Tuesday, 25 February 2003

First as tragedy.... In 1834 a coalition of political groups formed the Whig Party. The Whigs were united in their dislike of President Andrew Jackson, but had little else in common:

• "National Republicans" supported a broader federal role in developing the nation's economy. Jackson believed in limited powers for the federal government, and had vetoed federal funding for economic projects.
• Anti-Masons believed a secret society was trying to pack the judiciary and put its members above the law. Jackson was a Mason.
• States-rights advocates, the future Confederates, opposed Jackson's stance on nullification and despised his "imperial" use of executive power.

In 1836 the Whigs couldn't even agree on a national candidate, and the Democrats trounced their regional nominees. But in 1840 the Whigs rallied behind General William Henry Harrison, who campaigned on the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too," and won the election on the strength of his popularity. (Martin Van Buren, Jackson's successor and Harrison's opponent, was unpopular after the Panic of 1837.)

Harrison was a Whig of the National Republican variety, and with support from Congressional Whigs Daniel Webster and Henry Clay he intended to expand federal economic activity—but Harrison died within a month of taking office, and was succeeded by Vice-President John Tyler. Tyler was a states-rights absolutist, put on the ticket to attract Southern votes, and as President he vetoed his own party's efforts to enact a national economic policy. Weakened by infighting, the Whigs lost in 1844 to James K. Polk and the resurgent Democrats.

In 1848 the Whigs nominated General Zachary Taylor, who won a three-way race against the Democrats and the anti-slavery Free Soil Party. Taylor himself was fiercely opposed to slavery, and would have triggered the Civil War a decade earlier had he lived through his term... but he died of cholera, and successor Millard Fillmore (with Clay and Webster) enacted the Compromise of 1850, deferring the Union's day of judgment for a decade.

In 1852 the Whigs ran on a platform of preserving the Union, supporting the Compromise, and continuing their economic policies—a lukewarm position that appealed to neither side of the slavery debate: Northern Whigs defected to the Free Soil Party, Southern Whigs to the Democrats. Party leaders Clay and Webster both died in '52, and the controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska Act drove the final nail into the party's coffin. In 1856 the remaining Whigs endorsed ex-President Fillmore, who had switched to the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party, and in 1860 the Republicans (led by ex-Whig Abraham Lincoln) sent the Whig Party into the history books.

The Whigs never found a common goal among their various special-interest groups, and they won the White House more by the popularity of their candidates than by winning any mandate for their policies. They had a remarkable streak of bad luck, with untimely deaths and illnesses—but what ultimately destroyed the party was that they failed to address the major issue of the day. In 1852 an American political party could not duck the issue of slavery and hope to survive.

Now let's turn the clock forward, and examine the modern (post-Kennedy) Democratic Party. The Democratic power bases are, roughly:

• Blue-collar labor, who support a broader federal role in regulating the nation's economy.
• (Pro-choice / gun-control / civil rights) advocates, who believe that a right-wing conspiracy is trying to pack the federal judiciary and roll back (abortion rights / gun control / civil rights).
• Anti-war leftists, who oppose (Nixon / Reagan / Bush) and his "imperial" use of executive power.

In 1972 the Democrats were trounced by Nixon, but in 1976 they rallied behind Jimmy Carter and triumphed over the scandal-plagued Republicans. Carter was remembered for the Camp David peace talks and for negotiating arms treaties with the Soviets, but he was perceived as an ineffective leader and struggled with economic issues. Weakened by recession and the Iranian hostage crisis, the Democrats lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan and the resurgent Republicans, who proceeded to win the next two elections.

In 1992 the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton, who campaigned on the slogan "it's the economy, stupid," and won a three-way race against the Republicans and the Reform Party. (George H. W. Bush, Reagan's successor and Clinton's opponent, was unpopular after the Recession of 1991.) As a political creature, Clinton was fascinating and repulsive—but as a guide to Democratic Party principles, he was an enigma. Aside from handful of initiatives, Clinton's tenure was marked by discussions of morals and character rather than issues of substance, culminating in his impeachment and acquittal for the not-so-high crime of having an affair with a White House intern.

In 2000 the Democrats lost the closest election in American history, to Republican George W. Bush; "Clinton fatigue" and the quality of Al Gore's campaign were cited among the reasons for the loss.

And then the war came.

Since September 11th, American voters have made foreign policy a top priority—a priority that the Democratic Party has, astoundingly, decided not to address. In the 2002 midterm elections the Democrats stressed there was "no daylight" between their position and President Bush's, and they campaigned on economic issues rather than debating the War on Terror. For a midterm election that historically should have favored the Democrats, the results were disappointing.

Like the Whigs of 1852, the Democrats have not taken a position on the most critical issue of the day. Like the Whigs of 1852, the party can't take a position without splitting its base. Like the Whigs of 1852, the Democrats face the possibility of sliding into irrelevance: With our armed forces preparing for all-out war in the Middle East, with America and France playing a high-stakes game of chicken in the United Nations, with NATO in danger of collapsing, with nervous citizens preparing for biowarfare attacks, with the most dire threats to our peace, freedom, and security rising like tidal waves and demanding our urgent and utmost attention... the Democrats are busy filibustering a judicial nominee.

Where the Whigs had leaders like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, and lost them both at a crucial time, the Democrats have Bill Clinton, who is still radioactive, and Al Gore, who saw his shadow last month and won't come out again until 2007. A quick review of the Democratic Foreign Policy Manual (1970-2000 Edition) reveals many chapters on free trade, humanitarian intervention, and a few yellowed pages about containment, but offers nothing to address the current crisis. All that the Democrats have offered to date has been to embrace or critique the President's actions, without developing a policy of their own.

In 2003 an American political party cannot duck the issue of terrorism and hope to survive. If the Democratic Party doesn't brush up its credentials and present a credible policy, one with more meat than simply supporting or opposing what Bush does, then the Democrats will follow the Whigs into oblivion.

Next: If I'm so smart, what should the Democrats do? Aside from nominating me for President, of course.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 7:26 am. comments.

Sunday, 23 February 2003

Trifecta. Today I did another one of those things I've been meaning to do for some time: I joined the American Civil Liberties Union (First Amendment - yay!), the National Riflemen's Association (Second Amendment - yay!) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Fourth Amendment - yay!). Now if I could just find someone to defend my rights on quartering troops in peacetime, I'd be all set.

(Actually I'm more concerned by the ongoing War on the Sixth Amendment; I do not grant John Ashcroft the power to decide who gets a trial by jury and who doesn't. Ashcroft strikes me as the sort of person whom the Constitution's "checks and balances" were specifically designed to keep in check. A jury of my peers can sort terrorists from immigrants far more effectively than Ashcroft's police-state tactics, and do a lot less damage to the republic in the process.)

Some people, myself included at times, may think the ACLU and NRA are a bit extreme in their take-no-prisoners defense of the First and Second Amendments (respectively)—but I think overall both organizations do me more good than harm. I've never owned any weapon more lethal than a BB gun, which will undoubtedly make me the odd man out at NRA meetings, and I only own one or two books that the FBI would rather I didn't... but I'll reserve my rights to have more, thank you. Silencing or disarming me is not in the public interest.

Incidentally, Australia's gun laws are far more restrictive than those of the United States: I think handguns are wholly illegal here, and other firearms are difficult to obtain. This does not prevent criminals from obtaining them, of course, but it means the law-abiding Australian citizen is generally unarmed. This is one of those subtle things that you don't really think about until you're living overseas: In America I never owned a gun, but I always had the option if I wanted one; in Australia I don't have the option, and that sort of bothers me.

One of our neighbors had a break-in a few months ago: She (and a relative, thankfully) walked in and found an intruder in her apartment, and all she could do was to throw things at the guy. He escaped, with her purse, and has not been apprehended. I've read both sides of the gun debate (to the extent that two groups shouting past each other can be called a "debate"), and while I'm generally to the left of center on these sorts of things, I'd like to be able to defend my home and family with more than a basket of fruit and a vase.

So, for whatever it's worth, these three organizations each get my US$35 for this year, and we'll see how I feel about them a year from now. If nothing else, I figure that living overseas will prevent me from receiving most of the exciting junk mail I'd normally get by joining them.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 12:48 pm. comments.

Tuesday, 18 February 2003

They said it: This morning on DW-TV, a German network that (inexplicably) broadcasts over the air here in Australia, a news anchorman and his analyst had this exchange:

German news anchor: Do you believe the compromise [on the EU statement conceding that force could be used as a "last resort"] will undermine Chancellor Schröder's credibility?

German pundit: Well, first you must understand that the Chancellor has very little credibility left to undermine.

I report, you deride.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 11:45 pm. comments.

Tuesday, 18 February 2003

Today I'm filling out Form 47ES, Application for Employer Sponsored Migration to Australia—in other words, permanent residency Down Under. My work visa is coming up for renewal in a few months, and my employer has graciously offered to sponsor me, so I'm talking to an immigration specialist and collecting lots of paperwork. I don't know that I'll become a permanent resident of Australia in the strictly literal sense of the term, but applying for residency is the practical thing to do.

Form 47ES has lots of nosy questions for me to answer: They want to know my parents' names, my college degrees, my (complete lack of, thank you) criminal record, if I've committed any war crimes, served in the armed forces, contracted any infectuous diseases, applied for Australian welfare, and so on and so forth. They also want birth certificates, transcripts, and—get this—a letter from the police department of Naperville, Illinois certifying that I was an upstanding citizen when I lived there.

(A word to the wise, for anyone going this route: Get a professional to help you complete these forms and walk your application through the immigration department, or you'll waste a lot of your time. You can find a good migration agent in the Yellow Pages.)

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 11:03 am. comments.

Sunday, 16 February 2003

From the ink-stained logs of the HMS Clueless, circa 1774:

Recently I Argued (Passionately) that His Majesty's Government must make some sort of Concrete Gesture towards the Massachusetts Colony, which would cause it Serious Harm, in response to the Boston Tea Party and other Acts of Sedition against the British Crown. I do not think we should do such a Thing because I demand Revenge; the Reason is that we need to Establish a Deterrent. When the other Colonies start thinking they may gain by policies Opposing the British Empire, they need also Be Aware that there will be Costs associated with such Policies, and to Consider that the Costs would outweigh the gain.

In my last monograph on the Subject, I did not specify what we Ought To Do, as I could not Elucidate my thoughts clearly enough at the time. Since that date, however, I have learned of Parliament's proposal to Punish Massachusetts by closing the Port of Boston until the Colonists pay for the Destroyed Tea.

This Boston Port Act and others like it, which the Colonists have Called the "Coercive Acts," will force other Colonies, dependent as they are on British Trade and Security, to think twice about standing up to Britain in the future.

I am told that one Source informed the London papers, "We are doing this for one reason only: to harm the Massachusetts economy. Why should we not punish a Colony that has treated the Crown, and the Protection we've provided for decades, with such incredible contempt?"

Indeed, the American Colonies sleep under a Blanket of Security provided by Britain, and without the Crown's assistance could not even Defend against the French and Indians. That the Colonists object to the Manner in which we Provide this Blanket, and against paying their Fair Share of the Cost (through the reasonable Tax that Parliament has imposed on Tea) shows only the Ingratitude of these Impudent Colonials.

It is possible that these coercive Acts could cause long-term Resentment. But in the short run, it is difficult to Fathom why any Colony, when it saw Massachusetts being Crushed for its Active Belligerence, would decide that becoming Actively Belligerent against the Crown is a Good Idea. At this point I will settle for Resentful Support in preference to Active Opposition.

One of the reasons Massachusetts and other Colonies have been willing to defy the Crown is because they had a Perception that we would not Retaliate. Thus there was little or no Risk, but plenty of potential for Gain. The cost-benefit analysis thus said that Opposing the Crown was a Good Idea.

That is what Must Change. We must Make an Example of Massachusetts, so that anyone else considering a similar Path will decide the Risk is too great. We will use Carrots with our friends, but we're past due to start using Sticks on our enemies. A successful Colonial policy must involve Both.

As to Long Term Resentment, I think History will take care of that. Our only Choice in the short run is between being Feared and being Held in Contempt. Massachusetts must Pay for what she has done to us, or we will Stand Exposed as cowards whose threats and demands can be ignored with impunity. We must become Bullies, and the American Colonies must be crushed.

Timeless words, I think. Let's try it on the Germans.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 12:36 pm. comments.

Friday, 14 February 2003

Winning the battle.... As I've done every morning since 9/11, I turned on the television this AM to see if the terrorists had destroyed New York while I was sleeping. (The fact that I've had 519 consecutive mornings without a terrorist attack on New York has not made me dread the morning news any less.) This morning, on Australia's equivalent of "Good Morning America," I watched Hans Blix's Australian predecessor—former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler—decry the American rush to war in Iraq. Butler said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that Iraq obviously has weapons of mass destruction, is clearly not cooperating with inspectors, and that no thinking person can believe otherwise... but that America's openly declared intention to invade Iraq, with or without UN endorsement, was a threat to the very framework of international law, and that Australians should be gravely concerned by the long-term consequences of that act.

Yesterday when I came home from work, I found this sign on the hair salon next door. I'm still trying to find the argument to convince me that war in Iraq is worse than the alternatives—I think we're already at war, so "no war" is pretty much off the table for me; the choice is either war in Iraq on our terms or war in Manhattan on their terms, and given those options I tend to prefer Iraq. The subtle distinctions between Saddam and Osama are shades of black in my moral palette: They're both wholly evil, and I can't find a compelling argument that says Western civilization would be improved by standing down our armies and leaving Saddam to his infernal devices.

I'm tempted to ask my neighbors to elaborate on their views, to see if maybe they can convince me otherwise (or vice versa), but I'm also acutely conscious of the need to uphold America's image while abroad, and I don't think I would improve that image by offering to debate my neighbors.

We're losing the f___ing propaganda war. Again.

My father is a very big man. Not big as in fat, or big as in Mr. Big, but big as in Paul Bunyan: He's 6'7", went to college on a track scholarship, held the local high school's shot-put record for almost two decades, and played center on the football team because he could snap the ball with one hand and block with the other. When he stands next to you, you experience the sensation of being nine years old again and having a grown-up towering overhead; when he reaches to shake hands, you experience an atavistic fear as you put your (suddenly pint-sized) hand into his giant paw.

And he is the calmest, gentlest, least violent soul I know. My mother says that she's seen him lose his temper once in their 35 years of marriage, and that was in a pick-up basketball game with an opponent who kept fouling him. I've never seen it myself. (Not for lack of effort during my teenage years, to be sure, but even when he was angry with us kids, he wasn't angry with us, if you know what I mean. He never lost his temper. Not once.)

You can see the analogy I'm making here, so I'll skip ahead: From overseas, George W. Bush's America looks less like a gentle giant and more like a large scary monster that smashes things. Even our closest allies are facing internal pressures to Do Something: Not about Iraq and Saddam, but about fire-breathing Amerizilla coming out of its cocoon. They perceive Saddam as an evil despot, but on the Threat Scale he's the neighborhood kid who plays with matches: You don't get involved until he threatens something of yours, and even then you just take his matches away. You don't take it upon yourself to punish the kid, and you certainly don't adopt the little brat.

America, meanwhile, is frighteningly big and muscular, could conquer the earth if it wanted, and has declared that you're either invading Iraq with us, or we'll add your name to the Axis of Evil and deal with you later. Small wonder that France, the prima donna of Western civilization, is not inspired to rally by our side; small wonder that German pacifism, which we've carefully sown for half a century, is bearing fruit all of a sudden. Small wonder that North Korea is acting like a giant puffer fish. Small wonder that Tony Blair and John Howard have to buck the will of their constituents to support us.

For all the good George W. Bush has done in the War on Terror (and I actually think he's done well in Afghanistan, certainly better than Gore or [shudder] Ralph Nader would have), he is killing us in the overseas propaganda war. Bill Clinton would have gotten support from France and Germany, because he would have quietly bought their support under the table: He would have guaranteed French oil interests, and hushed up German arms deals. Bush the Elder would have won support from France and Germany because he had every European leader on his Rolodex and did the hard work of personal diplomacy. Ronald Reagan would have won support from France and Germany because he had the charisma and the eloquence to make a direct appeal to their people.

Dubya has been doing the diplomatic equivalent of shoving France in the chest and saying "What's the matter, ya chicken? Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk!" He is making it as difficult as possible for Jacques Chirac, or for Germany's Gerhard Schroder, to back down. He is trying to humiliate them—not out of emnity for France or Germany, but to embarrass Chirac and Schroder personally. Both men are from left-wing parties in their respective countries, and for Dubya's purposes it would be just dandy if they both happened to fall on their swords. If the UN and NATO take a hit in the process, so much the better: He can put the blame elsewhere, and the right wing's Tinfoil Hat Brigade fears the UN anyway. Jesse Helms would be proud.

But setting up Germany, France and the UN for a fall, however satisfying it may be for America's Jacksonians, hurts our long-term interests. We need France and Germany to back our play in Iraq—not because we need their military support, but because we need their goodwill for the post-war occupation. Iraq is going to turn out either like Japan or like Vietnam, and the Japan outcome requires a lot of multilateral support and cooperation. If post-war Iraq is perceived as an American show run for America's benefit, then our troops will be the only ones on the ground, and they're going to get truck-bombed a lot more often.

I don't want that.

Militarily, Iraq is a foregone conclusion: America will tear through Saddam's army like a tiger through wet kleenex. But Iraq is just a battlefield—and we're losing a broader propaganda war. The image we're projecting is not one of America standing up for freedom and facing down an Iraqi tyrant, but of America bullying the UN, making veiled threats to its would-be allies, ignoring international law unless it serves our purpose, and preparing to set up Iraq as an American puppet state. If we're going to achieve anything besides ridding the world of Saddam, we need to do a better job of making our case: We need to accept that our message is measured not only on its content, but on the tone and the manner of its delivery. We need to acknowledge that America's image abroad will greatly affect our ability to secure our nation against the threat of terrorism; we need to believe that America is held to a higher standard not by foreign malice or envy, but by the uniquely American claim on the world's moral conscience.

Most of all, we need to make our case for bringing democracy to Iraq—not as a bleeping side effect, but as the main goal of the exercise. We need to present our bold plan for peace and democracy in the Middle East, for giving a generation of Arab Muslims a vision of hope and opportunity, for ending the long, bitter nightmare of despair and failed states that extends from Libya to Pakistan and breeds terrorists in every dark alley. We need a Powell Plan for the Mideast to do what the Marshall Plan did for Europe, and we need it now. Until we make and deliver on that promise, our hopes for ever ending the war on terrorism are as barren as the desert soil.

At least, that's the way it looks from over here. We can defeat Iraq easily, and defeat them alone if need be—but winning the war on terrorism will require more than that, and as it stands we're losing the battle for even the grudging support of the average Australian. We can do better.

Update: Alisa in Wonderland comments. Matt Bunter corrects me on Jacques Chirac's party affiliation: His UMP party is actually considered right-wing, by French standards. I'd still maintain that Dubya wouldn't mind if Chirac were to fall on his sword, but this does raise the interesting question of whether he'd be replaced by someone even less sympathetic to America.

John Hawkins comments.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 8:00 am. comments.

Thursday, 13 February 2003

I don't normally link to other articles and say "read this," but this is just too funny to pass up.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 6:16 am. comments.

Monday, 10 February 2003

Australian Intelligence strikes again! A crack legion of spy kangaroos opens the German diplomatic pouch, and pulls out the double-secret UN resolution that Germany and France have been collaborating on (so to speak). Here's the text of the proposal:

Resolution 1465 (Proposed):

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolution 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002 affording Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmanent obligations," and setting up "an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process,"

Ignoring the words "final" and "completion" in the above,

Recognizing that resolution 1441 required from Iraq "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems,"

Ignoring that Iraq's response was to photocopy old documents from 1992,

Further ignoring that Iraq's chief collaborator in thwarting UN sanctions has been the German private sector, and that the main benefactor of preserving the status quo is French oil company TotalFinaElf,

Most definitely ignoring any Iraqi citizens who jump into UN vehicles screaming "help me!" and carrying notebooks,

Unquestionably ignoring the barbaric regime of Saddam Hussein, whose conduct makes a mockery of UN declarations and resolutions, and whose removal would come as a blessing to his people, his neighbors, and any prospect for lasting peace in the Middle East,

Eternally ignoring the lessons of history; forgetting the ignoble end of the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact; repeating the failed policies of past UN resolutions; and embracing the dream of "peace in our time" against a foe who does not know peace,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC to deliver a severe scolding to Iraq, using at least one, but no more than three, swear words, and accompanied with an appropriately serious facial expression; the Chairman may also make a number of "tsk" noises, not to exceed five, at his discretion;
2. Recalls the Council's first eleven resolutions on this subject, and resolves not to fall for Iraq's "pretending to cooperate with the inspectors" trick a twelfth time;
3. Permits the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors to be lightly armed, with one of the following (their choice):
   • Harsh language, not to exceed the limits in paragraph 1;
   • Pepper spray;
   • A plastic knife from the UN cafeteria (blade not to exceed 10cm);
   • Sean Penn;
   • A whistle or other noisemaking device;
   • The Nerf® "Lock 'N Load" Dart Blaster (max. 3 darts);

   In accordance with UN peacekeeping policies, inspectors are not permitted to use these weapons, but may brandish them menacingly and glare in the general direction of hostile forces;

4. Modifies the inspection process as follows:
   • Before starting a search, inspectors will now only count to nine, and may peek slightly through their fingers during the count;
   • Weapons must be hidden in easy-to-find locations (e.g., the driver's seat of UN vehicles), painted a bright yellow color, and have an attached sticker that says "I am an illegal weapon of mass destruction;"
   • Saddam must yell "ollie ollie oxen free" before changing a weapon's hiding place;
   • Guards at presidential palaces must give the inspectors hints (e.g., "hot" or "cold"), and are not permitted to put evidence on high shelves or other out-of-reach locations;
   • If Iraq bribes a Security Council member to prolong the inspections, the bribe must be at least €1 billion to our usual slush fund in Paris shared equally among the Security Council members;

5. Decides that, if the inspectors find illegal materials, Iraq will be granted only one "do-over" this time;

6. Requests that, if it does not inconvenience him too greatly, Saddam should treat the UN with the dignity and respect that this institution deserves; in particular, Saddam should stop making paper airplanes out of old UN resolutions and throwing them at inspectors, or giggling uncontrollably while reading aloud the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights;"
7. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of overwhelming evidence that Iraq is lying, cheating, hiding, sneaking, misdirecting, smuggling, thwarting, bugging, bribing, fighting, confusing, and bamboozling the UN inspectors, in order to read prepared statements and "give the inspectors more time;"
8. Condemns the United States for its simplisme cowboy diplomacy, dividing the world into good and evil camps and actually choosing sides (how barbarique!);
9. Condemns Israel;*
10. Reminds Iraq that our two-for-one centrifuge sale is only good through Saturday; and
11. Congratulates the Secretary-General, the weapons inspectors, the IAEA, and itself for yet another job well done, for the cause of world peace through better UN resolutions. Vive le France!

Adopted by the Secuity Council on ______________________

* This is a standard clause in UN resolutions.

Wow! Who knew what those savvy Euro-diplomats were up to. Guess we won't have to invade Iraq after all; I'd better call Dubya and get the 101st Airborne turned around.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 11:15 am. comments.

Tuesday, 04 February 2003

Updated the MT-NewsWatcher Filters Archive to delete old filters, clean up the remaining ones, fix broken links, and upgrade the page's appearance to look like the rest of the site. Enjoy.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 6:40 am. comments.

Sunday, 02 February 2003

A moment of silence for the brave astronauts of the space shuttle Columbia and their families. The crash occurred at 2 a.m. local time, and the news I've had so far has come over the Internet.

So far the best response I've seen to the tragedy is this one, that we should build a memorial to the astronauts—on Mars. I think that would be fitting.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 12:16 am. comments.