Maine Chips in

MB Williams of Wampum, unknowingly touches upon one of my favorite themes, that Eisenhower was a veritable quote machine, and undoubtedly would have a thing or two to lecture Bush about today.

Most readers of this blog also read the bigger blogboys. Therefore, they know that a couple days ago Atrios, Drum, and Yglesias engaged in a cat(blogging)fight over Michael Moore and whether he, and other generally (not universally) anti-military activist types should be disowned, shunted aside, and not even listened to.

I came down squarely against the anti-Liebermanian branch (Drum, Yglesias), considering them in essence wussy militarists. As Atrios pointed out, apparently one can be wrong by arguing for a war, without getting credit for being right about not fighting a war.

But MB remembered to do something I'm ashamed I didn't think of (although at the time I had other things to do in my actual compensated profession), that Michael Moore isn't doing something that noted radical "Dwight David Eisenhower" had not already pointed out:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Eisenhower first recognized the sleeping giant: Moore only reported on it awake and pillaging the village.

TOUCHÉ.

MB then goes on to discuss what was one of the true turning points of history -- one where we as a nation held all the cards and ONCE AGAIN turned down the wrong fucking path -- all for the sake of our industries of arms and paranoia. Go read it because it pisses me off to no end whenever I think about it.

Oh, and it really is well written -- I'm not sucking up only to remind you people of the Koufax Awards or anything and possibly nominating anything from this blog.

Stop rolling your eyes dammit!