Moon Flights and Dreams

In the interest of minimal fairness, and in the spirit of equal-opportunity ridicule of petty tyrants, of both the elephant and donkey varieties, here's half a cheer for the Obama administration. For the time being, they appear to have killed the latest moon-flight boondoggle. That's a good thing, as far as it goes. But I'm limiting myself to half a cheer, because it doesn't go nearly far enough:

Instead of going back to the moon, the administration wants to invest $6 billion over five years in a commercial taxi to orbit. The idea is to let the private sector take over the routine flights into space.

It seems to me that to "let the private sector take over" anything doesn't cost $6B; it costs nothing. So let's pay what it costs. I'm leaving aside, for now, the regal mindset by which the Feds either "let" -- or don't let -- the private sector do this or that.

Of course, the welfare recipients of both major-brand parties are howling:

"The president's proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human space flight," Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) said Monday morning. "The cancellation of the Constellation program and the end of human space flight does represent change -- but it is certainly not the change I believe in."

Last week, anticipating the news about the Constellation, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), whose state stands to lose 7,000 jobs when the space shuttle program ends next year, said, "[T]he president's green-eyeshade-wearing advisers are dead wrong. And I, for one, intend to stand up and fight for NASA, and for the thousands of people who stand to lose their jobs."

I'm not here to choose from among evils. If I were, though, I'd spare NASA and its potential lunar and planetary voyages, on the grounds that they aren't the big hogs, and aren't primarily aimed toward the waging of war. Note that the news story reported that about $9B have already been squandered on the development of new rocket ships for moon trips; that sounds like a lot of money, until you compare it to the thousand billion or so that got shoveled to well-connected banksters and other money-shuffling parasites by both the previous and current administrations. Add to that the cost -- and I'm just thinking money right now, not the far more important moral cost -- of the Empire's wars, and the maintenance and manning of military bases in nearly every other country in the world, and the gold-plated weapons systems, and the hiring of mercenary armies such as Blackwater Xe. Throw in some smaller items (Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, etc., the Bush "prescription benefit," Obamacare ... and let's not forget Social Security itself, while we're at it), and you start to see a truly "federal" government that would be adequately supported by some very modest tariffs on imports. Goodbye, IRS! Trash the Federal Reserve, and use private currencies that stand or fall on their reputation for honesty ...

Oh, man, I really hate it when I wake up just as the dream's getting really good. Don't you?

For Whom Is This Not a Win-Win?

Like most people, I knew the US has military people stationed in Japan. But -- again, perhaps like most people -- I didn't know there were 47,000 of them. That's what, about one-third as many as were squatting on Iraq at the height of the "surge."

Apparently, quite a few Japanese -- "thousands," according to the news story -- are unhappy enough about that to have gotten out and protest-marched over it.

Why in the world are large numbers of American soldiers still occupying Japan, after nearly 65 years? Why should Japanese citizens be bearing this affront? Why should American taxpayers be bearing this expense?

Oh, that's right -- because we're World Manager. No corner of the globe can be left unsupervised by Mordor-on-the-Potomac. And also, lest I forget, because all those "troops" require equipment and supplies. Our merchants of death have their profits to look after.

Imagine living in a sane world, in which we'd say to Japan: Hey, you're right. Every single soldier is on the way home, as of first-of-next-week. If you're interested in the bases and equipment, we'll make you a good deal; otherwise, we'll pack it and ship it. So long, and thanks for all the sushi.

Never happen. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

How Many Voices Are Louder Than Yours?

I've noticed, of course, that all progressive folk -- including Prexy -- are pretty upset about the Supremes' recent ruling knocking down campaign finance laws against corporate "persons" buying campaign-specific ads at election time. About which, a few things.

First, I'm not an enthusiast for the whole notion of a corporate person in the first place, and I regard their influence on American politics as, generally, a baleful thing. But people hear about "corporate" buying of ads and think automatically of Wal-mart and Eli Lilly and Citicorp, while the entities being muzzled included actual non-commercial political organizations. Sure, I also lack enthusiasm for the protection of Pfizer's "political speech." But is that really the same thing as the Sierra Club's, or the National Rifle Association's, or MoveOn.org's, or the American Life League's?

Yes, it is unjust that these cash-fueled mega-loudspeakers wield the sort of influence that they do. But in our concern for keeping unelected organizations from being able to buy themselves big chunks-o-government, why neglect the real big boy: AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby? Anyone read Walt and Mearsheimer's book? They lay out a ton of evidence showing that what the Lobby wants, the Lobby gets -- in spades. And they do it with money: money that they'll shower on compliant incumbents, or on the opponents of noncompliant ones. Does that bother anybody except me?

Finally, whose protection is the motivation for campaign-finance laws in general? Obvious answer: those who make such laws -- the incumbents. With the general cooperation of lapdog "journalists," and with the power (and paid staffs) of their offices, they blast the would-be upstarts who feebly attempt to buck a Congressional re-election rate that would do credit to the old Soviet Communist Party. Who's going to clip their their wings?

Somehow, You Just Knew There Was a Formula

You know, a template for every teevee news story you've ever seen. Here 'tis. Note: a British obscenity shows up here and there, but it's funny.

The Word for Friday, January 29

And now you see my cunning plan -- to hijack this meme! "Captain akaGaGa, you weel fly thees plane meme to Havana Fridays!"

No, not really. I'm not nearly ambitious enough to even contemplate a meme-jacking. Don't know how I'd go about it -- except that it generally involves weapons, and I'm not at all sure that I'm permitted weapons. And in any case, it surely sounds like a lot of work.

Anyway. In Matthew 26, Judas has betrayed Jesus, and He is being seized by the minions of the Jewish authorities. Verses 47 - 56:

And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up , accompanied by a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying, "Whomever I shall kiss, He is the one; seize Him." And immediately he went to Jesus and said, "Hail, Rabbi!" and kissed Him. And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?" At that time Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left Him and fled.

Concerning the question I'm trying to look into -- whether a Christian is permitted armed resistance in particular, and violent physical resistance in general, to wrongdoers -- I'm thinking that what this passage doesn't say might be as significant as what it does say.

First and most obviously: when Jesus is seized by the agents of the religious authorities, He does not resist them. He does not resist violently; neither does He resist even passively. He doesn't run away; He doesn't "go limp" so they will have to carry Him. When a disciple fights to defend Him, Jesus stops that disciple. In His words, though, it seems to me that He does not lay down a general principle; rather He tells His disciple that He could easily avoid being arrested or interfered with in any way, but that to be arrested (and abused, and finally executed by torture) is why He came incarnate into this world; to physically defeat the authorities would also defeat that purpose. And that reasoning really doesn't apply to me, or to you. We are not the lamb without blemish, offered to take away the sins of all who accept the cleansing. Only He is.

Secondly, there's the business of the sword. At first glance, this is more evidence that we're directed to defenselessness. But let's look again. "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." That's quite different from saying, "Where'd that sword come from? You know we don't do swords. Get rid of it, and never touch a sword again in your life." It seems to me that when Jesus tells the disciple to put his sword back "back into its place," that really implies that the sword has a place -- and that place is where it just came from, on the person of the disciple. "For all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" is puzzling, and I'll be the first to say that one of the challenges involved in following Jesus is that He loved sayings that are paradoxical on the surface, or that take our habitual way of thinking and stand it on its head. I don't think this saying should be read in the obvious way (whoever takes or uses a weapon is killed by, or using, that weapon), because we can see that it often isn't so. Lots of people spend entire careers carrying, making, or even using guns, and still manage to die in their beds at an old age. But the context is interesting, because Jesus immediately went on to point out that He wasn't lacking in direct power with which to resist those who grabbed Him, being equipped with many angels who would eagerly do His bidding. In this context, it seems to me that the "perish by the sword" phrase is a warning that if violence is our first, default response to conflict, then we're "all about" violence, and it in some way dominates our lives. Obviously, I may very well be wrong about this, and stand ready for correction.

On the whole, I think this passage can be taken as support for the position that believers may indeed physically resist evildoing, even with weapons; but that this form of resistance should not be our first-default option.

Click here for more Words for Wednesday.

This Can't Help But End Well

O fortunate coalition citizens, your supervisors have taxed you -- or borrowed in your kids' and grandkids' names -- to finance the killing of plenty of those swarthy Af-Paks and a few other sorts of insignificant wogs. In some cases, they've killed or maimed your kin to accomplish ... well, whatever it was that they were supposedly trying to accomplish, and have manifestly failed at. Now, get ready to pony up some more cash credit. They're trying bribery:

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said it was necessary to "establish a trust to finance the reintegration programme" that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The Afghan president Hamid Karzai, who will pledge to tackle government corruption, will present a plan to reconcile senior Taliban leaders at tomorrow's meeting.

But the proposals will require huge amounts of money to pay for new jobs, pensions, land and even fund the relocation of senior militants abroad.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Rasmussen said: "This will have financial implications and without assistance from international community it will not be possible to accomplish that programme.

Asked if this was to raise millions of dollars to pay off the Taliban he said: "I will put it another way. We need funds to provide people with better alternatives for a fruitful occupation rather than fighting for the Taliban.

"Call it promotion of economic opportunity for people in Afghanistan, creation of new jobs."

His comments come the day after the commander in Afghanistan Gen Stanley McChrystal said it was "inevitable" that talks would open with the Taliban once the current surge of an extra 30,000 American troops and 7,000 other Nato personnel forced them to the negotiating table.

Chancellor Angela Merkel also announced that Germany would increase its troops by 500 as it moves to step up training of local security forces.

Hey, I've got an alternative to offer: how about we just get the hell out, post haste, leaving a sincere note of apology and a promise not to return?

Nah ... on second thought, let's just trust our Leaders. They're really smart, they know so many things that -- for good reason! -- they can't really share with us, and they're good, good people. I'm sure it'll all work out just fine.