perfidy

Of course, he's right in saying that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

And to think, I have been invited to be in a wedding... Perhaps they should reconsider.

Tomorrow, when (hopefully) I am not exhausted and sore, I have on tap: genre killing; the French (again); and James Madison and Valery Giscard d'Estaing: a comparative view of constitution building in America and Europe.

In the meantime, I am going to go home and take a nap.

Put the founder of the Mars Society at the helm of NASA, and give him two weeks worth of the Social Security budget, and we'll be on Mars in a few years, tops. Very smart guy. He has developed plans for getting to Mars far cheaper than the typical NASA baseline mission profile. Not only cheaper, but smarter. 

Even better, put Charles Pellegrino in charge, give him a month's worth of the SS budget, and he and his Brookhaven Lab physicist compatriots will have us on our way to Alpha Centauri in anti-matter powered Valkyrie starships in a decade or two. If you're gonna think, think big. Screw Mars, I want the stars. 
 

While I know little about the two men mentioned (do feminists insist on being womyntioned?) in the Globe article, promoting from within is rarely a good sign at NASA. It will probably lead to more bureaucratic inertia, lack of creative solutions, and overspending. I could be wrong. On a more positive note, But Rutan and the aerodynamic geniuses at Scaled Composites have unveiled their new spaceship.

As the space.com article mentions, Rutan is going for the X-prize. This ten million dollar award goes to the first group that takes passengers into space, returns safely, and then does it again with the same vehicle inside a week. The prize is consciously modeled after the prizes offered in the early days of aviation, which played a significant role in the development of the industry. It gives me some hope that Rutan is pursueing this vision - unlike most of the pie-in-the-sky "competitors", Rutan has a proven record of not merely designing; but building, flying and selling experimental aircraft.

Rutan designed Voyager, the plane that made the first unrefueled, non-stop, round the world flight. If anyone can do it, Burt can. And if someone can get into space without metric tons of government funding, it will be a wonderful thing. (And if Rutan wins the X Prize, he can get serious venture capital.)

Goodwife Two-Cents is certainly right about Jack Kennedy's appeal to the American public: his charisma, cultural stuff, etc. But, that is precisely why he is overrated - people dig him, but his consumate fugbuckery on matters of policy go largely ignored because he was witty, cool, and had chicks.

Side note: I am so tired today, that this is how that passage above was originally typed:

Goodwife tweo cents is certainly right about Jacj Kenenfy;s appeeal to the Ameican public, his cahrisma cltural styuff, etc. But, thatis preciedlety whyy he was ovvertated - people dig him, but his consemmate fugbuckery on matters of policy go largeyl ignored because he was witty, cool and thad chicks.

That is not an exageration. Of course, you will note that no matter how tired I am, I can always type "fugbuckery" and "matters of policy" correctly.

I think "Humility" would be a burdensome monicker for any child carrying my genes. Increase... hmmn. No, I think I'll stick with John Christian. Baby ETA now only 20 days away. Sheesh. At least the new house now has all of our stuff in it, and the furniture in more or less the proper orientation.

Similarly, I don't see how I was wrong on calling him a tax cutting hawkish democrat. 1) He cut taxes. 2) Vietnam 3) He was a Democrat.

If we we're both wrong on Reagan, I wonder what the truth is, as Mike and I covered pretty much all the options. Like Bush the Younger said, you're either with us or against us - there ain't no middle ground.

You welshman may not all be bastards, but most of you are.

Pol Pot was a history teacher. But Cambodia didn't have the wonderful governmental system you were snickering at. Intellectuals should never be let near the levers of power. Many politicians, for all their faults, think of people as people (or at least voters), rather than abstractions. 

Reagan had a bad effect on Pittsburgh - perhaps. There were many other problems with American heavy industry - complacency, aging infrastructure, poor management, etc. And you can't assess the man's contribution (or bad effect) on a whole nation by what happened to one city. 

Dick Cheney is not president. Read Woodward's book if you're not sure. 

Coolidge is not, repeat not, to blame for the Great Depression. What in all likelihood would have been a cyclical downturn in the economy - a recession - was made far worse by Hoover's and the Federal Reserve's idiotic response to the stock market crash. The crash was in 29, the depression didn't really get going until 31, after hoover and his administration mucked everything up. Hoover's on my list. 

Nixon, the prototypical intelligent jackass, was not responsible for Kent State. That was the fault of Gov. Rhodes, of Ohio. 

Andy Johnson nearly lost the war after we'd lost 600,000 winning it. Kennedy was a tax cutting hawkish democrat, we could use more of those. 

The Electoral College keeps the Green party from being a force in national politics. Good enough for me. 

I know you don't like Thatcher, but she isn't in the same category. No gulags, no death camps, and she was voted out of office - which no communist or fascist has ever allowed to happen. 

At least we agree on Wilson. What a schmuck.

If there would have been a civil war regardless of whether or not Ireland was partitioned, why do you blame Churchill for making things worse? Certainly, the British record in Ireland is abominable - they treated every other colony, even the ones composed of the most primitive cultures, better than they did the Irish. In fact, it seemed that they were trying to make the Irish into a primitive colony so that they could justify treating it so badly. I would think that you would hate Cromwell more.

Another side note: Top Five Unlikely Military Geniuses:

I would, however, agree with your definition of greatness and infamy. I also tend to use a third category, importance. I think Wilson was a horrible president, who left the world worse than he found it. However, he is important. So, if I were to make a list of most important presidents, it might go: Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Jefferson, FDR. Happily, we have had no truly infamous presidents - at least not by world-historical standards. Even our worst presidents rank pretty well when compared to the average run of national leaders throughout the world, throughout history. We are very lucky. Even someone like Nixon seems downright wholesome when compared to most Roman Emperors, but especially Caligula, Nero and Commodus.

Mike said about FDR, "His infamy also lies in his role as the savior of American capitalism, and not taking the New Deal far enough to the left." You cannot possibly imagine what that sounds like to me. If you want to blame someone for saving capitalism (gack) then blame our second Irish-American president, Ronald Reagan. FDR was an attempt at socialism that thankfully was aborted by the common sense of the American people.

Also, I really must object to putting Reagan, Thatcher and Coolidge in the same category as Stalin, Hitler and Himmler. Certainly, your political beliefs will ensure that those three are not on your "favorite leaders" list. But Thatcher, Reagan and Coolidge were not responsible for the organized slaughter of millions of their fellow citizens. At absolute worst, they were (elected) misguided leaders of democratic nations, who were replaced by constitutional means. This is a far, far cry from genocidal maniac leader of a totalitarian police state.

A side note: in general, the Soviets who died in vast numbers in combat against the Nazis died to save civilization - although in the process they also preserved (temporarily) the unmitigated evil of communism. American and British troops made the Germans die to save civilization. Like Patton said, "Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his." This is, I think, largely a result of the total lack of concern for human life of the Soviet government.

Does Lloyd George not count because he is welsh, or is he welsh and doesn't count for some other reason?

It is interesting to note that almost all of Americas' good generals, and most generals in general, come from the south. True, Patton was from California, but his family raised him like he was from Virginia. He was steeped in that "War of Northern Aggression" ethos. Sherman, btw, was from Ohio. Some honorable mentions for the top five list: Francis Marion, MacArthur, and some Admirals - David Farragut, Raymond Spruance, Bull Halsey, and Chet Nimitz.

Also, a good one from Hanson.

Didn't say that Taft and Grant were great presidents. Just that you shouldn't pick on them. And as my friend Drew says, always be aware of when you're measuring on the "Bad" scale, which is certainly what I was doing with McKinley. You are certainly right about the Taft bloodline thinning, but really, it could hardly have done otherwise. Reports from my sources in Ohio, both Liberal and Conservative, say that the current incarnation of Taft is like number 4 in Multiplicity, a copy of a copy. While Grant's problems in office were serious, he was not coping with the Great War. (In fact, he might have done better with a war.) Greatness is a combination of ability and circumstance - as is the opposite. Grant really didn't have the opportunity to screw up that Wilson did. My mom and I have often had this discussion, so here is my top 5, with a brief indication of why they are there: 

• Washington - Founder of the Country, can't do more than that.
• Lincoln - Savior of the country - would be more important than Washington, except that without Geo., he wouldn't have had a country to save.
• Jefferson - First peaceful transfer of power between opposing parties. And he was a frickin genius.
• FDR - Arguably kept us from going completely south in the depression, and won the big game for us. Stumbled a bit at the end.
• Reagan - Won the cold war and restored American confidence after the whole Vietnam thingie. Plus, ended ridiculous things like price controls.

Honorable Mentions:

• Truman - start of the cold war, Korea
• Coolidge - 'cause he's really, really cool.
• TR - same

My list of most important would be subtly different. My bottom five, from worst to least worst, is:

• Wilson
• Nixon
• Buchanan or LBJ
• Hoover
• Clinton

I am judging by damage they did the country, rather than mere ineffectualism, incompetence, or corruption. Many presidents would score high on that basis. Added Bonus: Top Five Greatest American Generals

• Sherman
• Stonewall Jackson
• Patton
• Lee
• Andy Jackson or Nathan Bedford Forest - it's a toss up.

"You know, if you paw through the reams of resolutions put forth by the UN, I'm sure you'll find one that outlaws special jails for children, too. I'm no longer interested in reading the arguments of people who regard a war that empties the children's jails as a greater evil than the jails themselves. And I don't share their horror for the word "illegal," particularly in the context of international law. Is the worst thing about modern-day slavery its illegality? Or the fact that it's slavery?" 

The man has a real talent for the hammer-nail-hitting thingie. Read the whole article, its a good 'un. 
 

That almost half of the presidents come from just three states? And that Harding's middle name is Gamaliel? And that only one president was named Stephen? And that Grant was originally Hiram Simpson Grant? And that... *smack*

Before you go ripping on Ohio parsdents, remember that Garfield was assassinated before he got a chance to prove himself. And Taft was the only man in US history to be President, Speaker of the House and Supreme Court Chief Justice. And Mark Hanna, I mean McKinley, wasn't all that bad. And Grant was a decent genrul. (And his memoirs are one of the most interesting you'll ever read.) 

As a new Virginia resident, I am indeed proud of the Commonwealth's fine crop of presidents. Though to be honest, Madison really screwed the pooch on the whole declare war on Britain/get your capital burned concept. Johno is right on the lack of scintilating talent in Harrison, Taylor and Tyler, but completely missed the boat on Wilson. Wilson was a freakin' disaster, who, at every stage of America's involvement in the Great War and its aftermath, did exactly the wrong thing. 
 

Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Lack of adequate education is a weapon of mass destruction." I'm sick of Ohio politicians following me around the country. And that does include Voinovich. Though Daffy Denny is certainly the loopier politician

The Atlantic Monthly has posted Bernard Lewis' article from the most recent issue. I read it on dead tree, and now you can read it on line.