On the secession front, your points are ones with which Madison, with his fear of regional factions, would also agree, but maybe the ideal outcome (at least for the U.S.) would be if states make enough secessionist noise to simply be given much greater freedom from DC without formally declaring independence.

Largely ignoring Beijing has apparently been an important enhancer of freedom for outlying areas of China. Perhaps Moscow will one day find itself in a similar position of symbolic absolute authority and practical feebleness if it insists on gradually reclaiming the territories bordering Russia.

Let DC keep having the ceremonial authority and lavish parties if it must, while doing nothing beyond making debt payments. I’m confident the fifty states would prefer to keep peacefully trading if left alone at this point rather than, say, attempt to form a fanatical Cult of Arkansas bent on remaking civilization in one state.

Then again, it was a friend from Arkansas who just sent me this:

http://twitter.com/Cthulhu4Senate

1. That is a fantastic documentary-probably the best PBS documentary about politics I’ve seen, save Vote for Me. It was unfortunate that Mr. Vigilante was unsuccessful in his bid for elective office, but I think his loss can be attributed to a lack of funds more than any residual attachment to the Kennedy legacy-although I’m not discounting that element altogether. If the RNC had a bit more focus-for example, spending a little less time trying to get Michael Huffington elected, or trying to oust Dan Rostenkowski from a seat that the Democrats would inevitably retake in a subsequent election-perhaps we wouldn’t have had to endure the son of Ted Kennedy for the past decade and a half.

2. While I agree to a large extent with point (b)-I do subscribe to federalism in general, and think that devolution is almost always a better solution to myriad problems than imbuing one center of power with absolute decision-making authority-I’m skeptical of any move toward secessionism. To me, once you start applauding a secessionist mindset you open yourself up the sort of obscurantist, tribalist thinking that you see in groups like the PIRA, LTTE, Bloc Quebecois, and the like. There are very few secessionist movements that don’t approach the problem from an ultimately destructive, collectivist bent.

3. Why have flamethrowers disappeared? I was watching Cast a Giant Shadow-a spectacular film about the Israeli War for Independence starring Kirk Douglas-on Showtime several weeks ago, and noticed yet again how many flamethrowers were used in the climactic battle scene. You notice the same in almost any war movie set in the first half of the 20th century. You would think that in the mountainous, cave-dense Afghan and Pakistani territory the United States Army finds itself in today, it would have some use for flamethrower technology. It would seemingly be cheaper-and more efficacious-than having engineers construct elaborate irrigation ditches, or build girls’ schools that will be blown up by the Taliban within months-and yet yet since 2002 I haven’t read or seen one story where our Armed Forces used flamethrowers in order to combat our enemies. Why?