http://www.adamyoshida.com

www.adamyoshida.com

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Being There

File this under, “Republicans Right Again.” My good friend Governor Dr. Howard Brush Dean III has been the Democratic Chairman for about two weeks and he’s already managed to make an ass out of himself. This time he did it in Kansas, a state that’s voted for a Democrat for President exactly once since the Second World War, where he, displaying the tact that he’s famous for, managed to brand all Republicans evil. True, I’m not as skilled a politician as some, but I’m fairly sure that calling people “evil” isn’t the way to convince them to join your side.

Now I’m sure that some Democrats will try to spin this. I don’t blame them for that. But let’s just put it this way: if the Republicans elected a new Chairman whose main idea was to reach out to blue states and that Chairman’s first action was to travel to San Francisco for outreach and, once there, that same Chairman managed to brand all Democrats as “sodomites” or something like that, I’m pretty sure that everyone would agree that someone had goofed.

Why does Howard Dean have such a high reputation among certain circles in the Democratic Party? What has he ever done to earn it? So far as I can tell, Dr. Dean is a lucky (and liberal) version of Alan Keyes. He’s a man who, through some mysterious entropy has managed to rise to the level of his own incompetence not once, but many times. The fact that such a man is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee symbolizes the moral bankruptcy of that party. Like the Illinois GOP (another dying institution) the Democratic Party chose Dean to be its leader less out of desire and more out of desperation.

Dean’s main positive attribute in his career has been his ability to show up at exactly the right time. He became Governor of Vermont because he was the Lieutenant Governor of the state when his predecessor died. He became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination two years ago because he happened to blunder into a political team which managed to tap the internet and anti-Bush hatred. He became Chairman of the Democratic National Committee because his followers were rabid enough to frighten every other potential candidate from the race.

It’s worth noting that his previous record should leave Republican smiling.

During his time as Governor of Vermont his percentage of the vote dropped from about 80% to just over 50%. When he left office, the voters of Vermont rewarded his party by electing (and re-electing) a Republican Governor and a Republican legislature. This all happened, of course, in a state with an openly socialist Congressman.

After rising to the top of the heap in the pre-primary race for the nomination, Dean’s campaign imploded spectacularly in an astounding spree of gaffes and mismanagement. The fact that Dean managed to blow through more than $50 million while winning only a single primary (in his home state) is a fact that still amazes and mystifies professionals.

Though some Republicans are trying to downplay expectations, there’s little reason to be afraid of Howard Dean and plenty of reason to be gleeful at his ascent. Some worry that he knows how to raise money online. That’s simply not true: people who worked for him knew how to raise money online and they went on to work for John Kerry last fall, for whatever good it did them.

In truth, I’m increasingly inclined to think of Dean’s Chairmanship as a Machiavellian plot on the part of Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s running to the right in her emerging Presidential campaign. I expect that, in 2006, she’ll campaign for a limited number of Democrats while mostly keeping her head down and focusing on the New York Senate race. She’ll do her best to get out of the way as Dean leads the lunatic-left straight off a cliff. Then, with the wacko wing out of the way, she’ll have a much clearer path to the nomination and the White House.

More broadly, many Democrats may have welcomed Dean for similar but less Clinton-centric reasons. The great problem of the modern Democratic Party is this: it’s increasingly being run by people who act as sound as though they’re adherents of a left-wing version of the John Birch Society.

The members of Democratic Underground, the residents of Daily Kos, and all the rest of those new activists who occupy an increasingly influential place within the Democratic machine bear little or no resemblance to most of the people inhabiting reality who call themselves Democrats.

Republicans, largely as a result of problems with people like the Birchers and David Duke, have developed fairly robust defense against people who are, in essence, practicing classic entryist tactics. Democrats, for one reason or another, seem to be organizationally incapable of operating along the same lines.

If certain elements of the Republican Party had their way Alan Keyes would be a leading contender for the Presidency, Ann Coulter would have been seated next to George H.W. Bush at the Republican National Convention and Tom Tancredo would have been a featured speaker. The fact that these things are not fact is a testament to the ability of the Republican hierarchy.

Now, some might think that I’d rejoice at the possibility of the near-total destruction of the Democratic Party. But I don’t. One party government is inherently unhealthy. The problem is, of course, that the present leaders of the national Democratic Party simply can’t be trusted to govern, well, pretty much anything.

Can any serious person imagine Howard Dean as the President? The man’s simply out of his depth and out of his mind.

One of the serious flaws of the Democratic Party is its seeming inability to produce candidates for high office who are not in obvious need of serious psychological treatment.

Think back to John Kerry for a moment. Now that the election is done and Democrats are under no obligation to defend the man out of partisan loyalty, I’d like to ask them: did you ever really imagine that the man could possibly have made even an average President? The man managed to be both as indecisive as a Woody Allen character (“You bet we might have!”) and a fabulist of such proficiency as to give Stephen Glass a run for his money (“I’m proud of my Irish heritage!”). Four years before that we had Al Gore, a man whose lies took such increasingly bizarre turns that many, including myself, began to seriously contemplate the possibility that he was, in fact, a creature from an alternate (and oxygen-deprived) Earth with a substantially different history than our own.

Some may point out that (to date) Dr. Dean has, at the very minimum, managed not to get caught telling stories about how he won the Medal of Honor on Little Round Top and accusing those who doubt his story of questioning his patriotism. That’s true. For now. About the best that can be said of Dean’s tenure to date is that he hasn’t burned down the DNC’s headquarters: yet.

posted by Yoshi at 4:43 PM

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Meeting China’s Threat

The long-term threat to American security is China’s forward march towards Superpower status. Terrorists like al-Qaeda can kill Americans, but they can’t consign America to second place in the world. China can.

There are nearly a billion and a half people in China. If they attained even a relatively modest per capita GDP of $5000, they’d easily be able to fully challenge American economic dominance. However, there’s no theoretical limit. Nations like South Korea went from subsistence-level economies to Western-level per capita incomes in two generations. China’s about half-way through that process. There’s literally no way to know where China’s ascent could end.

I do not foresee a military threat from China in the near-term (save, perhaps, in the case of Taiwan). The Chinese are too smart for that. The real danger isn’t that the Chinese will become militarily aggressive: it’s that they won’t. The real danger is that the Chinese will prove capable of overtaking the United States and becoming the world’s preeminent power through peaceful competition, rather than force.

This threat demands a multi-pronged approach: military-economic-diplomatic-political.

The military response to China’s threat is obvious. The Armed Forces need to be prepared to confront and beat China.

It’s obvious to me that there’s no point in even trying to build up the ground forces necessary to fight a land war in Asia. We can’t possibly build an army to fight and defeat the Chinese on their home ground.

Remember: China’s economy heavily relies on both exports for foreign exchange and imports of raw materials. You wouldn’t think it from looking at a map, but China’s economic power is dependent upon maritime trade.

Thus, if it ever comes to war against the People’s Republic, the solution is self-evident: a naval blockade combined with the power to strike targets within China itself. If the United States Navy is capable of sinking the People’s Liberation Army Navy to the bottom of the sea (and US Air Power capable of defending American forces from Chinese land-based air forces), then China’s economic power will rapidly collapse.

On ground, China’s military options are limited, at best in terms of a war against the United States. Who is China going to invade? Russia? India? Vietnam? Korea? Let them try.

A naval build-up is the long-term solution to ensuring America’s ability to counter Chinese moves. The ideal mix would feature US Attack Submarines capable of sinking Chinese ships and US Guided Missile Submarines and Surface ships capable of striking inshore backed by a powerful US Carrier fleet, capable of both roles. The United States Navy could easily impose a near-total blockade against the Chinese coast.

On the economic front, we need to make a realistic assessment of China’s economic position. For all of its future potential, the present economic significance of the People’s Republic is heavily overrated. Japan, for example, holds nearly $720 Billion in US Bonds, as compared to China’s $175 Billion. Taiwan is believed to hold nearly half of what the entire mainland holds.

Similarly, the total of US Exports to China in 2004 was only $35 Billion. US imports from China accounted for about $197 Billion.

The latter is, of course, an absurd number. Now, in principle, I’m opposed to trade protectionism. But to have a trade ratio like that is simply a sign that something is totally out of control. It makes good sense to begin to gradually place restrictions on US-China trade, before those numbers grow any further.

It is on the diplomatic front that action is most evidently called for. Chinese diplomats have recently taken to whining about attempts at “containment” against China. They ought to be whining: containment is exactly the approach called for here.

The emergence of the China threat has been a major factor in the recent strengthening of US-Japan ties. This avenue must be pursued further.

In particular, the United States needs to look at developing an anti-Chinese alliance with India. Every possible step to foster Indo-Chinese enmity should be taken. The United States should even, over the long-term, prioritize an alliance with India over an alliance with Pakistan, even if it means countenancing an Indians strike against Pakistan.

This is simply a matter of what each nation has to offer. Pakistan is probably only going to be useful as long as General Musharaff is in power. After that, Pakistan becomes the prime security concern of the United States. An Indian nuclear strike against Pakistan would probably solve a lot of issues for the US.

The possibility of a Russo-American alliance against China should also be explored, though I’m less optimistic about this prospect than I once was. Russia is in a long-term decline and it knows that it’s incapable of resisting a Chinese advance. In particular, Siberia is being flooded with Chinese who’ve crossed the border to work and who are, in many areas, rapidly supplanting the original inhabitants.

Finally, there are political matters. It’s worth remembering that China’s recent prosperity has hardly been evenly spread. In essence, there’s been an accumulating of wealth by a certain segment of individuals. This accumulation has regional issues too, I’d add. I recently read a story about a part of China were state officials were excited because people had recently begun using toilet paper in notable quantities. Not everywhere is Beijing or Shanghai.

Some days I wonder if it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if we covertly worked on stirring up reactionary communist sentiments in rural China. The Cultural Revolution wasn’t that long ago, I’m sure it wouldn’t be that hard to find some people eager to hang the bourgeoisie.

As well, China has internal issues with Moslem terrorists as we do. It wouldn’t be all that bad to try and run a few covert operations to redirect terrorist sentiment in those areas.

It’s worth remembering: China’s advance could come quickly. We need to be prepared to act now, lest we wake up one day and discover ourselves to be living in a world dominated by China.

posted by Yoshi at 11:24 PM

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

It’s Time for Them to Go

Pathetic. That’s the only word I can think of to describe the budget that the Liberals brought before the House on Wednesday. It’s nothing more than the nonsensical scribbling of exhausted and inferior minds.

The budget wasn’t the product of a “moderate” or “pragmatic” thought process on the part of the government. It was the result of a no-thought process. It’s a bunch of half-remembered promises only partially realized, at best.

Let’s consider, for just a moment, some of the key items.

There’s the military spending. The number is meant to sound impressive: $12 Billion over five years. To begin, that number is totally insufficient. Even if all $12 Billion actually went to the Armed Forces, that would mean a mere $2.4 Billion each year. It would mean a military budget of just a little more than 1% of the Gross Domestic Product (or something like half of the NATO average). And all of that, of course, applies only if they actually get the money.

However, if one actually examines the budget documents, we find that, next year, the Armed Forces are set to receive only an additional $500 Million. That’s not enough for anything. Given that the Liberals claim that they intend to actually follow through upon the Prime Minister’s insta-plan for five thousand extra troops (and presumably the money for that is in this additional funding), we might find the forces even more stretched than they are today.

But, of course, the point of the additional funding isn’t to actually improve the military: it’s to give the Liberals political cover if anyone complains about military funding in the next election. It’s to try and paint the Tories as extremists. “We’ve already given the Armed Forces $12 Billion, the only reason you’d need more to that is to build Aircraft Carriers and Moon Bases,” etc.

The “tax relief” contained in the budget is worse than a joke. Under this bold plan, the basic personal deduction will go up by $2000 over the next four years. That would mean a tax savings of, at the most, five hundred dollars or so for the average family.

Of course, the plan is deceptive. The basic personal deduction is indexed to inflation so, in any case, it would be going up by $1000 over the next few years. In other words, the grand “tax relief” in this budget means, at the most, $250 for a family.

The rest of the budget is a further example of the joy that the Liberals take in wasting the money that we earn. There’s a billion dollars in this budget for their “National Child Care Program.” Thus, we now get the joy of paying for other people to take care of other people’s children. There’s another few billion thrown at the Liberals’ Kyoto fetish. There’s $60 million in there for the CBC to produce news programs for no one to watch.

If the Tories aren’t willing to vote against this garbage, they might as well get twenty of their MP’s to resign and let the Liberals run candidates unopposed so that they can have a majority and we’ll no longer have to listen to endless prattle about their “minority government.”

In the last years of the Chrétien Government, it often seemed as though the Liberals were drifting aimlessly. We were told that this would all come to a spectacular end during the long reign of Paul the Great, who would lift our spirits and heal the pains of our souls. What stuff! This government has less fight in it than King Jean had in one finger. If we can’t beat these clowns, then our choices are very rapidly reduced to surrender or rebellion.

Truly, during days like these, I often daydream about playing the role of Leo Amery in 1940 in the House of Commons. I just want to look across at the government benches. I want to stare across and quote Cromwell.

“You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”

posted by Yoshi at 11:04 PM

Saturday, February 19, 2005

By Popular Demand

For some reason, totally unknown to me, there appears to be some great public need for me to weigh in on the issue of Jeff Gannon/Jeff Gurkhet/Alfonso Von Yamamoto. Presumably the question at hand is whether or not my presumed opposition to homosexual prostitution (a business to which Gannon was tied in some fashion, though his exact level of penetration of that profession remains a controversial matter) will take precedence over my slavish loyalty to the Bush Administration or whether or not it will be the other way around.

Well, as those who know me can well attest, nothing takes precedence over my devotion to the Holy Father. Thus, I’m forced to attempt a defense.

Frankly, there’s a regrettable tendency (on both the left and right) to attribute to malicious conspiracy what can more easily be attributed to simple incompetence. That’s my general feeling on the story of “Mr.” Gannon.

Let’s review the basic facts of the matter. Which is more believable? That Mr. Gannon managed to gain access to the White House press room as a result of a (Lavender?) conspiracy and was subsequently used as a tool to plant pro-Bush questions? Or is it more likely that Mr. Gannon, the employee of an admittedly obscure news service, simply didn’t attract any real attention from anyone until certain elements of the left decided, because of their dislike of his perceived ideological slant, to subject him to a liberal anal exam?

It’s not like we have laws requiring people to (assuming, for a moment, that the accusations are true), once they’ve entered the profession, walk around with T-Shirts labeled “gay prostitute.” It’s not like the sort of cursory background check normally done would come up with the names of the web domains that the guy once registered or what the Google caches for those sites held.

Truthfully, it’s a little counter-intuitive to think that the evil and cunning Karl Rove would, in moving forward with his plan for Global Domination, solicit the services of a former gay prostitute for the purpose of having the man work for an obscure news site in order to have him plant questions at press conference. The Bush people may or may not be in league with the Devil, but no one thinks they’re stupid (except for the people whose political knowledge is drawn exclusively from the collected works of Michael Moore, who understand that Republicans are both stupid and capable of masterminding secret global conspiracies so brilliant that only the equally magnificently intelligent Michael Moore is capable of unraveling the Machiavellian threads).

The left, as is predictable, is demanding all sorts of investigations. I don’t blame them. If this happened in a Democratic White House, I’d surely be demanding the same. But that doesn’t make them right, nor would it make me right. This entire thing is, to sum it up in a word, stupid.

posted by Yoshi at 11:07 PM

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

The Hama Solution

Ongoing problems in Iran, North Korea, and Syria demand a serious response. I’m sympathetic towards the position that, in order to send a message, the United States has to occasionally pick out someone and throw them up against the wall.

I call this the “Hama Solution.”

Over the last few decades, Syria has been uniquely free of difficulties with Islamists. There’s a reason for that. In the early 1980’s, the Syrians suffered from difficulties caused by an Iranian-inspired branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. From the 1970’s on, the Syrians had great difficulty in fighting off a rising Islamist tide. Finally, the dictator of Syria, Hafez al-Assad, decided that he’d had enough.

The city of Hama, a medium-sized Syrian city, was widely considered to be the center of the Islamist insurgency. Assad ordered his forces to level the city. The Syrian military shelled the city and used poison gas to flush out buildings where Islamists were believed to be hiding.

The total deaths were estimated to be somewhere in the range of 20,000. But the insurgency stopped and Assad’s regime survived.

What the United States faces at the present time is a spiraling crisis. Not only are we confronted with the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the continuing terrorist insurgency in Iraq, but we also face a nuclear-armed North Korea, a Syrian-Iranian alliance, and the strong possibility of conflict with a Venezuela which is increasingly aligned with China and involved in the Civil War in Columbia. And, of course, we have the increasingly alarming Chinese menace lurking in the shadows.

There are too many problems to be dealt with even if the entire American Armed Forces were available. As it stands, of course, any major crisis would require massive call-ups of reserve units. The various partners in chaos are aware of this truth.

Frankly, I think that there’s a belief that the United States operates within a certain threshold of violence. The opponents that the United States have confronted in recent years have possessed only a certain level of capability. There’s a belief, I think, that a certain degree of military strength will render one invulnerable to challenge.

Iraq showed both the potential and the disadvantages of American power. The initial invasion showed the strength of the US Armed Forces. The lessons of the insurgency are not terribly relevant to these powers (save perhaps Syria), since, by the time they get a chance to fight the US in that way, they’ll have been long removed from power. What they’ve learned is about the fragility of American public opinion and the unwillingness of the American public to tolerate losses.
Remember: overall total US losses in two years of fighting in Iraq remain under 1500. Most of those losses have been in a slow and steady trickle, too slow to shock the American public.

What would the result in the United States be if, somehow, five hundred Americans died in a single battle? What would the reaction be to the sinking of a Destroyer or even, God forbid, an Aircraft Carrier? What would the reaction be to the losses of a few dozen combat aircraft?

No one knows for certain. However, what we’ve seen of the patriotism of certain segments of society is not encouraging. What we’ve seen of the resolve on a Oprahfied general population is, likewise, disturbing. I have little doubt which way an extended debate about a confrontation with a nuclear power would end.

Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because they believe that, once they have them, the United States won’t dare to challenge them. Venezuela is buying advanced weapons from China because it believes that the combination of those weapons, and the tie with China, will forestall any American challenge to their bid for regional dominance. Syria is attempting to tie its fortune to Iran, hoping that the United States will decline to challenge any ally of an Iran that is the supreme regional power.

What’s now required is something to shake up the situation. What’s needed is something to convince the plotters of American power. Something needs to happen that reaches out to them and says, “Don’t fuck with us.”

What’s called for is an action so extreme that the whole world will get the message. What’s needed is an action which screams out, “attention must be paid.”

Now: where would this strike come? The new Iranian-Syrian alliance makes drastic action in that part of the world undesirable, to say the least. It’s questionable whether or not the US armed forces are, at present, capable of holding Iraq and invading both Iran and Syria. Lesser actions will bring the threat of extreme retaliation which would demand such a response.

The Venezuela situation is serious, but not one that presently demands extreme action. In any case, too few among the American public are presently aware of the menace posed by Hugo Chavez.

That leaves North Korea as the obvious target. It’s really very simple. Attacking North Korea would do several things.
First, it would convince the world that the United States is willing to attack a nuclear power if necessary. This would remove the present-day illusion that the possession of nuclear weapons is a talisman that provides immunity from attack.

Naturally, this would require more than a simple pin-prick strike. In order to ensure the complete destruction of North Korea’s nuclear war-making potential, it would be necessary to strike with nuclear weapons.

But it would be worth it.

If the United States used nuclear weapons to strike at and destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, it would send shockwaves around the world. Iran, Syria, and (most importantly) China would get the message. The whole of the world would get the message.

posted by Yoshi at 10:28 PM

Sunday, February 13, 2005

On Collective Punishment

This is the sixtieth anniversary of the bombing on Dresden during the Second World War. I choose to write of this now because, as time goes on, it seems increasingly certain that the Allied bombings during the war will come to be regarded as atrocities on par with those of our enemies.

Once, this view was confined to a limited number of individuals, many of them Nazi apologists. That, however, has changed in recent years. With ever-increasing frequency, attacks such as the bombing of Dresden are condemned as “war crimes.”

The war generation didn’t see it that way. Or, at least, the idea that the bombings of German and Japanese cities were anything more than a routine operation of war was certainly a minority view. Those who did condemn them tended to be seen as distinctly out of the mainstream.

That’s not the case anymore. As time has gone on, younger generations have come to regard mass bombings with a kind of horror. They’re mentioned in our textbooks as a kind of embarrassment. Certainly, similar bombings would be politically impossible today. Those willing to defend what was done to Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo, and other such places are the minority now.

Even most of those defenders are willing to speak up in support of these operations only within the context of their time (“they were necessary then but now, thankfully, we have precision guided munitions”). Ultimately, they seem damned to be consigned to the same category as the internment of the Japanese-Americans: a regrettable episode resulting out of the mores of a people less enlightened than we are today.

Obviously, I don’t share that view. I believe that not only were the mass aerial bombardments of the war justified from a military point of view, but that they were also justified in a moral sense as well. To put it more briefly, I believe that Dresden was right.

As much as I admire the effort at democratization undertaken by President Bush, I believe that our efforts in the Middle East are made more difficult by our cultural unwillingness to accept a certain basic precept: no government, even a totalitarian one, truly rules without the consent of the governed.

True, many governments can rule without popular support. Equally true, many governments rule through fear. But these facts do not mitigate the essential truth that, at some level, any government which is allowed to endure in power carries with it the consent of those they govern. Not the support, but the submission. The willingness to acquiesce.

In this day and age we blame the government, and not the people. We forget (or, more accurately, we ignore) the essential truth that every government is, to a great degree, of the people. The people hold a collective responsibility for the actions of their government. When we punish the government, but not the governed, we unwittingly and undeservingly grant a pardon to the guilty.

One reason, I believe, for the success of the post-war construction of democracy in Germany and Japan is that the people of those places were thoroughly, and collectively, punished for the crimes that they had been complicit in. The bombings put the fear of God into the people and taught them a lesson which will not be forgotten for a long time.

The destruction of Dresden and other German cities, the firebombing of Japan, and the nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified not only in the military sense, but also in a broader sense: they were a moral reckoning for the German and Japanese people, the means by which they were forced to atone for their sins. When the United States and Britain struck the Germans and Japanese, they taught them the essential truth of their responsibility for their actions.

I fear that, in this war, we’re failing to teach our enemies the hard lesson of accountability. I fear that we’re failing to adequately demonstrate to them that they too will be held accountable for the crimes that are perpetrated with their willing collusion. Those, I would argue, who fail to actively resist the Islamists are, to one degree or another, complicit in their atrocities. They are valid targets of war.

In some ways, I think we would have had an easier time of things in the Middle East if we sent in a few waves of B-52’s to flatten a few of their cities. I once wrote, and maintain, that the enemy needs to, at a very minimum, believe that we’re capable of responding to a nuclear attack on their part by destroying Mecca with a dozen cobalt-jacketed nuclear bombs.

Our failing will, as exemplified by our newfound squeamishness about what we did to those German and Japanese cities, not only makes our task in this war more difficult, but it also places us in danger.

posted by Yoshi at 10:43 PM

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

How to Save Star Trek

Now, I’m going to be wandering slightly off my reservation again. Frankly, there are only so many “nuke the Gooks” stories that a person can write before growing tired. I’ll still be writing about politics (and one can expect to see my lunacy emerge anew when some leftist insanity triggers my Hulk-like rage), but I’m also going to be talking about all sorts of other issues. I’m sure it will be hard to think of ways to call for executions while writing about films and television, but I’m also quite certain that I’ll find a way to make it work.

One of my deepest beliefs about conservatism is that it cannot become ossified. One of the greatest dangers that conservatives face is becoming too firmly planted in one of two camps. There’s one group which is so obsessed with ideology that it’s unable to think beyond theory into the world of reality. There’s another group which is trying to wall itself off from popular culture.

The problem with the tendency towards cultural bantuism among some, especially conservative Christians, is that it gives mainstream culture an excuse to simply write them off. It’s striking that, to a very large degree, cultural institutions (most notably films and television) simply don’t make an effort to even serve conservatives. They don’t bother in part because they don’t understand them and in part simply because they’re well aware that they don’t consume their products.

Thus, I’m going be devoting some of my time to offering conservative entertainment criticism. I don’t intend to make this explicitly political (anymore than the liberalism of most of television is explicitly political most of the time), but rather to simply say what I think and, in so doing, hopefully impart a little bit of conservative wisdom.

With that, I want to turn to Star Trek. Those among my audience who’ve spent the most time studying my background are apparently well-aware of my affection for that show (I know this because I occasionally get hatemail deriding me as a “Nazi Trekkie Warmonger” instead of just a simple, plain, old fashioned “Nazi Warmonger”). I’ve been a fan since Star Trek: The Next Generation premiered before I entered Kindergarten. I can still remember watching early episodes from the first season.

I’ll even admit to having attended two Star Trek conventions (though, in fairness to myself, I can fix the date of the last one as being about eleven years ago since, at that convention, I acquired a copy of the script for the then-unaired final episode of TNG). Though, I’ll also admit that I lost interest sometime around the time Deep Space Nine ended. Since then I’ve watched minimally: the movies that have come out since then, the last episode of Voyager, the premiere of Enterprise and a few other episodes here and there.

What’s constantly mystified me has been how colossally the Star Trek franchise has been mishandled in recent years. The event that precipitated this column, the cancellation of UPN’s Enterprise, was, in my view, nearly a foregone conclusion from day one. Only the hardest of hard-core fans would be truly willing to stick around for years to rewatch the same thing for the sixth or seven hundredth time. The entire franchise grew stale towards the end of The Next Generation. It was revived in spirit, briefly, by the final years of Deep Space Nine, when the creators temporarily shook loose of their moorings. But, since then, it’s been just further and further downhill.

The Star Trek property has massive potential. Massive. Instead of being used to turn out hackneyed third-rate television shows, it should be churning out billions of dollars in profits for everyone involved.

Why isn’t it? That one’s easy enough to answer: the creators are so beholden to a fan base which screams at even the slightest change that they’re unwilling to do what’s necessary to attract anyone but the hardest of hard-core fans to the show. They’re so afraid of killing the thing by innovation that they’ve killed it by stagnation.

What should be done? The answer is obvious to me: the show needs to move off of starships for a while: and I don’t mean to a space station.

The creators of Star Trek have created a massive and rich universe for people to explore. Why do we only see such a small portion of it? Why don’t we go actually exploring? Not for aliens-of-the-week, but to learn a little more about what it’s like to actually live in the Star Trek universe.

Instead of simply creating another “Starship-goes-exploring” show, the creators should explore how the show can be fused with other genres to create a new and innovative program.

Now, obviously, these concepts are going to take some tweaking. But they strike me as a good starting point for a conversation about just what could be done.

Star Trek: Smallville: The “Starfleet Academy” idea proposal has been floating around for years. At least since the time before Star Trek 6 was made. It’s an idea with potential. If executed correctly, it might well work.

There’s two ways of doing this: cast people to play famous characters when they were younger or create new characters. I tend to favor the former. Hence why I’ve designated this option “Smallville.” I’d favor doing it with original series characters, since the later ones lack the fame and, in the case of the later generations, too far separated in age.

Star Trek: The West Wing: We’ve established a little bit about the Federation Government. Why don’t we learn a little more? It strikes me as entirely possible that world of the Federation President, if well-written, would make for an interesting show. This would give us the opportunity to explore the more traditional areas of the Federation (particularly Earth, Luna, Mars, etc.) which we’ve yet to see explored.

CSI Vulcan: This is actually my personal favorite. Frankly, the CSI-genre and the Star Trek-genre strike me as the perfect two areas for the creation of a fusion product. Criminal investigations (and the ability of criminals for disguise) in the Star Trek-universe just seems like a perfect candidate for a future hit.

The solution for Star Trek is innovation. Combine new ideas. Explore the universe. Move beyond the already done.

posted by Yoshi at 10:23 PM

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Secular Social Conservatism

One of the stranger assumptions of modern politics is that in order to be a social conservative you must be some sort of “religious nut.” It goes without saying that I am not an adherent of this school of thought.

I find it to be idiotic when politicians (such as a certain Senator from Massachusetts) make the idiot statements along the lines of, “I think that abortion is evil, but I’m not willing to do anything about it because that would be imposing my religion.” The strange implication of that statement is, of course, that any opposition to, for example, the agenda of the pro-abortion left, is rooted in religion. Even if one accepts the nonsensical view that the Constitution mandates an extreme and explicit separation between Church and State, that hardly means that there aren’t any secular reasons to be against abortion.

Now, obviously, Christian conservatives do oppose gay marriage, abortion, and so on. That’s certainly true. But do you have to be a member of the religious right to think that, for example, abortion is a bad idea?

I’m sure it’ll be a surprise to few when I describe myself as not being particularly religious. I read the Bible and I believe in God, but I don’t regularly go to Church. In a broad sense, I’d consider myself to be both a Christian and a Protestant, but that’s about as far as the thing would go. Frankly, I find myself uncomfortable in the face of what is generally thought of as “the religious right.” If you ask me about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I’m likely to mumble something and look away.

Yet, still, I generally adhere to a “religious right” standpoint on most social issues. I’m against abortion. I’m against gay marriage. I’m for prayer in public schools.

Think about it for a second. The “God cries when children die” argument against abortion is, in fact, the weakest argument against the practice. There is another, entirely secular, case against abortion just waiting to be made.

The most obvious is this: legal abortion, over the long term, certainly will result in a reduced level of population. Some will raise the specter of “back-alley abortions” which, certainly, would occur in a system where the practice was proscribed. However, simple common sense dictates that fewer abortions, over the long term, means more people.

Now, I’ll admit that I’m not 100% pro-life. I wouldn’t call myself pro-choice, either. But, in truth, I’m not sure if the total illegalization of abortion is the best way to go. Increasingly, I find myself in sympathy with Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” statement. In sum, it means: legal abortion, but every possible restriction placed upon it. In addition, I’d offer incentives against abortion and in favor of adoption.

This isn’t because I’m terribly concerned with the religious aspects of abortion. It’s because I believe that, over the long term, fewer abortions means more people which, in turn, means a larger economy, more potential scientists, more potential soldiers, more potential leaders, and greater potential national power.

Yet, somehow, people believe that all anti-abortion criticism can be written off as being “religious” (since religious speech, apparently, is the political equivalent of a sandwich made by Typhoid Mary at a restaurant).

By the same token, I’m absolutely against both gay marriage and civil unions for a simple reason: I believe that allowing them will weaken the structure of traditional marriage which, in turn, I believe to be a vital institution for our society. For me, at least, it isn’t a matter of “God says it’s wrong”, it’s simply a matter of what I believe works and what I believe doesn’t.

I, for one, think that it’s moronic to believe that we can change an institution that dates back thousands of years and not expect it to have serious effects. (Now, of course, some gay advocates now apparently embrace the broken-windows theory of divorce, claiming that, since marriage is already in trouble, they can jump right on in). It’s not religious, it’s simply a conservative instinct (most change=bad) combined with a further aversion caused by the fact that most of the people attempting to shove this gay measure down the throats of the citizenry happen to be liberals and are therefore my blood-enemies.

posted by Yoshi at 7:55 PM

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Why Hillary Wants Dean

I can’t believe how blind everyone is. There’s been a lot of comment about how the Clintons have failed to act against the possibility of former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Brush Dean III becoming the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dick Morris called the words “Chairman Howard Dean” the, “shortest suicide note in history.” What everyone’s missed is this: that’s exactly what Hillary and Bill both want.

Let’s face facts: the far-left wing of the Democratic Party is presently ascendant. If a relatively moderate Democrat like Tim Rohmer tried to take charge of the Democratic National Committee today, they’d be eaten alive by the collection of special interests who virtually own the Democratic Party.

The far left of the Democrat Party is convinced that the road to victory lies in strident ultra-liberalism. They believe that the reason they lost in 2004 was that the leaders of the party failed in making their opposition to Bush loud enough. They’ve been overtaken with a kind of psychosis, the kind of periodic madness which often results from the hard defeats. In their delusional state, they believe that they lost in spite of Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and the rest, not (at least in part) because of them. They think that traditional Democrats like Joe Lieberman are the problem.

Thus, having achieved virtual control of the party hierarchy, the far-left is engaged in a process of attempting to attain revolutionary purity. They’re so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they cannot be unconvinced, only driven from power. Jacobins are unappeasable.

Hillary and Bill know all of this. They also know that, for Hillary to be able to win in 2008, she needs several things. She needs an unopposed (or nearly unopposed) path to the nomination. She also needs to be able to move to the center and even the right in some cases. So long as the far-left is in control of the party, she will be able to do neither.

So: why are the Clintons standing aside for Howard Dean? Easy: they know that he’s likely to fail, probably spectacularly, and that he’s likely to discredit most of the radical left and leave the party base so eager for victory that they’d be willing to overlook any hearsay on the issues.

The Clintons (but especially Bill) are politically savvy people. They’ve got a finger on the political heartbeat of the nation. The key for Hillary to win the Presidency is for her to position herself in the most popular ground on a number of key issues.

In particular, look for her to revive Bill’s old “safe, legal, and rare” mantra on the issue of abortion, with an emphasis on the latter. I would not be at all shocked to see her embrace every possible legal restriction on abortion, short of an actual ban. This position would put her solidly in the center of American political opinion which, upon the whole, does not wish to see a return to the “back-alley” abortions of the past, but which is not, in any sense, “pro-abortion.”

Also look for her to move to the right on immigration. She’s already begun this process, talking about her opposition to illegal immigration. Look for her to go further, explaining that she supports illegal immigration but demanding stronger enforcement against illegals.

Finally, look for her to embrace the most popular ground on the issue of gay marriage. She’ll be opposed to gay marriage, but for civil unions. If it becomes necessary, she’ll probably even support a version of the Federal Marriage Amendment which embraces this position.

Of course, doing this and sailing to the nomination will be exceedingly difficult if the ultra-left wing of the party: Michael Moore, Democrat Underground, Daily Kos, etc, are not someone undermined and defeated. Thus, she can let them win now and lose now.

Anyone with any knowledge of Howard Dean must be well aware that he’d be an absolute disaster for the Democratic Party. He’s basically the average former Governor of a small and liberal state who managed to stumble into a near-successful bid for the Democratic Nomination through a combination of strange occurrences. Once placed under the microscope, his campaign imploded as quickly and as spectacularly as any in living memory.

He’s remembered now for the “Dean Scream”, but focusing on that ignores what really killed him: his repeated gaffes and the horrible mismanagement of his campaign. We forget now, but his campaign managed to blow through over $50 Million while sinking without a trace. It takes a special kind of incompetence to blow that much money on a Presidential campaign while winning only a single primary.

Thus, come 2006, Dean is likely to lead the Democratic Party to their third disaster in three major election cycles. With Howard Dean in charge of the Democratic National Committee (and, given his personality, probably very publicly in charge), I think that the chances of sixty Republican seats in the Senate is rather high.

It’s really very simple: Hillary moves gradually rightwards on a number of issues and keeps her head down while running for re-election. In November of 2006, the Democratic Party as a whole flies off a cliff while Hillary coasts to re-election in New York.

In the months after the election, the radical left is ousted from control. Democratic desperation to win reaches a fever pitch. Hillary then declares in early 2007 and starts raising a truly massive amount of money, perhaps even money that was held back from the party in 2006 by key donors. With any luck, the remaining candidates are either going to be badly positioned to run or they’re not going to have a chance.

After all: who are the most formidable potential challengers to Hillary for the nomination in 2008? Kerry might run, but he’s done for. No one will remember who John Edwards even is by 2006. Three of the best plausible alternatives to Hillary are New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen. It’s probably worth noting that both Richardson and Bredesen are going to be up for re-election in 2006 in states which are hardly traditional Democratic strongholds. A lot of people believe that Warner might run for the Senate in 2006 as a prelude to a Presidential campaign. All of their chances would be stopped cold by a 2006 defeat.

The sort of disaster which Howard Dean might lead the party into probably cannot be understated. The man is a perfect example of how dangerous the utterly incompetent are when convinced of their own virtues. A hard-left campaign in 2006, led by Dean, Michael Moore, and the rest of their ilk would result in a total meltdown for the party.

Of course, winning the nomination doesn’t guarantee Hillary the Presidency. Her strategy also carries with it a number of risks. Most notably, the risk that the Republican storm of 2006 will turn into the Republican tsunami of 2008, with the GOP picking up momentum as time goes on. It’s also possible that the irreconcilable elements of the hard left are so deeply embedded in the Democratic Party that purging them will prove impossible.

Naturally, I’ll be keeping an eye on all of this.

posted by Yoshi at 7:37 PM