Another Anniversary

Twenty years ago today, the East German government lifted all travel restrictions on its citizens. Later that night, Germans began tearing down the Berlin Wall.

The press seems to be taking much more notice of this one than they did of the Tiananmen Square anniversary.

I remember the events, but I didn't appreciate them as much at the time as I do now. This was a truly historic event, and was the highlight of the series of peaceful revolutions which dismantled the Communist bloc within only 2 years.

A miracle if there ever was one.

Too bad our President didn't think it necessary to attend the celebration. Peter Robinson says it best at National Review Online.

The Cold War was the defining struggle of the second half of the 20th century — a clash of beliefs about God, man, government, and economics so utterly basic, so primal, that it stands in comparison with the Persian Wars or the long conflict between Rome and Carthage. “My view of the Cold War is simple,” Reagan once famously explained. “We win, and they lose.” And with the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago on Monday, that is just how it turned out. Liberty vanquished tyranny.

Barack Obama? He has no idea. No idea at all.

And from George Weigel:

It’s a very big deal, because the president’s absence bespeaks a woodenheadeness about the history of our times: a woodenheadness likely influenced by the classic left-liberal notion that the Cold War was just an action-reaction cycle between two “great powers” (“two scorpions in a bottle,” as a Jimmy Carter appointee notoriously put it), not a moral contest for the human future between imperfect democracies and pluperfect dictatorships.

There have been few moments in modern history when the good guys won, cleanly, and without mass violence; Americans had a large role in creating the conditions for the possibility of that. The fall of the Wall was the symbolic centerpiece of the Revolution of 1989 — it’s shameful and, frankly, embarrassing that an American president is not in Berlin to celebrate the implosion of the worst tyranny in human history. But it’s hardly surprising, given the president’s performance before Russian students earlier this year.

The politics of national self-deprecation — moral blindness wrapped in moral sanctimony — continues.

Darkness and Light - 20 years since Tiananmen Square

Since few others marking this day, I will.

The Tiananmen protests started in April 1989, when students began calling for greater democracy and anti-corruption measures. After weeks of protests, which saw the square packed with up to 1 million people, troops and tanks moved in on the night of 3-4 June 1989. An unknown number of people were killed in the crackdown. Estimates range from 0 - 5000. For what it's worth, the Chinese Government acknowledges 241 dead and 7000 injured. Thousands more were arrested throughout the country. Some are still held, others haven't been seen since. Among the "disappeared" is the unknown man in the photo above. It is known he was arrested, but the Chinese government has not been able to "find" him in response to international pressure.

The last official statement from the PRC government about the "Tank Man" came from Jiang Zemin in a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters. When asked about the whereabouts of the "Tank Man", Jiang responded that the young man was "I think never killed".

Kudos to the BBC - they have a story about the official Chinese reaction to the anniversary. And a video of a reporter trying to enter the square:



These brave students may well have been part of the cause of the great events of 1989 - the fall of the Berlin Wall being the most memorable. They were the last great uprising against communism to be ruthlessly suppressed, the ones that came after succeeded, and the world is a better place for their courage.

They deserve to be remembered together with The Hungarians in 1956, and the Czechs in 1968.

We must remember that Communism is not just another political system, it has objectively measurable, real effects on the lives of the people oppressed by it. The ultimate ends are the destruction of the human soul, both body and spirit, grinding pervasive poverty, darkness and death.

This darkness is not just spiritual, but literal as this composite satellite image of the nighttime Earth shows:



Japan is the string of lights from bottom center to top right, surrounded by the dark of the ocean - Japan is a thriving democracy, and is an island.

South Korea is center left, surrounded by darkness too - South Korea is a thriving democracy. South Korea is not an island.

The darkness to the north is North Korea - the "purest" communist nation on Earth. The scattered "Islands" north of that are Communist China.

No matter how much we talk and trade with them, communists are evil. We must never forget that. And we must never forget those who died 20 years ago today.

Putin's Genius

I read a very insightful article today on how Vladimir Putin's totalitarianism can survive when so many others have failed.

The author points out the one crucial difference which seems to make his rule palatable to ordinary Russians. I think he is absolutely correct. It's a thought I've had floating around in my head for a while.

People are often more tolerant of Government interference in big things than in little ones.

The new czar saw that most human beings don't care who governs them, as long as the government minds its own business. And if the ruler can revive the illusion of national power, so much the better.

In my way of thinking, this is a symptom of all forms of socialism, and part of what make socialism attractive to so many. Wants are supplied, and all that's required politically is to do nothing.

The author characterizes the unspoken bargain Putin has struck with the Russian people as:

"I get the political power, you get material progress and social freedoms. Behave in the streets, and I'll stay out of your sheets."

Do what you want on your own time in your own home, and the government will leave you alone, but the "commanding heights" of the political and economic life of the nation are off limits. Wear what you want, say what you want to your friends, buy the nice products we import for you, and be content. Protesting, public criticism, political opposition - these are signs of ingratitude and threaten the status quo.

Shamelessly cynical, Putin goes through the stage-managed forms of democracy. He even permits scripted media criticism of the state (though not of himself).

But there are limits to the new totalitarianism's tolerance. You can call Putin a baboon-butt monkey-boy over the vodka bottle at your kitchen table - but don't do it in public.

Cross that line and you are, literally, dead. A deal's a deal.

Apparently I Don't Understand Economics

We all know inflation is bad. Rising prices devalue our money and make it harder to buy things. Apparently the opposite is also bad. Deflation - falling prices - is also bad for the economy, at least according to economists quoted by MSNBC.

“A benign decline in prices amidst a sluggish but recovering economy would be unwelcome but tolerable,” Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a note to clients this week.

Unwelcome to whom, Mr. Rosenberg? I know plenty of people who like to pay less for goods of all types. I've heard of weirdos who like to pay more, but they're much more rare.

“But the price slashing now under way as the consumer beats a hasty retreat could allow that corrosive deflationary spiral to take hold — something the Fed wants to avoid at all costs.”

The Fed wants to avoid falling prices "at all costs?" boy, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

As I said, I'm not an economist, but perhaps someone who is could answer this question for me:

If inflation is bad and deflation is bad, then what, precisely, do you expect prices to do?

Should a pound of cheese always have the same price? If so, then the USSR had this economics thing all figured out. They just printed the price right on the label. Year after year a jar of tomato sauce was 40 kopeks. Your parents paid 40 kopeks and, by darn, your children would pay 40 kopeks. Is that the answer?

The problem I have with this idea is that (as I have learned both in life, and in school), in a market, there needs to be a mechanism to balance supply and demand. That mechanism is price. If I want 40 dollars for a widget, and you don't think it is worth 40 dollars, guess what? No sale. Deflation has to occur to meet your demand.

At this point any "real economist" is probably either rolling on the floor laughing, pulling out his hair in frustration, or muttering incoherently about Econ 110 having no relationship to "real economics."

Well, maybe not - but the economists in the MSNBC story seem to have nothing but contempt for consumers. They give the distinct impression that they believe the average of consumers' judgments about the worth of goods (otherwise known as the 'market price') is wrong, and that they, the "elite" know what things are worth.

Pardon my skepticism, but are these the same "elite" who have guided our economy to it's current prosperous state? The ones who never saw the housing bubble coming? Who watched house prices rise 10% per year as wages rose 2% and saw nothing to worry about? Who thought sub-prime mortgages were a terrific idea? Or, a little farther back, thought stratospheric stock prices for unprofitable .com businesses were just the "new economy?" Or thought that Pres. Bush's tax cuts would unacceptably reduce govt. revenue? or that Reagan's tax cuts would do nothing the stimulate the economy? Or thought that Sweden was a model of a well-run economy?

Now who should be laughing?

I'll say it again. Economics is not a science. It is a pseudoscience. Any claims to truth or predictive ability that it makes are a fraud.

Economics is a descriptive art - like psychology. Also like psychology, it has no power to predict future behavior because every person in the system is an agent unto herself, and not an automaton. This is why no one saw this crisis coming. Economists admit that this is unprecedented and was almost completely unforeseen - and they are right - they just don't see it as a failure of their 'science.'

Economics is (at best) a social science, a descriptive study of human behavior. It is individual psychology mis-applied to huge groups of people, and it goes through fads just like any other field of study. It also has its quacks like any other field. Keep this in mind next time an economist claims to know something.

The Real Danger of Communism . . .

. . . is that everyone would only be able to buy the items in this old Soviet mail-order catalog from 1983 called: "Goods for Personal Use."

Keep in mind this catalog wasn't just from one company, it was from the only company - the state. There were no other vendors for many of these items. Different factories would produce variants in some cases, but not all.

I ate off those flower dishes myself, and the big brown cabinets near the bottom were in literally every single apartment I ever saw. There were slight variations in color and layout but it was depressingly uniform.

No wonder Feng Shui wasn't practiced in the USSR, any interior designer with an once of artistic ability would be driven to suicide after one look at these items.

Electoral Food for Thought

This article may be a little harsh on Obama, but not much in my opinion. Unlike much political opinion, the author does in fact link to supporting evidence.

None of this would go unreported if McCain had said or done it. Anyway read it and weigh it yourself. I find some of it persuasive, some not. But an Obama presidency would not be a good thing.

"Time to use the C word."

Fidel Castro is "Retiring"

I apologize in advance for all the "irony quotes." Also for the length of this post. Few things set me off like communism.

Fidel Castro is "retiring" as head of the Cuban government. He won't accept another term even if Cuba's admiring "legislature" votes for him in the upcoming "elections."

Here's a contrast for you - my thoughts versus those of the BBC.

Me: Good riddance, too bad he's not dead. Not like Communist dictators ever "retire." Is he going to move to The Villages ("Florida's friendliest hometown!") and golf free for the rest of his life? What new leader isn't going to ask Castro's permission before taking any action? But at least we're one small step closer to the end of an inhumane, brutal, murderous regime.

The BBC: Since I can't read this all the way through without puking, I'm going to intersperse my commentary with the quotes. Click the link if you want to enjoy the non-sarcastic original in all it's brown-nosing glory.

The retiring leader will be remembered as one of the most distinctive and enduring icons from the second half of the 20th Century, the BBC's Paul Keller writes.

With his olive green fatigues, beard and Cuban cigars, Fidel Castro was the original Cold Warrior.

A distinctive and enduring icon? The original Cold Warrior? -- What is he a fashion model? A comedian? A jazz musician? this makes him sound like a trendsetter, a chic trailblazer whose presence in society will be greatly missed. (although, judging by all the Che t-shirts I see . . .)

Under his leadership Cuba established the first Marxist-Leninist state in the Western hemisphere, almost within sight of the US coastline.

Embracing communism and the patronage of the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro transformed Cuba economically and socially but had to struggle when it collapsed.

I'll say he transformed it. The same way the Nazi blitz "transformed" Europe, or the atom bomb "transformed" Hiroshima. Too bad about that whole collapsing USSR thing. But he struggled along anyway - what a trooper!

This is utter crap. Aside from the illogic, (if he transformed Cuba, why did the USSR's demise matter?) to portray someone who would rather keep a whole nation enslaved while stubbornly resisting any possible change to benefit them as engaged in a "struggle" is perverse.

The civil rights movement was a "struggle." World War II was a "struggle." Castro's "struggle" was nothing more than a blind, pig-headed thirst for power. Even after all the other Communists gave up on communism, Castro "struggled" on. That's not a visionary leader, that's just being blind to reality.

He leaves his country with universal free healthcare and a much-admired education system, which has produced doctors for the developing world, but also a failing economy.

Healthcare . . . check. Education . . . check. Economy . . . Oh well, two out of three ain't bad. Even granting that this is true, (it's not), what good is free healthcare and an education if you have no money, no job, no prospects, decaying infrastructure, no civil rights and insufficient food? As much good as a can opener with no cans, or a life raft in the middle of the desert.

Note the distinct lack of negative adjectives and verbs in the above quote. He is "distinctive" and "enduring", "original", he "transformed", "struggle[d]", "embrac[ed] communism." Cuba's healthcare is "free" and "universal", its education system "much-admired."

Let me add a few adjective and verbs of my own for the sake of balance. His victims are "dead" his opponents "tortured" and "imprisoned" or "shot." His people are "under surveillance" and "oppressed." Many are "refugees" (2.4 million in the U.S. alone - about 18% of the population) or "poor."

So yes, Happy retirement Fidel, may it be short, and then may you rot in hell alongside Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the BBC reporter responsible for this fawning, nauseating tribute.