"November Boycott"?

"Why are we funding Iraq, one of the longest wars in American history—by Nov. 25, 2006, it will be 1,347 days old, the number of days between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day—with "emergency" bills? To hide, or at least obscure, the costs. Funding the war in dribs and drabs—as if the fact that the war costs money is a recurring surprise—spares Congress from confronting the huge cost and having to make room for it in the budget by shedding lower-priority spending. When the Korean War erupted, Congress immediately slashed discretionary nonwar spending 25 percent."

(George Will)

What all the "strrange emergencies" add up to is the larger disaster, of course. The mobocracy erects itself upon its own wreckage, getting heavier all the time. Its dynamics almost begin to look like a firestorm: where the rising erection of state sucks values with breadth and speed proportionate to its rise, as people -- being groomed to it -- learn to gang up for "access" to the burn of productivity.

I get the link from Greg Ransom, who wonders if Will is down for a "November boycott". It doesn't look so much like an endorsement from Will as a prediction. Mark that as you will. I just note that I don't see anyone in this pointing out that nobody has the right to vote other peoples' wealth hither & yon for any reason. There's no moral base to this, and the whole idea of a voters' boycott can certainly do without such rot.