τεχνοσοφια

Central to the McCain/Palin campaign's rhetoric lately has been the allegation that Barack Obama is a socialist (which, sadly, is something of a four-letter word). Their evidence: Obama's encounter with the now famous "Joe the Plumber," wherein Obama explained to Joe that the point of his economic plan, and by extension the progressive tax and the liberal welfare state, was to help bring up those "behind" Joe. Obama's misstep was using the (honest) phrase, "spread the wealth around." McCain has used this soundbite to justify labeling Obama with the scarlet letter 'S.'

Yet John McCain embraces the same "socialist" principle:

Here is the relevant soundbite:

When you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

If John McCain believes Barack Obama is a socialist, then he too is a socialist — it's the very same principle. (For the record, I don't believe either is a socialist. And I believe soundbite politics insults our intelligence.)

I tip my hat to Daniel Miessler for posting about this.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

George Washington, our first president, whom his peers wished to elevate to king, warns of the dangers of a party system in his farewell address.  It is widely known that Washington opposed the creation of parties — and that he was the last president not to be affiliated with one — but his words here are nonetheless powerful.

Seeing the stranglehold that the Democrats and Republicans have on power in the union makes me wonder if we haven't failed in this grand experiment by ignoring the wisdom of its founders and gradually abdicating our responsibility for its care, and our own liberty, like sheep who would ask wolves to babysit their lambs.

Oh frabjous day! I noted with great excitement the following post from "Digital Eccentric," Leslie Johnston:

I was initially very excited by the announcement on BoingBoing that The Atlantic had opened its archive. I read the Editor's Note describing the decision. I followed the link to start my exploration.

It's a little misleading. The _site_ is now open to all. They have "Unbound" (web only) content and full issues back to 1995 open. But their other free content seems to be selected material.

Back in 2000, after having survived the terrible and great Y2K (!@#), I read a fascinating article by Alston Chase on the childhood and college experiences of one Theodore "Ted" Kaczynski: the Unabomber. It humanizes him in a way that may have you screaming "darned bleeding-heart apologist, how dare you!" and puts his actions in a context where they actually, gulp, make some sense. This is not to excuse his actions; rather, it is a glimpse into how an otherwise rational and normal (if brilliant) man transformed into a monster:

In the fall of 1958 Theodore Kaczynski, a brilliant but vulnerable boy of sixteen, entered Harvard College. There he encountered a prevailing intellectual atmosphere of anti-technological despair. There, also, he was deceived into subjecting himself to a series of purposely brutalizing psychological experiments — experiments that may have confirmed his still-forming belief in the evil of science. Was the Unabomber born at Harvard?

From "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber".