long time. The guest that evening is the second ranking officer in the French Socialist Party. He would be number one if only the person who is now first had accepted a post of minister in the new President Hollande’s cabinet. Instead, she was piqued by something or other and went back to being Mrs Number One. The show participants want to know what will be the Socialist Party’s national priorities if it wins control of parliament in addition to the presidency. The speaker is acting in fact as a spokesman for his party and for the new president who has not really had time to organize his team. He can’t easily say the question took him by surprise. In addition to his position of authority, the speaker has the benefit of being close, of having been close for many years, to the elite of the Socialist Party. He is the ultimate Socialist Party insider.

One of the first priorities the speaker mentions, and mentions loud and clear, is a future policy of re-industrialization of France. That’s expected; left-wing demagogues everywhere agitate the rank and file by pointing to a far-away cutthroat foreign enemy who works for fifty cents a day and who has stolen their well-paid dream manufacturing jobs. They do it in Illinois; they do it in Pennsylvania; of course, they do it in France too. Now, I don’t know if France has lost manufacturing activity in recent years or in the past ten years, or in the past thirty years. I won’t even look it up because it’s not directly relevant to my purpose. However, if I had a sound chance to make a large bet with someone who could not wiggle away, or if there was an escrow situation involved, I would bet that it has not, or only to a very small extent. I mean that the value of French manufactures conventionally measured is higher in real euros than it was in 2,000, and also in 1990, although it might be a little lower than it was in 2008. Anyway, I digress again.

Mr Socialist Party Number Two is a very articulate person. He is the kind of voluble speaker who makes it difficult for interviewers to interview him because he presents a moving target. He answers every question at a fast pace and with 250% of the information another would deliver. He is a good tribune. He know how to speak to ordinary people. He speaks well with formulas that will stick to their minds. In fact, he is one of the few good speakers the French Socialist Party has to offer. Anyway, to make his point about the dreadful, lamentable and worsening state of French manufacturing, he offers the following figures:

In as little as the past ten years, the percentage of French GDP coming from industry (manufacturing) has gone down from 25 to only 17.

Well, percentage figures are not tricky in general. They are tricky however if you don’t know what you are talking about. Or if you are talking mindlessly. The Socialist Party Mr Number Two does not seem to realize that if your manufacturing sector grows at a 5% clip annually while your service sector increases by 7%, manufactures will account for a declining percentage of your production. In fact, any modern country would kill and even cheerily prostitute its head of state for such growth figures.(That would be Mr Hollande, in this case.)

To express the same arithmetic reality in a slightly different way, if both the manufacturing sector and the service sector grow at 1% per year, the manufacturing sector will not decline as a percentage of the total (as in his example). It will remain steady. Am I to believe that such rates of growth would thrill the Socialists? And if the manufacturing sector grows not at all while the service sector shrinks, manufacturing will become bigger in percentage than it was. And in that case, the French Socialist Party will have reason to celebrate, right? It will institute a second Bastille Day to celebrate the event! And so on.

Now, many of my sophomore students used to make this kind of mistake when handling percentages. But they were 19 or twenty on the average and they were not addressing the economic future of a nation of sixty million. And by the time I was through with them, none of them made that kind of mistake, you can trust me on this!

French Socialists just don’t understand the concept of economic growth. Their instinct tells them that the pie is always constant at best. That’s why they are socialists.

Now the man who is Number Two in the French Socialist Party bears the beautiful name “Harlem Désir.” He is a tall, lithe, elegant black man (but not too black. I know my French people exquisitely well; you can trust me on this too.) I am quite sure what a loyal French Socialist would say in his defense:

Mr Désir is not an economist. You are beating up on a kindergartner, shame on you! He came up through the Socialist Party on the basis of his leadership in fighting racism. He is a sort of people’s tribune. He is a very nice person. (I agree to the latter, by the way.) It’s unfair to expect him to know the ins and outs of national economic policy.

But of course, it was not the enemy, ex-Pres. Sarkozy, who chose him to be the party’s Second Mate. There was no conspiracy against the Socialist Party. No, this pleasant foo-foo head, Mr Désir, is a true expression of the party’s collective mind, of its culture. And following the show, no one corrected him; none of the hundreds of thousands of French socialist TV viewers said anything.

Do you get my main message? None of this is sinister. It’s a little pathetic. The French Socialist Party has taken charge. It will pull the country out of its grave economic circumstances with vigorous and enlightened policies that will also be equitable. It will save France just as soon as it begins to understand third grade-level fractions.

But French leftists don’t have a monopoly on stupidity, trivial reality reminds me whenever I forget. The morning following the evening when I heard Mr Désir, I am watching MSNBC. Of course, I am on the elliptical at the gym. That’s the only time I watch MSMBC, by force you might say. I am no masochist. There is pseudo-news announcement out of nowhere

Last year, CEOs remuneration averaged 8,9 millions dollars. (It might have been 9,8 million; makes no difference!) No comment, no explanation, and no correction. MSNBC makes me feel like starting a new business and incorporating it just so I can become a CEO and get even a small piece of the giant pie in the sky.

5/28/12  An afterthought: The failure of his presidency could turn Mr Obama into a brass-knuckle leftist. The danger is especially great if the Supreme Court overturns or guts his national health care plans.

Hermanos*

This story was first published in NotesOnLiberty about 5/ 15^th/ 2012

This is a story about Mexicans but before I get to the topic, I need to make small political commentaries.

Most of the time, I abstain from describing myself as a libertarian for several reasons. One is the current and recent libertarian leadership that I can’t stomach. (There is a series of comments on my blog about Ron Paul’s behavior: factsmatter.wordpress.com . There are also many comments from true-blue libertarians about my anti-Paul rants. ) Another, possibly more durable set of reasons for my reluctance is that I am keenly aware of the contradictions between some of my positions and because some of my positions are incompatible with fundamental libertarianism. Incidentally, I am not the only libertarian (small “l” ) with such contradictions in his heart; I just have the great merit of being aware of the fact. (If I say so myself.)

`One of my un-libertarian positions consists in repeating without hesitation that every national society has a moral right to control its borders. We can’t just have different kinds of people bring unchecked into this society their habitual laziness, for example, or their propensity to disorder, and worse, their concept of order, or again, their ethical idea of the proper relationship between religion and government. (Feel free to put national names and other stickers on each of these four categories.) The fact that I am an immigrant does not make me more mindlessly “tolerant” on such issues. On the contrary, I believe I am better able than most native-born Americans (or than all of them) to judge that those who live in this society, such as it is, are exceptionally lucky. Not that it’s that hard to figure out, at any rate. Poor people from everywhere want to move here but also many prosperous people from prosperous countries. Millions have voted with their feet. Even more millions are trying to, many at great cost to their safety.

Among the latter, of course, are many Mexican nationals. I have argued elsewhere in a scholarly libertarian journal (The Independent Review) that the Mexicans should be given special treatment by American immigration laws. With my co-author, fellow immigrant Sergey Nikiforov, I have argued that the key to an overall solution to the problem posed by Mexican illegal immigration specifically lies in the separation of freedom of movement from citizenship. This, for both Mexicans and Americans. I also argued, in that article that Mexicans, our next door neighbors, should received special treatment, privileged treatment, treatment over and better than that we extend to other foreigners. Incidentally, there is a live link to this article on my blog: factsmatter.wordpress.com. And no, it is not the case that “foreign” is a dirty word. And, as some wit remarked years ago, about the prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs, and I wish it had been me: “If they want to have affairs, they can damn well have them at home!”

Not much more than a couple of years after this article was researched and prepared, we learn that net illegal Mexican immigration into this country probably approximates zero. (That’s illegal Mexicans coming in minus illegal Mexicans leaving the US.) The current worldwide and American economic crisis is of course a sufficient explanation for both changes, for the decrease in comings and for the increase in goings of Mexican illegals. Incidentally, the fact that illegals are leaving in large numbers pretty much gives the lie to the idea, lamentably common in conservative circles, that they cross the border mostly to take advantage of our social services. In this country recently, jobs have dried up while social services have expanded but Mexican illegals are still leaving. Ergo, they were not here for social services but for jobs. As Nikiforov and I argued all along, they come to work. Since they are mostly young, while they are in the US, many also commit crimes, as the young tend to do everywhere, and many mate and have children, as young adults do everywhere. All this criminal activity and all this productive mating places a burden, a burden, on social services of course. It’s a normal burden, not the parasitic blood-sucking in some conservatives’ nightmares. If all works well, some of those Mexican illegals, or many, stay here, they pay taxes here for a long time and they support my adult children later with their Social Security contributions.

Notwithstanding the sufficiency of the economic crisis explanation, there is an alternative explanation to the quick reduction in the in- flows of Mexican nationals across our southern border. Or rather, there are two explanations that combine to produce this decrease, aside from, independent of the American economic crisis. First, Mexican fertility rates have declined precipitously to the point that they now approximate American rates. On the average, Mexicans have only slightly more children than do Americans and the trend is downward. Secondly, after many years of severe economic trouble, Mexico is finally achieving the kind of economic growth that is considered normal at its moderate level of development. The latter is of course systematically higher than American economic growth. After a severe contraction in 2009, Mexico achieved a mean GDP growth of 4.2 for the past three years, 2012 included, against 2.2 for the US. (OECD StatExtracts, Economic Outlook No 90, Annual Projections Dec 2011.: “Gross Domestic Product, etc,.”)

Now, I want to evoke a subjective side of Mexican immigration. Namely, I want to assert that Mexicans make very good immigrants to this country (This, even if like most immigrants in the past, they tend to vote Democratic at first.)] And then, I make the specific claim that Mexicans, illegals as well as legal immigrants contribute a high degree of graciousness to American culture, a culture produced largely by the grandchildren of the English, Germans, Irish, Poles, and Slovaks. (See what I mean?)

Here are some reminders about Mexicans in the US:

Mexicans work hard. Everyone agrees on this even those who suffer most from their presence as job competitors. Unlike some European immigrants for example, they don’t ask for directions to the welfare office a couple of days after they arrive. They come from a work-oriented culture, like American culture used to be many years ago.

Very poor Mexicans are more socially acceptable, less socially disruptive than equally poor native-born Americans. There are Mexican “homeless” encampments on my river. You never hear about them. You would have to know they are there. You can’t say the same of Anglo homeless squatters in Santa Cruz. (Some kill people, not many, just some.)

Mexican immigrants arrive here well informed about American institutions, about American culture, about American habits.

Mexicans immigrants come from a country rent and terrorized by the blowback of our war on drugs. Yet, they have the good grace never to mention here that we are nearly entirely responsible for the horrors their country has to suffer on account of our stupid policies. I mean, of course than if the US announced the legalization of all drugs, the massacres, the beheadings, the cutting off of hands and feet would stop in Mexico within weeks or days. I am simply assuming that making the supply of a product in high demand illegal is certain to make the product prodigiously profitable. Hence the bloody turf wars among Mexican suppliers. Legalize or ignore drugs; let the price of marijuana drop to where it belongs, somewhere between the prices of tobacco and of carrots. The massacre in Mexico will stop,

Mexicans are also courteous and endlessly gracious, in my considerable and lengthy experience. Below are three illustrations.

There is an old-style diner I frequent about once a week for breakfast. (I have immortalized it in a story: “Radio Free Santa Cruz“ published in le libertarian periodical Liberty, 24-8 -September 2010.) I go there often, usually thrown out of bed by the insomnia that plagues the aged who feel guilty for old but good reasons they may not want to go into publicly lest they be charged with bragging. The same crew of two Mexicans is always in the kitchen. It’s an open kitchen. You can see them and you can hear everything they say. No matter how early I get there, I find these two guys guffawing and joking loudly. That’s often in the middle of breakfast rush-hour. This is worth commenting on because, the world over, cooks are given a pass for being A.H. at the height of their rush-hour. The rule does not apply to Mexican cooks. If you don’t believe me lend an ear next time you are in a cheap restaurant. In California, that’s an easy study because all cooks in such restaurants are Mexicans, have been for ten years or more. (Some are legal immigrants!)

One slow day, my wife and I enter a small Mexican-owned small shop on the edge of town. My wife is from India. She is looking for tropical fruit that are still uncommon in mainstream grocery stores, in the years right after the signing of NAFTA. Her attention gets drawn to a cinenovela being played on a TV set hanging for the shop ceiling. Observing that she is craning her neck, the young man behind the counter brings a box for her to stand on. His buddy who has been hanging out in the shop with him approaches and offers my wife his hand to help her climb on the box. The guy has dark skin and very short hair. He appears to be somewhat over twenty-five. Intricate tattoos sally forth from the neck opening of his shirt and climb all over his neck in thick masses and then curl into the external faces of both his ears. There is only one place in the world where you can afford the time and the expense of such dense tattoo-art: prison. The thought imposes itself on my inexorably: This young Mexican jailbird is much better bred than all the white middle-class young of the same age we know. Of course, I will be accused by the pedantly naïve of “generalizing.” Not so; as soon as you open your eyes a little, you will observe that, in California, people with Spanish last names and skin a shade darker than average are systematically more polite than the rest of the population. As I write this, I am trying to gather some recollection of one rude Mexican or child of Mexicans I have met. I come up empty.

Now, in connection with the next story I have to say something quick and historical about myself: I was born in Paris, France. When I was two, the soldiers who marched down the Champs-Elysees were not French. How do I know? The French are incapable of orderly goose-stepping.

There is a woman in her late twenties who works as a cashier in a pan dulce bakery I patronize every so often. She has grown on me. The reason is that early in our fleeting relationship, she discovered that I was a special kind of Anglo, one who actually understands Spanish and who actually speaks reasonably well. This is a digression: California is full of people who have taken multiple vacations in Mexico and who brought back fluency in how to say, “ Two more beers, please,” and, “Where is the restroom?” They are gringos who embarrass the local Mexicans who don’t know how to let them know politely that their’s, the Mexicans’ English is much more serviceable than their’s, the gringos’ Spanish and that, therefore they, the Anglos, should keep their primitive Spanish where it belongs, in their back-pockets, for a dire emergency.

So, anyway, soon after discovering my comparative fluency (comparative!) the young cashier began addressing me casually as “tú.” This flatters me, of course, because California Mexicans, as is the won’t of immigrants in many places, mark their belongingness with each other through the use of a familiar form of address. Mexicans who would go on calling each other, “Seňor” and “Seňora” in Vera Cruz or in Guadalajara all their lives, instantly begin using the “tú” when they live in a sea of gringos. The young woman does me honor whenever she returns change addressing me the same way, as if I were one of her affectionate uncles, for instance. And yes, I understand that she may be simply engaging in a commercially valid practice. All the same, she does not call “tú” others who look like me.

And, it’s time to say that my grand-daughter often accompanies me to the pan dulce shop. It’s true that her looks may have facilitated this process of instant assimilation. I don’t want to tell here this long and interesting sub-story but the child, three at the time, is no more related to me by blood than say, a gopher. Instead, she is very pretty (I may brag since we are not genetic kin) in a bronzed sort of way that might well look Mexican to a Mexican eye. At any rate, I often enter the pan dulce shop with the child in tow. She is smart, talkative and loud, like Grandpa, and she wins hearts everywhere she goes (also like…). So, anyway, one day, I show up at the shop without that beautiful child. “And where is the little one” asks the young casher? “Oh, I say, she is with her Mom.” “I see, retorts the casher, she is with her mother one week and with you the other week.” “No, no, I exclaim, she is not my daughter, she is my grand-daughter!” The young woman raises her head, looks at me intently. I swear, disappointment in me is written all over her face.

What’s not to like?

©Jacques Delacroix 2012

* Brothers

An Illegal, Unconstitutional War? Reality Check (Amended 5/25/12)

Some libertarians, misguided by Ron Paul, among several false leaders and several bad leaders, habitually, even frequently denounce the war in Afghanistan and the war of liberation of Iraq as “illegal”and “unconstitutional.” Such statements meet with little overt contradiction because the public has grown tired of both wars, the one that we left behind in Iraq and the one that’s more or less continuing in Afghanistan. These wars lasted too long for the American national ADD. In addition much of public opinion considers the charges of illegality and of unconstitutionality thoroughly irrelevant. Many more don’t even understand such charges. I think I understand well the charge of unconstitutionality and I consider it important. I care only a little about the charge of illegality. It’s too vague to be important and too absurd on its face to merit much consideration. Yet, it may be a conceptual step to the charge of unconstitutionality, the one that merits attention.

Right now, I cannot perform the research “lite” but nevertheless time consuming required to deal with the constitutionality of the former war against Saddam Hussein. I can however try to throw some light on the constitutionality of the on-going war in Afghanistan against the Taliban barbarians and against their allies.

Note on 5/25/12:  My Ron Paul devoted follower- in- residence, Brandon Christensen, insisted several times in comments to this essay that Congressman Paul never called the Afghan war illegal or unconstitutional. Rather than review several tedious hours of the presidential debates where I heard Paul say that, I insert this warning here. If you believe Christensen, you may want to read what follows as a free-floating essay on the constitutionality of that war. Incidentally, Christensen himself, the loyal Paulista, has not responded to my invitation to declare whether he, Christensen, thinks the war is legal and constitutional. What he thinks is a secret.

Before I begin, let me say that I recognize that the war in Afghanistan is winding down. It will end almost irrespective of anything anyone does except in the unlikely case another massive attack against us originates there. I am sorry that war is ending the way it’s ending. I mean, with the democratic world displaying its lack of resolve for all believers in mass murder to see. I also think there is a fair chance that the Taliban savages will take over the country anew after we leave. Accordingly, it’s possible that again and again Afghanistan will serve as a haven for violent jihadists who have wet-dreams about assassinating large numbers of infidels. Incidentally, if you study the issue even a little you will soon discover – or re-discover – that “infidels” deserving of assassination by the violent jihadist include many more Muslims than non-Muslims of any kind. On May 19^th 2012, the victims were 90+ members of the Yemenite armed forces. Periodically, the victims are the subdued Shiite Muslims in Pakistan; earlier they were even Iraqi Shiite Muslims who were themselves busy trying to kill Americans.

My wife’s share and my share of the cost of the ten-year war, together, averaged $400 annually so far. That’s about as much as I spent on tobacco when I was still smoking. It’s less than we currently spend on wine, and we have humble tastes and my wife hardly drinks any. It’s not much money to keep reminding the many mean, America-hating people in the world that we area a tough nut to crack.

Yes, of course, I don’t forget the 3,000 brave Americans who died in Afghanistan, nor the hundreds of NATO allies. The Americans died for a noble and valuable cause, to establish the notion that killing Americans and protecting those who kill Americans bring pain and suffering. Of course, every death is one too many but, if you believe this literally you have to surrender to the worst barbarity. It’s a kind of moral blackmail for those who use it. And, of course, I find despicable the crocodile tears of secret pacifists who call the Afghan war illegal. That just war has cost a ten times fewer American lives in ten years than traffic accidents cost in a single year. Yet, anti-war types never never go after traffic mortality although it’s obvious to any thinking person that many traffic deaths are avoidable. ( Driver’s license canceled on first DUI conviction; five years in jail on the second.) Anti-war persons of all feathers believe that it it’s no big deal if Americans kill Americans in a drunken stupor as long as the killers are at the wheel of an automobile. Some moral compass!

The charge of unconstitutionality of the Afghanistan war must depend on what the US Constitution has to say about war. Here it is, below in its entirety. It’s amazingly brief:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8The Congress shall have Power:To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…. ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into actual service of the United State

In addition, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits the ability of the President to wage war without Congressional assent. By doing so, of course, the resolution recognizes de facto the right of the President to wage war of his own accord to some extent. This ordinary act of Congress obviously does not modify any part of the Constitution.

There are several precedents of presidential autonomy in matters of war. Here is one: In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson attacked the Barbary Pirates (of Libya!) and kicked their asses. What happened is that after the United States separated from the UK, the pirates figured the US as a state was too far away and too small to do anything about attacks against its merchantmen and looting and slaving taking place in the Med. Pres. Jefferson became annoyed.

“Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was ‘unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.’” He told Congress: “I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”^[14] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli “and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.” (Wikipedia)

Pres. Jefferson thus struck the pirate states without benefit of a formal declaration of war by Congress. He must have thought that when other people shoot at you, you shoot back, that you don’t need permission to do so. Congress did nothing to stop Jefferson. It seems Congress thought that Jefferson knew pretty well what the Constitution meant. I am wondering if Congressman Ron Paul, or any of his followers, would call the war against the Barbary pirates “unconstitutional.” I am not just asking for the sake of asking. I would like to see any of Paul’s followers answer this question here in writing.

The fact that the War Powers Act and the actions of several respected presidents show that the American executive may wage war with the passive acquiescence of Congress however does not mean that the War of Afghanistan was started that way

What happened is that President Clinton several time threatened the Taliban regime militarily if it did not stop hosting and helping Al Qaida. The fact is that President Clinton acted on his military threat. The feeble Clintonian military actions in Afghanistan however proved insufficient to motivate the Taliban regime to interfere with Al Qaida while it was preparing the 9/11 massacre. Thus, the American response to 9/11 was not written on a blank page. It was not a kind of Pearl Harbor in reverse. (I think libertarian commentaries imply something like that.) Even the semi-literate Taliban rulers had all the information at their disposal to know that a state of war existed between them and the US. That was several years before 9/11/2001.

Seven days after the 9/11 attack, a joint resolution of Congress gave the President the power to use all necessary force against those he determined planned, authorized or aided the 9/11 attack as well as those who harbored those who committed the attack. (This wording is paraphrased from Public Law 107-40, 107^th Congress of the United States, first session; September 18^th 2001. If you don’t like it, give your own wording right here, please.)

The joint resolution that begun the present war in Afghanistan passed by 420 to 1 in the House of Representatives. It passed by 98 to 0 (zero) in the Senate.

I don’t know how any war could be more legal than this.

Now, if you want to argue that the omission of the sacred words, “declare” and “war” is enough to make the war unconstitutional, go ahead, do it openly.

Libertarian leaders who say the Afghan war is unconstitutional or illegal, and first and foremost Congressman Ron Paul, don’t seem to know what they are talking about. Or else, they are closet pacifists who don’t wish to pay the political price of their moral convictions, ethical cowards, if you will.

If there is some sophisticated constitutional argument to the contrary that escapes me, I would be glad to publish it on this blog integrally and repeatedly. I will not treat especially well however attempts to change the subject under the pretext of picking up this challenge.

Radioactive Debris Floats on to Alaska Beach (?)

I think I have seen everything in terms of media mendacity and in terms of media gullibility and then, something happens to make me realize I haven’t seen s…!

Today, as I am stepping high on the elliptical as I do several days a week (thank you for asking), CNN announces that debris from last year’s tsunami in Japan is reaching North America. The announcer switches  to the CNN special envoy on a deserted un-indentified Alaska beach.

The special envoy  is dressed in Alaska- suitable foul-weather gear although the sun is shining brightly on the beach. One shot shows him dramatically as if holding in his arms about twenty large objects. They are meant to identify the kind of garbage torn off the Alaskan coastline by the tsunami and floated to the western hemisphere. (But there is more, wait a minute).

I have a problem with what’s shown by CNN as washed off debris from Japan. Every item of that debris could have come off a fishing boat; most of the items shown had to come from a boat.

Two implications:

First, boats, including Japanese fishing boats, can operate 200 miles or less from the Alaskan coast. I am not denying that some coastal debris could  float from Japan. I just dislike false reports especially when they come from a news organization.

Second, if the debris come from a fishing boat, it’s  difficult to accredit the idea that it’s carrying radiation, deadly radiation to be precise. The debris has to come from the vicinity of the damaged nuclear reactor to be useful in that regard.

CNN is either trying to contribute to the paradoxically widespread sentiment of insecurity among our overfed yet extremely healthy, long-living, super-entertained contemporaries, or it’s really, really stupid. Knowing CNN, I can’t categorically reject the second explanation.

Let me be specific: There is to-date no report of radiation sickness in Japan or elsewhere following the tsunami coming from a scientifically valid source. It’s none, zero. If you think  otherwise, send a comment to this blog. I will publish it immediately. Of course, I may comment on your comment. You may use a pseudonym. Come to think of it, perhaps you should.

And by the way, I have bad news for those who believe the world will end December 21 of this year. It’s not the date the old Maya gave for the end it’s just that they did not  know how to count beyond that date. That’s according to a Boston University archeologist who discovered a later Maya calendar a couple of months ago inside a pyramid.

Asking for Analyses and Opinions from Overseas

Every day this blog receives many hits (visits) from countries other than the United States. I would be pleased and appreciative if some of my overseas readers sent comments or even essays. There is no limitation on topics. The probability that I would censor anything is extremely low. (To this day, after several years, I have never censored anything.) Also, I edit only on request. You are entitled to your mistakes rather than mine, I believe

International communications would make this blog much more useful than it is now. Don’t be shy!

La croissance en France.

Pemier trimestre 2012: Croissance economique allemande= 5% annuellement; croissance economique francaise= 0%.

Grosse question: ” Quel est le bon modele economique, le Francais ou l’Allemand?”

Eco-Murderer!

Something awful but exquisite happened in my town, the People’s Green Socialist Republic of  Santa Cruz yesterday or the day before. The driver of a Prius assaulted a skateboarder with a machete. I knew it: People who want ardently to save the environment are packing weapons, not kind of impersonal weapons like a handgun, but weapons with blades, blades that you can feel cutting into the enemy’s flesh!

I thank KSCO, the local radio station where I had a talk-show for three years for reporting the news in its fulness. Another station would have censored the info about the kind of car  the would-be murderer was driving as if it were irrelevant. It’s relevant that it was a Prius, of course, the obligatory car of those who think global warming is raising the ocean level higher in some places than in others.

Incidentally: I like the idea behind the Prius, the idea of a hybrid engine recuperating the energy always wasted by internal combustion engines. It’s the the Prius as a cultural and political phenomenon I despise. Prius owners are going to keep me driving a pick-up truck beyond the time it’s reasonable or economical to do so. Likewise, the anti-smoking campaign kept me smoking longer than my judgment allowed. I wonder if anyone is keeping tab of  counterproductive propaganda.

The French Presidentials and Cinco de Mayo

I have been busy producing a legible an clean copy of my memoirs: “I Used to Be French….” It’s an endless process. By the way, if you are an agent, don’t be shy about asking to read this remarkable and witty document.

While my back was turned, the world continued to turn. The French lost the battle of Puebla and they lost an election, all in the same day.

People in California celebrate Cinco de Mayo with beer and more expensive stuff. Few know what they are celebrating, Anglos, never, children of Mexicans, seldom, Mexican immigrants, often but not always. Myself, I celebrate too because I like beer, Mexicans and Mexican beer. I celebrate discretely though.

In the battle of Puebla, in 1862, under the presidency of Benito Juarez, a Mexican army achieved victory over a French expeditionary forces against all expectations. What happened is that the French thought they were on their way to Prussia to beat on that emerging power before it was too late. They turned right instead of left outside Paris by mistake. Somehow, they ended up in Mexico and the rest is history, mostly forgotten history. They left behind in Mexico, probably pan dulces, and less probably, the name for roving musicians in charro costumes, mariachis (“marriage”).

Pretty much the same thing happened Sunday in France except that the French turned left when they should have turned right. They elected the grayest, least accomplished politician of all times to be their president for five years. He has done even less in his lifetime than Barack Obama and he is not even black!

Mr Sarkozy’s goose was cooked anyway. He talked the talk but he did not not walk the walk of reform away from a a welfare state the French kind of know they can’t afford. Much of Sarkozy’s presidency was wasted on the soap opera of his private life. Beside, finally, in reality, those European governments that were in power in the fall of 2008  have been tossed, irrespective of their political color. That’s the rule. Bad luck but that’s the way it is.

What’s wrong with last Sunday’s French presidential election is not that the Socialist Party won it; the handwriting was on the wall. What’s wrong is that the winner, Mr Hollande, is a nobody. He only became the Socialist candidate because an overzealous New York prosecutor first accepted the word of a chambermaid who turned out to be a liar.

I keep wondering how different French contemporary history would be if the complainant had not been a person “of color” and if the complaint were not about a sexual assault but about a theft, for example. The fact is that Mr Strass-Khan, the most likely Socialist presidential candidate then probably knows something about economics and that Mr Hollande, his last-minute replacement, probably does not.

Two things are at stake, here. First, in spite of the farcical aspects of the French election, France is an important country, the second biggest economy in Europe in most years. If that big country also attacks the prudent, intellectually obvious financial position of Germany, it may just carry the day in Europe and that will be the end of the Euro. The wise German Chancellor might yield or her coalition might just be swept out.

The second possible consequence of Mr Hollande’s Socialist victory is the same that threatens most of Europe. The continent is not going to disappear in a big hole as some of the most intemperate conservative commentaries would seem to have it. Instead, it may well become Argentina. What threatens Europe today is not “Socialism,” whatever that means today; it’s Peronismo. I mean ever-increasing benefits for regular people accompanied by every public effort to make the rich leave and associated with the creation of a political climate that repels all investment.

What a new French President was supposed to deal with  and will not is this: The French economy has been run for thirty years like a prosperous summer camp. The main concern has been to create more games, more opportunities for fun, more celebration, more fun overall without concern for paying the bill. The bill is coming due; it’s been fun; few politicians are willing to acknowledge the simple fact.

Mr Hollande comes from the wing of his party that has not had a thought in forty years. He is not likely to understand or to tell his fellow citizens, “Time to wind down the party.” His most-noted promise is to return the legal age of retirement in France from sixty-two to sixty. Simple!

Rarely in history has an act of collective self-sabotage been so clear, so obvious. Denmark, Sweden, and Germany conducted the necessary reforms several years ago. Their economies are thriving. The rest of the Europeans are stumping the ground with their little feet screaming, ” No, I don’t want to go home from the party; leave me alone! I hate you!!!”

For the French, it will be another battle of Puebla: They will have no recollection they took the wrong turn; they will soon have forgotten that they took part in a war. Their children will not have any knowledge that they lost it.