Comments on: Bush and Gang Prepares to Unleash Hell on Iran. Is the Georgian War a Stepping Stone? http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/ For Liberty, One Individual At A Time Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:04:46 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: RBurnett http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/comment-page-1/#comment-975 RBurnett Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:38:24 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1460#comment-975 For now, I will leave it at this: 1. Do the homework following Machiavelli's method--in a letter to Francesco Vettorio, he outlined how he would go into his study at the end of a workday, and for four hours have a conversation with the greatest minds of the past, through their works, asking them questions that they, in their humanity, would answer. And this kind of study is harder work that that of tilling the fields-- Take this one issue: Ron Paul respects the Constitution, saying that it is sacred and should be followed. But wait. In Plato's Statesman is the discussion of a doctor, who prescribes a regimen of treatment for a patient, and then departs. Now after a time, he returns, and what does he see? Does he see a set of new treatments that do not follow his instructions or a set of treatments exactly as his instructions but not accounting for the changes in the patient or a new set of instructions need to modify the treatment, perhaps even based upon some new science? In the real word, our founders are not going to return--so what is their intention with the Constitution--is is to be followed to the letter or, as some have noted, does it contain ambiguity so that necessary changes or alterations amy be made, seemingly in opposition to the letter of the Constitution? Aristotle addresses this by noting that a polity will cahnge from evolutions, new habits, traditions and customs that alter the very idea of the polity's justice, and force the reinterpretation or amending of the constitution. One of those changes, between the ancient writers and the more modern ones, is on the issue of survival. The paramount concern for the statists like Hobbes, for a socialist like Rousseau, a capitalist like Smith, is survival--by the ordering of the economies. But the good life described by Aristotle is a life devoted to excellence, which sometimes includes survival. The unexamined lives of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker are necessary and admirable for Smith, but quite uninteresting and debasing for Socrates. For now, I will leave it at this:
1. Do the homework following Machiavelli’s method–in a letter to Francesco Vettorio, he outlined how he would go into his study at the end of a workday, and for four hours have a conversation with the greatest minds of the past, through their works, asking them questions that they, in their humanity, would answer.
And this kind of study is harder work that that of tilling the fields–
Take this one issue: Ron Paul respects the Constitution, saying that it is sacred and should be followed. But wait. In Plato’s Statesman is the discussion of a doctor, who prescribes a regimen of treatment for a patient, and then departs. Now after a time, he returns, and what does he see? Does he see a set of new treatments that do not follow his instructions or a set of treatments exactly as his instructions but not accounting for the changes in the patient or a new set of instructions need to modify the treatment, perhaps even based upon some new science? In the real word, our founders are not going to return–so what is their intention with the Constitution–is is to be followed to the letter or, as some have noted, does it contain ambiguity so that necessary changes or alterations amy be made, seemingly in opposition to the letter of the Constitution? Aristotle addresses this by noting that a polity will cahnge from evolutions, new habits, traditions and customs that alter the very idea of the polity’s justice, and force the reinterpretation or amending of the constitution. One of those changes, between the ancient writers and the more modern ones, is on the issue of survival. The paramount concern for the statists like Hobbes, for a socialist like Rousseau, a capitalist like Smith, is survival–by the ordering of the economies. But the good life described by Aristotle is a life devoted to excellence, which sometimes includes survival. The unexamined lives of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker are necessary and admirable for Smith, but quite uninteresting and debasing for Socrates.

]]> By: Jake4Constitution http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/comment-page-1/#comment-968 Jake4Constitution Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:38:24 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1460#comment-968 Dear RBurnett - Actually the detail in your responses is the main reason I suggest writing at NC. Yes, you would probably take some serious flak, but I think you can defend yourself pretty easily. The NC is actually dedicated to all sides of the political spectrum, in a lot of ways I enjoy reading about the other sides rather than just the libertarian bit of it. Admittedly, I am also a bit jealous, you're obviously well-read. I myself didn't give a damn about politics until late last year. That and I tend to agree with a lot of what you write. Thanks for writing back Jake Dear RBurnett -
Actually the detail in your responses is the main reason I suggest writing at NC. Yes, you would probably take some serious flak, but I think you can defend yourself pretty easily. The NC is actually dedicated to all sides of the political spectrum, in a lot of ways I enjoy reading about the other sides rather than just the libertarian bit of it. Admittedly, I am also a bit jealous, you’re obviously well-read. I myself didn’t give a damn about politics until late last year. That and I tend to agree with a lot of what you write. Thanks for writing back
Jake

]]> By: RBurnett http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/comment-page-1/#comment-964 RBurnett Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:32:07 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1460#comment-964 Jake: I am ignorant on the USDX--sorry--my studies of Adam Smith and Aristotle are on political economy, with the emphasis on the political, as I do not share the modern view that the economic is the primary thing--indeed, Smith, as an example of a modern thinker, posited that survival, economic survival, was the important thing, raising it to an equal level with excellence-- Which is why I cannot post on nolanchart--I am no libertarian--I made reference to Leo Strauss-- I would also make reference to Joseph Cropsey and Harry Jaffa-the first has a book of essays on Smith, the second, well, his Crisis of the House Divided sent the Southern partisans into a whirl of opposition--one of them being Tom DiLorenzo and his The Real Lincoln--and DiLorenzo has today a column (LewRockwell.com) that regards the federal Reserve in which he, a libertarian economist, makes the case that the Fed is a government agency, a political tool, in his words--hardly anything private about it although some of its banks are private, or were private in 1913--but according to him, FDR changed much of that, making the Fed central bank wholly government. This column might be placed side-by-side with the other libertarian columns that assert the Fed is private--an interesting conversation might ensue--among libertarians about the issue of the Fed as a private or government institution. As to the blockade--yup, it can be said to be a war tactic--if anyone acknowledges it as such. In the 19th century, several European nations sent their fleets to Mexico to demand repayment of debts--they not only blockaded ports such as Vera Cruz, but actually shelled them and landed troops--did this cause a war with say, the UK--no--however France installed Maximillian, and there was a war, with Maximillian, not with France. We blockaded Cuba during the missle crisis in JFK's administration, and yet this didn't turn into a hot war--it was just another event in the Cold War--again, the issue of what a war is, in political or legal terms, is a harder question to answer than the most advanced of math problems. A quick look at the Constitution reveals a curious clause, the one just prior to the enumerated power to declare war in Article I sect 8--to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and offenses against the law of nations--interesting that offenses against the law of nations sub- clause? As to the House and Senate resolutions about Iran--well, we have had many such resolutions over the years concerning all kinds of crisi and situations, and we have acted upon only a few--indeed, if the House and Senate were to pass a similar resolution about the Russia-Georgia situation, it is unlikely that we'd act on it, as an example. Indeed, with the war in Iraq, it took many UN resolutions and Congressional resolutions to get that war going--even though there were many who wanted it. And the situation with N Korea is very similar-recall the hubbub over the lauch of the NK missle and its so-called nuclear test--also, in the 1990's there was a war fear that the NK would attack S Korea. While I am at it--to use Richard John Neuhaus' expression at First Things--a Catholic conservative site--here are a couple of things that would make my stay at any libertarian site short-lived. The South was wrong--the war was over slavery, states rights was an exucse--in the several secession conventions held by the Southern states, the language was clear that secession and slavery were locked together--in letters from Southern enlisted soldiers, the sentiment about the blacks was to keep Sambo in his place, and the Southern officer's letters were on the protection of their property, the slaves and the land--yes there were many letters about Yankee agression--but this was because the South had moved away from the North on this issue due to the radicals in the pro-slavery and anti-slavery camps. The South had begun to think of itself as an independent nation, and was actually in a revolution, not a secession. It wanted a new charter, to deny the irrelevant words in the Declaration(so said Calhoun) of equality and creation--in Calhoun's 1848 Oregon Bill speech, he denied that men were created equal, indeed, he denied that they were created (exept for the first pair), and that he could not suffer equality with any Negro. As to a second issue, about the limits of liberty, well, I am with the framers/founders who had an issue with not only a popular or majority tyranny, but also popular or majority folly--this goes back to at least Aristotle, who in the Politics, noted that even in the best run self-governing polity--a society of rule by the many, that it would be sometimes necessary for a philosopher-king to put the erring polity back on track. This is because not only of folly, but because the law doesn't cover things in certain crisis--indeed, Augustine noted that even simple things like friendships can and do deteriorate- Adam Smith noted that the worship of the rich and the beautiful people corrupted morals and the society, echoed by Rousseau's complaint. But this control goes well beyond what most libertarians would tolerate--they do not seem to think that any such libertarian society would fall prey to say, the ancient curse of popular governments or societies, the demagogue or the sophist. But even libertarians can be fooled, or do foolish things--the free market is loaded with such foolishness. But this doesn't mean that I am for some total socialist control, anymore than was Adam Smith for such-he proposed his system of natural liberty, with that liberty so contrained by the requirements of justice, that invisible hand, that impartial spectator, those moral guides. But the path between the two extremes can be narrow--total liberty vs total socialist control. Recall that Smith attacked the merchants and other capita;ists as potential or actual crooks and fools--but still wanted them to run the commercial society. Jake:
I am ignorant on the USDX–sorry–my studies of Adam Smith and Aristotle are on political economy, with the emphasis on the political, as I do not share the modern view that the economic is the primary thing–indeed, Smith, as an example of a modern thinker, posited that survival, economic survival, was the important thing, raising it to an equal level with excellence–
Which is why I cannot post on nolanchart–I am no libertarian–I made reference to Leo Strauss–
I would also make reference to Joseph Cropsey and Harry Jaffa-the first has a book of essays on Smith, the second, well, his Crisis of the House Divided sent the Southern partisans into a whirl of opposition–one of them being Tom DiLorenzo and his The Real Lincoln–and DiLorenzo has today a column (LewRockwell.com) that regards the federal Reserve in which he, a libertarian economist, makes the case that the Fed is a government agency, a political tool, in his words–hardly anything private about it although some of its banks are private, or were private in 1913–but according to him, FDR changed much of that, making the Fed central bank wholly government. This column might be placed side-by-side with the other libertarian columns that assert the Fed is private–an interesting conversation might ensue–among libertarians about the issue of the Fed as a private or government institution.
As to the blockade–yup, it can be said to be a war tactic–if anyone acknowledges it as such. In the 19th century, several European nations sent their fleets to Mexico to demand repayment of debts–they not only blockaded ports such as Vera Cruz, but actually shelled them and landed troops–did this cause a war with say, the UK–no–however France installed Maximillian, and there was a war, with Maximillian, not with France. We blockaded Cuba during the missle crisis in JFK’s administration, and yet this didn’t turn into a hot war–it was just another event in the Cold War–again, the issue of what a war is, in political or legal terms, is a harder question to answer than the most advanced of math problems. A quick look at the Constitution reveals a curious clause, the one just prior to the enumerated power to declare war in Article I sect 8–to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and offenses against the law of nations–interesting that offenses against the law of nations sub- clause?
As to the House and Senate resolutions about Iran–well, we have had many such resolutions over the years concerning all kinds of crisi and situations, and we have acted upon only a few–indeed, if the House and Senate were to pass a similar resolution about the Russia-Georgia situation, it is unlikely that we’d act on it, as an example. Indeed, with the war in Iraq, it took many UN resolutions and Congressional resolutions to get that war going–even though there were many who wanted it.
And the situation with N Korea is very similar-recall the hubbub over the lauch of the NK missle and its so-called nuclear test–also, in the 1990’s there was a war fear that the NK would attack S Korea.
While I am at it–to use Richard John Neuhaus’ expression at First Things–a Catholic conservative site–here are a couple of things that would make my stay at any libertarian site short-lived. The South was wrong–the war was over slavery, states rights was an exucse–in the several secession conventions held by the Southern states, the language was clear that secession and slavery were locked together–in letters from Southern enlisted soldiers, the sentiment about the blacks was to keep Sambo in his place, and the Southern officer’s letters were on the protection of their property, the slaves and the land–yes there were many letters about Yankee agression–but this was because the South had moved away from the North on this issue due to the radicals in the pro-slavery and anti-slavery camps. The South had begun to think of itself as an independent nation, and was actually in a revolution, not a secession. It wanted a new charter, to deny the irrelevant words in the Declaration(so said Calhoun) of equality and creation–in Calhoun’s 1848 Oregon Bill speech, he denied that men were created equal, indeed, he denied that they were created (exept for the first pair), and that he could not suffer equality with any Negro. As to a second issue, about the limits of liberty, well, I am with the framers/founders who had an issue with not only a popular or majority tyranny, but also popular or majority folly–this goes back to at least Aristotle, who in the Politics, noted that even in the best run self-governing polity–a society of rule by the many, that it would be sometimes necessary for a philosopher-king to put the erring polity back on track.
This is because not only of folly, but because the law doesn’t cover things in certain crisis–indeed, Augustine noted that even simple things like friendships can and do deteriorate- Adam Smith noted that the worship of the rich and the beautiful people corrupted morals and the society, echoed by Rousseau’s complaint. But this control goes well beyond what most libertarians would tolerate–they do not seem to think that any such libertarian society would fall prey to say, the ancient curse of popular governments or societies, the demagogue or the sophist. But even libertarians can be fooled, or do foolish things–the free market is loaded with such foolishness.
But this doesn’t mean that I am for some total socialist control, anymore than was Adam Smith for such-he proposed his system of natural liberty, with that liberty so contrained by the requirements of justice, that invisible hand, that impartial spectator, those moral guides. But the path between the two extremes can be narrow–total liberty vs total socialist control. Recall that Smith attacked the merchants and other capita;ists as potential or actual crooks and fools–but still wanted them to run the commercial society.

]]> By: Jake4Constitution http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/comment-page-1/#comment-956 Jake4Constitution Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:48:01 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1460#comment-956 Dear RBurnett - Thanks for writing back! You are correct about the HR bill - I corrected it back in the nolanchart.com link. The bill has 220 co-sponsors, which is a majority. You are correct, I misspelled secession. However, my point about the blockade is not that it served to start the war, merely that blockade is indisputably a war tactic, as my feeling is many these days may think that blockading Iran is not an act or war. Like yourself, I also think that starting a war with Iran is an extremely stupid move. However, I do not share high degree of confidence - remember religion, whether from the Iranian side or from Bush's noggin has already caused some illogical events. We will know in a year's time if your prediction is true! Hope so! Interesting read on the Fed, and you are quite knowledgeable, ever considering writing at the nolan chart or asking Marc if you can write here? One question for you've that you've ducked out on me a couple times already - what do you think will happen to the dollar and USDX? Back up to 90, steady, or drop? Dear RBurnett -
Thanks for writing back!
You are correct about the HR bill – I corrected it back in the nolanchart.com link. The bill has 220 co-sponsors, which is a majority.
You are correct, I misspelled secession. However, my point about the blockade is not that it served to start the war, merely that blockade is indisputably a war tactic, as my feeling is many these days may think that blockading Iran is not an act or war.
Like yourself, I also think that starting a war with Iran is an extremely stupid move. However, I do not share high degree of confidence – remember religion, whether from the Iranian side or from Bush’s noggin has already caused some illogical events. We will know in a year’s time if your prediction is true! Hope so!
Interesting read on the Fed, and you are quite knowledgeable, ever considering writing at the nolan chart or asking Marc if you can write here?
One question for you’ve that you’ve ducked out on me a couple times already – what do you think will happen to the dollar and USDX? Back up to 90, steady, or drop?

]]> By: Bush and Gang Prepares to Unleash Hell on Iran. Is the Georgian War a Stepping Stone? | Ron Paul War Room http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/comment-page-1/#comment-955 Bush and Gang Prepares to Unleash Hell on Iran. Is the Georgian War a Stepping Stone? | Ron Paul War Room Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:40:35 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1460#comment-955 [...] http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgia... Sphere: Related Content [...] [...] http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgia... Sphere: Related Content [...]

]]> By: RBurnett http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/13/bush-and-gang-prepares-to-unleash-hell-on-iran-is-the-georgian-war-a-stepping-stone/1460/comment-page-1/#comment-953 RBurnett Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:05:06 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/?p=1460#comment-953 OK, Jake, this is another fine mess-- It's the War of Secession--not Sucession--there were such wars of sucession, which had to do with which monarch or which royal family would take a throne. And the Union blockade was not the cause of that war, indeed, there was no blockade until well after the war had begun--the naval action that may have begun the war was the feared srrival of an Union warship to Ft Sumter to aid those Union troops there--but it was a supply ship--and it didn't arrive. Oh, yes, you stated that the House Resolution passed in the House--GovTracker and THOMAS have that resolution in committee, not voted on by the House--not passed. As to the attack upon Iran by Israelis< the U S and any others, it's like this--we have all heard these rumors before. Yes, there are training missions and military exercises and military advisors and wargamers running amok specualting, training and gaming the attacks on Iran--or for that matter, Bolivia or Costa Rica or even Great Britian(before WW2, the U S Navy gamed a warplan named Black that supposed a British fleet under German control, read Miller's War Plan Orange for more details) But as with the supposed inevitable war with N Korea in the last decade, or the supposed inevitable nuclear war with the USSR in the prior decades, not to mention the domino principle asserted by conservatives about the intentions of the North Vietnamese, I think that the supposed next attack on Iran is only in the imagination of wargamers and other interested parties. I know of no partisan of any of these inevitable events--which didn't happen--who has apologised for his assertions, usually presented as fact, with all opposition or any reasonable dissent shouted down. And a lot of these experts are still working at asserting the inevitablity or high likelyhood of the next event in their sights. And these experts come in all forms--at a recent wargame convention, I attended a seminar, hosted by a well known wargamer, Joe Miranda, who had designed wargames with Jim Dunnigan and his company SPI back in the 1970's, and is now a consultant to the Pentagon. Miranda presented his Battle of Baghdad, which was to be a training tool for medium rank officers and diplomats--using the events of 2006 in Iraq as the basis for the game, and asserting that this game could be used for gaming a "battle for any large city". But conditions in Baghdad changed radically, too radically for the game's paradigm. If I were to confront Miranda at the next convention, if he shows, on this issue, he might be to shy (hah) to admit his mistake--more like he'd give the usual answer that while the system or game paradigm was flawed, the idea of wargaming is still true--to which I would have to throw, again, Leo Strauss at him. Indeed, the predictions markets, such as InTrade, have for many months been trying to sell the stock in an attack upon Iran, a mere air attack by anyone, and the prediction has failed many times--if anyone had bought the so-called stock in the prediction, they'd have lost thier shirts and underwear by now. But the war against Iran beat goes on--not from the Bush administration, but from those who interpret the Bush administration's actions to be warmongering against Iran--like he's really stupid to launch an attack with less than six months left in office? I can recall another set of people who thought Bush too stupid to get enough votes to challenge Al Gore in 2000--and he shocked them then--why not now? No--no attack on Iran-not today, not after the election, not prior to the inauguration--and then it will be Obama or McCain's thing. As to the other thing, the Fed--there's yet another court case, regarding the Federal Torts Act, that was ruled upon stating that the Federal Reserve's banks--not the central bank itself, were not government agencies--for purposes of the Federal Torts Act only--not for any other Act or situation. The key issue was whether or not the member banks were supervised on a daily basis by federal employees, their corporations run directly by the feds--and the court said they were not--but that's for the member banks--who also have several federal employees on their bank boards--but this doesn't apply to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the central bank itslef, which is run directly by the feds. So is the Fed a government agency--in an interview being passed about between an employee of the Fed and a radio station, the question was asked "is the Fed owned by my country?" and the answer was "the Fed was created by Congres and is a federal agency" to which the question was repeated about the Fed being owned by my country, and the same response--there's a failure to communicate here--what does ownership by my country mean? What does the phrase "it's a government agency created by Congress mean?" It would seem, having read the interview, that the radio station and its callers wanted a certain specific answer given in such a way as to negate the fact that the institution in question is a creation of Congress and a government agency, and that the government employee was not only reading from a script, but didn't understand the people that were interviewing him, which is to say that he was glassy-eyed in the answering of the questions put by the radio station's callers and host. As Madison put it in the 37th Federalist, writing about the vagries of language, he thought that the Almighty must be chagrined to have to have His Will delivered in the dark and murky medium of human language--indeed, he wrote elsewhere that if the words in the Constitution could be and would be twisted about to mean almost anything, that few of those who signed off on the Constitution would have done so--but he already knew what was to come, thecontinual reinterpretations--to include the clash over whether or not an institution is government or private by the twisty defintions of law. Here's another--the word voluntary when applied to paying income taxes. The dictionary defintion says that voluntary menas that you really do not have to do the thing--but the IRS defines voluntary as being able to pay the taxes yourself instead of having the IRS simply take the money and do the tax retrun for you itself--You get to choose which deductions to take, which method of payment, to include delaying payment--involuntary would mean no such decisions possible for you the taxpayer--but the word voluntary in this context doesn't mean that you do not have to ultimately pay the tax. Rousseau wrote on this, stating that the meaning of words, thier defintions, are in the context, that a word may have its meaning changed from the context. Dictionaries give multiple meanings for many words-derived from context. Here's just one, the first meaning is from a regular dictionary, the second is not--what's a sheaf--a sheaf is a package of unlined, loose papaer, used for typing, faxing and etc--but a sheaf is also the shell pattern, the fall of artillery shells into a specific area. Same word, different contexts. Thus the question of is the Fed a government agency depends upon to what are we refering--if we define an institution as government because it was created by a legislature and a chief executive, enacted into law and having government employees in its employ, then it is a government agency--however, if it's say. a contractor who, while having government employees in the company, but not created by Congress, then it's not--maybe to both--like the member banks of the Fed, which are not wholly private nor wholly government. Remember that by the reasoning of "is it owned by my country"--see the interview--even the Supreme Court itself could be argued to be a private company--it's members are appinted by the President and approved of by Congress, and it was enacted into law, via the Constitution, which is simply another piece of legislation--it can be amended, it is full of compromises, and it can be repealed like any ordinary act of Congress-- And you thought that mathematics was hard? OK, Jake, this is another fine mess–
It’s the War of Secession–not Sucession–there were such wars of sucession, which had to do with which monarch or which royal family would take a throne. And the Union blockade was not the cause of that war, indeed, there was no blockade until well after the war had begun–the naval action that may have begun the war was the feared srrival of an Union warship to Ft Sumter to aid those Union troops there–but it was a supply ship–and it didn’t arrive.
Oh, yes, you stated that the House Resolution passed in the House–GovTracker and THOMAS have that resolution in committee, not voted on by the House–not passed.
As to the attack upon Iran by Israelis< the U S and any others, it’s like this–we have all heard these rumors before. Yes, there are training missions and military exercises and military advisors and wargamers running amok specualting, training and gaming the attacks on Iran–or for that matter, Bolivia or Costa Rica or even Great Britian(before WW2, the U S Navy gamed a warplan named Black that supposed a British fleet under German control, read Miller’s War Plan Orange for more details)
But as with the supposed inevitable war with N Korea in the last decade, or the supposed inevitable nuclear war with the USSR in the prior decades, not to mention the domino principle asserted by conservatives about the intentions of the North Vietnamese, I think that the supposed next attack on Iran is only in the imagination of wargamers and other interested parties.
I know of no partisan of any of these inevitable events–which didn’t happen–who has apologised for his assertions, usually presented as fact, with all opposition or any reasonable dissent shouted down. And a lot of these experts are still working at asserting the inevitablity or high likelyhood of the next event in their sights.
And these experts come in all forms–at a recent wargame convention, I attended a seminar, hosted by a well known wargamer, Joe Miranda, who had designed wargames with Jim Dunnigan and his company SPI back in the 1970’s, and is now a consultant to the Pentagon. Miranda presented his Battle of Baghdad, which was to be a training tool for medium rank officers and diplomats–using the events of 2006 in Iraq as the basis for the game, and asserting that this game could be used for gaming a “battle for any large city”. But conditions in Baghdad changed radically, too radically for the game’s paradigm. If I were to confront Miranda at the next convention, if he shows, on this issue, he might be to shy (hah) to admit his mistake–more like he’d give the usual answer that while the system or game paradigm was flawed, the idea of wargaming is still true–to which I would have to throw, again, Leo Strauss at him.
Indeed, the predictions markets, such as InTrade, have for many months been trying to sell the stock in an attack upon Iran, a mere air attack by anyone, and the prediction has failed many times–if anyone had bought the so-called stock in the prediction, they’d have lost thier shirts and underwear by now. But the war against Iran beat goes on–not from the Bush administration, but from those who interpret the Bush administration’s actions to be warmongering against Iran–like he’s really stupid to launch an attack with less than six months left in office?
I can recall another set of people who thought Bush too stupid to get enough votes to challenge Al Gore in 2000–and he shocked them then–why not now?
No–no attack on Iran-not today, not after the election, not prior to the inauguration–and then it will be Obama or McCain’s thing.
As to the other thing, the Fed–there’s yet another court case, regarding the Federal Torts Act, that was ruled upon stating that the Federal Reserve’s banks–not the central bank itself, were not government agencies–for purposes of the Federal Torts Act only–not for any other Act or situation. The key issue was whether or not the member banks were supervised on a daily basis by federal employees, their corporations run directly by the feds–and the court said they were not–but that’s for the member banks–who also have several federal employees on their bank boards–but this doesn’t apply to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the central bank itslef, which is run directly by the feds. So is the Fed a government agency–in an interview being passed about between an employee of the Fed and a radio station, the question was asked “is the Fed owned by my country?” and the answer was “the Fed was created by Congres and is a federal agency” to which the question was repeated about the Fed being owned by my country, and the same response–there’s a failure to communicate here–what does ownership by my country mean? What does the phrase “it’s a government agency created by Congress mean?” It would seem, having read the interview, that the radio station and its callers wanted a certain specific answer given in such a way as to negate the fact that the institution in question is a creation of Congress and a government agency, and that the government employee was not only reading from a script, but didn’t understand the people that were interviewing him, which is to say that he was glassy-eyed in the answering of the questions put by the radio station’s callers and host.
As Madison put it in the 37th Federalist, writing about the vagries of language, he thought that the Almighty must be chagrined to have to have His Will delivered in the dark and murky medium of human language–indeed, he wrote elsewhere that if the words in the Constitution could be and would be twisted about to mean almost anything, that few of those who signed off on the Constitution would have done so–but he already knew what was to come, thecontinual reinterpretations–to include the clash over whether or not an institution is government or private by the twisty defintions of law. Here’s another–the word voluntary when applied to paying income taxes. The dictionary defintion says that voluntary menas that you really do not have to do the thing–but the IRS defines voluntary as being able to pay the taxes yourself instead of having the IRS simply take the money and do the tax retrun for you itself–You get to choose which deductions to take, which method of payment, to include delaying payment–involuntary would mean no such decisions possible for you the taxpayer–but the word voluntary in this context doesn’t mean that you do not have to ultimately pay the tax. Rousseau wrote on this, stating that the meaning of words, thier defintions, are in the context, that a word may have its meaning changed from the context. Dictionaries give multiple meanings for many words-derived from context. Here’s just one, the first meaning is from a regular dictionary, the second is not–what’s a sheaf–a sheaf is a package of unlined, loose papaer, used for typing, faxing and etc–but a sheaf is also the shell pattern, the fall of artillery shells into a specific area. Same word, different contexts.
Thus the question of is the Fed a government agency depends upon to what are we refering–if we define an institution as government because it was created by a legislature and a chief executive, enacted into law and having government employees in its employ, then it is a government agency–however, if it’s say. a contractor who, while having government employees in the company, but not created by Congress, then it’s not–maybe to both–like the member banks of the Fed, which are not wholly private nor wholly government. Remember that by the reasoning of “is it owned by my country”–see the interview–even the Supreme Court itself could be argued to be a private company–it’s members are appinted by the President and approved of by Congress, and it was enacted into law, via the Constitution, which is simply another piece of legislation–it can be amended, it is full of compromises, and it can be repealed like any ordinary act of Congress–

And you thought that mathematics was hard?

]]>