Politics

Dr. Seuss Went to War: A Catalog of Political Cartoons by Dr. Seuss : Dr. Seuss (Theodor Seuss Geisel, 1904-1991) is known best for his many brilliant children’s books, and he is not known as a political cartoonist, yet for two years (1941-1943) he was the chief editorial cartoonist for the New York newspaper PM, and he drew over 400 editorial cartoons. The cartoons range from the critical and cynical to the outright supportive, and, I must say, its a bit disturbing to recognize his unique style being put to use in such a way…

Rumsfeld’s Rules by Donald Rumsfeld [PDF version]: 14 pages of bulleted wisdom that have kept Mr. Rumsfeld alive and well in the White House and on the Hill for three decades. He compiled it during his first stint as Secretary of Defence in the late 1970s. It gives some insight into the man, his actions, and the actions of others in similar positions (as well as some points about business, politics and life in general), though I’m sure there are plenty of people who’ll claim that the man isn’t following his own rules (to them I’d like to point out the last rule). It also highlights some of the broader attitudes of our governmental system and how it differs from other systems… Some examples:

• Don’t accept the post or stay unless you have an understanding with the President that you’re free to tell him what you think “with the bark off” and you have the courage to do it.
• In the execution of Presidential decisions work to be true to his views, in fact and tone.
• Learn to say “I don’t know.” If used when appropriate, it will be often.
• In our system leadership is by consent, not command…
• Don’t divide the world into “them” and “us.” Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours.
• Don’t automatically obey Presidential directives if you disagree or if you suspect he hasn’t considered key aspects of the issue.
• Let your family, staff, and friends know that you’re still the same person, despite all the publicity and notoriety that accompanies your position.
• Most of the 50 or so invitations you receive each week come from people inviting the President’s Chief of Staff, not you. If you doubt that, ask your predecessor how many he received last week.
• When you raise issues with the President, try to come away with both that decision and also a precedent. Pose issues so as to evoke broader policy guidance. This can help to answer a range of similar issues likely to arise later.
• “Every government looking at the actions of another government and trying to explain them always exaggerates rationality and conspiracy, and underestimates incompetency and fortuity.” (Silberman’s Law of Diplomacy, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman)
• If you try to please everybody, somebody’s not going to like it.
• “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” (Old military axiom)
• “In unanimity there may well be either cowardice or uncritical thinking.” (Unknown)

I think you get the idea. Interesting stuff… (don’t forget to read the last rule:)

The Complete Newgate Calendar : An 18th/19th century English compendium of true-crime stories. The New Gate of the City of London was built during the reign of Henry I, and was used as a prison from at least 1188. It was destroyed and rebuilt several times, but always acted as a prison. It was finally destroyed in 1902, part of the site becoming occupied by the Central Criminal Court. The Newgate Calendar was originally published in five volumes in 1760 and narrated notorious crimes from 1700 till then. There were many later editions. Some of the stories are fascinating. Read about timeless con games, greedy counterfeiters, ghost stories, reprieved executions (this one is particularly interesting; the criminal actually hung

nearly fifteen minutes before being cut down) and much, much more.

Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States by Ralph Peters : A fascinating and somewhat prophetic essay that, in pointing out how other countries fail, actually highlights the successes of US culture. Success is eccentric, but failure is predictible. Peters has selected some excellent “signs” of non-competitive behaviour; I find that there is little to add. It very clearly defines some of the differences between us and our enemies in the “war”. There are lots of keen observations to go along with his signs, like this one:

Information is more essential to economic progress than an assured flow of oil. In fact, unearned, “found” wealth is socially and economically cancerous, impeding the development of healthy, enduring socioeconomic structures and values. If you want to guarantee an underdeveloped country’s continued inability to perform competitively, grant it rich natural resources. The sink-or-swim poverty of northwestern Europe and Japan may have been their greatest natural advantage during their developmental phases. As the Shah learned and Saudi Arabia is proving, you can buy only the products, not the productiveness, of another civilization.

Interesting stuff, and so true. Saudi Arabia’s future, in particular, is very uncertain because of their reliance on the oil industry (and their reluctance to create any other national industry). I believe that even they recognize this problem, and are trying to fix it, but I think it may be too late. I found the article at USS Clueless a while back, and Steven Den Beste rightly recognizes that there are those in America, on both the far right and the far left, that seek to (re)impose several of the signs of failure on our nation. Indeed, some of them haven’t been abolished here very long, and a return to these destructive ways would be disasterous…

Well, I suppose I’ve been avoiding this long enough. I’m having a really hard time articulating how the recent tragedies have affected me, and I really don’t have much to say. Its not because I don’t care, or that I haven’t thought about it; its that I don’t know about it – and you know what? No one really knows about it. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you should keep in mind that just about everything you hear is pure speculation, including what you are reading right now. The world is a delicate place, and bad things are going to happen. That much seems clear. A military strike is unavoidable, and it looks like it will be happening soon. I’m glad to see that we’re not rushing into this; that there seems to be some strategy involved. But I can’t help but feeling that we may be counter-productive in the long term. Still, I feel some sort of display of force is necessary, and I’ll support anything short of nuclear war (which is just insane). I like the way Bush is handling things as well. I’m curious to see how he will be percieved 20 years from now (which, of course, depends on the pending “war on terrorism”), because right now, he doesn’t seem like the inspirational type (though his speech the other night was quite good). Some other random thoughts:

• My confidence in the media has been steadily dwindling for quite some time now. Their bias is so utterly blatant, yet they won’t let reporters wear a red, white, and blue ribbon for the sake of “objectivity”. The media has completely avoided asking the question “Why?”, while at the same time reporting that Palestinians are celebrating in the streets. The media knew how that would affect the American public; that’s why they showed the now-infamous video. Yet, according to many other sources, the celebrations were small isolated incidents, and some doubt that the celebration was even related to the WTC tragedy(German link: Stern Magazine). How much should we be trusting the media? Not very much. Most of the time, they are speculating just as much as everyone else.
• Those who are critical of America’s foreign policy are, in some ways, right to do so, and I support their right to free speech. I don’t think they are unamerican at all. But, in all honesty, I think its in bad taste, especially if you think we’re going to do something about it. Consider this great example: “a man drives his wife to the store and gets into a traffic accident where she’s killed. As he sits on the ground next to his car sobbing, you don’t walk up to him and say “You know, this wouldn’t have happened if you’d been driving slower.” Even if that was true, that is not the time for that message. A true friend knows when to speak and when to shut up.”
• U.S.S. Clueless – the personal weblog of Steven Den Beste has some thoughtful, intelligent, and properly enraged commentary on the attacks and our impending response. Of particluar note are some of his essays, including: What are we fighting for?and Theres no such thing as a ‘civilian’ (this is also where I got the above story about the car crash) I do wonder how he views his article on Theory and Practice of Terrorism now (considering that he wrote it before the attacks, and that the article seems to imply that any military response is giving the terrorists what they want)…
• Red Cross relief funds and such:
• via Red Cross
• via Amazon
• via Paypal

So, to summarize, take everyone’s opinion with a grain of salt and try not to rush to hasty conclusions. No one knows as much about this as they think. I hope our response is exacting, measured, and absolutely, brutally, conclusive. Well, that’s that. I’ll be returning to my normal posting shortly. Stay tuned.

A total recall on schools by Arianna Huffington : “If it were a product, it would have been recalled. If it were a politician, it would have been impeached. If it were a horse, it would have been taken behind the barn and shot.” She cites a few examples, including the story of Nancy Goldberg and Curt Mortenson, who are being punished for making their high school’s AP English program too successful. This isn’t very comforting, though I don’t think the majority of schools are in trouble. It comes down to the poor, inner-city schools that are really in trouble. Some reform is definitely needed, but perhaps a recall is a bit harsh… [via wood s lot]

One of George Orwell’s most interesting essays is Politics and the English Language. His insight into the use and abuse of language is astounding, especially in his argument that the abuse of language is a necessary part of oppressive politics. Furthermore, Orwell does not just equip us to detect this corruption of language, he actually suggests how writers can fight back (giving simple rules for honest and effective political writing). Who knows, maybe the business perversions of the english language and dot-com communism actually did have a lot to do with the internet’s collapse….

This interesting article shows how the electoral college vote empowers voters more than a raw popular vote. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that the Electoral College is a good thing? An interesting analogy is made: “the same logic that governs our electoral system…also applies to many sports” For instance, in baseball’s World Series, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But in order to win the series, that team must also win 4 games. In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored almost twice as many runs as the Pirates, and yet lost the series. “Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states.” Wery interesting. [via kottke]

How’d you like to work with these people? No? Too bad, you already are.

In trying to sift through the issues of the upcoming presidential election, I’ve found that both candidates are truly obnoxious. What criteria should I base my decision on, especially when they are no doubt lying their butts off? This year, I think I’ll give my vote to the candidate with the hottest daughters. Sadly, this criteria could actually be used with a clear conscience.