All Alone in the Night

A bit ponderous for a new blog that has nothing under its belt but a cute name, but all things begin somewhere, and for us here at All Alone in the Night, it begins here.

It would be convenient that we stand at the dawn of a new age, an age revealed to us by the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. But such a claim would not stand serious analysis. Humanity has been killing each other since Cain decided to discuss parental favoritism with Abel using a club. September 11th may have been a particularly spectacular event, but it was not the dawn of some new age.

Perhaps, then, it is twilight? Earth's 20th century was the American century. Is it time for the torch to be passed? Certainly the United States has lost some of what made it special in the 20th century, although in truth it has been in decline since the guns fell silent at the end of World War II, for its position at that time was so far in advance of the rest of the world that it could never be maintained. Conversely, the United States is still considered by many to be a hyperpuissance, the sole superpower, although it's difficult to argue that reputation can hold for long as America's war in Iraq grinds to a bloody conclusion, Iran prepares to join the family of nuclear powers, and American soft power is at something of a nadir.

But the world is too dynamic to use a twilight metaphor. If it is twilight for America, surely it is dawn elsewhere on the globe. China and India are taking a greater place on the world stage, as befits their position as residences of some 37% of the world's population. Europe is not prepared to give up its place as one of the centers of world power. The world is changing into a new configuration. Will it maintain its Westfalian character with nation-states predominating, or will transnational actors like al Qaeda and major corporations take greater prominence? Will the rise of many nations with nuclear powers return us to a Cold War, or Europe circa 1914, where all that was needed was a spark? Will ecological problems like global warming force nations to band more closely together? Or, more likely, will the world of the 21st century be so different we are unlikely to predict where it will all end up?

We make no such predictions as yet. Our goals, as noted on our sidebar, are more prosaic. First, like many people, we enjoy discussing such topics as current events and politics, and blogging has clearly become a popular method for doing so. Second, we hope to attract like-minded commenters who are interested in discussing these issues, preferably without any virtual bloodshed. Monologues have their place, but learning rarely takes place without discussion. And as we note above, understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, my side, and the truth...

Hello!

…thump-thump-thump…

Is this thing on?

My name is…well not important frankly, but you can call me ‘Baldi.

I’m a longtime blogosphere (TM – Bill Quick) denizen, infrequent commenter, and first time blogger. In fact, this is my very first post.

I’m not entirely sure what I’ll blog about. You can generally expect me to have a less serious tone than G’Kar. It’s likely I’ll be more of a linker and less of a thinker (and I mean that literally). I’ll try to keep my posts short so as not to push the meatier posts off the front page. I am interested in both kinds of debate: politics and sports. I lean right in my politics and left in my sports. I have degrees in Hermaneutic Physics, Geopolitical Dialectics, Post-Randian Dianetics, Astro-Zenecal Diuretics, and Russian Chemistry from the University of Guam at Curacao. I will expect you to bow to my authority in all of the above areas (I should warn you that I have a black belt in logical fallacy, with a specialization in Tu Quoque). Just so you know where I’m coming from.

More background:
Top 5 Movies
5. Star Wars
4. Saving Private Ryan
3. Top Gun
2. Red Dawn
1. Steel Magnolias

Top 5 Books
5. To Kill a Mockingbird
4. War and Peace
3. The Great Gatsby
2. The Cat in the Hat
1. I actually have only read 4 books. (War and Peace is realllllly long, btw.)

Top 5 Bloggers
5. Instapundit
4. Trent
3. Stephen Den Beste (love him or hate him you have to admit…he’s no longer blogging)
2. Wesley Crusher
1. G’Kar (oh, I know which side of the bread I’m buttered on baby)

That oughta do it for background, although I feel like I should mention that I know very little about Babylon 5. But I do know that I have a pot belly and a receding hairline. I like that.

I reserve the right to occasionally publish peices that are serious and discuss the issues of the day. I make no promises about such posts quality or intellectual rigor.

I would like to thank G’Kar for the invitation (it is going to take me a little while to get used to these pseudonyms). I look forward to making a contribution and causing G’Kar to regret his decision to invite me.

A court-martial gave Sergeant Paul Cortez a 100 year sentence for his role in the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and her family. [Although he'll be eligible for parole in ten years, apparently. I must agree with Joe Miller at Catallarchy: ten years for four murders and a rape seems ridiculously light.) According to SGT Cortez, he and three of his squadmates conspired in the rape and murder, and SGT Cortez will have to testify against his squadmates when their cases reach trial. Cortez expressed remorse for his actions and his defense attorney argued that combat stress played a role in his actions. The prosecution, correctly in my view, argued that stress did not excuse rape and murder, and the jury agreed.

While I do not think American troops are raping Iraqis as frequently as Riverbend seems to think, once is too many. When any large group of people is assembled, the odds are that some fraction of them will be prone to criminal behavior. When those people are placed in a situation where many of the normal rules of human behavior are not enforced, such as a war, some of them will act as if none of the rules of human behavior apply. It is largely for this reason that militaries work so hard to instill discipline in soldiers. No matter how much training is done on ethical behavior, however, it is almost certain that the effects of combat will leave some soldiers with the belief those rules do not apply to them, and the result is atrocities.

One hopes that the American military will adjust its training program to try and reduce the chances of such incidents in the future, but I do not believe that any amount of screening and training can prevent all such occurances. War is such a massive deviation from the norms of human society that it may not be possible to predict how otherwise normal people will react. That does not mean the military should not do everything it can to screen out anyone who might do such things, only that we cannot count on screening and training to prevent such events.

Therefore, we should do everything in our power to avoid creating such solutions in the first place. War always have brought atrocities with it, and it always will. Deciding to go to war should include the knowledge that not only will innocent people die through good faith attempts to hit the enemy, but innocents will be raped and murdered by our own soldiers. That is part of the price of war. We would do well to read what they can about people like SGT Cortez and Sabrine Al-Janabi now, and remember those names the next time they we deciding whether or not we should go to war.

American culture has changed markedly since the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts Bay back in 1620, but that Puritan strain of thinking remains a significant factor in American politics. The average American reacts poorly to non-Americans telling America what to do, even when that advice comes from nations that are not only American allies, but American friends. Yet Americans have few qualms about making similar pronouncements to the rest of the world and rarely seem to see the conflict.

Secretary of State Rice has made it clear to Israel that America does not approve of Israeli attempts to negotiate a potential peace treaty with Syria (ht: Talking Points Memo). Vice President Cheney is warning China that its arms buildup belies its claim for a desired peaceful rise to global power. The latter reference is particularly amusing, given the amount of money America spends on its military despite a similar claim regarding its desires for peace. I concede that I trust a heavily-armed America more than I do a heavily-armed China, but that is because I reside in the United States and have at least some faith in her intentions. Viewing the situation from the perspective of a non-American, it is difficult to see why America should feel it has the right to make such pronouncements.

American exceptionalism is an important part of U.S. culture. We believe that we are somehow different from the other nations of the globe and that we seen little wrong with trying to make the rest of the world a better place by making it resemble America. Consider one of the justifications of the Iraq War: bringing democracy to Iraq, because, as President Bush claimed, all people desire freedom. Yet that claim flies in the face of human history. Russia is well on its way back to a return of autocracy because the Russian people didn't like freedom much at all. The world's peoples are not Americans who dress funny and speak different languages. Indeed, were the rest of the world also populated by Americans, there would be no America, for the United States was built by people looking for something different than what they could have in their native lands. Yet American governments rarely seem to understand that.

The American government has the right and the duty to try to influence other governments in favor of the United States' interests. But it does not seem unreasonable to point out that very few governments see it as an advantage to be seen kowtowing to foreign demands; indeed, as Hugo Chavez is demonstrating in Venezuela, setting yourself up as someone willing to stand up to Washington can pay dividends. Public pronouncements that Israel should not negotiate with Syria or that China needs to cool it with their arms buildup are as likely to cause those governments to do the opposite simply to avoid being seen as an American lapdog. Such pronouncements also feed into the view of all too many people of America as a bully throwing its weight around the world stage without regard for everyone else.

Not so long ago, Americans didn't want to be the world's policemen. Today it seems we have not only accepted the role, but are relishing it, and the results have been a predictable erosion of our reputation around the world. Nobody likes a busybody, especially one who is more than willing to barge into their living room to offer advice. If Americans wish to remain truly exceptional, a good first start would be stepping back from the world stage. Isolationism is not a realistic nor useful guide to foreign policy, but there is plenty of room between cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world entirely and our current policy. It will not solve all of our problems by any means; as long as the United States is the biggest power on the block, there will be plenty of people who aren't fond of us. But a big United States that spends less time throwing its weight around is likely to at least make fewer enemies, and hyperpuissance or not, the U.S. seems to have more than enough enemies already.

My wife recently pointed me to an article with an interesting and politically incorrect title WHY (MOST) WOMEN SHOULDN'T RUN.

In this article Michael Boyle questions the wisdom of long distance running for women. He advocates interval training rather than marathons because of the higher potential for injury for women relative to men. The crux of the article is described in the paragraph below.

Why do I say this? Two simple reasons. Anatomy and physics. My favorite two sciences. No matter how hard you try or how well you eat, you can't change your skeleton. The problem with most women and running comes down to something they call Q angle in sportsmedicine. I won't bore you with the details, but it boils down to this. Wider hips make for narrow knees. This angle of hip to knee creates problems. Problems are magnified based on the number of steps. The average person gets about 1500 foot strikes per mile. Do the math on your 5-mile run. Running produces forces in the area of two to five times bodyweight per foot contact. Do we need more math?

The article (originally titled as a question Should Women Run? – thanks editors!) generated some heated responses at the blog of one Nancy Toby.

leach -

what a jerk. I don't know what else to say. Elite women runners don't have curves either because they are well....elite and I'm guessing don't have any fat on them.

What an boob, what a maroon... (in my best Bugs Bunny impression).

What a dick.

Actually what pisses me off most is the patronizing tone, telling women what's good for them.

Yeah, and males really shouldn't cycle, either, unless they use big fat chair seats, because it's bad for their reproductive organs.

That is friggin' unbelievable!!!

What an elitist snob and big fat jerk. Not worth our emotional energy.

Kay Steiger at TAPPED points to a second rape case in Iraq, this one somewhat more solid as the soldiers in question have apparently confessed. Steiger argues that the U.S. presence in Iraq will not protect the women of Iraq from still more rapes.

She may be right. As I have noted, American soldiers' hands are not clear on this matter either, and even assuming that American soldiers on average are more likely to prevent than cause rapes, there simply aren't enough U.S. troops in country to ensure rapes don't occur, as the United States has a far more well-policed society, yet rapes continue to occur there as well.

A more difficult question, however, is what might help to protect Iraqi women from the threat of rape. At the risk of appearing culturally insensitive, Arab culture does not have an impressive record regarding women's rights. Rape victims often suffer worse punishment than their attackers. U.S. troops continued service in Iraq may not make Iraqi women any safer, but it seems implausible that the U.S. leaving is likely to make them any safer either.

As is the case with the Iraqi people as a whole, it seems likely that Iraqi women are unlikely to do well regardless of what America chooses to do in Iraq.

I had no hard opinion on Tom Vilsack's proposal to index Social Security benefits to prices rather than wages, although off the top of my head I see no real problems with reducing the higher end of Social Security benefits to ensure that the program doesn't chew up the entire federal budget over time. I did note that hilzoy of Obsidian Wings did not like the idea, and she seemed to be joined in that dislike by many other prominent lefty bloggers. But now Coyote Blog points out a rather interesting conundrum regarding that dislike: a number of lefties have complained for some time that real wages are stagnant. Kevin Drum stands out in my memory as having been particularly outraged by that issue.

To summarize Coyote Blog's argument, if wages aren't growing, then indexing Social Security benefits to prices ought to increase benefits rather than decrease them. The only way indexing SS to prices would decrease benefits were if wages are growing faster than prices, which would mean that real wages are also growing since purchasing power is increasing.

I have little interest in claims of hypocracy, as Coyote Blog makes; hypocrisy, as they say, is the homage vice pays to virtue. But I am curious if the same people who say real wages are stagnant also think Vilsack's proposal is a bad idea because it would reduce SS benefits, because that does appear to be contradictory. Any economists out there want to enlighten me?

Update: typo fixed.

Where is the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution when we need it? For those who don't recall, and that clearly includes most of the judiciary, the ninth amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It was placed into the Bill of Rights because of fears that the enumeration of rights contained in the first eight amendments to the Constitution would lead to all other rights no longer being protected by the government. Those fears, we've seen, have been prescient.

Today's case in point: New York City's law that bans people from dancing in bars, upheld by the state Supreme Court yesterday. Apparently written originally to take on speakeasies, the Supremes ruled that neither the state nor federal constitutions provided people with a right to dance.

Anyone who has ever seen me dance knows that I am not particularly aggrieved by not having the right to do so. But there is an important principle at stake when the state determines that it can arrest people for dancing. Government is supposed to exist to protect people's rights, not to curtail them. While it is true that any law curtails people's freedoms, good laws do so in order to protect other freedoms. Laws against murder or rape, for example, curtail freedoms that people in societies should not have. Human beings have an unfortunate tendency to want to force others to live the 'right' way, which is why Americans wrote the Constitution in the first place. By strictly limiting the reach of the federal government and making the rights of the people virtually unbounded, the Constitution was intended to protect the rights of all.

But the Constitution is only a piece of paper. It must be enforced by government, and government has a vested interest in going well beyond the reach of the Constitution. Which brings us to where we stand today, where a law barring people from dancing is not seen as restricting protected rights. Yet if government can make laws against people doing something as utterly harmless as dancing, what can the government not do? Very little, it would seem.

Wolf at Blackfive wants to know what people's favorite war movies are, so I'll play along. While selecting favorite movies is always a challenge, here are five war movies I play over and over again, in alphabetical order.

A Bridge Too Far Not really a great movie per se, but possibly the last of the ensemble films with Sean Connery, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal, James Caan, Michael Caine, Elliot Gould, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier and more all coming together to relate the story of the disastrous Operation Market Garden. It's a great film to watch as it relates so much about what went wrong with Monty's foolish gamble and the gallantry and sacrifice of the British 1st Airborne Division.

Gardens of Stone A war movie that involves no combat, "Gardens of Stone" tells the story of the U.S. Army on the home front during Vietnam, focusing on the Old Guard, the men (and now women) who bear the responsibility for laying America's fallen to rest at Arlington National Cemetary. A particularly difficult film to watch as America struggles with yet another war without a national consensus.

Glory The story of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, a majority-black regiment raised during the American Civil War. The film captures the horrors of war as well as any I've seen (yes, that includes Saving Private Ryan) and is a fitting tribute to the men who proved that heroism and valor are human attributes wholly unrelated to color.

Tora! Tora! Tora! Whereas the insipid Pearl Harbor had great special effects ruined by a dismal love story, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" tells the story from both sides (including two directors: one American, one Japanese) and provides a gripping view of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor and climaxing with the devastation of the attack itself.

We Were Soldiers Particularly appropriate as LTC (Ret.) Bruce Crandall prepares to head to Washington to receive his long-overdue Medal of Honor, "We Were Soldiers" tells the tale of the battle of LZ X-Ray, where 2-7 Cavalry fought off two NVA regiments in the first battle between American and NVA forces. For me the story is interesting for the relationships between the men of the 2-7 Cav and the pressures of command in a combat zone, captured well by Mel Gibson.

Those are my favorites. Everyone else?

Greetings! Zathras has but a moment to talk, only a moment away from the Great Machine. But Zathras wants to ask about these things called Oscars.

The awards at the end are obviously the most important, so why torture everyone with all the boring stuff in the middle? Sadly, by the time they present the award that one decided to watch for, one is so tired, one no longer cares anymore...

Zathras very puzzled. But more from Zathras later...