Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Print Story Those Who Tell The Truth Shall Live Forever
Music
By thenick (Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:46:36 PM EST) Explosions in the Sky (all tags)
Unless I'm a fan of yours, apparently. Look for Douglas Coupland to die tomorrow.

Greet Death

If I respected you and admired your achievements, look out. It's not a good week for my idols.

Yesterday, Milton Friedman died at age 94. He more than just an economist with who showed the world that markets could empower people. A free and democratic Chile is his legacy. The half billion citizens of China and India who are no longer impoverished are his legacy.

He also played a very important role in ending the draft in the 1970s. In one of my favorite Friedman anecdotes, General Westmoreland was adamant about not wanting to command an all-volunteer army, which he referred to as a "mercenary army". Friedman put the General in his place.

Friedman - "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?"

Westmoreland - "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves."

Friedman - "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."

And today, Bo Schembechler died today. Truly a college football icon.

Yasmin the Light

While tracking down a user yesterday, a girl asked me if I was thenick from $streetigrewupon. When I looked up at her, I saw SH, who I hadn't seen since we waved goodbye from the window of a Ryder truck over seventeen years ago. Back in the day, SH, her brother, and hung out every day. All of those memories rushed back like a flash flood down a mountain creek. Riding in the third seat of their family's Pontiac 6000. Playing Colecovision in their basement for hours on end. The nights we tried to stay up until dawn.  Neighborhood-wide hide and seek in the summers. Good times.

Has it really been that long?

We talked for a few minutes and I gave her my number so that we could go out for a bite to eat and catch up. And for the rest of the day, all of the crap around me had the volume turned way down.

Have You Passed Through This Night?

Last night, my upstairs neighbors were yelling and screaming all evening. At one point, I hear one of the women yell "You'll fuck anything that comes through the door!"

But while I was getting dressed to head upstairs, I hear "You're lucky you're not 18 yet, because you'd be out of here!"

Damn.

On even less sexy news, the mom hit her daughter so hard that she was bleeding. A few minutes after I learned the statutority of the girl, I hear the mom yell, "You see what you make me do?" and "You have to hold this tight to stop the bleeding."

Shit, I'm the person Luka was singing to.

With Tired Eyes, Tired Minds, Tired Souls, We Slept

Today, the volume was back on 11. The big rollout has been a nightmare. Twelve hour days blow. Especially when they only change in schedule on the horizon is the week I work seventeen hours.

I'm going to go home and sleep for an entire weekend. Good night.

< Questionable Integrity | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:
Poll
Call Child Protective Services on the neighbor?
- Yes. 88%
- Only if they fight again during the UM-OSU game. 11%

Votes: 9
Results | Other Polls
Related Links
- thenick's Diary
Google

Comment Controls
View: Display: Sort:
Those Who Tell The Truth Shall Live Forever | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
WIPO by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #1 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:05:40 PM EST
Make sure you know exactly what happened first.
----
ウセーバラケダ


I think he knows enough by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #4 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:01:23 PM EST
Anyone who yells "You see what you make me do?" in the context of abuse needs to be looked into.

[ Parent ]

Friedman by johnny (2.00 / 0) #2 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:32:02 PM EST
His "Price Theory" is a classic.  I basically had to memorize it (while studying for an MS in agricultural economics at Purdue). It's a very well written book and its logic is impeccable.

Friedman's politics were pretty suspect, however. He had one hammer and to him everything looked like a nail. I think Westmoreland's argument is more logical and compelling one. Friedman's answer is full of fancy talk and bluster but doesn't get to the fundamental point about how armies are different from butchers. (Q: Did Milton Friedman ever serve in the armed forces? Not according to wikipedia, but I don't know if that's correct). He was a doctrinaire old coot.  And if he gets credit for China and Chile, does he also get credit for Iraq? Paul Bremmer and company went in with an all volunteer army and declared free markets by fiat. They were perfect Friedmanites.

Oh well, an interesting life in any event. May God rest his soul, as we ex catholics say.
Buy my books, dammit!


You're defending a draft? by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:02:48 PM EST
I can't imagine any situation where that would be acceptable.

[ Parent ]

not even... by ana (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:15:30 PM EST
world war ii?

Regular, or decaf abomination? --Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

No by ShadowNode (1.00 / 1) #7 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:23:47 PM EST
WWII is highly overrated. It wasn't about saving democracy or freedom, or stopping genocide. It was more about curtailing Soviet expansion and protecting western trade practises than anything else. That and protecting white, English speaking people.

Regardless of that, though, there is no conceivable situation that would justify a draft. People have the right to weigh the justification for war on their own and decide if it's worth risking their life for.

[ Parent ]

You mean by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #8 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:27:44 PM EST
Like all the White English speaking people in China?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

You really think the US got involved for China? by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #10 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:48:22 PM EST
And not rubber/oil?

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #12 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:20:11 AM EST
The US got involved when the Japanese bombed us.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

That was intentionally provoked by ShadowNode (4.00 / 1) #13 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:43:20 AM EST
Japan had to either leave the war, or secure oil supplies. FDR refused to supply Japan, which was essentially a declaration of war. He simply couldn't get support to do so without an initial Japanese attack.

[ Parent ]

Secure oil supplies by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #14 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 01:58:39 AM EST
In order to continue their operations in Manchuria...
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Yes... by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #15 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 02:05:42 AM EST
And you'll notice the US didn't come to China's aid until the oil was in danger.

[ Parent ]

You have it exactly backwards. by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #16 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 02:36:31 AM EST
They work to restrict Japanese access to oil AFTER Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. The full-scale invasion of China began in 1937.

Prior to 1940, Japan's prime source of oil was the United States. (80% of its imports according to wikipedia.) It was the last in a series of economic sanctions put in place by the US and other countries meant to counter Japanese aggression in China and other places in the Pacific. (And put in place after the Japanese had made a pact with Nazi germany at a time when American convoys were having to run past German U-Boats to deliver aid to Britain.)

No US oil was in "danger". (At the time, most US oil came from California and Texas.) Japan needed oil only because we refused to sell it to them, and we refused to sell it to them because of China. To say that we came to China's aid because of oil is ludicrous because the only reason the Japanese needed oil is because we refused to sell it to them, something we did AFTER they invaded China and in retaliation for invading China.

The Japanese did look to be going after oil in the Dutch East Indies but again, this only happened AFTER we stopped selling them oil in retaliation for their acts in China and for their pact with the Nazis. (And the US had been increasing sanctions against Japan since 1939, before the war in Europe.)
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Yes, exactly by ShadowNode (4.00 / 1) #17 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 02:52:36 AM EST
The US did not go to war with Japan when it began invading China. No real moves toward war took place until Japan began threatening American interests in the region. Oil for one, but more importantly at the time, tin and rubber which the US was sending to Europe.

The US was quite happy to supply Japan with oil (and more importantly, steel and iron) until its interests were threatened. At the time, the US was a colonial power in the region, and did not take kindly to Japan expanding its sphere of influence.

[ Parent ]

What oil? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #21 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:34:52 AM EST
What oil was Japan threatening?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

There's plenty under the south China sea... by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #22 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:05:10 PM EST
But I don't think that was available at the time. I don't recall exactly where oil was produced in the region then. It was more concern over rubber and tin from the Philippines than oil.

[ Parent ]

However by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #24 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:10:08 PM EST
These were all things that Japan didn't threaten until AFTER the US put an embargo on.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

It's not quite that simple by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #28 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:40:30 PM EST
You have to take into account that by that time, the administration wanted to enter the war, but the US population didn't. FDR was actively trying to provoke the Japanese into attacking outright, so that he would have an excuse to declare war.

[ Parent ]

Yes, he was by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #31 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:52:21 PM EST
Because of Japanese aggression, which was primarily happening in China and Manchuria. Not for "Oil" or "Rubber", things that the US had plenty of at the time, especially compared to Japan.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Ill agree it wasnt solely about liberties by LinDze (4.00 / 1) #18 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:06:46 AM EST
but you seem to be mixing up cart, horse, and cargo in many cases here.

You have a very slight point about Soviet expansion. We did send some units (a brigade of marines IIRC) to fight the bolsheviks. In 1918ish. Even then they served little more purpose than to form a rear guard some retreating White Russian troops (and allies). For the majority of WWII era we were pretty friendly with Uncle Joe. Lend Lease and foreign advisors served them as well.

Your "protecting western trade practices" comment is a little bizzare. Which of the Axis powers had a significantly different economic model exactly? I suppose you could say the Soviets again, but again we didnt really disagree until very late war. And any way you split it all the major players had conscription and nationalised industry and labor by '43 or earlier.

And which White english speaking people were we protecting? England and Australia? The countries that actually were in mortal danger and went to war first? I suppose the liberty of Yerpians and those dirty indochinese really dosnt count.

If theres no possible justification for a draft do you just disagree with the entire premise of nationalism and sovereignty?

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei
[ Parent ]

I worded that poorly by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #19 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:28:45 AM EST
I was referring to the colonialist practices the US (and everyone else) took part in in Asia at the time.

The US was quite happy to let Germany do whatever it liked in continental Europe, and didn't consider entering the conflict until Britain was seriously threatened.

I certainly disagree with the premise of nationalism. It's really just a watered down form of racism. I believe in sovereignty in so much as it's better to let nations form their own world views without outside interference, though I suspect that's not what you mean.

[ Parent ]

"Quite happy" by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:25:59 PM EST
Er...that's completely inaccurate.

Prior to the invasion of Poland, the US basically ignored the situation, thinking it a matter between the great powers of Europe. As soon as actual war broke out, the Roosevelt government gave all aid to the allied powers it could, and was limited by public opinion. The US government was never, ever "happy" about Germany's actions in Europe.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Hyperbole, perhaps by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #27 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:37:10 PM EST
The US was quite insular at the time, though, and wasn't interested in going to war to save Poles. Public opinion and administration manovering didn't start until English speaking white people and American interests were threatened.

[ Parent ]

Er... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #30 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:50:02 PM EST
Why would the tenth largest military feel the need to go to war to help someone halfway around the world when two of the top five military powers had?

In any case, the US government did ramp up aid to the allied powers immediately to the extent that the public would put up with. This was BEFORE England was threatened. (England and France declared war on Germany immediately after the invasion of Poland began.)

What you need to understand is that in 1939, the US military was almost nonexistent. In 1939, the US was not yet a superpower. It took years to get it into shape where it could challenge the Germans, and this process started before the war even started because of fears of German aggression. However, at the time, the conventional wisdom was that the Maginot line would keep the Germans bound up. It wasn't until the six-week conquest of France that anyone really thought the allies needed military help in Germany.

Even once at war, it took the US military nearly three years before it could even attempt to fight Germany on the battlefield.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I didn't say that I was defending a draft by johnny (2.00 / 0) #9 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:50:44 PM EST
I only said that Westmoreland's argument was more compelling than Friedman's.  I think Friedman's point is frankly moronic.  Mercenaries are people who join armies, virtually always in times of war, and kill people for money, not out of alegience to any national ideal. Physicians and Economics professors don't kill people for money, so Friedman was debasing language to make a rhetorical point. It's also borderline stupid to call conscripts slaves.  In some cases conscripts are slaves, of course, but in others they're not. There are legitmate arguments to be made in favor of an all volunteer army, but Friendman didn't make any of them.

There are other systems, of course. Austria, Switzerland, Israel have universal compulsory service.  There's not a draft in the usual sense of the term, that is, where a draft requires service of some portion of an age cohort, but not the entire cohort.

I was draft age during the Viet Nam war when Westmoreland was the top general.  He was an asshole. I was overseas (Paris) when my number came up, and thank God it was a high one. So the angel passed over me and I could go back to the States without fear of getting drafted.  But if my number was low, I would have stayed in France.  No frickin way was I going to that damn stupid meat-grinder war in Viet Nam.

Nevertheless, I recognize the fairness or a lottery system.  Armies, at least armies of civilized countries like the USA is supposed to be, do not set their own agenda.  They go as representatives of all the people. In other words, the Army doesn't fight in the name of the Army (everybody who is willing to join up), it fights in my name and yours. Their are implications to that fact that Mr. Friedman was too intellectually chickenshit to own up to.
Buy my books, dammit!
[ Parent ]

How would you define slave? by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #11 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:12:31 AM EST
I'd say that being able to send someone into a meat grinder falls within the definition of slavery.

A draft isn't a lottery system. Even ignoring the fact that the rich and/or powerful don't tend to get drafted (or get put in safe positions if they are), the draft pulls from a subset of voters. To be a lottery system, the draft would have to pull people from all age, sex, and economic positions. They don't. A better way would be to have a national referendum on any war, and draft from the "yes" votes. (and maybe the non voters). No one has the right to ask anyone else to die for them.

I'm not sure about Austria, but Switzerland's service is largely ceremonial, and there is the option to do non-military service. Israel is a somewhat special case, in that it is an illegitimate country that has to be in constant war to avoid being retaken by the natives.

There are certainly many valid criticisms of Friedman, but this isn't one of them. If you want to split hairs, mercenaries generally don't join armies, they act independently alongside them (such as the "contractors" in Iraq). Mercenary is a general term for people who's loyalty is for sale. Westmoreland was wrong to call a volunteer army mercenary, because they presumably would not switch allegiances for gain. Friedman was stretching it a bit to call butchers et al mercenary, but he is technically correct in that they will sell to anyone who can pay.

[ Parent ]

You're defending slavery? by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #20 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:16:34 AM EST
I'm pretty sure there weren't close to enough US volunteers for the US civil war (of course, the confederates needed conscription a year earlier).


Wumpus


[ Parent ]

The second US civil war wasn't about slavery by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #23 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:08:19 PM EST
It was an industrial/agricultural economic dispute. Lincoln was quite happy to let the south keep their slaves:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

[ Parent ]

The civil war by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #26 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:29:49 PM EST
Why did the South secede? states rights.
What "right" was the South concerned about? The right to own slaves.

Lincoln's platform was "no more slave states". The South objected to this as it meant that free states would outnumber slave states in the senate, which would make it possible for the country as a whole to place restrictions on slavery.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Another way to look at it by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #29 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 03:45:23 PM EST
"Slave state" at the time was essentially synonymous with "agricultural state". The southern states were threatened by the emergence of industrial economies in the north, whose interests did not match the agricultural economies in the south.

Had it been about slavery, the war could have ended by enshrining slavery in the constitution.

[ Parent ]

"Threatened" by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #32 Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:55:10 PM EST
Yes, they were afraid that if slavery were curtailed, their slave-based economies would collapse.

The North, on the other hand, did not care about slavery as its economy was not based on it.

So yes...their interests didn't match...the South had a vested interest in maintaining slavery while the North did not.

(You're last sentence makes no sense...why would people who opposed slavery try to enshrine it in the constitution?)
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

israel seems to be doing it fine by garlic (2.00 / 0) #33 Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:22:59 PM EST


[ Parent ]

Right by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #34 Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:24:02 PM EST
Because Israel is a peaceful and benevolent nation...

[ Parent ]

so, by garlic (2.00 / 0) #35 Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:31:35 PM EST
you contend that they'd be more peaceful without a military? I think you must be arguing from some sort of crazy framework which doesn't actually occur in real life.

[ Parent ]

Yes, we are using different frameworks by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #36 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:47:01 AM EST
I don't have any particular attachment to Israel's continued existence.

[ Parent ]

Hilariously, Israel will be around by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #37 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:21:04 AM EST

long after you've expired, Hitler.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Run along, Godwin by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #38 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:15:12 AM EST


[ Parent ]

No amount of referencing "Internet Laws" by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #39 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:37:01 PM EST

will reduce the amount of your anti-Semitism.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Pedestrian by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #40 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:15:56 PM EST
Try harder.

[ Parent ]

My trolling: in the New York Times by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #41 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:46:54 PM EST

Yours?


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Who isn't trolling in American media? by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #42 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:48:18 PM EST
I thought that was the point.

[ Parent ]

Allow me to simplify for you: by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #43 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:55:49 PM EST

I'm famous, you're not.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Like a pimped out Nissan by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #44 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:04:50 PM EST
You're compensating for something, but poorly.

[ Parent ]

Please direct all subsequent communications by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #45 Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:06:27 PM EST

to my people.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

WIPO: What state are you in? by notafurry (4.00 / 2) #3 Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:27:00 PM EST
A not-quite 18 yo girl is not exactly in for a fun time in foster care, in some areas. Maybe many areas.

On the other hand, if there was a need to stop bleeding, then it's time for something to be done. Find family, CPS, the cops directly.

How many people end up dead or permanently affected because no one bothered to do anything?



Those Who Tell The Truth Shall Live Forever | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Powered by Scoop   
 
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.
faq | help | accounts