Are you a domestic terrorist?

[Vandiablo]

With two cats, the probability is 1/4 that there are 18 lives left and 1/4 that there are none. The probabilities for intermediate states cannot be calculated without resorting to Gödelian numbers and contain unnormalizable infinities. Indeed, the whole study of QCD (Quantum Cat Dynamics) is complex beyond understanding, but progress is being made on Fundamental Hairball Theory -- basically an indigestible multidimensional string theory.

This was such a good point that no reply was worthy of it.

Then again, I might as well, since most of my replies are unworthy.

I surmise that my cats' barf is multidimensional, or at least it changes my state when I observe it (using a corrected Hobble).

And speaking of Gödel, was it not he who proved that despite knowing some things about your cat, you can't possibly know everything about your cat?

(That could be why they're so smug.)

-V

[Occhidiangela]

It may be a mistake to do this

It was. Next time you want to imitate a seagull, try crapping on somebody else's car.

@ Jester:
What color is the sky in your world, I wonder?

Mexico was obviously not happy about Texan independence, and never fully reconciled themselves to it.

Cry me a river. When you lose a war, you don't tend to get to dicatate terms. Blood and iron is still one of the few methods of border reconcilliation that seems to get universal acknowledgment in practice, rather than in theory.

But tell me: why the deliberate dishonesty here? Why do you use this artifice? You divorce the government of a nation from the nation. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, in practice.

I'm not sure I'd tie that all into culture, as opposed to economy,

Sorry that you choose to be so myopic. (As I understand it, you are a student of economics?) Trying to isolate politics and economics from culture is a failed perceptual game, and IMO a foolish one, as the three (and more factors) continually interact.

Well, yeah. Their leadership was terrible.

You didn't quite catch the point. The root of that leadership problem is cultural.

What mix are we talking about now?

Please keep up with the series of posts, to include the first one when I barged into your teapot tempest with kandrathe. This goes back to feudal states, feudal social institutions within a culture, and how they inform, corrupt, and otherwise influence politics. You can keep up, you are one of the few with the wit to do so.

A century? How about a decade later? During the Civil War, the US put to field over three million men. They didn't just all pop into existence in the 13 years between the two wars, nor did the organizational capacity to militarize them, nor the economic capacity to pay and arm them.

Actually, in relative terms, the two armies of the Civil War did indeed just "pop" in to existence, and with bloody consequences for a lot of ninety day volunteers, draft riots in New York, and more problems that both side's staffs and commanders were beset with. That is how Custer became a General in a very short period of time, from being a junior officer: the armies inflated at a rapid pace.

But beyond that, you once again miss a salient feature of Ameican history: from day first, the political unwillingness to keep large standing armies was imbedded in the cultural and political assumptions. The Civil War was an abberation, not the status quo. The break from the continual tradition came in WW II, and its aftermath.

I don't think those problems are "somewhat similar". Scott wasn't pondering marching back to Washington DC to stabilize the government. I doubt the thought ever crossed his mind - whereas I'm sure it preoccupied the Mexicans nearly as much as the war itself.

Perhaps. Similar but different problems between the civilians and the generals on both sides. Scott did have the advantage of distance, and thus the long time between communiques from Washington. Thus you can, if you like, argue that he had some freedom of action that our current commanders dont' enjoy, amd maybe Santa Anna didn't either due to closeness. McClelland had similar frustrations with Lincoln. ON the flip side, Santa Anna's tendency was to take charge and act, much to the frustration of his various political allies and enemies, shows me that he enjoyed sufficient freedom of action to have succeeded. (As OPFOR for the exercise we ran, I won as Santa Anna, but that was a war game, not a real campaign.)

I'm not sure I'm actually guilty of that - what I've said is all factually true

No, it's spun, with little relationship to the tactical and operationsl, not to mention strategic, problem of trying to win a war by resorting to a flying column. It doesn't always work. See Napoloen to Moscow and French in Viet Nam and a few African scraps.

However, you seem to have no qualms about making gigantic anachronistic reaches between "latinates", be they WWII Italians, the Sicilian Mafia, 19th century Mexicans, whatever. Does that not trouble you, who are insisting on such rigorous chronology?

It's a matter of grasping the constraints of the feudal cultural ccontnuum, thanks for trying to keep up.

Fail.

If they hadn't been Liberals,

Those Liberals are not well related to what now passes for that category, which is a shame, as Western Liberalism has been, in the main, a boon to my country and some other parts of the world.

The problem, as usual, was in applying an idea when the underlying cultural assumptions never changed.

They still have not, to this day.

See also trying to impose democracy on third world nations, pick one of a few dozen over the past forty years, via performing electallatio on them, and seeing "democracy" fail time and again. It has to grow from the ground up.

It is the same old story. I don't think it will change in my lifetime.

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

It was. Next time you want to imitate a seagull, try crapping on somebody else's car.

oho, so you're the only one who gets to be juvenile, eh?

(hey, wait a minute, that's MY objective!)

There's your car... and .... AWAY!!!

People with clean cars shouldn't fling poo.

SPLAT!! Right on the door handle!!

(For what it's worth*: Whereas I don't care much for crap, I do like vinegar.)

By the way, the after-vinegar part of my post though was a light-hearted extension of the "half capacity" thread -- the thread on which you "seagulled" with "piss." So maybe this thread is "flocked".

-V
Equal Opportunity Crapper

*nothing, as usual

[Vandiablo]

See also trying to impose democracy on third world nations, pick one of a few dozen over the past forty years, via performing electallatio on them, and seeing "democracy" fail time and again. It has to grow from the ground up.

/juvenile on

Yes, it's always disappointing when it doesn't come after electallatio. But at least it feels good, right?

/juvenile off

-V

(hmm, the "juvenile off" isn't working... and some vandal changed the button to read "j off")

[Jester]

So the US beat the Mexicans in a fair fight because of underlying culture. Does that just about sum it up? Maybe you're right that the Latin cultures are crippled by lingering remnants of feudalism. I've never found that to be a particularly convincing argument - how did Japan become so rich and powerful, when they had one of the harshest feudal structures in the world, which endured to remarkable degree even after WWII? It's not that simple - not by a long shot.

"Blood and Iron" is not a bad term for what happened: this war's political conclusion was decided by military force. The US decided that they'd rather draw the border down to the Rio Grande and across to California. Texas was unable to do this by themselves, but with the might of the US? Not so tough. They beat the tar our of the Mexicans until that idea became fact. They knew they could win, and events proved them correct.

If the Mexicans had been blessed with a brilliant leader, rather than a bold idiot who gets himself captured by every force he takes on, they might have preserved some extra slice of their territory with a better defensive war and the help of Yellow Fever - but there was absolutely no way they were going to turn the war around and march deep into the US without a counter-reaction that would have destroyed them. Can you imagine Santa Anna sitting in Washington DC, bickering with the folks back home about whether to annex all of the States, or just take Dixie and be done with it? The image is absurd, and for good reason - a fundamental imbalance in total power that was not going to be undone by any issue of leadership. If the US started losing (which didn't happen, but counterfactually) they had the capacity to hold the borders, regroup and fight again with a larger, better organized army - with very little the Mexicans could have done about it. When the Mexicans started losing, it was straight to Mexico City from two directions, next stop Guadelupe-Hidalgo.

The issue of large standing armies is a red herring. If the US was vastly expanding its territory by winning military campaigns (against Mexico, against Spain, against the indigenous nations) without a large standing army, then what need did they have for one? No enemy presented that required a gigantic standing army until they turned their guns on themselves in the Civil War - at which point it became frighteningly obvious just how much reserve power the US had, in terms of manpower, in terms of wealth, in terms of industrial production, and in terms of organizational capacity. Just because they didn't need to *use* all that capacity against Mexico doesn't mean they didn't *have* it. Indeed, since the money saved could be funnelled back into economic growth, in the long run, not having a large standing army probably made the US more powerful, rather than less. It certainly didn't do Mexican governments any favours having to pay out so much of their budgets to keep the army happy.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

So the US beat the Mexicans in a fair fight because of underlying culture. Does that just about sum it up?

No, reductionism doesn't suit you well, nor the topic, but don't let that stop you from trying to play games. I am sure you have more to offer than that.

By the way, there is NO SUCH THING as a fair fight: you will find it next to the Easter Bunny, except in the artificial world of simulations or sport. The campaign that culminated in Chapultapec was as risky as Custer's (smaller scale) detachment operating as a small flying column in terrain he didn't know well. In that case, the flying column came a cropper. The details of how to accomplish what Scott pulled off is worth studying, though its applicabilith now, with the advent of airborne resupply, is only partly coherent as an example for future operations. Your "big hand little map" approach is as poor an analytical style as the analysis that led to the French Plan XVII.

Beyond that, I am not impressed with your dis of Antonio López de Santa Anna. In the Americas, the nineteenth century was a time of wide open opportunity, both for political experimentation and pursuing personal ambitions. James Bowie was typical of that era, as both adventurer and land speculator (of dubios integrity). Santa Anna is and was, for my money, one of the most extraordinary men of the nineteenth century in the Americas, a mover and shaker who had profound impact (for ill and good) throughout his lifetime. (One of my favorite footnotes on him is that while he didn't invent chewing gum, he was instrumental in getting the raw materials to the American who eventually did.)

For Van (rather than @ van, which was indeed the spirit of the previous elbow to the ribs)

Yes, it's always disappointing when it doesn't come after electallatio. But at least it feels good, right?

For the typically self-masturbatory altruists, in academia and at UN, who continue to practice that version of imposing their <strike>sexual</strike> political will on those places, that they get off on feeling good about themselves is a fine methaphor for their arrogance, and for the selfishness of their motives. It's a lot like GWH Bush's little Christmas Present to Somalia, circa December 1992. As we can see, that solved bloody eff all, but it sure made him feel good about himself, and a variety of globalistas in his company as well.

FWIW, I have a small suggestion: the next time you decide to juvenile off, bring a hanky to clean up the mess. :D

For the both of ya:

I had a dear friend ask me why I am, or was, so sour. While I can't quite put my finger on it, the answer to that is "everything and nothing," so I'll go back to lurk mode for a while until the sour morphs toward sweet.

Ciao

[kandrathe]

Mexico was obviously not happy about Texan independence, and never fully reconciled themselves to it.

I thought Polk in a political double cross annexed Texas into the Union against the majority of Texan's will in 1845, a decade after the Alamo. Texas, and in a way the whole Manifest Destiny movement along with the bill that prohibited slavery in any of the new states was impetus for the civil war. Not so much that the Whigs embraced slavery. They were just anti-Imperialists seeking to limit federal power, which eventually spawned the republican party -- and Lincoln.

[Occhidiangela]

I thought Polk in a political double cross annexed Texas into the Union against the majority of Texan's will in 1845, a decade after the Alamo. Texas, and in a way the whole Manifest Destiny movement along with the bill that prohibited slavery in any of the new states was impetus for the civil war. Not so much that the Whigs embraced slavery. They were just anti-Imperialists seeking to limit federal power, which eventually spawned the republican party -- and Lincoln.

Quick question: how do you, a somewhat libertarian sort if I recall some of our previous discussions, square Jefferson's seriously affected "small government" principles with his imperial and expansionist habits? Standard Democratic imperialism, perhaps, from Jefferson to Monroe to Polk to Wilson to FDR? :D(Oh, wait, McKinley wasn't a Democrat ...)

As to Polk, within Texas there was no small political debate on the matter of annexation. That there was, in the end, only one dissenting vote in the legislature regarding the final agreement strikes me as a politically acceptable act, not Polk pulling a fast one on much of anyone.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not directed at me, but let me give it a shot anyway.

how do you . . . square Jefferson's seriously affected "small government" principles with his imperial and expansionist habits?

I believe that, in the modern jargon, Jefferson talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. Throughout his life, he seems to have separated his intellectual ideas from the pragmatic realities. I believe Jefferson was one of those people who would love to establish an Utopia, then send everyone else to live there. I think the most telling point is that, although he was quite bloodthirsty in his writings on revolution, when the actual fighting took place, he was careful to be elsewhere.

I admire many of Jefferson's ideals, even though I think most of them are founded on a mistaken impression of human nature. But the more I study the man, the more I think he was both a hypocrite and a physical coward.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Sorry, duplicate post.

[--Pete]

Hi,

And speaking of Gödel, was it not he who proved that despite knowing some things about your cat, you can't possibly know everything about your cat?

I believe the Buddha had priority on that one.

(That could be why they're so smug.)

They're smug because they're superior and know it. After all, who uses the litter box and who cleans it?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Quick question: how do you, a somewhat libertarian sort if I recall some of our previous discussions, square Jefferson's seriously affected "small government" principles with his imperial and expansionist habits? Standard Democratic imperialism, perhaps, from Jefferson to Monroe to Polk to Wilson to FDR? :D(Oh, wait, McKinley wasn't a Democrat ...)

I have to accept history as it is written. There is no way of going back to change things in the past. Great men, with good ideas, unable to convince enough people of their importance. Like many good ideas, the primary tenets of the American liberty movement got crapped upon before the ink dried(see whiskey rebellion). It doesn't mean I'm willing to abandon our founding principles. Who knows, maybe Glen Beck's mob will wrest power from the socialists one day. :-)

As to Polk, within Texas there was no small political debate on the matter of annexation. That there was, in the end, only one dissenting vote in the legislature regarding the final agreement strikes me as a politically acceptable act, not Polk pulling a fast one on much of anyone.

You might be right. It just seems strange that they would join the union in 1846 then secede in 1850.

[--Pete]

hi,

. . . secede in 1850.

1860?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

1860?

Good catch. 1861.

[Jester]

Beyond that, I am not impressed with your dis of Antonio López de Santa Anna. In the Americas, the nineteenth century was a time of wide open opportunity, both for political experimentation and pursuing personal ambitions. James Bowie was typical of that era, as both adventurer and land speculator (of dubios integrity). Santa Anna is and was, for my money, one of the most extraordinary men of the nineteenth century in the Americas, a mover and shaker who had profound impact (for ill and good) throughout his lifetime. (One of my favorite footnotes on him is that while he didn't invent chewing gum, he was instrumental in getting the raw materials to the American who eventually did.)

Extraordinary? Yes. Adventurer? Yes. Political experimenter with personal ambitions? Oh, my, yes. A mover and shaker? Definitely. Had a profound impact? Very much so. The chiclets thing? Kinda neat.

But was he any good for Mexico? Absolutely not. Nobody not only exemplified, but exasperated, the ridiculous succession of Presidentes through betrayal, treason, murder and all around dirty dealing like Santa Anna. With all due deference to Iturbide before him, he really set the mould for the corrupt caudillo who uses the state as his personal domain. His almost absurd willingness to trade the territorial integrity of his nation for his personal fortune is legendary - one might reverse Nathan Hale and declare his regret that he has but one country to give for his life. His ability to raise an army through charisma and sheer chutzpah was great, but his ability to win wars when it counted was terrible - which was a very dangerous combination indeed.

To put it in context: see Juan Manuel de Rosas for someone who pulled many of the same stunts, but with considerably more competence - and a country he didn't leave torn to shreds.

If George Washington can be given some measure of symbolic credit for setting the tone of American politics to come, it only seems fair to afford the same courtesy to Santa Anna.

-Jester

Edit: Patrick Henry was "Give me liberty or give me death". Corrected.

[Occhidiangela]

Extraordinary? Yes. Adventurer? Yes. Political experimenter with personal ambitions? Oh, my, yes. A mover and shaker? Definitely. Had a profound impact? Very much so. The chiclets thing? Kinda neat.

But was he any good for Mexico? .

Given how stupid Mexico was, and remains, collectively, yes he was. He was precisely what Mexico wanted and needed, over and over. You might recall that he initially fought for the Royalist (should we say Spanish?) side during the Revolution ... and yet, he still became president of the independent Mexico numerous times.

As I said before, about Mexico's cultural incompetence ... he's a fine case study, in terms of his relationship with Mexico writ large.

[Jester]

Given how stupid Mexico was, and remains, collectively, yes he was. He was precisely what Mexico wanted and needed, over and over. You might recall that he initially fought for the Royalist (should we say Spanish?) side during the Revolution ... and yet, he still became president of the independent Mexico numerous times.

As I said before, about Mexico's cultural incompetence ... he's a fine case study, in terms of his relationship with Mexico writ large.

So, if I follow correctly... because Mexico was and is stupid, they want and need their stupidest leaders, which can then be said to be good for them?

No entiendo, señor. Wouldn't it still be better to have good leaders? For instance, I don't recall Juarez being quite such a chump. Even Porfirio Diaz seems like a pretty swell guy, by comparison.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

So, if I follow correctly... because Mexico was and is stupid, they want and need their stupidest leaders, which can then be said to be good for them?

No entiendo, señor. Wouldn't it still be better to have good leaders? For instance, I don't recall Juarez being quite such a chump. Even Porfirio Diaz seems like a pretty swell guy, by comparison.

-Jester

Jester, you are being deliberately obtuse, I think. This vacuous statement "wouldn't it be getter to have good leaders" is rather pointless. "Wouldn't it be better to piss in the toilet than on your breakfast?" is as useful a question.

Just what is a "good leader?" Sometimes you need a tough guy, some times a nice guy. Depends on what the nation faces.

The current president of Mexico is "better" than his alternative, the guy he barely beat in the recent election, but is he actually a "good leader" in a terminally stupid national culture?

Put another way, which of the turds floating in the punch bowl do you consider good turds worth drinking?

Calderon is the dipstick who had his agencies providing maps of trails how to infiltrate my nation's border. If this were the Iranians providing maps for Kurds to infiltrate into Turkey, how would that sell? If this were Iran passing undesirable Afghani or Pakistani immigrants via transport into Iraq to bring their criminal enterprises with them, to include bomb making and drug running, how do you think that would sell?

That's what this jackanape has already done. I do not consider that as other than a hostile act. I do not consider that "good" in the least.

However, he's not all bad.

He's bitten the bullet and gotten serious about his nation's narco terrorists and drug lords, at significant personal risk.

Calderon may or may not succeed in getting out of the punchbowl, and dragging some other turds with him. It is my prediction -- for his sake, I am hopefully dead wrong -- that he will be assassinated by one of the drug cartels before his term of office ends. What is tragic is that if he does survive his term, he can't do as Helmut Kohl or Maggie Thatcher did, or any number of other leaders the world over, and sustain the momentum of successful policy. One of his provisional successes, though the game is still on, is his internal war on drugs and narco terrorists, which brings us back to the OP, domestic terrorists.

Mexico is lousy with them.

Why?

We've already been down that road.

[Jester]

Jester, you are being deliberately obtuse, I think. This vacuous statement "wouldn't it be getter to have good leaders" is rather pointless. "Wouldn't it be better to piss in the toilet than on your breakfast?" is as useful a question.

Just what is a "good leader?" Sometimes you need a tough guy, some times a nice guy. Depends on what the nation faces.

Sometimes you need a tough guy, but you almost never need a corrupt guy, or an incompetent guy. Mexico has had much better presidents than Santa Anna, and I would say most of them did a hell of a lot better job, even in the "tough guy" role. The legacy of Santa Anna is not one of a harsh but strong leader who kept his country together when others couldn't. It's of a venal egomaniac who traded his loyalties (including to his country) for personal gain. No country needs a leader like that, at any point.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Sometimes you need a tough guy, but you almost never need a corrupt guy, or an incompetent guy. Mexico has had much better presidents than Santa Anna, and I would say most of them did a hell of a lot better job, even in the "tough guy" role. The legacy of Santa Anna is not one of a harsh but strong leader who kept his country together when others couldn't. It's of a venal egomaniac who traded his loyalties (including to his country) for personal gain. No country needs a leader like that, at any point.

-Jester

I guess the Mexicans of the nineteenth century disagree with you, seven times over. It was their country, so maybe they got the government they deserved, just as we all do.

Occhi