The (reluctant) American Empire

This post on The Corner got me thinking:

The Slippery Slope of Fighting Barbarism [Jonah Goldberg]

A friend sends this quote of the day along:

Your debate with Beinart made me remember this great Evelyn Waugh quote. It'd be interesting to hear a Ron Paul acolyte respond to this point:

"It is in the nature of civilization that it must be in constant conflict with barbarism. Very few empires have been the result of a deliberate ambition. They have grown, inevitably, because it has been found necessary to expand in order to preserve what is already held. The French had to annex Algiers because it was the only way in which the Mediterranean could be made safe from pirates. Empire moves in a series of 'incidents,' and these 'incidents' mean that it is impossible for a country to live in isolation. Barbarism means constant provocation."

From "We Can Applaud Italy" (1935), in The Essays, Articles and Reviews of Evelyn Waugh.

Update: Just for the record, the above post does not, in fact, constitute an endorsement of Waugh's applause for Italy. I just thought the quote was interesting.

It made me go back and read Donald Douglas' post on American Power, Putting the "American Empire" Meme to Rest:

Jonah Goldberg, who the Los Angeles Times calls, "one of the most prominent young conservative journalists on the scene today," offers a devasting rebuttal to the American empire debate in his column today.

I've long noted my displeasure with the America-as-empire meme, so Goldberg's piece hits a truly sweet spot with me:

For lack of a better word, the United States is getting tagged as an "empire" from all quarters. Indeed, it's been a century since the notion of an American empire got such wide circulation, and back then Washington truly had designs on such expansion. (Google "Spanish-American War" if you're unfamiliar with this period.)

Donald concludes:

This is - to the best of my knowledge - the greatest op-ed commentary debunking the America-as-empire thesis since Victor Davis Hanson's, "A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?"

Of course, the academic literature on empires is enormous (see here, for an example, in pdf), and I haven't specialized in it to any extent. I have offered my reflections on this research, similar to Goldberg's:

There is an American order in international politics, and that is an order of great power leadership in a realm of nation states that is bound by increasing multilayered patterns of complex interdependence. Empires have been relegated to the ash heap of history, as well they should. Perhaps, with all due respect, this line of research may meet a similar fate some day as well.

I agree with Goldberg, as you can see: It's high time to put the American empire meme to rest.

To which I say: "Not quite."

Like Jonah and Donald, I loathe the comparison of America's international affairs with the European empires of old. We do not colonize other countries or rip off their resources in order to enrich ourselves. Nearly all of our foreign endeavors have been motivated by mostly practical and often altruistic reasons but.....

Destiny has cast us in the role of the greatest nation state that the world has ever known and we now must, however reluctantly, be the center of a new empire. We still won't colonize or rip off resources but we are, whether we like it or not, the Big Kahuna - no - the Biggest Kahuna in the history of the world and who knows exactly what that will lead to?

I have a hunch that the only way that we will be able to preserve our social and political freedoms in face of some pretty nasty opposition (such as the Islamic fanatics) is to conquer those who are the enemies of our freedoms and to then "colonize" the whole world with our freedoms. As Waugh wrote:

[Empires] have grown, inevitably, because it has been found necessary to expand in order to preserve what is already held.

How else are we going to go where no man has been before? (And we all know that that's the real destiny of America.) If we don't destroy those who wish to pull us back into the Dark Ages, we'll never fulfill our destiny. I just hope that we don't destroy what we do have in this endeavor. It'll be a tricky balancing act.

The Empire has always simply been the cleverest, most militarily powerful and most civilized group of people on earth but its center has shifted through the ages. It was once called the Greek Empire, then the Roman Empire, then the Holy Roman Empire and so on. Britain was the last overt center of the Empire. Now we are.

The Empire (the center of civilization) will always survive but it will be served by different groups of people. It's our turn to be the guardians of civilization - whether we like it or not and it's good that we are reluctant and not arrogantly overbearing; that we walk softly but carry a big stick.

"Know Nothings"

Yesterday I used the term "neo-Know Nothings" a couple of times. Last night at dinner, Chas and Andy asked me what they were. They were both born after the 60s and were not taught about it in school. So here's a quick definition of "Know Nothings" for others born after the 60s. From Wikipedia:

The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to American values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854–56, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery, most often joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election.^[1][2]

The movement originated in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party. It spread to other states as the Native American Party and became a national party in 1845. In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party. The origin of the "Know Nothing" term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing."

That makes them all sound like angry reactionaries which is pretty much the way they have been portrayed by the left. What is not mentioned is that the Know-Nothings were actually quite liberal in many of their ideas. Most of them opposed slavery, supported rights for women, believed in legal counsel for poor defendants, wanted to increase funding of public schools and libraries and exposed corrupt politicians.

But for the past 140 years the Democratic Party has painted the Know-Nothings only as anti-immigrant bigots whereas they were actually a lot more "progressive" than the Dems and their concerns about uncontrolled immigration were very similar to those that many of us have today. They, like us, feared the degradation of the Republic by new immigrants who did not understand the ideals of self-reliance and individual sovereignty that gave birth to the American Revolution.

And the Know Nothings were opposed by the same people who oppose controlled immigration today: big business who stand to benefit from cheap labor and their tame politicians. Of course the Know Nothings were most vehemently opposed by slave-owners. Sound familiar? Us neo-Know-Nothings are still engaged in the same old battle to preserve a Republic of free people who not enslaved to government.

Fred's blog quotes me

From Fred Thompson's blog, Fred08:

More Praise for Fred’s Tax Relief Plan
Posted on November 26th, 2007

Patrick Joubert Conlon at Born Again Redneck called the plan, “music to a businessman’s ears.”

Boy, am I tickled pink.

PS I'm going to leave this post at the top for a while because I have just applied to join two Fred Blogrolls and I want them to see what a good boy I am. Scroll down for newer posts.

PPS Thank you all for your kindness in sharing my pleasure. The fact is that blogging is a social endeavor and this silly little blog would not have even been noticed if it had not been for your linking to it and boosting its presence among the 20 million other blogs. Thank you.

Not again!

CNN and WIKIO have linked to me again. At least it wasn't a HuffPo link (which attracted 13,000 visitors in one day - most of whom were hysterical moonbats.)

Actually I am once again tickled pink. I started this blog two years ago to post pics and reports for my friends and family about my move from San Francisco to rural Oregon. The next thing I knew was that I started taking digs at the insane socialists of San Francisco and one thing led to another and, before I knew it, this blog had become a political blog. And the rest is history - as Shakespeare said to Mick Jagger after his third divorce.

The GOP is the party of rich pigs - not!

Democrats party of rich, study finds.

Actually I knew this already but it still bears repeating:

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

But what about the politicians' personal wealth. Well, I read many years ago that there are more Democratic millionaires in Congress than Republicans. Free Republic posted a list of the 25 richest pols in DC two years ago. I've just listed those who were elected to Congress:

[The first figure is their minimum net worth and the second figure is their maximum net worth.]

Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $269,098,030 $284,549,005

Jane Harman (D-Calif) $168,651,649 $289,045,000

John Kerry (D-Mass) $164,741,510 $234,262,099

Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $135,862,098 $677,230,000

Robin Hayes (R-NC) $92,832,334 $181,295,169

Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 $101,579,003

Charles H. Taylor (R-NC) $56,056,017 $77,341,000

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 $98,660,021

Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) (D) $41,153,105 $64,096,019

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 $90,733,019

John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 $38,043,014

Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) $19,978,175 $67,170,000

Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 $93,043,004

John Campbell (R-Calif) $17,004,087 $77,512,000

Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas) $15,774,147 $55,312,000

Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $15,087,070 $61,131,000

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $14,746,108 $55,085,000

Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) $14,116,811 $30,725,757

Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $13,508,152 $49,829,007

Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $13,267,113 $58,330,000

Eleven out of the twenty richest pols in Congress are Democrats. And here's a list of America's Richest Politicians:

1. Michael Bloomberg (Rep.), Mayor, New York City
Net Worth: $4.8 Billion

2. Winthrop Rockefeller (Rep.), Lieutenant Governor, Arkansas
Net Worth: $1.2 Billion

3. B. Thomas Golisano (Ind.), Gubernatorial Candidate, New York
Net Worth: $1.1 Billion

4. John Kerry (Dem.), Senator, Massachusetts
Net Worth: $550 Million

5. Tony Sanchez (Dem.), Gubernatorial Candidate, Texas
Net Worth: $500 Million

6. Amo Houghton (Rep.) Representative, New York
Net Worth: $475 Million

7. Jon S. Corzine (Dem.), Senator, New Jersey
Net Worth: $300 Million

8. Herb Kohl (Dem.), Senator, Wisconsin
Net Worth: $250 Million

9. Jay Rockefeller (Dem.), Senator, West Virginia
Net Worth: $200 Million

10. Mark R. Warner (Dem.), Governor, Virginia
Net Worth: $200 Million

Six out of the ten richest pols are Democrats and Bloomberg is really not a Republican - so make that seven out of ten.

Now, if these weasels would all just shut up, put their money where their big mouths are and give their own wealth to "help the poor" instead of nagging us to pay more taxes. Boy, I loathe these limo liberals even more than I detest real commies.

What American accent do you have?

I don't have an American accent. I've tried. I can do French, German, Crustacean and a bunch of others but an American accent is almost impossible to fake (as many a British actor has demonstrated.) I probably got Northeast because I pronounce "Mary," "merry," and "marry" all differently - unlike out here in the West where they are all pronounced like "marry." I also pronounce "dawn" and "don" differently. Out here they're both pronounced "don."

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Northeast   Judging by how you talk you are probably from north Jersey, New York City, Connecticut or Rhode Island. Chances are, if you are from New York City (and not those other places) people would probably be able to tell if they actually heard you speak.
Philadelphia
The Inland North
The Midland
The South
Boston
The West
North Central
What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

My second favorite candidate for President: McCain

Everyone who reads my blog regularly knows that my favorite is Fred Thompson. In real life I may find him slightly overbearing and maybe even a bit egotistical but, when it comes to politics, I agree with him 99.8%. And I'm not one who should complain about ego since I've got plenty myself.

My second favorite is someone who is vilified on the right as a sell-out but I like him a lot and am hoping that maybe Fred picks him for Veep. If Fred drops out, this guy is my next pick: John McCain.

If anyone has sat on committees (as I have many a time - at work and as a volunteer in my private life) then they'll know what McCain is all about. Congress is basically a big committee. You wheel and deal, compromise and accommodate. It's hard to be a hero on a committee. Heroes are not appreciated. Team-players are.

McCain has walked the fine line between being a team-player and a hero most of his adult life. He's not a total team-player which is why he is called a "maverick." But he's sold out at times (as have I) for a greater goal rather than merely being righteous or even simply right. He's the consummate politician and that's nothing to sneeze at. He could be another Gerald Ford and that's not the worst thing in the world.

After that comes Romney who is not a team-player. He's all about being a corporate boss; playing Mr Nice Guy and smiling while cutting your salary or handing you a pink slip. He's okay but he's not mensch. He's a total two four-faced fake and phony but he's not incompetent or stupid and could probably handle the job quite well. Although it seems to be an issue for some silly folks, his religion doesn't phase me one bit. Who am I to criticize when I've been accused of being a Hindu?

Then comes Giuliani. He's a lose canon but he's not totally stupid. You already know what I think about Rudy. I probably shouldn't criticize him because of his marital history since I've gone through two wives, four "lady friends" (who were more than that euphemism implies) and three "special" male friends (two of whom - Chas and Andy - are still with me after 26 and 15 years respectively) so I'm in no position to cast stones but I've never treated my former mates as insouciantly as Rudy has. I'm sorry but this man stinks to high heaven in the loyalty department and his politics are untrustworthy but.....he's not as stupid as the rest of the field.

Next is the Huckleberry. I know that some people think he's a slick silver-tongued snake-oil-salesman Southern preacher, huckster and hustler but I think he's just basically a bit naive and silly. He's a decent fellow and I could easily make a friend of him - except for his lousy nanny-state politics. I'd have to smack him with a rolled up newspaper occasionally and tell him to grow up and get real. He's a nice guy but he's stupid - about three brain cells more than Edwards but not nearly as immoral and crooked.

As for the rest: Hunter's okay but is naive - the California version of Huckleberry; slightly more savvy than the Huckster but basically a nice but dumb beach boy. Unfortunately Tancredo is even more stupid that Hunter and Paul is the GOP's cretinous Kucinich. Nuff said.

But I'm quite happy about all of this because I know that, if Fred fails, I've got two spares to back him up - although, while I could quite comfortably campaign for McCain, I could not do so for Romney. He'd have to sink or swim on his own. Thank goodness Romney doesn't need my money. I'll volunteer time and money to McCain but not to Romney.

Maybe if I had all my eggs in one basket, I'd be freaking out round about now but I don't. One special favorite and two back up candidates suits me fine.

Cranberry chutney

Cranberry sauce: Good for what ails you:

Cranberry sauce is not the star of the traditional Thanksgiving Day meal, but when it comes to health benefits, the lowly condiment takes center stage. In fact, researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) have found that compounds in cranberries are able to alter E. coli bacteria, which are responsible for a host of human illnesses (from kidney infections to gastroenteritis to tooth decay), in ways that render them unable to initiate an infection.

I do not like store-bought cranberry sauce. Home-made cranberry sauce is fine but I prefer my own cranberry chutney. Usually I make this chutney weeks ahead of time to allow it to mature but Thanksgiving snuck up so fast this year.

About three weeks ago I started getting dozens of Google searches looking for this recipe that I posted last November.

Recipe for cranberry chutney.

12 ounce bag of cranberries

1 cup of water

half a teaspoon of salt

1 cup of sugar

2 tablespoons olive oil

half an onion chopped fine

1 heaped teaspoon of finely minced garlic

2 tablespoons of finely chopped cilantro

1 teaspoon of cumin

2 tablespoons white wine vinegar

half a teaspoon of cayenne pepper or one fresh serrano chillie finely minced

Boil the cranberries in the cup of water with the salt and sugar for ten minutes. The result will seem watery but it will solidify as it cools.

Heat a few tablespoons of olive oil in a skillet and add the cumin and cayenne (or minced serrano.) As soon as the cumin starts to bubble in the oil add the chopped onion and minced garlic and saute till golden brown - about ten minutes.

Add sauted onions etc to cranberries and stir in the chopped cilantro and vinegar. Let it cool and refrigerate. It will be slightly bitter when you first make it but will mellow in a few days. Use it just like the usual cranberry sauce. It's especially good on cold turkey sandwiches.

Random beauty

The other night I was waiting for dinner to be ready and there wasn't really enough time to get started on any project that I did not want to be interrupted so I did a random Google search. I've done this before and have made some serendipitous finds.

I had just finished researching my post about Benazir Bhutto and was feeling a bit bummed out and needed an antidote for all that sleaze so I typed "beauty" into Google images and found these.

Autumn beauty:






















The house that was used in the movie, "American Beauty":















An antique wind-up toy called "Bathing Beauty":






















An illustration from an old book of "Beauty and the Beast":






















That's the sort of illustration that I grew up associating with the story of "Beauty and the Beast." This is the sugary Disney version:

















I don't know who did this painting. The site where I found it only said that the title is "Beauty Beckons":















I loved the whimsical wit of this painting by Lin Hellman titled "Beauty":
















The cover of an old book, "The Beauty of America":






















Beauty Bay in Idaho:

















A Buff Beauty rose. I have one of these in my garden:
















A painting by Charles Joshua Chaplin titled "Young Beauty":






















The site from which this photo came did not say who the photographer is. It's titled "Hawaiian Beauty":
















Sleeping Beauty Mountain in British Columbia:












Pre-Raphaelite painter Edward Burnes-Jones' "Sleeping Beauty":

A walk in Robin's Wood forest

Last week I had intended to move my schizostylus lilies but they were still blooming so I postponed it to the following Sunday, yesterday. But once again they were still blooming so I decided to postpone the job for another week and take a walk in the forest instead.

It was another perfect day in paradise yesterday: 64F with clear blue skies. I grabbed the camera and set out.

First, here are the offending schizostylus lilies which refuse to go dormant this year. The pink ones are still looking good but the red ones (which bloomed first this year) are looking a bit ratty right now.





The first autumn that we were here, we invited a mushroom expert to lunch one day and asked him to help us identify the mushrooms in the forest. Till the expert came, I had seen about 6 or so different types of mushrooms. The expert pointed out 24 different species. Most are inedible and some are so small that I was amazed that he found them.

Yesterday I decided to see how many I could find. Here are some pics of my discoveries. I haven't got a clue what they are and would never eat them. Some of the pics didn't turn out too good because the mushrooms are in deep dark corners of the forest and some of them are so small or earth-colored that I'm only posting pics of a handful of the many types of mushrooms in Robin's Wood.

Chanterelles are the most common - that is until we got chickens who ate them all when they were tiny. I resent the chickens munching on them because they are easily identified and edible; in fact delicious. The second most common shroom is this boring brown one. It covers whole swaths of the forest floor.



Next most common are these little gray ones. They don't look like much in the pic but they really are pretty with a pearl-like sheen.



Again the pic doesn't do these justice. In reality they are a pale lemon yellow deepening to gold at the top of the cap.



I think the flash (which I had to use in the deep shade) washes out colors. This shroom has a coppery cap and a purple stem not gray.



There are also lots of these speckled shrooms. This one was the size of a dinner plate.



One of the most dramatic shrooms, this bright red one is obviously not poisonous for slugs because they had munched some of it. It's about 4 inches wide.



Coral mushroom growing next to one of the 11 different types of moss in Robin's Wood.



These small bright white shrooms only grow in moss.



This mushroom was the size and shape of a football.



This shroom with a concave cap is also very common.



A small shrivelled amanita. They are dying out right now.



I posted this pic of a large amanita two weeks ago. It's was the size of a dinner plate.



This land was logged nearly 30 years ago and the forest is full of rotting stumps and even large logs which were left behind. Lumber was cheap in those days and they were not as careful about harvesting all the felled trees as they are nowadays. This upturned root is in our rhododendron dell (well it will be a rhodie dell one day but currently only has six rhodies.) I'm going to leave this root stump as a natural sculpture.



Emerging from the forest and seeing the house once again. It was so warm that by now I was sweating profusely and dying for a cup of tea.



I made this "natural sculpture" out of dead ivy twines which came off a felled tree.



Our bunk-house. This pic was taken at about 2pm but already the shadows were long.



Yes, the roses are still blooming. I don't know why this one looks pink. It's really purple and has such a wonderful sweet strong perfume that one rose in a vase will fill a room with scent.



And finally, the sun sets over the ocean ending another perfect day in paradise.