Archives for June 2004

Thanks, primarily, to Republicans. And I’m not the only one who sees this.

Oh, well. I, like others, are simply becoming resigned to the fact. I think P. J. O’Rourke gets it just about right. I used to be naive enough to think that talk radio would serve to educate people because I believed, and still do believe that our predicament, vis-à-vis Big Government, is a problem of the general ignorance of the people. But, as average people become better informed, the arguments change (they don’t really, but that’s the perception). The politicians and pundits are clever enough to keep in front of the debate. Now, you have “conservatives” (whatever the hell that means, anymore) on television and radio resorting to the same sort of dishonest half-truth, context-dropping, deception and manipulation as the lefties mastered decades ago. The only thing they haven’t taken up yet, at least that I’ve noticed, is envy politics. Seeing as it’s such a stunningly successful “political strategy” I don’t see how they’ll be able to risk not using it for very long.

I guess this is why Reagan’s death really hit a soft spot for me. In truth, he was not effective in curbing the growth of government either in California or at the federal level. Yet, he always seemingly held that as an ideal. He was a symbol of that ideal, for me anyway, and it feels a little as though now that he’s dead, and I look around — and I read what I read and hear what I hear — that the dream is dead too.

Well, look on the bright side. It’s entirely likely that within the space of only a few more years, no American will need travel to Europe any longer in order to experience the breathtaking mediocrity and dead-endedness that a culture can “build” itself up to in a thousand years or so. And, to think we’ll have done it in just over 200 years. That’s American ingenuity for ya’.

Well, the world cross-country hang-gliding championship for the women’s flex wing class, rigid wing class, and ultra-light sailplane class is on. It’s taking place in Bern, Austria and I can tell you–because I follow hang-gliding competitions all over the world–that this year is quite a bit different.

A little history is in order. Back in the early days of the 70s and 80s, most hang-gliders were launched by foot, from mountain tops. So, most flying was mountain flying. It’s how I learned. In the mountains, weather can be unpredictable, gust fronts can come up in minutes, and the turbulence from higher-level winds passing over the contour of mountain ranges can create some very strange (and scary) conditions, even several thousand feet AGL (above ground level). But, in the last 10 years or so, everyone has discovered aero-tow. It’s so much more convenient. You set up your glider, get towed up and dropped off in a thermal, fly around for a couple of hours, maybe do a small out-and-return X-C, land where you launched, pack it up, and go home. Now, most of the largest competition meets are aero-tow. With 4 to 6 tugs, they can get 300 hang-gliders to 2,000 – 3,000 ft AGL in a two-hour launch window. Also notable is that since they are towing, they are not constrained to mountain flying. Thus, most competitions now take place mostly over flatland, where the texture of the air is far friendlier. But this year’s comp is in the mountains — the Austrian Alps, I should say.

Here’s a photo of an acquaintance of mine, Vince Endter, launching from the site of the Worlds on a practice day prior to the start.

Here’s a first-hand account of day two of the competition. Just so you know, recovering from a tuck in a hang-glider is a big deal. Most tucks result in tumbles (imagine a falling leaf), followed by the break-up of the glider and tossing the laundry (hang-gliding lingo for throwing your reserve parachute).

OK, now that you’ve digested that, get a load of this carnage. Kari Castle, one of the world’s very top women pilots tumbles at 11,000 ft MSL, patiently waits for her glider to break up, then throws her chute so as to avoid having the chute bridle get wound around the glider. That’s presence of mind, I’ll tell you right here.

I met Kari once when I was still a beginner on a flying trip to the Owens Valley. Kari’s a celebrity in Bishop, CA. Glad she’s OK.

Reason Online has put together a few articles on Ronald Reagan since the weekend. One of the more interesting is a fairly substantial interview done in 1975, prior even to his first bid for the nomination against President Gerald Ford. Now, before I get to what I find most interesting about the interview, here’s an excerpt on political philosophy:

Well, government’s only weapons are force and coercion and that’s why we shouldn’t let it get out of hand. And that’s what the founding fathers had in mind with the Constitution, that you don’t let it get out of hand.

That’s right. Ronald Reagan understood that government is fundamentally force and coercion. I wonder if he understood that government is nothing but force and coercion? Here’s another one, on politics.

I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn’t vote, more than half of them now say they didn’t vote because they don’t see any difference between the parties. I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.

You should read the interview. For one, all of you presumptuous fools out there who believed your big-media personalities that Reagan was not all that bright will find otherwise. In fact, those of you decent enough to be honest with yourselves will certainly come to realize that Ronald Reagan deeply pondered questions of political philosophy back in the 60’s that have yet, 40 years later, to even begin to penetrate your thick skulls.

And for you religious conservatives, who believed Reagan was shallow and intellectually feeble enough to actually hold his ideas based on ancient, unverifiable writings or “feelings” based on an imagined “relationship” with God: go find otherwise. Find the real reason why Ronald Reagan is troubled by something like prostitution, for example.

All in all, it’s a pretty remarkable insight into the intellectual side of Ronald Reagan. He truly and honestly deals with philosophical and political questions from a perspective of moral right and wrong, with just enough of the practical thrown in so that you know he understands the difference between the ideal and reality. It’s not about political power and influence for him. I believe he is wrong about a lot of his positions, but I believe he is honestly and sincerely wrong. I don’t think he’s wrong because he could care less about being right — so long as he has the political will and wherewithal to get what he wants. Quite indisputably, Ronald Reagan genuinely cared about this country and what he thought he could do for it.

Now, finally, what I find most interesting about the interview is the totally opposite pictures painted by the preface to the interview and the interview itself. Reading the preface, you’d assume they were about to interview the most liberal of Democrats you might imagine. This goes to illustrate a couple of things. First, the end result of all public policy is pretty much the same, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are involved. Differences are superficial and for political consumption. What’s driving the whole thing is the world population of mostly complete idiots. Second, nobody, no matter what their political philosophy and will, can change it. Nay, they cannot even make much of a dent in it.

This freight train is on a collision course for hell, and not a goddamned thing is going to stop it until it gets there.

We, and previous generations, have built up a productive capacity that is more than sufficient to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and amuse everyone on the planet. The only barrier to its use for that purpose is that it exists as capital. The only basis for its continuing existence as capital is our continuing acceptance of capitalist and state property rights.

…

Neither ‘socialist’ governments nor ‘communist’ regimes have ever brought society a day nearer socialism or communism. There are many reasons why not, but the basic reason is simple. Production for exchange can’t be gradually reformed into production directly for use.

…

Why not now? We don’t need to wait for capitalism to increase productive capacity to the point where the co-operative commonwealth is possible, because it’s already done so…

From Scotsman Ken MacLeod’s blog. He’s also an accomplished author of sci-fi, which perhaps explains the complete Pollyanna fantasy he lays out in his post, illustrated by the excerpts above.

Just what it is that makes such an apparently smart guy unable to see his own contradictions? Here, in plain view, in a nutshell, he’s arguing that because capitalism has been such a success at raising the world’s productive capacity, while socialism and communism such total failures, that society ought to just abolish the very one fundamental thing that has made it all possible – private property.

Go figure.

(via John Venlet)

…So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride — the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

That was Ronald Reagan, 21 years ago in a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL. The year was 1983, just over 2 years into his first term. What few people know is that Reagan had been trying to deliver that strong condemnation for some time before, at least since his 1982 speech to Great Britain’s House of Commons.

It’s too bad that he didn’t deliver those words in that speech, for it would have been far more apropos. Alas, I’m sure it’s always been difficult for a President to find advisors who are not hand-wringing political whores. Still, when I read that speech now, through the lens of hindsight and history, I cannot help but marvel at Reagan’s vision and conviction. It’s plain to see that he had no doubt whatsoever about this matter, and he was convinced that the course of action on which he had set America would bring the Evil Empire to its knees. What he didn’t know was just how soon this would happen — that his policies would bankrupt the USSR and result in the collapse of the entire Eastern Block.

For those who do not understand the significance of the fall of communism as a “credible” ideology amongst the world’s “elite,” then refresh your memory here, and think of the 100 million people trampled under the boot of the world’s largest “organized labor movement.”

Ronald Reagan was certainly not without his faults, but because he held uncompromisingly to certain principles, correct principles, the world is a far safer and freer place. For that alone, Reagan’s faults will be forgotten, and his legacy and memory will be honored. That’s the path of the hero.

From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But none — not one regime — has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.

May you rest in peace.